chrisgibbs wrote:
Yes they are, and another issue we often deal with in cold climates (me, Alaska for 17 years) is certain lubes actually stiffening during freezing conditions. The old XPAN I used to run up there would become almost unusable under certain conditions. Things to consider are many........
as a rule, i generally try to prevent my body from being anywhere that my lens might freeze :-)
my body hates the cold - been trying to get out of Chicago for years b/c i can't take the winters anymore (actually this one was very mild)
ecarlino wrote:
as a rule, i generally try to prevent my body from being anywhere that my lens might freeze :-)
my body hates the cold - been trying to get out of Chicago for years b/c i can't take the winters anymore (actually this one was very mild)
I think under abnormal conditions there are few issues with all these mirrorless systems, no matter which manufacturer!
Up in Alaska, Jeff Schultz is shooting the Iditarod, and has done for 20 plus years, there's a reason you see him banging around with an old outdated and lackluster (but very dependable) 5D3 and a 24-70, it simply works better, faster and longer (when naked) on the frigid trail.
I'm finding the mirrorless cameras a joy for both the stills and video, **especially video, but they require a different level of attention (some babying). These aren't like old mechanical Nikkormat's that would stop a bullet for you, they're more like computers, even the lenses, that GM 85 has more computer processing power inside it than Apollo 13 did. That's not a bad thing by any means, they're just different, more reliable for the most part but more fragile at the same time.
It's an interesting topic, and one that has to be discussed in perspective........unlike that redonculous Nikon vs. Sony guy who trolls the web.
Been reading all of the comments about the potential grease issues with the 85 GM. Since some folks are speculating as to worse-case scenarios involving "migrating grease" or whether to worry about grease getting onto internal optics, etc, I'd like to add my two cents. Sony has spent a "billion" dollars building a new manufacturing facility in which to conduct R&D and build the new "GM" line of lenses (in the process literally inventing new technologies with which to raise the bar). Although Sony is a relatively new comer to the photography arena, their buyout of Minolta (established in 1928) in 2006 bought with it photographic expertise that enabled Sony to hang with the best of the golden oldies (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss, Leica, etc -- speaking of which, let's not forget that Leica partnered up with Minolta because of their technical and manufacturing prowess...) So at the risk of conjecturing, its my guess that for the most part, they know what their doing with these new lenses and there's probably little if anything to worry about beyond what may amount to initial teething pain. That said, I sure do wish Sony would get on the horn and clarify their position with regards to all of the "negative" hoopla surrounding the 85 GM!
great shots again, Guy! I am blaming you, well, partially, that I didn't return the second copy right away. Took it on a video shoot today and shot a few head shots of the model/actress. Damn. I might just live with the gu grease, that lens rocks, can't share the shots yet, unfortunately
Been reading all of the comments about the potential grease issues with the 85 GM. Since some folks are speculating as to worse-case scenarios involving "migrating grease" or whether to worry about grease getting onto internal optics, etc, I'd like to add my two cents. Sony has spent a "billion" dollars building a new manufacturing facility in which to conduct R&D and build the new "GM" line of lenses (in the process literally inventing new technologies with which to raise the bar). Although Sony is a relatively new comer to the photography arena, their buyout of Minolta (established in 1928) in 2006 bought with it photographic expertise that enabled Sony to hang with the best of the golden oldies (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss, Leica, etc -- speaking of which, let's not forget that Leica partnered up with Minolta because of their technical and manufacturing prowess...) So at the risk of conjecturing, its my guess that for the most part, they know what their doing with these new lenses and there's probably little if anything to worry about beyond what may amount to initial teething pain. That said, I sure do wish Sony would get on the horn and clarify their position with regards to all of the "negative" hoopla surrounding the 85 GM! ...Show more →
Mike I'm not so sure the grease is really a issue. If its lithium it would take a lot of heat . It better I'm in the freaking desert at 118 in the summer. Anyway I never ran into a problem here it's usually the cold. Back in the day a lot if shooters would send lenses in to repackage there glass with grease that handled the extreme cold. Not sure they still do as things have changed. I think new lenses the production workers may leave a touch extra hits the metal and it's pretty much over at that point( why we see it in different spots . I never heard of a grease and heat issue but I'm not a repair station either.
mike kobal wrote:
great shots again, Guy! I am blaming you, well, partially, that I didn't return the second copy right away. Took it on a video shoot today and shot a few head shots of the model/actress. Damn. I might just live with the gu grease, that lens rocks, can't share the shots yet, unfortunately
I hear you, Guy, well, since we don't know exactly, it's speculation, isn't it. I do love the way the lens draws, but most importantly, unlike the Canon L, Nikon and Zeiss 85mm, the keeper rate and precise focusing is so much better, I think this is what most of us are seeing, probably more so then the ability to resolve more detail. Nailing focus wide open most of the time, now thats awesome.
Guy, do you have access to the A6300? focuses noticeably faster, I checked this numerous time cuz I couldn't believe it, it might be a firmware issue, I don't see such a difference in af speed between any of my other lenses, fe55mm, fe24-70, 18-200, 10-18mm.
mike kobal wrote:
Guy, do you have access to the A6300? focuses noticeably faster, I checked this numerous time cuz I couldn't believe it, it might be a firmware issue, I don't see such a difference in af speed between any of my other lenses, fe55mm, fe24-70, 18-200, 10-18mm.
Not yet actually trying to figure a way to get one. Too much I need Loxia 50 and the A6300
Very interested in the lens for portrait work. The "issues" i'm sure will be sorted and the lens looks fantastic optically. Thanks to everyone sharing their experiences.
I do have a question about the hood, and the lens handling of flare, loss of contrast shot into the sun etc.
With the Fe55 i switched to a much shorter hood for compactness and never really seen any issues. With the GM85 and the size of the lens it would be beneficial to do the same, or just loose the hood altogether.
So my question to you having the lens, have you tried shooting without the hood, and compared? Or with a different hood ( i know many do replace the original hoods) Would be very interesting to hear something about flare, contrast etc and how it works with and without the hood so i could get an understanding if the lens will work without or with a shorter hood, saving space when the camera is ready to go in the bag etc..
shot without hood, backlit subject, maintains great contrast, forgot to remove uv filter,
so I have the ring/reflex in the image, thats what you need the hood for, really good flare resistence though, much better then the fe55, which is now my sec fav lens
