I own the 1.2 GM. and no regrets. I will however admit that if I were faced with these two at time of purchase. I think I would have decided on the 1.4
When I was considering the 1.2 vs 1.4, I just couldn’t justify the price for the 1.2 with its added weight and +$900 price increase. I’ve been shooting with my 1.4 for a bit now and it’s just amazing on my A7R5. I really appreciate its almost clinical sharpness as I can just use a radial gradient and drop the clarity slider to get a lovely soft look over anything in the frame. The extra plus will be when I get that 34mm it will share the filters keeping further costs down. Great review!
Excellent timing! In the last few days I've been been through the Samyang (lovely but AF too slow and noisy), Sigma (gorgeous but too bulky) and finally traded up to the Sony. Decided it was such a useful focal length, it was worth paying more to get the weight and space saving. Fits nicely in my bag to grab for portraits alongside workhorse zooms on video shoots. Looking forward to using it on a gimbal as well. Thanks for all your work and presentations.
I fully agree with basically everything you said here. I'm a full time wedding photographer and I've used this lens A LOT this past year (according to LR, I've taken about 14,000 photos with it since September). I also own the 1.2, and I do really really love the 1.2, but the 1.4 is just almost identical in terms of performance, saves on the weight (both overall weight, and also torque on my wrist), and I actually like the bokeh on the 1.4 a little more than the 1.2. It has a little more character and doesn't go too sterile. The only problem I've had, honestly, it's that it's so sharp, I have to go out of my way to either shoot at slower shooter speeds to get a little motion blur, move back slightly after I focus, or really try to take the edge off in LR. But I'm selling my 1.2 now because I just don't use it. The extra 1/3 of a stop isn't the game changer I thought it would be. Great review! And I fully agree with your opinions!
Great review, I have own the lens for 6 months and agree with you 100%. I also owned the Sony Zeiss and moved to the GM. The other 50mm which is my favourite but rather niche is the Voigtlander 50mm Apo. This lens has better micro contrast as is rather special and of course MF.
Since I have 35GM for most use I went for 1.2GM because I wanted a more special lens than a general purpose one. I like that little bit more artistic look of 1.2 lenses, and in case a special purpose lens the size is not deciding factor for me.
Nice job Dustin, your the best reviewer , I have the 50 1.2 gm I have been looking at this one for a while because of its micro capabilities, and I have also been lusting after the Sony Zeis 55 1.8.just because it’s so light weight and decent opticals also, they affordability for around 500 US.
The 50mm F1.2 has the most special image quality. I can understand going for a lighter option to compliment it, but none of them are going to be as pleasing optically.
I have had the truly excellent SZ 55 1.8 lens for several years' and will never part with it. Dustin and I ( and others) agree to disagree as to the qualities of really excellent Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8.
I hear what you say. However, this poster has never been and never will be a pixel peeper, as long as it is possible to capture the immediacy of the moment, without GAS purchased gear I am no longer able to fiscally justify, I will be happy.
I always appreciate your reviews and also youtube videos here. The issue for me with this lens and I've looked at hundreds of review and sample photos is that the rendering seems very flat and 2D. Nothing pops in Zeiss type of way or even in a Sony 50 1.2 or other lenses. That's why I can't convince myself to consider this lens :(
Hi Dustin, great review, as always! Do you have any outstanding plans to review the Sony A9III? I would love to hear your take on the sensor, as well as hear your opinion on its dynamic range and noise performance. Thanks
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for your reply! I guess Sony has to go through all the RU-vid "vloggers" first, before sending it to serious reviewers. It's the way the world spins these days.
Your opening comments as to the commonality of the 50mm being so common, certainly as was the case in the days'' of film, there appears to have been a move away from that previously held "standard" focal point lens. Moves to 35mm, even ? 24 mm, I still like the 50 mm and , whatever the format i.e full frame to M43s, the 50mm, ff equivalent lenses are reasonably priced and I find, 1.4 fast enough and are, generally offered at a reasonable price. However, Zeiss have always been out of my price league, not an adverse remark on their quality
While it is true that modern cameras don't come with a 50mm as a kit lens, there probably has never been any camera mount in history that has had so many 50mm options available as Sony e-mount right now.
The question, to my mind, has been the apparent move away from the, perhaps more film centric days, when the almost universal new camera kit comprised a body and, invariably, a 50 1.8 lens. This was universally accepted. Now the 35mm ff is more widely preferred. However, brand aside, the recent body & kit offerings comprise the body and a "kit" zoom.
I can't wait to get my hands on the Sigma 1.2.. If you check other reviews, you'll see how it's identical to the Sony 1.4 when it comes to sharpness. Hint, check other reviews, get more pay less.
Price matters. I always weigh the image quality, features and performance against the price. After watching image comparison videos all over RU-vid, decided to buy the Sigma 1.4 instead of this Sony and saved $600 (with student discount at the time). I think if I wanted better bokeh I'd skip this Sony 1.4 and upgrade to Sony 1.2. But then again when I want more bokeh I switch to Sigma 85mm 1.4 if space permits. Got both Sigmas for less than the Sony 1.2. The bokeh and overall image for Sigma and Sony 1.4 is very similar. Sony might have a bit more contrast but easily adjustable in post.
The Sigma 50/1,4 DN has the new linear HLA focus motor but it's the same size weight and shape as their 35/1,4 which I found front heavy and oddly cumbersome, the way it tapers. In addition, it has more longitudinal chromatic aberrations (green and magenta fringing slightly behind and in front of the plane of focus), by a significant degree I dare say. So even if I must agree that price matters whether I want to or not, I would save up for this lens rather than getting the Sigma. (And I own a minority of Sony lenses)
@@Vantrakter Valid take. Personally, and maybe because I dont use it for extended periods at a time handheld, but dont find the size and weight to be that bad. Sure I'd love to have the Sony but not for $600 more. Also haven't had major issues with CA in my use cases but have seen it being more significant for others. If you shoot mainly video then the Sony might be worth it.
Completely different audience. it's a stop slower and has no AF and has a pretty cool diaphragm and the potential for beautiful sunstars. It has no weather sealing.
@@Vantrakter I have had many analog SLR Lenses since 1979, no matter weather, I have never had problems with "no weather sealed" Lenses ! I use manual focus even with AF Lenses 99.99% of the time, aperture 2.0 are more than enough, I rarely shot larger than aperture 2.8 ! If used for many years the Voigtländer will live much longer than the Sony ! The Sony is too big and heavy.
Hi. I have a Canon question is you do not mind. How does the EF 35 1.4 II compares to RF 85 1.2 in terms of sharpness? I already own the RF but I am considering getting the EF 35 with adapter. Thanks
I still like the EF 35mm a lot. I would say that the sharpness level is fairly close between the two lenses, though the focal lengths are pretty radically different.
Honestly the 1.4 is not that much smaller than the 1.2 and it is arguably less size efficient as the 1.2. The 1.4 is negligibly shorter and while it is notably slimmer it is NOT all that slim. Like most of the Batis and the Zeiss 1.4 for that matter it is FAT relative to the size of the front element. This is annoying because part of the draw of a 1.4 is that it is the lens with better ergonomics and mass if you don't need for that additional 1/3 stop for bokeh. In the end, It wasn't for me. I ended up with the 4/20-70 G, 2.8/100 GM and the 1.8/85 Batis as my 3 lens kit. I think I am switching the 4/20-70 G out less than a year after I got it for the 2.8/24-50 G -- I have been waiting for the 2.8/24-50 for 30 years!
The f1.2 is only 9 ounces heavier than the f1.4, but as a wedding/event/portrait photographer lugging around multiple lenses the lighter kit is really appreciated. You really feel it after 10 hours of shooting. If they were the same price I’m sure I’d get the f1.2 but regret the weight. I love my 35-150 f2-2.8, but because of its weight it’s only used during the ceremony. If I was only carrying the a couple of lenses and only one camera body, I would definitely have gone with the f1.2.
