Show me one short 50mm lens for mirrorless

The 50 has a classic 6 elements 5 groups double gauss lens design that is also used in dslrs. It has a non detachable adapter :p.

"It would be a more expensive, heavier lens with worse performance."

Here's a more expensive, heavier ~50mm lens with much better performance :)

For what it's worth, the 50mm f/1.8 MTF graph actually looks a lot closer to that Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA than to the Canon 50mm f/1.8. In fact, this Sony really outclasses the Canon by significantly more than the Sonnar beats it. More importantly, it probably beats a lot of old fast 50s pretty cleanly -- and nearly every fast 50 IS the competition it has to play against. I think this will put an end to the LA-EA4 + Minolta Maxxum AF 50mm f/1.7 combo as the default cheap, fast AF, normal for FF E mount bodies. :-)

It's about lens contour, microcontrast, even Zeiss itself says this, and check out the 100s of samples onto the web, how can you come and post sth stupid like this? I do have Zeiss C/Y glass since 95. And i shoot since 87.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/0 Just for reference, in case you aren't too superficial to read this.

micro contrast thing is also not that important because i've not seen any photo that was not PP'ed...within a few seconds, you've that micro contrast, saturation, bla bla bla....again, zeiss 3D POP = +500$ over the same performer canikon glass...it's completely a BS. anyway, good days to you with your Zeiss 3D POP :)

You don't have a clue...for sure. And i don't argue with you. You're talking BS for sure, i know enough ppl like you. :)

@ijustloveshooting
I posted about this in another thread where you disputed the existence of micro contrast or the ability of Zeiss lenses to give a '3D look'. It's sad that you haven't taken anything from that discussion.

Micro contrast has nothing to do with depth of field or foreground separation and you can't add it in post because it is an effect of resolution as well as contrast. Maybe Dpreview will write an article on it and then you will believe it - or borrow a Zeiss lens and find out for yourself.

@Ijustloveshooting
If you have zeiss lenses and you can see the difference or perceive the micro contrast then I can't help you. Maybe get an eye test? (I'm not being facetious, I mean it).

Micro contrast is separation of different tones at high frequency on a lens chart. The line pairs are black and white. to perceive it away from a test bench you need detailed subject matter where there are distinct edges between structures. A landscape shot with small bushes/shrubs in midday sun is a good subject as there is a good blend of light and dark structures. A portrait with a face filling the frame from your batis 85 is not. Even mediocre lenses will render large structures sharply.
It has nothing to do with subject/background distance. The separation is of tones on the same plane of focus. You cannot test it shooting an area of small structures with similar tone - that is known as 'local contrast'(another quality of lens rendering for you to dismiss) it must be small structures with different tones. A mediocre lens will render these as a spread of grey. A lens with high micro contrast will resolve the edges of the structures and they will 'pop'. Zeiss have been associated with this because they appear to deliberately design for the highest resolution rather than balancing edge and central resolution and their T* coating was traditionally better than Japanese equivalents.

I have a Nikon 50/1.8D for my ff slr. It sucks big time. Harsh bokeh and soft wide open. Stop it down and bokeh becomes even harsher. It's Pentax who knows how to make compact lenses.

"It's Pentax who knows how to make compact lenses"

Because of the huge flange distance to begin with. Take that into account and the distance between front element and sensor of the smallest Pentax prime (< 1cm thick), is larger than say an A7x and Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8.

There's no way to beat physics.

I'd compare it to the latest Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-S. Same weight as the Sony, shorter in length than the Sony, but larger in girth than the Sony (72.1mm max diameter vs 59.5mm for the Sony). The filter size tells lot: the Nikon filter size is 58mm, while the Sony's filter size is only 49mm. The Sony is still a compact lens. And when mounted on a Sony FF mirrorless, you still get a noticeably smaller and lighter overall package when compared to a FF DSLR.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.580,567.353,ha,t

Sony has a shorter flange distance than Nikon (18mm vs. 46.5mm). Add the difference to the comparable lens body and you get closer to parity.

@karl persson Like @Mister Joseph, I also have the Nikon 50mm 1.8D and on a full frame body is isn't a particularly good prime lens. Wide open the corners are soft and bokeh is pretty nervous and distracting. Sure it is great for it's price and better than a kit zoom... but there is a reason it is so small and cheap.

+Mister Joseph & LegacyGT - You may consider the Nikon 50mm f/1.8g. It performs way better at f/1.8 in terms of sharpness and bokeh compared to the AF-D. DXO still rates the AF-D higher in terms of sharpness, but if wide open is important, the f/1.8g is your lens.

"The best 50mm's out there are huge, the size equivalent to an 85mm. No mirrorless is going to change that..."

Not true. The FE 55/1.8 is phenomenal, and tiny/lightweight in my opinion.

"The best 50mm's out there are huge, the size equivalent to an 85mm. No mirrorless is going to change that..."

Go tell that to full frame Leitz optic engineers. All my Leitz lenses are fast, extremely good and tiny. The best nifty fifties out there are very different - from huge to tiny.

@ Rishi & Yanko - According to DXO's sharpness tests, the best 50mm is the Sigma ART f/1.4 followed by the Otus f/1.4, they are huge! Sony's 55mm f/1.8 ranked #5 followed by Canon's 50mm STM, both scored at 29. While the Canon STM is smaller and only $125, the Sony 55mm f/1.8 is bigger @ $1000. As far as Leica is concerned, it's nowhere to be seen...Pershaps DP can do a series of 50mm's side-by-side comparisons between Sigma, Leica, Sony, Canon... Opinions are one thing, but stats speaks for itself.

You're comparing lenses tested on a 50 MP sensor vs lenses on a 36 MP sensor. Apples and oranges. And still the STM can't hold a candle to the 55mm SZ regarding resolved detail when shot wide open.

@ TrojMacReady - Yes, DXO data is one thing. What I didn't review on my earlier comments is that I did the comparisons myself: Canon 6D + 50mm STM + Sigma 50 Art; Nikon D750 + 50mm f/1.4g and Sony A7rII + Sony 55mm f/1.8. Same subject shot at f/1.8. Although the Sony A7rii is at 40+mp, it lost to the Sigma Art in sharpness w/Canon 6D at 20mp, The Sony is a tit bit ahead of the Canon STM but not by a huge margin...the Nikon f/1.4g was a piece of sh_t! Bare in mind that you paid over $1000 for the Sony and 1/10 of that cost for the Canon STM. There, any questions?

No, I didn't pay over $1k. According to Cicala's test results on a test bench (equal playing field), the 55mm performs closer to an Otus than the STM. Where can we see your test results?

Just think how much Canon could have charged by wrapping the 50 stm in decent build package. Not everyone is interested in the cheapest possible materials that this lens was constructed with.

if users shot mainly 300mm then they buy 300mm f4.

The Sony 70-300 has a slower aperture over the range in terms of stops but on the other hand it is a part of what Sony bodies over-compensate in terms of stops in SNR and DR compared to Canon. So the overall result from Sony would be no worse or better.

They don't buy a 300mm f4 if they can't afford to. They buy the best 300mm capable lens they can afford.

@alex79, the gap between Sony and Canon in terms of DR and SNR is huge and widening further for several sensor generations. So my logic stays and is even more so valid with body upgrades in mind.

Also note that the mantra about lenses outlasting several bodies is first of all outdated and second not applicable when the body costs above 3k and the lens under 1k.

Don't hurry to say wrong with authority based on incomplete judgment. Notice that I don't say you are wrong I just say that I am definitely right. You can check the "likes" on my post confirming that. ;)

Canon 70-300L is the same specs and price. Probably the same quality (to be confirmed by tests more than MTF charts).
And no tripod collar like the 70-300 L Canon too. Copy cat but with eye-af

The Canon 70-300L maintains the wider apertures for much more of its range - its f5 up to 228mm rather than only 157mm on the Sony....

@Hzb I agree its not cheap, but it appears to be a quality lens. From the MTF Charts, it appears to be better @300mm than even the Sony 70 200 F4 G. So, if you need a longer reach with high quality optics in a relatively compact form this is the lens. I don't mind paying a premium as long as optics are among the best in class.

Also, as others have already mentioned, even the Canon L costs the same.

Troll ;)

Well, I'm pretty sure a lot of people will be happy to have this cheap option. When you don't shoot 50mm that much, this is quite a deal. And the first pictures look pretty nice :)

sometimes you don't want too many elements, nor aspherical, to have character and good bokeh.
will see later if it is a decent lense !

@Ethan P99

I own the canon 50mm STM and it's absolute junk.

Sony seems to confirm it's double Gauss design. Basically the same cr@p as cheap Canon/Nikon 50/1.8. Prepare for halos and spherical aberration.

If it can be as bad as double gauss 6 elements evolution planar :) :)
please not too good to keep some interest for the Zony 55 !

@Contra - Would you care to explain why is this lens a cr@p? We can discuss it.

@le_alain This is the classical Ultron(splitted front doublet) by A. W. Tronnier. It is used in exactly the same optical configuration as in some Leica Summilux 50 lenses, Voigtlander Ultron 40, Voigt Heliar 90, Zeiss Planar 85 1.4 and Zeiss Planar 100 2.0, in Konica Hexanon 85 1.8 and 50 1.7, Takumar and Yashinon 55 1.8 later in Pentax Lim 43 1.8. All these lenses have one thing in common - people really enjoy using them as they deliver great results.
This design carries the typical high contrast of Planar lenses but is perhaps the only double-gauss that has a bokeh like in an Ernostar or Sonnar design!
It is very sharp at max aperture even in its cheapest versions like the Zenitar 50 1.7. It is great that there is just one aspherical element for corrections - the more of these you get the worse the bokeh as you noted. And this design does great in versions with no asph. at all actually.

@ Contra: "You can't design a decent modern fast lens with 6 elements one of which aspherical. You need more elements and more of which are aspherical to correct all aberrations."

How silly is that! The Leica 50mm f2 Summicron M is 6 elements in 4 groups. According to all the LensRentals tests 2 years ago, it still holds its own against the best of the latest multi-aspheric 50mm lenses - and the Summicron-M was designed well before aspherical computer-designed lenses were made.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can make declarative statements sound so authoritative based on...what?

Let's see how this lens actually performs before declaring it DOA. A non-optics company like Sony can farm out designs to optical experts in Japan who must compete for the best designs at the most affordable manufacturing costs. The Zony 55/1.8 likely contains a hefty margin to pay Zeiss licensing as well as its manufacturing costs. It might well be a $200 lens after you strip away non-lens costs!

agreed, this is an elephant in the room that I'm amazed at how it never gets discussed. if sony had an E mount 16-50 f2.8(that wasn't garbage like the 16-70), it would sell like crazy

While $125 lenses do, like Canon's 50mm f/1.8 STM

Instead of trolling, here you go

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bildschirmfoto-2016-03-29-um-19.50.33.png

There are lots of good 70-300 options, all with nearly the same optical design. I'll bet this Sony will be sharp. They said they are empoying new high tech equipment processes that emulates the optical design.

Yup. Here's the "kit prime" for the A7 family.