Last official test. Im sure your all bored silly at this point but this is amazing by itself. Who would of thought at distance almost wide open you get this detail. This was handheld on a tripod i would be afraid it cut my eyes out. This lens is a laser
TheEmrys wrote:
I have to say that f/1.6 looks awesome. Shooting the 100/2, the dof is nearly identical to that of an 85/1.4. But to get identical framing, it often involves taking a step back, giving me a bit deeper dof for portraits. To get most of a face in focus, I really prefer 100mm at f/2.2-2.4. The 85mms at f/1.6 looks amazing for a nice dof but amazing bokeh.
Whats really interesting is even at F8 the bokeh looks still very smooth. It really has to do with those transition areas and the tonal range this lens can produce along with a really great sensor in this 42mpx its one heck of a combo
GMPhotography wrote:
It really has to do with those transition areas and the tonal range this lens can produce along with a really great sensor in this 42mpx its one heck of a combo
Exactly. Do you still feel we have some MF quality going on here with the 85mm GM added to the A7r2 smooth files, Guy?
Fred Miranda wrote:
It makes you wonder. Why such thick cover glass? Early compatibility with existing E-mount lenses that were not even full frame? or A-mount glass? I mean, what is the benefit? I just see downsides to it.
Well now it's too late as the entire E-mount line-up was designed taking the thickness in consideration.
I feel the same way about them using the E-mount in general. Plastic mount with a narrow throat; the FE should've been a completely different mount.
Yes very much so these two GM lenses are really top of the class. There is a difference with MF and it comes down to tonal range as they are bigger chips plus there is more care being done by MF OEM on there software and such. So we are always going to see the best of Phase backs in C1 it's a total package but are we close. Closer than we ever been and honestly I could put up a shot of the Big Bronco building and the zoom on this body and almost nobody could see the difference it's really that close. Remember I had 5 backs and shot many others as well. I love the format but anymore one has to really question oneself if it's truly worth it. It's a big black hole of money and if you not going really big than that's another question you have to ask yourself. But in truth many hobbyists buy them as they want the best their money can buy and good on them. A lot of Pros buy them because they need the file size, they want the support and they are shooting tethered with digital techs so they have a process in place that works consistently and it's reliable.
The bottom line is this 42mpx sensor not sure anyone listened to me the first day I had it but I said these files are totally different from the 36mpx sensor as they are much smoother in tone and look. I was right. Not to pat myself on the back but this is a different beast that does compare well. And for the record I stay out of this vs that discussion. Lol I'm smarter for it trust me, a endless battle.
The other part here is speed in several ways. Where you going to find a 1.4 lens in MF they don't exist, than you get a lens like this st 1.6 on center that may take 2 more stops to get in MF now your at f4 /5.6 so some big advantages here. This lens is a laser just don't know how else to put it.
The bottom line is this 42mpx sensor not sure anyone listened to me the first day I had it but I said these files are totally different from the 36mpx sensor as they are much smoother in tone and look. I was right.
Some of us were paying attention, because we saw the very same thing.
I was thinking out loud that we already have the smooth files from the A7r2 and now that can be combined with the smooth tonality of the GMs. A special rendering combined, I assume, but I don't have a GM yet.
I got a headache trying to get through that article without a cup of coffee. But thanks for posting it. The presence of that piece of glass seems like it will lead to a built in obsolescence for every lens engineered for its presence. That's discouraging as I slowly sell off Canon glass for Sony.
(messed up reply to the article below)
[Post icon] p.16 #17 · Sony 85mm 1.4 GM testing thread
Fred Miranda wrote:
It makes you wonder. Why such thick cover glass? Early compatibility with existing E-mount lenses that were not even full frame? or A-mount glass? I mean, what is the benefit? I just see downsides to it.
Well now it's too late as the entire E-mount line-up was designed taking the thickness in consideration.
Well all the Loxia, Batis and Sony FE lenses are designed for it so at this point really not a concern unless your trying some rangefinder lenses to adapt to it. Micro lenses are nothing new they been used in several MF backs over the years so spread the light over the sensor better. Leica does the same
Handels wrote:
I got a headache trying to get through that article without a cup of coffee. But thanks for posting it. The presence of that piece of glass seems like it will lead to a built in obsolescence for every lens engineered for its presence. That's discouraging as I slowly sell off Canon glass for Sony.
(messed up reply to the article below)
[Post icon] p.16 #17 · Sony 85mm 1.4 GM testing thread
Fred Miranda wrote:
It makes you wonder. Why such thick cover glass? Early compatibility with existing E-mount lenses that were not even full frame? or A-mount glass? I mean, what is the benefit? I just see downsides to it.
Well now it's too late as the entire E-mount line-up was designed taking the thickness in consideration.
You've got to think there's a pretty good endgame reference the coverglass, optical designs and FE mount. After-all it covers their still and video line. I like to think there's actually a sensor design in their R&D lab that we're ultimately heading for, and these early sensors are more placeholders until then. Unlike Nikon, Sony control the process front to back, and started with a clean slate with the E-Mount, so a blunder with the coverglass just makes no sense at all to me.
After seeing Roger's MTF charts with and without the cover glass, it makes me wonder if we would get even better MTF results if Sony had engineered lenses to go with much thinner cover glass.. I've seen interviews with Zeiss where it's been mentioned that it's not easy to design ultra wides for the E-mount system because of the thicker cover glass...
I agree that they probably know what they are doing and at the end, we may actually benefit from it. However, so far, I have not found a good reason for it. Either way, it's too little to late to change anything right now.
Fred Miranda wrote:
After seeing Roger's MTF charts with and without the cover glass, it makes me wonder if we would get even better MTF results if Sony had engineered lenses to go with much thinner cover glass.. I've seen interviews with Zeiss where it's been mentioned that it's not easy to design ultra wides for the E-mount system because of the thicker cover glass...
I agree that they probably know what they are doing and at the end, we may actually benefit from it. However, so far, I have not found a good reason for it. Either way, it's too little to late to change anything right now....Show more →
The cover glass is no thicker than many Canon and Nikon cover glasses.
But it is of course thicker than Leica.
In the early days of Leica digital some folks were saying that the thin cover glass was a compromise designed for back compatibility with film era lenses.
If that's so there must be a benefit to the thicker glass: but I'm not sure what. More effective IR filters? Strength?
But the other question is whether there is a cost other than back compatibility with old glass.
One interview with Zeiss I saw said that UW lenses had to be redesigned and that made it not easy (i.e. You couldn't just rehouse ZM). But that doesn't mean that it's harder to design from scratch.
But maybe it is. Do they need to be more tele-centric, or is there another way around compensation? I don't think the Loxia 35 is more tele centric than the ZM biogon, it looks like the same design at the coarse grain of block diagram, so the tweak must be more subtle than that.
Another question is how much it matters if they do need to be tele centric. Those highly symmetrical designs were great in lots of ways, but I don't think even on thin cover glasses that's the way forward if you are concerned with extreme corners wide open which the market (rightly or wrongly) seems to be these days on high rez sensors.
DavidBM wrote:
If that's so there must be a benefit to the thicker glass: but I'm not sure what. More effective IR filters? Strength?
I agree that there must be a benefit, but we both don't know exactly what that is.
Perhaps it's compatibility with previous Sony lenses, strength, manufacturing cost. etc...We don't know for sure but perhaps Sony knows something we don't about the future of sensor design and the E-mount.
On the lens rentals MTF of the GM 85 site, someone asked if they planned to test the Batis.
Brandon Dube (from the OLAF testing co) replied and said that they had preliminary results in (tested three rather than the full ten - when they get there Roger will publish) and it was "competitive in all respects" with the others (presumably modulo maximum aperture!)
Obviously this doesn't tell you about OOF rendering. But if you like the Batis bokeh, you should probably relax about the sharpness (and remember that when comparing individual lenses in this thread and others, you really are comparing individual lenses -- what LRs charts show is that while there is fairly low variation in these lenses, the variation is still as great or greater than the variation between the averages of the different models!
What that means is that when you are dealing with great lenses like these, where the difference between the averages is not great, what you see when you compare say the Batis and the GM is representative only of those copies. Compare two different ones, and the differences may go away or be reversed.
Doesn't mean it isn't worth doing of course (especially if they are your copies and you are deciding which to keep)
So my 85 was delivered yesterday. The noise the AF motor makes is not nearly as bad as what I've seen in some YouTube videos and the horror stories I've read. The manual focus makes no noticeable sound... Couldn't see any scratches inside.
But that's not why I'm posting this here! When using continuous AF, there's a lot of focus breathing. I mean it's terrible. When I press the back button AF, I get a lock very quickly but it breathes so much before stopping. My A7rii is still on version 3. Could that be the reason?
Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, it's exactly like what's after the 27th second of this video: , but mine does it much more quickly.
PikkerTaker wrote:
So my 85 was delivered yesterday. The noise the AF motor makes is not nearly as bad as what I've seen in some YouTube videos and the horror stories I've read. The manual focus makes no noticeable sound... Couldn't see any scratches inside.
But that's not why I'm posting this here! When using continuous AF, there's a lot of focus breathing. I mean it's terrible. When I press the back button AF, I get a lock very quickly but it breathes so much before stopping. My A7rii is still on version 3. Could that be the reason?
Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, it's exactly like what's after the 27th second of this video: , but mine does it much more quickly. ...Show more →
See comments like yours really make me feel like mine is a train going by with noise.
