Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.4 #11 · Best portrait lens for Sony A7/A7r | |
Bluffer wrote:
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.
Just sayin' is all.
I think this is more a matter of personal preference. For me a lens designed for MF is just a lot more pleasurable to use for manual focus, but to each his or her own. I am glad you like your 77 limited and I agree it is a very good lens, but for me the manual focus experience would hold me back from using it.
To the OP, I think since you have the Canon 100 f/2 and the 135 f/2L, if you are happy with them on the A7r, then I would definitely go with a shorter focal length. The 85L is a beast, much bigger than the other lenses we have been discussing, so really any lens would be smaller and with a $1,000 budget you can get a lot of really good lenses. Let me categorize 75-85mm lenses that fit in your budget based on size from biggest to smallest. There is of course a tradeoff in aperture and size.
The biggest and fastest aperture option is the Canon nFD 85 f/1.2L or FD 85 f/1.2 Asperical. These are slightly different variations of the same lens. The nFD 85L is slightly smaller, and way smaller than the EF 85L (the EF is 723300 cubic mm with adapter on the A7r, whereas the nFD is 487100 cubic mm, and the EF weighs 1025g whereas the nFD weighs 680g both without the adapter), so you get a huge reduction is size and weight by going with the nFD instead of the EF. The EF might have slightly better performance, but the performance should be very similar and you can get the nFD for less than your budget. It is still a big lens, but a lot smaller than the EF.
The Minolta 85 f/1.4 is a very good portrait lens and with the Sony adapter would have decent AF on the A7r. It weighs in at 560g without the adapter so . With the adapter its volume is 437800 cubic mm, so this option is smaller than the nFD 85L, but not a lot smaller. You do get AF, however, and a very nice lens.
Another good option that has been mentioned and is a fantastic bargain is the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Vivitar 85mm f/1.4. This lens has diffuse and non-problematic bokeh. Some love it for that and it is relatively sharp even wide open. The build quality isn't fantastic, but nor horrible either. You can get it in e-mount, so no need for adapters. It weighs 570g and has a volume of 481900 cubic mm. So it would weigh less than the Minolta but be slightly bigger.
Another option would be the Zeiss Contax/Yashica mount 85 f/1.4. This lens is a bit challenged wide open and at close focal lengths, but is, IMO, quite a nice lens stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower. It weighs in at 595g without the adapter, but only has a volume of 352100 with the adapter. So it weighs just as much, but is a little smaller physically than the other fast 85s.
All of these fast 85s are pretty heavy and pretty large, but much smaller than your EF. If you want to go smaller you will have to go with f/1.8, or f/2, or even f/2.8 lenses. Here are some good but smaller ones.
As you know I have recommended the Leica M 90 f/2 version III. I like the performance and the size of this lens as a balance. It weighs in at 484g without the adapter and has a volume of 266300 cubic mm with the adapter. Because it is Leica M which has a shorter registration distance, it has a smaller adapter than the SLR lenses mentioned so far.
Another excellent choice for a slightly slower lens is the Pentax 85 f/1.8 K-mount lens. It has very nice performance and quite decent bokeh. It weighs just 331g without the adapter, but because of the larger adapter is every so slightly bigger than the Leica with the adapter at 268600 cubic mm.
As you know a third excellent choice in this range is the Pentax 77mm f/1.8. It weighs just 270g without the adapter and comes in just a bit smaller at 242900 cubic mm.
If you want to go even smaller, one option at f/2 is the Olympus OM 85 f/2. It weighs just 260g without the adapter and comes in at 214900 cubic mm. It is a decent performing lens, but you will start to see a bit more CA and perhaps not quite the sharpness of the others.
Another interesting choice for small size (but not weight) is the Voigtlander M mount 75 f/1.8. It weighs 427g without the adapter (but keep in mind it would use the smaller Leica M mount adapter) and has a volume of 217500 cubic mm. I am not sure about the performance of this lens as I have never owned it and have not even seen many samples with it, but it is among the smaller options.
If we go with just a bit slower lenses then some other choice emerge:
The Zeiss Contax G 90 f/2.8 is a favourite of many partly because it is very small and has wonderful performance especially stopped down. It weighs just 240g without the adapter and has a volume of 182300 cubic mm with the adapter. One difficulty with this lens, however, is that it was designed for autofocus. There is an autofocus adapter that is slow, but many choose an adapter the allows manual focus, but it is a bit kludgy. I think if one is considering this lens, then they should also consider the very similarly designed Zeiss C/Y mount 85 f/2.8. It is a little bigger weighing in at 260 without the adapter and having a volume of 217700 cubic mm with the adapter, but in this form it has a wonderful manual focus mechanism.
Speaking of AF, if you wanted a very small and very competent 85 f/2.8 the Sony 85 f/2.8 is a great option if you want AF. It will have quite decent AF with the Sony adapter. It weighs just 175g without the adapter but has a bit bigger volume of 236700 cubic mm. It has a very similar design to the Zeiss lenses just mentioned. So if you want small and autofocus this is a great option.
Another very good option at f/2.8 is the Leica M 90 f/2.8 Elmarit-M. This is a top performing lens, but because it is a bit slower it will still just fit in your budget. It weighs in at 395g without the smaller adapter, and has a volume of just 203600 cubic mm with the adapter.
I am sure I have missed one or two good options but that give you a good range of options within your budget and lets you see some good options at faster and bigger and slower and smaller. That I think will be the toughest part of your decision. Good luck.
|
