I've taken some preliminary shots with my copy that I picked up earlier today. Honestly, from my quick tests, there doesn't seem to be a dramatic difference in the 55 & 50 bokeh much of the time. Probably only an issue in worst-case scenarios, like when the subject is more distant from the camera and/or when the background is especially busy.
From the half hour that I've had with it so far, I'm super pleased with what I'm seeing. Tons of contrast and sharpness with no CA or onion rings and a flat field. Which is what I was expecting, but it's a different experience to see that directly for yourself in the viewfinder. This is an astonishing piece of glass.
Yea you really just have to go out and shoot it to appreciate how good it is . I have more to post but internet is so slow here it's painfull. It's also very accurate with AF. Lots of really great qualities about this lens and not just optical either. I'm noticing 1.7 and f2 on center are pretty much the same. It's nice to have one lens like this in the kit that's a laser. They did a nice job on it. Also I'm not as bugged as some are on the bokeh.
MrTMan wrote:
I've taken some preliminary shots with my copy that I picked up earlier today. Honestly, from my quick tests, there doesn't seem to be a dramatic difference in the 55 & 50 bokeh much of the time. Probably only an issue in worst-case scenarios, like when the subject is more distant from the camera and/or when the background is especially busy.
From the half hour that I've had with it so far, I'm super pleased with what I'm seeing. Tons of contrast and sharpness with no CA or onion rings and a flat field. Which is what I was expecting, but it's a different experience to see that directly for yourself in the viewfinder. This is an astonishing piece of glass. ...Show more →
Agree you kind of get two lenses out of it. I'm convinced to keep mine, looks like I have a good copy too. I want to test it against the GM 24-70 at 50 as well.
I'm also liking the rendering
Fred Miranda wrote:
Guy,
I like the rendering better wide-open but at f/1.7, sharpness and contrast is incredible with this lens.
I have done a few shots as my copy arrived today, and so far, to my eyes, I like the 50mm f/1.4 rendering better then my 55mm, though they are both fine lenses..
1) The EFCS twist changes how I view the utility of this lens. The look, but also the lack of CA/loCA is really impressive. The bokeh looks much nicer now.
2) I remember reading about the EFCS impact when I first picked up an A7rII (in part for EFCS/reduction in shutter slap). At the time-- but even more now, with this example-- I wish Sony gave us the option to have EFCS on/off or in a sort of "auto" mode in which EFCS automatically turns off for exposures faster than 1/500 or 1/1000s. It's less important at those SS anyway, and it would save us this issue. It's a pain to have to use NDs or to toggle EFCS on-off depending on our aperture/SS.
justruss wrote:
2) I remember reading about the EFCS impact when I first picked up an A7rII (in part for EFCS/reduction in shutter slap). At the time-- but even more now, with this example-- I wish Sony gave us the option to have EFCS on/off or in a sort of "auto" mode in which EFCS automatically turns off for exposures faster than 1/500 or 1/1000s. It's less important at those SS anyway, and it would save us this issue. It's a pain to have to use NDs or to toggle EFCS on-off depending on our aperture/SS.
The FE 50/1.4 is a superb lens and worthy if you need the f/1.4 look. Great thread as the facts unraveled and I personally learned a lot about the EFCS impact on image quality.
To me the biggest thing is the lens is a f/1.4 and I think many underestimate the impact this has on the image, especially the look and feel.
If you are going to shoot at f2 or higher you might as well get the 55. For any real world use you would not see any difference. Only a crack pixel peeping team could possibly find something.
But there is something about a 1.4 lens that is just incredible and you will never get that with the 55 or after post.
On another note I am very interested in how it handles coma and astigmatism etc for astrophotography.
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea you really just have to go out and shoot it to appreciate how good it is .
I respectfully disagree. I haven't shot with it and I can tell from the testing you all have done so far that the optical performance deserves superlatives typically reserved for optics with far higher price tags. The wide open resolution alone puts it in with some fairly limited company, as does the flat field. I don't know if the color aberration correction is software-enhanced or the lens is simply that good, but either way, any aberrations have to be minimal, because Fred's test chart shots are perfect with very natural looking colors. If you tried to correct the magenta problems in the 55 shots, they would not be at all comparable. Software correction of CA, unless you've got the patience to clone it all out, is destructive to the overall color pallet. If accurate color and high resolution at wide apertures are critical to what you're trying to accomplish, this lens looks to be just the thing.
Well I certainly can't argue against that at all. The superlatives are there alright. I totally agree on the whole CA issue. The test charts are very obvious free of CA. I also doubt its software based as its a new lens and no profile for it. I know it's not in C1 and I'm seeing very very clean. This could certainly be considered the best lens yet punching above its price tag. Seriously for 1500 dollars its almost a bargain.
freaklikeme wrote:
I respectfully disagree. I haven't shot with it and I can tell from the testing you all have done so far that the optical performance deserves superlatives typically reserved for optics with far higher price tags. The wide open resolution alone puts it in with some fairly limited company, as does the flat field. I don't know if the color aberration correction is software-enhanced or the lens is simply that good, but either way, any aberrations have to be minimal, because Fred's test chart shots are perfect with very natural looking colors. If you tried to correct the magenta problems in the 55 shots, they would not be at all comparable. Software correction of CA, unless you've got the patience to clone it all out, is destructive to the overall color pallet. If accurate color and high resolution at wide apertures are critical to what you're trying to accomplish, this lens looks to be just the thing....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
Well I certainly can't argue against that at all. The superlatives are there alright. I totally agree on the whole CA issue. The test charts are very obvious free of CA. I also doubt its software based as its a new lens and no profile for it. I know it's not in C1 and I'm seeing very very clean
This is exciting. The biggest issue of the 1.8/55 is gone and the bokeh isn't as bad as I thought. Furthermore, it's crucially sharp in the central region.
I'll wait for more samples (and I have time until next year anyways) but I must admit that I like Guy's and Lucinda's sample images a lot.
If a lens deserves the tag "Baby-OTUS", it's probably this one (although it's more like a teenage-OTUS when I look at the size )
GMPhotography wrote:
Well I certainly can't argue against that at all. The superlatives are there alright. I totally agree on the whole CA issue. The test charts are very obvious free of CA. I also doubt its software based as its a new lens and no profile for it. I know it's not in C1 and I'm seeing very very clean. This could certainly be considered the best lens yet punching above its price tag. Seriously for 1500 dollars its almost a bargain.
After the EFC issue, it looks definitely much better now. But I still don't consider it a bargain. The Sigma Art is 730 Euros here, the Sony 1800 Euros. That is a huge difference, even though I can imagine the Sony to be better.
Holger wrote:
After the EFC issue, it looks definitely much better now. But I still don't consider it a bargain. The Sigma Art is 730 Euros here, the Sony 1800 Euros. That is a huge difference, even though I can imagine the Sony to be better.
Here with adapter I believe its in the 1200 dollar neighborhood. Its most likely bigger with adapter, no AF features like Eye AF and worse i find Sigma lenses although sharp but no look to them. But its certainly worth a head to head comparison.
)
