[Rondec]

I am just saying that 50 mm is famous for being the sweet spot where you can have a lens that is:
good, fast, and cheap (50 mm 1.8 made of plastic)
better, faster, and not cheap (50 mm 1.4 with some metal)
better, fastest, and expensive (50 mm 1.2)

Now they are trying to offer a best, fast, and super expensive option. I just don't think it is going to succeed well in the market.

I guess. The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is small and as long as the sharpness and bokeh are both decent, it is probably not an issue.

Cost for normal lenses does feel like it has climbed -- used to top out at a 1000 with lenses like the Canon L 50mm f1.2. Even well built normal-ish lenses like the FA 43 and DA *55 run 700 dollars. I guess these lenses are about giving people "the sharpest lens" on x test.

[aurele]

the owner of Da560 5.6 will cry :-)

I was more thinking of people who think they need the 50/1.2 L or 85/1.2 L (Canon) or lens like that to do decent pictures, and that not owning it means failure everytime.

But to be honest, i'd really love to test the 560 on the field. But only if i have a caddy man

Is it just me or do all these new 50~58 lenses seem like the "Gourmet Cheeseburgers" of photography gear.

It's more that many of the 50mm on the market where from 1980-1990. Not that they really need big change in formula, but i guess it's just to keep the price low and use the same process on all lenses (like the HD coating spreading to all lenses).

So photographers that prefer the utmost best optical performance despite the possible added weight and size are "ego apes"?

I perceived that more in the way : sharpness above everything, the only thing that is important to them.
And i agree with it personnaly : considering that only ultimate sharpness matter, no matter the cost or the size of the lens, is simply and plainly stupid.

Come on, don't tell me you take ultra fast lens when it's big bright sunny day with blue sky, just to get a pixel or two sharper than if you'd had taken the f2 or f2.8 or f4 lens ? Because with big blue sky, you will stop down lenses

[normhead]

Some people say you can evaluate a lens from test specs... or how wide the Aperture, anything but the pictures it seems.

But it does beg the question... you have say a 50 1.7, that's very sharp, a 50 1.4 that is about the same sharpness and a 1.2 that is also very sharp, but where the lenses are sharpest @ ƒ4 or ƒ5.6 or where ever it is, the ƒ 1.7 lens is the sharpest, which lens provides the best choice for " photographers that prefer the utmost best optical performance".

I seem to remember the exact conundrum in Pentax land, where the FA 50 1.7 (or possibly the 55) was considered to be sharper than the 50 1.4 or 1.2, which one I can't remember. I think what I'm saying s, the fastest heaviest lens is not necessarily the sharpest, that still has to be determined lens by lens. Sometimes paying for a wide Aperture, just gets you a wide Aperture, not the best IQ. That being said, I'm happy with my FA 50 ƒ1.7. It does the job bought it to do...

[Rondec]

I was more thinking of people who think they need the 50/1.2 L or 85/1.2 L (Canon) or lens like that to do decent pictures, and that not owning it means failure everytime.

But to be honest, i'd really love to test the 560 on the field. But only if i have a caddy man



It's more that many of the 50mm on the market where from 1980-1990. Not that they really need big change in formula, but i guess it's just to keep the price low and use the same process on all lenses (like the HD coating spreading to all lenses).



I perceived that more in the way : sharpness above everything, the only thing that is important to them.
And i agree with it personnaly : considering that only ultimate sharpness matter, no matter the cost or the size of the lens, is simply and plainly stupid.

Come on, don't tell me you take ultra fast lens when it's big bright sunny day with blue sky, just to get a pixel or two sharper than if you'd had taken the f2 or f2.8 or f4 lens ? Because with big blue sky, you will stop down lenses

I think the reason people get the 85mm f1.2 or 50mm f1.2 is for the bokeh. The Canon 50mm f1.4 is sharp enough, but the out of focus rendering is pretty rough compared to the 50mm f1.2.

[Clavius]

Pfff... So, we're supposed to accessorise our cameras according to the weather!? We're not allowed to take our fast lenses out during bright weather because we might not need the widest apertures? LOL!! Such problems were never invented for fast Pentax lenses. And they sure have faster lenses then 1.8.

[starjedi]

This fixation on sharpness everywhere at every aperture is beginning to piss me off. Most zooms are like that and give sterile returns in my opinion.

For sure the Sony looks great, pricing excepted when being tested on a chart . And I will assume that everybody understands that the camera is performing in body lens corrections to mask any little design flaws such as CAs and accentuate various aspects such as sharpness and contrast?
Forget about the f&*(ing charts and point your lens as a live subject :-), anyone of my current lens set would be demolished by the Sony if I rate them by sharpness across the frame but I don't and that is why I have lenses that work for me and my subjects on an emotional / analog level.

This sharpness fixation is beginning to resemble the developed on the Nurburgring phase that car manufacturers in Europe and Japan went through, to the extent that no car has the ride / comfort level that we enjoyed 20 years ago. In wet conditions without computers, they are probably less capable but the boy racers in the car magazines demanded less understeer in track testing. So now every car it seems is over wheeled and fitted with low profile tires that tell you about every ripple in the road surface.

A bit like how this Sony will capture every single defect and flaw of a face you point it at .

PS, looking at this Sony, too me it looks too expensive, too big, too heavy and too slow if I compare it to my 50s (A50 f/1.2 & DA*55 f/1.4). Still each to his / her own and good luck with your shots if you are considering one.

I agree that too sharp is a kind of overkill, especially for women..