GMPhotography wrote:
Looks great Fred. Case closed damn good freaking lens. Lol
Honestly the Batis 85 can't do this out in the corners. Looks like my mid level nails it at 2.8 and very acceptable faster. That's just flat out outstanding
I've never seen razor sharp extreme edges starting at f/1.4...Again, 42MP, 1:1 crop. Wow!
There is a noticeable difference in contrast from f/1.4 to f/1.6 (third of stop) at infinity. (Center)
The f/1.7 crop should really be f/1.8. I'm not sure if this is a firmware bug or the 11 blades play a role here.
I never thought about using this lens for landscapes but...
And my copy is centered even wide open. I wish the FE 35/1.4 had this QC.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've never seen razor sharp extreme edges starting at f/1.4...Again, 42MP, 1:1 crop. Wow!
There is a very noticeable difference from f/1.4 to f/1.6 (third of stop) at infinity.
I never thought about using this lens for landscapes but...
And my copy is centered even wide open. I wish the FE 35/1.4 had this QC.
Yea this would make a nice landscape lens for sure. With this speed it be awesome in certain situations as well. I'm with you as you know on the 35. I wish they would do a GM model of that right now . Even F2 I would take
I just took my first couple shots with new 85 Gmaster, using AF at F1.4
i did hear some very muted focus motor operation, only objectionable if shooting video, IMHO
here's a 100% crop NO POST PROCESS other than cropping the image
Sharpness is awesome and i really cannot find any CA
Looking back at my midlevel range this lens may actually be better at infinity in the corners. Mid level it looks like 2.8 as optimum still very good at 1.4 though. At this point its really irrelevant though anything this good at wide or close to wide open is killer good
skyloverz wrote:
I just took my first couple shots with new 85 Gmaster, using AF at F1.4
i did hear some very muted focus motor operation, only objectionable if shooting video, IMHO
here's a 100% crop NO POST PROCESS other than cropping the image
Sharpness is awesome and i really cannot find any CA
Bruce in Chicago
Bruce it is pretty loud you can't miss it. Focus motor is one thing this is flat out grinding metal to metal. My real worry is metal flakes going inside the lens , more why i am returning it
wow... at 1.6, it's pretty much as sharp as it gets. Not sure I really care that much about the extreme corners there. still debating if this would be worth $900 than a used canon 85 1.2II. By 1.6, that lens is no slouch in the center. Of course it depends on AF speed etc.
Got to play with one today for a few hours, with, as it happens, a professional model to hand (delightful Claire van Seters). But, please note, she may be a professional, but I am not.
Regarding performance, AF was not the most silent, but didn't sound untoward either. Certainly no hint of a metal-on-metal grind. MFD was longer than I'd have liked. Quite a bit of CA, including at f:2.0, whichdoes clean up, but, for that price, I would have liked it not to be there.
Regarding IQ: obviously vast amounts of detail, but not in-your-face-contrasty a la Zeiss. DNA from the very painterly G series is clearly there. Very evident 3-dimensionality, and lovely rendering if you like it milder and more poetic rather than scalpel-cold.
Still unsure whether to buy ot not. Alernative is Zeiss 135 APO on adapter.
More later on DearSusan
85mm lenses have traditionally had some of the best IQ but the results from this Sony are astounding, particularly the field sharpness at such large apertures. It makes you realize how underutilized these higher MP sensors can be with lesser lenses/focal lengths. I wonder how well 85mm would serve as a pano lens.
snapsy wrote:
85mm lenses have traditionally had some of the best IQ but the results from this Sony are astounding, particularly the field sharpness at such large apertures. It makes you realize how underutilized these higher MP sensors can be with lesser lenses/focal lengths. I wonder how well 85mm would serve as a pano lens.
I was not expecting this even performance either. I'm scared to compare it to my 70-200/4 @85mm, even though it may come close at f/5.6-f/8.
Also, the lens goes until f/16 and diffraction is not that noticeable. Another surprise.
I've had the Batis for a few weeks and the GM showed up this morning.
It's 27 degrees (April 9th !) in Chicago (but at least it is sunny) - so i'll be mostly indoors today.
Whoever said (J.Lanier?) that the Batis and GM feel "about the same" is a j@ckass. The GM is 2x the weight and you feel that right away. If you're going to be on a tripod, who cares - but if you're walking around, it will be a material difference and something to consider.
The AF motor on the 85GM definitely is not quiet, but sounds a lot like a small motor i've used with my kids for lego robots. An explanation from Sony would calm my nerves on this issue.
The 85GM also hunts more than the Batis - which is quiet and fast.
I shoot my 35/1.4 @ f/2 if i'm trying to isolate the subject and take advantage of that lens’ rendering (i have a good copy and that's just where things look clean to me), so i'll start by shooting all of these @ f/2.
I've respected the Batis b/c it looks really good wide open to me.
In subsequent shooting, I'll want to push the Sony 85GM and see if f/1.7 is still "clean" but adds even more *wow* factor to its rendering.
My purpose is not a direct side-by-side comparison of every shot - but rather to look at groups/dozens/hundreds of shots of each lens and develop a sense for each. If, after that, I don't have a substantial "wow" feeling for the GM it's going back because there had better be some real "something special" to justify the additional price and weight.
I have no doubt that both of these lenses are beyond sharp enough for my a7r2. What I'm trying to do for myself is develop a general impression of each and decide for my own uses if the Sony 85 GM is worth 150% in price and 200% in mass. It may turn out that for me, I'm not going to get that much out of it, but others may - i hope this is of some use to you in making your own decision.
For each "scene", I'll post Sony GM shots in one post, followed by Zeiss Batis shots in a subsequent post.
These are not side-by-side but rather a bunch of shots of the same scene shot immediately after one another so you can get the general feel for how each lens renders.
Processing: RAW (lossy compressed) into Capture One v9 where sometimes I adjusted the White Balance (but mostly not) and sometimes just hit "auto" (Exposure, HDR, Levels, not white balance and probably dialed back it’s ExpComp a bit), otherwise I made no changes; Then, export JPG (size: tall edge 1440px so fits nicely on 30" monitor).
ecarlino wrote:
Whoever said (J.Lanier?) that the Batis and GM feel "about the same" is a j@ckass. The GM is 2x the weight and you feel that right away. If you're going to be on a tripod, who cares - but if you're walking around, it will be a material difference and something to consider.
When I saw that video, I knew this "Artisan" was bias towards the GM.
_______
I really like your test. It shows rendering, color and bokeh differences between the two lenses. Together with resolution/contrast tests, this matters a lot.
Wide-open or close to it, I believe the GM will show "something special". However, even at f/2, you can already see a little bit of that on the "toy dog on the shelf" capture. The Batis has higher micro-contrast and bolder colors but the GM has a beautiful out of focus rendering. Colors are more muted and bokeh is smoother without harsh highlights.
I can't draw any conclusions from the "castle" shots because the Batis was closer to the subject. However I can see the rounded/cleaner bokeh balls on the GM capture. (castle with out-of-focus foreground image)
The Batis has distorted bokeh disks (cat-eye) even away from the edges. That's another area where folks are willing to pay the big bucks not to have it.
BTW: The best way to compare ecarlino tests is to open 2 browser windows and compare the images side by side.
