resolution isnt an issue much with video. the people get "dazed" because its all moving. add some music, it wont matter much. for stills it matters people only judge by that one frame, and even then you can add some sharpening. most people are used to shitty smartphones. majority are always shocked how much quality there is from current ff lenses vs their phones. but I have to wonder about you pav to seem to push expensive lenses on people. you probably are doing it to get in good with sony. freebies, products for reviews, press events...this is a silent hand shake hand deal between reviewers and mfr. even if they didnt give or loan you the lens, you want them to see you in a positive light. that youre there for their benefit pushing expensive products of theirs. whos an idiot wholl spend $900 for a 1.8 lens vs just getting the sigma 50 art 1.4. cmon now. ill see how biased you are pav. many fake asses on yt pushing products to get in good with mfr. this seems suspicious. look at both lenses on dxomark. 55 has more chromatic abberations and less vignetting same T stop. but it has terrible flare characteristics. im curious if you mentioned that? you did like to exagerate regarding the AF. I sniff a shill, but havent confirmed. once I do, your channel gets blocked.
NO ! I do not like the focal length 50mm, ANY Lens shorter or longer than 50mm ! That said, I have the Sony Zeiss Sonnar which are superior when you use it on a 36+ megapixels Camera, I can highly recommend the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 55mm 1.8 !
There are a lot more things that come into consideration than just a picture. - Build quality is way better on the 55 - Autofocus is also way quicker in both Video and Photo - the 55mm is also way sharper. It may be harder to see it at Iso 1000+ but it's one of the sharpest lens I've used in my life. - 55mm is like 1/3 stop brighter than the 50mm So both result obviously looks similar since it's almost the same focal and the same aperture, therefor you're not going to have a big difference. So yes for sure if you're on a buget and you try to start with photography, take the 50mm. But I wouldn't recommand it for anyone trying to do some professional job. Zeiss 55mm is probably the best lens I've used so far, small, sharp and quick. Every sony shotter should have one
You can also tell in the highlight roll off in the comparison pictures. I was able to correctly guess each one that was the 50mm. Not to mention the autofocus on the 50mm is louder then the Zeiss.
I am not a fan of pixel peeping but instantly picked left as 55 Zeiss. Both on regular and zoomed images The slightly bigger zoom was telltale but I discounted that as you might have moved a bit closer for the shot to throw people off. Especially since the right pic was brighter and the Zeiss is 1/3 stop brighter with exact same settings, even at both being f/1.8 aperture. However, shot A has: - much more color detail and distinction in the face, much less flat - no bokeh 'echo', see the lamp post - dimensionality in the colors on the jeans, guess that's all the 'zeiss pop' - better transition to out of focus, making things more 3D - more microcontrast on the face closeup - much more lively color separation and color control in general I honestly promised myself to sell the Zeiss and keep the 50 if the left were the 50. So yeah, guess I'm glad it's possible to see a lot of differences. In the shots following the first though, it was much harder to tell. But if there's much subtle contrast in the scene (e.g. NOT the food pic) it's quite possible to tell. In the red/blue portrait, the difference is very big, especially on the detail of the blue parts of the face.
yes but 99% of people would notice any of that and would never actually compare images from both at the same time. As a tool to capture a photo with (and if we don't talk about the focusing speed difference) they both are very close to each other quality wise - certainly not 5 times difference in quality
@@PavSZ Well, the argument about nobody comparing two images side by side would go for any two lenses, unless one lens would be so bad that it would show obvious defects/shortcomings in its images (or lens construction), without comparison. No audience gets to compare images unless watching reviews :) Also, a lens 5x the cost could not be expected to be 5x as good; if it's just obviously better, it would justify the price for people who'd want the best result. Completely agree on them being close though; I own them both and the 50 produces stellar images for that bargain price! As you well demonstrated in the video. However, contrary to my humble 'audience', I'm actually operating the lens and in terms of handling, sturdiness, focus speed, lack of noise, focus ring feel and response (never understood why multiple fly-by-wire lenses of the same brand would have different response acceleration; it's a software response) - the 55 really is more of a joy to use. And that, like with an instrument, translates to the art itself. Still .. what the 50 puts on the sensor is amazing for $250 PS The contrast when shooting into a strong light source is a very visible win for the 55 in my experience
I've owned the FE 50 for almost a year, mainly use it as a lowlight/street lens, and it's done that job amazingly well for the price! However, at times there were issues with colour, and extensive PP correcting required. When I took the 55mm out for an hour, I was blown away by the rendition of colour. I noticed an instant palpable difference. That was during the day outdoors, so testing it at night would have been a better comparison, but tbh, I think I'm going to be buying the zeiss. But the little 50 has certainly served me well.
Thanks for the review. I agree with you on the image comparison, very close and hardly worth the jump up in price. BUT I think the Zeiss is worth the extra for the sheer quality of the build and it's durability - has that feel of lasting for years. I am sure the Sony is also well built BUT the construction is lower quality and it feels flimsy in comparison to the Zeiss. Great review as usual, appreciated.
Lovely review! 50mm 1.8 does it for me... Gonna save the extra money and go for the 50 mm f2.8 macro!!! Also your Schwarznegger accent really made the video fun!! Kudos
Very good comparison. They are very close but the skin tones have a jaundice vibe with the 50mm and the 55 Zeiss does not. And the Zeiss is resolving slightly more than the 50mm even on RUclips but it's almost splitting hairs when it comes to sharpness. Also, I noticed the difference in contrast that you were referring to. Especially @1:44 you can see that the 50mm is losing detail in the highlights of her face and there is almost a glow around her face in that photo and the Zeiss in comparison retained better contrast and color in that scenario. And that is strange given that the Zeiss lets in more light @1.8 than the 50mm so you would think the Zeiss would be losing detail in the highlights before the 50mm.
in real world they are close and although you can see the differences when comparing the images next to each other, it would be very hard to tell which one is which when seeing them individually. Zeiss is much, much better lens overall but also much more expensive
That's why I like your videos You're honest about everything I've been using the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the pictures are fantastic even with my Sony A7R3 and my Sony A7R4 I also use a G Master 35 1.4 I can't tell the difference between those two. I think a lot of these guys on RUclips just like promoting Sony just for the hell of it sometimes so they can get some more gear. But with you I know you're honest you can tell I love your reviews I get the same results as you do. Thanks again for all your work you do so that I can make decisions I really appreciate it.
I shot mostly on my Nikon D610 with 50 and 85mm Nikkor 1.8G lenses and then I got Sony A7 iii and 50mm 1.8 and to be very honest, I don't think it's a bad lens. Focus locking can be a bit slower but for that price, I wouldn't complain.
I have always said the 50mm 1.8 is a underated lens the more money you pay for something the more convinced you are that it's better but in saying that yes I do have both lenses lol
When you showed the first images A and B, I found the image A much sharper and I was very surprised that you said they were the same, that you didn't see the difference! But I must say that the 50mm is quite nice.
it's not a perfect lens, far from it but it can do a good job if used correctly. Check out my newer review of it: ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html Good luck with it!
As someone who has about 50 50mm lenses, mostly vintage. When I tested out the Sony Zeiss 55mm I was impressed but not wowed. In Canada, even used the average price is $600 for a nice copy which is like $450 USD. I could not justify spending that one a lens that although far superior is similar to the FE 50 f1.8 which I sold after finding its rendering kinda boring. I either want absolute perfection in a 50mm lens or I want super character and flaws and the Zeiss 55mm was in the middle, not the best not the worst and kinda expensive.
I agree. I never really was wowed by the 55 and the 50 is just boring. I ended up with Sony 50mm f1.2 GM. Expensive but it is just the best 50mm ever made in my opinion
I have the 50mm and the autofocus system is annoying in AF-S. In AF-C, the autofocus is fine when I take portraits and the image quality is great. I think I’ll still get a 55mm or 50mm f1.4 later on for the quiet autofocus
Thanks for this, even years later. A bit ironic that you mentioned no difference in af and used a shot from the 50 which wasn’t in focus :) great video though
@@PavSZ 2:07 left side photo looks like a focus miss - if it’s not, perhaps it displays a weakness in the lens. But it’s significantly less sharp in that case. I didn’t mean any offence and I really appreciated the video, just to say.
The FoV gives away the Zeiss vs the Sony in the sample photos... 😎 The Sony does indeed have a noisy AF motor that gets picked up on video (FYI.. the older OSS version is better in this regard). On APS-C the different FoV is even more noticeable.
It is funny what differences different people see. The point is that they are fairly easy to see when you see the photos compared side by side. It would be much harder if you seen the photos taken with both of these lenses independently. OSS version is an APS-C lens
Just for a bit of an alternate view, after watching this (and many other videos) I bought the 50 1.8. My take is that It’s a disaster of a lens. It focuses slower than the original Rx-1 (which was brutalised for at speed) on the a7iv. I won’t even bother looking at the 20 shots I took because it could be as sharp as anything but for what I shoot (street) this lens would be useless without zone focusing, and isn’t good for that either. I struggled to focus on a phone booth in less than a second or so tbh. It did better at longer distances. For me, not usable.
In the first portrait especially I see the focal difference, the 55 is more compressed. I think 55/60mm is ideal for portraits in tight spaces,. 85mm is often too long for me. I had both these lenses. I sold my A7 camera and these. The autofocus on the A7 was terrible for the 50, although I heard it works better on recent cameras. The 55 should cost twice, not 4 times as much. It would be interesting to compare the 55 with the new Nikon S 50mm 1.8 for Z mount .
yep, I totally agree. I find 85s too long 9 out of 10 times. 50mm is just OK on a7III - not good for most of applications, unless you have time ;) 55mm really should cost twice more, not 4 times more, for sure. I tend not to compare lenses side by side on two different systems - too many operational differences.
Sony is much cheaper!! I also own the Sigma 50mm f1.4 lens - it is better overall but it is also heavier. Sony is ok if you are just starting and want high quality without spending a lot of money first.
I'm sorry but I've owned both lenses and even in your example photos, i guessed right. the 55 is far and away sharper than the 50, in the center and especially in the corners (the 55 doesn't do tremendously well in the corners, but it handles them far better than the 50)
Yes, it's true. It's a far superior lens and it is fairly easy to tell which photo was from which when you see them side by side. I guess it would be much harder if you've seen a good photo from 50 and someone told you it was taken with 55, you'd probably believe it ... it's a shit lens but it can deliver ok results for a very good price
I have a 50 mm FE 1.8, and I wanted to replace it today with a zeiss, but I think I'm giving up for this moment, I will buy 85 1.8 sony thanks bro for the review
Thanks for the review! they were really close! I have the sony fe 50 1.8 and i'm really pleased with it! have you updated the sony fe 50 to the latest firmware?! I have updated it to firmware 0.03 and the video autofocus works amazingly well!! I made a video on the autofocus performance of it in my channel ! if you have some free time, I'd recommend you to watch it! have a great day!
Muy buena revisión y me ha ayudado a decidir. Tengo ambos lentes pero en mi caso decidí quedarme con el 50mm porque enfoco de forma manual y es mas liviano para viajar
@@AngelikuS_ my video was in English, I speak English. If someone has a need to comment and doesn't speak English, they should use Google translate before posting the comment in my opinion. It makes no sense to comment in a different language than the video they are commenting is on and expect a reply
The 55mm is practically the 50mm but with a far more reliable and quicker autofocusing system making it worth the extra price for professionals or for children. General situations the lenses are the same but in harsh conditions such as backlighting the zeiss wins
The focusing noise is almost inaudible and the focusing speed is really only an issue in low light and fast pans. In normal to bright light and slow pans the focusing speed is quite ok. If you are going to do professional videos then sure buy pro lens :)
55mm is better lens overall but it is also 3 times more expensive. Here is my new video about the 50mm in which I discuss and demonstrate its video performance: ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html
no lens can do that - if you want the subject and the background to be sharp, you'll need to close the aperture. This means that low light situation will need additional light on the subject and the background to make it work - which will not be low light scenario anymore.
@@PavSZ sorry I meant for a video like yours where the subject is lit, the background is dark but everything stays in focus. Would the Sony 16-35mm f4 work for that kind of setting?
The shape of the highlights wide open have of course nothing to do with the number of blades ! Only when you step down the blades influence the shape of the highlights.
4 года назад+5
wdym you can't tell the difference? you can always tell which one is the 55mm. is it worth the price? depends. but you can always tell wich is wich lol
1:22 I could tell the difference. One because of the focal length. You see it by the shape / roundness of her face. And two, you see the single hairs on the right have chromatic aberration. But besides that, very very very close.
yes, you can because you are seeing them side by side and you are comparing them side by side. Very hard to tell the difference (most of the time) when looking at the images shot with these lenses separately. 50mm is a worse lens, no doubt about it but it stands up well next to much more expensive competition like this 55mm Zeiss lens
because if I want to have 55mm i dont want to have 50mm bro.. And as you say bad AF. Do you want to make street photography and then throw 50% of photos due to out of focus?
do you think you could make 50mm f1.8 FE work for you professionally? (if you had to)
Yes for photography. Not for video. I like the 50 but in addition to the slow autofocus it's quite loud.
@@donprice8925 it is, I mention that in my video. When focusing manually it performs just the same as ZEISS
Can and have
resolution isnt an issue much with video. the people get "dazed" because its all moving. add some music, it wont matter much. for stills it matters people only judge by that one frame, and even then you can add some sharpening. most people are used to shitty smartphones. majority are always shocked how much quality there is from current ff lenses vs their phones.
but I have to wonder about you pav to seem to push expensive lenses on people. you probably are doing it to get in good with sony. freebies, products for reviews, press events...this is a silent hand shake hand deal between reviewers and mfr. even if they didnt give or loan you the lens, you want them to see you in a positive light. that youre there for their benefit pushing expensive products of theirs. whos an idiot wholl spend $900 for a 1.8 lens vs just getting the sigma 50 art 1.4. cmon now.
ill see how biased you are pav. many fake asses on yt pushing products to get in good with mfr. this seems suspicious. look at both lenses on dxomark. 55 has more chromatic abberations and less vignetting same T stop. but it has terrible flare characteristics. im curious if you mentioned that? you did like to exagerate regarding the AF. I sniff a shill, but havent confirmed. once I do, your channel gets blocked.
NO ! I do not like the focal length 50mm, ANY Lens shorter or longer than 50mm ! That said, I have the Sony Zeiss Sonnar which are superior when you use it on a 36+ megapixels Camera, I can highly recommend the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 55mm 1.8 !
There are a lot more things that come into consideration than just a picture.
- Build quality is way better on the 55
- Autofocus is also way quicker in both Video and Photo
- the 55mm is also way sharper. It may be harder to see it at Iso 1000+ but it's one of the sharpest lens I've used in my life.
- 55mm is like 1/3 stop brighter than the 50mm
So both result obviously looks similar since it's almost the same focal and the same aperture, therefor you're not going to have a big difference.
So yes for sure if you're on a buget and you try to start with photography, take the 50mm. But I wouldn't recommand it for anyone trying to do some professional job.
Zeiss 55mm is probably the best lens I've used so far, small, sharp and quick. Every sony shotter should have one
You can also tell in the highlight roll off in the comparison pictures. I was able to correctly guess each one that was the 50mm. Not to mention the autofocus on the 50mm is louder then the Zeiss.
do you mean the lens is brighter, or do you mean that the focal length is some how affecting exposure?
The 55 is not "way sharper" than the 50. I doubt there's a single comparison video on YT that would come to that conclusion.
I am not a fan of pixel peeping but instantly picked left as 55 Zeiss. Both on regular and zoomed images The slightly bigger zoom was telltale but I discounted that as you might have moved a bit closer for the shot to throw people off. Especially since the right pic was brighter and the Zeiss is 1/3 stop brighter with exact same settings, even at both being f/1.8 aperture. However, shot A has:
- much more color detail and distinction in the face, much less flat
- no bokeh 'echo', see the lamp post
- dimensionality in the colors on the jeans, guess that's all the 'zeiss pop'
- better transition to out of focus, making things more 3D
- more microcontrast on the face closeup
- much more lively color separation and color control in general
I honestly promised myself to sell the Zeiss and keep the 50 if the left were the 50. So yeah, guess I'm glad it's possible to see a lot of differences.
In the shots following the first though, it was much harder to tell. But if there's much subtle contrast in the scene (e.g. NOT the food pic) it's quite possible to tell.
In the red/blue portrait, the difference is very big, especially on the detail of the blue parts of the face.
yes but 99% of people would notice any of that and would never actually compare images from both at the same time. As a tool to capture a photo with (and if we don't talk about the focusing speed difference) they both are very close to each other quality wise - certainly not 5 times difference in quality
@@PavSZ Well, the argument about nobody comparing two images side by side would go for any two lenses, unless one lens would be so bad that it would show obvious defects/shortcomings in its images (or lens construction), without comparison. No audience gets to compare images unless watching reviews :) Also, a lens 5x the cost could not be expected to be 5x as good; if it's just obviously better, it would justify the price for people who'd want the best result.
Completely agree on them being close though; I own them both and the 50 produces stellar images for that bargain price! As you well demonstrated in the video.
However, contrary to my humble 'audience', I'm actually operating the lens and in terms of handling, sturdiness, focus speed, lack of noise, focus ring feel and response (never understood why multiple fly-by-wire lenses of the same brand would have different response acceleration; it's a software response) - the 55 really is more of a joy to use. And that, like with an instrument, translates to the art itself.
Still .. what the 50 puts on the sensor is amazing for $250
PS The contrast when shooting into a strong light source is a very visible win for the 55 in my experience
I've owned the FE 50 for almost a year, mainly use it as a lowlight/street lens, and it's done that job amazingly well for the price! However, at times there were issues with colour, and extensive PP correcting required. When I took the 55mm out for an hour, I was blown away by the rendition of colour. I noticed an instant palpable difference. That was during the day outdoors, so testing it at night would have been a better comparison, but tbh, I think I'm going to be buying the zeiss. But the little 50 has certainly served me well.
it's true, 55mm is a far superior lens but not everyone can afford that.
This 50mm certainly is great for the money
This is the best comparison of those lenses in YT. I instantly subscribed! Great job!
Dude i honestly couldn’t tell a difference in some of the shots. That’s awesome! Great video 👍🏻
I was really surprised how close these lenses are to each other quality wise - no way there is 4 times difference
I shoot backlit 90% of the time and the 55 was a massive upgrade over the 50 in that regard as I had both.
thanks for sharing this
Hey, it's better to compare image quality at ISO 100 so we can check sharpness much better
never thought of that! Thanks for watching Omar!
Thanks for the review. I agree with you on the image comparison, very close and hardly worth the jump up in price. BUT I think the Zeiss is worth the extra for the sheer quality of the build and it's durability - has that feel of lasting for years. I am sure the Sony is also well built BUT the construction is lower quality and it feels flimsy in comparison to the Zeiss. Great review as usual, appreciated.
thank you!! That was the purpose of this video, to see what the final results are regardless of the lens build and how you get there to achieve them.
Lovely review! 50mm 1.8 does it for me... Gonna save the extra money and go for the 50 mm f2.8 macro!!!
Also your Schwarznegger accent really made the video fun!! Kudos
Very good comparison. They are very close but the skin tones have a jaundice vibe with the 50mm and the 55 Zeiss does not. And the Zeiss is resolving slightly more than the 50mm even on RUclips but it's almost splitting hairs when it comes to sharpness. Also, I noticed the difference in contrast that you were referring to. Especially @1:44 you can see that the 50mm is losing detail in the highlights of her face and there is almost a glow around her face in that photo and the Zeiss in comparison retained better contrast and color in that scenario. And that is strange given that the Zeiss lets in more light @1.8 than the 50mm so you would think the Zeiss would be losing detail in the highlights before the 50mm.
in real world they are close and although you can see the differences when comparing the images next to each other, it would be very hard to tell which one is which when seeing them individually.
Zeiss is much, much better lens overall but also much more expensive
That's why I like your videos You're honest about everything I've been using the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the pictures are fantastic even with my Sony A7R3 and my Sony A7R4 I also use a G Master 35 1.4 I can't tell the difference between those two. I think a lot of these guys on RUclips just like promoting Sony just for the hell of it sometimes so they can get some more gear. But with you I know you're honest you can tell I love your reviews I get the same results as you do. Thanks again for all your work you do so that I can make decisions I really appreciate it.
thank you very much!
Check out my newer review of this lens: ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html
I shot mostly on my Nikon D610 with 50 and 85mm Nikkor 1.8G lenses and then I got Sony A7 iii and 50mm 1.8 and to be very honest, I don't think it's a bad lens. Focus locking can be a bit slower but for that price, I wouldn't complain.
I have always said the 50mm 1.8 is a underated lens the more money you pay for something the more convinced you are that it's better but in saying that yes I do have both lenses lol
When you showed the first images A and B, I found the image A much sharper and I was very surprised that you said they were the same, that you didn't see the difference! But I must say that the 50mm is quite nice.
My point was that if you seen any of these images out of context and separately it would be very hard to tell
@@PavSZ thank you, still a very good and helpful vídeo!
I was looking for a 50mm for gastronomy work and weddings and I finally bought this lens, I'll have it tomorrow and I hope it gives me good results.
it's not a perfect lens, far from it but it can do a good job if used correctly.
Check out my newer review of it: ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html
Good luck with it!
As someone who has about 50 50mm lenses, mostly vintage. When I tested out the Sony Zeiss 55mm I was impressed but not wowed. In Canada, even used the average price is $600 for a nice copy which is like $450 USD. I could not justify spending that one a lens that although far superior is similar to the FE 50 f1.8 which I sold after finding its rendering kinda boring. I either want absolute perfection in a 50mm lens or I want super character and flaws and the Zeiss 55mm was in the middle, not the best not the worst and kinda expensive.
I agree. I never really was wowed by the 55 and the 50 is just boring.
I ended up with Sony 50mm f1.2 GM. Expensive but it is just the best 50mm ever made in my opinion
Hi. What you think about konica 50mm 1.4? i love it.
@@ivankartelyan2738 sorry, I never used konica lens.
I have the 50mm and the autofocus system is annoying in AF-S. In AF-C, the autofocus is fine when I take portraits and the image quality is great. I think I’ll still get a 55mm or 50mm f1.4 later on for the quiet autofocus
check out my newer review of this 50mm ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html
I have also reviewed many other 50mm for Sony, including the f1.2 GM
Thanks for this, even years later. A bit ironic that you mentioned no difference in af and used a shot from the 50 which wasn’t in focus :) great video though
I didn't know that I have used any unsharp photos in this video.
Thanks anyway
@@PavSZ apologies for my typo. I will rewatch and list what I thought met that criteria.
@@PavSZ 2:07 left side photo looks like a focus miss - if it’s not, perhaps it displays a weakness in the lens. But it’s significantly less sharp in that case.
I didn’t mean any offence and I really appreciated the video, just to say.
The FoV gives away the Zeiss vs the Sony in the sample photos... 😎 The Sony does indeed have a noisy AF motor that gets picked up on video (FYI.. the older OSS version is better in this regard). On APS-C the different FoV is even more noticeable.
It is funny what differences different people see.
The point is that they are fairly easy to see when you see the photos compared side by side.
It would be much harder if you seen the photos taken with both of these lenses independently.
OSS version is an APS-C lens
@@PavSZ Correct..! Both the Zeiss and Sony FE lenses are great candidates for a portrait lens on APS-C.
How can u say its same performance in image quality?? I clearly see 55mm are more sharper and have better contrasts.
I can
Thanks . It was a good comparison to make my decision .
Thanks for watching! I'm glad I could help
Bel video. E il 50mm Sony 2.8 macro????'che ne pensi? a differenza con il 50 mm Sony 1.8 FE ?
sorry, I don;'t understand - english only please
Just for a bit of an alternate view, after watching this (and many other videos) I bought the 50 1.8. My take is that It’s a disaster of a lens. It focuses slower than the original Rx-1 (which was brutalised for at speed) on the a7iv. I won’t even bother looking at the 20 shots I took because it could be as sharp as anything but for what I shoot (street) this lens would be useless without zone focusing, and isn’t good for that either. I struggled to focus on a phone booth in less than a second or so tbh. It did better at longer distances. For me, not usable.
Awesome content bro! Keep it up!
thank you very much!!!
would you recommend a vintage manual lens instead of the 50mm Sony? If yes, which one
yes! Pentacon 50mm f1.8 is awesome! really sharp. I'll be doing video about it very soon
In the first portrait especially I see the focal difference, the 55 is more compressed. I think 55/60mm is ideal for portraits in tight spaces,. 85mm is often too long for me. I had both these lenses. I sold my A7 camera and these. The autofocus on the A7 was terrible for the 50, although I heard it works better on recent cameras. The 55 should cost twice, not 4 times as much. It would be interesting to compare the 55 with the new Nikon S 50mm 1.8 for Z mount .
yep, I totally agree. I find 85s too long 9 out of 10 times.
50mm is just OK on a7III - not good for most of applications, unless you have time ;)
55mm really should cost twice more, not 4 times more, for sure.
I tend not to compare lenses side by side on two different systems - too many operational differences.
I wish they made a good 60 or 70 mm prime. I find the 85 a bit too compressed for faces. My face looks to wide.
@@tomghzel could you tell the difference between a 55mm and 60mm?
Hi
What do you think is good Sony 50mm f1.8 for wedding or better Sigma 50mm f1.4. Only for photos without video. Thank you in advance !
Sony is much cheaper!! I also own the Sigma 50mm f1.4 lens - it is better overall but it is also heavier. Sony is ok if you are just starting and want high quality without spending a lot of money first.
Pav SZ
Thank you
I'm sorry but I've owned both lenses and even in your example photos, i guessed right. the 55 is far and away sharper than the 50, in the center and especially in the corners (the 55 doesn't do tremendously well in the corners, but it handles them far better than the 50)
Yes, it's true. It's a far superior lens and it is fairly easy to tell which photo was from which when you see them side by side. I guess it would be much harder if you've seen a good photo from 50 and someone told you it was taken with 55, you'd probably believe it ... it's a shit lens but it can deliver ok results for a very good price
I have a 50 mm FE 1.8, and I wanted to replace it today with a zeiss, but I think I'm giving up for this moment, I will buy 85 1.8 sony
thanks bro for the review
Good choice!
Check out my newer review of this 50mm f1.8 here: ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html
Thanks for the review! they were really close! I have the sony fe 50 1.8 and i'm really pleased with it! have you updated the sony fe 50 to the latest firmware?! I have updated it to firmware 0.03 and the video autofocus works amazingly well!! I made a video on the autofocus performance of it in my channel ! if you have some free time, I'd recommend you to watch it! have a great day!
I did update it and in my opinion, there is very little difference. Even budget Chinese lenses work better, unfortunately 😕
What do you think about samyang 45mm 1.8? Could It be the best value option?
I really like the samyang -have it now for several months -AF is quiet - works well withthe a7r4 - very nice rendering & very light
@@gitithadani do you think is better than the 50mm f1.8?
@@al404 My opinion is samyang is better
Muy buena revisión y me ha ayudado a decidir. Tengo ambos lentes pero en mi caso decidí quedarme con el 50mm porque enfoco de forma manual y es mas liviano para viajar
Sorry but I do not speak Spanish (I think it is Spanish)
@@PavSZ No problem 🙂
@@PavSZgoogle translator! We are in 2024! 😅
@@AngelikuS_ my video was in English, I speak English. If someone has a need to comment and doesn't speak English, they should use Google translate before posting the comment in my opinion.
It makes no sense to comment in a different language than the video they are commenting is on and expect a reply
The 55mm is practically the 50mm but with a far more reliable and quicker autofocusing system making it worth the extra price for professionals or for children. General situations the lenses are the same but in harsh conditions such as backlighting the zeiss wins
absolutely agree with you!
how come 50mm does worse in backlighting? as in, what makes backlighting a challenging situation?
The focusing noise is almost inaudible and the focusing speed is really only an issue in low light and fast pans. In normal to bright light and slow pans the focusing speed is quite ok. If you are going to do professional videos then sure buy pro lens :)
What camera did you use to try both?
a7III
@@PavSZ Your reviews are too good I keep buying lenses. Sony 135mm 1.8 and 55mm 1.8. Keep up the good work but dont tell my accountant.
@@Scpus2020 haha sorry - hope you are OK Peter
@@PavSZ Very well thanks and you?
@@Scpus2020 thank you! couldn't be better
Which one is better for video?
55mm is better lens overall but it is also 3 times more expensive.
Here is my new video about the 50mm in which I discuss and demonstrate its video performance: ruclips.net/video/AC3Hdmzm1Rc/видео.html
@@PavSZ, I got this lens with a Sony A7S. But I was thinking about selling it and downgrading to the 50mm 1.8.
What lens would allow you to shoot a low light talking head vlog like this but keep the background in focus?
no lens can do that - if you want the subject and the background to be sharp, you'll need to close the aperture. This means that low light situation will need additional light on the subject and the background to make it work - which will not be low light scenario anymore.
@@PavSZ sorry I meant for a video like yours where the subject is lit, the background is dark but everything stays in focus. Would the Sony 16-35mm f4 work for that kind of setting?
@@mishatagavor I guess so - I have made this video a year ago. I don't really remember what lens I have used them. It might have been 24-105mm f4
The shape of the highlights wide open have of course nothing to do with the number of blades !
Only when you step down the blades influence the shape of the highlights.
wdym you can't tell the difference?
you can always tell which one is the 55mm. is it worth the price? depends. but you can always tell wich is wich lol
The focal lengths give away the answer
maybe 😉
Great video. Since I use only MF, will go for the 50mm.
bare in mind that it is focus by wire
I could tell the difference before you showed the result. The Zeiss has much better bokeh.
for sure
1:22 I could tell the difference. One because of the focal length. You see it by the shape / roundness of her face. And two, you see the single hairs on the right have chromatic aberration. But besides that, very very very close.
yes, you can because you are seeing them side by side and you are comparing them side by side.
Very hard to tell the difference (most of the time) when looking at the images shot with these lenses separately. 50mm is a worse lens, no doubt about it but it stands up well next to much more expensive competition like this 55mm Zeiss lens
because if I want to have 55mm i dont want to have 50mm bro.. And as you say bad AF. Do you want to make street photography and then throw 50% of photos due to out of focus?
yeah, That's why I bought 50mm f1.2 GM
Way too big and too havy
Well, I did spot the 55 on all of them 🤷🏻♂️. But actually I do not own any of them but the batis 40
2:05 there's difference.
yes
Zeiss has more details which you can see it very clearly.
maybe when you see the photos right next to each other - looking at the images individually it is hard to tell