A comparison with L is needed.
I see that the L is smaller in dimensions but heavier. Sony uses plastic inside the lenses which makes them lighter.
What would you say about the build quality of Lvs GM?
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you think this is too short DOF, try shooting with the EF 85/1.2L without eyeAF.
In either case, I agree it's not easy to get both eyes in focus at this distance.
Fred
nandadevieast wrote:
A comparison with L is needed.
I see that the L is smaller in dimensions but heavier. Sony uses plastic inside the lenses which makes them lighter.
What would you say about the build quality of Lvs GM?
I have both and the dimensions are:
85L II 91.4mm x 83.8mm 1,025 gms
MB IV 25mm 150gms.
Total: 91.4mm x 108.8mm 1,175gms
GM 85 89.5mm x 107.5mm 820gms.
The GM is about the same size as the 85L II with MB IV, but is 350gm lighter. The GM 85 on the A7rII is extremely well balanced and does not feel heavy or too large.
In terms of build quality the GM 85 feels a lot more solid and the MF on it is excellent with the dedicated f stop ring. The 85L II is truly a superb lens too. Tough choice!
In essence running tests comparing both lenses I don't think is needed as both are very unique. IMO the GM 85 does everything better, but it does not have the f/1.2 look ... quite. With the GM 85 at f/1.4 there is a hint of almost Leica like glow.
charles.K wrote:
I have both and the dimensions are:
85L II 91.4mm x 83.8mm 1,025 gms
MB IV 25mm 150gms.
Total: 91.4mm x 108.8mm 1,175gms
GM 85 89.5mm x 107.5mm 820gms.
The GM is about the same size as the 85L II with MB IV, but is 350gm lighter. The GM 85 on the A7rII is extremely well balanced and does not feel heavy or too large.
In terms of build quality the GM 85 feels a lot more solid and the MF on it is excellent with the dedicated f stop ring. The 85L II is truly a superb lens too. Tough choice!
In essence running tests comparing both lenses I don't think is needed as both are very unique. IMO the GM 85 does everything better, but it does not have the f/1.2 look ... quite. With the GM 85 at f/1.4 there is a hint of almost Leica like glow.
A point people miss about the 85L, it's basically unusable for video, you will hear the lens elements rattle around on the cameras audio track, even in MF. A point to consider for down the road, even for those who currently don't shoot video.
Another excellent application of the GM 85, one I did not expect was using it for commercial product shots. I have light cocoon and generally used the FE 35/1.4, but the GM 85 is giving a really feel to shots. This is an example this morning for my 85L II on ebay
Thank Philippe Surprisingly I did not have to crop much at all. I have been doing a number of other product shots and I am really liking the GM 85 for them.
I can understand why you would like it, but I find myself frustrated with the MFD which, ideally, I would have liked to see shorter (which implies a higher magnification factor). I find it limiting for flower shots, for example, even though the rendering is very nice.
Nice shots Philippe I do not think there really is any 85mm lens that has a short MFD. It probably has something to do with the optical design and size.
Considering that most macro lenses are around that FL, and that some of them do landscape very well, such as the Sony FE 90 G macro f:2.8, I don't understand why it would be a physical impossibility for a 85 to focus close-up. But, as you know, I am daft when it comes to technical issues.
I don't think there is an issue in having macro, but generally the design criteria is for sharpness more so than portrait style rendering. That said the FE 90 and still is an excellent portrait lens
I have 2 extension tubes that work nice. I used them on the Batis 85 doing some product work but have yet to try them on the GM. I have a product shoot to do but it's been postponed twice now, waiting on product reasons. But I also have the Loxia 50 that also would work for product. I usually focus stack for DOF. It's really fast to do when I'm tethered to laptop on location. This eliminates a TSE lens for me to make up for the tilt. Works a charm too.
a bit OT, but i wanted to mention that i have found (perhaps i'm the last to know) a fantastic piece of software - FastRawViewer - only costs $15 - but it's really changed my workflow in a big way.
A few months ago, I took advantage of the Sony / Phase1 deal to get Capture1 for Sony and upgraded it to the full version - what a great piece of software! I really like how it allows you to make changes but keep images looking clean and not over-processed. I also use DxO for images that have either noise that i want to clean up or some perspective distortion (wide angle or how i held the lens).
What i was missing was a quick image viewer - i normally copy all files from my card to a 'orig' folder on my harddrive, use something to quickly find the 'keepers' and copy those to a 'work' folder and then spend some time on each of those, either in Cap1 or DxO.
I had been using Lightroom or Bridge for that culling task - but the image previews never looked great for some reason and they're both pretty big apps and i'm trying to be leaner these days.
My 'buddy' DLloyd had an ad for FastRawViewer from the guys who made RawDigger (which i respected) so i thought i'd give it a try - well, i'm glad i did - and there's no looking back. It's fast, the previews look perfect and the curves are based on the raw data, not JPG conversions so they make it really easy to find files that aren't clipped (shadows or highlights).
FWIW, I've been testing the AF of my newly arrived 85 on both an A7R2 and A6300. The AF when shooting wide open to f/2 has been surprisingly great using AF-C with eye AF, flexible spot and lock-on flexible spot. The AF seems snappier/quicker on the A6300 but even on the A7R2 the AF speed isn't too bad. I haven't noticed any accuracy difference between the two. As for AF noise, my copy isn't too noisy. Certainly won't bother me or my subjects in every day use but for churches or maybe even wedding ceremonies it might be a bit loud and I'd consider using manual AF. The image quality is outstanding....really. Size and weight are manageable for me, even on the A6300. But if I was going to use it for an extended time, I'd use an extended grip.
Oh, and I'm using the latest firmware on both cameras with picture/camera effects or whatever it's called on.
I do have a nice copy of a Canon FD 85 f/1.2 to which I'll compare it on both cams when I find the time.
akclimber wrote:
A bit of a cross-post from another thread:
FWIW, I've been testing the AF of my newly arrived 85 on both an A7R2 and A6300. The AF when shooting wide open to f/2 has been surprisingly great using AF-C with eye AF, flexible spot and lock-on flexible spot. The AF seems snappier/quicker on the A6300 but even on the A7R2 the AF speed isn't too bad. I haven't noticed any accuracy difference between the two. As for AF noise, my copy isn't too noisy. Certainly won't bother me or my subjects in every day use but for churches or maybe even wedding ceremonies it might be a bit loud and I'd consider using manual AF. The image quality is outstanding....really. Size and weight are manageable for me, even on the A6300. But if I was going to use it for an extended time, I'd use an extended grip.
Oh, and I'm using the latest firmware on both cameras with picture/camera effects or whatever it's called on.
I do have a nice copy of a Canon FD 85 f/1.2 to which I'll compare it on both cams when I find the time.
I picked up the 85mm/1.4mm GM or should i say it was delivered today. I compared it to the Sony 90mm macro. In terms of center sharpness and detail-- there is not much difference between f2.8 and 4.0. I did not use a tripod so cannot say there are not some minor differences but not enough to make a difference that would make me jump on one vs the other. Like others I notice, sharpness improves after 1.4 but really great 1.7. I have not looked at the 5.6 and 8 images yet. I was more interested in bokeh. Clearly at f1.4-1.7(1.8)-- same smooth and buttery bokeh cannot be had with the macro. At f2.8, I dont see a big difference in bokeh that would make me jump for the 85mm. In fact, i liked the macro bokeh a bit more but some of the subtle changes may have been related to the 5mm difference as I did not correct for distance. In general, I am not sure I want to keep both and I would tend to keep the macro.
And I wanted to add I do see a fair bit of CA and fringing that seems to become negligible at f2.8. This is consistent with what others have noted.
Mark try F1.6 too. It's a little more contrast than 1.4 and A nice pop starts to begin by F2 it's sharp as a tack across the frame maybe sooner. I never shot the 90 but images do look great from it. Really going to depend on your style and what you like to shoot. Either are very good. Personally for me a macro is just not in my wheel house. But that's me, some folks love them.
Guy thanks.. When i stated 1.4-1.7.. I meant inclusive so I did 1.6 as well. I agree more contrast at 1.6. Clearly amazing that corner and edge sharpness is so close to the center.
