New normal: Sony FE 50mm F1.8 samples & first impressions

Other systems have plenty of cheap lenses. Sony doesn't for its FE system. So a lot of people who could afford the A7 but didn't want to pay almost the same price as the camera for an additional lens will be interested in seeing how this lens performs. Cause now a FF system is getting more and more affordable.

So, Sony full frame users in search of a cheap-ish 50 now know it's there, and it's not total crap. That must be a comforting thought.

@pkvman: I'm not asking DPR anything. My point is that for a cheap (relatively) 50 nitpicking over the extremes of image quality doesn't make a lot of sense. Except of course for those wanting (needing) to justify their purchase after the fact. A quite large bunch.

Sony is in no hurry, obviously. They've been taking years to get to where they are. They must realize it's going to be a long haul, by now. Certainly they're introducing camera bodies fast and furiously, and this new lens is just one of many new lenses they're bringing on the market. It will take time to build a system. I have no doubt that we'll see a great 35mm or 28mm f1.8 come soon (a year or two maybe). Certainly it seems that they're moving toward a very competitive system of lenses to compliment their excellent new full-frame bodies. I have no doubt that the new lens system they're building will be much more complete in a few years, when they're ready to introduce crazy cameras that can shoot at 20 fps, include stuff like GPS, and all sorts of other cool things.

It's not 'BS'. It's due to the considerations and concerns I've outlined in the article and in many comments below.

The stunning new Sony FE 50mm benefits from the cheapest autofocus motor we've ever put into a lens. It's lower speed and higher noise are sure to give the user a thirlling focus experience but wait, there's more!

Our new stop down focus system ensures the camera becomes slower and less responsive to focusing requests as the aperture is stopped down, another first for our FE system!

These two new features are sure to give you a unique focusing experience that no other lens can cone close to matching.

Hi Rishi - I respect and enjoy your work on DPR but I have to ask did you write "- a valid concern"?
Or was it edited into the piece?
If these are your words then can you explain how the "extra time it takes to open and close the aperture during AF acquisition" is a valid concern?
Do any other Sony lenses omit this fundamental ability?
If I'm off the mark here then I apologise but these are honest concerns.

Edited into the piece? I wrote this piece. I don't understand your comments.

I try to explain the potential tradeoffs with this lens, by comparing its optical performance in MTF charts vs the FE 55mm, talking about its slower DC focus motor, and raising awareness of the issues around stop-down focusing. To inform you, the consumer. And you turn around and tell me it's an infomercial that I may have 'edited in' content into?

Not only is that entirely off the mark, it's rude and insulting.

Why is the extra time required to open and close the aperture during AF acquisition a concern? Because it's extra time which can itself slow down AF. How could that not be a concern??

this "infommercial" term, is very catchy, and attracts quick answers from the editors. I'm pretty sure it appears at least on 90% of the articles where you underline at least one good feature of a product. Isn't it, Rishi? :)

Anyway, good article, however, in my opinion the biggest issue of this lens is the message it sets: the cheap lenses from sony will be much more expensive then the competition... but not that much better :)

The A7 does not really change things much:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#634.580,380.471,487.580,ha,t

I think it's time to give up the notion that the A7 cameras are (or ever really were) about size advantage. They're about a technology paradigm shift, pure and simple.

What really tells me this: all of the FE lens designs that essentially "build in" an SLR registration depth (like this new 50) or just straighten ray angles earlier in the light path for SLR-like projection (like the Sony-Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4). It makes for designs that are at least as large, heavy, and corrected as their SLR counterparts; and Sony isn't sweating it, at all.

This definitely paves the way for CaNikon mirrorless bodies that use the current SLR system mounts and registration depths.

This BS again. Always some Mirrorless/Sony hater who has to try to assert that ML is inferior and 'doesn't save anything' in terms of size or weight because the off-plane misaligned tool at camerasize makes one lens of a given FL look as 'big' on the Sony as another of the same FL, because all lenses of the same FL must be equal and therefore the same size and price.

No chance this might be a much better lens than the Canon, or priced according to how recently it was developed and released, compared to a lens that's been out for years? Or that ALL lenses on FE are 'bigger than EF' because this one comparison shows the Canon version to be a bit smaller? Nice try. Have you used a ZA 35/2.8, lately? Where that equivalent of that size and weight/performance on Canon?

Lens length is everything in gear size? A smaller and lighter body taking up less volume overall is 'the same size with no advantages anymore' because one lens ends at roughly the same place as a DSLR?

J A C S: Do you realize that mirrorless can take both small AND large lenses? You have the choise - small, compact and lightweight, or more bulky and brighter.

@sensibill: Too many extrapolations. My point was simple. This article is about the Sony 50/1.8, and the Canon is right there in the article. Comparing sizes is a fair game, especially after all the trolling coming from the ML fanatics.

BTW, the Canon was released an year or so ago.

Since you asked, not that it really matters, the Canon 35/2.8 equivalent is the 40/2.8.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.394,634.394,380.345,ha,t

@Magnar W: I do realize that, and I did not say anything about it. The article is about one specific lens, and the Canon counterpart is a part of the article. The same or the similar optical design makes it interesting to compare those two lenses.

Horshack tested the 50mm 1.8 STM in his mega landscape with the 5DSR. I don't see a big difference in performance. Also by F4 I can still see soft corners on the Sony. To be honest they are all very similar (all budget 50mm 1.8's). In terms of price it goes to Canon and Pentax. Would not be so quick to consider the Sony as sharper...Sony's 70-200 f4 was made 2 decades after Canon's and it is one of the worst modern 70-200 f4's out there.

There are certainly advantages to mirrorless and short flange if optics take advantage of it. One example is the 22mm f2 EF-M mount. Put behind a 24MP Canon sensor of the 80D variety and it would be a stellar combination. The Sony 24mm f1.8 is overpriced and oversized.

Arguments minimizing the size difference between DSLRs and mirrorless in general always sound to me like trying to rope a steer with a wet noodle. Maybe the size difference is much more noticeable to some than others. My FF mirrorless system is so much smaller and lighter than my previous DSLRs (even those with pint sized sensors). But I agree, it's also about a shift in thinking. Maybe part of that is noticing how much a difference in size makes.

Sony are in this for the long term. They a trying to make a lens mount that competes with Canon/Nikon. They've already made SLRs and then they made SLTs with EVFs, good ergonomics, battery life, fast FPS (A77ii), but it didn't get Canon/Nikon users to switch.

Quite sensibly they've approached the market this time from the small size/low-end (APS-C) and it's obviously having an impact. One of the key advantages of the short flange is that Canon/Nikon users can try out the camera with their existing lenses.

The demand for a bigger bodied camera with better battery life seems to reflect that A7rII is now good enough that people prefer it to a SLR otherwise, which I think was Sony's goal.

Nikon D810 + 50mm f1.8 G = 1065 grams
Canon 5Ds + 50mm f1.8 = 1007 grams
Sony A7r II + 50mm f1.8 = 911 grams

I guess the savings in weight is only about 10%.

Still, I think I'd get an A7r II with a 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm before I'd get a Nikon D810 with similar lenses, because there is still a weight savings and there is a lot more capability in the Sony kit. (i.e. more resolution, tilt screen, and 4K video capability)

Take a look at this lens and tell me about Nikon and Canon lenses that are small and light:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008123-REG/sony_sel35f28z_sonnar_t_fe_35mm.html

The Canon 40mm f2.8 is optically terrific, smaller, and is more tele for the same aperture. It is when buying a body with many primes where the short flange length may mean *more* bulk, not less in the end. This is because for each and every prime that does not carry this magical 'optimized for small flange' criteria (i.e. barely anything), you carry extra chassis on the lens to make up the flange distance. On a DSLR you carry that flange distance once on the body instead of once per lens. If anything for the multi prime shooter the extra chassis on the lens is doubly annoying since I can say without doubt shooting Pentax with long flange, swapping tiny light primes is a joy compared to swapping lenses that with extra heft/bulk to them. In fact the 'cheap' non-bayonet end caps even cater to this very quick pop and swap ease. Canon's 40mm f2.8 or 50mm 1.8 STM, 24mm 2.8 STM, 22mm f2 EF-M STM also fall into this pop and swap ease as do most MFT lenses and lots of Pentax lenses.

He was comparing lenses of other systems to this lens... What's the big deal.

The Batis 25 is a Tamron design, and those bulls eyes are their optical trademark.

As for the bokeh test, a curtain of holiday lights should do, right? Hang them at a mid point and provide shots front-focused and backfocused (a la Lenstip) to explore a lens' character.

Many people use the kit lenses.

Actually Fuji builds $100,000 professional movie lenses and medium format lenses for other companies. Look up Fuji lenses.

I wish Fuji would ask NIKON and Sony how to improve video quality because I would dump all my equipment and switch to Fuji exclusively.

@pkcpga
Zeiss and Nikon make industrial lenses - way more expensive and precise than anything used in photography or cinematography.

It's very nice that Fuji can make good lenses for APS-C, but they are very expensive. For similar money Canon and Nikon offer very good optics for Full Frame, which means they are much more efficient and - simply put - better at making lenses.

It's not about who makes the best and most expensive lens. It's about offering a good product and having a stable business.

Think about Tesla Motors. Sure, they make a great car, but they are loosing money on every one sold. Mercedes also offers premium products, but at the same time makes a good profit and managed to stay in this business for over a century.

What I'm saying is: C&N will stay in this business for as long as they want. They are earning money and they are determined. Fuji? Doubtful.

Also Fuji has been making lenses continuously in some form since the 1930's, so Fuji is not a fly by night company with lens manufacturing but has a lot of experience in lens manufacturing. Most of their lenses have been for motion pictures and medium format, so producing lenses at consumer prices is new to them and probably why fujis lenses are considered very nice for their price point.

Fuji also builds very nice medium format lenses that I use. And have a patent pending for a medium format range finder style camera. I like Fuji as a brand, but professionally use mamiya/phase one, Leica and Nikon. If Sony was smart they'd just contract out someone else to make their lenses and preferably not Tamron. The same way Nikon is smart to have Sony or toshiba make their sensors. If they want to build the best available which is what I presume Sony is after than just source out this will help keep their r and d costs down as well. Since Sony claims they are still losing money in the consumer camera business this will keep some costs down.

For those who don't mind MF lenses then obviously this lens wont't be on their radar. However for the huge majority who don't care for MF in this day and age they will be far more interested in this lens than in a lens which cannot AF.

Apparently they didn't copy that Canon, not even Loxia. Knowing Sony's history, it's Rokkor 50/1.7, improved.

^^Actually if Sony ever borrowed a lens design direct from a DSLR the lens would look somewhat like this -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1018382-REG/samyang_sy14m_e_14mm_f_2_8_ed_as.html

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/03/11/review-rokinon-24mm-t1-5-sony-nex-e-mount/#.Vv-yiaR96Uk

So this is a brand new optical design for mirrorless cameras and not some rebadged lens.

The only rebadged lenses for mirrorless are those than follow Voigtlander and Leica designs for m39 mount cameras.

Charrick1: From the posted samples I would not stay away from using this lens wide open. Add a bit contrast and sharpening, and the visual appearance of the pictures is actually very good. For critical work even f:4 looks very good, with high sharpness all over the field, little aberrations, and well controlled vignetting. A good performer, I would say. If you are asking for more, there is a 55 mm Zeiss-labeled lens available.

@Seeky: No, it's not solved by turning Live View Display to Settings Effect Off - in this mode, the camera still stops down the lens considerably in broad daylight. I'm not sure why - it's not like the pixels are over-saturating, since if you force it to focus wide open, it does just fine.

So you're still left with the issue of, with some lenses, opening and closing the iris, or not opening the iris at all if you've selected a smaller aperture. Even with this setting off.

Furthermore, you shouldn't be forced to have this setting off just to get faster focusing, even if it worked. Because one of the inherent advantages of mirrorless is that you can preview your exposure. I don't wish to turn that ability off.

The one advantage of setting this to 'off' is that in lower light situations (indoors), the camera doesn't stop down the lens automatically to avoid too much light. In which case, the camera doesn't need to open the iris to focus, or focuses the 50/1.8 wide open, as you say.

I do streets and always keep 5n in my bag, so it will be a good companion. It could be handy on mountaineering/tracking where I would want to avoid taking FE55.

i think these people never heard of compact cameras that opens aperture wide open for focusing, and they work properly.

@dtibi: But Sony is trying to really optimize for speed, which means that in situations where you don't really benefit from opening up the aperture and then closing it back down, you don't want to - to avoid the extra time associated with doing so.

Not to mention any focus accuracy issues due to focus shift.

It's not as simple as you're implying.

Yes, aware of this consideration, but you're right - we should directly test for it with a LensAlign or similar tool. In fact, I'd like a controlled focus shift test to be a part of all future lens reviews. When we get lens reviews back off the ground, that is.

I had problems with F11 focus even in broad daylight with the a7R II and this lens. It's not just low light where it's a problem. I have a video showing this I really need to edit and post.

A7II and XPRO II are around the same price, and this lens is about half cheaper than the equivalent Fuji 35f1.4. At f2, I'm sure it is as sharp as the Fuji, so still a good deal.

To me, Sony is doing great, and Fuji has gone definitely overpriced with their latest camera. Now, if they make a sub $1000 body like the XT2, that could change.

Not to mention, the Fuji 35/1.4, like most of its primes, are very slow to focus.

Cheng Bao - I have, on many occasions. I think it comes down to different philosophies/priorities, but also some other realities that make this discussion complex.

For example, focusing at shooting aperture avoids focus shift, but if you have tables that describe this behavior, you should be able to correct for it (though this introduces a source of error). Sometimes, the increased DOF can help on-sensor PDAF systems, which don't have the 'virtual apertures' DSLR focus systems have that effectively bring the (effectively) two split images in focus, making it easier to determine phase differences and do the correlation analysis. But of course then phase differences are mitigated b/c oblique angles are filtered out, which hurts AF, not to mention decreased light. So there are a lot of factors at play.

That said, I've almost invariably noted fast lenses to focus faster wide open on the a7R II than stopped down, so I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, in terms of focus speed.

I do understand Sony's concern with the extra time associated with opening up and stopping down the iris. In some situations the camera will certainly focus faster without this opening and closing. But if one were to assess the overall pros/cons across many shooting scenarios, this time associated with opening and closing the iris would probably be a relatively minor concern against the major benefit of focusing with more light and shallower DOF. And not having PDAF shut off altogether at F9 or smaller.

But maybe not. I will try & measure the extra time associated with focusing at F11 vs F2 w/ the Batis, which does open for AF acquisition.

Also, simply turning Live View Display to 'Settings Effect Off' no longer solves this issue (though I think it did back w/ the NEX-6 and/or a6000). The camera still tries to focus near your shooting aperture. And in bright light, the camera automatically stops down the aperture with this setting off, presumably because there's just too much light.

John - yes, that is likely focus shift, and we noted similar behavior with the 30/1.4 on one copy, but not on another. We fed this back to Sigma and they're investigating.

Where things get really complicated is the different behavior on different bodies. The OP on that thread is saying the a6000 focuses the lens wide open if Live View Display is set to 'Settings Effect Off', but the a7R II doesn't necessarily behave that way. In fact, with most E-mount lenses we've tried (besides the 24-70 GM and 50/1.8), the camera opens up to at most F2, which means that if you're at F2, it focuses at F2.

With all this differing behavior between camera lenses and bodies, I do wonder if the correct focus shift corrections are even being applied. Does the camera actually assess what aperture focus was acquired and then look up the appropriate shift value, as a function of subject distance?

Since DSLR lenses already have LUTs to correct the PDAF measurement for the image sensor (b/c dedicated PDAF sensors on DSLRs need to be corrected, since they only sample peripheral light rays entering the lens), I believe they already attempt to correct for focus shift. I may be wrong though.

Mirrorless cameras - AFAIK - don't particularly need this LUT to correct for RSA (residual spherical aberration). CDAF systems of course don't, but PDAF systems that sample most/all light rays entering the lens don't need this correction. But from my conversations thus far, I believe that focus shift is still corrected for.

If anyone has any insight into this, please do speak up - I'd be very curious to learn more.