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.
This is why I am keeping my 50L for now, and use the M 50 Cron IV for close portraits The FE 50/1.4 is truly a superb lens but I will wait a while before I leap.
It seems there isn't a lens that does everything well. The 55/1.8 seems to draw smoother bokeh most of the time but it it's not as well corrected for LoCA and has slightly lower micro-contrast when compared to the 50/1.4. However, I don't view lower micro-contrast as a bad thing as my 85GM follows the same mold. Let's just say, it may be more aesthetic for certain subjects than others.
The 55/1.8's 3 aspherical elements do a good job correcting spherical aberration but the side effect is visible onion ring patterns in the bokeh balls. It also vignettes quite a bit more in comparison to the new lens.
The 50/1.4 ZA is optically superb. It's well corrected for spherical aberration (Not over or under corrected), has higher micro-contrast and resolution. This renders subjects with more 'bite' and dare I say...pop.
Bokeh is pleasant and smooth for the majority of background scenes. One can make it appear more distracting by placing foliage a close and mid range as I demonstrated on this thread but this was a stress test and very few lenses would fare well the same conditions. It's important to choose good subjects 'and' backgrounds with any lens. I hope this thread has shown some of the lens strengths and weakness so far.
I welcome other members to continue posting their results and tests here.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It seems there isn't a lens that does everything well. The 55/1.8 seems to draw smoother bokeh most of the time but it it's not as well corrected for LoCA and has slightly lower micro-contrast when compared to the 50/1.4. However, I don't view lower micro-contrast as a bad thing as my 85GM follows the same mold. Let's just say, it may be more aesthetic for certain subjects than others.
The 55/1.8's 3 aspherical elements do a good job correcting spherical aberration but the side effect is visible onion ring patterns in the bokeh balls. It also vignettes quite a bit more in comparison to the new lens.
The 50/1.4 ZA is optically superb. It's well corrected for spherical aberration (Not over or under corrected), has higher micro-contrast and resolution. This renders subjects with more 'bite' and dare I say...pop.
Bokeh is pleasant and smooth for the majority of background scenes. One can make it appear more distracting by placing foliage a close and mid range as I demonstrated on this thread but this was a stress test and very few lenses would fare well the same conditions. It's important to choose good subjects 'and' backgrounds with any lens. I hope this thread has shown some of the lens strengths and weakness so far.
I welcome other members to continue posting their results and tests here....Show more →
This is why everyone needs at least 2 or 3 50mm lenses
I have harder primes at this FL (Planar 50/1.4 C/Y) and gentler (Summilux-M 50 v2), but the best way to soften skin, and save your marriage, is choice of lighting. Large, frontal sources minimize textures, creases, and blemishes. Tricks in post are also important. That said, nothing in the world compares to the skin of a preteen girl (my daughter is nine).
Exactly and to expand folks really need to learn about light and how it truly works. There is a lot to learn too.
rico wrote:
I have harder primes at this FL (Planar 50/1.4 C/Y) and gentler (Summilux-M 50 v2), but the best way to soften skin, and save your marriage, is choice of lighting. Large, frontal sources minimize textures, creases, and blemishes. Tricks in post are also important. That said, nothing in the world compares to the skin of a preteen girl (my daughter is nine).
This is a great lens, it's got everything I want from a 50 since this gives me one lens wide open that is extremely sharp. I have really nice lenses on either side of it so I only need one 50. It's not a focal length I rely on heavily .
Oh I made it home, I'll be testing in the next couple days but thanks to Fred and others a lot of ground work has been done.
magnumhansen wrote:
I have not been as happy and exited for using a 50/1,4 since I got my first SLR back in 1977. It was a Miranda DX3 with a 50/1,4
Easy: just lift your shadows and drop contrast slightly . We keep talking about adding contrast to the 55 well you can take it away too with the 50. I'll drill this home one more time. Post is your friend and as important as the camera and lenses you use. Sometimes even more important. Obviously have to have the basics in the first place.
ecarlino wrote:
one thing i was curious about was how this lens was going to handle extremely bright sun given it's already high contrast nature - CharlesK pointed out the 85 GM's excellent handling of that situation - here is the 50/1.4 in midday Mediteranean sun hitting both the subject and background. Not bad (focus on daughter, son is out of focus foreground)
f/1.7, 1/5000, no adjustments (love the background but forgot to turn off EFCS - but damn if i ever will - Sony needs an 'auto' to turn it off at user's set shutter speed - i'll remember based on the lens, but for every shot - no way!)
Fred Miranda wrote:
From my tests, at f/1.7, there is minimal issues with EFCS. They only worry is wide-open.
That's why, for now, I'm just keeping it at 1.7 or 5.6 depending on dof desires.
I can't be bothered to remember to toggle EFCS when I'm out having fun.
GMPhotography wrote:
Easy: just lift your shadows and drop contrast slightly . We keep talking about adding contrast to the 55 well you can take it away too with the 50. I'll drill this home one more time. Post is your friend and as important as the camera and lenses you use. Sometimes even more important. Obviously have to have the basics in the first place.
Not that it's a great shot, but I thought the lens handled the harsh light well with zero adj, I was thinking of how sometimes the Batis 85 for example would have been brutal with this scene.
Whoa...just got back from 5 days of camping and I come back to all this discussion about the 50ZA. I received mine first thing Tuesday morn, then promptly left for a 5 hour drive. I haven't read this whole thread yet(1-4, 11-now) but I've got some killer grabs from our camping trip. I left the Loxia 50 at home so I could concentrate on using the ZA(took almost 300 images with it alone!!) for both wide open and stopped down work. Here my take, and now I know about EFCS, too, I can adjust for that...
I really don't mind the size. It feels and acts like a mini 85GM IMO.
Gregg
A7rll and FE 50 1.4 ZA
My thoughts vs my Loxia: Initially I don't think the ZA will be as good as the Loxia for edge to edge sharpness, but the ZA can hold its own. Stopping down to f2.5(my fav f-stop for the Loxia) the ZA blows it away. Way more pop and contrast, and as others have said, the bokeh of the ZA does seem to smooth out stopped down a bit. I really don't mind the size at all. It just feels good in your hands!! I will be keeping it! And, it seems the camera/lens combo really works well in jpg mode. Very different than shooting raws....hmmmmm...
I could shoot all day long at 1.7 to be honest. I also have it in my mind always to avoid busy backgrounds. So for me at least it should not be a issue. You want to avoid distracting backgrounds anyway. Fred Miranda wrote:
From my tests, at f/1.7, there is minimal issues with EFCS. They only worry is wide-open.
The extra contrast or clarity is really wide open. My bet it's the same as the 85 at F2 down. I'll be testing that. The 50 pop starts at 1.4 not 1.7 like the 85. Right out of the gate the 50 has the pop to it. The 85 does not 1.4 on the 85 is my bet part of the design for people.
ecarlino wrote:
Not that it's a great shot, but I thought the lens handled the harsh light well with zero adj, I was thinking of how sometimes the Batis 85 for example would have been brutal with this scene.
I haven't had much chance to shoot with mine yet, but I've at least confirmed that my copy is well centered. Which is quite a relief after the horrible experience I had trying to get a decent copy of the 35/1.4.
It's a big heavy lens, but I agree with Greggf, it feels good on the camera despite the size.
Greggf wrote:
Whoa...just got back from 5 days of camping and I come back to all this discussion about the 50ZA. I received mine first thing Tuesday morn, then promptly left for a 5 hour drive. I haven't read this whole thread yet(1-4, 11-now) but I've got some killer grabs from our camping trip. I left the Loxia 50 at home so I could concentrate on using the ZA(took almost 300 images with it alone!!) for both wide open and stopped down work. Here my take, and now I know about EFCS, too, I can adjust for that...
I really don't mind the size. It feels and acts like a mini 85GM IMO.
Gregg
A7rll and FE 50 1.4 ZA
My thoughts vs my Loxia: Initially I don't think the ZA will be as good as the Loxia for edge to edge sharpness, but the ZA can hold its own. Stopping down to f2.5(my fav f-stop for the Loxia) the ZA blows it away. Way more pop and contrast, and as others have said, the bokeh of the ZA does seem to smooth out stopped down a bit. I really don't mind the size at all. It just feels good in your hands!! I will be keeping it! And, it seems the camera/lens combo really works well in jpg mode. Very different than shooting raws....hmmmmm......Show more →
Beautiful images Gregg. Thanks for posting! Loving that high micro-contrast for landscapes even shot wide-open.
I really don't mind the size. It feels and acts like a mini 85GM IMO.
You are stretching a little bit here.
The 50/1.4 ZA is no mini 85GM in terms of size and weight. They are pretty much the same here.
Granted, the 85 is chubbier.
Here's a quick comparison of the 50 at f/1.7 and the 55 at f/1.8. All lens corrections turned off, no post processing.
I'm not seeing all that much difference in the bokeh, at least in these shots... the 55 is a little smoother, but the bokeh from the 50 is fine. As shown by the comparison photo, the 50 clearly is sharper and has more contrast. But the 55 does a solid job, taking into consideration its size.
Beautiful images Gregg. Thanks for posting! Loving that high micro-contrast for landscapes even shot wide-open.
Thanks very much Fred! I'll be posting more too. Just got home yesterday after driving 5 hours!! Bad it's my older boys bday party so I'm busy all day today!!
G
The FE 50/1.4 is truly a superb lens but I will wait a while before I leap.
