Sony A: 50mm f / 1.8 DT SAM and 16-50mm f / 2.8 DT SSM
As soon as the plane took me over the hill, to distant snowy Switzerland, I rushed to the store and bought a brand new whale - Sony SLT-A77VQ. This is the carcass A77 and the same new 16-50 / 2.8 - and my joy knew no bounds. However, here my family went to Hong Kong without me, and they decided to bring me something from there, and without hesitation I asked for 50/1.
What, in fact, the story. If Canon, for example, has 3 fifty kopecks, /1.8, /1.4 and /1.2, then Sony has only two - /1.4 and /1.8. The “senior”, the one that is lighter, got from the mother-minolt, has an autofocus screwdriver and a very nice picture, costs, on average, $ 14,000. But the younger one is new (relatively), he became one of the first in a series of budget fixes of System A. In general, the story is very amusing, if you put 4 of these lenses sideways, then it turns out that they are pairwise identical. 35 / 1.8 with 85 / 2.8 and 30 / 2.8 macroes with 50 / 1.8 are assembled in one case, and even the instructions have one for two. The body and the bayonet are plastic, the assembly is Chinese, in general, everything to keep the cost in the area of ​​the most inexpensive lenses is only slightly more expensive than the “whale” 18-55.
As a result, 50/1. 8 costs about $ 6,000, it looks frankly cheap, autofocus is slow, with a nasty sound, and even inaccurate - there are only disadvantages around. Moreover, the “DT” in the title hints that the light circle is limited by the size of APS-C, and will not give a full frame on the full frame.
What then is the salt? Why do we need such a miserable object when the senior is not catastrophically more expensive?
If you believe all the tests on the Internet, then this objective was originally created as a portrait for sprinkled cameras, unlike all the others. If you believe them, the picture is softer, even though it spoils the sharpness. Again, if you believe in all this, then it is better than, for example, the older 50 / 1.4, works with light in the side. I do not believe in all this, but in general I was worried about something else: is there a point in a separate fifty-kopeck when there is 16-50 / 2.8? Especially considering that this zoom is perfectly collected, has an ultrasonic autofocus and dust and moisture protection, and in general, it brings only positive emotions to use, unlike ...
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 1.8
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.0
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.2
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.5
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.8
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 3.2
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 3.5
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 4.0
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 4.5
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 2.8
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 3.2
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 3.5
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 4.0
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 4.5
The children in the yard blinded a conceptual snowman, and, although the sun was quickly setting to a sunset, I decided to take a little bit off. 16-50 was, logically, in the "50" position.
Sharpness, I will not compare in principle, for this you need to pull out the slaves and convert them yourself, but I, at least, laziness. And besides, on my 24MP camera, 100% crop is completely uninteresting. Both of them are quite sharp in the center, and approximately equally lose their sharpness to the edges - and I will confine myself to that. Colors, microcontrast - here, in my opinion, an honest fifty-fifty is a little more pleasant than a zoom on a long end, but this, firstly, is subjective, and secondly, it is much more important when shooting people, not snowmen. I was worried about the bobble - I didn’t specifically compare the front bokeh, because it’s just nasty to the eye, and the fix at least decent, but it’s worth the wait. So look at the back of the blur.
The advantage of fixation in luminosity, as we all know, is a double-edged sword - but this is not all fair. When you shoot on the Leica Noctilux 50mm f / 0.95 in the open, you get a very small zone of sharpness, but you get it across the entire field of the frame. With this fifty dollars, everything is wrong, the edges of the frame here are “soapy” on almost all apertures, so there is not much that can be removed for 1.8. The bottle neck in the night, duck-face, a piece of iPhone - no problem, but then again, human faces should not be removed. The second point is autofocus, a little ring of backlash, and if you are familiar with the situation when the model's nose “got out” of the depth of field, then it is better to be safe and tighten the diaphragm. On the other hand, there is much more room for creativity here than with a noticeably darker zoom, and it can also last longer without a flash.
At equal apertures, the difference in the picture is noticeable, but not much. The fix works more accurately with a complex background, conveys sharp boundaries more gently, and at 2.8 it doesn’t “flake off” at all - pay attention to the headlights. In addition, if the zoom at 2.8 only begins to vignet the image, then the fix to this diaphragm almost does not obscure the corners.
There are also a couple of nice bonuses of fifty dollars - it is small and very light, it does not have a blend, while the zoom weighs no less than the camera itself and certainly does not fit into one normal pocket. While 16-50 / 2.8 conquers with its versatility, 50/1. 8 is very specific and not easy, it makes you work on the frame with your feet and make active use of bracketing, but it also delivers a lot of pleasure. At him, with a dead AF, you can not shoot anything fast, and he himself rather has a calm, unhurried shooting. So it seems to me, given its price, this objective is an unequivocal must-have for a photographer who chose bayonet A.
As for the zoom, then, given the opportunity to buy it with a “whale” to the A77, it attracts, above all, the price - compare with the similar 17-55 / 2.8 from Nikon and Canon. And the range of 16-50, as it seems to me, on a blended camera is more convenient. Excellent body, fast and quiet autofocus, /2.8 over the entire length - it's all with him, and this is his strength, but the picture is without frills.
Finally - this is how the fixed points are “washed”. Worth watching in full resolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqRfLNmVlhM
And full size archive, 164mb, jpg, 6000x4000 www.mediafire.com/?85h2qbklpul55a8
What, in fact, the story. If Canon, for example, has 3 fifty kopecks, /1.8, /1.4 and /1.2, then Sony has only two - /1.4 and /1.8. The “senior”, the one that is lighter, got from the mother-minolt, has an autofocus screwdriver and a very nice picture, costs, on average, $ 14,000. But the younger one is new (relatively), he became one of the first in a series of budget fixes of System A. In general, the story is very amusing, if you put 4 of these lenses sideways, then it turns out that they are pairwise identical. 35 / 1.8 with 85 / 2.8 and 30 / 2.8 macroes with 50 / 1.8 are assembled in one case, and even the instructions have one for two. The body and the bayonet are plastic, the assembly is Chinese, in general, everything to keep the cost in the area of ​​the most inexpensive lenses is only slightly more expensive than the “whale” 18-55.
As a result, 50/1. 8 costs about $ 6,000, it looks frankly cheap, autofocus is slow, with a nasty sound, and even inaccurate - there are only disadvantages around. Moreover, the “DT” in the title hints that the light circle is limited by the size of APS-C, and will not give a full frame on the full frame.
What then is the salt? Why do we need such a miserable object when the senior is not catastrophically more expensive?
If you believe all the tests on the Internet, then this objective was originally created as a portrait for sprinkled cameras, unlike all the others. If you believe them, the picture is softer, even though it spoils the sharpness. Again, if you believe in all this, then it is better than, for example, the older 50 / 1.4, works with light in the side. I do not believe in all this, but in general I was worried about something else: is there a point in a separate fifty-kopeck when there is 16-50 / 2.8? Especially considering that this zoom is perfectly collected, has an ultrasonic autofocus and dust and moisture protection, and in general, it brings only positive emotions to use, unlike ...
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 1.8
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.0
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.2
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.5
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 2.8
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 3.2
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 3.5
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 4.0
DT 50mm f / 1.8 @ 4.5
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 2.8
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 3.2
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 3.5
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 4.0
DT 16-50mm f / 2.8 @ 4.5
The children in the yard blinded a conceptual snowman, and, although the sun was quickly setting to a sunset, I decided to take a little bit off. 16-50 was, logically, in the "50" position.
Sharpness, I will not compare in principle, for this you need to pull out the slaves and convert them yourself, but I, at least, laziness. And besides, on my 24MP camera, 100% crop is completely uninteresting. Both of them are quite sharp in the center, and approximately equally lose their sharpness to the edges - and I will confine myself to that. Colors, microcontrast - here, in my opinion, an honest fifty-fifty is a little more pleasant than a zoom on a long end, but this, firstly, is subjective, and secondly, it is much more important when shooting people, not snowmen. I was worried about the bobble - I didn’t specifically compare the front bokeh, because it’s just nasty to the eye, and the fix at least decent, but it’s worth the wait. So look at the back of the blur.
The advantage of fixation in luminosity, as we all know, is a double-edged sword - but this is not all fair. When you shoot on the Leica Noctilux 50mm f / 0.95 in the open, you get a very small zone of sharpness, but you get it across the entire field of the frame. With this fifty dollars, everything is wrong, the edges of the frame here are “soapy” on almost all apertures, so there is not much that can be removed for 1.8. The bottle neck in the night, duck-face, a piece of iPhone - no problem, but then again, human faces should not be removed. The second point is autofocus, a little ring of backlash, and if you are familiar with the situation when the model's nose “got out” of the depth of field, then it is better to be safe and tighten the diaphragm. On the other hand, there is much more room for creativity here than with a noticeably darker zoom, and it can also last longer without a flash.
At equal apertures, the difference in the picture is noticeable, but not much. The fix works more accurately with a complex background, conveys sharp boundaries more gently, and at 2.8 it doesn’t “flake off” at all - pay attention to the headlights. In addition, if the zoom at 2.8 only begins to vignet the image, then the fix to this diaphragm almost does not obscure the corners.
There are also a couple of nice bonuses of fifty dollars - it is small and very light, it does not have a blend, while the zoom weighs no less than the camera itself and certainly does not fit into one normal pocket. While 16-50 / 2.8 conquers with its versatility, 50/1. 8 is very specific and not easy, it makes you work on the frame with your feet and make active use of bracketing, but it also delivers a lot of pleasure. At him, with a dead AF, you can not shoot anything fast, and he himself rather has a calm, unhurried shooting. So it seems to me, given its price, this objective is an unequivocal must-have for a photographer who chose bayonet A.
As for the zoom, then, given the opportunity to buy it with a “whale” to the A77, it attracts, above all, the price - compare with the similar 17-55 / 2.8 from Nikon and Canon. And the range of 16-50, as it seems to me, on a blended camera is more convenient. Excellent body, fast and quiet autofocus, /2.8 over the entire length - it's all with him, and this is his strength, but the picture is without frills.
Finally - this is how the fixed points are “washed”. Worth watching in full resolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqRfLNmVlhM
And full size archive, 164mb, jpg, 6000x4000 www.mediafire.com/?85h2qbklpul55a8
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/141264/
All Articles