Deleted

[Annna T]

According to LensRental, it is better than the Otus in the centre, https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/07/sony-fe-planar-t-50mm-f1-4-za-mtf-and-variance-testing/

Thanks for the info. Interesting reading, but no, I'm not going to exchange my 55mm F1.8 for that one : my copy is tack sharp and weight only the half of the new one.

 

[Pradeep]

LOL... All of his reviews tend to be "glowing" but he admittedly doesn't publish the highly negative (from his perspective) ones. I believe that he stated once that he writes the company directly in those cases, shares his feelings privately with the company or in short blurbs that the equipment wasn't right for him, and leaves it at that.

It works for him even if it doesn't work well for others looking for information on a particular piece of equipment.

Regarding the 50, if it performs anything like the 35/1.4 I'm going to be all over this. It's probably my favorite 35 that I've used or owned. Yes it's sort of large but it's really good too.

I spoke with a well known pro about reviews of equipment he gets for free to evaluate. He told me he always lets the supplier/maker know it's going to be negative and the review then never gets published.

Sigh....... and here I was thinking I could do away with my mid-range prime!:facesmack:

 

[iiiNelson]

I spoke with a well known pro about reviews of equipment he gets for free to evaluate. He told me he always lets the supplier/maker know it's going to be negative and the review then never gets published.

Sigh....... and here I was thinking I could do away with my mid-range prime!:facesmack:

Thats common across most industries. As the saying goes - silence is deafening.

 

[Vivek]

The professional reviewers, most of them, are just brand surrogates who become famous by posting superfluous "reviews".

Then there is Ken Rockwell who speaks the truth.

 

[ggibson]

Thanks for the info. Interesting reading, but no, I'm not going to exchange my 55mm F1.8 for that one : my copy is tack sharp and weight only the half of the new one.

My thought also. But I'm always excited to see more options in the system, since it helps build the user base.

For curiosity's sake, I'd love to see the Sony vs. Samyang 50/1.4 face-off.

 

[ecsh]

the professional reviewers, most of them, are just brand surrogates who become famous by posting superfluous "reviews".

Then there is ken rockwell who speaks the truth.

lol:
:ROTFL:

 

[Vivek]

According to LensRental, it is better than the Otus in the centre, https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/07/sony-fe-planar-t-50mm-f1-4-za-mtf-and-variance-testing/

If that is the case then the much cheaper, smaller and lighter Zony 55/1.8 is even sharper?

Comparison Review: Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA vs 55mm F1.8 ZA: Digital Photography Review

Thanks for the info. Interesting reading, but no, I'm not going to exchange my 55mm F1.8 for that one : my copy is tack sharp and weight only the half of the new one.

Mine (1st sample) bought at ~60% list price (just about the right price) is without any issues.

 

[iiiNelson]

The professional reviewers, most of them, are just brand surrogates who become famous by posting superfluous "reviews".

Then there is Ken Rockwell who speaks the truth.

Or it could be that they genuinely like the lenses they gush over.

This isn't really directed at you Vivek entirely but I believe that there are many with "journalistic integrity" and many that aren't going to publish negative reviews.

Far be it for me to be an apologist for many of the reviewers out there as I agree there are some that clearly have to be taken with a grain of salt, but there's a fine line between coming across as being cynical about most opinions or at least being overt about questioning the level of people's lack of integrity and being objectively critical with supporting evidence.

I don't know... Maybe I should take a queue from Guy and take a break from here. It's slowly gotten more unfriendly with contentious trolling opinions over the last year or two.

It can really be simple they make these lenses because many are asking for them and clearly the fast lenses are selling better than the handful of slower and less expensive ones. My advice to everyone that is off put by size is buy what works for you and if a manufacturer isn't making what you like dump them for something that does. There are plenty of great cropped sensor cameras now or until the next great thing is released. I couldn't bear keeping a product I had limited use or need for. Lenses for FF cameras with AF designed for high megapixel cameras will always be sort of large.

 

[Vivek]

This isn't really directed at you Vivek entirely but I believe that there are many with "journalistic integrity" and many that aren't going to publish negative reviews.

If someone has clear journalistic integrity they ought to publish what might be a "negative" review of a product.

A clear example: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss

Do take a look the conclusions and the discussions.

There are far too many promoters who have championed this lens in the guise of a "review".

In one forum, the DPR tests are now being questioned for having been tested with a substandard sample (either way it does not bode well for the makers)! :bugeyes:

Being critical of a product does not equate to be "trolling". People may not buy a product (or "preorder" based on sponsored "reviews") for various valid reasons. This is NOT anti product development.

 

[hcubell]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think many owners of A7 series cameras are not UNHAPPY that Sony is making available big, fast and heavy lenses. Our objection is to how Sony is segmenting the lens lineup. Big, heavy and fast lenses that are designed to be the "best" optically that Sony can produce and are therefore very expensive. Or, smaller, lighter, slower lenses that are of "ok" optical quality and are cheaper. We want smaller, lighter, slower lenses that are of exceptional optical quality, and it's ok if they are very expensive.
As for AF lenses for FF bodies always being sort of large, That's not true. It's when they become FAST lenses that they become big and heavy. Just compare the FE 35mm f/2.8 with the f/1.4 version.

 

[iiiNelson]

If someone has clear journalistic integrity they ought to publish what might be a "negative" review of a product.

A clear example: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss

Do take a look the conclusions and the discussions.

There are far too many promoters who have championed this lens in the guise of a "review".

In one forum, the DPR tests are now being questioned for having been tested with a substandard sample (either way it does not bode well for the makers)! :bugeyes:

Being critical of a product does not equate to be "trolling". People may not buy a product (or "preorder" based on sponsored "reviews") for various valid reasons. This is NOT anti product development.

I understand all of that but it's the questioning of people's integrity that causes me to pause. Implying that everyone is a promoter because they are provided with early samples is wrong.

Maybe there's excitement when there's a newness to reviewing but once seasoned, that wears off... Trust me... I've been there on both sides of the coin. That being said there were times where I've chosen to not publish terrible reviews and there are time that I have published less than favorable ones. In both cases the PR teams appreciated the feedback, some disliked it, some sort of knew they were mailing trash to be reviewed, some were forced into deadlines by managers answering to bosses answering to shareholders.

I get it all. I just guess I've compassionate for reviewers as you ARE a part of the PR process and a part of that companies team. Mature and stable companies tend to be more accepting of critical feedback. Smaller or more unstable companies could fold with bad enough feedback. This is why companies go with respected (maybe not by you) reviewers or people that have learned to balance community engagement, valued opinion, and professionalism to articulate the issues experienced... That's the part the public doesn't generally see from reviewers.

People assume that someone is taking an oath and that people are actually journalists. In many cases they are journalist but let's be real finding little information or few pictures taken with certain gear says a lot. The same rules usually apply that you get what you pay for. Buy cheap (unless you're manufacturing yourself) and you will get result in line with cheap materials. But quality and there's usually a price to pay.

I think there's a level of reviewing where people can be critical without being overly negative based on comparison to the competition. I believe many products can stand on their own and many will dislike them because it doesn't fit into what they want... Sell it or don't buy it. Saying its constructive criticism when it doesn't coincide with the direction a company is very clearly going doesn't make it so. For instance, Sony is very clearly going after the pro mirrorless alternative market. The lenses they release. The rumored and tangible bodies they're releasing suggest such. I believe at this point it's clear that light and small isn't their primary focus although I believe they will offer SOME of that stuff where they can like the 28/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, and Loxias...

I absolutely think there's a way to frame a comparison review to be less negative - for instance the Sigma Art 35 or 50 are so good they make you question the rationale for spending significantly more for incremental improvements. These improvements may be worth it to those seeking "character" or a particular color rendition due to different lens coatings.

Anyone and everyone is free to buy a domain and start a review site if they're unhappy with what's out there and want to do "better."

Of course people will STILL take issue with a review that went those routes and didn't say that a lens was "bad", had trouble focusing, etc. I find most reviews will say already if the user finds it to be true that but many are so caught up in and angered by the fact some people are enthusiastic about life, gear, etc.

 

[iiiNelson]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think many owners of A7 series cameras are not UNHAPPY that Sony is making available big, fast and heavy lenses. Our objection is to how Sony is segmenting the lens lineup. Big, heavy and fast lenses that are designed to be the "best" optically that Sony can produce and are therefore very expensive. Or, smaller, lighter, slower lenses that are of "ok" optical quality and are cheaper. We want smaller, lighter, slower lenses that are of exceptional optical quality, and it's ok if they are very expensive.
As for AF lenses for FF bodies always being sort of large, That's not true. It's when they become FAST lenses that they become big and heavy. Just compare the FE 35mm f/2.8 with the f/1.4 version.

Depends on who "we" are. I've been an A7 and A7R owner since they were released. I bought an A7RII because I suspected everything would slide 4-6 months to the right due to the earthquake. Most people voicing opinions early on wanted faster lenses first when the choice was between slow now or fast now. One can always stop down... Clearly one can't magically get a higher aperture when needed or wanted.

It it wasn't until the lenses were larger than some expected that the outcry for slow and high quality began getting louder. I suspect (no proof) that there were those that wanted that all along... Or that those that wanted faster lenses just shut up about the desire for fast lenses because they got them (I'm in that camp along with many others here.)

I owned the 35/2.8 but it was terrible to me (although not due to sharpness or color) and the 55 was on another level optically... Even if it's "sterile." I don't know... I'm not opposed to small and light but I think that's the minority of owners. I also think there are other cropped sensor mirrorless system that do a better job of providing small and light.

 

[Vivek]

Tre, you are repeating yourself using different words and are suggesting that those who have dissenting opinions are not enthusiastic about life!

I hope you are not speaking for this site.

 

[Pradeep]

Does Size Matter?

Absolutely it does, at least in the photography world it does.

When I bought my Leica M-9 and later the M-240, it was the promise of a FF digital camera in a small package that attracted me, not to mention the legendary name and the legendary optics that went with it. I found the camera to be lacking but the lenses were awesome.

So when the A7R came along here was a chance to revisit the paradigm. The camera delivered but the lenses fell short, until the Batis and now the superb 24-70GM. I am not averse to big lenses, indeed, when a zoom is capable of replacing three primes I don't mind if it is big.

However, if Leica can produce an incredible lens with the quality and the size of the 50 lux or the 28 elmarit or the 35 cron, why can't Sony? Yes, it would cost much more, but hey, I am willing to pay for it.

I think people have it wrong when they say nobody is willing to shell out big bucks for quality, the success of Phase and high-end Sony lenses is proof enough. So it is not unreasonable to expect the development of smaller yet superior optics for mirrorless systems. Having said that, if it is big but is really good, I would definitely go for it, within reason of course.

About Reviews and Reviewers:


I doubt anyone on this planet is not biased. Heck, even God (if there is one) plays favorites and is partial to some, so why blame humans.

For my money, the one person whose opinion I would trust is somebody who I know personally to be reliable and honest and impartial, OR somebody who buys all that he reviews, is not supported in any way by a sponsor. Consumer Reports is respected and followed for this very reason (although if you dig for dirt you could find it even in the most unlikely places).

My 2c.

 

[iiiNelson]

Does Size Matter?

Absolutely it does, at least in the photography world it does.

When I bought my Leica M-9 and later the M-240, it was the promise of a FF digital camera in a small package that attracted me, not to mention the legendary name and the legendary optics that went with it. I found the camera to be lacking but the lenses were awesome.

So when the A7R came along here was a chance to revisit the paradigm. The camera delivered but the lenses fell short, until the Batis and now the superb 24-70GM. I am not averse to big lenses, indeed, when a zoom is capable of replacing three primes I don't mind if it is big.

However, if Leica can produce an incredible lens with the quality and the size of the 50 lux or the 28 elmarit or the 35 cron, why can't Sony? Yes, it would cost much more, but hey, I am willing to pay for it.

I think people have it wrong when they say nobody is willing to shell out big bucks for quality, the success of Phase and high-end Sony lenses is proof enough. So it is not unreasonable to expect the development of smaller yet superior optics for mirrorless systems. Having said that, if it is big but is really good, I would definitely go for it, within reason of course.

That was the point. AF with speed is going to make the lenses larger when using faster glass. The 50 Lux and the 55/1.8 are virtually the exact same size but all companies are going to much larger lenses when it comes to fast resolution yet high quality glass.

Now if people want manual focus then the Loxia's ARE small. I have large hands myself and I don't want lenses so small that it's hard to manipulate them from natural holding positions. That's part of my issue with some of the newer cropped sensor cameras. Ergonomics go a long way in solving fatigue related issues. Mass has a part of course... I don't think anyone was debating that fact though.

Have you seen the pictures of the 50 Lux for the Leica SL? What about the 24-90 or 90-280? They're both massive too by many people's opinion. The 50 Lux SL Is about the same size as a Sigma Art 50 or this new Sony 50. It's not just the brand but rather the industry as a whole going to larger lenses.

 

[iiiNelson]

Tre, you are repeating yourself using different words and are suggesting that those who have dissenting opinions are not enthusiastic about life!

I hope you are not speaking for this site.

No I only speak for myself and the changing culture of increased cynical behavior observed. Opinions are fine... Criticism is okay... Constant spewing of negativity guised as constructive criticism is tiring at best...

Maybe it's just me and I need a break but I've seen many great people depart this sub forum and become less engaged due to the negative tones in the constant complaining for nearly 3 years now... Often by people that don't own one. Again... Maybe it's just me but there's a reason I usually just skim here, answer what I can when I can, and spend time with other things.

 

[Pradeep]

That was the point. AF with speed is going to make the lenses larger when using faster glass. The 50 Lux and the 55/1.8 are virtually the exact same size but all companies are going to much larger lenses when it comes to fast resolution yet high quality glass.

Now if people want manual focus then the Loxia's ARE small. I have large hands myself and I don't want lenses so small that it's hard to manipulate them from natural holding positions. That's part of my issue with some of the newer cropped sensor cameras. Ergonomics go a long way in solving fatigue related issues. Mass has a part of course... I don't think anyone was debating that fact though.

Have you seen the pictures of the 50 Lux for the Leica SL? What about the 24-90 or 90-280? They're both massive too by many people's opinion. The 50 Lux SL Is about the same size as a Sigma Art 50 or this new Sony 50. It's not just the brand but rather the industry as a whole going to larger lenses.

Tre, agree, the Leica SL glass is big, kinda defeats the point of a small camera body. I don't know that adding AF makes a lens that much bulkier unless you are also talking about fast apertures - the laws of physics can only be bent so much. The Sony 35 2.8 ZA for the A7R is perfect sized and was my main walkabout lens for a long time. Make it f1.4 and you have something twice as big and twice as expensive.

I think it takes a lot more effort to design small and yet with high quality. Strange that 35mm is becoming larger while MF is getting smaller. Perhaps they will meet half-way and give us something truly revolutionary. The X1D may be the start of something wonderful......

 

[iiiNelson]

Tre, agree, the Leica SL glass is big, kinda defeats the point of a small camera body. I don't know that adding AF makes a lens that much bulkier unless you are also talking about fast apertures - the laws of physics can only be bent so much. The Sony 35 2.8 ZA for the A7R is perfect sized and was my main walkabout lens for a long time. Make it f1.4 and you have something twice as big and twice as expensive.

I think it takes a lot more effort to design small and yet with high quality. Strange that 35mm is becoming larger while MF is getting smaller. Perhaps they will meet half-way and give us something truly revolutionary. The X1D may be the start of something wonderful......

Thats the other thing. Some people are into mirrorless due to lens flexibility, camera color/profile, etc. in the case of the SL... Some prefer the camera flexibility to the M or the flexibility for telephoto.

 

[hcubell]

Depends on who "we" are. I've been an A7 and A7R owner since they were released. I bought an A7RII because I suspected everything would slide 4-6 months to the right due to the earthquake. Most people voicing opinions early on wanted faster lenses first when the choice was between slow now or fast now. One can always stop down... Clearly one can't magically get a higher aperture when needed or wanted.

It it wasn't until the lenses were larger than some expected that the outcry for slow and high quality began getting louder. I suspect (no proof) that there were those that wanted that all along... Or that those that wanted faster lenses just shut up about the desire for fast lenses because they got them (I'm in that camp along with many others here.)

I owned the 35/2.8 but it was terrible to me (although not due to sharpness or color) and the 55 was on another level optically... Even if it's "sterile." I don't know... I'm not opposed to small and light but I think that's the minority of owners. I also think there are other cropped sensor mirrorless system that do a better job of providing small and light.

1. I have no idea what the early adopters "may" have wanted, but I know for a fact what they were offered at the outset by Sony in the way of native lenses....smaller, lighter, slower lenses that made sense because they matched the form factor of the body. Why they should have expected anything different for the future, I have no idea.
2. I guess it's possible there are some photographers out there who want big and heavy lenses because it looks more "professional", but I think it's more that they are willing to accept big and heavy, either because they think they need fast lenses or Sony is telling them that if they want the state of the art in optical quality, this is what they have to buy.
3. I looked at the DP Review sample raws for the new 50mm f/1.4 and the 55mm f/1.8. Perhaps someone can explain the difference in "rendering."

 

[Lucille]

3. I looked at the DP Review sample raws for the new 50mm f/1.4 and the 55mm f/1.8. Perhaps someone can explain the difference in "rendering."

I can't. I can't explain anything when it comes to images made by DP Review, in fact, I've yet to see one I have liked from any lens or camera they are talking about.