Im reposting this image here. If you keep your background simple the bokeh is gorgeous and 1.4 is downright amazingly sharp. Sure 1.7 is better but for people 1.4 is almost is too sharp.
See if I can get some more on this final leg home BTW here is the rig I am driving. Its a 16 foot cargo van its not bad but after a 5800 miles road trip Im done with it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Sarah is going to kill me posting that.
Lovely smile though.
I have always loved 50mm 1.4 lenses and sometimes miss not having my Leica M and lux 50 asph but part of that love was because of the small size and weight of fast 50 primes. Now in this case the Sony only weighs 100 grams less than the 24-70GM and is nearly as big so I think I will be passing on this one.
Well, that was a startling reversal with EFCS disabled! Scary because I use it 100% on my A7ii. Many thanks to Fred and Guy for some super testing. And, Guy, get some sleep—we don't want you falling asleep at the wheel, and meeting your Maker in Texas.
This fast 50 has certainly redeemed itself in the bokeh dept: the residual nervousness is no big deal. Optical performance is otherwise astounding for a great price. One remaining quality is linearity, whether optical or incamera: perhaps Guy's NYC series has the answer. Comparison with Siggy 50 Art would also be really interesting.
I have always loved 50mm 1.4 lenses and sometimes miss not having my Leica M and lux 50 asph but part of that love was because of the small size and weight of fast 50 primes. Now in this case the Sony only weighs 100 grams less than the 24-70GM and is nearly as big so I think I will be passing on this one.
Yes if there is a downside its size and weight. That one will come down to personal preference . Im in the camp if the lens is outstanding I will deal with that like I do with the GM 24-70 and GM 85 both considered big and heavy.
rico wrote:
Well, that was a startling reversal with EFCS disabled! Scary because I use it 100% on my A7ii. Many thanks to Fred and Guy for some super testing. And, Guy, get some sleep—we don't want you falling asleep at the wheel, and meeting your Maker in Texas.
This fast 50 has certainly redeemed itself in the bokeh dept: the residual nervousness is no big deal. Optical performance is otherwise astounding for a great price. One remaining quality is linearity, whether optical or incamera: perhaps Guy's NYC series has the answer. Comparison with Siggy 50 Art would also be really interesting.
GMPhotography wrote:
Yes if there is a downside its size and weight. That one will come down to personal preference . Im in the camp if the lens is outstanding I will deal with that like I do with the GM 24-70 and GM 85 both considered big and heavy.
Agreed. I don't want to carry a bag of these things, but a single-lens rig should be fine, even for walkaround. This hefty prime would benefit from the A7ii OEM grip that I otherwise never use.
I've always preferred Sonnar rendering over Planar rendering, and this thread has solidified that I vastly prefer the FE55 for general shooting, which includes a lot of portraiture.
suteetat wrote:
I really like what I see very much and glad that the EFCS issue is sorted out. I preordered the lens but got a bit worry after seeing the bokeh issue Now the only problem it that locally, it won't be available here until the middle of the month, unfortunately not in time for my trip starting tomorrow (not that there will be much use for 50mm on this trip but still... ).
Wish somebody has 55/1.4 Otus to compare wide open or Leica 50/2 apo comparison at f2.
I don't have the above lenses but can test the 50/1.4 ZA against the Sonnar 50/1.5 C. It's would be the battle between perfection vs character.
GMPhotography wrote:
Sarah is going to kill me posting that.
My wife HATES sharp and contrasty lenses and I'm pretty sure she is not alone.
Yes, things can be tweaked in post, but than...one starts to wonder if the lens is the ideal tool for the job.
IMO, the 55/1.8 is already too much for portraits. (same can be said for the Batis 85/1.8...oh no, folks will be upset now...)
Keepin' it real.
Sarah is my wife's assistant and much younger. I'm not allowed to even get a camera near my wife.
Agree Fred these lenses are way to sharp for this . I always have to airbrush . I'm pretty amazed at 1.4 though as we have to give this lens credit for sending people to dermatologists. ROTFLMAO
FYI the working theory about the EFCS ghosting bokeh effects with large apertures and fast shutter speeds is that the oblique light rays from large apertures that would usually be blocked from reaching the image sensor by a the leading edge of a mechanical focal plane shutter are allowed to reach the sensor during the rolling electronic reset of the sensor that is part of the EFCS. At higher shutter speeds the timing of this rolling electronic reset may not be sufficient to adequately clear out each row without allowing oblique light rays to contaminate adjacent rows.
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm not allowed to even get a camera near my wife.
Love that!
My wife always says...this is too sharp! and I take it as a compliment, thinking I have a sharp lens and nailed it, but in reality she is really hating it..
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's interesting that a 50/1.4 lens should technically blur the background much more than a 55/1.8 (same framing), regardless of the background distance to the subject. I don't see that when comparing the 50/1.4 to the 55/1.8. I believe the 55/1.8 ability to blur the background is way above average as these lenses should not even be comparable.
Something which amazed me was how close the background blur was between the Mitakon 50 0.95 wide open and the 55 at 1.8...and that makes *no* sense.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My wife HATES sharp and contrasty lenses and I'm pretty sure she is not alone.
Yes, things can be tweaked in post, but than...one starts to wonder if the lens is the ideal tool for the job.
IMO, the 55/1.8 is already too much for portraits. (same can be said for the Batis 85/1.8...oh no, folks will be upset now...)
Keepin' it real.
I can't say I disagree with your wives. There are far more flattering lenses to use when your subject hasn't had HD make-up professionally applied with an airbrush. My 75 year-old mother, for example, thinks my 35LII is the devil and only wants her photo taken with one of my "glow" lenses. She has no idea what SA is, but she knows she likes it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My wife HATES sharp and contrasty lenses and I'm pretty sure she is not alone.
Yes, things can be tweaked in post, but than...one starts to wonder if the lens is the ideal tool for the job.
IMO, the 55/1.8 is already too much for portraits. (same can be said for the Batis 85/1.8...oh no, folks will be upset now...)
Keepin' it real.
I use super sharp lenses for portrait only when it is for full length portrait.
Close up portrait is generally a job for Nikon 58/1.4, Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 or something like that
I learned this the hard way when I used Leica R 100/2.8 macro to take a friend's picture
