As always there have been at least 10 videos of this new lens posted by RU-vid influencers in the last week or so. Thanks for being intentional about giving current and historical context to the conversation. As technology keeps moving towards perfection, big picture context and practical considerations matter more.
2:57 in the early days of Sony E-mount, I had plenty of fun buying vintage lenses, and finding out about the history of different camera manufacturers.
Resale value on the Leica will always be more than anything else. My main complaint on all the new mirrorless cameras is that we reduced the size of the camera over DSLR's but the trend to make "perfect" lenses that have all the functions has increased the size overall. I personally would like to see Sony make another f/1.4 that is the size of the old Sony A-Mount AF 50mm f/1.4 but updated to be as good as the 'Lux. I know they won't as that muddies their lineup, but a Sony A7c with a small 28, 35 and 50 would be a formidable alternative to an M for some.
I always love your review video man. Gerald gives us all the super technical stuff about gear. But watching your reviews is like being in a gear history class where I get the technical stuff, but I also get a lesson on how we got here. Top shelf.
My 1.2 was delivered the day the 1.4 was pre-released on B&H... 🤬 I was super annoyed. But then I started shooting with it, especially inside and doing close ups. The separation is unreal, I love using this lens. It hasn't left my camera since I got it. I originally pulled the trigger because I was using the nifty50 from Sony that's $250, but the lack of aperture ring was bugging me a ton.
@Hobbes Z It is a superlative piece of glass. Every time I use it I get a buzz from the image quality and I'm inspired to push forward to improve my work.
I shoot a lot of portraiture and I find myself constantly adding homemade softening filters to the front of these modern ultra sharp, high resolving lenses. I actually prefer shooting my older manual focus vintage Zeiss Planar and Sonnar lenses for their character. Even the older Tele-Elmarit and Summarit-M Leica lenses have nice character for portraits. My female clients prefer the look of the softer images and would regularly ask me to blur their skin when shot on the ultra sharp lenses.
It is a nicer problem than having this problem the other way around. BTW, the trick with ladies' stockings in front of lenses was invented a very long time ago!
I have had great results (as in happy clients) by shooting sharp, then reducing the texture (either a mask on the face or the whole shot) a tad in Lightroom. It can also be done in Photoshop with the Camera Raw filter.
I remember every shot I took with the Summilux, and I can't say the same about every other lens I've used. I believe it's because of the intimate moments of manually focusing and just looking through the lens a bit longer.
I have the 50 1.2 and the 50 Summilux and whilst both lenses are simply put incredible the Summilux wins for me. The 1.2 is almost too sharp and clinical the Summilux has the perfect amount of sharpness but just renders images so beautifully and organically. The 50 Summilux is the greatest lens I have ever had the pleasure of using
I'm with you on the "small and compact" approach Ted. I really enjoy the Olympus 25mm f1.8 on my M43 bodies. With the lens hood attached (reversed) it takes up hardly any space, and the quality is excellent.
I’ve been considering adding a 50 to my kit again. I sold my canon 1.2 when I switched to Sony and while I have an 85, it’s a bit too tight at times. Thanks for a great review and the history of it all!
In terms of maximum aperture in early years, Carl Zeiss has to be mentioned. The Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 came out in the early 1930s and was faster than everything at that time. Fun fact: the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 has the same Mount as the Carl Zeiss Sonnar (Nikon S is based on the Zeiss Ikon Contax camera)
Your videos are always a great pleasure to watch. I really like the way you speak, explain and show real differences based on your photographer's practice. pictures you display are not only interesting in a technical point of view but really emphasize what you are trying to explain and show us. Thanks a lot for that and please go on with making good stuff like that.
I am considering upgrading to a GM 50mm, but I am blown away by the size and quality of the Zeiss 55mm, f1.8 -- especially on the A7IV. The autofocus is much improved over the A7III. If I switch, it would be due to the colour rendering of the Zeiss, which strikes me as leaning blue.
Agreee. The 55 1.8 CA is pretty terrible. But oh man, I’d it tiny and lightweight. It’s relatively sharp. I’d love to see a sharpness comparison between the 55 1.8 and GM 50 1.4.
@Jason Switzer Bought the FE 55mm on release. Excellent lens at smaller apertures but at f1.8, it is abysmal for CA. Now have the GM 50mm f1.2. Mind blowing. F1.2 is exquisite. My magic lens.
Once the ideas in the presenter blog sounded different in audio rendering I knew what it felt like to have a broken jaw, once I knew how to answer without depth now I know how not forget my camera
Thank you for this Video. I sold the 1.2/50 GM and bought the 1.4/50 GM. I like the weight, harsher bokeh, sharp to unsharp Zone and the Character of the 1.4 much more. Now it is glued on the Camera
strangely i've same feeling in favor of 1.4GM , sharper, punchier, harsher bokeh kinda give better 3D pop for in focus areas. strange but i like 1.4 more than my 1.2..i 'll sell one of them soon but it seems i'll sell 1.2 to save some money for upcoming 85 1.2GM.
The lens that brought me into the club of 50mm as a go-to focal length was the Canon 50mm f/1.8. The lens that made the focal length grow on me was the Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 in M42 screw mount. Is it a perfect lens? No, but for the time in which it was produced, it delivers outstanding results that hold up marvelously well on digital sensors up to about ~30 MP or so at f/2.2 and beyond. It was included in a bundle with a 5D Mark II that I bought years ago, and I have never parted with it ever since. When I film something, it is generally the first lens I attempt to use to frame a shot, and I come back to it time and time again.
Recently, I started using my 50mm Summilux-M Asph. on my new SL2’s and SL-S and it performs gorgeous. Visibly better, than previously adapted on a Z7II or a A7R3. However, when you mount a 50mm Summilux-SL on an SL2, you almost unlock a next level. Unreal. For me that Lux-SL is probably the best 50mm optically, but the Lux-M will always be my ‘if only one’ lens.
@@theartofphotography when last year both Profoto and Capture One started to support Leica, I sold all other cameras and started to use the SL2 and SL2-S for my professional fashion/beauty work. Always had an M for personal work. Love the IQ of the SL-range.
It's worth mentioning that the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M is designed for Leica M-Mount cameras and not Sony E-mount cameras. Leica and Sony cameras have different sensor stack thicknesses in which the Leica sensor stack is thinner than the sensor stack on a Sony camera. Sony's thicker sensor stack will adversely affect the edge sharpness of the Summilux-M lens. To make a fair comparison among these 50mm lenses as far as sharpness is concerned, one must use the camera for which the lens was designed. Thus, for the best 50mm lens performance on a full-frame Sony E-mount camera body, use one of the G Master lenses.
@@chesslover8829 Indeed. I witnessed part of the manufactoring of my SL2-S in Wetzlar and one of the technicians told me to use the original M-to-L adapter when using M-lenses on an SL. They also showed me how the microlens layer on the sensor differs from others and how Leica lenses are designed for that. Even M-lenses on an SL.
@jacobh5817 I agree. For best performance with M-lenses on SL-camera bodies, the Leica adapter is a must. M-lenses last a lifetime. Can we say the same about autofocus glass? Maybe not.
Interesting things to see out if this comparison of the guitar shot: - Otus rendering is closer to Sony than to Leica; - Leica at 1.4 shows more blur in the background than 50/1.2 (look at window) - Leica seems to have higher contrast in plane of focus, but at the same time lower sharpness (as correctly mentioned by Ted regarding mid frame dip) I love my Summilux, but cannot ignore how good modern Sony lenses are (135, 35 and now both 50)
HI Ted, I enjoy your videos immensely. As another commenter said earlier, it is like a review and history lesson at the same time. I switched to Sony (from Pentax) last year and I am using all Tamron zoom lenses for my everyday projects. However, I kept my Pentax FA Limited trio (31, 43, 77) for the same reason you like the Leica. They are far from perfect but they have lots of character and when I want to experience photography Like it used to be, I put one of these lenses on and have a blast. I have tried to sell them a few times but cannot bring myself to let them go.
I use to have all A-Mount lenses. The a900, a77 and a99 and a whole lot of expensive lenses to go with it. But when I cam to buy the 16-35 f2.8 I just couldn’t get it in Australia. The a7s had just came out and at the time I use to shoot a lot of low light, night shots. At the time it came with the LA-EA4 adapter so it made sense. Started selling my old a-mount stuff for more that the equivalent e-mount lenses. Brought the a7sII and sold the first one for more than I paid. So yes I have had a mount disappear on me.
Great video. I love 50mm lenses and have quite a collection of older manual focus lenses for the fact that I know I'll always be able to adapt them whatever mirrorless system I am using. Now I am lusting after the Summilux!
I hear ya on the size and the future proofing. I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4 on my Sony. But I recently picked up a Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 Nokton. It's manual (no problem for me), it can be a bit soft, and it has some CA issues at times. But it's compact, has a beautiful rendering when you compose right, and so now it rarely leaves my camera at all (35 being my normal do-all favorite). The Sigma, much as I love its rendering, is just too much to lug about all the time.
Very thorough assessments but there are so many 50mm lenses both manual and autofocus from the older, simpler standard film era lenses with fewer lens elements through to beasts like sony's f1.2 GMaster and canon's RF version for huge prices. In between we have the likes of sigma, samyang tokina and tamron doing their amazing new thing. WOW what a choice, no wonder we need to be lens geeks! Personally I also like small, but when I want pinpoint all over I like BIG.
Thank you for this video. I currently don't have any AF 50mm but have been extremely happy with my loxia 50 and Milvus 50. I was wondering how this new GM stacked up against some of the best manual focus 50s, and I'm glad you compared it against the Otus. It really puts into perspective how the Sony lens performs.
I had the Leica 50mm 1.4 ASPH, Loxia 50 and Milvus 50. Milvus has great bokeh. So does the Leica up to about F2-- as Ted notes, for softness there's none better. In every other aspect the GM 501.2 smokes them all except for portability in the case of the Loxia and Leica and arguably build quality. I've not yet tried the GM 1.4. That said, I'm not sure it matters. The Loxia and the Milvus make great images on Sony. So do the Leica, even on a Sony if you don't care about the corners.
I shoot in studio portraits on a GFX50sii and use the Otus 85mm lens, which far outclasses any lens I've used previously. But the main selling point on that lens has nothing to do with the sharpness, which is insane, but to do with a whole host of other qualities that I cluster under the word "feel" - I haven't shot on a G-Master lens since I tried the 85mm 1.2 from a few years ago on my old Sony a7iii, but I was not impressed by that lens at all. I'm sure there are newer lenses out there that give an insanely good resolution, but for me, Zeiss have my heart - and that's so often how I make my decisions when it comes to kit. I also have a Leica SL (601) with adapted Zeiss Jena lenses on it, which is fun to use and gives me very interesting photos - for me, interesting is better than perfect.
A great video and I love the comparison to two classic lenses I always wanted to own. Don’t know why I ever sold my Zeiss Ikon range finder that took M mount lenses. Currently own the FE 50mm f1.2 GM but have already pr-ordered the 50mm f1.4 GM for its smaller size and lighter weight. Luckily I have two kits based on Sony and will make the new 50mm the center piece of my travel kit. With the delay to actual delivery in early May I have time to rethink that but I doubt I will change my mind. Thank you.
The otus becomes relevant again if you own a Fuji’s Gfx camera. The 55 in particular is completely insane at portraits. I’ve used it on the 50s II with results you simply cannot achieve with any other setup. That’s a mad statement I know, but I’ve tried, many times, with many different lenses and cameras to try and do it for cheaper, but every time, I miss the otus. If you need any further convincing, check out Phil Sharp’s portrait work. He uses the 55 for the vast majority of his work, and I’m sure most would agree, the look he achieves is pretty unique.
The new voigtlander 50mm f1.0 has crazy performance as well wide open, but at least in my experience not as buttery as the Summilux, and not as tiny of course
I´ve tested the Sony 50mm f1.2 vs. the Sony 50mm 1.4 and I chosed the f1.2 even it's bulkier and heavier that the 1.4. And I love it. It gives me the bit more possibilities and the little more quality in the low light situation. And I made a 4h shooting in a studio just with this lens on my A7R5. A wonderful combination! :-) But thanks a lot for your interesting video!
Yes, the 50LX (and I would add, the 50APO) are masterpieces in miniaturised quality, and I use them both. I remember having the 50 Otus, and being amazed by its quality - streets ahead. But on a Nikon DSLR it was really hard to focus, and adapted to mirrorless it was cumbersome. I was really interested to hear how far lens design has come in the decade since the Otus debuted, with these newer Sony GM lenses. The 1.4 looks the sweetspot. But, to your point Ted, about compact = use = win, what has been your experience with the compact f/2.5 Sony lenses that have quality construction and aperture rings? Also the rival Sigma compact prime "Contemporary" series? I ask as a rangefinder user thinking about a Sony for when I want video, or need AF.
Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO for landscape manual focus nerds who wish for technical perfection and clarity. Sony 50mm 1.4 GM for the practical photographer who wants do to a bit of everything and not carry a very heavy lens. Sony 50mm 1.2 GM for someone seeking a specific bokeh look or a transition zone maybe for portrait (and an Otus 55mm will do the same ) and don't really mind the weight compared to 1.4 GM or got 1.2 GM before 1.4 was released. Otus 55mm for the old school nerds who will maybe use an extension tuube and do crazy close up photography with sick clarity or for those intimate portrait sessions where the rounded Otus qualities which I sometimes understand and other times fail to comprehend are desired. Sigma 50mm 1.4 Dg DN if you are not obsessed and just want solid photos as an ameteur. PS: I have both Otus 55mm, Sony 50mm 1.2 GM and also Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO. I'm pondering getting 50mm 1.4 GM and selling one or two of the Sony + Voigtlander lenses but the nerd in me knows that Voigtlander will give bbetter sunstars, better contrast, better resolution with pixel shift and it's the smallest and I might lose the 1.2 magic (which is magic so maybbe not real) if I sell the 1.2. The Otus I'm searching for a buyer. it is beautiful, rounded, versatile, slow to use. An artifact from an older era which becomes cumbersome on a mirrorless but was bliss on DSLR. As for Leica, it's a no for me :) They are the company who can afford to make and sell the best lenses if they want but besides lens character (which is lens flaws actually) and the really small size + rangefinder experience, there is nothing that excites me with Leica. I would be more interested in my medium format options if I had the cash flow. Horses for courses in the end.
I am trying to make my mind up between the 1.2 and the 1.4. Do you see any real world difference in them in photo quality. I would be using for portrait and street.
Fully agree on the issue with the longevity/repairability of lenses (and cameras) that rely on electronics to function at all. They're inevitably going to break at some stage, and while leica lenses are insanely expensive, they hold their value and will last a lifetime when taken care of
I am just wondering about the statement that lenses with a larger aperture are usually better when stopped down. At least I know the opposite from the old lenses from the Olympus brand, you could see that with the 50mm lenses in particular. The f/1.8 was significantly better than the f/1.4, which in turn was much better than the f/1.2. And in my opinion that's logical, because larger lenses always mean more reflection - which doesn't disappear when you stop down.
It would have been interesting to see the most compact G 50mm f/2.5 in the mix. That’s a small and lightweight lens. But can it rival the other lenses in image quality?…
For what it's worth, probably the best 50mm f1.4 lens I ever tried was the Pentax HD FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW. But, it's a large lens. Awesome quality, however.
Do you take into account shooting into the light, lens flare, etc. when comparing or choosing a lens? Or does most of your photography not include that style of photo taking? Thanks for any replies.
the big question for me is how does the new 50/1.4 gm compare to the old 55/1.8 - at first glance they seem quite different, but depending on ones needs those two are actually pretty similar. why? if you use them for portraits, the reason for a fast fifty is to have great bokeh and separation at medium distances. and there, since the old 1.8 has 5mm more reach it also has a bit boosted bokeh and separation, bringing it really close to the 50/1.4. but: it is much smaller, lighter and cheaper then the new gm lens. also it is konwn for it's special and great rendering - so if super high res sharpness in the corners isn't your prime need, and you are ok with removing the eventual CA with one click in lightroom then i guess the 55/1.8 is in real world use basically as good as the 50/1.4, with the benefit of being smaller and lighter. i'd really like to see a thorrough portrait comparision of those two lenses, actually.
The 55 is excellent outside of the awful CA. You don’t get more blur from the additional 5mm focal length, but you do get more background compression. The new 1.4 has better sealing, two custom function buttons, and better AF motors, but if you don’t care about that, the Zony 55 remains a viable option. I’d take the Zony or manual focus Loxia and Voigtlander 50mm f/2 lenses over the new Sigma Art, and the Sony 1.4 and 1.2 lenses over all of them. The question I have as a 1.2 owner is do I sell it and buy the 1.4, then get the Voigt 1.2 Nokton to supplement it!?
You are not wrong about newer mirrorless lenses and compatibility, but I think this is a a concern even with older film lenses now and back then. Extra knowledge and know-how is needed about the algorithms for each camera i.e. there is a Nikon Z adapter for E-mount. Only difference is film cameras require 'less' tooling to make adapters.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I feel like it is very difficult to see the differences between a 50 1.4 and 1.2. The difference is definitely greater when you move up to an 85mm lens though. I could definitely tell a difference between an 85 1.2 and 1.4. I guess longer focal lengths make the differences in shallow DoF more apparent. Anybody else have this experience?
I just tried it - I'd say if you put photos of both lenses side by side you might see a slight difference. I think I couldn't tell the difference in real life situations ...
I have the Sony 50 f1.2 and love it. It is without question my favorite lens ever. That said, I also have the 24 f1.4, 35 f1.5 and the 14 f1.8 and all are extraordinary. I am sure the 50 f1.4 is as extraordinary as the f1.2 version and I probably would have picked it over the f1.2 if I were buy now, but I already have the the big-boy and I am very happy with it.
For future proofing, put the difference between the cost of Leica and a modern lens into a stock market or something. You will have more than enough to switch to a new lens mount in 30 years :) And it will have autofocus and everything latest in design, weatherproofing, etc. I agree on the size, though.
You mention lens aberrations being about 4 times more difficult to correct with each stop of light, and say 2 stops would be 8x the difficulty.. But shouldn't that be 16x the difficulty? If f2 is 4x harder than f2.8, and f2.8 is 4x harder than f4, wouldn't f2 be 16x harder than f4?
I think the flaring on the new Sony 1.4 is really bad it reminds me of the flaring found on the cheaper 1.8 and for that I think I’d try to get the 1.2 on a deal. It has a circular flare that I quite like.
Totally agree with you re the electronics in modern lenses…although, my concern is less about will the mount still be available in years to come, but more that in my experience, electronics will fail sooner than mechanical systems (like aperture control, focus etc). If you expensive Sony 50 1.2 packs up in ten years, will you be able to get the parts to repair it, and even if you can, will it be economical to bother repairing? That Summilux, could still be in use by someone in 100 years!…..I have a Leica Elmar 35/3.5 that I have adapted and use on a Sony (& Fuji GFX), and it was born in 1938.
Happy to see you're back - after all this photobook reviews finally a valuable, informative and genuine production again - thanks a lot, awesome. Personally I'm torn whether I should trade my 1.2 GM for a 1.4 GM in order to shed some carry-on weight. Had my 1.2 a whole week on a vacation without taking it ever out due to its size and weight, doesn't make too much sense, does it....
I can't believe how much time and emphasis is being placed on background bluriness. If you want "elegant" bluriness use a Helios-44 50mm with the 13 blade aperture. I personally like older lenses because they aren't clinical but have some character. This quest to generate a "perfect" lens so one can look at it at 200x and say "wow I can't even see pixels" it is so sharp. Of youturbers gear review is to help manufacturers sell gear. As you point out one should always look as to what one wants in the photo look. Get the lens that offers that not one that offers the best 200x pixel peeping quality. Manufacturers have to make money. They make equipment that has a life span of 3-5 years and then tell you the equipment needs to swap out. That way they have a small group of customers always buying new equipment. I suspect that is the key to their livelihood. Whether that is the best thing for photography-I'm not so sure. I think I have seen 15 youtube reviews on the Sony 50mm 1.4. All the youtubers pushing the manufacturer's story. It is certainly overload and somewhat disconcerting. Photography focused on equipment rather than images. Of course the youtube formula shows that this is what the viewers watch the most. Sad!!!
nice video, i do not own one, but test data and images in reviews show the LEICA SL 50 2.0 as the all around best 50 for image quality... not for weight, size, autofocus speed... but pure image quality for stills. I would rather have the M lens, cause I too like to manual focus and i love the tiny size :)
The reason you love the Summilux is why I love my Sony Zeiss 55 f1.8. its really small and light. feels perfect on the camera. its nice looking and the image quality is really nice. and it has great auto focus, I also own some 50 1.4 lenses that I can adapt on my A7r lll, but because I have the 55 lens I almost never use the older 50's that I have. the Sony 50 f1.4 looks like a really nice lens. but so does the new Sigma 50 f1.4 for $450 dollars less money. but I'm not really looking to buy another 50mm. but if Sony comes out with an 85 f1.2 I might consider it even though I own a Sony 85 f1.8 and an older 85 f1.4 that I can adapt that I really like.
Thanks for the great video. I recently bought a Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN for Sony E instead of the Sony GM since its 350-400dlls less expensive. I am new to photography and I like the quality and bokeh however I wonder if I should've bought the Sony. Are Sigma good quality? What are your thoughts? I appreciate your time in answering my question.
I have been a Leica guy for 34 years and still stand by my v4 cron and M6. That said, I am buying in to the Sony system specifically for this lens. I am not sure of the body yet and don't need video but do need the best evf they offer. I hate evfs and as an M shooter, I am sure you will understand why. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why Leica does not make a better eye relief on their Ms as their buyers age and get glasses. Or at least offer the M in .58 like my M6. With glasses, the only .72 option now does not give me enough room to see outside my 35mm frame lines well. The Q2 has been my fix and can shoot in 35 "crop" to get my need for outside frame lines fix but just kinda done with it. I am sure once in on Sony, Leica will drop the M12 with a 9.x mil evf better than the SL with a digi range patch.....LOL thanks for all of the content over all these years. cheers
I love mirrorless, but I don't mind a huge DSLR lens if it produces a great picture. I love me the Sigma Art DSLR lenses to this day, especially the 135. So I can definitely see the appeal of a Zeiss Otus... except I like autofocus (and that's a large part of why I like mirrorless). I can definitely appreciate the Otus lenses, though. Not a buyer for that price, however. On the subject of futureproofing and portability, I certainly don't mind that the Sigma EF lenses can be used on not only my Canon, but also easily on other systems (although they are, of course, electronic aperture).
Interesting video thanks. Starting to do more portraits. Anyone here got thoughts on the value of moving from the Zeiss 55 to the G-Master 50 1.4? A step up in image quality, or just buying new gear for the sake of it? It’s a focal length I use basically only for portraits. Some occasional ‘street’. Sony A7rv. Never shoot video.
If you mention that Nikon brought out a 50 mm lens with a speed of 1.4 in 1950, you should not conceal that already in the thirties Carl Zeiss Jena came out with a Sonnar lens with a then unbelievable speed of 1,5/50 mm, and the Leitz shortly thereafter with a Schneider Kreuznach-licensed Xenon with the same speed. Both companies were way ahead of Nikon. The first 35 camera, the Nikon I was a copy of the Contax II from Zeiss.. The Nikon lens from 1950 was only slightly faster.
Uhhh dude the electronic regulation of AF and aperture is not going away anytime soon. I highly doubt any manufacturer would change the mount because is makes customers reeeally angry. and they question the system they invested in There needed to be a mount shift to accommodate the switch to mirrorless, but I don't see another change happening unless we abandon the 35mm format altogether.
Man this is big vote of confidence in the Sony 50 f1.4 GM topping the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M Asph !! Thanks for making this video as I was looking for comparison among who's who of the 50mm universe.
Thank you for this video Ted. Since I don’t own a 50mm lens for my Sony system yet (I am actually new to Sony full frame), I think Sony came out with the perfect 50mm for me with this f1.4 version. I was considering the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 until now, but now this have changed for good, this new 50mm f1.4 GM in my opinion is the perfect balance between price, performance, size and weight, at least for me. I do value the smaller size and weight since surely a 50mm is a lens I want to take with me when traveling.
Hi, maybe you should also take a look at the new Sigma set of DG DN lenses. I have the 24, 35 and 65mm all at f2. The full set of these 3 is about the price of this new Sony 50 f1.4. Wonderfully built, all metal, aperture rings, compact and real beautiful image quality. Another interesting point for some people is that you can't loose much money when reselling in the future. I had some Sony GM lenses and lost a lot of money when reselling. It's also noticeable that manual focusing is just easy with these lenses, the focusing is of course through motors but very well simulated. I'm using also Voigtlander manual focusing lenses (50mm Apo and 40mm f1.2) on my Sony A7RV and the feeling is near the same.
@@jean-marcfroehlinger8749 thanks for the recommendation. I actually have the Sigma 45mm f2.8 DG DN and I like it a lot. It is the only lens I currently have for my Sony system. I got it brand new in December with a discounted promotional price and it was a no-brainer. I will still buy the 50mm f1.4 GM tough since it is the lens I will be using professionally for event photography and surely I won’t sell it back, 50mm is a lens that is always very useful to me and I never tend to resell it. The Sigma 45mm is my fun and very compact personal/travel set up that I use for my personal photography. Regarding the Sigma 35mm f2 DG DN I heard and read very good positive reviews about it and maybe it will be my next fun/personal/travel lens. Sony GM lenses are going to be mainly for work.
@@Guairenito Hi, you should really give a try to the 65mm f2, unusual but a good combo with the 35. Also very useful for portraits (shorter or longer focal length than the usual 85 are in the mood of time). I'm now working mainly with a 4:3 ratio on my Sony full frame, as these ratio looks better to my taste. I have one button (C1) defined for setting the sensor to a 1.5 crop factor, so, I'm able in a glance to move the focal length from 65 to 100. A nice evening.
@@jean-marcfroehlinger8749 I want to try the 65mm for sure, maybe I will end up adding the 35mm and 65mm to my set, maybe the 24mm as well since I like to shoot wide sometimes, specially for cityscapes (I actually prefer 28mm but 24 is close enough for me and I can crop it later in post if I need to). When I bough my A7R3 in December last year, I wanted to get the Sigma 35mm f2, but I found the Sigma 45mm f2.8 brand new at an official retailer for $230 (it was at a promotional discounted price), so there was not much to think about and was an easy decision for me, and honestly I am glad I got it, I like the lens quite a lot. Yea, I also believe the 65mm f2 will be a nice pair to my A7R3 since in 1.5 crop mode I still get a very respectable 18MP file and a equivalent 100mm focal length.
@@Guairenito If you have the opportunity in the future to migrate your Alpha 7R3 to a newest version 7R4 (or better 7R5) it will be "night and day". I had all three and last one is really near perfect Alpha7 serie model.
I've adapted my Contax/ Zeiss lenses to my Sony bodies. Would I notice an improvement in image quality using the Gmaster 50mm f1.4 over my zeiss 50mm 1.4 planar. The latter is a 38 years old
Hi, good video comparison. I have a question of using the Summilux lens on a Sony body. What adapter did you use? My Leica lenses are 6 bit coded so I would like to retain lens info in metadata. Thx
Regarding the size of the bokeh ball (spherical highlights), would a 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 have larger bokeh balls than, for example, an 85mm f/1.8 at f/1.8? Or does the fact that it's an 85mm give in inherently bigger balls (badum tsssh!)?
So comparing the 50mm f1.2/1.4 and having such incredible performance in the 1.4, it really makes me wonder about other focal lengths. With rumours of an 85mm f1.2 to be released this year, will sony also refresh the 85mm f1.4? Does it need an update? I don’t hear the same volume of positive comments on the 85mm as I do on the 24 or 50mm.
Leica M lenses a,ways perform bad on Sony E mount, this is due to the sensor glass thickness. Leica M lenses are optimised for Leica cameras, that uses a sensor with a very thin sensor protective glass. There are multiple tests that shows how much difference there is between X random Leica M lenses on Sony E camera vs on a Leica M (or SL) camera, and the Leica M lenses perform much worst on Sony E
If you're comparing to the best 50mm lenses ever made, I think you'd need also to include the following: 1) Leica 50mm Summicron-M 2) Leica 50mm APO Summicron-M (price aside) 3) Leica 50mm APO Summicron-SL All of the above have tremendous character that go beyond numbers. Not everyone needs f1.4 or f1.2. f2 is fast enough for me.
Those are all f/2 lenses. The comparison was f/1.4 and more difficult to correct for - that’s why they’re not included. Great lenses but outside the scope.
