Great work Christopher. Two small notes: -I always find your AF results much slower than I used to see. Maybe you are using af-s in the focus test? It would help if you used af-c + setting af speed to "fast" in the camera menu for the best results. -f1.2 is potentially half a stop brighter than f1.4 (in the video you sad "33%" (f2.8, f2, f1.4, f1, f0,7 etc.).
Yes, sometimes AF-C can lead to faster results - I may implement a mention of this in future reviews. Typically, f/1.2 really is only 33% brighter. I know it sounds like it should be 50% brighter, but the third-f/stops typically go f/1.0, f/1.1, f/1.2, f/1.4. I confirmed this in the past with a number of tests looking at shutter speeds. Years ago I found that the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L was only 25% brighter than the 50mm f/1.4 USM! Boy that was disappointing.
@@christopherfrost I second the idea of the AF-C testing or at least the mention of potential speed boosts in AF-C. My Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4 (which you convinced me to buy) focuses _much_ faster in AF-C than it does in AF-S. Slightly less accurately for a still subject, but much faster.
@@christopherfrost Yes, I know this effect- this is why I wrote "potentially", I probably didn't catch in the video that you were talking about reality and not theory. Maybe it could help if you refer to it as t-stop? F-stop is a 50% gain, but t-stop is as you sad probably 33% brighter. btw. I think this is a good engineering-compromise, otherwise image circle should be much bigger -> bigger, and more expensive lens, or less corrected (less glass) -> better transition but far more aberrations. btw.2 Af-s is hybrid mode, it uses contrast detect and is useful for minimalistic still life photography or other situation where phase detect can have problems. AF-C (phase detect) should be default for 95% of the time. Sony set it as default after introduction of live tracking. It is a lot faster on new lenses. :) btw.3 Maybe you can add t-stop testing? This is a very interesting topic. Differences due to other real ISO values used by camera manufacturers and RAW profiles in softwares can be problematic, but for example in C1 it is possible to output data without profile in linear format. Then a prepared panel with confirmed EV values and checking how close to the truth the photo is would give a lot of interesting information. Both about spot brightness and averaged brightness.
@@christopherfrost with Sony AF-S is often using contrast detect autofocus because it's 'more accurate". Using AF-C almost exclusively uses the PDAF on the sensor and in my experience always autofocus faster with less hunting.
@@rafai1281 T-stops would require an extra set of tools to test accurately though. I think everyone knows by now that there's always some transmission loss. Also, most photographers don't even care about the T-stops strangely enough. Even though there are lenses like the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 which has a T-stop of around 4 or so, people still buy it, weird.
Been daily driving the 50f1.2GM for a while now and I can confirm its well worth the price. It just renders lighting in a way that is so beautiful and makes things look like paintings at times.
Absolutely amazing lens. Especially if you consider it's the cheapest and by far the lightest of the three 50/1.2. The only real issue that this lens has is the focus breathing but it only impacts videomakers. Also focus breathing reduction in Sony A1 works really damn well.
@@NVIK5 well, i guess it depends on the country, sometimes they add the "new tax" and it takes a few months for the prices to stabilize. For example in Poland the RF is by far the most expensive. The Nikon and Sony are pretty much the same price, especially when you count all the cashbacks that are not available for Canon sadly.
Im lucky enough to use this lens for my daily family portraiture and sure enough the next wedding season…while i wouldnt want it any heaveier, the resulting images are simply addictingly good…the sharpness, the color, the performance autofocusing, the video performance..is crazy good…
The Zeiss comment at the end is just not needed. Without Zeiss the camera industie would not be there where it is now. WIth the Otus line Zeiss showed the rest how it is done, regardless of the price. The competition took quite some time to catch up. Also Christophers Frost reviews are not always accurate.
The autofocus on my copy of this lens works instantly, you pretty much don’t see it moving, it just focuses immediately Although I use AF-C with a fast setting…
Thanks for the review. Just a small correction about 50/1.2GM being the sharpest lens available for the Sony system: I think the Voigtlander 50/2 APO-Lanthar is even sharper, although obviously a different kind of optics.
I just picked up this lens after doing a shoot with it, I was able to borrow it from sony rep for a few hours at sunset (golden hour) I was so impressed with it I had to have one. I only paid 1400 in mint condition. A steal.... I must have taken 200 pics and out of the whole lot not one bad pic othe than being my fault from people stepping in the picture... love it
I rented this lens on my a7riv for a wedding and it was so sharp! The only downside is i can’t find a place for it in my wedding kit but it is an amazing lens
Ive used many lenses from all the different manufacturers and this is probably the best of them all. Perfect lens. I just dont care for 50mm much and the benefits of this lens are not seen on social media
This is pretty much the perfect 50 if you can live with the weight/price. I wish there were something like the Nikon Z 50 1.8 S for Sony though. Thanks for the review
Manufacturers should see most people would want a 50 1.8 like Nikon did. I think the sales will be higher if you make a high quality prime for about 400-500€/$/£. No normal person would want to spend so much money on a 50mm 1.2 prime if your not doing professional portrait photography or weddings and stuff. I own the amazing 50mm 1.8 Z and would never upgrade to the 50mm 1.2 Z.
@@kifley19 I would even say that 85mm is less depended on the extra 0.2 with the added compression of the longer zoom. 85mm 1.8 is enough for me, but 1.4 is king.
This is just a request and I’m not sure if other people want this, but would you ever consider re-reviewing lenses? For example, a lens like the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 because of its popularity today even though it’s not that new.
I've thought the same so many times, since I bought one some months ago. I'd really like to see a new review with the frame for sharpness and contrast that Chris has been using. It could be just a quick review. Please do it!
@@dudas_89 yes absolutely! I just got the lens and I must say I like it a lot. Autofocus is much, much better in live view. Then again, it’s faster in the viewfinder but less accurate.
Nikon Z 50 f1.2 seems to perform better after watching your videos, can you confirm comparing with Sony and Canon equivalents?! Thanks for awesome video ❤️🙌🏼
Nikon Z 50mm f/1.2 AF seemed works badly compare to Sony FE 50mm F/1.2 in lowlight situation. It is heavier, slower and more expensive than Sonys as well.
Hello Chris, I find your reviews always one of the best on the internet. Regarding AF Speed the A7R2 is a little bit outdated. I think that should be compared with a Sony A1, A9/A9II or a A7RV. I guess the pumping comes from the A7R2.
Thank you for this review. Is it fair to evaluate lens distortion with in camera correction turned off? I could imagine the lens was designed to work with in camera correction and that the designer may have chosen to optimize other aspects of the lens at the expense of causing distortions that could be deterministically corrected by the camera.
I almost purchased this lens, but spent the money on the 135 GM instead and grabbed the 50 2.5 G a little later. Not sorry I did, because the 135 GM is magic, and the 50 2.5 is a nice, sharp little pancake-ish lens. That said, I do have a little voice inside yelling at me to get the 50 GM that I need to suppress.
Let me save future viewers of this review some time just go out and buy this freaking lens if you like 50mm focal length it’s an amazing lens and worth the asking price especially when there’s a sale going on from now until year end
Head to head comparison this one with the ZA Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar made for Sony is in the order... I am still waiting to hear about the TTArtisans 50mm f.95
I looove this lens! I use it a lot for corporate video production and using it for keynotes and similar stuff (full-or half-body shots) on an Alpha1 at friggin' 8K resolution, even wide open - it looks CRAZY good! Feels almost like cheating... :-)
I would love for you to review the Sony 50mm f/2.5 just so I can compare the IQ of it and the 1.4 and 1.2 at 2.8ish. I don't often need the super wide aperture and would love to know if the weight and money savings can still deliver the IQ.
I have that 50mm f2.5, love it. Can't compare to the F1.2 as I don't have it. But check this review: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iJ6IaKISy10.html Different market though.
Any idea why did it need to be stopped down to f/2.8 for corner sharpness on the APS-C camera, but only f/2 on the full frame? The proof is clearly in the pudding, but it feels like the results should have been the other way around
If you had enough money for just a 50mm 1.2 or a Tamron 35-150mm 2.8...which route would you go? Open ended and I know depends what bodies/other lenses you would have. I shoot portraits (family/maternity/engagement) for the most part, but also events (wedding/corporate/birthdays) secondarily.
It always depends on what's left in your bag. If you were primarily an event shooter, than the 35-150 would be best. But if I was mostly shooting portraits, I would probably go for the 50mm 1.2 lens.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the newish Samyang AF 50mm 1.4 II. I'd love a brightish 50mm prime but they are all so expensive, but then cheaper options, particularly Samyang is getting somewhat mixed reviews.
I bought several zeiss lenses based on the hype when I first got into the Sony system. I've since got rid of all of them as I think they're over rated. They may have been good in the film days, but don't compete in the digital world.
I knew the sony users overrated this lens. This review confirms it. Putting aside more longitudinal CA and pincushion distortion, the worst of all is the focus breathing, which makes it a no go for me because i do focus stacking regularly as a part of my workflow to manipulate depth of field in a scene. Sharpness isn't really the only metric i look for in lenses.
Cannot agree more with you. A lot of lenses come with birthdefect that originate on the drawing board. Those defects are compromises to minimize size and costs. This has happened more often now to keep sizes down
Your camera can correct optical problems like distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberration. It's possible to turn those in-camera corrections off, to see how the lens is truly performing
The Sony 50/1.2 GM is like a zoom lens with that severe focus breathing, and no, breathing compensation affects resolution and IQ, is a low effort solution.
I had this briefly it was great but had to go as I didnt like the cameras. I wish you would review some lenses for superior equipment like Leica SL or Fuji GFX...
It tried all the 50mm E-mount lenses. This one is great in optical performance but really NOT as solid as the Zeiss FE 50mm f/1.4 🙄 somehow too light for a f1.2 aperture. On my calculation its weight should to be 1.1kg (at least). Perhaps it still works fine within 4 5 years for casual users but a risky choice for professionals.
@@Kaisolostudio No he said that a comparison video is coming. So he has no reason to give the winner now. The only thing he said is that this is "The best I've seen from a 50 millimeter lens on the Sony system so far." Nb: He also said that it has the best autofocus motor in any f1.2 lenses.
I have a specific concern with what is presented in this review - in the flare resistance test, at a certain angle, a faint circle appears around the light source, which I fear could be distracting. With that said, I seem to recall a Sony lens that had a similar issue due to its filter thread causing reflections, i.e. putting on any filter solved it. Can anyone weigh in on whether that's what's happening here or whether it's an unavoidable artifact after all?
It can’t be highly recommended cause of price!!! I think that it’s a brilliant piece of kit but Samyang’s 50 1.4 is much more cheaper and delivers more worth for money than you can expect from this bokeh monster. You spend 4 times less money but you get almost similar results. Original 50 1.2 gives you 30% more light, yes, but it can’t guarantee better shots. I prefer to save some money for extra photo equipment rather than spend it for 1.2 aperture which you probably cant feel or notice ))
It's due to the linear focus motors I think. The trade off allows quicker AF and better close focusing distances. The A74 can corrects the breathing in video mode using software which is incredible.
to keep the size and weight down, they had to compromise somewhere - considering its aperture and how it excel at everything else, I think its a good sacrifice
@@livejames9374 you would never ever be able to tell the difference while watching. You need to stop over focusing on minute details that don't matter.
The final irony about Zeiss was unnecessary. We cannot cancel a history of excellence in photography, in optics. And to make fun of those who hold true values.... It's not a problem to admit when we're wrong... An excellent review. Thank you!
Ziess has always been expensive. But was he that good? Ziess didn't try to make a lot of fast lenses for fanatics. Zeiss didn't make unusual lenses like Tamron and Samayng do. The whole history of Zeiss optics can be traced back to the ugly purple halos around bright areas. You can see them in 80's movies made with Zeiss optics, and they are still there in the consumer segment. I've heard "oooh Zeiss" since I was a kid, but when I started to look at their lens solutions closely, I was surprised by the poor test results and continue to wonder how someone can blindly go for a once vaunted product by someone. No wonder they've quietly drifted off into industry and medicine, where nothing but boring reliability is required. Yes, I would love it if they tried to make ultra fast lenses or offbeat solutions like 65mm FF, 18-60mm FF. But no, nothing like that has ever come from them. One name only, exorbitant price tags, standard solutions, most ordinary performance. Unfortunately.
@@caleb9819 It's not about being brand addicted or which product is better. We cannot look to the future without being firmly anchored in the past. How would new companies have succeeded in the field without the experience of those before them. Canceling their achievements makes us poorer not richer. This attitude is about our weaknesses and not about our achievements. And it's about not ridiculing those who "dared" to correct misinformation. Merry Christmas to all, the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ is about tradition, deliverance, tolerance and acceptance!
Let's be real. It's 2021/2022, we don't need 1.2 lenses. It's just a marketing gimmick to get those rich people to feel on top. And hey if they want to spend $2000 on a Lens, all the better to them, but 1.2 doesn't really give you much.
Sony decided to sacrifice focus breathing by leaving it uncorrected to keep the size down. In comparison, the Nikon for instance shows hardly any focus breathing, which requires space for the lens elements to move in order to compensate. You’ll also notice the pin cushion distortion in the Sony, while the Nikon has no distortion.
All the reviews are getting really very boring, coz there's no such thing as a bad lens among all the new lenses from major manufactures , they're all pretty much perfect . I think price to performance ratio and size-weight to performance ratio are the only things people should care about these days
Well maybe for AF speed, but there is no higher resolution APS-C Sony camera. Sadly. The later models are a bit better in poor light but that doesn't matter for a lens review.
No need as it is the highest megapixel available sensor in sony apsc line safar. I'd rather liked to see many of these fantastic GM lenses performance on higher megapixel fullframe sensor as A7riv with 61mp is out more than a couple of years.
To be honest, since the ISO perfomance of cameras has become very good, such a lens is not really needed. Most people will not notice the difference between 1.2 and 1.8. This makes this lens rather useless when having that price in mind.
@@christopherfrost I wonder of whom you take pictures of? Are you one of those photographers that show the client 2 pictures; one taken at 1.2 and the other one at 1.8? Really, in theory it does not really matter. And forget the creative opportunities when an images is processed in PS anyway.
@@logitech4873 You are right, I am not the target of this lens. I am set for the next decade with my lenses anyway - there really needs to be something happing that is out of this world.. Actually, I try to make a point that you will save a buck or two. Have a look at this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n2j0loOI6Vo.html
