Fujfilm X-T200 Camera Review

Dustin Abbott

October 15th, 2020

I’ve been working over the past few years to get up to speed with Fuji’s ecosystem, as I had next to no experience with the platform when Fujifilm Canada approached me with the idea of starting to review Fuji gear. Over the past few years I’ve reviewed four different cameras and roughly a dozen lenses, so I have a lot more familiarity with the system. A lot of Fujifilm’s focus is on the premium end of APS-C, as this is a niche that few others compete in. Cameras like the X-T3 and X-T4 are among the most expensive APS-C cameras I’ve ever reviewed…and that includes DSLRs. There are a number of Fuji lenses that I’ve reviewed, like the 200mm F2 ($6000 USD) and the 8-16mm F2.8 ($2000 USD) that come in at price points higher than any other APS-C specific lenses I’ve previously reviewed. While lenses like this are important to serve existing Fuji customers, it is highly unlikely that the typical consumer looking for premium gear is thinking APS-C rather than full frame. There are many people, however, that have much smaller budgets and are interested in some of the unique features that Fuji offers (color science, film emulations), and appreciate the classic charm of Fuji’s often retro designs. That means there is a lot of room for a lower end camera from Fuji that inherits a lot of the higher end features found on the X-T3/4 bodies. That camera is the Fujifilm X-T200, a second generation of Fuji’s attempt to build a bargain camera with just enough features to satisfy a particular audience who want to be able to make beautiful images without breaking the bank.

While I have not reviewed the X-T100 in the past, my understanding was that it was a very promising camera that was let down by its performance. Fuji has worked to make sure that isn’t the case here, so the X-T200 is in many ways a slightly watered down version of their more premium cameras. Here’s a look at the headline features:

24MP APS-C sensor with Bayer color filter and faster readout speeds
Updated hybrid autofocus system with 425 phase-detect points
Refined ergonomics, lighter body
3.5″, 16:9 fully articulating LCD with 2.76 million dots
Easy-to-use touch menus
2.36M-dot OLED viewfinder with 0.62x magnification
8 fps burst shooting
New ‘Clarity’ effect
Oversampled 4K video with no crop
Audio level controls
Microphone and headphone inputs (latter via USB-C adapter)
New Digital Gimbal and HDR video options

To me the standout features at this price point is the fully articulating screen, 425 AF point focus system, and the ability to get up to 8 FPS (and use an electronic shutter that raises the shutter speed to a maximum of 1/32,000th). After spending a month with the X-T200 I can say that while I definitely miss some of the ergonomics of the higher end X-T3 or X-T4 bodies, I feel like this is definitely a nice platform for being highly portable while still having quality imaging power on hand. Let’s explore together whether or not this more budget option from Fuji is the right camera for you.

Prefer to watch your reviews? Check out either my definitive (long format) or standard video review with a lot of visual support of my conclusions:

Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for the loaners of the X-T200, XF 16mm F2.8, and XF 23mm F2 lenses for this test.

FUJIFILM X-T200

Design and Features

The Fujfilm X-T200 definitively resembles the family of Fuji cameras, particularly if you choose one of the Silver or Champagne Gold options (the Dark Silver is the closest to traditional black). I’m partial to Fujifilm cameras in silver, as I really like the retro aesthetic that it evokes. Truth be told, however, each of three finish options on the camera are visually pleasing in their own ways.

At first glance one might think the the X-T200 continues Fuji’s tradition of abundant physical controls as found on their higher end cameras, but in actual use I actually found this to be far less true than per usual. There are a number of missing dials (front dial to control Drive Mode), dedicated Exposure Compensation dial, etc… and none of the dials are the dual layer type seen on the X-T4. What appears like a typical dial on the left side of the top plate is a lever to pop up the built-in flash, and while the dial there can be rotated (though with little smoothness), it seems to be solely dedicated to selecting different film emulations. This could be useful as a JPEG shooter, but, as a RAW shooter, this has no value to me as I can (must) just select any of those in post anyway.

The front dial defaults to A/V control, and I don’t see a way to change it in the menus. The dial is quite small, so I find it a little hard to easily find by feel. The shutter button is seated in the middle of it.

The rear dial controls shutter speed and the weight is a little on the heavy side.

It’s pretty obvious from real world use that while Fuji makes homage to its manual control ethos, the X-T200 is really a camera designed to be handled more conventionally. None of these dials have an obvious, assigned value, and one gets the sense that they will be used less often than on the X-T4. A lot of these same tasks can be controlled via the touchscreen in either the Q or main menus.

Speaking of the Q menu, the X-T200 has one odd design choice around the Q menu. I’ve essentially never a camera without a dedicated Q button, but the X-T200 elects to simply put two standard buttons without labels to the right of the viewfinder. I had to assign the Q menu control to one of those blank buttons (I assigned the other to control drive mode). This allows me to have a more typical button layout that works for me…though it remains weird to have no label at all on the button (perhaps follow Sony’s lead with a C1 and C2 designation?)

The X-T200 eliminates the typical D-Pad or real wheel and a few buttons in order to make room for a truly huge (relative to the camera) 3.5″, 2.76m dot touchscreen LCD that is fully variable. There’s relatively little room left on the ride side of the camera, but Fuji has used that space fairly effectively, with a nicely contoured thumb rest, a miniature joystick nub that will be familiar to X-T3/X-T4 users, and two buttons (Menu/OK and DISP/BACK). The buttons are all on the small side, but they’re functional.

Less functional for me is the ON/OFF button, which is recessed between the three top dials on the right side and needs a thumb smaller than mine to conveniently operate. This is a camera that is designed with smaller hands in mind, though the upside is that it is truly small and light in a way that few cameras are these days. Likewise I find the tiny video record button almost unusable with larger hands. You certainly can’t depress it with any degree of smoothness or find it easily by feel.

There are two buttons to the left of the viewfinder, one of which performs a dual mode of selecting drive speed and taking out the garbage during playback. The second button is the play button.

The Fujifilm X-T200 is truly diminutive compared to the much larger X-Tx bodies, though it’s weight savings compared to a camera like the X-T30 is minimal. The X-T30 weighs in 13.51 oz (383g), while the X-T200 is slightly lighter at 13.05 oz (370g). That makes it lighter than most of the lenses I review…and that’s with the memory card and battery inserted. The physical dimensions are (W x H x D) 4.76 x 3.3 x 2.17″ / 121 x 83.7 x 55.1 mm. If you have bigger hands, can forget grabbing this camera like you would a DSLR, but the shape of the tiny grip isn’t bad. I wouldn’t want to use it with any of the big, heavy pro-grade zooms, though. This seems like a better match for the diminutive F2 and F2.8 primes that I frankly feel are the sweet spot for the platform anyway.

Fuji’s touchscreen performance lands in between Canon and Sony, though this is the best implementation I’ve seen thus far for a Fuji camera. Canon is the winner, with all menus navigable via touchscreen and the most responsive screen to touch, and Sony is the definite loser, with the least responsive touchscreen and zero menu navigation options via touch. Fuji gives you the ability to control both the Q and standard menus via touch, and, while there can be a slight input lag, it works fairly well. The menu design could use a bit of a tweak to meet the reality that it can be now navigated by touch, as the options are a little small to be selected with any precision. The larger, higher resolution touchscreen does help, but a redesign of menus with touch in mind would be welcome.

The viewfinder is specced from the X-T30 (a cut below the X-T4), and has a 0.39″ 2.36 million-dot resolution viewfinder, which lags behind the 0.5″ 3.69 million-dot resolution of the viewfinder on the higher end bodies. The viewfinder is still fairly good, though, and if you aren’t familiar with the higher resolution viewfinder you may not notice.

The X-T200 used the common NP-W126S battery pack and is rated at approximately 270 shots in this application. A spare battery isn’t a bad idea, though fortunately you can use USB-C to easily charge the battery in camera (even off things like power banks, which is a big bonus to me).

One serious downside for me with Fuji’s lower end cameras is the placement of the single UHS-1 rated SD card.. I vastly prefer the side placement of the X-T3/X-T3 series. My biggest beef with this kind of placement is that if one is videoing and using a quick release plate the memory card becomes inaccessible. You have to remove the QR plate before getting the card out, which can be a pain if you are pulling footage off the camera but plan to shoot further.

The X-T200 lacks the weather sealing of the higher end Fuji cameras and feels a little more plasticky, but I do like the textures of the grip material and have felt worse cameras in the hand.

The standout feature here is clearly the big, high resolution articulating touchscreen. I’ve been spoiled by the superior physical controls of Fuji’s higher end bodies, but the truth of the matter is the X-T200’s design is much more typical for this class of camera.

FUJIFILM X-T200 Autofocus

Autofocus is one of the primary areas that the X-T200 benefits from the trickle-down effect of the higher end bodies. Fuji makes less of a big deal about the focus/tracking abilities of this camera, but the headline is that we again have a hybrid Contrast/Phase Detect autofocus system with 425 selectable AF points. This covers essentially the whole sensor with AF points, and is a fair cry from the standard 9 AF point system I saw in one Canon DLSR after another for year after year back in the day.

That’s not to say that we have the tracking and processing power of the top end cameras, per se. I noted that sensitivity was only down to -2 EV rather than -3 EV, so don’t expect the X-T200 to be as effective in low light.

That aside, however, it is pretty easy to get accurately focused results, and one can use a thumb on the touchscreen while you have an eye pressed against the viewfinder to move an AF point around, though it’s slightly slower and more clunky than in some competing applications. One can select individual points, differing sizes of zones, or elect to keep all points active. Doing the latter does not operate like Sony, for example, where the AF considers the whole frame when looking for a target. Here there is still a box shown on screen where focus will be prioritized. This is overridden only if an eye is detected elsewhere in the frame, so having all points active really works more for portraiture than anything else, though when tracking a subject the focus will sometimes follow the subject across the frame.

Fuji limits the maximum sync speed here (for flashes) to 1/180th second rather than 1/250th second, and the maximum shutter speed is 1/4000th rather than 1/8000th compared to the higher end bodies. This is pretty standard for differentiating lines. What’s unique here, though, is that you can select an electronic shutter that will give you up to 1/32,000th shutter speed, which can be very useful when using large aperture primes (the new 50mm F1.0, anyone?)

Also worth noting is that the FUJIFILM X-T200 can shoot continuously at up to 8.0fps in full resolution (pretty good!), but as is often the case with Fuji, the limiting principle is buffer depth. With a freshly formatted card I was able to get only about 17 RAW images before the buffer filled and the firmrate slowed down. More surprising, however, it that when I switched to purely JPEGs, I was also only about get 24 JPEG images before slowdown. This means that you only get a couple of seconds to capture your action with RAWs, and about three seconds with JPEG. That means you had better start holding that shutter down at the RIGHT moment!

The X-T200 has a pretty decent AF system, and can even track a bit of action, but if you need more specialized performance, you might want to consider the X-T3 or X-T4 instead. This is a general purpose camera…not a specialist one.

FUJIFILM X-T200 Video

Modern mirrorless cameras are amazing hybrid devices. They are not only capable stills cameras, but they are often surprisingly robust video platforms. The X-T200 has better than typical video specs for this class, including the ability shoot in 4K. Fuji says this, “You can shoot comfortable and high-quality videos using a large LCD vari-angle monitor. Since 4K (3840 x 2150) video is generated from 6K equivalent data (6032 x 3392) without cropping, high-definition and noise-free 4K video (30/25/24 / 23.98p) is generated. You can also select a film simulation according to the scene, dramatically cutting out your daily life like a scene from a movie.”

Fuji essentially has a three tier system for their current cameras. The top tier (X-T4) gives advanced video options like 4K60, FLog, and more options for getting professional grade footage. The X-T30 retains the FLog, but limits the the framerate to 4K30. The X-T200 loses the FLog and is thus more suited for those who don’t “grade” their video footage and just use it as comes out of camera.

Despite this, however, the X-T200 is capable of producing some very nice looking 4K footage with good detail. Full HD (1080P) does give you the option of going up to 60FPS for your action sequences and also an option for shooting HDR video to give you expanded dynamic range.

On the feature side, you do get the ability to manually control audio levels and have a microphone input. Fuji has started to leverage the USB-C port in its cameras for multiple purposes, including as a headphone jack via an adapter. It’s not as useful as a dedicated headphone jack, but it at least does give you that option (which isn’t often available at this level of camera).

While there is no true optical stabilization in body, Fuji does has a feature called “Digital Gimbal” that can smooth video for things like walking, though at a cost of a significant crop factor. It is only available in Full HD mode, not 4K.

On a practical level, I have only one real criticism of Fuji’s video performance, and that actually has to do with continuous autofocus while capturing video. I find that focus pulls from one subject to another are frequently not as smooth as what I see from either recent Sony bodies or Canon bodies with DPAF. I often see more visible stepping between one subject to another. The X-T200 also has the limitation that there is no real-time tracking during video AF.

For the cost of the camera, however, you are getting pretty decent video specs and the ability to supplement your stills photography with good quality video where needed.

FUJIFILM SENSOR PERFORMANCE

This is the first Fujifilm camera that I’ve reviewed with anything other than their 26Mpx X-Trans sensor. The X-T200 has a more traditional 24Mpx APS-C sensor with Bayer color filter. I say traditional because of the resolution (24Mpx is a very common resolution point for APS-C) and because it is the far more common Bayer rather than X-Trans. Overall, I found that the sensor was a capable one. I got a lot of great looking images out of the camera. I really only had one chief complaint, and that was a tendency to get inconsistent metering out of the camera. I often shoot in AV mode, and I found that I was constantly having to bias exposure because of inconsistent metering. Your mileage may vary, of course. Let’s take a closer look at the some of the details of sensor performance.

HIGH ISO

The native range of the X-T200 is 200-12,800, a more restricted range than many competing cameras from Sony or Canon. They typically have a base ISO of 100 (not 200), and most of them will go up to at least 25,600. Fuji chooses to be a little more conservative with the ISO range on their cameras, and their base ISO is a little less sensitive while the upper part of the range is cut off at least a stop below what competing cameras offer. Don’t read too much into that, however, as my experience is that Fuji cameras are actually quite competitive in terms of actual ISO performance.

I consider the whole natural ISO range of the X-T200 to be usable, as even ISO 12,800 still has a very usable amount of detail, contrast, and color fidelity. What you will see, however, is a fine noise pattern reminiscent of film grain. Here’s a comparison between base ISO and maximum ISO:

I’ve got only one real critique here, and that is that I do notice slightly less global contrast. While the highlights remain clear here, I do think the shadows have gotten slightly lifted (black levels aren’t as deep). This means that higher ISO shots will be a little flatter, though you could elect to deepen the black levels yourself if desired. This isn’t a top tier performance, but the X-T200 certainly doesn’t embarrass itself here.

Dynamic Range

I value dynamic range within a camera in two specific areas: the ability to cleanly lift shadows without introducing noise or color banding and the ability to recover highlights without introducing “hot spots” where information has been permanently lost. There are many scenes in nature where the variance between bright areas and shadows exceeds a camera’s ability to record the whole range of light (our eyes are extraordinarily good at this). The ability to recover highlights means that a blown out sky might be recovered and add a lot of visual interest to an image, or perhaps to eliminate “hot spots” on a person’s face that has gotten overexposed by a flash. The ability to recover shadows allows you to, for example, underexpose a bit so that the sky is not blown out while still safely recovering information in the shadows. It can also be a lifesaver if a flash doesn’t fire, for example, or settings are wrong, and a crucial image that could have been lost can be saved in post. This is the real-world value of dynamic range.

Fuji has an extra trick up its sleeve to help you maximize dynamic range performance in such scenes, which we’ll get to in just a moment.

In my tests, I found that the X-T200 did an excellent job of recovering shadows very cleanly. Here we have an image that I purposefully underexposed by four stops. As you can see in the original RAW image, there is very little information left there. In post I added those four stops back into the recovered image. What we find is an image that has been recovered with very little penalty. Even if we look in at a pixel level, we see very little noise introduced and no color casts or banding.

This definitely gives you processing flexibility in recovering shadows to add more visual interest in images.

As is often the case, however, highlight recovery lags behind shadow recovery. A similar four stop overexposure and attempted recovery results in an unusable image.

You can see that a lot of the color and texture information is gone without any ability to recover it. Even a three stop standard highlight recovery looks pretty weak.

But Fuji’s trick is something called DR200 that you can begin to access at ISO 400. DR200 essentially splits the sensor readout so that the shadow information is gathered from the current ISO setting while the highlight information comes from base ISO. This gives you one additional stop in the highlights. Look at how much more credible the recovered highlights are on the DR200 recovery (right) vs the base ISO standard recovery on the left.

Just to give some perspective, this is just how blown out those original highlights were compared to how successfully they can be recovered.

I’ve learned to regularly use this feature when shooting with Fuji cameras, as it really does give you a lot of additional processing latitude when shooting scenes with a broad range of luminoscity. Utilizing DR200 allowed me to get back a sky in the shot below.

This is definitely a more practical approach than HDR in many situations, as there is no concern about movement of your subject in between frames and you end up with a more credible end result. I strongly recommend remembering DR200 and utilizing it whenever you want more dynamic range. The end result is a strong performance for the X-T200 relative to competitors.

Color

Color science is a fairly divisive topic. I’ve found that my work in comparing color science has been both popular and controversial. Here’s at least part of the reason why: people don’t all see color identically. This has become evident based on a number of photos that circulate around the Internet featuring a dress or sandals that people perceive to be very different colors. Part of this has to do with the way that people’s eyes process color (some have more red cones in the eye, others more green), but it also comes down to the reality that in the Internet age people view images on screens that vary widely in their color calibration and accuracy. Put simply: not everyone is seeing the same thing.

I use two displays in my personal desktop array, a 27″ BenQ SW271 (I reviewed it here), with my secondary display being another 27″ BenQ SW270C, both run at a 4K resolution. I calibrate both of them on a monthly basis using a SpyderX Elite. I also view my photos regularly on the screen of my iPad Pro and my Dell XPS 13 laptop (which also has a high end 4K display). In short, I use a lot of high quality screens in my work, and, based on what I see on them (and from prints), I feel like Canon produces the best, most natural color.

A lot of people are big fans of Fuji’s color, however, particularly when it comes to the quality of the JPEGs and looks you can create in camera. It starts with selecting a color profile in camera or in post. Fuji’s approach to this is a little different, as instead of basic color profiles they instead offer film simulations with names that evoke classic film stocks (the company is called FujiFILM after all!) This includes stocks like Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, and more.

Still, here’s a look at an image with a number of different profiles applied in Lightroom. First, Adobe Standard:

Now Astia (Soft)

Now Classic Chrome

Provia

Velvia

You definitely have a lot of control over how an image will look.

You’ve also got a lot of great options on the monochrome front, with classic film emulations but also the ability to go into the menus and tweak the look in several ways.

Most of these tweaks in-camera will only matter if you are shooting JPEGs. If you are shooting RAWs you can do all of this in post. Many that have chosen Fuji have done so for their ability to shoot JPEGs and get what they like right out of camera. If that sounds like you, then the Fuji X-T30 might be a great choice. It’s certainly got a lot of customization available for influencing the output.

Here’s a few images I think show off Fuji’s colors very nicely.

I would recommend that you take a long look at the Image Galleries page to see if you like what is there – most of which has received minimal processing so you can make a fair determination.

CONCLUSION

The FUJIFILM X-T200 is a fairly strong entry into the market for budget APS-C mirrorless cameras. It has a lot of features for this price point, and Fuji has already discounted the price from $799 USD originally (probably a little on the high side) to a price of just $499 USD currently…which includes the mediocre XF 15-45mm lens. There’s no question that this represents a great value, as the X-T200 is a great little platform if your priority is to travel light. A lens like the value XC 35mm F2 is a great pairing with the camera and will give you much better results than the kit lens. I used a lightweight kit during this review that primarily consisted of the XF 16mm F2.8 and XF 23mm F2, two other lenses that I think pair nicely.

It is my opinion that Fuji is more competitive in this space than at the X-T4 level, as, while the X-T4 is an extremely robust camera, it is priced to compete more with the full frame offerings from other camera makers, and many photographers (myself included) prefer the advantages inherit in the full frame platform. At this price point, however, Canon and Sony have less to offer. Fuji has a deeper catalog of APS-C specific lenses, and the X-T200 has a more complete array of features to offer. It’s not a standout in any particular area (save perhaps the great LCD screen), but it does enough things reasonably well that I think most potential customers will be quite satisfied. If you want an upgrade on the features front, the Fujifilm X-T30 is a nice alternative ($899 USD).

Pros:

Great retro charm to the physical look and design
Big and high resolution LCD screen
Great JPEGs with a lot of customization
Has 4K30 where some competing cameras are limited to 24FPS
Fuji’s DR modes give more creative options
Good video specs and quality footage
Fujifilm’s excellent catalog of lenses designed for APS-C

Cons:

Buffers fill quickly when shooting bursts
Grip is really thin for large hands
No dedicated Q menu button
Inconsistent metering performance at times.

Purchase the FUJIFILM X-T200 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Fujinon XC 35mm F2 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Purchase the FUJIFILM X-T30 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-F4 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Fujifilm, X-T200, Fuji X-T200, X-T200 Review, Fuji X-T200 Review, Fujinon, Fujinon 15-45mm, Fuji 15-45mm, Dustin Abbott, XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 Review, Hands On, Video Test, Sharpness, High ISO, Autofocus, Dynamic Range, XF 23mm F2, XF 16mm F2.8, Lens, Comparison, Test, Dustinabbott.net, Sony a6400, Sony a6500, Fuji X-T4

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Fujifilm X-T200 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

October 6th, 2020

I’ve been working over the past few years to get up to speed with Fuji’s ecosystem, as I had next to no experience with the platform when Fujifilm Canada approached me with the idea of starting to review Fuji gear. Over the past few years I’ve reviewed four different cameras and roughly a dozen lenses, so I have a lot more familiarity with the system. A lot of Fujifilm’s focus is on the premium end of APS-C, as this is a niche that few others compete in. Cameras like the X-T3 and X-T4 are among the most expensive APS-C cameras I’ve ever reviewed…and that includes DSLRs. There are many people, however, that have much smaller budgets and are interested in some of the unique features that Fuji offers (color science, film emulations), and appreciate the classic charm of Fuji’s often retro designs. That means there is a lot of room for a lower end camera from Fuji that inherits a lot of the higher end features found on the X-T3/4 bodies. That camera is the Fujifilm X-T200, a second generation of Fuji’s attempt to build a bargain camera with just enough features to satisfy a particular audience who want to be able to make beautiful images without breaking the bank.

Here’s a look at the headline features of the FUJFILM X-T200:

24MP APS-C sensor with Bayer color filter and faster readout speeds
Updated hybrid autofocus system with 425 phase-detect points
Refined ergonomics, lighter body
3.5″, 16:9 fully articulating LCD with 2.76 million dots
Easy-to-use touch menus
2.36M-dot OLED viewfinder with 0.62x magnification
8 fps burst shooting
New ‘Clarity’ effect
Oversampled 4K video with no crop
Audio level controls
Microphone and headphone inputs (latter via USB-C adapter)
New Digital Gimbal and HDR video options

Sound interesting? Check out either my text or video reviews to get a sense of whether or not this is the camera for you. You can check out photos of the camera here and also photos taken with it using a variety of lenses.

Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for the loaners of the X-T200, XF 16mm F2.8, and XF 23mm F2 lenses for this test.

Photos of the FUJIFILM X-T200

Photos Taken with the FUJIFILM X-T200

Purchase the FUJIFILM X-T200 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Fujinon XC 35mm F2 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Purchase the FUJIFILM X-T30 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-F4 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Fujifilm, X-T200, Fuji X-T200, X-T200 Review, Fuji X-T200 Review, Fujinon, Fujinon 15-45mm, Fuji 15-45mm, Dustin Abbott, XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 Review, Hands On, Video Test, Sharpness, High ISO, Autofocus, Dynamic Range, XF 23mm F2, XF 16mm F2.8, Lens, Comparison, Test, Dustinabbott.net, Sony a6400, Sony a6500, Fuji X-T4

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Brightin Star 12mm F2 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

November 6th, 2019

Brightin Star is the somewhat oddly named brand (I suspect this is a Chinese idiom that gets lost in translation) that has started to produce a variety of budget manual focus lenses for a number of the popular mirrorless camera systems, including Sony, Fuji, Canon M, and m43. The Brightin Star 12mm F2 caught my eye when considering which of their lenses to review for the simple reason that I previously owned the Samyang 12mm F2 for Canon M and loved it. The Brightin Star 12mm F2 follows a similar pattern of a manual-everything wide angle lens with an effective aperture (on full frame) of 18mm – perfect for landscape and interiors. Brightin Star ups the game a bit, though, with a higher grade all-metal construction, 11 rounded aperture blades (the sunstars from the Samyang are somewhat ugly due to a low six blade aperture count), and a lower price. We’ll see if they can also match the excellent sharpness and flare resistance of the Samyang lens in our tests. Stay tuned for more coverage of this nice wide angle option available for under $200.

Images of the Brightin Star 12mm F2

Images taken with the Brightin Star 12mm F2

Purchase the Brightin Star 12mm F2 @ PerGear (use code DUSTIN5 to get $5 off) | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Sony a6500: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK | Ebay

Sony a7RIV Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Sony a7R III Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK | Ebay
Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Brightin Star 12mm, Brightin Star 12mm F2, 12mm, F2, Brightin Star, Samyang, Rokinon, review, Brightin Star Review, Brightin Star 12mm Review, Brightin Star 12mm F2 review, F/2, Sony a6500, ILCE-9, Sony, Fuji, M43, EF-M, Dustin Abbott, Sony a7RIII, Sony A7RIV, Hands On, Video Test, Landscape, Video, Image Quality, Coma, Real World, Comparison, VS, Flare, Resolution, Sample Photos, Sample Videos

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 Review

Dustin Abbott

May 25th, 2018

Towards the end of 2017 I spent time with my first Kamlan lens – the Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 compact prime lens. There were things that I praised, including a very nice build quality (all metal and glass) and nice rendering (including good color rendition and excellent bokeh quality). There were other things I liked less, including some quirks in the build and mechanical operation of the lens (sticking points in the aperture ring and a lens bayonet mount that required too much force to mount or release). I also criticized the low contrast and sharpness at wide apertures, the very flare-prone nature of the lens, and some chromatic aberrations. My final verdict of that lens was that despite some flaws it provided an inexpensive way for photographers to get some unique images due to the huge maximum aperture of the lens. So when Sainsonic approached me about reviewing their next lens – the Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 – I quickly agreed. In many ways the Kamlan 28mm is a less extreme instrument, but that also makes it a better lens in near every way. And, at a price tag of well under $200, it is going to be a very interesting option for those who want a “budget premium” prime lens.

Prefer to watch your reviews? Click below to watch my full review and image quality breakdown:

Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 Build, Design, and Handling

The Kamlan 28mm perfectly fits the niche as an inexpensive fast “normal” prime lens. “Normal” lenses are valued because they provide a natural angle of view that is similar to what the human eye sees. The images they produce are very relatable and engaging because they feel like scenes people have seen. The focal length is extremely versatile for a wide range of applications – from landscapes to portraits to street photography. In recent years, many people have thought of the 50mm focal length (on full frame) as “normal”, but in times past a normal lens was actually closer to 40mm. I was initially somewhat put off by the focal length when Tamron released a 45mm f/1.8 lens a few years ago, but when I began to use the lens, I discovered that in many ways I liked it better than the classic 50mm focal length. I ended up purchasing that lens and have found that it is a lens I often reach for.

The Kamlan 28mm is essentially that lens for APS-C cameras. I’m reviewing it on Sony APS-C (a6500), where it has a 42mm (35mm full frame equivalent) focal length on Sony E and Fuji X mounts. On Canon M the 35mm equivalent focal length is 44.8mm, and on M43 it is 56mm. In practical use I’ve already found the lens’ focal length to be very useful for a wide range of subjects. Here’s a quick sampling of some the things that I’ve used the lens to shoot:

Street:

Landscape:

People:

Close Focus:

The Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 sports an all metal and glass design with a similar design ethos to the 50mm f/1.1 (not a bad thing). The lens has a classic premium feel that belies its inexpensive price tag. In many ways it reminds me of the Laowa lenses that I’ve reviewed, with many similar strengths and weakness. I was happy to find a maturing design and engineering process with the Kamlan 28mm. Most of my concerns with the build on the previous lens have been addressed. You can catch those details in this video, where I breakdown the build, design, and handling of the lens:

It is an extremely compact lens, with a diameter of 56mm (2.2”) and a length of 68mm (2.7”). It easily fits in the palm of your hand and is a great physical match to the Sony a6500 that I’m reviewing it on. Despite it’s compact size, it has some heft due to being all metal and glass in construction, and weighs in at 344g (12 oz). It’s not heavy in an absolute sense (and balances well on the camera), but the heft of the Kamlan 28 belies its very compact size.

Kamlan has continued to utilize a “declicked” manual aperture ring, which is prized by videographers for allowing smooth aperture changes while retaining traditional aperture stop markers for stills photographers. I don’t mind the declicked aperture, though for stills it requires visual confirmation to see approximately where you are in terms of aperture value as you can’t rely on the tactile feedback from the predefined aperture detents of a typical aperture ring. The upside is that you can essentially select any aperture size between f/1.4 and f/16 without worrying about full/partial stops. My concern with the 50mm f/1.1 was that the aperture ring required so much effort to turn that it defeated the purpose of having a declicked aperture; you still wouldn’t be able to get smooth aperture transitions. Even after it loosened up a bit with use, I still had a few “sticking points” where the action was less smooth. On the Kamlan 28mm the action is much smoother and much more consistent; videographers should be able to do “aperture racking” without issue, though the weight is still on the heavier side. I understand that with a clickless aperture you don’t want the weighting to be so light that you inadvertently change aperture settings easily, but I also think the purpose of a declicked aperture is defeated if the weight is too heavy. Kamlan has refined their process already, but I think just a slight more refinement is in order.

That’s not a problem with the MF ring! The manual focus ring is incredibly smooth and perfectly damped, allowing for smooth and accurate focus results across the roughly 160 degrees of focus travel. The quality of the focus and aperture rings is that of a premium lens; all finely ribbed anodized metal. The MF ring is loaded with etched (not just painted) distance markings to help aid focus, though there are a variety of focus aids built into the Sony a6500 body that I’m using for review that help even more. I found the distance markings to be fairly accurate, though, as is fairly typical in my findings, I found that accurate infinity focus came slightly before the hard stop at infinity. The lens extends about 1 cm (roughly half and inch) when at minimum focus distances (the lens will focus down to 25cm/9”), though nothing rotates at the front, which allows for circular polarizers to be used without issue.

One minor real-world criticism that I’ve encountered is that there isn’t a major difference in tactile feel between the two rings (the MF ring is a few millimeters wider) due to the clickless nature of the aperture ring, and, as a result, there have been times that I’ve inadvertently starting changing aperture when I wanted to focus the lens. I’m sure that familiarity will help eliminate that issue, but it’s worth noting as I haven’t often had that issue despite being unfamiliar with a lens. The only other lens that I can recall encountering this issue is with my vintage Helios 44-2 lens (a preset aperture lens). This isn’t a big issue, but just something to look out for as you begin to familiarize yourself with the lens.

The lens has a metal 52mm front filter thread up front along with other branding information along the front lens’ fascia. I wasn’t crazy about the way that the lens hood included with the 50mm f/1.1 lens mounted on the front bayonet mount, as it didn’t really attach with a definite click. I felt like I needed to force the hood into the correct position. At first, I looked at a prototype version of the Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 that had a similar hood, but later discovered that Kamlan has developed a new premium metal lens hood for the lens instead, and that hood attaches by threading it onto the front filter threads rather than a bayonet mount. It is threaded inside the lens hood so that you can still attach screw-on filters in the 52mm size. The upside to this arrangement is that with, say, a circular polarizer, the filter isn’t quite as deeply recessed in the hood. The new metal lens hood is about half the length of the plastic one, and has an ultra-fine ribbing inside to stop light from bouncing around. The logo on the hood has been updated to Kamlan’s most recent script. The loss of depth in the metal hood doesn’t seem to make a big difference, and the premium finish of the metal hood definitely makes everything seem a little more high end.

There is one downside to the metal hood, however, and that is that due to the nature of the attachment (via the filter threads), it cannot be reversed like the plastic hood for storage. A bayonet mount hood can always be reversed, but not a hood that threads on. I was also a little disappointed to find that the mounting still left something to be desired, and when reaching the end of the range of screwing on the hood it felt like the machining just didn’t quite line up perfectly between the threads of the hood and the filter threads. It worked, but it required more force than what I would like (accompanied by a bit of screeching as I attempted to line up the logo in the proper spot). I’d like to see Kamlan refine their machining process a bit more, as it is those little details that help leave a positive impression with photographers.

The Kamlan 28mm lens has a large, bright f/1.4 aperture that allows for great results in low light conditions and also the ability to create beautifully soft backgrounds. It allows for more control over the depth of field, letting you choose what will be in focus. Further extending the flexibility of the lens is the ability focus down to just 0.25m (9.48 inches), which allows for a 0.15x maximum magnification figure, which, while not exceptional in an absolute sense, is higher than competing lenses at this focal length.

The lens sports a premium 11-blade circular aperture iris, which enables it to have soft, creamy backgrounds with circular highlights even when the lens is stopped down to smaller apertures. The very artful rendering from the lens is unique from a lens at this inexpensive price point. My chief complaint against my Tamron 45mm lens is that while it has nice rendering in a number of situations, it is prone towards onion bokeh (concentric circles in bokeh highlights) and also suffers from some pronounced axial chromatic aberrations at wide apertures. Neither of these are problems for the Kamlan 28.

At the rear of the lens you will find all metal components, and I noted with relief that the machining of the bayonet mount of the Kamlan 28mm is more precise, which results in a smoother mount/unmount process. The rear of the lens is nicely engineered, though it lacks either electronics or any kind of weather sealing. I don’t really expect the weather sealing at this point, but the lack of electronics brings its own kind of complications.

The first of those complications is that the lack of communication to the camera body means that in camera profiles are out of the question. Even in a piece of software like Lightroom a profile won’t automatically be applied but must be manually selected…and you may need to go and find a profile for it. Do you need a profile? Vignette is actually pretty mild – mild enough that I doubt it would be an issue in any real-world scenario. There is some mild barrel distortion, however, and the lens could benefit from correction of that. At wide open aperture, I found that a value of +6 in Lightroom’s “Distortion” setting nicely corrected the distortion (it’s a simple barrel distortion pattern), and a value of +43 (Amount) and +17 (Midpoint) dialed into the Manual Vignetting panel solved the vignette. None of these values are extreme. Here’s a look at the result before correction and after my simple correction:

The secondary challenge with no electronics is that the lens won’t communicate any EXIF data. This means that you won’t get lens-specific information attached to the files, like focal length, lens designation, or aperture value. The latter can be a real challenge as it makes applying a profile to correct for, say, vignette, difficult because vignette is aperture specific in most cases. The values I gave for Amount on Vignette are applicable at f/1.4; by f/2.8 they are too extreme and you need to pull the amount back.

One final observation on the lack of electronic communication: if you are shooting on a camera body with Sony’s IBIS (Optical Steady Shot), you will need to manually select the focal length in Steady Shot settings to tailor the IBIS to give the best performance. 28mm is an option there, and it will allow the camera to apply appropriate correction for the focal length. Doing this will give you a better performance.

On a side note, I personally miss proper EXIF data as a lens reviewer. It means that I have to try to mentally remember aperture values for tests and shots when I report on the lens. As an added complication, I’m currently reviewing a couple such lenses, so I’m also struggling to remember which lens was used for a particular shot.

Complaining aside, I knew all of these things going into the review; it’s the nature of this kind of lens. The build of the compact Kamlan 28mm is ultimately very positive. It’s a nicely built lens with some premium elements that are way above its inexpensive price point.

Kamlan 28mm Image Quality

When I reviewed the 50mm f/1.1, I found a fairly mixed bag. On the positive front, the bokeh rendering from the lens was very nice, as was color rendition. On the negative front was the fact that chromatic aberrations were quite high, the lens was highly flare prone, and critical sharpness and contrast didn’t arrive until the lens was stopped down to smaller apertures. I’ve had the opportunity to shoot for an extended period with the Kamlan 28mm, and frankly, I vastly prefer it to the 50mm f/1.1. Sainsonic has managed to correct the majority of the optical shortcomings of the 1.1/50 while retaining the strengths of its nice rendering and bokeh. I would encourage you to watch the image quality breakdown in this video to get all the details:

The optical formula is 8 elements in 7 groups. The lens utilizes high quality optical glass with higher levels of refraction to help shape light more efficiently and to produce lower chromatic aberrations (which are better controlled than competing lenses). It also employs a Gaussian-like symmetrical structure that has the dual benefit of allowing for the compact size of the lens while also reducing aberrations and distortion.

Resolution and Contrast

The good news here is that resolution and contrast in the center of the frame is already quite good at f/1.4. Chromatic aberrations are better controlled (though not nonexistent), so contrast is less impacted. I have found over years of reviewing lenses that axial (longitudinal) chromatic aberrations are the #1 killer of contrast. Part of why Zeiss lenses tend to have such excellent microcontrast is the excellent job they do in dealing with axial CA. Often as lenses are stopped down, the axial CA starts to clear up, which has the side benefit of increasing contrast.

The axial CA here is fairly mild (better than, say, the excellent Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DN), and so there is only a moderate boost to center contrast when the lens is stopped down to narrower apertures. In fact, peak center sharpness and contrast arrives at f/2, and really it is the outer portion of the image circle that is affected by stopping the lens down further.

To be fair to most other comparisons of lenses on the Sony a6500 (where profiles are often embedded even in RAW files), I am going to show comparisons where I’ve done the very mild vignette and distortion correction, which I’ve determined does not negatively impact results and will allow you to see edge performance a little more clearly.

Here’s a look at how much sharper the center is than the edge at f1.4:

There was enough of a difference that I wondered if the result was from field curvature, so I tried again with the lens focused on the left side (where I would measure) and then did a traditional center focus. What I found was a very minor improvement on the area when I focused directly on it, but not enough to make a meaningful difference. It’s just some softness on the edges, not really a field curvature issue.

Stopping the lens down to f/2 makes a slight improvement to the already excellent center result by reducing what chromatic aberrations were there and boosting contrast some. You’ll also note that the colors of the bricks are more accurate due to not having a slight magenta cast from CA:

Other than a lift of vignette, there is little improvement all the way out at the edge at f/2:

At the same time, the sharp portion of the frame does extend further out towards the edge, but, as you can see, the extreme edge still isn’t all that impressive.

So when do the edges sharpen up? Fortunately there is a major leap from f/2 to f/2.8, where the edges move from merely acceptable to fairly good.

From f/2.8 to f/4 the edges improve further to good:

Finally, at f/5.6, the extreme edges become excellent…as in really excellent. At f/8, the sharpness profile across the frame peaks, with a very minor improvement from f/5.6:

Some lenses never sharpen up to exceptional levels, but I can safely say that the Kamlan 28mm is not one of those lenses…it reaches excellent levels across the frame when stopped down, which allows you to create some beautiful landscape images like these:

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the most natural competitor for the Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 on the Sony E-mount that I’m reviewing on. I’ve owned that for nearly a year, and know it very well as it has been my most used APS-C Emount lens. The focal lengths aren’t identical, obviously, but are close enough that in most situations there won’t be much of a practical difference. The Sigma is a quite a bit larger physically (64.8mm vs 56mm in diameter and nearly 80mm vs 68mm in length), though the Kamlan is actually the heavier lens due to construction (265g vs 344g). The Sigma has the advantage of being an autofocusing lens and having electronics to control aperture and report information, but it’s not a sure win optically. Because of the electronics, there is a standard correction profile embedded in the RAW files, but, even with the help of the built-in profile, it actually shows more chromatic aberrations and more distortion than the much cheaper Kamlan:

As I’ve mentioned, though, image quality is complicated. The two lenses are close wide open, though the Kamlan 28 shows a slight advantage in resolution and a clear advantage in contrast in the center of the frame (you can see more effect from axial CA on the Sigma).

Along the extreme edge of the frame I feel like the advantage shifts towards the Sigma. There is more of a variance (as we’ve seen) between center and edge performance with the Kamlan.

Stopped down the f/2 the pattern remains virtually identical, with both lenses making strides but with roughly the same result (I think the Sigma advantage in the extreme edges is a little more pronounced. At f/2.8 the Sigma has sharpened up more than the Kamlan (mostly due to the more pronounced chromatic aberrations having cleared up), which leaves an advantage across the frame for the Sigma:

But then the Sigma stops improving, while the Kamlan continues to sharpen up (as we have seen) all the way through f/8. When stopped down to landscape apertures like f/5.6, the Kamlan 28 is the clear winner on the edges and has a slight edge in the middle.

More significant to me is the fact that the Kamlan is also delivering the more accurate color rendition, which shows a Zeiss-like neutrality. The Sigma has trended just a little bit warm (as you can see in a number of these comparisons). The color from the Kamlan makes for some beautiful portraits:

The fact that the Kamlan is competitive here (and even the winner in some categories) is impressive to me, as I already felt the Sigma was punching way above its weight optically (it’s as good or better than a lot of more expensive options). The Kamlan is achieving this at a truly budget price of less than half the price of the already reasonably priced Sigma. That’s impressive. If you have a tight budget, the Kamlan 28 is providing a lot of “bang for the buck”.

There are a lot of positives to take away from the resolution, from good center sharpness available even at f/1.4 to excellent results available from f/4 on across the frame for landscape work. The fact that the lens competes well with the excellent (and more expensive Sigma), which has been, to me, one of the benchmarks of the best lenses like this available on APS-C E-mount is evidence of how far Kamlan has come in their lens design already.

Other Image Quality Metrics

One area where the Kamlan 28 is still somewhat vulnerable is when the sun is put in the frame. It’s definitely improved from the 1.1/50, but it still isn’t perfect. At wide apertures there is definitely some veiling (loss of contrast). This is easier to show in video than in stills, as it varies a lot by the position of the sun. If you have concerns about this, please watch the video review. For stills there can be some artistic merit to veiling if you position the sun properly where ghosting artifacts (blobs of prismatic color) aren’t destructive.

I do like the fact that I can shoot some extremely backlit images without the sun directly in the frame without issue:

When you begin to stop the lens down, you will introduce some ghosting artifacts, though veiling is no longer an issue and contrast becomes strong.

They aren’t too extreme, however, so I consider this to be significant progress by Kamlan. The 1.1/50 really struggled in high contrast situations of any kind, but particularly in backlit settings. Has Kamlan developed some improved coatings? Once again, however, I see signs of maturation from this young lens development team.

I’ve previously noted the excellent color rendition of the Kamlan lens, and, to me, this is a real standout area of the lens. Colors are rich and yet accurate, and the level of contrast in many images is good without being extreme.

One area of major strength for the Kamlan is in the area of bokeh, which is frankly pretty excellent. In favorable situations the quality of blur/bokeh is outstanding – very soft and creamy:

But even when put in more difficult situations where there were more hard edges and potential for busyness, I felt the Kamlan 28 did a pretty good job for a lens that costs less than $175!

Here’s a look at the shape of the bokeh highlights at different aperture values (from f/1.4-f/4):

I’ve previously noted the close minimum focus distance for the lens, and I noted that resolution stayed strong near minimum focus distance, as you can see in this closeup of a pinecone (handheld, BTW):

Bottom line is that while there are a few minor missteps (somewhat weak edge performance at wide apertures), some vulnerability to flare), the reality is that the Kamlan 28 has a pretty amazing price-to-performance ratio. I would recommend visiting the Lens Image Gallery here to see many more samples to show you real-world representation of what the lens is capable of. I’ve had the unique opportunity shoot with this lens for months before I could release the review, so I have a huge variety of images there.

Video

All of the observations on focus and image quality are applicable to the use of the Kamlan 28 in video work, but I did want to add a little anecdote here for videographers. This is a lens that works very well for video, as this is a focal length where you will prize center sharpness (excellent), good color rendition (ditto), and quality global rendering (ditto again). All of these are strengths for this lens, and I would say the greatest weakness of the lens would be in flare resistance, which isn’t bad but is far from perfect. You will definitely see some veiling at wide apertures.

I began using this lens long before its introduction to the public, and I had an NDA where I wasn’t able to share information to the public. I began to use the lens for filming a number of my static YouTube episode segments, however, without disclosing what lens I was using for filming. I began to get a lot of feedback from people who were commenting favorably over how great the footage looked. I knew what they did not – this great footage was coming from a lens that will cost only $159. So, if you are a videographer on a budget, this is a killer deal. It’s a fantastic focal length, the maximum aperture of f/1.4 gives you flexibility in different lighting conditions, and it is an excellent video lens that produces accurate color. Think of it like getting a Zeiss at a huge discount for video work.

Conclusion

It is great to see new lensmakers enter the photography market and start to make an impact. Sainsonic and their Kamlan brand have elected to make their mark by offering quality optics and build at a budget price, and in the Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 I see a lot of signs of growing maturity and confidence in their craft. They have improved a lot of areas of weakness from the 50mm f/1.1 that I reviewed last fall, and the new lens just feels like a more mature effort optically. Kudos to the Sainsonic team for learning and adjusting quickly. Manual everything lenses aren’t for everyone, but mirrorless platforms make them far more accessible than on DSLRs. Best of all, the low price tag of under $200 makes the lens accessible to all photographers, and the premium look of the images you can produce with the Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 will it a favorite of a lot of photographers.

Gear Used:

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Keywords: Kamlan 28mm, Kamlan 28mm 1.4, SainSonic, SainSonic Kamlan, 28mm, f1.4, 1.4, f/1.4 Kamlan 28mm Review, Kamlan 28mm 1.4 Review, Dustin Abbott, Hands On, Bokeh, Sharpness, Resolution, Chromatic Aberration, Sony a6500, Sony, a6500, Video Test, 4K, Real World, Sample Photos, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Sigma, 30mm, Lens, Photography, 2018

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

SainSonic Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

May 21st, 2018

The Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 is a brand new lens from the Chinese lens maker SainSonic. I’ve been privileged to have my hands on a prerelease copy of the Kamlan 1.4 for a while and can now share some photos and content with you. This is the second lens that I’ve used from SainSonic (I also reviewed the Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 lens), and I can already see signs of maturation in the mechanical construction of the lens and the optical performance. This is going to be a very interesting lens for those who would like to “get their feet wet” with either a manual focus lens or with a wide aperture prime at a very low price of entry. It’s a beautifully made, beautifully compact lens at a very affordable price, and the focal length is fairly close to perfect as a “normal” lens (on the Sony a6500 I’m testing it on the focal length is a 42mm full frame equivalent). This is a focal length you can use for a LOT of things…and it has surprisingly beautiful rendering. I’ve got a pretty massive catalog of images from the lens as I’ve been shooting with it for most of the year already. P.S. Check out a lot of my recent YouTube videos where I’ve secretly been using this lens extensively to video a lot of my segments. The Kickstarter Campaign for this lens will launch in June (check back for the link shortly), but in the meantime you can get familiar with this surprisingly excellent lens. P.S. Buying links won’t be live for a couple of weeks, so be patient!

Images of the SainSonic Kamlan 28mm f/1.4

Images taken with the SainSonic Kamlan 28mm1.4

Gear Used:

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Keywords: Kamlan 28mm, Kamlan 28mm 1.4, SainSonic, SainSonic Kamlan, 28mm, f1.4, 1.4, f/1.4 Kamlan 28mm Review, Kamlan 28mm 1.4 Review, Dustin Abbott, Hands On, Bokeh, Sharpness, Resolution, Chromatic Aberration, Sony a6500, Sony, a6500, Video Test, 4K, Real World, Sample Photos, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Sigma, 30mm, Lens, Photography, 2018

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 Review

Dustin Abbott

March 22nd, 2018

The release of the truly impressive new Sony a7R3 camera (and now the Sony a73!) has caught a lot of our attention. The a7R2 also caught my attention because of a great spec list and an impressive sensor, but when I spent time with it in 2017 I was left feeling a little ambiguous. It was just lacking in a few key areas and had more compromises than I was personally willing to make. When I got my hands on the a7R3, however, it was a different story. Within just a few days, I knew this was a camera I could happily use. My long term review revealed some weaknesses but a whole lot of positives. One of my viewers summed up my feelings well when they commented on how much they were enjoying using the camera. I enjoyed using the camera, and, as a result, made the decision to purchase one for my own kit. But at the time of purchase I owned no full frame (FE) native lenses for it. One of the most useful lenses for any photographer (and any system) is a good 50mm lens. So, I made my first project after purchase a three way comparison showdown between the three top autofocusing 50mm options for the system: the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar T*, and the Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 (hereafter known as the Planar 50, Sonnar 55, and Samyang 50). Is the one in the middle the “Goldilocks” of this trio? Read on to find out…

These reviews will share some core content (like this intro), but will break into individualized reviews for each lens.

Prefer to watch your reviews? Here is the full, detailed final video review on the lens.

Build, Handling, and Specifications

For lenses that are roughly similar in their basic design (wide aperture 50mm lenses), there is a surprising amount of difference in the size, weight, and price of these lenses. The heaviest option (Planar 50) is more than twice as heavy as the lightest (Sonnar 55), and the most expensive option (Planar 50) is nearly 2 ½ times as expensive as the least expensive (Samyang 50). Using US market prices from B&H Photo (who supplied me retail loaners of each lens) at the time of review, the Samyang costs $599, Sonnar 55 $898, and the Planar 50 is $1398.

I would recommend that you watch this video where I give you a close look at the design and handling of the Samyang 50:

Here’s a chart breaking down the other basic specifications of each lens.

Lens

Weight

Diameter

Length

Min Focus

Magn-

ification

Filter

Size

Optical Formula

Sony 50mm f/1.4

27.36oz

778g

3.29”

83.5mm

4.25”

108mm

1.48’

45cm

0.15x

72mm

12 elem

9 groups

Sony 55mm f/1.8

9.91 oz

281g

2.54”

64.4mm

2.78”

70.5mm

1.64’

50cm

0.14x

48mm

7 elem

5 groups

Samyang 50mm f/1.4

20.64oz

585g

2.89”

73.5mm

3.85”

97.7mm

1.48’

45cm

0.15x

67mm

9 elem

8 groups

It should be noted each of these lenses have a great feel to them. They all feel like premium lenses, with a lot of metals in their construction. They are all very handsome lenses, too, with a black anodized finish. The Samyang sports a very nice looking bright red accent ring that is reminiscent somewhat of Canon’s L series save in a brushed aluminum finish that is arguably more elegant.

The Samyang 50 is a beautifully built lens. It has a nice anodized finish on what feels like an aluminum alloy body (similar to Tamron’s SP primes). The finish is broken up by the ribbed focus ring, with a nice red accent ring in aluminum beyond that. A petal shaped lens hood is included, and, while it is plastic, it actually feels a bit sturdier than either of the Sony hoods. On the left side of the barrel is the Samyang logo, with the lens designation on the top (AF 50/1.4 FE), and the minimum focus distance on the right side of the barrel. The lens serial number is stamped on the lens mount, as is the information that this lens (like all Samyang lenses) is made in Korea.

It has a wide focus ring (about 1 ½ inches) with the weight a little on the light side. Out of the three options, the Samyang’s damping is the lightest, but it’s a little too light, leaving the impression that you could easily move right past your focus point without enough resistance in the fine-tuning stage. Like most “focus by wire” lenses, the Samyang 50 lacks some tactile feedback due to having no direct coupling to the lens elements. The focus ring only accomplishes something if the camera is in MF (or DMF) mode and powered on. Input from the focus ring in routed through the focus motor on the lens, which moves the elements. The focus feel is a little “numb”, and there can be the slightest bit of input lag between your input on the focus ring and the actual focus movement. In manual focus mode the focus motor makes a gritty kind of whine that isn’t overly reassuring; manual focus focus is a rather “nervous” experience with the Samyang 50. Samyang’s lack of experience with autofocus motors is perhaps in evidence here. We’ll explore that a little more in the autofocus section.

At the front of the lens we find metal rather than plastic filter thread. The lens has a highly standard 67mm filter size shared with a lot of other lenses, which is always helpful. There is no front branding of any kind. Samyang’s Ultra Multi-Coating (UMC) has been applied to various elements. The aperture iris has nine aperture blades which are rounded and help retain a circular aperture even when stopped down. While the build quality is high on the lens, it does lack any kind of weather sealing, which is unfortunate. There is no rear gasket at the lens mount.

The lens looks good mounted on recent Sony cameras (it looks like it belongs), and the moderate size and weight means that it balances well on the full frame models and reasonably well on the smaller APS-C models.

Focus Noise, Speed, and Accuracy

The Samyang 50 is not a very good lens for video AF. The lens makes a lot of high pitched whirring noises during focus and is also the least confident for face tracking. It makes a lot of minor corrections, as if second guessing itself, and will occasionally go out of focus before picking proper focus back up. I did shoot a video segment with the lens, but had to majorly edit to cover up moments when it lost focus. Samyang now makes a Lens Station whereby you can apply firmware updates and make tweaks to lens behavior, so I wouldn’t be surprised if firmware further tweaks focus algorithms to smooth out focus behavior, but firmware can’t change the actual nature of the focus motor and the noises it emits…which are frankly not very reassuring. I did not have access to the Lens Station during my review, as it is still not widely distributed.

For stills shooting, Samyang’s lack of experience with autofocus is betrayed in the Samyang 50. Autofocus speed is the slowest of the trio and is the least confident. There is some occasional hunting, which is exaggerated by the somewhat painful noises the lens motor makes. It actually focuses fairly quick, though there is a split-second pause before the elements begin to move and sometimes a brief pause before final focus lock is achieved. I’m reminded of the sound/sensation of earlier lenses with micromotors. A little buzzy and unrefined. I think that the imperfections of the focus are exaggerated by the refined behavior of the two competitors. The amount of noise made by the focus motor makes one more aware of what’s going on with focus in general, which in turn makes you a little more critical.

My actual autofocus accuracy was pretty good, though I did note more missed shots than with the Sony lenses, and there were definitely occasions when the lens would rack focus looking for the proper focus point. Once it locked, however, it was usually accurately focused.

One thing to note with any of these lenses is the fact that depth of field can often be extremely small when working at close focus distances. I tend to use Sony’s mirrorless AF system a little differently than a DSLR, where I personally was most likely to choose a single AF point and place it where I wanted it (typically effective). Because of different AF options, selecting an individual AF point on, say, a Sony a7R3, is less necessary. I actually tend to use the wide zone and then employ face tracking and/or Eye AF to augment that. When working with a subject with eyes, Sony has refined this technology to near-perfection (particularly if they are facing the camera). Eye AF works fine with the Samyang 50, with the refined focus point following my subject around accurately. On some occasions if the subject’s face moves towards profile the lens did lose tracking and do a focus rack where, for a second or two, focus was completely lost, but for the most part I got good results with Eye AF. Even without Eye AF engaged the camera was quick to recognize when a face was in the frame.

When you can’t use face detection or Eye AF, however, you may need to adjust your approach to get the area you want in focus. If the autofocus doesn’t grab the area I want, I just override with my thumb on the touchscreen and move the “Flexipoint” around when I want it. This is typically effective, though with very narrow depth of field shots even the Flexipoint AF box is a little bit large, and the area selected may not be perfectly what you had in mind. I recommend a couple of alternate approaches. The first is to magnify the image, which refines down the focus area. The second is to enable DMF as your focus mode, and, if you feel the autofocus has not grabbed the point you want, just turn the manual focus (MF) ring to enable manual override. The great thing about all three of these lenses is that, in that scenario, the image automatically magnifies on either the LCD screen or in the viewfinder, making it easy to refine focus to the exact spot that you want. The former method may be preferred with the Samyang 50, however, as it’s manual focus process isn’t as refined as the two Sony lenses I compared it to.

Image Quality

My experience says that many photographers are willing to put up with a little focus noise (or even manual focus), pay more, or tolerate larger size and weight if the image quality results are exceptional. Let me first say that the competition here is very strong, and while there is a clear loser in terms of absolute sharpness and contrast, that lens has some other redemptive optical qualities. There is also a clear winner at the top, though the competition there is a little fiercer.

I did a comparison of image quality on both a 24MP APS-C (a6500) and 42MP full frame (a7R3), with fairly similar findings on both.

Samyang 50mm APS-C Result (Sony a6500)

You can see a more detailed breakdown of my findings on APS-C in this video here:

At wide open apertures the Samyang 50 is noticeably softer than the other lenses in both the center of the frame and also along the edges due to reduced contrast and less resolution. Chromatic aberrations are less corrected on the Samyang 50, which creates a bit of veiling at wide apertures. This axial chromatic aberration reveals itself as a reddish purple fringing before the plane of focus and green fringing after it:

The chromatic aberrations reduce contrast, created a slightly “veiled” look to wide open image quality. You can see the end result in this portrait distance comparison even in the center of the frame:

Now, to be fair, the Planar lens costs nearly three times as much, but even if we compare to the Sonnar lens at f/2, we see there is still a significant difference in sharpness and contrast:

Corner contrast and resolution also lags a little at f/1.4 compared to the center, though not by a wide margin.

When stopped down, the lens is sharp and contrasty in the center, and the edge only lags behind a bit on APS-C.

I like the lens for landscapes better on its native full frame than on APS-C.

The bright point in the APS-C (and full frame) performance is in the bokeh performance and rendering, which is the nicest of this trio. Sometimes lenses with lower contrast and less absolute sharpness are the better portrait/fine art lenses, where it is more about the “look” or “feel” of images rather than pixel peeping. People value the Canon 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L for just this reason. I do like the images out of the Samyang 50 when viewed on a whole; I like them less on a pixel level.

Here’s a few APS-C samples that demonstrate what I’m talking about.

Samyang 50mm Full Frame Image Quality (Sony a7R3)

As before, you can see an interactive breakdown of the image quality from the Samyang 50mm and how it compares to the two Sony options here:

As previously noted, a lot of the APS-C observations are also true on the full frame Sony a7R3 (which isn’t surprising due to the pixel pitch/density of the cameras being fairly similar). You can expect a little more vignette on full frame and a little less CA. Sony’s approach to lens profiles means that even with this third party lens there is a “Built In Lens Profile” attached to both JPEG and RAW images. The images arrive at least partly corrected, though you can further improve vignette performance by then adding the lens profile in Lightroom/ACR. There is also a very mild amount of barrel distortion that is corrected with the lens’ profile in software. For the most part, however, what you get is an already corrected image with only minimal things left to do.

Distortion will not be a real factor for anything other than the most demanding situation, anyway, so I don’t consider this a real issue. Here’s a look at an image with just the embedded profile (on the left) and with the software profile also applied on the right. Note that this is at f/1.4, where it makes the biggest difference:

Adding in the “remove chromatic aberrations” checkbox along with a little “dehaze” in Lightroom does help improve image “punch”, so you do have options. The axial chromatic aberrations (purple fringing before and green fringing after the plane of focus) cause some veiling/lack of contrast, so the dehaze helps restore some contrast. The absolute resolution and contrast still doesn’t compete with the Sony/Zeiss options in an absolute sense, though. Still, I felt like these two steps made a noticeably improvement in my infinity focus images out on the edges.

Using the latter image, I compared the center and edge performance, and didn’t really see a major difference. The lens isn’t amazing sharp at either point, but neither does edge sharpness strongly lag behind center sharpness.

Image resolution and contrast makes minor improvements at f/2, and a little more at f/2.8, but the biggest improvement comes between f/2.8 and f/4. At that transition the axial chromatic aberrations are finally eliminated, and image contrast drastically improves, as does apparent resolution. You can see a big improvement between f/2 and f/4 in this example here:

If I compare the f/4 example to the more expensive 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar lens, there is still a very mild advantage for the Sonnar, but it so small as to be hard to detect in regular field use.

But, as previously mentioned, while the Samyang 50 is the loser in terms of raw resolution and contrast, it does win in the bokeh rendering. The bokeh quality is the softest and least busy from the Samyang. It is more optimized for portraiture than high degrees of resolution and contrast. The disadvantage of really high microcontrast and sharpness is that it can be hard to “turn that off” in defocused areas, and the Samyang’s naturally lower levels of microcontrast and sharpness are actually an asset in the defocused regions.

In these you can see how the bokeh rendering is less “busy” than the Sonnar and also produced more geometrically pleasing shapes:

In this comparison to the very expensive Planar lens you can see how that the Samyang produces bigger, softer defocused highlights:

The latter comparison is interesting as it points to another Samyang advantage: light transmission. The Samyang 50 required less light than the Planar 50 in equivalent situations to achieve an equal exposure value.

What’s even more interesting is that the while the subject magnification is similar at close distances, the defocused highlights are bigger and softer on the Samyang. In my experience with other lenses, that usually points to a larger diaphragm opening, which leads me to think that the Samyang may actually have a larger aperture opening despite both lenses having a stated aperture of f/1.4.

One thing is clear: the Samyang 50 has some of the nicest bokeh rendering from a 50mm lens that I’ve seen:

In doing direct comparisons between the three lenses, I noted that each of them had a certain character in their color temperature. The Sonnar 55 tended towards the cool end of the spectrum. The Planar 50 was the most neutral (and accurate) in its interpretation of color. The Samyang was definitely on the warmer side. In some situations, I liked the effect (it gives a warm, analog feel like in the example below):

In other situations (landscapes, for example), it almost seemed like a filter had been applied globally to the image; an effect I didn’t like at all.

Once again, this is a taste thing, but you might want to consider if this will be an asset or liability to your particular shooting style.

One final observation is that the Samyang 50 is somewhat flare prone. If you are dealing with very bright backlighting situations, you will experience both some veiling (loss of contrast) and some ghosting (prismatic blobs of color). This is a frame from a video where I tested this:

All in all, the image quality story is a little complicated. In some ways I like the look of the images that the lens produces; in other ways I don’t. I’ve tried to present both strengths and weaknesses to help you make an informed decision about it. Here’s a look at a few more images from the lens.

As always, I would encourage you to visit my lens specific image galleries to help you evaluate the lens’ performance in real world situations.

Conclusion

The Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 is a somewhat complicated lens. It has a beautiful design and build, a reasonable size and weight, and has the best price tag when compared to the more expensive Sony options. It’s autofocus, however, is somewhat primitive when compared to the more sophisticated focus systems in the Sony lenses. I cannot recommend it to those who want to do video, but, while a little noisy, it does work fine for stills work. The image quality is the most complicated of all, as it lags well behind either Sony/Zeiss option in absolute resolution and contrast, and only becomes competitive at f/4 or smaller. It has some real weaknesses, though the “look” of the images it produces are anything but clinical. They are genuinely pleasing in a lot of situations. If you are pixel peeper, look elsewhere, but if your tastes trend more towards images that are more about artistic feel than clinical sharpness, then you may actually find a hidden treasure in the Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4. It will be a disappointment to some, and a delight for others. Which one are you?

Pros:

Attractive design and very nice build quality
Good size/weight/balance
Beautiful bokeh rendering
Has a unique and artful global rendering
Excellent price compared to alternatives

Cons:

Low contrast at wide apertures
Lower resolution than competitors
Flare prone
Some chromatic aberrations
Autofocus motor is noise and unsophisticated

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Check me out on:

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar Review

Dustin Abbott

March 20th, 2018

The release of the truly impressive new Sony a7R3 camera (and now the Sony a73!) has caught a lot of our attention. The a7R2 also caught my attention because of a great spec list and an impressive sensor, but when I spent time with it in 2017 I was left feeling a little ambiguous. It was just lacking in a few key areas and had more compromises than I was personally willing to make. When I got my hands on the a7R3, however, it was a different story. Within just a few days, I knew this was a camera I could happily use. My long term review revealed some weaknesses but a whole lot of positives. One of my viewers summed up my feelings well when they commented on how much they were enjoying using the camera. I enjoyed using the camera, and, as a result, made the decision to purchase one for my own kit. But at the time of purchase I owned no full frame (FE) native lenses for it. One of the most useful lenses for any photographer (and any system) is a good 50mm lens. So, I made my first project after purchase a three way comparison showdown between the three top autofocusing 50mm options for the system: the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar T*, and the Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 (hereafter known as the Planar 50, Sonnar 55, and Samyang 50).

These reviews will share some core content (like this intro), but will break into individualized reviews for each lens.

Prefer to watch your reviews? Here is the full, detailed final video review on the lens.

Build, Handling, and Specifications

For lenses that are roughly similar in their basic design (wide aperture 50mm lenses), there is a surprising amount of difference in the size, weight, and price of these lenses. The heaviest option (Planar 50) is more than twice as heavy as the lightest (Sonnar 55), and the most expensive option (Planar 50) is nearly 2 ½ times as expensive as the least expensive (Samyang 50). Using US market prices from B&H Photo (who supplied me retail loaners of each lens) at the time of review, the Samyang costs $599, Sonnar 55 $898, and the Planar 50 is $1398.

In this video episode I give you a close-up look at the build, design, and specifications for each lens:

Here’s a chart breaking down the other basic specifications of each lens.

Lens

Weight

Diameter

Length

Min Focus

Magn-

ification

Filter

Size

Optical Formula

Sony 50mm f/1.4

27.36oz

778g

3.29”

83.5mm

4.25”

108mm

1.48’

45cm

0.15x

72mm

12 elem

9 groups

Sony 55mm f/1.8

9.91 oz

281g

2.54”

64.4mm

2.78”

70.5mm

1.64’

50cm

0.14x

48mm

7 elem

5 groups

Samyang 50mm f/1.4

20.64oz

585g

2.89”

73.5mm

3.85”

97.7mm

1.48’

45cm

0.15x

67mm

9 elem

8 groups

The smallest lens (by a good margin) of the bunch is the diminutive Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar T*. The Sonnar 55mm really looks like an APS-C lens, and, if anything, most strongly resembles Zeiss’ Touit series of APS-C mirrorless lenses. It is a beautiful little optic, with a very sleek, minimalist design devoid of anything save a Sony badge on one side, a Zeiss on the other, and an FE 1,8/55 marking on the top.

The only slightly discordant note in the finish is the serial number, which appears more like something taped on after the fact than stamped on the barrel. The lens mount identifies that the lens was made in Sony’s plant in Thailand.

The focus ring is about an inch wide and is tightly ribbed in what feels like metal. The focus ring has a nice weight to it, though like most “focus by wire” lenses lacks some tactile feedback due to having no direct coupling to the lens elements. The focus ring only accomplishes something if the camera is in MF (or DMF) mode and powered on. Input from the focus ring in routed through the focus motor on the lens, which moves the elements. In some cases the focus feel on lenses like this is a little “numb”, and there can be the slightest bit of input lag, but Sony/Zeiss have done a great job in downplaying the shortcomings of focus by wire systems here. While it’s true that there isn’t a tremendous amount of “feel” (there are no hard stops anywhere and no real sense of moving towards a destination when manual focusing), there is basically no input lag and the focus action is precise. Also positive is that (provided you are in MF or DMF modes) is that the camera will automatically zoom in as soon as input is provided to the MF ring, which helps in finetuning focus. One final positive here is that, due to the very quiet focus, there is no distracting noises from the focus motor while focusing, which makes this feel a little more like a “real” focus experience.

There are no switches nor any kind of distance window (outside of the Zeiss Batis series and their OLED screens, none of these “focus by wire” mirrorless lenses have a distance window.) You will have to control features like AF/MF and OSS from within the camera body (OSS in this case is camera specific anyway, as there is no OSS built into the lens).

Though the lens is very compact (and very light at only 281g), the build grade does feel premium, and Sony states that the lens is dust and moisture resistant. I’ll have to take their word for it, as I could not detect any external evidence of sealing (no gasket at the lens mount, for example). The lens has a very small (but standard) 49mm filter size, and the nine aperture blades are fairly rounded and help retain a circular aperture even when stopped down.

Up front the lens looks very “Zeiss” and not at all “Sony”. The branding (Carl Zeiss), Lens Designation (Sonnar FE 1,8/55 ZA), coating designation (T*), and even fonts are right out of the Zeiss playbook. This is a good thing, though, as Zeiss has the best lens facades in the business. Very classy.

The lens sports Zeiss’ highly regarded T* coatings, and, while far from perfect in my flare resistance test, it did provide the best performance of this bunch. Wide open the performance was quite good, but when stopped down more pronounced ghosting artifacts appeared.

It’s easy to see why these lens is equally popular with APS-C shooters, as it fits and balances a small body like the Sony a6500 that I own very nicely. The other lenses seem a bit like the “tail wagging the dog” (particularly the Planar 50), but the Sonnar 55 looks like it belongs there. The resulting near 85mm (82.5mm) focal length (with Sony’s 1.5x crop APS-C crop factor) makes it a prime portrait focal length and, to me, a better fit there than what a 50mm does.

Sony/Zeiss have done a fantastic job in building this lens. It is very elegant looking, highly functional, and retains a premium feel to it despite it’s compact size. This may be the most expensive 50mm(ish) f/1.8 lens out there, but it looks the part. It bears little resemblance in function or finish to the budget 50mm f/1.8 option from Sony.

Focus Noise, Speed, and Accuracy

The Sonnar 55mm is, out of the box, the winner for quick and quiet autofocus performance out of the three lenses in my comparison. It was entirely silent throughout my whole review period. There have been some who had stated that over time their lens has developed some noise, but that was not apparent during my review.

For stills shooting the two Sony lenses are both fast and quiet. The Sonnar 55 continues to be extremely impressive, with focus being essentially completely silent and very fast. When using the lens and a Sony camera with “Silent Shutter” enabled, the only confirmation you will have of focus and a photo have been taken is when the camera writes to the card. Eye AF works confidently with the a7R3, and reasonably well with the a6500 (Eye AF and the focus system are not as refined in the a6500). Autofocus accuracy seems to be good, though I did notice a few occasions when the opposite eye of the one selected by Eye AF was actually in focus, indicating (in this case) a little backfocus.

Each of these lenses handles focus a little differently, but there is one clear winner when it comes to video autofocus performance – the Sonnar 55mm. It is the quietest lens of the bunch when focusing (essentially silent), and also focuses smoothly and confidently for video AF.

One thing to note with any of these lenses is the fact that depth of field can often be extremely small when working at close focus distances. I tend to use Sony’s mirrorless AF system a little differently than a DSLR, where I personally was most likely to choose a single AF point and place it where I wanted it (typically effective). Because of different AF options, selecting an individual AF point on, say, a Sony a7R3, is less necessary. I actually tend to use the wide zone and then employ face tracking and/or Eye AF to augment that. When working with a subject with eyes, Sony has refined this technology to near-perfection (particularly if they are facing the camera). I consistently got great results when focusing on human subjects:

When you can’t use face detection or Eye AF, however, you may need to adjust your approach to get the area you want in focus. If the autofocus doesn’t grab the area I want, I just override with my thumb on the touchscreen and move the “Flexipoint” around when I want it. This is typically effective, though with very narrow depth of field shots even the Flexipoint AF box is a little bit large, and the area selected may not be perfectly what you had in mind. I recommend a couple of alternate approaches. The first is go back to a DSLR type approach and put an autofocus point on the area you want or you can magnify the flexipoint to allow you to have a more precise target. The second, however, is to enable DMF as your focus mode, and, if you feel the autofocus has not grabbed the point you want, just turn the manual focus (MF) ring to enable manual override. The great thing about all three of these lenses is that, in that scenario, the image automatically magnifies on either the LCD screen or in the viewfinder, making it easy to refine focus to the exact spot that you want.

Image Quality

I did a comparison of image quality on both a 24MP APS-C (a6500) and 42MP full frame (a7R3), with fairly similar findings on both. Since adding these two Sony cameras I’m finding that image quality results with lenses tested on both cameras isn’t all that different because of the similarities in the pixel pitch/density between the a6500 (24 MP APS-C = 3.89 µm) and a7R3 (42MP FF = 4.5µm). Pixel pitch refers to the amount of pixels packed onto a sensor, and, while the absolute number of pixels may be lower on the a6500, it’s sensor size/area is much smaller (23.5 x 15.6 mm) compared to the full frame a7R3 (35.90mm x 24.00mm).

The Canon 6D camera that I used to shoot a lot on has a pixel pitch of 6.54 µm, due to having 20 MP full frame sensor, while my Canon 5D Mark IV (30.2MP) has a pixel pitch of 5.36 µm. You are probably seeing the pattern – the bigger the megapixel count relative to the sensor size brings the number down. It was not until the release of the 50 MP Canon 5DsR a few years ago that full frame cameras had a pixel density similar to that of APS-C cameras. The Canon 5DsR has a pixel pitch of 4.14 µm, which is still not quite as dense as the as the 24MP APS-C cameras (though very close). In the past, full frame lenses would often look quite a bit worse on APS-C because there were so many more pixels (relatively) packed in there – more than the lenses were engineered for. But now, thanks to much higher resolution full frame bodies, modern lenses are designed to resolve much higher.

I went into this ramble mostly to let you know to not expect a major difference in results on full frame lenses tested on the a7R3 and also the a6500 because the demands of the two sensors are roughly the same.

You can see a more detailed breakdown of my findings on APS-C in this video here:

A quick summation of my findings:

The Sonnar 55 has good center sharpness with a nicely even performance across the frame. It has a slight bit of chromatic aberration that slightly reduces contrast, though contrast is weak only in comparison to the truly exceptional Planar lens. Stopped down the Sonnar 55 has the best landscape performance, with great sharpness even into the extreme corners. The Sonnar 55 has the busiest bokeh of the bunch, with a greater tendency towards cat-eye shapes towards the edges of the frame and with more hard edges that grab the eye in defocused regions.
More pedestrian f/1.8 lenses will, put simply, be left in the dust by this lens. It is very sharp, has good contrast, and is effectively sharp at both portrait and infinity distances, something that lesser lenses simply cannot say.

To give you a more detailed breakdown: on APS-C at portrait distances I saw little difference between center and edge performance (the lens benefits from the outer portion of the image being cropped). This comparison shows you the center and outer crops at a pixel level.

Stopping down to f/2 produced little change (only 1/3^rd stop), but a full stop down to f/2.8 shows a significant improvement, though primarily in contrast.

This is due to the fact that, while mild, there are some axial/longitudinal chromatic aberrations at wide apertures that clear up considerably when the lens is stopped down one stop.

If you compare the Sonnar 55 to the more expensive Planar 50mm lens on APS-C you will find fairly similar results with both lenses wide open. Here’s a look at the center resolution at portrait distance:

When stopped down a bit (from f/2 to f/4), the Planar delivers a stronger performance than the Sonnar 55 due to higher resolution and stronger contrast, but at landscape apertures (f/5.6 and smaller), the Sonnar actually delivers the most consistent resolution from corner to corner. It makes for a beautiful landscape lens on APS-C, as these photos demonstrate:

At landscape distances the chromatic aberrations are little more visible on high contrast objects due (in part) to the challenges of bright lenses in bright conditions. I was up against the shutter limits of the a6500 until f/2.8. There are few applications for shooting landscapes at f/1.8 in bright conditions anyway! At f/2.8 I saw good sharpness and contrast in the center of the frame and only marginally softer results on the edges.

At more typical landscape apertures (say, f/5.6), the image quality is excellent across the frame. All in all it is hard to imagine a better APS-C option at or near the 50mm focal length. Here’s another shot taken with the Sonnar 55/a6500 combo:

Sonnar 55mm Full Frame Results

Though the Sonnar 55 looks like an APS-C lens when compared to the other two options in this comparison, it is in fact a native full frame lens. It delivers excellent results even when paired with the high resolution a7R3 sensor. Check out this video for a detailed breakdown of how all three lenses compare on their native full frame:

At portrait distances the lens delivered similar results to what we saw on APS-C. The center of the frame and the edges are fairly similar, with a slight reduction in edge contrast and a very slight magenta note from some minor chromatic aberrations.

Sony handles things different than Canon (whom I’m most familiar with), in that Sony embeds lens correction profiles even in the RAW files. The upside to this is that you never really have to think about correction in either RAW or JPEG files. The downside is that it sometimes masks lens deficiencies, as the result on the screen is the product of both optical and software correction. If I go in and unclick the profile box, however, I don’t really find anything nasty. There is some moderate vignette at f/1.8 that is being corrected for, but it isn’t significant enough to be a real issue. There is an almost imperceptible amount of pincushion distortion that is also being corrected. All told…no big deal.

There is a very minor improvement in contrast at f/2 (a mild correction of axial CA is taking place), but at f/2.8 the difference is more pronounced. Both center and edge performance are excellent. Here’s a visual comparison in both center and edge between f/1.8 and f/2.8:

There is only minor improvements after this point, and they are visible only on the edges. Image quality is already excellent and near optimal by f/2.8 at portrait distances. The only reason to stop down more is to increase depth of field.

Moving out to infinity focus shows an advantage for the full frame performance due to a few factors. The first is the combination of the superior sensor and shutter of the a7R3; the former provides more dynamic range while the latter provides a 1/8000^th maximum shutter speed compared to the 1/4000^th shutter speed of the a6500. Add to this that the Sonnar 55 is natively a full frame lens, and the byproduct is a better performance in the harsher lighter conditions of this controlled landscape comparison.

We find a consistent performance across the frame even at f/1.8, with only slightly more contrast and sharpness in the center compared to the outer right edge.

If we compare the wide-open result with the f/2.8 result on the edge of the frame we see a significant improvement in contrast and resolution of fine textures.

The reason for this becomes obvious when zero in on a high contrast area in the scene. The wide open result has some veiling that is a byproduct of some chromatic aberrations that are impacting micro-contrast and the rendering of fine details. There’s a significant improvement of this to near-perfect conditions at f/2.8, which produces a cleaner, more detailed result.

Stopping on down to f/4 and smaller produces minor improvements, though none so significant as that first major improvement. Optimal landscape aperture appears to be f/5.6, though f/4 and f/8 are highly similar. This is a great landscape lens at smaller apertures, and will give excellent edge to edge results even at f/2.8.

The more expensive Planar lens gives more excellent microcontrast at wider apertures due to better chromatic aberration control and generally has more “punch” to images, though starting at f/4 there is little to separate the lenses and the Sonnar 55 is actually a bit better in the edges. Few people are complaining about the resolution from the Sonnar 55!

During my review period and comparisons, I noted that the Sonnar 55 delivered the “coolest” results of the three, with a slight bias towards blue tones. The Planar 50 delivered the most neutral results, so if optimal color accuracy is a high priority for you, you may want to check out my review of that lens here.

The Samyang 50mm f/1.4 delivered a noticeably warmer result than either of the Sony lenses that was pleasant in some situations and unpleasant in others. Ultimately this is a negative, as it is producing less accurate colors.

My only “knock” against the Sonnar 55 optically is that I found the bokeh rendering the least pleasing of the three. I recognize that bokeh is a highly subjective topic, but I found the bokeh rendering to be the most busy of the three options and more prone towards geometric distortion (cat-eye look along the edges of the frame, for example). There were situations when I liked the bokeh rendering from the lens, like in these shots.

In other more demanding situations, however, I found the bokeh rendering grabbed more hard edges than competing lenses. Here are few examples of busier bokeh results:

Trying to “zoom” into bokeh is sometimes more difficult as by intention nothing is really in focus, but here are few examples that illustrate my point. In this first example you can clearly see the harder edges and busier, less creamy background when compared at equivalent aperture to the Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4:

In this second result you can see the significantly more deformed bokeh highlight “circle” along the edge of the frame.

In the final comparison, which shows a defocused wall decoration and compares the Planar 50 and the Sonnar 55 (both at f/2), you can see both factors at play. The Sonnar results looks busier (despite a focal length advantage that makes the focused area larger and softer) and you can also see more deformation of what should be circles.

Now, as I’ve said, this is a subjective measurement, and there are a number of people who love the bokeh out of the Sonnar 55. Few people have had the opportunity as I have, however, to run controlled tests and directly compare the lens to other alternatives.

All in all, however, the lens delivers what must be considered excellent image quality, and there is no disputing that the compact size of the lens doesn’t really dilute its excellent optics. Bravo, Sony. Or Zeiss. Or whoever is responsible for this lens! Here are few more images from the Sony a7R3/Sonnar 55 combination:

I would encourage you to check out the Image Galleries to see more real-world samples from the lens.

Conclusion

For many, many Sony shooters the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar T* lens has struck the sweet spot for the relationship between size, optics, autofocus, and, to a lesser degree, price (which is arguably pretty steep for an f/1.8 lens). The Planar 50mm f/1.4 strikes many as being unnecessarily large and expensive by comparison, and those who own both an APS-C and full frame camera logically conclude that the Sonnar 55 is the best fit as a hybrid lens for both systems. It is a very competent lens in every way that checks the boxes for me as a reviewer, but I will confess that as a photographer my heartstrings aren’t strongly tugged by it. The images are good, but the rendering is not (to my eye) exceptional. The Planar 50 is the one that draws me despite its much larger size and price tag. But I suspect many photographers will conclude that the Sonnar 55 is the practical choice…and it is. You couldn’t ask for a better travel lens or compact option to bring along easily in your bag. It will cover the 50mm(ish) focal length with competence. I just wish its rendering was a little more magical.

Pros:

Fantastic size and weight
Great build, including moisture and dust resistance
Fast, accurate autofocus
Autofocus is completely silent in both video and stills shooting
Excellent sharpness across the frame on APS-C and Full Frame
Low levels of distortion and acceptable levels of vignette
Eye AF works well

Cons:

Bokeh rendering is a little busy
High price tag for an f/1.8 lens

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Check me out on:

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* Review

Dustin Abbott

March 12th, 2018

The release of the truly impressive new a7R3 camera from Sony has caught a lot of our attention. The a7R2 also caught my attention because of a great spec list and an impressive sensor, but when I spent time with it in 2017 I was left feeling a little ambiguous. It was just lacking in a few key areas and had more compromises than I was personally willing to make. When I got my hands on the a7R3, however, it was a different story. Within just a few days, I knew this was a camera I could happily use. My long term review revealed some weaknesses but a whole lot of positives. One of my viewers summed up my feelings well when they commented on how much they were enjoying using the camera. I enjoyed using the camera, and, as a result, made the decision to purchase one for my own kit. But at the time of purchase I owned no full frame (FE) native lenses for it. One of the most useful lenses for any photographer (and any system) is a good 50mm lens. So, I made my first project after purchase a three way comparison showdown between the three top autofocusing 50mm options for the system: the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar T*, and the Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 (hereafter known as the Planar 50, Sonnar 55, and Samyang 50).

These reviews will share some core content (like this intro), but will break into individualized reviews for each lens.

Prefer to watch your reviews? Here is the full, detailed final video review of the Planar 50.

Build, Handling, and Specifications

For lenses that are roughly similar in their basic design (wide aperture 50mm lenses), there is a surprising amount of difference in the size, weight, and price of these lenses. The heaviest option (Planar 50) is more than twice as heavy as the lightest (Sonnar 55), and the most expensive option (Planar 50) is nearly 2 ½ times as expensive as the least expensive (Samyang 50). Using US market prices from B&H Photo (who supplied me retail loaners of each lens) at the time of review, the Samyang costs $599, Sonnar 55 $898, and the Planar 50 is $1398.

This video will give you a detailed, close up look at each lens, including the Planar 50.

Here’s a chart breaking down the other basic specifications of each lens.

Lens

Weight

Diameter

Length

Min Focus

Magn-

ification

Filter

Size

Optical Formula

Sony 50mm f/1.4

27.36oz

778g

3.29”

83.5mm

4.25”

108mm

1.48’

45cm

0.15x

72mm

12 elem

9 groups

Sony 55mm f/1.8

9.91 oz

281g

2.54”

64.4mm

2.78”

70.5mm

1.64’

50cm

0.14x

48mm

7 elem

5 groups

Samyang 50mm f/1.4

20.64oz

585g

2.89”

73.5mm

3.85”

97.7mm

1.48’

45cm

0.15x

67mm

9 elem

8 groups

It should be noted each of these lenses have a great feel to them. They all feel like premium lenses, with a lot of metals in their construction. They are all very handsome lenses, too, with a black anodized finish. The Samyang sports a very nice looking bright red accent ring that is reminiscent somewhat of Canon’s L series save in a brushed aluminum finish that is arguably more elegant.

The Sony Planar 50 lens feels like the premium lens that it is. It’s heavier than the other two options and has the most premium “feel” to it, which includes (unlike the other two options), a dust and moisture resistance. It’s hard to quantify how substantive the internal sealing is from the outside, but the lens’ build itself feels extremely robust. This lens feels more Zeiss than Sony to me, which is a good thing. The anodized metal barrel of the lens looks very similar to that of Zeiss’ Milvus/Otus/Batis series, though in this case the focus ring is finely ribbed metal rather than a rubberized surface.

This is the most fully featured 50mm lens I’ve ever seen (and I’ve used/reviewed more than 20 of them). The one feature it doesn’t have is image stabilization, but that is handled in the camera on many Sony E mount cameras (and in both the a6500 and a7R3 I’ve used for this review). It includes both the option for automatic aperture iris control (in body) and also a manual aperture ring.

The manual aperture ring is better than many in that it includes 1/3 stop detents in between the major full stops (very nice!), but, even better for video shooters, it has a switch on the right side of the body that allows one to “declick” the aperture and do aperture racking with no predefined clicks. This allows for smooth (and silent) aperture changes. The only fly in the ointment here is in the “future proofing” department. I still use 40 and 50-year-old lenses on modern cameras due to their fully manual nature that makes them easy to adapt. Things aren’t quite as simple here, as while there is a “manual” aperture ring, the aperture changes (like focus changes) are routed through the lens’ electronic controls. So, in this case, the lens has to be powered on and connected for aperture changes to be made…even if you are using the manual aperture ring. There is no direct coupling to the aperture iris. It’s the same concept as the “focus-by-wire” nature of the manual focus ring.

Like most “focus by wire” lenses, the Planar 50 lacks some tactile feedback due to having no direct coupling to the lens elements (no hard stops at minimum or infinity), though this one has far more feel than usual. There are no hard stops anywhere, so the focus ring can be endlessly twirled without accomplishing anything if certain conditions are not met. The focus ring only accomplishes something if the camera is in MF (or DMF) mode and powered on. One major improvement here, however, is that there is an actual AF/MF switch on the left side of the lens. This means that you don’t have to dive into menus to engage Manual Focus; you can just click the switch. One very nice bonus on lenses like this is that the image is automatically magnified in the viewfinder as soon as you start to provide input, which makes it quicker and more intuitive to nail focus quickly.

The focus ring itself is nice and wide (near two inches) and has great grip due to the tight ribbing. The damping feels heavy if you just turn it, but when you are actually making focus changes the weight feels fantastic. The lens is far more responsive than the typical focus-by-wire setup (perhaps the best implementation I’ve seen outside the Zeiss Batis series), with basically no input lag and the ability to make smooth, accurate focus changes with just about the right speed. The focus motor stays essentially silent during this process, so you aren’t reminded that it’s actually moving the elements and not you. Sony nailed this one for manual focus. If only all focus by wire systems were this good!

There is a Sony brand on the right side of the barrel, a Zeiss brand on the left side, and an FE 1.4/50 branding on the top. The serial number is on the bottom side of the barrel, and has a raised texture strip that just feels too much like tape for my tastes (though it isn’t tape and cannot be lifted).

There is a very fine weather sealing gasket at the lens mount, and a look at the metal mount shows a “Made in Thailand” stamp, signifying the lens was produced at Sony’s Thai factory.

Up front the lens looks all Zeiss, with only Zeiss branding there, including the Planar optical design (a Zeiss design), T* coatings (Zeiss coatings), ZA (a Zeiss mount designation), and the actually Zeiss name. The lens has a 72mm filter thread in metal (appropriately), making this the largest filter size of the three competitors. The 72mm filter size is fairly common, however, and one shared by a number of premium prime lenses.

The aperture iris is a somewhat unusual eleven rounded blade design that was clearly designed for optimal bokeh quality when the aperture is stopped down.

There’s only one discordant note in this otherwise premium, top-of-the-heap build – the lens hood – which frankly feels a little cheap by comparison. It is a lightweight plastic, easily squeezed, and has only a matte finish inside to deal with stray light bouncing around. Otherwise this lens really feels like a “you get what you pay for” experience and feels well worth the high price tag.

The Planar 50’s size and cost make it less attractive to APS-C owners than the Sonnar 55. It’s too big and too heavy to balance well on my Sony a6500 body. It’s a better fit on the a7R3, and better yet if one is using the battery grip. The Sonnar 55 is such a natural fit on APS-C, and I personally think that even the focal length there (82.5mm vs 75mm) provides a better portrait option.

Focus Noise, Speed, and Accuracy

Each of these lenses handles focus a little differently, but there is one clear winner when it comes to video autofocus performance – the Sonnar 55mm. It is the quietest lens of the bunch when focusing (essentially silent), and also focuses smoothly and confidently for video AF. The Planar 50 makes an occasional whirring noise during focus but is fairly mannerly as well. While shooting a segment for my YouTube channel with the lens, I got excellent results, with complete steadiness and accurate focus during the review. While I don’t use on camera audio for these videos, I can tell you from my time behind the camera that, other than a little “whirring” when making major focus changes, the focus is very quiet and smooth during focus transitions.

The Samyang 50 is not a very good lens for video AF. The lens makes a lot of high pitched whirring noises during focus and is also the least confident for face tracking. It makes a lot of minor corrections, as if second guessing itself, and will occasionally go out of focus before picking proper focus back up. I did shoot a video segment with the lens, but had to majorly edit to cover up moments when it lost focus. Samyang now makes a Lens Station whereby you can apply firmware updates and make tweaks to lens behavior, so I wouldn’t be surprised if firmware further tweaks focus algorithms to smooth out focus behavior, but firmware can’t change the actual nature of the focus motor and the noises it emits…which are frankly not very reassuring. The Lens Station is not yet widely distributed, and I was actually unaware of it prior to this review and did not have access to one.

For stills shooting the two Sony lenses are both fast and quiet. The Planar 50 is a close second tothe Sonnar 55mm, with similar focus speed but just a little more noise. The Planar 50 has excellent focus speed (despite the larger maximum aperture and much larger elements to move) and minimal sound. As with video, a major focus shift has a light sound of elements quickly sliding, but it happens so quickly that the faint sound is mentally registered but scarcely noticed. Eye AF works very well with the Planar 50, and the camera quickly keys in on the right area. Focus accuracy is good with the lens, and the combination of that quality AF plus the exceptional optics of this lens makes it a very appealing option for portraiture.

One thing to note with any of these lenses is the fact that depth of field can often be extremely small when working at close focus distances. I tend to use Sony’s mirrorless AF system a little differently than a DSLR, where I personally was most likely to choose a single AF point and place it where I wanted it (typically effective). Because of different AF options, selecting an individual AF point on, say, a Sony a7R3, is less necessary. I actually tend to use the wide zone and then employ face tracking and/or Eye AF to augment that. When working with a subject with eyes, Sony has refined this technology to near-perfection (particularly if they are facing the camera). As this photo shows, I grabbed the eyebrow rather than the eyelashes because Eye AF wasn’t engaged and the autofocus wasn’t on the same page with me.

When you can’t use face detection or Eye AF, however, you may need to adjust your approach to get the area you want in focus. If the autofocus doesn’t grab the area I want, I just override with my thumb on the touchscreen and move the “Flexipoint” around when I want it. This is typically effective, though with very narrow depth of field shots even the Flexipoint AF box is a little bit large, and the area selected may not be perfectly what you had in mind. I recommend a couple of alternate approaches. The first is go back to a DSLR type approach and put an autofocus point on the area you want. The second, however, is to enable DMF as your focus mode, and, if you feel the autofocus has not grabbed the point you want, just turn the manual focus (MF) ring to enable manual override. The great thing about all three of these lenses is that, in that scenario, the image automatically magnifies on either the LCD screen or in the viewfinder, making it easy to refine focus to the exact spot that you want.

The Planar 50 has perhaps the best MF performance of any “focus by wire” lens (which essentially all autofocusing lenses for mirrorless are) that I’ve ever used. The weight of the focus ring felt a little heavy until I actually used it for focus, and it was then that I discovered that the weight was actually perfect in real-world use. Very accurate, next to no input lag, and a surprisingly refined focus experience. Using manual focus to further refine focus in certain situations will be a treat due to the quality feel of the focus action.

Bottom line is that if you use the focus system on your camera well, this is a great focusing lens. Fast, accurate, and quiet. It’s a welcome relief as a reviewer to not have to worry about focus calibration with large aperture lenses like this.

Image Quality

My experience says that many photographers are willing to put up with a little focus noise (or even manual focus), pay more, or tolerate larger size and weight if the image quality results are exceptional. Let me first say that the competition here is very strong, and while there is a clear loser in terms of absolute sharpness and contrast, that lens has some other redemptive optical qualities. There is also a clear winner at the top, though the competition there is a little fiercer.

APS-C Findings (Sony a6500)

I did a comparison of image quality on both a 24MP APS-C (a6500) and 42MP full frame (a7R3), with fairly similar findings on both.

You can see a more detailed breakdown of my findings on APS-C in this video here:

A quick summation of my findings:

At wide open apertures the Samyang 50 is noticeably softer than the other lenses in both the center of the frame and also along the edges due to reduced contrast and less resolution. Chromatic aberrations are less corrected on the Samyang 50, which creates a bit of veiling at wide apertures. The Samyang really sharpens up around f/5.6 and contends with the other two lenses in sharpness only then. The bokeh quality, however, is the softest and least busy from the Samyang. It is more optimized for portraiture than high degrees of resolution and contrast. The Samyang has the best light transmission of the group.
The Sonnar 55 has good center sharpness with a nicely even performance across the frame. It has a slight bit of chromatic aberration that slightly reduces contrast, though contrast is weak only in comparison to the truly exceptional Planar lens. Stopped down the Sonnar 55 has the best landscape performance, with great sharpness even into the extreme corners. The Sonnar 55 has the busiest bokeh of the bunch, with a greater tendency towards cat-eye shapes towards the edges of the frame and with more hard edges that grab the eye in defocused regions.
The Planar 50 is, put simply, perhaps the best 50mm lens I’ve ever used. It is very close to the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55mm in terms of absolute resolution and contrast, showing very little aberrations at either infinity distance (very challenging!) or portrait distances. It is exceptionally sharp in the center portion of the frame even at f/1.4, and the corners and brilliantly sharp by f/2. The bokeh quality from the Planar 50 is good, though not quite as soft as the Samyang. The Planar 50 has lower light transmission as the Samyang, and requires more EV to match the Samyang. The images out of the Planar seem the most “special”, with great absolute rendering and excellent 3 dimensional “pop”.

Here’s a few of the high points. First, a comparison with the Samyang at portrait distances, wide open, f/1.4:

Next, a comparison at f/2 vs the Sonnar lens:

If we move out to infinity focus distances, we find the same kinds of truths about resolution and contrast:

Put simply, the Planar 50 is the kind of lens that didn’t exist before the Zeiss Otus series came along: a wide aperture prime lens that is deadly sharp, well corrected, and with high contrast both at portrait distances and at infinity. Many primes in the past were often good at portrait distances but poor at infinity until stopped down to smaller apertures. We’ve seen a trend away from that with some recent lens releases, but the Planar 50 is as good as I’ve seen (right up with the Otus 1.4/55)…even on APS-C.

Here’s a few favorites that I took on the Sony a6500 with the Sony Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4:

Full Frame Findings (Sony a7R3)

This video really breaks down the optical performance of these lenses in a very clear fashion. I highly recommend that you take a little time to watch it if you are interested in one of these three options.

The Planar 50, is, put simply, perhaps the most impressive 50mm lens that I’ve reviewed on its native full frame – even when that full frame home is a demanding 42MP sensor. It’s perhaps not all surprising that the full frame results are similar to the APS-C results because of the similarities in the pixel pitch/density between the a6500 (24 MP APS-C = 3.89 µm) and a7R3 (42MP FF = 4.5µm). Pixel pitch refers to the amount of pixels packed onto a sensor, and, while the absolute number of pixels may be lower on the a6500, it’s sensor size/area is much smaller (23.5 x 15.6 mm) compared to the full frame a7R3 (35.90mm x 24.00mm). The Canon 6D camera that I used to shoot a lot on has a pixel pitch of 6.54 µm, due to having 20 MP full frame sensor, while my Canon 5D Mark IV (30.2MP) has a pixel pitch of 5.36 µm. You are probably seeing the pattern – the bigger the megapixel count relative to the sensor size brings the number down. It was not until the release of the 50 MP Canon 5DsR a few years ago that full frame cameras had a pixel density similar to that of APS-C cameras. The Canon 5DsR has a pixel pitch of 4.14 µm, which is still not quite as dense as the as the 24MP APS-C cameras (though very close). In the past, full frame lenses would often look quite a bit worse on APS-C because there were so many more pixels (relatively) packed in there – more than the lenses were engineered for. But now, thanks to much higher resolution full frame bodies, modern lenses are designed to resolve much higher.

I went into this ramble mostly to let you know to not expect a major difference in results on full frame lenses tested on the a7R3 and also the a6500 because the demands of the two sensors are roughly the same. In this case, however, the results are simply fantastic on either system.

At portrait distances the amount of resolution and contrast in the center of the frame is nothing short of stunning even at f/1.4. The extremely well corrected chromatic aberrations (even at f/1.4) mean that you get more even color results at wide apertures compared to the other lenses in this comparison on my brick wall test; they have a little purple tinge due to chromatic aberrations. On that note: the Planar has the most accurate color rendition of the three lenses. The Samyang has a warm/yellowish tint, while the Sonnar has a blue/cool look to it, though this is a little less strongly pronounced. The Planar, however, has a very Zeiss-like balance and accuracy to the color.

Let’s take a look at the wide open performance from the Planar:

As you can, there is really no comparison between it and the Samyang. They are in two completely different classes in terms of raw resolution and contrast. How about if we stop down things a bit?

As you can see, I’ve just compared the Planar with itself here, as it is in another class compared to the other lenses in this series. The sharpness and contrast rises to near-perfection levels at f/2.

If we move out to infinity, the Planar doesn’t blink; it continues to deliver a stunning performance.

What we see is already a near-perfect center performance with strong performances on the edge and at infinity. The Planar really stands out for its microcontrast: the ability to resolve fine textures and details. It’s a great match for the 42MP sensor of the a7R3. Let’s take a look at what happens when we stop it down and compare it to the Sonnar 55 (an excellent lens at landscape distances):

The lens shows far superior center contrast and sharpness and is better at infinity, though the edge performance is roughly the same. When stopped down to typical landscape apertures (f/5.6-5/8), the two are roughly similar, though the Planar continues to show nice color accuracy while the Sonnar has better edge resolution.

Even at very close distances, you can see the microcontrast advantage of the Planar lens. Look at this chess piece:

You can see that even the very good Sonnar lens is outclassed by the performance of the Planar 50. It’s impressive at all focus distances, something that just couldn’t be said of many primes even a few years ago. But even today this lens is exceptional. There’s only one area where I saw it bested in this comparison, and that is that while I found found the quality of the bokeh very good, the Samyang is a bit better…for a couple of reasons. First of all is the tradeoff on that amazing resolution and contrast is that it is hard to also deliver a very soft defocused area. Sony/Zeiss has actually done a fantastic job here, but the lower contrast and resolution on the Samyang actually delivers the softer, creamier out of focus results (and the Samyang is delivering some of the best bokeh results I’ve seen out of a 50mm lens). Here’s a few samples that demonstrate what I’m talking about (the final two examples are first the Planar and then the Samyang on the same scene:

What you can see is that the bokeh area is bigger, smoother, and softer on the Samyang. That first issue is an interesting one, as they are both the same focal length (and I didn’t notice framing differences between the two at any focus distance that would show either focus breathing or focal length variance), have the same stated maximum aperture (f/1.4), and were at an equal distance from the subject in all these comparisons (and others not shown here). You can clearly see in the second image, however, that even the size of the bokeh “circle” is quite a bit larger on the Samyang. My working conclusion is that the maximum aperture of the Planar 50 might be little smaller than the Samyang’s, and, that, at the least, the light transmission is better on the Samyang. In all of my comparisons the Samyang needed exposure to achieve a similar exposure value of the Planar. It wasn’t major (typically about a third stop), but I suspect that this was part of the trade-off in the lens design to achieve such stunning optical results.

Now, to be fair, the nature of these comparisons is that they are useful in highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each lens, but in real-world use these issues aren’t nearly as obvious. In this case, DXO actually rated the Planar 50’s light transmission as a T1.6, which isn’t terrible (the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, by comparison is a T1.7 in their tests), so this may also be a matter of the Samyang being very strong in this area. I also found that real-world bokeh and rendering from the Planar 50 were very, very good, and that fantastic combination of amazing sharpness and microcontrast combined with quality bokeh rendering produce an end result that is as good as anything I’ve seen outside of the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55mm.

Flare resistance from the lens was good…for a wide aperture 50mm prime, for which this is rarely a strength. So, I use my “good” designation here in a relative sense. It will show some mild ghosting but minimal veiling and holds contrast well. The 11 bladed aperture makes for very round bokeh highlights when stopped down but doesn’t produce the most amazing sunbursts/sunstars:

Here are a few more samples from the lens:

If you would like to see more, I would encourage to visit the photo galleries here.

What about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART?

I’m already getting questions about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, a similar premium option though at a reduced price compared to the Planar 50mm. At the beginning of this review, the best option was to adapt the Canon EF mount version via the Sigma MC-11 converter, which really provides a pretty good focus experience. The main downside to this experience is added weight and length to a lens that is already long and heavy. While doing this review, Sigma has announced E mount versions of many of the ART series lenses, including the 1.4/50mm. These are not new designs, per se, but rather slightly modified versions of the Canon EF version with something akin to a built-in mount converter that is better tuned to the unique focus needs of the lens (and with a cohesive exterior shell). Those have not yet released, and so I haven’t reviewed any of them yet (though I intend to do a compare/contrast of the experience with an adapted lens vs the FE version in the future.

That being said, I’ve spent a lot of time with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in the past, and I feel that the Sigma will deliver similar sharpness levels but less contrast/microcontrast. I also feel like the Planar 50 produced more “special” images in terms of rendering (though that is a matter of taste), but the Sigma is definitely a valid contender. The Planar lens is going to handle a little better (the Sigma has a very small focus throw that made it a little harder to manually focus), and I can’t yet comment on the focus motor sounds and smoothness for video as I haven’t tested that on a Sony system. The Planar does add the advantage of the manual aperture and declicked aperture options, though this may not important to all consumers.

I hope to do a direct comparison in the future if the opportunity presents itself.

Conclusion

The Sony/Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 is just the kind of lens that Sony FE needs – a premium option that rivals (and even surpasses) the best available on competing systems. It has a premium build, premium mechanics and features, and premium optical results. It is expensive, yes, but it surpasses the build, handling, and real-world performance of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on the lower price point end (and thus arguably gives equally good value-for-money to those who care about these issues) and rivals the performance of the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 on the other end of the spectrum…and that lens costs some 2 1/2 times as much. Of the three lenses that I reviewed and compared in this series, it was this lens that excited me the most despite being the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive. Why? Because in my own personal kit I try to add exceptional lenses…and I feel this may be the most complete 50mm lens that I’ve yet reviewed. The Planar 50 has jumped up to the top of my own wish list at the moment, as I feel that it is a great match for other exceptional primes in my kit like the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II and the Zeiss Milvus 2/135mm. If you own a Sony full frame mirrorless camera, and your top priority is absolute image quality, then look no further. The Sony Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 is a special lens.

Pros:

Very high grade build, including weather sealing
Great handling
Manual focus action surprisingly good
Good, practical feature set
Exceptional sharpness and contrast
Very accurate color rendition
Good flare resistance
Great microcontrast
Quick, accurate focus

Cons:

Bigger and heavier than competitors
Expensive
Autofocus not completely silent
Light transmission a little lower than some competing lenses

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Check me out on:

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Fujfilm X-T200 Camera Review

Dustin Abbott

October 15th, 2020

Prefer to watch your reviews? Check out either my definitive (long format) or standard video review with a lot of visual support of my conclusions:

FUJIFILM X-T200

Design and Features

FUJIFILM X-T200 Autofocus

FUJIFILM X-T200 Video

FUJIFILM SENSOR PERFORMANCE

HIGH ISO

Dynamic Range

Color

CONCLUSION

Pros:

Cons:

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Fujifilm X-T200 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

October 6th, 2020

Photos of the FUJIFILM X-T200

Photos Taken with the FUJIFILM X-T200

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Brightin Star 12mm F2 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

November 6th, 2019

Images of the Brightin Star 12mm F2

Images taken with the Brightin Star 12mm F2

Purchase the Brightin Star 12mm F2 @ PerGear (use code DUSTIN5 to get $5 off) | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Sony a6500: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK | Ebay

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 Review

Dustin Abbott

May 25th, 2018

Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 Build, Design, and Handling

Kamlan 28mm Image Quality

Resolution and Contrast

Other Image Quality Metrics

Video

Conclusion

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

SainSonic Kamlan 28mm f/1.4 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

May 21st, 2018

Images of the SainSonic Kamlan 28mm f/1.4

Images taken with the SainSonic Kamlan 28mm1.4

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 Review

Dustin Abbott

March 22nd, 2018

Build, Handling, and Specifications

Focus Noise, Speed, and Accuracy

Image Quality

Samyang 50mm APS-C Result (Sony a6500)

Samyang 50mm Full Frame Image Quality (Sony a7R3)

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar Review

Dustin Abbott

March 20th, 2018

Build, Handling, and Specifications

Focus Noise, Speed, and Accuracy

Image Quality

Sonnar 55mm Full Frame Results

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* Review

Dustin Abbott

March 12th, 2018

Build, Handling, and Specifications

Focus Noise, Speed, and Accuracy

Image Quality

APS-C Findings (Sony a6500)

Full Frame Findings (Sony a7R3)