Eric, I agree that maybe after f/5.6 or 8 there is no PDAF being used with the GM 85 as with the other FE lenses. I had no issue is taking shots of surfers @ f/5.6 to 8 with AF-C, center on the back button. I agree in a studio the situation is quite different. Maybe at a later date, Sony need to look at all the FE lenses and have a settings "OFF' where the lens opens up, or a sub setting that would utilize this function. I would imagine this would be just a FW for both the A7rII and lens combo.
charles.K wrote:
Eric, I agree that maybe after f/5.6 or 8 there is no PDAF being used with the GM 85 as with the other FE lenses. I had no issue is taking shots of surfers @ f/5.6 to 8 with AF-C, center on the back button. I agree in a studio the situation is quite different. Maybe at a later date, Sony need to look at all the FE lenses and have a settings "OFF' where the lens opens up, or a sub setting that would utilize this function. I would imagine this would be just a FW for both the A7rII and lens combo....Show more →
Pretty much all (I've heard the FE 24-70/4 OSS is an exception) the E and FE mount lenses with electronic aperture prior to the GM 85/1.4 stay wide open with Setting Effect off and even with Setting Effect on they open up a lot to focus. My FE 55 & Batis 85 for example open up a lot to focus (maybe to F/2) with Setting Effect on regardless of selected aperture, this is in A7R II body. Also, this does not mean that these lenses are automatically vulnerable to focus shift; Jim Kasson's tests with 85 Batis indicate (to put it simple his manual focus tests showed significant focus shift that was not present in AF tests) that it has some kind of mechanism to nullify focus shift; propably it does tiny bit of CDAF iteration during/after stopping down. Coping with focus shift this way is not really rocket science on a sensor-focus camera; whereas with a DSLR you just do not have this option.
Please do not take this as bashing the GM 85. There are ways to work around this and it is a non-issue to many users. But for anyone wanting to use the lens for very low light stopped down shooting this can be useful information and thus can for example help keeping unnecessary returns down.
I did some further tests and up to now, I would not rely on AF-C (with medium spot, no lock-on) with an aperture of f4 or slower in very(!) low light (in dim light AF-C works fine in my opinion). But I can back-button focus at f1.4 and change aperture to f4-f8 before shutter release and it looks like the subject is still sharp (enough for ISO 12800). Maybe the focus shift will only be visible when you recompose with lock-on or AF-S. I will check that with some MF tests this evening. And also the sharpness in AF-C with flashes (to get the "studio" result at ISO100).
AF-S worked, but was slow. At f1.4 (AF-S with f1.4, lol) it was almost as fast as with AF-C. But as soon as you start to stop down the lens it gets very slow. I will compare the times to the 90/2.8 this evening too.
I'm fishing now in dark waters since a few weeks to get a good handling for this lens. I'm not an engineer nor a professional, but as it looks like, I'm not the only one with unanswered questions. I would really apreciate, when Sony would give us some insights. On the other hand, I like investigating.
tn1krr wrote:
...
Please do not take this as bashing the GM 85. There are ways to work around this and it is a non-issue to many users. But for anyone wanting to use the lens for very low light stopped down shooting this can be useful information and thus can for example help keeping unnecessary returns down.
It's very useful to have such informations and suggestions, keep on.
Are there other users out there that have the feeling, that this lens gives some kind of a "washed out" look? The lens gives a soft and dreamy look wide open although it's tack sharp.
Maybe I have become a victim of the typical Zeiss look, I just don't get used to that rendering.
I know this thread has gotten very long but I do think I brought this look up. I mentioned it when I was posting the junkyard images. I added clarity and some black point adjustments and you get that Zeiss pop look. Don't ever listen to in camera jpeg users. What Sony does there is a different world than raw and being efficient in post processing. I have said this before find a raw program you like and be Great at it.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Are there other users out there that have the feeling, that this lens gives some kind of a "washed out" look? The lens gives a soft and dreamy look wide open although it's tack sharp.
Maybe I have become a victim of the typical Zeiss look, I just don't get used to that rendering.
Jannik, yes you must have become a victim of the Zeiss look Seriously this one of the main reasons why I loved the Leica lenses so much and in particular the Mandler look. For portraits and I understand this is a particular area but this is where the GM 85 is superb an almost Leica glow. You don't want the harshness of strong micro contrast a f/1.4 on a face. Of course as you stop down to f/1.6 to 1.8 the look is different again. And if the strong micro contrast is preferred the Batis 85 is probably the better choice.
A shot this evening of Marisa relaxing. The lighting is just overhead LED's which is hard to control the WB. The default sharpening is reduced, no adjustments just WB. Often for portraits I am finding I am having to reduce the contrast. The default color depth and tonality is excellent and I find the conversions to B&W in SEP II are virtually default settings. The GM 85 is a great lens and I feel it will take about 3 months to really understand this lens.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Are there other users out there that have the feeling, that this lens gives some kind of a "washed out" look? The lens gives a soft and dreamy look wide open although it's tack sharp.
Maybe I have become a victim of the typical Zeiss look, I just don't get used to that rendering.
my overall impression of my shots and from what i've seen of others is that this lens handles things very gracefully - particularly scenes that other lenses, zeiss in particular, would render too harshly (Charles was instructive on this point and i really appreciate now when i get shots from this lens where the OOF highlights are not specular blotches and in-focus subjects are not overly-contrasty. for example, the shots above in the park shaded by trees on a bright day ended up nicely balanced.
i also find that the extreme resolution of this lens offers a very natural look and makes it quite easy to add in a bit of structure/clarity/black_level as Guy suggests without ending up looking over-processed.
btw - i too have situations or moods where i like that zeiss punch (i think of it more as a punch than a pop these days) and that's why i kept the zony 55/1.8 around - originally i thought that was too close in focal length to the 85, but the very different 'look' is worth having around for those moments.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Are there other users out there that have the feeling, that this lens gives some kind of a "washed out" look? The lens gives a soft and dreamy look wide open although it's tack sharp.
Maybe I have become a victim of the typical Zeiss look, I just don't get used to that rendering.
I shot this in JPEG. Added a touch of contrast and resized for the web. Shot at f/1.6. I am not that much of a post process person, I spend maybe 3-5 minutes on every image I have posted albeit I have been using Sony's JPEG engine which you can argue is 'post processing' compared to a uncompressed raw file.
Anyways, I find more pop and color pop with this lens then any Zeiss I have ever shot with, after I do my little tweaks. These files can start with a 'washed out look' as you put it and with MINIMAL effort just explode, pop and get right in your face!
GMPhotography wrote:
I know this thread has gotten very long but I do think I brought this look up. I mentioned it when I was posting the junkyard images. I added clarity and some black point adjustments and you get that Zeiss pop look. Don't ever listen to in camera jpeg users. What Sony does there is a different world than raw and being efficient in post processing. I have said this before find a raw program you like and be Great at it.
But daddy-o, so far I've been a in camera JPEG user......
Totally, but this is why I am having a crisis right now. I love that look for portraits. I ended up selling my Sony CZ135/1.8, largely because the Zeiss rendering on it was just too sharp. It felt like I could cut myself on an eyelash. I went back to my beloved Minolta 100/2. Minolta didn't chase the crazy micrcontrast that Zeiss (and Canon and Nikon mostly have, as well) famous for. Minolta chased that softer color and eschewed microcontrast. The lenses are sharp, even crazy sharp, but for me, it makes the skin tones more pleasing, and a portrait a bit more lovely. I also find it helps a ton with flawed skin.
Now, please bear in mind, I am not shooting slender models. I am shoot mostly kids and families, and they come in... a greater diversity of body types. This is why I haven't kept an 85mm. The longer focal length is a bit more flattering for fuller faces.
If it helps, I find that I rationalize it that Canon and Nikon chased the Zeiss look, while Minolta and (joy of joys!) Sony chased Leica. No one really captures the magic except for a few examples, but I tend to see that effort of "look."
Jannik Peters wrote:
Are there other users out there that have the feeling, that this lens gives some kind of a "washed out" look? The lens gives a soft and dreamy look wide open although it's tack sharp.
Maybe I have become a victim of the typical Zeiss look, I just don't get used to that rendering.
Okay a update replacement lens is here. It does seem better as that grinding feeling is not there. Still has noise but I consider that normal. Also not as loud, so conclusion is my first copy might just have been off at the start. I need to test it make sure everything is good but looks good so far
Guy - out of curiosity since this is probably from a new batch from Sony- do you notice any grease on the inside of the barrel (i forget if your original had any) - i'm just wondering if anything has changed on that front. as a reminder, some thought it might have been scratches, but it was grease per Roger's teardown: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2016/04/innerscratch.jpg
GMPhotography wrote:
Okay a update replacement lens is here. It does seem better as that grinding feeling is not there. Still has noise but I consider that normal. Also not as loud, so conclusion is my first copy might just have been off at the start. I need to test it make sure everything is good but looks good so far
I hope this one works for you, this lens is such a GEM. Honestly, I couldn't image being a full time working professional and not having this WEAPON in my bag...
GMPhotography wrote:
No grease and serial number is much bigger as well.
One thing I noticed on mine was the wear on the electrical contacts, it had been mounted and unmounted a few times, no idea how many! Got me to wondering, what happens with all the returns, are they shipped back to Sony USA for a CLA and then turned around again?
Mine was boxed piss-poor from B&H too, shoved on the box corner with that large bubble padding shoved over the top of it. Very unlike them! HENRY POSTNER?
chrisgibbs wrote:
Mine was boxed piss-poor from B&H too, shoved on the box corner with that large bubble padding shoved over the top of it. Very unlike them! HENRY POSTNER?
Sadly, it's my experience that this is now very much like them. There's another thread to which I contributed discussing this. Henry contacted me and I provided photos of the woefully inadequate packaging and he said he'd raise the issue with the shipping department. I've been using other retailers ever since tho...
Seriously this one of the main reasons why I loved the Leica lenses so much and in particular the Mandler look. For portraits and I understand this is a particular area but this is where the GM 85 is superb an almost Leica glow. You don't want the harshness of strong micro contrast a f/1.4 on a face. Of course as you stop down to f/1.6 to 1.8 the look is different again. And if the strong micro contrast is preferred the Batis 85 is probably the better choice.
?