sebboh wrote:
i agree about the 50 sonnar (and 85 sonnars) having great rendering for portraits, but of course when i say portraits i'm not thinking of head and shoulders formal portraits. that's a type of shot i never take. i'm thinking more environmental types of portraits where more of the subject is included and you don't have much control of the background.
are you guys not seeing the comparison of the 31mm limited shots with 100% crops in the link?
+1, this is why i never looked further at the 77 after i handled it.
This is the 31 on the K-5IIs (16mp, no AA filter) . . .
I have no idea what Scoring method DxoMark uses to summarize the sharpness at various apertures and regions. However if you compare the FE 55mm 1.8 (A7R) to say the Nikon 85mm 1.8G (D800E) on DxoMark then 85mm 1.8G is sharper from wide open to about f2.8 and after that they pretty much even out.
curious80 wrote:
I have no idea what Scoring method DxoMark uses to summarize the sharpness at various apertures and regions. However if you compare the FE 55mm 1.8 (A7R) to say the Nikon 85mm 1.8G (D800E) on DxoMark then 85mm 1.8G is somewhat sharper from wide open to about f2.8 and after that they pretty much even out.
But, but, but . . .
OP just go for the unadapted autofocus samurai's sword sharp FE 55.
It's small and light, has a 49mm filter thread (nice small filters, sometimes a bit cheaper too) and goes straight on you A7R.
Ohh I was just talking about the sharpest AF lens claim in general I am sure 55mm 1.8 is a great lens for A7/A7r and also one of the best normal lenses around. For portraits though I would definitely like a dedicated portrait lens of a longer FL.
curious80 wrote:
Ohh I was just talking about the sharpest AF lens claim in general I am sure 55mm 1.8 is a great lens for A7/A7r and also one of the best normal lenses around. For portraits though I would definitely like a dedicated portrait lens of a longer FL.
Cropping the 55/1.8 on the A7r makes a lot of sense for a portrait given you really don't need all that horsepower for the subject matter. For instance, cropping to the equivalent of around APS 16MP would give something very close to the field of view of 82-85mm's in fact. One of the perks of a FF, high MP sensor at work!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Cropping the 55/1.8 on the A7r makes a lot of sense for a portrait given you really don't need all that horsepower for the subject matter. For instance, cropping to the equivalent of around APS 16MP would give something very close to the field of view of 82-85mm's in fact. One of the perks of a FF, high MP sensor at work!
I bought one and don't regret it. I needed one AF lens for the A7r that the 55 does marvelous. If Sony Zeiss offer a 35/1.4 I'll go for that if it's a goodun'.
It's a conundrum isn't it. 55mm, 77mm, 85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm or 135mm !
All portrait lenses (and at the weekend my 'portrait lens' was a 300/2.8) ! It really depends on your personal preference so that should the OPs first step.
The Pentax 77/1.8 Ltd is one of my all time favourite lenses, superb. However I've never used it in MF mode on my A7.
The Rokinon 85/1.4 is fantastic value for money (sharp and far lower CA than the likes of C/Y 85/1.4) but you may need to go through a few copies to get a good one.
My favourite portrait lens(es) at the moment are the Zeiss 100/2 and Nikon 135/2 DC .... both absolutely destroy the BG but with beautiful rendering.
I wouldn't recommend the Contax G90 - it still sits in my bag because the MF ring is tiny and manual focusing with it horrible. You can get an AF adapter for it though (though AF is glacial and there are lots of micro adjustments).
The 55/1.8 is a fantastic lens and would let you get close to interact with your model (family) if that helps, or stand back for full length. I've also found AF on the 55/1.8 on the A7 to destroy that of the D800E in terms of consistency of accuracy. Shame about the FPS.
The Minolta 85/1.4 look sexy and is very very sharp. How about the Rokkor 58/1.2 for superb characterful bokeh ?
It's so tough to choose with so many wonderful options.
Yeah, I'm sure I will pick up that FE 55 at some point. I seem to have a bunch of 50's right now, though none are AF. I'm also waiting to see if a fast 35/1.4 in native mount shows up next month (Photokina).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure I will pick up that FE 55 at some point. I seem to have a bunch of 50's right now, though none are AF. I'm also waiting to see if a fast 35/1.4 in native mount shows up next month (Photokina).
Oooo . . . yeah, it's only next month. I shall check the bank accounts in advance.
Excitin'!
Aug 04, 2014 at 03:04 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
douglasf13 wrote:
I believe that Steve's point is that, while the focus feel of the Pentax Limited lenses may be decent for an AF lens, MF-only lenses have much better manual focus feel, like old Takumars, Contax C/Ys, Leicas, etc. If one has Pentax AF cameras to split time with the Limited lenses, they make a lot of sense, but, if one is using only the A7/R in manual focus, other MF-only lenses may be a better option.
This is what I had in mind. See Jonas description in the link sebboh posted. The 77 limited is a very good lens, but for me the manual focus feel would be a drawback.
Steve Spencer wrote:
This is what I had in mind. See Jonas description in the link sebboh posted. The 77 limited is a very good lens, but for me the manual focus feel would be a drawback.
It really ain't that bad. I thought that for a while before going the A7r route but have been happily surprised by how easy it is to use on the A7 bodies.
I got full sized samples for these as they were a 'usability test', though these were Sony OOC JPGs (love them or hate them). DSC00561 by jenkwang, on Flickr
f1.8
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What I have noticed is that the 100's in general tend to be better corrected lenses by nature (less distortion and more even sharpness over the frame) as compared to the shorter 85's. For portraiture, this of course does not matter much (and a shorter lens will be desirable for some) but if one wants a more versatile lens that could be used for say anything from reproduction work, architecture and even landscape, that quality might matter.
Nice samples! Thanks
Yes, that what I found too.
100mm lenses seem optically simpler to design and sharp right off with all the other characteristics you mentioned.
It also seems that 100mm has fallen out of favour as a portrait focal length nowadays in favour of 85mm and 135mm.
pinholecam wrote:
I don't have any issues with CA wide open on my FA31ltd so maybe there is sample variation.
Your 31Ltd samples (the full size versions) show really nice IQ. Out of curiosity, is yours an older MIJ (Made in Japan) or later AIV (Assembled in Vietnam) copy?
Nice pics, pinholecam!
I used to shoot portrait with Canon 100/2.0, and still have it. It is a lovely lens with many positives that you guys mentioned. I now occasionally use it, but I use the 135/2.0 more often since it is sharper at wide open aperture and more suitable for my outdoor portrait work. However, I still love the 100/2.0!
