Sony 50mm f/1.8 for NEX review at Steve Huff (+ Zeiss lens is shipping!).
Steve Huff (Click here) posted his final 50mm f/1.8 for NEX review: “Basically this lens is a must have for any NEX shooter who wants a medium telephoto with a fast aperture. The lens has great color, has a fast aperture for shallow depth of field or when the lights get low and the lens pumps out great color with rich saturated tones. The lens is sharp but not clinically sharp. On the NEX-7 it is a fantastic performer.”
Yes that lens is a real winner. It only has a couple of drawbacks. It’s a bit too big, and it doesn’t come in black for my future NEX-7. I hope Sony will soon introduce a black version.
The lens is in Stock in Asia at Digitalrev (Click here). You can get it within 6-10 days at Amazon Japan (Click here). You will only get in January-February in Europe and US although SonyStore US (Click here) says it’s coming next week. I heard this isn’t true yet. Let’s see who is right…
Meanwhile good news for all those of you who preordered the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 lens at Amazon (but you cannot make a new preorder yet).
Full new NEX and lens rpeorder links:
Sony NEX-7 Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
Sony NEX-5n Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
Sony 50mm f/1.8 Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
Sony 55-210mm Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
NEX-5n viewfinder Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay.
J-Man
2 years ago |No black = no sale.
Jean-Michel
2 years ago |Rob, in the http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com made a great test, a comparison with the Zeiss ZM 50mm/f:1,5 on Nex-7. As I can see, the Sony 50mm/f:1,8 is even better than the Zeiss, at least in the corners, probably because the lack of microlenses technology on the Nex-7 sensor. Then this Sony lens is a great performer.
Frosti7
2 years ago |1960′s 50\1.8 lens are half the size.
Vivek
2 years ago |Compared to the 1960′s cameras and lenses, it is clearly ass backwards.
Double the size/heft of the NEX’ (perhaps barring the 7) and shrink the sizes of the lenses to half of what they are.
Longduckdong
2 years ago |Yes, but without AF motors and IS you can build them smaller.
zstan
2 years ago |without AF and optical stabilization as well. Nice analogy.
Hello World
2 years ago |+1
Mistral75
2 years ago |With circa 45mm from flange to sensor rather than 18mm, you can build a much shorter 50mm lens…
Alfonso Cuitiño
2 years ago |Some guy at the Flickr forums got the 24mm yesterday. I can’t wait to see some shots!
Kevin
2 years ago |awesome lens perhaps. but a 50mm 1.8 is a perfect spec to substitute with a cheap legacy lens. $40 OM 50mm 1.8 + adapter will do for now. I’ll save the money for some other lens
Armando
2 years ago |Pre-Ordered this lens
pretty excited about the o.s!
obican
2 years ago |I still wish that this lens was a 35/1.8 or a cheap 24/22.
Us Nes users, who have been wanting a fast 50mm lens have bought a Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta etc. They are at least f/1.8 or even faster, sharper, more solid, and they usually have a better character than this lens. They also weigh the same, have similar sizes(including the adapter to fit them to a Nex body(Quick note: My FD 50/1.4 also has the same weight and size of SLR Magic 23mm). All those legacy glasses are also usually much cheaper than this Sony. Of course they lack Autofocus, Image Stabilization and the ability to control the aperture from the camera body.
These are trade-offs you might want to consider. Personally I prefer a manual focus only lens, as I know that it’ll never hunt in low light. My MF-hit-miss ration with my Nex is not worse than any DSLR with phase detection, except for shooting sports. It is also much higher than what I was able to manage with the kit lenses. Image stabilization is a very good and useful feature. The aperture control from the camera is not really important for me, I usually shoot in aperture priority anyway(I can go to the S mode and select Auto ISO, it’ll work perfectly).
In short, I personally wouldn’t pay 300$ for a lens which is not better, more beautiful, smaller and lighter than my existing lens, just because it has AF and OIS. And of course, as you’ve pointed out, 50mm on a APS-C body is not something to die for. For portraits I prefer a 85mm or a 135mm(127.5 and 200mm equiv.). For everything else I’d just prefer wider lenses, 16, 24 and 35mm(24, 35 and 50mm equiv). If this lens was a 35/1.8 at this price, weight and size, I’d buy it instantly as I can’t find cheap 35mm lenses with a fast aperture. But right now, this doesn’t offer me much.
Don’t get me wrong, I liked the lens. For all the features it has, it might even be considered as a bargain. It is more expensive than Nikon 50/1.8D or G and Canon EF 50/1.8 II, but also looks better and has OIS. It might be the lens someone’s been looking for, but that’s not me.
Atlasman
2 years ago |I own two 50mm FD lenses—the 1.8 and the 1.4—I too don’t care for the auto focus or OSS features of this new lens. But I’m sure that the bulk of NEX users will want both of these features.
When the lens is available in my area, I will visit my favorite store, bring a memory card and take a number of shots for later review—if it can bring home a better image, I’ll buy it—and still use it in manual focus mode.
The Lotus Eater
2 years ago |“It’s a bit too big”.
If the lens is slightly bigger because of OSS, then that’s more than an acceptable trade-off.
Clyde
2 years ago |Nothing legendary or notable about this lens.
No soul, no unique character, no charm… at least that means no hassles.
It seems to be a lens designed purely by mathematics. It reflects no signature of a human designed optic.
That’s fine. I’m sure it’s capable enough in the right hands.
The Lotus Eater
2 years ago |What absolute twaddle!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NnWphc8IY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Clyde
2 years ago |Which part? The no hassles, it’s fine part? Or the no soul, no charm part?
Perhaps you’ve never experienced shooting a lens with a real soul, designed to render images like no other with a unique signature from the human that designed it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28476552@N04/tags/olympuspenfzuiko42mmf12/
Brandon
2 years ago |If you can’t name what youare referring to save for vague adjectives…you are selling snake oil. To this I have yet to meet the photographer that cannot describe with greater specificity than to say “has character” whilst also having any idea what they’re talking about.
Additionally such lenses require intimacy to appreciate their virtues. If you are truly familiar with legendary glass possessing that unnameable thing…you ought to know that.
PS, in an age where we can adjust in post, I would rather abandon the one-choice character of any glass, no matter how great, for simple accuracy after which I may myself decide where I want the reality skewed. Your tactic limits artistic control, and trays the limitation as something to celebrate.
Clyde
2 years ago |This Sony 50mm may be a very fine lens for you Brandon. If your time is rewarded in post processing then please have at it.
The samples I see from Huff’s library are usable for sampling good pixels. But even with sharpening applied, from the samples he shared, I don’t see any notable micro contrast or bokeh purity to write home about. Perhaps your post skills will squeeze out a signature style that is better representative of your identity as a photographer. I wish you well with that.
But just as different golfers chose different three irons because of personal preference… or different chardonnay, or maple vs oak for custom cabinetry, this Sony 50mm, thus far, has no exotic qualities which impress me beyond adequate.
I also prefer TAG to Timex. Though they both tell time, one carries with it an expression of refinement unrealized by the other. Perhaps I’ve drunken too much snake oil to know any better.
Brandon
2 years ago |Yes, Timex being some ten thousand times more accurate than TAG, which is some one thousand times more expensive…but speaks to your ego…that would be snake oil. And no, watch makers replicating the engineering feats of men dead for hundred years does not qualify as expression maximized our celebrated.
Clyde
2 years ago |Have fun with your fifty Brandon.
J Shin
2 years ago |Here is a poll question. Would you buy a pancake lens 1) at a lower speed and 2) lower optical performance? (less resolution, more distortion, more coma, worse bo-ke)
This is not to say that a compact design necessarily will be a compromise. The 35/2.8 “telephoto” (short back focus) lens for the Olympus XA is comparable to SLR lenses. It would look fantastic on an NEX, or even recessed into an M9. But I would find f/2.8 a bit too slow for a “snapshot” lens.
I for one would not buy a smaller lens if I know the optics is discernibly inferior. The lens isn’t everything, but it does matter. I know others who have a different preference, so I was curious where the market stands.
Vivek
2 years ago |I would compare the Panasonic 20/1.7 instead of something like the Olympous XA 35/2.8 (I know how it performs on film and also how on digital- a dog).
Is it possible in principle to make something compact and of good quality? Yes.
If it is not possible, Sony can always thing about adding the AF and OS to the camera and, hopefully, in that process bulking the cameras.
Z-man
2 years ago |It’s a fast lens, yes.
But if they want this to be a more general tool; they might want to provide an MF mode that doesn’t work with focus-by-wire and have a distance scale.
I hope they want to incorporate this in their “mid-range standard zoom” or whatever the thing was called in the roadmap.
I find this to be the most lacking feature in the kit zoom. Sometimes, I just need to switch to infinity real quick and take the shot. With the focus-by-wire I miss out a lot.
“AF when possible, MF when needed”, that’s kind of the parameters I seek for my “bread and butter” lens.
c.d.embrey
2 years ago |It’s a MUST HAVE lens??? Maybe for Steve Huff, but not for me. I don’t use a 50mm with either my Canon APS-C DSLRs or my Full Frame Nikons. Sorry Steve, but it’s a MUST NOT HAVE for me.
I don’t find Image Stabilization useful (especially on short lenses). I was born before WWII, and can still hand-hold a non-stabilized 200mm lens. Canon IS, Nikon VR and Sony OSS are of NO interest. YMMV
Brandon
2 years ago |Then you’re not trying. No person in the history of humanity can hold the lens as still as OIS, which means yes your photos may come out good enough, but they’d still be sharper still, and grant you greater aperture and ISO levity, if you’d simply adopt OIS rather than be the unchanging type who won’t accept.a good thing when he sees it.
c.d.embrey
2 years ago |Sorry, Brandon, but I’ve been doing this professionally since the 1970s. Clients don’t complain about the quality, in fact they are impressed by it.
The US Army taught me to shoot people, with a rifle, at 300 yards. Shooting people, with a camera, at 3 yards is not a problem. Holding either a rifle or a camera steady requires the same discipline.
BTW, did you ever hear of a tripod??? or a monopod??? Lots of pros use them, when needed.
astro8
2 years ago |Obviously you’re an old school guy. I am sure you’re also against computers/calculators because you were very good in using abacus when the army taught how to use it! Good for you and I feel sorry for your clients.
c.d.embrey
2 years ago |No, I’ve been on the ‘net for twenty years. And I first used a computerized dimmer board (to control film/stage lighting) in the 1980s.
astro8
2 years ago |c.d.embrey,
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad it’s working for you. I only can’t understand why you’re against something that “might” make it better or easier for you! You always can switch to have a full manual lens ( I am assuming the optics are similar). I just bought a lens for my NEX5 with no OS or AF. I love it because of the Peaking feature. I wouldn’t have considered it without Peaking, . Especially with no view finder.
c.d.embrey
2 years ago |Back in the age of dinosaurs, when I learned both still and motion photography, everything was manual. You had to learn to use a lightmeter (no built-in meter), how to focus (manual focus only) and how to hold a camera steady (no IS, no VR and no OSS). Not hard to do, but there was a learning curve.
It’s OK, if you don’t want to learn. But please don’t attack me because I don’t like/need OSS. If I can’t hand-hold it, I put the camera on either a monopod or tripod (or if motion, also a dolly or crane).
BTW, please don’t attack my clients.
Clyde
2 years ago |Didn’t you hear c.d.embrey? Anyone and everyone is a photographer these days. No skill required. The cameras do all the work. I hear that some of them can even recognize faces and shoot when they see a smile.
Guys like you and I will just have to settle for our client work. What a chore.
VicTor
2 years ago |@c.d.embrey
In the Stone Age folks needed to learn how to hold and throw spears and to hunt mammoths before they could put some tough meat in a pan and make a steak. Now you can go to the supermarket, buy the meat easily and concentrate on the essential – on cooking.
Same to the cameras: yes you needed to learn a lot of stuff before, but now it is partly not required any more and you can concentrate yourself on the more essential stuff – on shooting. (but to be honest, actually now you need to learn same much or even more, just in other subject areas). Yes, tripods are doing good work, but there are a lot of situations you can’t take any tripods with you or it is not allowed. I don’t think someone wanted attack you because you don’t need/like OSS, but because you attacking the technical and economic advantages. Those Neanderthals will flip and get mad as well if they just could see us today: getting our food so easy, so comfortable. Do you want to learn hunt? “It’s OK, if you don’t want to learn”
Clyde
2 years ago |“…concentrate yourself on the more essential stuff – on shooting.”
Uhmmm… using a tripod and/or good technique… IS shooting. Anything less is snapshot.
astro8
2 years ago |c.d.embrey,
I am not attacking you. ( I could say the same thing). I don’t need to use light meter to know metering. I don’t need to use a tripod every single time to know that I want a sharp shot. Anyway, I think you’re missing my point. However, VicTor has said what I wanted to say. Thanks VicTor
astro8
2 years ago |+100 Brandon
Lee Mackreath
2 years ago |The item is not available and in stock on the digitalrev website and never had been???
admin
2 years ago |It was in Stock yesterday. Sold out now.
roughneck
2 years ago |wow.. tough crowd getting angry about a cheap lens. lol