Well, just sharing real experiences. I know this Sony forum is getting intolerant of any observation that isn't Zeiss centric. But I won't let that stop me from making observations based on experience just in case someone hasn't drunk the cool aid. :ROTFL:
I owned the N50/1.4 ... and tried the ZF 50/1.4 which is similar. The Bokeh is schizophrenic ... and I'm not alone in that observation. ANY 50/1.4 shot wide open close to the subject with the background a mile back or with no specular details will show decent Bokeh ... its when the background is closer or there are specular details that worms come out to play : -)
This ZF 50/1.4 user review says it all.
"Yes, this lens produces the beautiful tone and contrast that is a Zeiss hallmark. It's warm and detailed at the same time. HOWEVER, as discussed all over the Internet, this lens suffers from horrible bokeh -- especially wide open. You can have a classic portrait with spectacular eyes and focus feathering off into the face and hair, then wham any specular details in the background blow up into harsh double lined spots and worms. Everyone remarks on the bokeh before they even see the subject. You need to stop down to 5.6 to get a handle on this, but then you lose the ability to isolate the subject from the background with selective focus."
I also owned the Siggy 50/1.4 in Nikon mount ... which is an interesting lens but buying it was a mistake since it has an odd way of rendering ever so slightly OOF brights ... which bloom badly. I posted examples of this in the Nikon forum. It is the opposite of the micro detail characteristics of many popular Leica and Zeiss lenses. I stupidly tried the Siggy 28/1.8 in Alpha mount ... same result and I returned it.
BTW, I wasn't advocating the Sony 50/1.4 (which I also own) ... I merely said I'd stick with it before ponying up for a Zeiss 50/1.4 IF it was like the N or ZF 50/1.4. But I leave 50mm work for Leica M and a M50/1.4 ASPH anyway.
The Zeiss CY 55/1.2 is a completely different story.
Anyway, to each his or her own. Just sharing experiences.
Marc,
1. I am not Zeiss centric and intolerant of other lens makers. I have lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony-CZ, and Minolta.
2. I wasn't contesting the wormy bokeh of the C/Y and ZF 50 1.4 so you don't have to YELL. I was under the impression that the N 50 1.4 and N 85 1.4 designs are different than the C/Y and ZF versions and were optimized more for portrait having better bokeh and better center sharpness wide open versus the ZF's which were sharper across the frame. So far I haven't seen a wormy bokeh shot taken with the N 50 1.4 but if you have one to post pls. do. I would like to see it.
3. I can see from the photozone review results that the Sony 50 is very sharp in the center from f4 on. Alot of lenses are sharp too when stopped down. When I think of a 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 lens, I think the main reason to get such a lens is its performance wide open or at f2. If you want a 50 just for f4 or greater shooting thats fine and you could probably be ok with a zoom or some other average 50 out there. Not saying anything unreasonable here.
The Sony 50 1.4 is an average ok 50 lens at a cheap price of $379. We all recognize that it is not in the same performance level as a 50L 1.2, ZA 85 1.4, or ZA 135 1.8.
4. I am getting a N 50 1.4 converted right now by Conurus and will hopefully have it back in a few months to test out. I wanted a fast AF 50 lens to go along with my MF Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 which is a very good fast 50. The Canon has too much CA, not as sharp as the Rokkor wide open, and has some known focusing problems and costs alot.
My other AF 50 choices for my 1ds3 were the Siggy 50 and the converted N 50 1.4.
I think you would agree that the Siggy has better bokeh and better sharpness wide open that the Sony 50?
5. I think it is wrong to think that Zeiss couldn't come out with 50mm lens for Sony which has good bokeh if they wanted to optimize it for that. The ZA 85 seems to have better bokeh than the ZF version and the ZA 135 has very nice bokeh.
6. Just expressing my views like you and its ok if we have different likes and dislikes in lenses.