Re: Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
Jack Flesher wrote:
I know I will probably get flamed for saying this but here goes: the 5mm difference between a 55 and 50 doesn’t sound like very much on paper, but it can be significant for the resulting images. I just got the 55 evo and as Scott said, it’s perfectly sharp in the center ⅔ even wide open. I find it’s f1.8 through f3.5 bokeh wonderful, haven’t used it enough to say much more beyond that.
However, if I wanted a “normal” lens specifically for portraits, I’d take a hard look at the Sigma 65/2 as well as the 55 evo. Similar size and weight, and even similar cost for a used Sigma compared to a new 55 evo. The extra 10mm keeps it just under “tele” yet I think they would make it even better as a “normal” portrait lens with the slightly tighter frame; but in the same breath, they might make it just too tight for street work.
Strongly agree with the difference between 50mm and 55mm for portraits. To go 1 step further the 58mm F/L is where some lens manufacture to go all in and make their premier portrait lens. (NIKKOR 58mm Noct) It has to do where perspective (facial) distortion stops. 50mm has 10% more distortion than 55mm, at 58 the perspective distortion is basically gone. That’s why I chose the Zeiss 55 f1.8 for my Sony and Nikon 58 f1.4G with N Dslr bodies for the studio portrait lens in my time shooting for swimsuit and clothing manufactures. The slight additional background blur of a faster 50mm lens (against a paper or cloth background) was not as important as eliminating facial distortions.
Also agree about the Sigma 65mm ft. A very good portrait lens, though I use it more for outdoor shots.
Jun 12, 2026 at 08:54 AM
Previous versions of SpecFoto's message #17054447 « Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel »
