Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 end

Archive 2014 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

uhoh7 wrote:
how is the samyang/roki in this respect?

Comparable to the Canon 85L, I believe. Someone posted comparison samples here a number of years ago and they were very close. Maybe it was the 85L v1 though (if that makes a difference) -- too long ago for me to remember.

At any rate, I don't think the purple fringing of the Samyang is above average. I think the Leica 80 Lux-R or 75 Lux-M will probably have a less of it though.

Jul 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

If you mean CA outside of the focal plane, they are all going to have quite a bit of it. If you want less then you should probably looks at the Leica M 75 or M (or R) 90 AA, but these are only f/2. Without side by side comparisons in the same conditions across a number of settings, it is hard to really know which lens produces more. The lighting in different settings can make a real difference and effect some lenses more than others. I think the choice your original lenses is AF vs. MF and a more modern rendering (higher contrast and sharper wide open) vs. a more classical rendering (more SA and a bit softer image). I actually like both styles, but for portraits (especially of women) I like the classic style a bit more. If you are willing to go with a Leica R 80 instead of the Lecia M 75 f/1.4, then there aren't huge differences in price and you have one of each of the possible four types of lenses. A modern rendering AF lens (the Sony/Zeiss), a more classic AF lens (the Minolta), a more modern MF (the Canon FD 85L --note completely modern but the Aspherical element does add contrast and some sharpness), and a more classic MF (the Leica R 80).

My preferences would lead me to the Leica R 80, but all four are great lenses and would be strong choices.

Note: Call them classic and modern may be exaggerating the differences between the lenses, but it allows for some differentiate between these great lenses.

Jul 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

wfrank wrote:
But since theres a lot of talk about portraiting it's worth to note that you can always "improve" a too sharp and contrasty lens by softening up in post. Endlessly. It is much harder to do the other way around.

people always say this, but i don't find it to be true at all. even my softest lens looks sharp in an 8x10 print and contrast and bite can be easily added in post, but i have never been able to replicate the look of nice spherical aberration with post processing.

with regard to the rokinon/samyang, it has a fair bit of loCA (more red than purple), probably it's biggest weakness, but not more than most of the non apo lenses under discussion. the luxes definitely have less, but on the other hand they are a lot glowier at f/1.4.

Jul 21, 2014 at 03:06 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

sebboh wrote:
people always say this, but i don't find it to be true at all. even my softest lens looks sharp in an 8x10 print and contrast and bite can be easily added in post, but i have never been able to replicate the look of nice spherical aberration with post processing.

with regard to the rokinon/samyang, it has a fair bit of loCA (more red than purple), probably it's biggest weakness, but not more than most of the non apo lenses under discussion. the luxes definitely have less, but on the other hand they are a lot glowier at f/1.4.

Couldn't agree more.

And I'd add the Minolta Rokkor 85/1.7 to the lenses under consideration. It's a little bit on the large side for the speed, but I like the draw and colors.

Peeping_Jack by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

Leaves_on_Wood by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

Jack_Rope_1 by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

Jul 21, 2014 at 03:23 PM

wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

sebboh wrote:
people always say this, but i don't find it to be true at all. even my softest lens looks sharp in an 8x10 print and contrast and bite can be easily added in post, but i have never been able to replicate the look of nice spherical aberration with post processing.

Dont know about spherical abberation. I dont think you can reconstruct all/certain optical defects but I dont find it hard to make a face more flattering/soft/whitewashed or similar. As a side note I do really like many (really) of the softish images of your daughter. While theres no way of reproducing your eye for photography/composition/timing in post, I think you can make most of the dimness/softness in post. And I dont see that happen with the bite/microcontrast etc in an old-mans weathered face - which is the other end of the portrait spectrum. For small web perhaps, but then it has to be small.

Only my opinion/cents of course.

Jul 21, 2014 at 04:16 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

wfrank wrote:
Dont know about spherical abberation. I dont think you can reconstruct all/certain optical defects but I dont find it hard to make a face more flattering/soft/whitewashed or similar. As a side note I do really like many (really) of the softish images of your daughter. While theres no way of reproducing your eye for photography/composition/timing in post, I think you can make most of the dimness/softness in post. And I dont see that happen with the bite/microcontrast etc in an old-mans weathered face - which is the other end of the portrait spectrum. For small web perhaps, but then it...Show more →

perhaps you have more pp skills than i. i can certainly soften out the lines in pp, but i can't make it look natural. perhaps i should resurrect the "how would post process my image" thread to see if anyone can make my contax g shot look like the same shot taken with a jupiter and vice versa.

Jul 21, 2014 at 04:29 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

nehemiahphoto wrote:
The Sony Carl Zeiss has lots of magenta in high contrast areas, worse then the Mino, Canon, Sigma, Nikon G or Samyang I found while shooting. For me, it's the only real negative about the lens. From the photozone.de review:

"The quality of the bokeh is naturally of major interest for an ultra-large aperture lens and the Zeiss does not disappoint here...The highlights show basically no outlining effect - this is about as good as it gets here. The blur is very smooth and uniform. However, you may also notice the rather massive amount of longitudinal chromatic aberrations in the cards...Show more →

Yep, that was my only complaint with an otherwise outstanding lens.

Jul 21, 2014 at 04:40 PM

darrellc
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

I have a Summarit M 90/2.5 that I really like but if I can get comparable image quality in a compact and lighter weight f2-2.8 lens at lower cost I'd prefer to apply the funds in this lens to something else. The Contax G 90/2.8 seems promising but I'm not excited about the adapted focusing experience and I'm not up to a helicoid transplant. So looking for compact, light and good performance at f2.8 or preferably a bit faster. Any recommendations within these constraints? I'm ok with keeping the Summarit if I can't beat it. I didn't like the various M mount Leica 90/2.8s I tried - the Summarit seemed much better and pretty close to the 90/2.

Jul 21, 2014 at 05:40 PM

wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

sebboh wrote:
perhaps you have more pp skills than i. i can certainly soften out the lines in pp, but i can't make it look natural. perhaps i should resurrect the "how would post process my image" thread to see if anyone can make my contax g shot look like the same shot taken with a jupiter and vice versa.

I dont know. Besides the actual face/body of a portrait theres of course the bokeh which for something like a Contax G45 is not comparable at all to say the cream of a Samyang 35 or 85. And among Contax G's I think G45 is a bokeh king at fairly short distances. Personally I think the Contax CYs often falls in between. These are all very unfair comparisons but say wheres the Samyang 35 used wideopen will do the bokeh very creamy but blow highlights the Contax CY will keep them while retaining a lot of cream and the (much slower) Contax G 45 will do the bokeh harsh. At portrait distance whatever that is. At shorter distances the G45 will be really bokeh-nice, as opposed to e.g. the G28.

I think that is why I mentioned local adjustments. I find bokeh harder to change in PP than the actual subject that (supposedly) is in focus. Two integral parts of an image.

Jul 21, 2014 at 05:49 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

uhoh7 wrote:
Great conversation and input, TY to all

One serious concern is coma or purple fringe wide open, since this would be an event lens.

love to hear about purple fringe in the major contenders

how is the samyang/roki in this respect?

i'm afraid i don't have any people pics in harsh light, but here is a pretty tortuous shot with the samyang wide open:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2936/14525788849_4c79b00a02_o.jpg
direct sunlight on the bird and some on the flower too. won't ever get much more purple fringing than that unless you really blow out exposure.

here is the full sized image with just the adobe default settings for processing too.

wfrank wrote:
I dont know. Besides the actual face/body of a portrait theres of course the bokeh which for something like a Contax G45 is not comparable at all to say the cream of a Samyang 35 or 85. And among Contax G's I think G45 is a bokeh king at fairly short distances. Personally I think the Contax CYs often falls in between. These are all very unfair comparisons but say wheres the Samyang 35 used wideopen will do the bokeh very creamy but blow highlights the Contax CY will keep them while retaining a lot of cream and the (much...Show more →

i agree bokeh is harder to fake, but what i like best about my glowy lenses is the transition from in focus to out, usually occurring on the face. as near as i can tell it is all but impossible to fake.

Jul 21, 2014 at 06:02 PM

uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

darrellc wrote:
I have a Summarit M 90/2.5 that I really like but if I can get comparable image quality in a compact and lighter weight f2-2.8 lens at lower cost I'd prefer to apply the funds in this lens to something else. The Contax G 90/2.8 seems promising but I'm not excited about the adapted focusing experience and I'm not up to a helicoid transplant. So looking for compact, light and good performance at f2.8 or preferably a bit faster. Any recommendations within these constraints? I'm ok with keeping the Summarit if I can't beat it. I didn't like the various...Show more →

I've got that 90/2.5 also and it's awesome IHMO, with great form factor too.

However for dim light it's just not fast enough I don't think.

@sebboh OMG you are going to get me into one of those samyangs, great shot.

I dusted off my Canon LTM 85/1.8, which is legendary and did a few comparisons with the 85/1.5

DSC09490 by unoh7, 85/1.5 @ 1.5
full

DSC09494 by unoh7, 85/1.8 @ 1.8

full

now both at f/2:

DSC09498 by unoh7, 85/1.5 @ f/2
full

DSC09513 by unoh7, 85/1.8 @ f/2
full

boring subject but there are enough details in 3D so at least you can find something in focus

These were shot raw on the A7 auto WB and exported directly form LR as jpegs with no changes.

The Canon LTM 85/1.8 is a great size, much smaller and lighter than the 1.5. I'm not sure it's sharper at f/2 however.

Anyone with eyes and a minute to compare, thoughts welcome comparing these two.

long run I'm thinking I should sell a bunch of these to fund a 75 lux.

Jul 21, 2014 at 07:16 PM

Chris48
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

darrellc wrote:
I have a Summarit M 90/2.5 that I really like but if I can get comparable image quality in a compact and lighter weight f2-2.8 lens at lower cost I'd prefer to apply the funds in this lens to something else. The Contax G 90/2.8 seems promising but I'm not excited about the adapted focusing experience and I'm not up to a helicoid transplant. So looking for compact, light and good performance at f2.8 or preferably a bit faster. Any recommendations within these constraints? I'm ok with keeping the Summarit if I can't beat it. I didn't like the various...Show more →

Try the Pentax FA* 77 f1.8. Not as good as the Summarit but plenty sharp and pleasing nonetheless. If you don't mind the weight, the C/Y Planar 100mm f2 is excellent.

Jul 21, 2014 at 08:13 PM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

I had the Summarit 75/2.5 and I honestly think it will be hard to find a "comparable" lens that is as sharp and lighter than your Summarit 90 especially factoring in lens adapter. Cheaper, yes. Faster, yes. Better? Nah. Different? Yes.

Cheaper, faster and smaller and comparable? I don't know which lens that would be. Maybe the Voigtländer 75mm? The C/Y Planar is quite a chunk of glass (I had one for several years) and given the choice I would stick with the 90 and live with the f2 vs f2.5 difference.

Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM

darrellc
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

Thanks for the input uhoh7, chris48 and kosmoskatten! I'm looking for something in the 85-100 range, as I shoot 50/55mm a lot and want something spaced out a bit more than ~75. Also want compact, so prefer RF glass. Though perhaps the OM 85/2 is worth more investigation (I have the OM 21/3.5 and 24/2.8, and they're pretty small and light even with adapter). While the performance of the 100/2's is spectacular, the CY 100/2 is 670g, and my 90/2.5 is only 340g, so almost double the weight. Didn't do a lot of research when I bought the Summarit, but my first impressions when I tested the lens were very positive compared against the 90/2.8 Elmarits and 90/2 Cron, and I got a good deal from my local pro shop, so went with it knowing I wouldn't lose much on resale. Maybe I should just keep it...

Jul 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

I regret letting my Summarit 75 go, even more so now that I am back in full frame.

I am not knocking the Oly 85/2 but I am not sure it would be up to the same standard as the Summarit - unless you stop it down some but what would the real benefit be?

For a small lens (SLR) I did like the Contax Sonnar 85/2.8 though it did a fair share of closet camping as I had the Contax Planar 85/1.4 and the 100/2 at the same time. The 85/1.4 was my go to lens. I never warmed up to the 100/2 mostly due to harsh bokeh.

Jul 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

kosmoskatten wrote:
I regret letting my Summarit 75 go, even more so now that I am back in full frame.

I am not knocking the Oly 85/2 but I am not sure it would be up to the same standard as the Summarit - unless you stop it down some but what would the real benefit be?

For a small lens (SLR) I did like the Contax Sonnar 85/2.8 though it did a fair share of closet camping as I had the Contax Planar 85/1.4 and the 100/2 at the same time. The 85/1.4 was my go to lens. I never warmed up...Show more →

the 75 summarit is an awesome lens. i never really liked the the OM 85/2 while i had it, i found the performance to be middling and the bokeh to be vaguely unsettling (obviously a matter of taste). the olympus is a great size to use on the a7 though, and the close focus ability is great (though m-lenses match this with a helicoid adapter). the summarit is sharper wide open across the frame than olympus is at f/4. i find the 75 summarit to be a better performer than the contax g 90/2.8 as well. my only complaints about the summarit is that the focus throw is a little short and it is optically a little to perfect – i'd like a bit more character wide open.

here's a shot that shows the size of the OM 85/2 with e-mount adapter:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6675923541_a1b5a740ec_b.jpg
and a sample with in rough light (on aps-c):
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3108/5692475558_27f32a4ebc_b.jpg
here's an example with the summarit wide open with a very difficult background (on the a7):

treed by sebboh, on Flickr

Jul 22, 2014 at 01:51 PM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

Shucks, now look what you guys got me into. I finally caved in:

So, I got myself an A7 for the R80. I am posting to show the size of the lens on the A7.

In comparison to the Summarit 50/2.5 the R80 is HUGE so it will never become my go to lens for spontaneous camera bring-a-longs. I find the Summarit 50 refreshingly small and agile. The VM-E is on order to achieve close focus with the Summarit 50. The size difference between the two lenses? Well, it is bordering on ridiculous.

However the R80 plus adapter (actually two for the time being) balance really well on the A7. I was kind of hoping it would be a pain to work on the A7 but it is actually quite easy to nail the shots with it so it looks like I will be stuck with it for some time, oh, the humanity...

I still have some spare gear so I am trading in towards the Summarit 75 just to keep things on the light side. I am interested to see what the Summarit 75 can do at f2.5 vs the R80 at f2.5 and with the trade in I am not losing out that much in the end.

Part of me want that sweet bokeh that the R80 offers in spades and part of me is that pragmatic person that thinks that the M75/2.5 "will do the job" with arguably a few more keepers due to the extended depth of field wide open and the fact that most clients would not be able to tell the difference when used for portraits unless the R80 is shot wide open / at f2 and with a background that needs to be melted away.

EDIT:
If anyone has a spare red dot lying around, PM me. My R80 is short one.

Edited on Jul 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM · View previous versions

Jul 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

Darrelc: the more I think of it the more sense it makes to keep the Summarit 90 in your case. The lens is great, arguably better than many of the options considering weight and performance. What you would gain is cheaper, yet bulkier, option though if you would really want to "better" the Summarit 90 you would have to look at the more unicorny solutions or the more "artistic" solutions. The latter might turn out a disappointment in some cases if you want a technically great lens.

If you want to be more pragmatic - like I pretend to be - I think the Summarit 90 is a keeper. Just wear your GAS-mask when browsing FM.

Jul 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM

ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

Kosmo get the l plate for the a7, the length it adds to the grip does well with larger lenses.

the 85mm planar

Jul 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Fast 85ish for Sony A7?

kvr: I am not familiar with that contraption.

Who makes it?

BTW I had the opportunity to compare the size and weight of the 85/1.4 Planar vs the Summilux R80/1.4 when I picked up the latter. I haven't got the specs in front of me but they are quite similar in heft and build.

Jul 23, 2014 at 03:11 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.