D
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
55 1.8
- Thread starter ecsh
- Start date
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Maybe his reports and reviews are great and I don't have an issue with paying for information but it has to be worth it to me and I have to know where they're coming from. That's the issue with a lot of pay sites... You aren't quite sure what you're paying for beforehand. In the case of Sean Reid... His reviews (along with my personal research) helped me in choosing the best kit for me with my M system. That was worth the $32 for me in not spending unnecessary money on lenses that wouldn't work as well for my style.
Ron Pfister
Member
Tre, not to continue this OT discussion too long, but to say that I found Sean Reid's reviews very helpful in choosing the M-mount lenses as well. Lloyd Chambers' reviews are equally thorough, and perhaps even more relevant to me, as most of the images he makes available are of nature and landscape subjects. His subscriptions are quite a bit more expensive than that of Sean Reid, but he covers a much broader range of gear. I feel that a diglloyd subscription is especially valuable if you're planning to purchase one or more lenses within a span of 12 months, and are particularly interested in Zeiss or Leica glass, though he has covered Sigma quite thoroughly as of late, too...
tashley
Subscriber Member
I agree. No one else 'does' the sorts of equipment I buy in more depth than Lloyd. He also very rarely misses a trick: if a lens has odd curvature, he spots it and advises how to work around it, for example.
For all the equipment that I don't know I will buy and review myself, he is far the best choice out there - and for a sanity check either before or after I have written my own reviews on stuff I do buy, he is a really interesting point of comparison. Well worth the money.
For all the equipment that I don't know I will buy and review myself, he is far the best choice out there - and for a sanity check either before or after I have written my own reviews on stuff I do buy, he is a really interesting point of comparison. Well worth the money.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Thanks for the thread/article. The FE-55/1.8ZA does seem to deliver amazing performance/size/cost ratio on the A7R.
I've been playing with mine for a day or two now, and the other interesting thing is how close it is able to focus compared to my 50/0.95 Noctilux. So, you can get some really nice bokeh if the background is far enough away from the subject.
Sure is a lot lighter also
- Marc
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I know I'm going to get some flak for this on this thread but for all the sharpness, contrast, bokeh, resolving power, etc, the lens seems to lack any character. Reminds me of my Canon 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 which from f1.8 were sharp, nice bokeh, real workhorses of lenses that just worked at pretty much everything you used them for. But with about zero character. Just too modern a look for me. Extremely sterile and robotic. Just can't warm to the look.
No flack from me Beni.
Reminds me of my first impression of the Leica S lenses ... to good, not enough character. I eventually altered my opinion once I discovered how to work them in post, but it took awhile.
That German thread someone linked to was worth doing a translation using Google ... the FE55/1.8 was right behind the new uber-stellar Zeiss Otis in resolving power. Trick is, what to do with that to meet creative objectives? I've been experimenting with it using some Nik plug-ins which is getting interesting ... the files are really malleable.
I have four fast 50mm lenses I can use on the A7R: Standard Sony A mount 50/1.4 (small like the Canon 50/1.4); the new Zeiss ZA 50/1.4 (bigger with faster SSW AF); the native FE55/1.8 AF (smallest choice with AF); and ... "My Precious" (use Gollum's voice), the Leica M 50/0.95.
If I can work up the gumption to compare them I will. Pretty tired of the testing routines by now, and really can't wait to actually shoot something with them
- Marc
Makten
Well-known member
Hello all, I'm a (former) lurker that some of you might know from FM forums. I thought I'd share some thoughts about the FE 55/1.8
This talk about "lack of character" is familiar to me, and I can think the same when I look at some images. But then it strikes me; what are my images worth if they must be given "character" from the lens? Not very much, in my opinion.
"Lack of character" is just another way to describe perfection. Can something like a lens be too perfect? Perhaps, but probably because it reveals that the photographer isn't good enough to make the images live due to their content.
The FE 55/1.8 is the best ~50 mm lens I've tried. Period. Of course there are many lenses that are better for this or that special purpose (including nice aberrations called character), but overall, none comes close to the FE in being pretty darn good at everything. Add a small size, low weight and reasonable (yeah) price. What more to ask for? :thumbup:
Oh, and the images. Here comes a bunch, all shot with the a7. Unfortunately the forum seems to rescale large images, so if you want to see them bigger (1500 pix wide) with greater detail, just follow the links below each photo.
Planet by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Bottles by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Cargotec by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Christmas trees that didn't sell by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Animal by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
This talk about "lack of character" is familiar to me, and I can think the same when I look at some images. But then it strikes me; what are my images worth if they must be given "character" from the lens? Not very much, in my opinion.
"Lack of character" is just another way to describe perfection. Can something like a lens be too perfect? Perhaps, but probably because it reveals that the photographer isn't good enough to make the images live due to their content.
The FE 55/1.8 is the best ~50 mm lens I've tried. Period. Of course there are many lenses that are better for this or that special purpose (including nice aberrations called character
), but overall, none comes close to the FE in being pretty darn good at everything. Add a small size, low weight and reasonable (yeah) price. What more to ask for? :thumbup:Oh, and the images. Here comes a bunch, all shot with the a7. Unfortunately the forum seems to rescale large images, so if you want to see them bigger (1500 pix wide) with greater detail, just follow the links below each photo.
Planet by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Bottles by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Cargotec by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Christmas trees that didn't sell by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Animal by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
D
Deleted member 7792
Guest
Martin, I won't comment on the subject of "character", but the images you posted are pretty darned good. Welcome and bravo. :thumbs:
Joe
Joe
Makten
Well-known member
Thanks Joe!
Perhaps my post was a bit provocative, but I think this topic is really interesting (I do appreciate character, sometimes). Personally I think the FE gives a medium format look, because of the extremely well corrected OOF rendering.All your subjects posted here lend themselves to more faithful and acute renderings ... textures, details & patterns, shapes & geometry.Hello all, I'm a (former) lurker that some of you might know from FM forums. I thought I'd share some thoughts about the FE 55/1.8
This talk about "lack of character" is familiar to me, and I can think the same when I look at some images. But then it strikes me; what are my images worth if they must be given "character" from the lens? Not very much, in my opinion.
"Lack of character" is just another way to describe perfection. Can something like a lens be too perfect? Perhaps, but probably because it reveals that the photographer isn't good enough to make the images live due to their content.
The FE 55/1.8 is the best ~50 mm lens I've tried. Period. Of course there are many lenses that are better for this or that special purpose (including nice aberrations called character
Oh, and the images. Here comes a bunch, all shot with the a7. Unfortunately the forum seems to rescale large images, so if you want to see them bigger (1500 pix wide) with greater detail, just follow the links below each photo.
Planet by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Bottles by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Cargotec by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Christmas trees that didn't sell by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Animal by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Lenses with character may be more desirable for photographing people and expressive scenes ... which made/makes lenses like the Zeiss 110/2FE medium format lens so prized by many photographers. Each lens system usually has some lens or lenses that impart a unique character to the creative shot.
Cool thing about this camera is that you can also use them :thumbup:
- Marc
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Nice shots
Annna T
Active member
Great catch, I like it a lot.
Makten
Well-known member
You're right Marc, and I perfectly understand the point of lenses having character. However, I also hear a lot of people whining about the FE 55 being "too clinical", whose photos would NOT benefit from character. It would just make a good excuse for them continuing digging into gear instead of concentrating at taking pictures, and now I'm absolutely not talking about anyone here on this forum.
Why do I say this? Because I'm just as smitten with the upgrading disease as many others. Perhaps a "perfect" lens will expose my own disabilities, and that would be a good thing.
Indeed!
I use some old OM glass on the a7 that works very well and is very cheap.Thank you Philippe, you're always too kind. :salute:
I'd say the FE 55 is very fine even at a bit of distance including infinity. Though; as you stated at FM, it doesn't bring out quite as many shades of color from the scene as the Z* 50/1.4 Planar does.
What I like the most is the super soft bokeh at ~3-10 (yes, 10!) meters distance. It makes larger apertures less necessary since the isolation of the subject against the background will be fine at f/1.8. The closest I've seen to this look is from f/2.8 standard lenses on 6x4.5 format.
BSEH
New member
Nice work, love the color and texture (IMHO show character) and a picture with storyHello all, I'm a (former) lurker that some of you might know from FM forums. I thought I'd share some thoughts about the FE 55/1.8
This talk about "lack of character" is familiar to me, and I can think the same when I look at some images. But then it strikes me; what are my images worth if they must be given "character" from the lens? Not very much, in my opinion.
"Lack of character" is just another way to describe perfection. Can something like a lens be too perfect? Perhaps, but probably because it reveals that the photographer isn't good enough to make the images live due to their content.
Christmas trees that didn't sell by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
- Keep them flowing HaddockIMHO, obsessing about 'character' is folly. Sure, it matters to some brilliant photographers some of the time, but the truth is there are far bigger issues when it comes to making great images that make people sit up and go 'wow'. Look over images that blow you away and you will find almost all manufacturers well represented, pro lenses, cheap kit zooms etc and this included top quality images in exhibitions. Just look what some Magnum shooters use, or Moriyama, or some of the winners of major awards.
I do have lenses that I love because they have something 'special' about them, but if an image isn't special, the blame lies squarely at my feet.
Wonderful character in a lens adds something to an already amazing image, but I think one has to be careful not to stray into the realm of seeking out novelty or using that look as a crutch for the creatively lazy... which is why the internet is weighed down by awful images shot on Noctiluxes wide open Personally, I think the 55 Sonar looks rather beautiful. Lovely bokeh and a look that does not get in the way at all. I like that kind of neutral starting point, because you can do pretty well anything with it, rather than only a few things.
I do have lenses that I love because they have something 'special' about them, but if an image isn't special, the blame lies squarely at my feet.
Wonderful character in a lens adds something to an already amazing image, but I think one has to be careful not to stray into the realm of seeking out novelty or using that look as a crutch for the creatively lazy... which is why the internet is weighed down by awful images shot on Noctiluxes wide open
Personally, I think the 55 Sonar looks rather beautiful. Lovely bokeh and a look that does not get in the way at all. I like that kind of neutral starting point, because you can do pretty well anything with it, rather than only a few things.