No it's pretty much the same at all distances. And yes have you noticed many of my shots are 1.6 which is killer good and best part no real bokeh or rendering loss. Actually it gives it a touch more 3D so yes I recommend 1.6. Even your Batis 85 at F2 is better than 1.8. That 1/3 red stop or whatever it is makes a difference. But nothing wrong with 1.4 if you want a more a dreamy effect. That's the neat part about these type of lenses you kind of get two in one deals. Use to your artistic advantage which it really is and not a fault.
GMPhotography wrote:
No it's pretty sad and are at all distances. And yes noticed many of my shots are 1.6 which is killer good and best part no real bokeh or rendering loss. Actually it gives it a touch more 3D so yes I recommend 1.6. Even your Batis 85 at F2 is better than 1.8. That 1/3 red stop or whatever it is makes a difference. But not thing wrong with 1.4 if you want a more dreamy effect. That's the neat part about these type of lenses you kind of get two in one deals. Use to your artistic advantage
i'd actually go a step further with the 85 GM (if a few j@ck@sess around here will allow me to say this without being labeled a fanboy) and say it is 3 lenses in 1
you get the f/1.4 which looks really good and has that 'extra dreamy look' you mention
f/1.6 - f/2.8-ish (depending on subject distance and desired DoF) have fantastic rendering/bokeh
f/5.6, f/8 give incredible resolution all the way into the corners
ecarlino wrote:
f/5.6, f/8 give incredible resolution all the way into the corners
That happens much, much wider than f/5.6. I would say the corners (even extreme corners) look excellent starting at f/1.8 and that's a big differential for this lens. It's important because you can place your subject anywhere on the frame and get very high resolution and contrast.
Very true at slower f stops it becomes a very powerful landscape lens starting at F4 that's really good. Regardless of what anyone says this is a very powerful lens that renders extremely well. As you use it more you will find shots that look different than what you where used to. Many people do not talk about rendering, bokeh, bokeh balls and onion rings as most of the focus is around resolving power which is fine but only part of the story, the good news here is it's extremely sharp to boot and at the faster apertures even in the corners
Fred Miranda wrote:
That happens much, much wider than f/5.6. I would say the corners (even extreme corners) look excellent starting at f/1.8 and that's a big differential for this lens. It's important because you can place your subject anywhere on the frame and get very high resolution and contrast.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That happens much, much wider than f/5.6. I would say the corners (even extreme corners) look excellent starting at f/1.8 and that's a big differential for this lens. It's important because you can place your subject anywhere on the frame and get very high resolution and contrast.
i'd agree, but the 3rd scenario that i didn't do a good job of specifying would be large DoF (landscape,cityscape) type shots
In all truth this lens maybe even better overall than our Loxia 21 which we all love. Frankly I think it's the best Sony lens made to date followed closely by the zoom. Yes the 55 is awesome as some others but I feel this is the most balanced lenses offering everything.
Actually, there is no veiling haze that I can see at f:1,4. There is a slight reduction in contrast. Let's say that, IMHO, wide open performance is a tad better than the Summilux 50, and a tad less good than that of the Otus 55. That means the FE 85 keeps good company indeed.
Wide open performance is actually interesting, and I have decided against using f:1,6 for safety's sake. In my opinion, because of the reduced contrast, colours change a bit. Wide open, the lens is just a bit warmer and "more romantic". Already from f:1,6 it gets just a bit more neutral. And, by f:4.0, it is set for brilliant landscape performance. So I choose the aperture for DOF and also for"looks". That I feel free to use wide open performance without cringing is praise indeed in my book.
Sad to say, but those who thought the Batis was the best thing since sliced bread have a challenge on their hands to prove it Vs the FE 85. Just as the owners of the FE 55 don't really own an Otus. Which doesn't mean that Batis 85 and FE 55 aren't very good, they are. Just, FE 85 is better than the Batis, and Otus 55 is better than FE 55. Both of those better be, because they are significantly costlier than their competition...:-)
And, as Fred so aptly put it, I'd still like to be friends with people, even if if they disagree with me...:-)
I can see your comment at 1.4 makes perfectly good sense if that's the look your after for sure. I kind of like it too but in a setting I have not shot it yet. More towards the people side not shooting a run down beat up rusty old car per say for testing reasons. Lol
Agree on the Otus as well it's like 5 percent gain for 5000 dollars or whatever it maybe and it's just not in my wheel house to do that anymore. I left MF and the big ticket 8000 dollar lenses not that they are bad or anything like that it's chasing some rainbows that I feel I don't need to chase . Same with the Otus and I just have other priorities and that's coming from a lens whore. Lol
ecarlino wrote:
as long as i had my 'focus test' target out, i decided to shoot the 85GM from 1.4 to 2.2 in 1/3 aperture steps to see if there was any 'haze' wide open and where it might clear up
(AF was used, 100% crops)
Am I the only one who is bothered by the discoloration in the out of focus areas?
Absolutely and thats where I would use it for sure. Best place to tone down the sharpness. Maybe you misunderstood what I said. People 1.4 is perfect. It be the look I would be after unless your trying for DOF on certain subjects. One reason I shot that wooden Indian at like a 3/4 face view was to see how it look on real humans.
philber wrote:
You don't feel that the FE 85 can do portraits wide open, Guy?
That's about the only downside I have seen so far. I think from reading the Otus is either less or none but I have not followed that lens . But this you can correct easily in post too.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Guy. Yes, I remember you pointing that out.
So it goes away actually sooner , good to know . I did in my test F2 , 2.8 and thats where I saw it go away. Eriks would be much more accurate with this testing device for that.
ecarlino wrote:
i only posted the first 5 apertures (b/c that's all FM supports - probably a smart restriction!) but here are the other 2 i shot so you can observe the 'colors' towards f/2.8
mogul wrote:
I own the stf and waiting for reviews on the new 105 f2 stf (both are heavy lenses but the new lens is superior in T stops).
Would love to see you shoot it against the 85/1.4 GM and the 105/2. For nature portrature, there just isn't anything in the 135 STF class (so far). And its sharpness is amazing. I had high hopes for the Fuji 56/1.2 APD, but it just doesn't quite have the magic.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I completely disagree with everything you wrote but can we still be friends?
Well sure. But I meant what I wrote, 200/2 blows anything around the subject into oblivion, I like Batis 85mm rendering better stopped down and Otus 85mm draws crystal clear @ f/1.4. Those would be my options if I was interested in a) bokeh b) landscapes on reasonable budget stopped down and c) f/1.4. And if smooth backgrounds are priority, STF-glass is always an option.
I would think so. A 200mm F2 is not a casual lens. I love them and I agree they would blow any background completely out but lets be fair its not a normal lens most would even want to carry, pay for and some may not be able to handle one either. Plus you always have the wall issue if you know what i mean you can only get so far back sometimes and a 85 is a much more common lens. Admittedly I bought maybe 6 Canon, Nikon and Leica versions of 180 and 200. I loved everyone of them but Nikons 200 f2 and Leicas 180 F2 summricron where the better ones in my mind. Thats living the photo dream
