ePhotozine (Click here) tested the new Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 SSM lens. They write:
“There is no doubting that this lens performs well enough to justify the Carl Zeiss blue badge on the lens barrel, but whether it performs well enough to justify such a price will be debatable for many users.”
That this lens isn’t supersharp at f/1.4 aperture may not be an issue at all. I prefer a good creamy look and decent bokeh over top-notch sharpness. Zeiss preorders are available at Amazon, Adorama and SonyStore USA. In Europe at Wex UK, Amazon DE and Technikdirekt DE. In Asia it is in Stock at Digitalrev and on [shoplink 19177 ebay]eBay[/shoplink].
The Sony RX100MII is still selling well and the first 20 user reviews have been posted on Amazon (Click here). And it’s not a surprise to see such a good feedback!
US deals reminder:
new Sony SAL-70400G2 is in Stock via third party reseller at Amazon US (Click here).
Up to $200 savings on SLT cameras at Amazon (Click here).
The RX1R ships on August 8 according to SonyStyle US (Click here) and is in Stock at Adorama (Click here)
Earn 2,800 Sony Rewards points at SonyStyle US (Click here).
Save up to $900 on Select Sony NEX-VG900 Full Frame Interchangeable Lens Camcorder Bundles at Amazon US (Click here).
Save up to $70 on Select Sony Cyber-shot Digital Cameras at Amazon US (Click here).
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 A-mount lens will ship any day now at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here).
48 Responses
I keep saying this but I would love someone to test this against the sigma 50mm hsm 1.4 since its the only 50mm for sony that is better than all minolta and sony 50mm.
So I looked up the sigma 50mm hsm 1.4 on ePhotozine and the lenses look pretty evenly matched. The funny part is he had a bad copy of the sigma because it was not sharp until f2 but the sigma is well known for being sharp at 1.4 and my copy is sharper at 1.4 than any sony or minolta I used. I think its safe to say the sigma is a much better deal and has a better warranty than the sony.Its also on sale for 399.99 one ebay for about 300.00 used.
That’s interesting. I’ve had my copy for over a week now, and I’ve been comparing with the standard Sony 50mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM. The difference in sharpness and contrast wide open is quite clear, with the Zeiss emerging the easy winner. Is it worth the price? Well it’s probably not enough of a difference to justify the price on that alone, but this is the internal focusing, weather-sealed version of a 50mm that Sony enthusiasts have been waiting for.
@Torode
I have had the new Zeiss for a few weeks, and my findings are similar. I have owned both the Sony 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 (and still currently own the original Minolta 50/1.4), and the Zeiss is clearly superior to my eyes. In terms of pure image sharpness, the Zeiss and Sigma are pretty close, but the Zeiss just renders with better clarity.
If people want to only compare these lenses on paper, or by lab tests, the Zeiss will never justify the asking price.
The strength of the Zeiss really comes down to its rendering qualities and its strengths in operation. What is immediately apparent when using this lens, is just how sophisticated it renders a scene (it’s really quite brilliant). Furthermore, the Zeiss is very slick in operation. This is by far the most confident and reliable AF lens I have ever used. The SSM motor is very quick, and incredibly decisive.
Price will always be a determining factor, but for me, this is money well spent.
So ePhotozine had a bad copy of the Sigma and now they have a bad copy of the Zeiss. That cannot be coincidence. What is wrong with their testing procedure?
from what I understand sigma has some QC issues but if you get a good copy or send it back to get a new copy the sigma should at least be sharper than the zeiss. I suspect the zeiss would have better color etc. I have had 2 zeiss lenses and there is something different about the way they render things but not 1,100 dollars more than the sigma. From the samples I have seen so far I would rather deal with sending the sigma back until I got a good copy. If I was rich though I would have all the zeiss.
Would you mind posting some sample comparisons? I think many people would appreciate.
The MTF chart is not so good, on par with the Sigma 50 f/1.4
Maybe I have a poor copy of the Sigma or a great copy of the Zeiss, but I’m ready to get rid of the Sigma right away. I’m far happier with the AF speed and overall quality of the Zeiss.
A fast lens doesn’t necessarily have to be weak fully open so that it can provide good bokeh, although it is surely harder to design one that excels in both areas. At a price point of £1,290, I’d expect more than just one of both. Especially if it’s “only” an f/1.4 standard lens. Even if the Zeiss may still be slightly better stopped down, there already are quite some ordinary f/1.4 standard lenses with nice bokeh on one hand, but mediocre performance fully open on the other. Like the testers at ePhotozine, I’m not convinced at all that this lens is worth the money.
I have to disagree with the sharpness. It’s among the sharpest lenses all the way to the edge that I’ve ever used. Short of a Summilux, I can’t imagine a fast 50 being any sharper towards the edges. By f2 it’s as perfect as I would ever see. There is a bit of spherochromatism, but I’ve had to issues removing it in ACR.
As vodanh1982 said, MTF chart is on par with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Actually the only aperture Zeiss glass is better (by a very small margin) is f/1.4 and then Sigma takes the lead from f/2 and reaching tack sharpness at f/4.0 where Zeiss’ best sharpness is f/5.6 and still lower than Sigma’s f/4.
There’s very high CA for the Zeiss lens from f/1.4 till f/4. I couldn’t find a sweet spot to justify the incredible high price on this lens. Sorry Zeiss… I will continue with my Sigma 50 f/1.4.
To be honest im not a fan of 50mm lenses at all. If i shot at 50mm the f/2.8 of my Sigma EX 24-70 f/2.8 is good enough for me. Its sharp and fast enough. Im not that portrait guy and even when i would not use the boring look of a 50mm.
I rather care about 14mm, 35mm and 85mm and thanks god there is samayang in this section.
The Distortion is a bit higher than on the Zeiss side but the sharpness is insane and the price in unbeaten.
The only downside is that they dont have any IS, no Autofokus and manual Aperture.
But hey, i use a Sony SLT 😀 i dont care about Autofocus or Lense-IS or Automatic Aperture, i have an EVF with Focus Peeking and In-Body IS
So as an owner of an Sony SLT i dont care about the Technical downsides of the Samayang Pro Lenses and enjoy the very good image quality (according to DxO the 85mm f/1.4 is one of the best lenses in the world).
But i think if i ever buy a 50mm lense i would go for the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX
Who cares if the Zeiss is slightly better?
Really the Sigma is about 399$ and the Sony Zeiss is about 1500$ and the Zeiss is only slightly better
That worths a huge “lol”. For the 3,7x of price i want 3,7x of Quality, not just “slightly” better.
Really man its a 50mm lense! 50mm! If you shoot a face you dont want to watch just the eye, you want to watch the whole face!
As long you dont print your images in DIN A0 and watch them from 1m you wont even see any difference to the Zeiss.
The price is not justified, thats the point. Its not a macro or something, its a pure Art Lense. You dont do 100% crops on “Art” Images, thats completely non-sense. And as long you dont take them, you wont see the difference.
Here Zeiss, in your face!
“For the 3,7x of price i want 3,7x of Quality”
Well, that is not how things work in this world.
Sadly.
There are always 3 types of lenses
1. Cheap lenses with bad quility
2. Lenses with very good quality (enough for everones need) for a good price
3. Marginal better lenses for the 3-6time price
There is a point where you have to remind yourself of rationality and see that there is a difference between “Dream Lense” and “Sanity Lense”
You know that the Sigma EX is good enough for everything and you know the marginal missing quality will never be a problem, but you want the Zeiss anyway 😀
There is a point where you just have to stop, take a deep breath and think about “what the hell do i want. Do i want to take photos or do i want to brag about my 100% crops i done with my Zeiss”
I want to take Photos thats why i bought the Sigma EX 24-70 f/2.8 instead of the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 and till today, even at 100% crops, i never had any problem with it. At Aperture 11 my Sigma is even better than the Zeiss in case of having less Chromatic Aberrations and i use Aperture 11 a _lot_.
With the Sigma EX 24-70 f/2.8 i can do _everything_ what you can do with a 24-70 f/2.8 lense and it have an very very good optical quality.
I now reached a point that even when im rich, i would not buy the Zeiss 24-70. I didnt bought the Sigma in lack of money, i bought it because i dont lack sanity 😀
If someone here bought the Zeiss it doesnt mean he’s insane 😀
“I want to take Photos thats why i bought the Sigma EX 24-70 f/2.8 instead of the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8”
– You serious about that sentence, or is it just a pathetic way to justify your lack of money? You could easily come up with something more reasonable that this garbage. For example: You are amateur so there’s no need for best quality, especially when lens won’t earn for itself. Hence you got sub-pair lens. Nothing wrong with that. But saying that you got it because “you want to take photos” is just idiotic.
While we are at generalizing: Only an idiot thinks that Zeiss lenses are always the best, in every category.
That being said the Sigma definitely is at the end of the food chain.
I don’t see anywhere that Skywalker “thinks that Zeiss lenses are always the best”.
no need to be rude
Damn, thats a bit harsh. I have seen plenty pro quality pic with that lens. People feel how they feel how do you know he is not serious. If you get a good copy its very close to the zeiss from what I saw. I only got the zeiss because I got a nice deal but I was considering the sigma.
I think you might misunderstood me.
Its price/value for me. For example i would pay the 2000 € for the Canon L II 24-70 f/2.8 as this is one of the very rare lenses i would call nearly perfect.
The Zeiss is also 2000 € but much worse than the Canon L II 24-70 (it have much higher distortion, and insanely CAs compared to the Canon).
If i pay 2000 € i want the best. With the Zeiss i dont get the best so i dont pay 2000 € for it. Easy as that.
To the “i want to take photos”. I shot about 7000 images with the Sigma EX so far and _none_ of these images have a lack in quality in case of the lense.
I dont print larger than DIN A4 and normally i dont take crops (not with the type of photos i take with the 24-70) but even when i have a closer look there is not any second where i would say “Dammit, photo would be perfect with a better lense”.
For 700 € the Sigma EX is perfect. It have very good quality for that price and even when its not weather sealed i shot in quite a lot of rainy situations without any problems.
I may sell the Sigma EX for the Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 or (if that would be technically possible) i would buy the Canon L II 24-70 f/2.8 but i would not buy the Zeiss.
Thats my point and until now i never had any problems with the Sigma.
If your point is different, go and buy the Zeiss and be fine, nothing wrong with that. Its not my money 😉
Sorry for double post, but for completition.
Im really excited about the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.0 and i would love to see it beat the shit out of the Zeiss for the half price.
The Sigma A 35mm f/1.4 already beat the shit out of the 35mm Zeiss for the half price and i hope the 24-70 f/2.0 will follow this path.
“The Zeiss is also 2000 € but much worse than the Canon L II 24-70” – I think you don’t know how to compare lenses.
“For example i would pay the 2000 € for the Canon L II 24-70 f/2.8 as this is one of the very rare lenses i would call nearly perfect.” – Oh, ok, so only very rare lenses can go above 2000 euro, any everything else cannot?
“I shot about 7000 images with the Sigma EX so far and _none_ of these images have a lack in quality in case of the lense.” – We’re all happy for you enjoying your gear.
“For 700 € the Sigma EX is perfect.” – well, not perfect but definitely a very good deal, noone argues with that.
“I think you might misunderstood me.” – I think you shouldn’t jump into loud statements like “I want to take Photos thats why i bought lens X instead of Y”, cause you just make a fool of yourself. A poor fool.
> I think you don’t know how to compare lenses.
Why?
> Oh, ok, so only very rare lenses can go above 2000 euro, any everything else cannot?
That was not the point of what i was saying at all.
> We’re all happy for you enjoying your gear.
I do.
> well, not perfect but definitely a very good deal, noone argues with that.
Perfect in terms of optical Quality not, thats true. But perfect in Terms of Price/Value.
> I think you shouldn’t jump into loud statements like “I want to take Photos thats why i bought lens X instead of Y”, cause you just make a fool of yourself. A poor fool.
Maybe you shouldnt tend to apply your way of seeing things to other people.
you didn´t got the point. “Because i only want to take photos and not a lense which is mostly usefull to brag about, im fine with the Sigma”. My state was never meant to say that i didn´t bought the Zeiss _because_ i want to take photos.
Maybe i wrote it in a way which is easy to misunderstand, im sorry for that.
There is a point where one must stop, but it differs from person to person. There is definitely some “character” to Zeiss lenses, although, in this particular case, I do not see why adding AF would make it twice as expensive (compared to Canikon versions).
This lens is completely different to ZF/ZE version. Different optical formula, MUCH better performance all around the board.
well I guess you have a point because I had the 24-70 zeiss and I agree with you. I sold it and to be honest it was better than my sigma and sony 16-50 but it was not to the degree I expected for the price. The 135mm is a different story. That is my all time favorite lens.
The sigma and the samyang 50mm & 85mm are my favorite lenses on my A77 & A57 + nex-6. I am actually selling my sigma now and getting the e-mount 50mm 1.8 which I like better than my minolta and the sony 1.4 version. I am however having second thoughts about selling the sigma. Maybe I will get a sony 35mm 1.8 keep the sigma then get a minolta or canon fd for my nex instead. I rarely get a chance to use 50mm at parties which is what I mainly shoot and the focus peaking works very well anyway.
I wish Sigma would release an updated version of the 50mm 1.2/1.4 (Art series?). True, there’s nothing really “wrong” with the current 50mm 1.4, but the build quality and number of “bad” copies scares me a little. The Zeiss 50 is the one I’d buy if money was no issue, but sadly it is.
Actually it does have a serious flaw, the optical design is prone to focus shifts, most prominent at the largest apertures. Quite for large aperture 50’s but the Sony CZ was designed to overcome this issue. That plus the new SSM makes it the most accurate focusing 50 at these apertures.
Quite common*
I anticipate a 50mm F1.2 ART ……..Sigma are pulling away from making the same old shit thats been done 5 times already
Bottom line is the lens should be optically near perfect at this super high price point, it’s not so I’d question the value of such a lens. At f1.4 there are better bang per buck lenses out there that are not stupidly priced. If this were an f1.2 it might be let off, it’s not so Sony messed up big time (again)
I’d expect sigma to update their 50mm shortly and it will probably stomp all over this overpriced badge/trophy lens.
So basically, it’s just like the CZ 85/1.4… that’s fine with me. I know it’s pricey but I it’s to be expected from Zeiss. All of their lenses are premium priced.
Their manual Canikon 50mm are half the price. They could’ve kept it lower.
Well, Photozone tests are known from their inconsistency – not only with other tests available, but even in their own materials.
So personally – I wouldn’t bother with this test at all. Wait for some serious reviews before passing any judgment.
That’s ePhotozine.
yea, sorry for typo.
Well, sky_walker is well known as an alpha camera zealot, who can’t take facts straight
well, just look around before you try to defend them. Half of their testing procedure doesn’t even have a detailed description on how it’s being done. Not to mention any other issues with them (eg. enormous variation of their results comparing to any other, more reliable tests).
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_carl_zeiss_planar_t_50mm_f_1_4_za_ssm_review/conclusion/
Soft wide open!? Everyone else seems to disagree….
I haven’t been really excited by any of the images I’ve seen. They’re nice, but it would have to be something really special to drop that coin on that lens. I don’t use my 50 1.4 all that often though. Only when I’m really struggling to get light, or going for a particular portrait look.
I think it’s a pretty good review. At least it told me what I wanted to know, or suspected before reading it.
I got mine last week and have been shooting with everyday. It’s an awesome lens, the best one I’ve ever used. I’ve shot some of my best photos with it so far and I shoot a lot! The true test of a lens is to go out and shoot with it. Everything else is just noise.
I think that to put some sanity into this discussion, it is worth referring to Roger Cicala’s postings on variations in lenses introduced in the manufacturing process.
He makes two important points:
– 20% manufacturing variation in sharpness as measured in LPH is normal for all manufacturers
– even on the extremes of this range it is difficult to see the difference by just looking at a photo of a test chart.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation
He is in a much better position to say something valuable on this subject, as they test thousands of lenses as part of their standard business process.
So be happy, go forth and make photos (:-) with what you’ve got.
A Ferrari may cost 30 times as much as a Golf. Some people can afford and justify to themselves having a Ferrari. They do not expect to get from A to B 30 times faster in Ferrari than in Golf.
So, by this reasoning the Zeiss 50/1.4 is like that – nice luxury item, pleasure to hold and work with. Does it make an earh shattering difference to your photos. Hell, no.
I think that it is worth to bring the similarities of the design style and outcome of Sony Zeiss 50/1.4 SSM and Sony Zeiss 24/2.0 SSM and compare them to lder and modern designs.
Both of the Sony Zeiss lenses are not sharp in the corners when fully open, but are razor sharp at F5.6. Both have nice contrast. This is achieved from 8 and 9 lenses with a few special glass elements.
By comparison the old Minolta/Sony 50/F1.4 design in 1980s with only 6 elements and no special glass has much lower contrast and sharpness when fully open, but it is still razor sharp by F8.
This may be contrasted with more modern design of Sigma 35/F1.4 that uses 13 optical elements with 7 special components (aspherical, low dispersion, fluoride). This allows the Sigma to be impresively sharp even in the corners at F1.4.
Even more impressive is the fact that although the Sigma must be obviously more expensive to make due to the complexity of its 13 element design, but it still sells for only about 60% of the Zeiss price.
Obviously Sony/Zeiss are gauging the market based just on brand not the technical merits.
I would love to see a new Sigma 50/F1.4 HSM Art series lens designed along the lines of their 35mm lens and selling for about $800.
Bang per buck the new Zeiss is a clunker, and copes vary of the 1.4/1.7 primes in 50mm. I’ve a superb f1.7 copy which is really very decent even wide open.
The CZ has big time distortion, CA issues and is too slow for the price
the actual vampire journals movie it can be a particular dollars
For the 2000 brand 12 months, all the Sienna have the midcycle revitalize. This particular upgrade provided an important fresh look to be able to together back and front fascias which usually incorporated a new remodeled entry grill and also fender along with changed returning taillights showing off a far more modern looks (clearlens turnsignals vs . ambercoloured). Lexus even reworked pulse, more control unit method to raise the quantity of functionality combined with great for that Heating and cooling settings as well as unique sites to the gadget switches (butt in-take, electric power slipping panels, heated seat tickets).
This provider, which includes a total of Seven thousand workers’, includes robust workcrews marriage that’s these days affiliated with several thrashing pursuits during a variety of newly released visits. The particular pop up which will began a while back and it is yet sustained, has generated three harmed such as fundamental. Control witnessed a lot more violent mindset not to mention heightened the bullying with each and every fresh emerge.
A person possibly got this idea, ‘Let’s perform a show,Haya and yes it was the 1st tone ‘Alice during Wonderland’ moncler london video.”Behind anyone seemed to be Friend Pollard, a fabulous movie director exactly who just didn’t consentrate on household activities; their other sorts of dvds include things like “Girls on the market!In and even “Victims of Persecution.”A 19yearold Completely new Yorker named Ruth Gilbert arizona truly been the brand personality. Your sweetheart started to build highlighted with Eugene O’Neill productions in Broadway, “Ah, Wilderness!” plus “The Iceman Cometh.Half inch Later, this girl has been Milton Berle’s ditzy secretary regarding “Texaco Music artist Live entertainment.”Gilbert passed on with Michael went bonkers, but the girl’s little girl and even grandbabies gone to a particular featuring on the show published with all the Lewis Carroll Contemporary culture in Ft Lee continue Oct ..”It was basically displayed designed for fantastic consideration,Centimeter states Schaefer, the actual Maryland hobbyist. “I do not think this is the exceptional movie.