It's rare that Chris and Jordan review a lens with almost no faults, but the Sony 50mm F1.2 GM hits the mark. Watch their review to find out just how good it is.
Also, tell us in the comments if we should launch a new show called 'Story Time with Jordan', in which Jordan dramatically reads excerpts from your favorite camera manuals and MTF charts.
I have the 1.8 55 and the 24 GM. Both are great lenses, but they both feel very digital. As is mentioned below, much of the great performance has to do with the camera fixing the lens. My walk around shooting 50 is a Minolta Rokkor f/2.0. Flat, nearly free of all the nonsense, smooth, sweet colours, smooth focus transitions and cheap. At well under $100, it is a steal.
As a preamble, the lens is a test darling, scoring an astonishing “MTF” score, but it is also much more usable given the relatively low weight. Another big plus is the smooth Ultra Aspherical process: kudos to Sony, this is really very welcomed.
1) Tons of vignetting. For a lens with such razor sharp contrast it means the loss of contrast isn’t shown in the MTF, but to even things out you actually have to bring in noise or overexposed carefully. Bad for reproduction or sky images, and everything.
2) The vignetting is there, and stays there when stopped down. So even if you had tons of light, you are stuck with this issue.
3) Likely so then, should be a lens with strong cats eyes. I personally don’t mind, and actually like it. But for many it is distracting and unpleasant. The cat eye likely remains there when stopped down.
4) Ultra fast transition from in focus to out of focus. The very well corrected Lateral CA means all the contrast peaks at the same time. It also makes the speculation highlights a flat disk. This extremely short DOF means that whenever you have certain DOF in mind, this lens is the worst of the worst compared to most other lenses: for certain DOF you need to stop it down way more. You can see the effect of the very fast transition in the photo of the girl with glasses. Only a portion of one eye is in focus, the rest is very blurry, and what is most prominent is that the coat, near her belly, is actually sharpest.
5) Optimized to score in terms of a test, they leave up to software to get rid of lateral chromatic aberration. This doesn’t get better when stopped down either. Note Lateral CA isn’t “corrected” but it remains a superposition of images. All the “correction” does is mangle the colors artificially.
6) All distorted images. Obviously, distortion doesn’t affect the MTF, so why fix it? Also, given parameters, software can bend the images stretching things to the right position. This means that if you have fine detail, like lines or patterns, now they are all lower contrast and mangled by the transformation, especially if something was flat/aligned with the sensor x/y directions.
7) Focus breathing. It seems that some argue that other very fast lenses somewhat also have it. This does not help fix the strong breathing, which is in part exacerbated by the kind of design needed to make these lenses this high contrast. Someone argued what it is a selective zoom. To change the zoom, instead of a ring just focus closer or longer. Is it 48mm or 60mm? It depends where the subject is at any moment.
8) This is a $2000 optic. Due to Sony’s thick chunk of glass in front of the sensor, this lens will only age well so long as the same thick chunk of glass is in future sensors forever. Many don’t care. Let me be clear: to perform better, this lens is tuned to the filter stack Sony had available back then. They can’t change it. They affect light coming from an angle much like any actual lens element did. So while it will be best performing in the sensor it is intended for, it will perform poorly everywhere else.
9) The flat nature of the specular highlights also makes the way out of focus parts more “busy”. Like any macro or very well corrected lens, this is part of the price paid for the lack of any spherical or similar aberrations.
10) Price and low value added. It gives half a stop costing a huge lot more but with more vignetting.
@ fferreres: Have you links to what this "thick chunk of glass in front of the sensor" means for image quality? Or is this just something you think must make a noticeable difference?
Optical systems will always be a balance between optical and mechanical properties of the construction, and also a balance between production costs, sales costs, and what the marked will accept. This is the closest we are an ideal world with perfect lenses, sensors and noiseless signal handling - no matter brand.
@Magnar, here are some links. Maybe you are not asking rethorically and want to understand what the implications are. As a summary: the sensor glass is like a part of the lenses. The thicker it is, the more the lenses require always having such thick chunk of glass there. Extremely awesome Panasonic lenses had to be redesigned to consider thick chunks of glass in the sensor. All these things make the lenses more dependent on always having such thick chunks of glass. They also put more limits into how close the exit pupil can be before affecting IQ, thus requiring bulkier lenses.
(Cont) Lenses performed largely similar for over a hundred years, even in dslr because the optics had to clear the the mirror and thus incidence was lower. Mirrorless with thick glass, like M43 (4mm) and Sony (2mm), don’t and that means lenses are no longer as compatible with other, or future cameras. They are designed with the “last element” being specific to one particular sensor glass thinkness.
There is a clear trend on doing the glass much thinner, which has the effect of allowing more lens options, works well with millions of lenses, and also makes any lens for that system more future proof as that lens is more complete, less tuned to one particular large sensor glass. In these systems, any lens is more itself, with little influence from this sensor glass. But the Sony FE lenses will forever require or only perform well with that last thick glass. They are tuned to the sensor glass.
While all this may not matter to you, it’s a solid reason for me to avoid FE glass.
@ fferreres: 1) This not just a protective piece of glass, it is also a filter that affects other properties of image qualities than fine detail reolution, like color. Also, perceived "sharp and clear" is more about low frequency contast than those very high frequency measurements.
2) Don't you think lens designers are aware of this and calculate the filter stack in front of the sensor as part of the optical path?
3) When using native mount lenses, you are stuck to the brand you bought into. Take it or jump ship. In fact, for me any brand would be just fine.
You could go into any brand like this and find how properties of cameras and lenses are "badly balanced". Pixel peep, push the fies, add contrast and clarity or whatever post processing setting you find, and you can provoke whatever "flaws" you want.
In my world, photographs are not about this kind of microscopic inspection of single pixels to search for tecnical imperfections. Still I appreciate high quality lenses.
Magnat, I see you like your own messages. Love your self esteem! I don’t think Sony makes much better filter stacks than Leica and other competitors that use much thinner glass. I am talking about the glass not IR/AA/CF, so again you invent something then imply I said it. My Point is clear: I listed one reason not to own this lens, is that it requires “Sony’s last optical element” which is thick, and thus it’s not a complete lens. While all sensors have cover glass, I’d always rather get one optimized for the thinnest ones.
Also, let me say: it’s a fantastic lens! My 10 reasons not to own it likely won’t matter to 99% of users, but I think they are informative to some.
@fferreres I didn't realize you could 'like' your own comments until you pointed it out! Explains how even the most inane comments can get a like (Magnars comments aren't inane though).
Some people join discussion forums, but can't accept critical questions from others without turning things into a personal matter - there are a few others on this forum that have to focus on my person, and they do the same with others. None are Sony forum partisipants, though.
I would be more impressed if you instead answered the questions and commented on the claims from forum members.
@Magnar, the t and r letter are close to each other, so it was obviously a typo. What prompted me to post 10 reasons not to get this lens is precisely because many posts focus on bashing Canon and Nikon, instead of looking at the details and the sample photos.
“I don’t like when a canon and Nikon get bashed so I’m going to do the same on Sony and multiply the faults in this Sony lens and create 10 reasons to bash this lens from 2 actual reasons.”
Mhh, no. I only use Sony and have no Canon and no Nikon. The reality is that I find spec-based bashing largely ignorant, childish and lamenting, and a disservice to photography. So I chimed in on the many reasons -actually real- why while impressed from a technical/optical perspective [I love optics per se], would not use this lens even if someone gave it to me for free, or even paid me to use it. I let you diatribe and will unsubscribe from thread updates as well. To whoever gets this lens, kudos. Lens value is ultimately subjective, and any new optic is always a reason for celebrate. So in spite of the reasons listed, I think there will be many that do crave this, and sure they will enjoy it.
Executive Summary: Canon and Nikon have been bragging about how their mirrorless mounts are bigger than Sony’s (which, they are, of course)…and strongly implying that making an f/1.2 lens was nearly impossible with Sony’s itty bitty mount…
So yesterday Sony announced a 50mm f/1.2 lens that: - Is smaller than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Is lighter than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Focuses faster than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Is sharper than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Has less flare/ghosting than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Has better weather sealing than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Is cheaper than CaNikon’s 50mm f/1.2 lenses lol
The Nikon is sharper in the center and edge to edge and doesn't have the breathing issue. Nikon is designing lenses that work for still and video at the highest level. The Sony is excellent, but not at that level.
All of engineering is trade offs and so we see some here, if one compares Sony v Nikon. The Sony is smaller, lighter but has more focus breathing than the Nikon.
Nikon chose to minimize the focus breathing at the expense of size. Maybe because they were so sharply criticized for the breathing in one of the their earlier 70-200 F mount lenses.
Cinema lenses of course are built to minimize breathing but are larger and heavier, so we see the same thing.
"I had this little 50/1.2 MD Rokkor attached to a body at all times... it sits neatly in the palm of your (regular size) hand :"
I have that lens and compared to a modern lens at f1.2 it's awful. You can't compare that lens to a modern high end lens, not if you're looking at any meaningful measure of image performance.
A better comparison may be to a Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 in e mount, at a fraction of the price but of course like the Rokkor no AF.
Another request. 44.1khz sound is based on multiplication if primes. Mastering is based on additive from 5'2 to 192khz. Do you know why prime numbers are important for sound?
44.1kHz has nothing to do with prime numbers. Early digital audio recorders used analog video cassettes as a storage medium. They worked out ther could easily record 44.1kHz signals by dividing each scan line in three. NTSC recorded 245 scan lines per field and 60 fields per second. PAL recorded 294 lines and 50 fields per second. 245*60*3 = 44,100 294*50*3 = 44,100
Nyquist says you need 40kHz plus a little margin for an aliasing filter to support recordings at the generally accepted limit of human hearing (20kHz) and the rest is history.
Can you do a vid on canon vs Nikkor lenses for video? I still own a D750. But I will migrate to mirrorless soon. I 'prefer' Nikkor lenses now, but canon enable lenses to work with dedicated video...at a much higher cost. What is your take? Ergonomics then focus accuracy my need.
Can you do a vid on canon vs Nikkor lenses for video? I still own a D750. But I will migrate to mirrorless soon. I 'prefer' Nikkor lenses now, but canon enable lenses to work with dedicated video...at a much higher cost. What is your take? Ergonomics then focus accuracy my need.
I was wondering about the focus breathing, so I did a few calculations. When focused at infinity, a 50mm lens will have a horizontal angle of view of 39.6 degrees. The lens is specified to have a maximum magnification of 0.17x and a minimum focus distance of 40cm, which implies an angle of view of 29.7 degrees. Even if we allow for rounding, and assume that 0.17x is really 0.165x and 40cm is really 39.5cm, we get an angle of view of 30.9 degrees, which translates to a focal length of about 57mm.
It seems improbable that this lens actually increases focal length as you focus closer. To maintain a constant angle of view, a lens with a 50mm focal length at infinity has to reduce its focal length of 44.4mm when focused at a distance of 40cm. Clearly the lens under discussion doesn't do this, but most modern lens designs decrease focal length somewhat when close focused. So I'm guessing the lens specifications are wrong.
You can watch the focus breathing section of the DPR TV video and see exactly what's happening (though without the precise FOV measurements, of course.
First off: Beautifull lens. Like all the other new f1.2 lenses, completely out of my price-range.
Now an honest question to all you Sony forum worriers.
If Sony tomorrow announced that they will make a new bigger lens mount, do you, deep in your heart [where it matters], feel that that this will help Sonys engineers to be able to make better lenses or not?
The reason I ask, is to me it look like a lot of you have a severe case of inferiority complex against other brands. As several people already stated, 50mm f/1.2 lenses have been made for many years to mounts smaller than the E-mount, so that Sony can make one for the E-mount really isn't special. But people still insist it is, so that is why I ask:
Will Sonys engineers be able to make better lenses if they had a bigger mount to play with?
What makes the average forum reader think they know what Sony engineers knew when they first conceived the E-mount specifications, many, many years before they added full-frame to their years-old APS-C mirrorless system?
;-)
In all seriousness, though, the answer to the original question is, of course, NO, almost all types of photographers should feel zero envy of the larger mount. From wide to telephoto, from primes to zooms, Sony has shown that they know how to make not just ultra-sharp optics, but ones that aren't any more obscenely large than they'd need to be on a significantly wider mount.
The 135mm f/1.8 GM is incredible, literally one of the sharpest lenses in existence, and yet it is relatively small and portable. The 24mm f/1.4 GM is also one of the sharpest 24mm f/1.4 lenses in existence, even/especially in the corners. Lenses like the 12-24mm f/2.8 also prove that Sony can do "exotic" with the best of 'em. F/2 zoom? Maybe not. But, how bad do you need one of those?
Of course having a larger mount is an advantage. And Sony could absolutely design even better lenses with a larger mount. The real question is: what is wrong with Canon and Nikon's lens designers that they can't seem to leverage that advantage into superior optics? The Sony 50/1.2 is better than theirs (Canon/Nikon) in every way it can be measured. Are all the top-notch lens designers on the Sony payroll? Who cares if you can theoretically make better lenses...if you aren't doing it?
>The Sony engineers knew what they did when they started with this mount.
So you claim to personally know the people that make these decisions, and have corroborated this.
>What makes you think that the average forum reader knows better?
So you include actually everyone and anyone commenting on this topic on this forum, except by absolving yourself, who actually does know the backstage story of all this first hand.
Double standard in unimportant topics like this don’t matter much, but are quite hilarious.
Nikon made a larger lens mount and the benefits are unclear. There hasn't been one lens I've seen that is clearly better due to the larger mount. Sony's mount is probably just barely big enough and relies on clever engineering to keep size small and we pay with worse distortion and vignetting that can be corrected in software. I'd welcome a medium format e-mount or a full frame curved sensor mount that obsoletes my E-mount gear but I expect that to be a few more years before this is a reality.
#tonyz1 [Nikon made a larger lens mount and the benefits are unclear. There hasn't been one lens I've seen that is clearly better due to the larger mount.]
So far all NIKKOR Z lens has been superior to thier F line counterpart. They are sharper, edge to edge (can you say that about a round object?) , are more contrasty , has less flare and better T-stop value. All things Nikon struggled with in the F days. I would not call that unclear. The Z mount really have helped Nikon make better lines for thier cameras.
Definitely not in every way. Smaller size comes always at some optical compromises, and in this case it is the heavy focus breathing whic the GM 50 1.2 exhibits (as seen in the video review). The Z 50 1.2 has much less focus breathing, and most likely it due to the more complex design and longer length.
Vignetting is also quite high @f1.2 at about -2.9 EV. Not usually a problem for me though, but some people don't like too much vignetting.
"So far all NIKKOR Z lens has been superior to thier F line counterpart."
I'm comparing E-mount vs. Z-mount vs. RF-Mount vs. L-mount - the F-mount is clearly dated so it's not the right comparison. In comparing the current generation of mounts, the Z-mount is the widest and shortest flange distance. What's the advantage over E-mount?
@ fferreres: Well, very early in the nex aps-c camera era, Sony officially stated that the E-mount also could be used for future FF cameras.
But you claim to know better, and you know that the Soy engineerd did not have a clue about what they were doing? That's pretty a bold claim! Or just hilarious and not very credible.
#tonyz1 [I'm comparing E-mount vs. Z-mount vs. RF-Mount vs. L-mount - the F-mount is clearly dated so it's not the right comparison. In comparing the current generation of mounts, the Z-mount is the widest and shortest flange distance. What's the advantage over E-mount?]
The Z mount sit on a Nikon, The E mount on a Sony. Does that answer your question? ;-)
Nikon do not make lenses that fit the E mount, so we will never know. What we do know is that compared to the F mount they (Nikon engineers) gained a tool whereby they could express a new vision in lens design. The Z mount just made it easier for them to make better lenses.
Likewise, Sony do not make lenses for the Z mount, so we do not know what they would be able to achieve if they did. Why I asked the question in my initial post. Do you feel that Sony's engineers would be able to make thier lenses better, if they had a bigger mount to play with? You haven't answered that question.
"Do you feel that Sony's engineers would be able to make thier lenses better, if they had a bigger mount to play with?"
Looking at what Nikon has done so far with a similar camera and set of specs but a wider mount, the answer is no. It might've made their jobs easier or their lenses cheaper but the answer is no. There is no Nikon Z-mount lens with a wider mount that is clearly better than their Sony equivalents when you compare lenses of similar budgets and design envelopes.
Either it means Nikon has poor lens designers compared to Sony or the mount size doesn't matter. You can choose between the two options :)
@Magnar, I think I get your point and you get mine. You consider it’s no disadvantage at all in practice. I think it’s true a lens designed for just E will perform well. The only aspect that Sony can’t work around is the hard limit on IBIS. But we still would have to see competitor IBIS being able to stabilize larger swings, say 4mm. I think that may be a defining thing, especially for video. Most on my comments are also from adapting lenses, or thinking 10 years from now on how the new camera-tuned lenses may age. So it’s naturally speculative about future events.
@ fferreres: We judge lenses as they are, looking at strengts and waknesses, then we hopefully buy some lenses that fill our needs ... and we are happy with the result, despite some flaws and shortcomings.
For video stabilation, there are other solutions than IBIS that seems to work very well.
Luckily, I am much more content orientated in my work than the pixel peepers. I know my communication theory and know how photographs are read and interpreted. I can assure you that the list of flaws you posted above is of extremely little interest for content creators -- and for image readers!
@Magnar, I understand. Makes me happy. I’d only use this lens for passport photos on a dim lit CVS. For another, this lens may be tool of choice for their stories. And I say this very directly, I don’t like it at all, after seeing the sample photos, especially portrait.
#tonyz1 Thank you. You gave an answer to my question. The size of the mount does not matter when it comes to lens design.
With that in mind could Sony users please stop thinking it is a special achievement (compared to other manufacturers) every time Sony make a lens, as lens mount have no influence on the design of the lens. That goes for DPR too.
>> A f/1.2 lens is always a special achievement, no matter what <<
@ fferreres: Like and dislike is mainly about personal preferences. Many would be pleased with a pretty light and compact 50 mm f:1.2 lens that actually can be used wide open. Fast and precise focus helps to nail moving subjects with ultra thin depth of focus, and vignetting seems to be less than other 50 mm f:1.2 lenses out there.
Sure, nothing for repro work wide open. nobody would expect that, though.
I would never expect such a modest priced lens (modest, for what it is) to ble close to optical perfect at brightest aperture.
From the examples I have seen, captures with wide open are impressive.
Here and at 7:07 are 2 real life focus pulls where you barely see any focus breathing: https://youtu.be/Eb7XV6E0v1Q?t=414 Here a very nice video AF comparison where you can see an extreme focus racking from back of the room to the person in front. Focus breathing is the same as with Canon - and very little. https://youtu.be/sEuViGtujy0?t=254
But DPrevies video shows strong focus breathing? Maybe this is the explanation: https://youtu.be/ywlm1ZtcKQk?t=223 Looks like focus breathing only ocours stopped down or at least is influenced a lot with aperture?
DPreview - would be a GREAT article to have a look into this topic with different lenses? :-)
As I don't buy a F1.2 lens to shoot at F16 for ME this is a non issue. For the trolls it's the new colour sience and the lens is totally unusable. (and of course also the Canon F1.2, has similar breathing ;-)) The videos have all the information so you can decide by yourself.
Focus breathing has nothing to do with aperture setting. It is just less visible when you have lots of background blur at faster aperture, or when the background does not contain many objects.
Actually in all three video focus breathing is visible. In Dpreview's video it is more pronounced because it shows the breathing from almost minimum focus distance to infinity. In the rest of the video focus distance change is way less drastic. You say it is 'extreme focus racking from back of the room to the person in front'. But in reality it is just 2-3 meters of focus distance change maximum. Can't compare with the Dpreview test.
Whether focus breathing is a problem depends on your use case, but it is the same as all other parameters of a lens' performance (sharpness, CA, distortion...etcs.) . Objectively speaking, breathing is indeed a weak point of 50GM.
Well a 10k, 20k, 30k etc cine lens designed specifically to not focus breathe or being parfocal over something that's 2k. All of them have focus breathing, its not important to stills.
Isn’t it time Sony produced a replacement for the Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 SEL50F18F slow focus? Pity they don’t have a good nifty fifty. My Sony camera is great. e.j.
I would seem that on any Sony A7 the low light capability of the lens is never an issue. As for the narrow depth of field - most of that can be controlled in PS. Large aperature lenses tend to be less sharp across the aperature range. So what is the fascination ?
Find some test results and you might understand that it seems f/1.2 but only in the center. It suffers from vignetting in all aperture ranges. Also has the worst breathing from recent FF ML fast lenses. A quote from one of the reviews: "The lens deals very well with most optical aberrations, although it has a large vignette that never completely disappears. It also does not work with the eye-tracking system as effectively as the darker lenses from Sony." Is this a confirmation of limitations that a narrow E-mount is known for?
So IMO, yes Sony proved again they are best with marketing wows but not that much with the real quality lenses.
Vignette of the Canon is WAY worse, Nikon about the same. Breathing - have a look here: https://youtu.be/Eb7XV6E0v1Q?t=412 Racking over the whole scene, barely focus breathing. Seems like it is stronger when stopped down? But in real shots it's pretty small.
He did a direct comparison, you can see the pictures and AF behaviour of all 3 side by side. Sharpnes measurements will come if this is more important for you. But even these seem to be excellent ... tough times for trolls.
Yes, I like to expose them as well :-) But that doesn't change the fact that influencers like Manny and Jared are simply not objective. This is probably not what they are paid for?
There are comments of all kinds. It is not clear whether the lens can be taken into consideration or not. Is it worth its price? 50mm is my favorite focal length, and this GM seems remarkable to me. But before investing over 2000 euros in the purchase, I ask you: it is better to consider other lenses (eg Sigma 1.4, Sony 1.4 etc.)? do you find the optical performance of the lens unsatisfactory? Thanks to everyone for any advice...and sorry for my Google translated english
Depends if you have the need and the money. It's a great offer for a 50 1.2, so if you buy it, you won't regret it. The question is only if you need it or not.
If you don't, the 1.4 versions are cheaper and also very good.
There are a lot of videos on youtube. Dan Watson did a good one, Manny Ortiz compares to Canon and Nikon. In short - the F1.4 is really good, the F1.2 is better. And better as the other 2 50/1.2 in most aspects (lighter and cheaper, better bokeh and less vignetting as the Canon, probably a liiiietle sharper). In combination with a newer Sony body Eye AF is perfect and shooting should be very easy - video and stills.
I suggest those considering a prime lens and don't have lots of extra money lying around approach it this way: Try an inexpensive lens in the desired focal length first, to determine if that prime focal length really is what you thought it would be for your photography. If it works for you and you are happy with the results, you avoided spending too much on your lens - congratulations! If it didn't work out, decide what you find wrong with it and shop for a replacement with that in mind (after selling yours on the used market). You may be disatisfied by focus speed, bokeh, aperture not wide enough for your narrow depth of field goals, or maybe it's too big or not weather sealed enough for you. You may not need the $2000 option to fix whatever you found wrong with it though! I have tried primes at 30mm, 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, and typically I'm happier with my zoom that covers all of those lengths. So I'm not the target market for this one. But yeah, it's nice!
Focus pulls are part of cinema-photography. This is not a lens we'd use for production, while the Nikon 50 1.2 is certainly going to see a good deal of usage. Sony has a nice lens here, but it has compromises.
I have two features in pre-production. We rent for systems like Arri, but often purchase and resell at production end. We're using Z system cameras and lenses paired with Arri mini for several sequences where larger rigs are too cumbersome and in this case, the lenses will be bought. This is a common way of handling things from low to moderate budget work. Obviously the Sony lens would not be a great choice. Also: After looking closely at the samples, I'm 100% certain Nikon's 50mm is optically superior, though the Sony is certainly very good.
@FurryBalls Yes it is, Sony E is bigger than Nikon F, that is a fact. And Sony E lens can't be mounted on Nikon F body because Nikon F flange distance is longer and the mount is narrower on the Nikon.
@Anulu @zxaar Simple, just get an e mount lens and an F body and try it yourself. It mounts but won't work properly of course. Mounting a lens has nothing to do with flange distance.
F mount's diameter measurement takes account of its mounting tabs while E mount's does not because some of the earliest NEX bodies have plastic mounting tabs as a separate part from its metal mount ring. If you can't get a body/lens from the other brand, buy a lens cover/body cap to test. They are interchangeable.
Funny thing, the video that was the worst offender in misleading about They Said also pointed out one of the glaring weakness of the new Sony Lens, focus breathing. Manny and Jared I don't recall making it an big issue. Dan mentioned it, barely.
For me, after seeing the DPR video, it's may be a deal breaker. I recalled that being an issue in their latest 35mm? But hey, Like Chris, I could care less about 35mm. Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM Lens. Yet all we hear is Perfection and Master of all. In what Universe?
Focus breathing has been pointed out in most of the reviews I have watched. If that is an issue for someone then this lens is not for them. If it's not an issue then this is an outstanding lens if you can afford it IMO. Perfect? No lens is including the RF and Z lenses.
"Perfect? No lens is including the RF and Z lenses"
It annoys me when any Camera Brand Ambassadors claims perfection. They are baiting the uninformed to make an GAS purchase. Darn it if they actually need it or not. But hey, we all have to live with the choices, We Made/Make.
Also think about this: Would really Sony shoehorn a full frame sensor into a mount that they knew was too small for a stabilized full frame sensor? For a mount that should be used for stills and video?
You must either be a bit simple minded or embrace conspiracy theories, or both, to believe that the Sony engineers did not have a better knowledge of what they were doing.
To believe that e-mount was only ever intended for aps-c is to believe that Sony had no plans to ever make a FF video camera, as the mount was created to replace A-mount, which has a mechanical diaphragm lever.
Sony's Cinema line consists entirely of FF cameras, incidentally: Venice, FX9, FX6, FX3.
Who are you guys arguing with exactly?.............ask your very best friends if size matters.....😊 otoh OBVIOUSLY its an excellent lens (maybe apart from the focus breathing thing....) - and size of the hole in the camera seems pretty irrelevant.......
Canon is also behind in total number of lenses so they need to release a bunch of lenses to get closer to the same amount... Several of those you mention is already there in the Sony line up 🤦♂️
Again what is the relevance of that post, why dos Canikon fanboys have a need to post in every single article about Sony, is it lack of security in you brand, insecurity of own skills. Seriously why the need to put your brand up on a pedestal with Sony cannot keep up, brand X is betty because of reason Y.
[So what? Extending the focal length is what makes it possible for lenses to focus at a closer distance. A traditional 100 mm macro lens is 200 mm at image scale 1:1.]
I always heard that a100mm macro lens was 100mm at 1:1 but shrank to something like 85mm at infinity.
David Ramos, you know many of those lenses are already here for sony, right? The question is more if canon can actually produce something different with those lenses they're missing.
Seriously this is getting a bit out of hand, the camera is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I really do not get certain peoples need to make it more than it is. Some of you really behave like this is a sports team, but it isn’t. This kind off fan boyish behaviour was stupid back in the days when it where all about Nikon and Canon and it’s just gotten even more ridicules since then.
No one really cares how you feel about Sony. Like we don’t really care about your feelings for Canon.
The same people that were bragging loudly how Nikon F-mount was a mess and prehistoric mount from an optical POV ?
Seriously, all that lame noise about how superior that mount is over that other one is so ridiculous I really feel ashamed for the fanboys of each brand.
We are really seeing posts like thoses console games kiddies are spiting in the video game forums... Worse are the youtubers influencers that are even more ridiculous. But it is in the air, we have to cope with that lame fashion.
Unfortunately we have to live with that extreme form of brand loyalisms. Just like we have on other fields.
You can only acknowledge the good marketing job done by the companies since they manage to move their brands beyond just being what it is, a company delivering a piece of electronic equipment... what’s most striking is that people have actually bought the marketing.
@ David Ramos: Who visit the menus with a properly set ut Sony camera? Not needed, since you can work blistering fast under a variety of conditions without even visiting a menu. You should really try this!
Or maybe you use a camera where visiting the menus is needed to get the work done?
Alright.. Magnar.. are you going to buy that len's? I should hope so... because otherwise it's just a waste of time bragging about something you're not planning on buying. Kind of sad according to my point of view. Anyway...thanks for the advice..
@ David Ramos: What about staying to the topic in this specific tread? What do you think? Did the Sony engineers know what they were doing with the E mount, or was this mount accidentally used for their full frame stills and high end video cameras?
Sony very early stated: The mount can take FF sensors.
I will not even ask if you are going to buy this lens ... and the one introducing menus to the discussion, was you! 🤣
It seems as if the lens changes between 40 and 60mm as you focus from closest to infinity. Otherwise it is a great lens. Now can someone pre-order it so that I can buy it for 1400 next year?
So what? Extending the focal length is what makes it possible for lenses to focus at a closer distance. A traditional 100 mm macro lens is 200 mm at image scale 1:1.
Magnar, macro lenses focus very close. This lens changes focal length in all distances. As a pure photographer I don't mind but it is quite bad for video folks.
@ NexUser: Depends fully on what type of video work you are doing. If focus breathing is a problem, just pick the right video lens. Then you also get beter control with manual focus.
Noise from the Nikon Z and Canon RF 50 mm f:1.2 autofocus might be a worse problem if you are doing small one-person productions.
Magnar, you turn completely irrational and feel like you have to defend everything in Sony discussions. I'm merely saying it is a negative point but otherwise it is an excellent lens. Here's an excerpt from Dpreview's article: Unfortunately, focus breathing, or a change in magnification with focus distance, is pretty significant and might be an issue for video shooters.
@ NexUser: So saying that focus breathing migth or might not be a problem for videographers, dependent on how you work, is "defend everything"? And so is saying: If this is a problem, just get a dedicated video lens.
I would say your conclusion here is completely irrational.
@ cbphoto123: That's bad. If you really went into what I write on the forums here, you would find that most of it is not brand related, it is about photography in general.
People use the system they bought into - just like you do yourself, I assume. If you did not know, I use Sony cameras at my leisure time, and that's why 99% of my posts are in Sony related forums and Sony news treads.
Funny that what you mention as "typical Magnar" is things I never have claimed. You have quoted me wrong countless times before, so I am getting used with your lack of precision.
@ cbphoto123: Well, you seems pretty obsessed with what I write ... why do you find my person so interesting? Why not just argue factual, staying to the topic, like you tell me to do? Instead yu bring more false claims about "what Magnar said" ... phatetic.
What you mention is an answer to a previous claim, so naming bransa are relevant. If i should anwer you, I would do it in the actual tread. Not bringing everything out of context.
Oh, I see. Different rules for you and your ... was it Fuji? 🤣🤣🤣
@ cbphoto123: Use the brand you want, and visit Sony threads as often as you want. And continue to follow my person, since what I write obviously means so much for you ...
Seeing the HUGE focus breathing for this Sony lens, maybe you can have a video talking about focus breathing in general. I don't recall seeing any video about that from you.
@ RadPhoto: Do you really think that all video production outside Hollywood/Nexflix will be useless because of some focus breathing when going from very close to infinity? Nonsense!
Your claim here is a very good example of armchair videography. Ii is just as silly as to say that no Nikon Z camera should be used for serious work, stills and video, because of some auto focus hunting, unless you can rely on full manual focus.
What kind of video productions do you do yourself, and at what level, one has to ask.
I'm not a videographer but I work alongside several who maintain that focus breathing in lenses is an issue. It is one of the factors that decides whether they purchase a particular lens or not. As a stills photographer, it is a non-issue for me and I really like what I'm seeing with this lens. I can live with the cats eyes.
To the Sony detractors - try looking at Youtube for the 70-200 2.8 Many of the channels you claim are bought off have pointed out that the lens is in need of a refresh.
YT need all the content they can get. So sure, they will push for any lens release. That applies across all Camera brands, not just Sony. Consumers should use critical thinking skills and make up their own minds after performing due diligence. Good luck with that one.
OK...this comment is for @RubberDials who was wondering yesterday what my opinion would be of this lens...and also for folks like @MikeRan and @Handsome90, with whom I also enjoy some banter.
So, RD, here is my opion on this 50 f1.2 GM lens: I say congrats to Sony! I think performance wise it's probably about the same IQ as the Canon and Nikon equivalents. We can argue about minor tech details, but they all are going to give you some very wonderful looking images.
To me the main win for this lens is its lighter weight. That to me is the biggest advantage for most users.
I know many are raving about its fast AF speed, and that is nice, but I never really consider a 50 f1.2 lens one that you use for high speed shooting, but I guess people who rely on AF for video will love it.
It seems the only trade off is the focus breathing...for me that isn't a big deal but I can see how for some users that may be a big downside.
BTW, I do want to add that Sony deserves credit for not just trying for smaller size/weight on camera bodies, but on lenses too. To me it is often the lens where a smaller size/weight can make a big difference.
I've tried the 12-24 f4 and all I can say is that is one nice size for a UWA zoom. I understand the 12-24/2.8 is not that much bigger.
I will now lobby Sony for super tele PF lenses, like Nikon's 300/4 pf and 500/5.6 pf. I don't know why Sony hasn't produced something similar; they are certainly capable and they would be a very nice pairing with their alpha cameras, and now esp. their a1.
So come on, Sony...give us some PF lenses and show us that you can make these really small super tele primes.
I agree the PFs are nice. Agree they would be a nice addition.
And it’s good you recognize a fantastic lens when you see one. Even if it is a Sony.
You would still gain just a little bit of your mostly lost credibility back if you admitted you were patently wrong about Sony’s inability to produce a good f1.2 lens given their smaller lens mount.
Mike, I never claim to be right all of the time; in fact I am wrong a lot and my wife will verify that! :)
I do admit that I was very skeptical that Sony could produce such a lens for their mount and happily admit that I was wrong. I will note, however, that I did write that all Sony would have to do to prove me wrong was to create such a lens. So you may not realize it, but it was my prodding that got Sony to release this wonderful lens :) So you may thank me later.
I still want those PF lenses from Sony, though. I'd be interested to see how small they could make them. Now if they could do a 400 f4 PF, that would be even better...and you know what, I would probably add an a1 to my cameras just to use with that lens.
The PF’s would fit well with the Sony system. I might buy one myself if they were good with the right aperture, focal length and price. Nikon does them very well.
Now that Sony has actually done the impossible, according to you, I would love to understand your engineering perspective on the impossibility of Sony developing 1.2 lenses TRU.
Since you mentioned in so many threads you must have a real engineering perspective on the possibilities/practicalities/design of such lens.
@Thoughts R Us Indeed an historical moment in the writing history of you Thought. We will never forget you actually said something positive about Sony 😘😘
@David Ramos "Let’s see if Sony can keep up with the next batch of Canon lenses:"
Irrelevant comment to the conversation but I will bite.
After the release of a cheaper, faster AF, lighter and better corrected 1.2 lens that many of you said would never happen, here it is. So don't be surprised when Sony releases that list, and more, and you will have to cry about intangibles like coulour "science" and "ergonomics".
Also, how many lenses for Canon/Nikons new system? 1/4? 1/3 It is a fact it is not even 1/5 of what Sony has to offer natively and through 3rd parties because of the closed mount Canon/Nikon has.
So Canon is the one desperate enough to re-house and pump-and-dump out anything they can, to fill in the glaring gaps that are present so they can stop the hemorrhage to Sony/Fuji.
Sony has pretty much bought out the entire online influencer loyalty at this point. Everytime they release a product, dozens of rich YouTubers would have already released their reviews simultaneously. There's almost not a single high-subscription-count camera reviewer on YouTube that i can trust at this point. You don't see this kind of promptness with any other brands.
It's a priority for Sony. It obviously isn't for others. Case-in-point... still no DPRTV video for the Nikon Z 50mm 1.2. If Nikon isn't going to send them a review unit, then no video, I guess. It's a free market. Doesn't undermine my trust in the YT channels one bit though.
Sony definitely has mastered the art of using YouTube and social media to their advantage. They are a very large company, and of course have entertainment and video games divisions, and perhaps that is one reason why they are so much more in-tune with this and other forms of marketing than others.
I don't say that to denigrate Sony; on the contrary, I give them props for their cleverness in marketing.
"Sony has pretty much bought out the entire online influencer loyalty at this point."
Indeed, especially when all you here is Perfect and the Master of all after every product release, it's really pointless to watch an further. You can get almost the same IQ for less but they sure won't tell you that. It's all about pushing the latest thing. But of course, they all still say Gear Doesn't Matter.
@EXkurogane: I don't know if Gordon Lang is rich or not. But I respect and trust his reviews and opinions. And yes I know you said "almost" in your post.
Maybe, only time will tell. Some Vids don't carry over well past the first couple of days. Most seem to pop quickly then fade even quicker. For Comparison ....
The MOST EXPENSIVE Sony Zoom LENS You Will NEVER OWN | Sony 12-24 f2.8 $2,999.99 REVIEW by Jared Polin
181,414 views so far. --------------------------------------------
So 40K in the first day should be expected because of the nature of this particular lens type. It really doesn't matter whom can afford it. More of an talking point for most.
It's not sour grapes, just stating the plain obvious. The moment you see people praising that piece of shyt called A7C you know they were paid off to praise a product that's inferior to an A7iii but costs more instead.
@EXkurogane as an A7R4 owner, I look at the A7C as a really good product, which missed a few features. I would have no problems getting the A7C, if it had a bit more resolution (36MP would have done it for me) and a little bigger EVF.......everything else is pretty much right where I need it to be, including the fully articulating screen, that I badly miss in my 7R4.
Don't know what the POS remark pertains to, other than pure hyperbole !
Yes but YouTube content is for hacks that will probably never buy the lens, but instead want system bragging rights about what they could potentially mount on their camera. This is the majority of hits these sites receive.
As for anyone that actually needs this lens, they will actually get a hold of one to try as it fits their needs.
If play a lot of golf and it’s interesting how similar the arguments are. Again hack buy what they might perceive as the best, but have never actually gone in for a fitting to find out what is the actual best fit for their game.
If you take hacky snaps no lens is going to help you.
And Samyang... Even tho they didn't have the relationship Tamron/Sigma have and had to reverse engineer the protocol. I like Tamron's zooms a lot, I hope they make some faster primes soon.
Samyang's f1.8 primes (and the 18/2.8) are some of the smallest actually, specially the 45 & 75. I'd add Viltrox too but their stuff isn't *as small* and unlike the other 3 I've never owned one.
Their combined efforts are what sold me on E mount tho, I've got 2 Sony lenses (1 G) and 4 third party lenses right now (will probably add a 5th and swap one Sony for a GM).
Much of my FF E mount glass isn't any larger than the M4/3 wide glass it replaced tbh. Teles are another story... Heck, some of Sony's GM & f1.4 glass is about the size of competing f1.8 FF glass, the wides particularly... This 50/1.2 is about the size/weight of other FF MILC f1.4 (or less).
They've really put an effort into making things more compact and I'm all for it.
The moment i see that huge amount of focus breathing on the Sony version, it's no longer the best of the three. But I'm certain Sony did that compromise on purpose to cut weight.
Focus breathing is an important criteria in my lens selection because focus stacking is a staple of my workflow. It's a pain to correct the artifacts post-stacking if the amount of breathing is high. Almost every camera lens breathes, the question is how much. Based on what I've seen early reviews, it's quite substantial. I would be able to forgive it in a lower priced lens at least.
@whumber Yes correct. I use 50mm and even 70-200 for that purpose because i like my lenses to be as versatile as possible. What i do is similar to product photography, so any lens with a minimum magnification ratio of 0.15x or higher will suffice, i don't need 1:1. I use various different focal lengths for close up photography to manipulate how to background looks like.
It's for the very same reason why i went for tamron's 70-210 f4 for product photography, instead of the 70-200 G2 or nikon's own 70_200 2.8G. The latter two focus breaths severely.
If you’re doing product photography properly you would do equally well with a lens costing much less than this one.
Are you saying you are going to do a focus stack at f1.2? There are a multitude of options for primes cheaper than this one that will do just fine for product photography.
MikeRan, i prefer to own less number but high quality lenses, rather than a lot of smaller lenses. My dry cabinet also has limited space. So I'd really appreciate a high end lens that's versatile enough to be usable for as many genres of photography as possible.
Also, i buy large aperture lenses just because i can, even when a 1.8 is sufficient. You have no idea how important large expensive glass is, here in Asia. People judge you by the size and value of your gear. I know someone connected to Sony who uses a Sony 135mm GM to photograph toys. For my case, rather than camera companies, i work with those who supply me the products i photograph.
Also, having large expensive glass or a big camera also earns you an easy pass to the front row at a concert or any stage event here even if you are not the event's official photographer. You're not going to get any respect from others (both the public, and sometimes your client itself) using a f1.8 prime or a pancake lens.
Rubberdials, an eye for an eye bro - I usually don't respond kindly to blinded fanboys. I personally do like debates or healthy discussions, but i have no patience for people like him.
I don't believe in such a thing as the best camera brand. In the end a person's own photography works and any other related achievements will speak for itself. The camera used is just a tool.
@ EXkuro I spend a lot of time in Japan and Asian and yeah face is a thing. However, you can spot a hack a mile away and they always have the best/latest and its immaculate. It’s funny how with a single look you can let someone know that you know and they know they arn’t getting a shot worth a damn.
Reminds me of a time I was playing golf at a very exclusive country club in Japan. Now you just can’t fake golf. I had my favourite set of well played Titilest blades that the group playing behind us eyed off with a smug kinda grin. I just smiled back as I pulled the 7 iron I was about to hit and flipped the face of the club exposing a perfectly worn sweet spot. You can’t fake that. It’s funny how quickly one can loose face through blind pride.
@the reason You think it's moronic because you didn't know the technical reasons for doing so. Ignorance at its best. I always buy big glass, because their image quality gets even better when you stop down. Increased corner sharpness, less CA and so on when you stop down. If you use a f2.8 lens wide open at f2.8 to begin with you are not getting the best out of that lens.
Focus stacking is a double edged sword, while it maximises sharpness and detail, it also boosts the flaws of a lens. If your lens has bad CA to begin with (Auto correct does not remove all of them), it'll just get worse after stacking and you will have more work. Lenses reach near their maximum performance approximately 2 stops down from their maximum aperture.
F1.2, 1.4 is only there in case i need it occasionally. I always do focus stack with images at the f2.8-f4 range since the objects i shoot are about 10-12 inches in size. In cases of 1:1 macro you buy a 2.8 macro lens to focus stack f8 images.
@EXkurogane that's a whole lot of words just to confirm how moronic it is. The zeiss at f2.8 will be just as sharp as this, he'll, the sigma at 2.8 will be as sharp. And then focus stacking further makes the argument even more moronic cause you're using the sharpest sections of each. The reason to buy f1.2 lenses is to shoot them at f1.2. Spending this money to get the same results you would with hundreds less is what? Moronic
"The zeiss at f2.8 will be just as sharp as this, he'll, the sigma at 2.8 will be as sharp."
How about trying to learn how to read? Optical quality is not just about sharpness. There's also CA which reduces significantly when you stop down any lens. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
In general a large aperture glass is always better unless you have a bad back, because you reach optimal image quality earlier. An f4 lens is best at f8. A f2.8 lens is best at 5.6. There's no reason to go lower than 2.8 on a f1.2, f1.4 lens. If i can afford larger glass i will always go for them as long my budget allows for it.
The only occasion where i wouldn't want to use them is in street photography where you don't want to attract too much attention.
@EXkurogane you're still making zero sense. If ca and other things get better stopping down, and resolution is the same,, then it's super stupid to spend the money on this to stop it down when you can get the same performance with the zeiss and the sigma. You'll reach optimal and most likely equal performance with all 3 at 2.8.
@the reason The performances are NOT equal. Period. It's pretty obvious once you zoom in to 100% to compare. Next time try to pixel peep a little harder or get a new set of glasses for your eyes.
@EXkurogane FWIW, at f/4 where both the new 50GM and 90G Macro are sharpest, the 50GM has 40% more CA based on the Lenstip test data. The 50GM is just incredibly sharp though, although with that said there's no guarantee how well it holds up at macro distances.
Wouldn't focus breathing wreck havok with focus stacking anyway? Or are you using a rail? (but then that messes with the background no?) If there's one weakness to the most recent GMs it's heavy focus breathing... I dunno how the 55/1.8 or 50/1.4 ZA behaved in that regard tho, I know the 35/1.8 has next to none.
@EXkurogane first of all pixel peepers are the saddest most pathetic thing in photography. Second, no its not. At f2.8-4 the difference will be negligible if any between the art, zeiss and the gm, even if you "pixel peep". You're just trying desperately to justify your nonsense
@the reason I have high standards, you don't. That's the difference.
If i can afford to pay double for a bigger lens with for just a 20% gain in image quality, I'd pay for it. It's pointless to have a state of the art camera sensor if you are not going to put good glass in front of it. It's fine to start cheap, but always aim for upgrading to better glass.
EXkurogane you still don't get it, you gain nothing. Your "high standard" are made up. Youre stopping it down to an aperture where it doesnt matter. The zeiss, the art and even the crappy 50 1.8 put out 4800 lwph at f4 give or take 100 lines. The 1.2 will not do any better. With fast lenses you're paying for performance wide open or close to, otherwise your wasting money.
@the reason Once again you are dodging the topic. It isn't just about "lwph" or "lines". You get less CA, less vignetting and so on when you stop down. There are other factors that determine image quality, not just sharpness. Is your comprehension so bad?
EXkurogane vignetting goes away when stopping down like you do, and the new 1.2 has a fair amount of vignette, more than the zeiss actually.. all the lenses mentioned above have more or less the same ca, including the 1.2, not far from the zeisa, also ca decreases a lot when stacking. Anything else? So far your reasons have been nonsense
@the reason CA amount INCREASES in focus stacking. Same goes to any other optical flaws like coma, flares etc. A bad sunstar will look even worse.
Focus stacking boosts both the good and the bad aspects of an image produced by the lens used. A double edged sword. For me, this process not only improves sharpness and detail but also allows me to choose my background across many of the frames. I can replace areas with bad /busy bokeh with a frame with a smoother blur.
That's why you want the image quality to be as impeccable as possible or you'll have a lot of cleanup work to do later. Clearly you haven't done any focus stacking. I've been doing it on every project of mine for the past few years.
I had Sony 50mm F1.2 in the 80s and it was already an extraordinary lent but for some screws that had a tendency to get loose screwing up the sharpness at times
I see your videos have ads now. That's a bummer, I really, really despise YouTube's advertisements. Your videos used to be a welcome respite from that garbage.
Do people really believe that all online content should be provided for free? Either watch some ads, or pay a subscription, because content creators deserve to get paid.
We're doing our best to keep DPReview TV ad free. In this case, there was a copyright filing on a piece of music we used (which we have full permission for), but ads will still appear while the copyright dispute is ongoing.
Thanks for watching!
Gary i have not watched content with ads for 20 years on any platform ..thier are a couple of youtube channels that i pay a patron to ..Christopher Frost being one ,,i also make a note of clicking like on the videos i watch to channels i am subscribed to this helps with the youtube algorithm and channel others to the video who don't mind watching ads
Halftrack can't tell you about ad blockers on a phone but i would be surprised if you use a browser to play video in and not the youtube app that you can't use one..if you cannot imagine its an apple thing
It would be great if you started measuring actual T-Stops now when we're seeing faster lenses from every manufacturer, Sigma is cheating quite often with their lenses when it comes to actual transmission (which might or might not matter).
@Relaxed not unproven at all, plenty of measurements of their lenses out there, you don't even have to measure, you can just take identical exposures and compare the EV difference yourself.
It's not cheating, since the F-stop is simply the ratio between the FL and aperture diameter. You shouldn't expect to be able to draw any conclusion about the actual light transmission based on that number.
don't mix up aperture and transmission. aperture is a diameter of the opening, transmission is how much light comes through the lens. they are very often not the same, especially in superfast lenses.
F-stop being the theoretical maximum and T-stop is the measured value, that is in no conceivable way "COMPLETELY different things", unless there's a variation of the english language where completely means something different from UK and US english.
"Essentially, an F-Stop is a mathematical equation. It's based on the focal length of the lens relative to size of the opening through which light is allowed. A T-Stop is the actual measurement of light transmitted through the lens. ... Twice the diameter means four times as much area, so, two stops more light gets in.Dec 26, 2016"
F-Stops vs T-Stops - What are they? and when do you use ...www.diyphotography.net › f-stops-vs-t-stops-use
"Whereas an f-stop is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, the T-stop is the f-stop divided by the square root of the lens' transmittance. In other words, you can think of the T-stop as the f-stop adjusted to account for light losses as light passes through the lens elements on its way to the sensor. Note that the T-stop is only concerned with the effective f-stop as related to light transmittance;"
"What happened to the E-mount doesn't gather enough light for F1.2?"
What bonafide/legit engineer of camera lens told you that? Who are these folks some keep referring to. If you believe what's posted on these types of posting boards, you will literally believe anything.
E-mount is wider than the old Nikon F and Minolta MC, both of which had good 50mm f/1.2 lenses. The only magic here is that this Sony has a round aperture and yet somehow has sunstars. It's just a really excellent lens. Honestly, bokeh at f/2 look better than my Minolta 58mm f/1.2, and that's saying something.
@watsOn - Right. Why not get a heavier, slow focussing, bigger lens and then a body to suit 'cause the Sony just does what it's supposed to. And yes, I still have a fair bit of Nikon stuff, and more Canon stuff, but mostly I shoot Sony. For a reason.
ProfHankD You do know that Sony bought Minolta's camera bizz? Minoltas always got thrown a lot of shade. Nevertheless, my first SLR was SRT101. Had it for years before jumping ship to Nikon.
Operon: Yes, Sony acquired Konica-Minolta's camera and lens business in 2006 (not sure they actually paid for it). Modern Sonys are surprisingly reminiscent of my old Minolta SRT101 (my first SLR too), XK, etc. My first 135 was a Konica C35, and my Favorite pre-SLR digital is a Sony F828, So, in a weird way, Sony has the same camera heritage that I do. Still, this 50mm f/1.2 is clearly not related to any previous Minolta design.
In fact, have there ever been any 135-format lenses with multiple radical asphere elements from any manufacturer? I thought making radical aspheric surfaces that big wasn't possible... and doing it such that there are no "onion skin" bokeh artifacts is amazing.
Aside from the term "3D look" being completely unscientific and subjective in every way, it's always the lighting and/or overall color contrast in a scene that contributes most to the subject looking distinguished and "separated" in the picture. When those conditions are met, you can create any "popping" looks even with aperture at f/11.
Actually to be totally honest I thought a lot of the photos had a really nice sense of depth and layering to them. That's down to the photographer of course rather than the lens because "3D Pop" is a completely meaningless concept as far as optics are concerned, but I did think Chris used the lens's shallow depth of field to good effect.
Question: Does Sony actually manufacture and design its lenses?
And what about Panasonic?
It is well known that Nikon has a glass factory, and maybe Canon does too. Considering that both Sony and Panasonic have been making video cameras for a while, it would not be surprising if both did have in-house lens manufacturing, but maybe not.
Thanks, folks. Yeah, I’ve been around long enough to remember the slow demise of Minolta. Still, it’s a bit daunting to realize just how many lenses are manufactured world wide.
Who cares? I think panasonic has paid sigma for a few lens designs iirc. I'm sure it's not unusual to do a cost/benefit analysis of purchasing a design vs having engineers under your employ design one. I doubt the engineers care as much which logo goes on their lens design vs. some of the more religious customers...
Sony started with the Minolta business in their A-mount. But what they've been doing lately with lenses and cameras, is WELL beyond whatever Minolta could ever dream of. Minolta is just a distant memory.
Designing lenses isn't voodoo magic. It's just good engineering, which Sony is obviously very capable of. And as others noted, Sony inherited Minolta's lens expertise. They've also worked closely with Zeiss over the years.
I keep wondering why folks that aren't Engineers for Camera Manufacturer are telling everyone the limits of what Camera Manufacturers can or can't do. So no, It won't be long before Curved Sensors and Global Shutters. It's just gets better from here. Unfortunately prices won't be getting better. IMO. However, this isn't a bad price for an Sony 50mm F1.2 GM based on the initial reviews.
Looking at the sample photos of the barn the corners don't look sharp at all at f1.2, even when focused at the corner (even though this probably won't be an issue in real life). The CA is also very pronounce all across the frame at f1.2. For CA correction it just uses the Adobe correction though, which might not be final yet. At f2.8 it looks decent.
You probably should look for a macro lens if flat field and corner-to-corner sharpness is very important for you. Not the same brightness wide open, though.
So the Sony/Nikon/Canon 50mm F1.2 are all priced around 2k , I honestly didn't think there was a use for such lenses until I shot portraits at night last week and the fuji 50mm F1 saved the shoot. I'm sure the Sony will be excellent as are the others.
All this talk about mount size...the CEO of Sigma nailed it when he said it was just harder to design good lenses. Sony shows it prowess in lens design with this Canon/Nikon eating beast.
I do wonder why Sony chose to make it harder for themselves-perhaps the smaller mount is better for high-volume consumer cameras and lenses then high end users get to eat the cost? Whatever the case, it isn't that bad and it's too late now anyways.
The smaller mount makes producing smaller cameras easier. Your camera always needs to be at least as tall as your mount.
Sony made a FF camera smaller than the smallest Nikon APS also because the mount size is smaller. And the same size as a Fuji X-E4 that only has an APS mount.
@PAntunes if you do not mind very poor ergonomics it is not difficult to make smaller mirrorless cameras. I would not take an A7C in a free raffle for that reason. Having owned the A7rII/III their ergonomics were already poorer that rivals the A7C is worse
James Stirling quite a lot of people are very happy with the A7C. and if you compare it to the Fuji the sony is a lot better ergonomically. It's more a question if you want portability or not.
PAntunes , lots of people are happy with all kinds of things. The Fuji comes in at less than half the price of the Sony though. If it makes you feel better about it I would not take the Fuji either :-) I cannot speak for the A9/A1 as I have never touched those bodies, but from direct ownership A7rII/III and extensive hands on with A7rIV their ergonomics lag well behind Nikon or Canon rivals. We are at the stage where image quality differences between cameras of the same format are compared to everything else trivial. I have zero interest in most gimmicks that fill cameras these days . Ergonomics and how it feels in use are critical to me. The A7c along with poor ergonomics, has a poor EVF , no proper mechanical shutter . At its selling price here in the UK £1699 you can buy a lot better for your money
Looking at how Canon, Nikon and L-Mount alliance all decided to go with larger mounts for FF when given a chance to introduce a new mount, means that the optical considerations for FF mount size clearly favor larger size than Sony has chosen.
The reasons for Sony's decision to keep the same mount as the APS-C were almost certainly business driven. It can still handle FF (even if not as well as larger mounts), so Sony likely decided that they will profit more from keeping than introducing a more optically favorable mount.
PAntunes, I am sorry I only have my opinion at hand , you are of course welcome to yours :-) The Nikon Z50 APS share the exact same mount size as the other Z mount camera. It is lighter than the Sony , 2.5mm wider . Though taller and deeper thanks to the better EVF optics and much better grip. As I say if you ignore ergonomics it is not difficult to make smaller cameras . The Sigma FP a FF camera with no evf , is smaller in every dimension and lighter than the A7c its all about comprises. I am happy to compromise on a number of "feature" for superior ergonomics others have their own take on it
@PAntunes larger and closer mounts give more freedom to lens' designers, but they do not magically make every single lens designed for them better than competition. An excellent 14-24 2.8G on a smaller F-mount wasn't a proof of EF mount not having some inherent advantages. Nor do the latest Sony lenses prove that there are no advantages to larger mounts.
There will be some extreme designs (maybe some current ones are already there) that fit nicely on larger mounts but would be unreasonable to try to match on FE mount.
@James Stirling - The a7C gives you small size and relatively light weight in exchange for also giving you a viewfinder ripped from a a6600 (rangefinder-format APS-C). If you want the portability of a rangefinder-format full frame camera, it's a reasonable trade-off. If portability doesn't matter, it's not for you. But really, you "would not take an A7C in a free raffle"? Win it and send it to me. It will be my second one. I'll pay shipping. :-)
here's hoping they make a 50mm 1.4 g at some point, priced at a bit more than 1000$. I think that would be a sweetspot of size/price/performance. This thing seems more like a statement about their mount.
Heh, as spoiled for choices as the mount already is is at ~50mm, people still want more! I'm not saying it's not unreasonable mind you, third party AF choices sort of left a weird gap...
Some went 45mm (Samyang/Sigma) or 65mm (Sigma), the existing 55/1.8 is kinda overpriced, the 50/1.4 ZA isn't likely to come down in price since the f1.2 GM is priced much higher (still a solid option tho), the 50/1.8 was definitely built to hit the lowest price point possible, etc etc. I guess it leaves the window wide open for a Sigma 50/1.4 DN...
I'm betting those zooms would easily outsell the primes (and the 70-200 is surely a priority), but the primes probably tax their production capacity less so I'd guess it's a balance... I wouldn't have guessed 35/1.2 or 85/1.4 to be a priority either, who knows tho. I definitely wanna see what they do with their 70-200, or heck, with Sony's updated 70-200s.
i'm no way sure about it, but i do hope that the ZA 50/1.4 goes down in price. the ZA 35/1.4 did just go down from 1400€ to 1000€, with the new GM coming in. of course, at 35 it exactly replaces it, and at 50 the one is faster - still i think, at least hope, that the ZA comes down a bit, or even down to 1000€ as well.
It would be interesting to see an IBIS test of this lens vs the slower Sony 50mm variants, to see if its optical formula places any sensor movement constraints due to the mount size.
Man, super impressive keeping it to such reasonable dimensions. The focus breathing is brutal but it seems like thats a compromise sony is willing to make with a lot of their expensive lenses, and it seems to be freeing them up to make some seriously impressive optics overall in other areas.
For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to reveal the first-round winners and pick the best overall product of 2021.
Why are modern 50mm lenses so complex? Lens designers didn't add all that extra glass just to charge more money and make the diagram look cool, explains Roger Cicala.
In their recent review of the Sony 50mm F1.2 GM, Chris and Jordan from DPReview TV described the lens as 'optically ideal with few compromises'. Check out the photos they shot to see if you agree with them.
Sony has announced its ultra-fast 50mm F1.2 GM premium full-frame lens. With three special elements, four linear focus motors and an 11-blade aperture, Sony promises quick focus speeds, minimal aberrations and 'smooth' bokeh in a relatively compact package.
H&Y has announced a new system of magnetic filters and accessories called Swift, designed to make switching filters in the field faster and easier than traditional filter systems. We tested two magnetic kits aimed at still photographers and filmmakers
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Artificial intelligence is improving fast. Less than a month after OpenAI released its impressive DALL-E 2 text-to-image generator, Google has bested it with Imagen.
Firmware v1.01 for the Sony a7 IV promised an improvement in Eye AF performance but we're still finding that wide-aperture shots are fractionally front-focused.
H&Y has announced a new system of magnetic filters and accessories called Swift, designed to make switching filters in the field faster and easier than traditional filter systems. We tested two magnetic kits aimed at still photographers and filmmakers
The specification sheet, leaked by Photo Rumors, suggests we'll see Sony's next-generation a7R camera feature a 61MP sensor powered by its BIONZ XR image processor.
Canon's EOS R10 and R7 share a lot of their spec, including an impressive AF system, but the closer you look, the more differences emerge. We look at how the two models compare.
The SmartSoft Box allows the degree of its diffusion to be controlled electronically and varied in 100 increments from clear to heavily frosted via the main control panel of the Rotolight AEOS 2 light. Changes in electrical charge alter the diffusion and the angle of coverage of the light
Camera accessory company Nine Volt now offers a camera body cap that includes a secret compartment designed to hold an Apple AirTag tracking device, giving victims of camera theft hope for recovering a lost camera.
The R7's 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor is an interesting prospect for sports and wildlife shooters. Check out our shots from sunny (and scorching) Florida to see how it performs.
Canon just launched an entry level camera using the RF Mount! You should probably take a look at some photos it (and Chris Niccolls) captured in Florida.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
The Canon EOS R7 brings a 32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor to the RF mount. In addition to stills at up to 15 fps (30 fps with e-shutter), the camera offers IBIS and 4K/60p video.
While its lineage is clearly inspired by Canon's line of Rebel DSLRs, this 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera takes plenty of inspiration from Canon's more capable full-frame mirrorless cameras.
These two RF-mount lenses are designed to be paired with Canon's new APS-C mirrorless cameras, the EOS R7 and EOS R10. Both lenses offer seven stops of image stabilization and use Canon's stepping motor technology to drive their internal AF systems.
Late last week, DJI quietly released a firmware update for the Mini 3 Pro drone that adds, amongst other improvements, 10-bit video recording in the D-Cinelike video profile.
The patent explains how the auto-zoom feature could use a combination of digital and optical zoom to better frame subjects within a composition with little to no input from the camera operator.
360-degree action cam manufacturer Insta360 has shared a teaser video for a new product set to be announced tomorrow. And based on the visuals provided, it appears as though it might involve some kind of drone.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is a popular camera among photo enthusiasts thanks to its small size and 40mm (equivalent) F2.8 lens. Ricoh's GT-2 tele conversion lens is a 1.5X converter that extends this focal length, though it comes with some compromises. Learn more about it and check out our sample gallery shot with the GT-2 on the camera.
This 'Mark III' lens offers a few improvements over its predecessors to get even better image quality out of its ultra-fast design. The lens is available for Canon EOS R, Fujifilm X, Leica L, Micro Four Thirds, Nikon Z and Sony E-mount APS-C camera systems.
Chris and Jordan are out of the office this week, so we're taking a trip in the wayback machine to feature a classic episode of DPRTV: a review of the EOS R, Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera.
Last week, we featured Markus Hofstätter's scanner rebuild, which saw him spend three months bringing back to life a massive scanner to better digitize his collection of large format photographs. This week, we're taking a look at the results, kicked off by a beautifully detailed 30cm x 40cm collodion wet plate portrait.
The lenses lack autofocus and image stabilization, but offer a fast maximum aperture in an all-metal body that provides a roughly 50mm full-frame equivalent focal length on Fujifilm and Sony APS-C cameras.
Comments