TheEmrys wrote:
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."
Tyler it is a shame you parted with the ZA 135. This is still one of my favorites! The rendering I find is similar to the GM 85. I find the ZA 135 for portraits is gentle yet full of life is probably the only way I can describe the lens. That said I love the rendering with Minolta 80-200/2.8 G HS
I bought this lens rather than a Zeiss (Milvus 85 or ZF.2 135 APO) in order to have a "different look" in my bag, plus an AF lens to complement my MF lenses.
This is, more or less as expected, a combination of a boon and a bust.
On the boon side, the FE 85 does some things very nicely indeed, especially where a Zeiss would have been a bit harsh. In particular the 135 APO, exceptional though it is, is not exactly kind and forgiving. On the bust side, there are instances where I am simply not getting the all subtlety and nuances that a Zeiss would have given me. In particular the creamy bokeh cancels out quite a bit of structural detail I would have had out of a Zeiss.
It is still early days, and I still need time to learn to use the small differences in rendering at the various apertures. In PP, however, I can't seem to get the Zeiss look that Guy says is easy to emulate, nor the great 3D that Lucinda raves about. I get fair to good 3D, but not more.
Somehow, and I don't know how to phrase it better, the FE 85 seems very good indeed at large variations in size or colour or contrast, but not nimble enough to render the minute ones perfectly.
Any suggestions? BTW, I am using Capture One, and different settings for this lens than for typical Zeiss shots from my Otus 55.
3 shots showing what the FE does very nicely in my view, but without great 3D. All three from the gardens of Trianon.
Apr 30, 2016 at 02:19 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
philber wrote:
I bought this lens rather than a Zeiss (Milvus 85 or ZF.2 135 APO) in order to have a "different look" in my bag, plus an AF lens to complement my MF lenses.
This is, more or less as expected, a combination of a boon and a bust.
On the boon side, the FE 85 does some things very nicely indeed, especially where a Zeiss would have been a bit harsh. In particular the 135 APO, exceptional though it is, is not exactly kind and forgiving. On the bust side, there are instances where I am simply not getting the all subtlety and nuances that a Zeiss would have given me. In particular the creamy bokeh cancels out quite a bit of structural detail I would have had out of a Zeiss.
It is still early days, and I still need time to learn to use the small differences in rendering at the various apertures. In PP, however, I can't seem to get the Zeiss look that Guy says is easy to emulate, nor the great 3D that Lucinda raves about. I get fair to good 3D, but not more.
Somehow, and I don't know how to phrase it better, the FE 85 seems very good indeed at large variations in size or colour or contrast, but not nimble enough to render the minute ones perfectly.
Any suggestions? BTW, I am using Capture One, and different settings for this lens than for typical Zeiss shots from my Otus 55.
3 shots showing what the FE does very nicely in my view, but without great 3D. All three from the gardens of Trianon. ...Show more →
Phillipe,
These are quite nice shots. That they are not spectacular I think I would blame the light rather than anything to do with the lens or the photographer. The light looks quite flat. The colour of the water is also hard to work with--greenish brown water is not uncommon but not that attractive either. I do like the bokeh in these shots and many many shots with the 85 GM, and it does have decent if not spectacular 3D. In post on these shots I might try a more aggressive contrast curve. I think the whites, which are important in these shots, could pop a bit more. I also think the blacks could be a bit darker. Zeiss lenses have such strong contrast shots using it almost never need much in the way of curves. This lens especially for shots like these may benefit from more. That said the water and light are going to be hard to overcome. You probably need to visit on another day later in the year with nicer water and better light.
Hi Philippe. Nice shots IMO
The lower contrast I would relate very much to the Leica Monochrome RAW output. When the RAW files presented in LR, they looked so very flat yet after post processing they yielded some of the richest B&W images.
The GM 85 I feel is excellent in this respect as the tonal graduation, color and sharpness is all there. It is as Steve suggested finding the correct contrast curve to suit your style. The Zeiss lenses have a steeper gradient which is great, but so long as you don't lose RAW data detail in the shadows and highlights. For portraits it is hard to reverse the zeiss high micro contrast look in PP'ing.
In truth we have too many choices now The Batis 85 is a great lens and in many ways suits those that are looking for the Zeiss look.
Phillippe
I agree with you, it's not that easy to get the zeiss look. My experiences up to now with C1 to get the 3D/pop is to add some brightness (around 10), contrast (a little less than brightness), saturation (about the same as brightness), some HDR-highlight recovery (as much as needed, hardly above 75%), color balance - lower shadow (lower the brightness), clarity depending on subject (I hardly use it). And of course using the great color/skin-tool and the possibility to mask with it.
The starting point of the 85GM may look flat, but I can get a lot out of it. Here a shot I made for a birthday card. First version is the unprocessed JPG out of RAW. On the 2nd one, I tried to get a lot of contrast on the blue parts and also get the flatness on the face away. It's definetly overprocessed, but I was about that look. All processing in C1 only.
Thank You. Worth every penny now. Like to thank everyone that listened to my cry over this, I knew something was weird all along and I hate ever to cry wolf so thanks all for your patience and focusing seems a little bit faster. I don't know what the exact issue was and love to know actually but get yourself a great copy of it and create some great ART with it, its a very special lens in the FE mount. Maybe there best coming out of the Sony camp
philber wrote:
On the bust side, there are instances where I am simply not getting the all subtlety and nuances that a Zeiss would have given me.
From what I've seen from this lens so far I agree with you Philippe. That's also a reason why I'm not giving up my 85/1.4 ZF.2 Planar. Technically inferior, but I really like it's rendering.
Thanks for all your replies and explanations. I think I understand the character of this lens much better now. Phillipe confirmed my subtle feeling that there is something not there in a good and in a bad way although Guy's suggestion to boost contrast and clarity can compensate that for a certrain degree.
I can imagine that this lens will serve my child portrait needs in the future, the portrait rendering feels very appealing for young people or for people who simply want to have a super smooth look for their portraits.
Sometimes, I like the somewhat harsher rendering when I am taking images from mature people. It can underline the character in a great way. I like the FE 1.8/55 or the Makro Planar 2/100 for these purposes, maybe the Batis can create images like that too.
For landscape work, I'd still prefer a Sonnar 3.5/100 due to it's size and handling. Hopefully, a 100mm Loxia will come in the future.
GMPhotography wrote:
Well prilimary test looks like my second copy is excellent optically. Will check on computer but much quieter
Oh nice -- so your new copy is much quieter? I'm nearing the 30 day return policy and deciding whether I should return for a refund or replacement. If your new copy is better I will definitely opt for a replacement.
Thanks Seb, yea looking forward to getting this out under real conditions. What I noticed before and not now is it jump slightly to acquire focus which it did the job of nailing it . This one does not jump just smoother acquires it's focus. Everything just feels smoother. I noticed CA seems better at F2 but I did not test enough for that either just general feeling on it. It's very sharp
GMPhotography wrote:
Thanks Seb, yea looking forward to getting this out under real conditions. What I noticed before and not now is it jump slightly to acquire focus which it did the job of nailing it . This one does not jump just smoother acquires it's focus. Everything just feels smoother. I noticed CA seems better at F2 but I did not test enough for that either just general feeling on it. It's very sharp
Yeah, my copy is a little more silent than at the start and I think it nails faster than before. I'm happy now (what a great lens!). but someday, I will check my copy to someone elses or in a shop, just to see if it performs as loud and as fast/slow as mine. If there is a difference, I will bombard sony.
After another three weeks in use, there are two things in PP I'm doing different to normal processing:
First, I have made a separate profile just for this lens. The colors are too different to other native lenses (where I generally use one profile in C1 (made with the 90/2.8G) for all native lenses and situartions).
Second: With high contrast pics, I don't recover highlights anymore. I'm reducing luminosity instead and recover the darks. This brings me a less flat, more natural and closer look to the pics with other lenses.
Especially the second point is great. Because this points to more information in the data. It looks, like this lens brings a lot of light on the sensor.
Sebbe, thanks for the kind words. I also make some different PP adjustments with the 85 GM than with other lenses. In particular, I tend to boost contrast more than with Zeiss glass, and add a couple of points of black follwoing Guy's excellent advice.
