nehemiahphoto Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I can provide samples with any if you’d like. I’ve shot the Minolta 85 1.4, ZA 85 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Mino 85 1.4 limited, ZA 135 1.8 and Mino 100 2—very familiar with a-mount. I guess it depends on how pick you are, but ZA and Minolta have very different draws, and I don’t find them “about the same” as people often say WO. Not to be difficult, but the Canon FD 85 1.2 is not tack sharp across the frame WO, but not sure if you meant WO. But if it’s sharp enough for you, you’ll be surprised at the ZA 85 1.4 in terms of sheer sharpness all over then. The FD 85 1.2L is sharp centrally with minimal SA WO but with purple fringing (less than ZA, but still problematic at times), but sharpness drops off considerablely in the outer zones and specifically in the very corners. Also, with the a99ii, the only lens you’re getting full AF compatibility with is the 85 ZA. The absolute abstraction of bokeh between the ZA and 85L slightly favors the 85L, but the lens can show some nervousness in transition, where the ZA is better. Given you are quite happy with you're 85L, I would get the Sigma 85 as it has the same type of resolution (high central sharpness, rapid fall off) if you don't mind the color.
Zeiss 85 1.4:
Positive: Zeiss color and contrast, better off central sharpness than others, good separation at comparable aperture (medium 3D effect). It’s draws like a ZA zeiss (sony zeiss, not ZF or ZM glass) slightly lower micro contrast with a balanced feel in the tonal range, maybe a bit less saturation and higher luminosity). Smooth focus transition (but a bit higher contrast bokeh than the Mino 85 1.4) as the lens is higher contrast generaly. Until the recent generation of 85s (Batis, Milvus, GM, tamron, etc) this was as good as anything for sharpness.
Bad: Price, loud and medium AF speed, color fringing in high contrast areas (better af f2, gone by 2.8), some play in the focusing ring.
Minolta 85 1.4:
Good: Price, lightness, softer warmer colors with smoother tonal transitions, lovely bokeh, better with light and highlight detail—does wonderfully for skin tones. A bit more SA wide open helps too.
Bad: Central sharpness is only decent by modern standards. Off center needs a couple stops to catch up to the center. As a lower contrast lens (compared to this field), seems to not far quite as well in lower light and lower contrast scenes than the zeiss (unsurprising). Parts/repair. Minimal 3d affect (for an 85 1.4)
Minolta 100 f2:
Good: Good central and outer sharpness WO, small size/weight, fastest AF (but audible), more vivid colors than 85 1.4 regular--the punchiest Minolta lens I think. Price, less fringing WO than ZA or limited. Pleasent amount of SAa wo
Bad: Loose a stop, dinky MF focusing ring with quick throw with some play. Background bokeh a bit busier than peers and focus transitions are busier than peers (even if all lenses are at f2). Parts/repair.
Minolta 85 1.4 Limited:
Good: Superb color and tonality, smoothest bokeh of any 85 in any mount, especially in the transition zones. Some play in the MF ring. Good central sharpness WO, beautiful balance of SA, clarity and contrast for portraits. My favorite 85 in any mount—files are SUPERB.
Bad: Price and color fringing (both bokeh and fringing), heavy (750g), slower AF than ZA and Mino 85 1.4 regular, off central sharpness needs a couple stops. Parts/repair.
Sigma:
Good: Quick and quiet AF (not screw driven) price, central sharpness on par with ZA perhaps a pinch higher, smooth bokeh, good color fringing control, good transition zones. Minimal SA WO (good or bad depends on you).
Bad: I didn’t like color and seems to have an inferior tonal distinction (photos always looks flatter, more digital) and hard to process out. Least liked of all these lenses.
Edited on Apr 26, 2017 at 06:27 PM · View previous versions
|