jhinkey wrote:
Yeah, I'm prepping for another trip to Europe right after school gets out (Portugal + Spain) and want, as usual, a really compact kit, but with high IQ. The ZM was great for that last year in France/Italy/Switzerland, but sometimes AF and f/1.8 would have been very very useful.
So far, the travel kit is looking like:
16/3.5 AI Nikkor + Adapter
21/2.8 Lox
35/2.8 Sony
85/1.8 Sony (AF, bulky/light, very good IQ, fast) or 85/4 ZM (MF, compact/light, great IQ, slow) or 85/2.4 Lox (MF, somewhat compact/heavy, super IQ, f/2.4)
180/4 APO CV or 135/3.4 Telyt
No matter what I do (85/1.8 or 85/2.4) I'm keeping the ZM as it's just so small, light, great IQ for luggin' up mountains (I ain't getting any stronger at 51 years of age . . .) ...Show more →
If it wasn't for the ZM 85, the Loxia 85 would be a no-brainer for me.
It seems to be well corrected for aberrations and IQ is superb from wide-open. It has better resolution than the ZM at f/4 and even at f/5.6 (although similar here). The ZM catches up at f/6.3 which is my mostly used aperture for landscapes. At this setting + hard stop, it's a point and shoot.
I have not compared the FE 85/1.8 to the ZM but if the FE is similar to the Batis, it'd have amazing resolution for the size but the ZM would still beat it on rendering. (colors, contrast, sunstar, etc.)...so it's not just about sharpness for me. Recently aberration control is getting top priority for me. (Especially LoCA control)
Yea I'm reconsidering. This is my 3rd one and I must really like it buying it 3 times. I actually been thinking of selling my ZM 35 all decked out with the PCX and Hawks. Since I have the ZM 25 all decked out now and getting the 50 1.4 is more a priority. That's a nice gap 25/50. That would give me 12,20,25,50,2 85s. Could even pick up the Sony 35 2.8 for Af reasons on some PR stuff and to back up the 24-70. I like to carry a few back up lenses on these PR gigs where the 24-70 is the main lens.
Once again not having a great 35 F2 just screws everyone up and frankly I'm not sure we will ever see one. I for one do not believe or count on any rumors. That's bad business for me
Do you guys think the LR corrected FE85/1.8 will be close to the overall aberrations you would see with an Olympus 45/1.8 or Fuji 56/1.2?
I get roped into doing outdoor portraits occasionally (senior family portraits, etc.) and have been using Olympus of Fuji for that stuff. It would be nice to simplify down to one system if the Sony 85/1.8 would get me to roughly the same place with not a lot of PP needed.
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea I'm reconsidering. This is my 3rd one and I must really like it buying it 3 times. I actually been thinking of selling my ZM 35 all decked out with the PCX and Hawks. Since I have the ZM 25 all decked out now and getting the 50 1.4 is more a priority. That's a nice gap 25/50. That would give me 12,20,25,50,2 85s. Could even pick up the Sony 35 2.8 for Af reasons on some PR stuff and to back up the 24-70. I like to carry a few back up lenses on these PR gigs where the 24-70 is the main lens.
Once again not having a great 35 F2 just screws everyone up and frankly I'm not sure we will ever see one. I for one do not believe or count on any rumors. That's bad business for me...Show more →
It's all pretty funny . . . I like the FE85/1.8 so much that I might sell my Loxia and get the ZM. Maybe I can buy back my ZM . . . why do we always rethink this stuff. We're never totally happy where we are . . .
OK, just back from a quick test of the ZM vs. 85/1.8.
ZM is excellent way off into the corners wide open. All corners equally super sharp.
Sony @f/1.8 is amazingly extremely good across 85% of the frame. Unfortunately it appears that my copy has a much weaker right side of the frame (edge and corners) than the left side edge and corners (which are spectacular wide open). This does not go away upon stopping down.
I will go back and test it again and see if I can get these areas better by focusing along the right side and corners to see if it's just the mount that's out of alignment. May have to swap it out for another copy.
I also got it today. As usual with Sony it's clearly decentered. I never managed to get a nonfaulty Sony lens the first try. Not even when I bought the RX1 and later the RX1RII. I sometimes ask myself why I keep spending money on this company.
Jochenb wrote:
I also got it today. As usual with Sony it's clearly decentered. I never managed to get a nonfaulty Sony lens the first try. Not even when I bought the RX1 and later the RX1RII. I sometimes ask myself why I keep spending money on this company.
I feel your pain and have had similar experience. However, I'm pretty sure you won't have better luck with any other company. (Except Leica)
Although I always try getting better than average copies -- Ok, much better than average , I keep in mind there is a sanity threshold where perfectly centered optics won't make much difference in real images...I know, it's still very irritating...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I feel your pain and have had similar experience. However, I'm pretty sure you won't have better luck with any other company. (Except Leica)
Although I always try getting better than average copies -- Ok, much better than average , I keep in mind there is a sanity threshold where perfectly centered optics won't make much difference in real images...I know, it's still very irritating...
In the beginning I also thought Sony isn't worse than the other manufacturers, maybe I was just REALLY unlucky. However, those thoughts have completely evaporated after the non-stop row of faulty Sony items (cameras and sometimes even multiple copies of a lens). It's a reason why I'm hardly shooting native lenses nowadays.
In my Canon days + Zeiss ZE I only had to return 1 lens. That's it.
When I started trying mirrorless cameras I also hardly had these issues with Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic.
With this new FE 85/1.8 the focal plane tilts from the right foreground to the left background, often resulting in a very soft bottom left corner/foreground while the right one is in focus. That's not acceptable.
Now I'll have to figure out if I'm going to play the Sony roulette again or go straight for a refund. I quite like it's rendering in the closer ranges. Nicer colors than expected. When shooting more distant subjects I don't really enjoy it. The bokeh gets rougher than I usually like.
Jochenb wrote:
In the beginning I also thought Sony isn't worse than the other manufacturers, maybe I was just REALLY unlucky. However, those thoughts have completely evaporated after the non-stop row of faulty Sony items (cameras and sometimes even multiple copies of a lens). It's a reason why I'm hardly shooting native lenses nowadays.
In my Canon days + Zeiss ZE I only had to return 1 lens. That's it.
When I started trying mirrorless cameras I also hardly had these issues with Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic.
With this new FE 85/1.8 the focal plane tilts from the right foreground to the left background, often resulting in a very soft bottom left corner/foreground while the right one is in focus. That's not acceptable.
Now I'll have to figure out if I'm going to play the Sony roulette again or go straight for a refund. I quite like it's rendering in the closer ranges. Nicer colors than expected. When shooting more distant subjects I don't really enjoy it. The bokeh gets rougher than I usually like. ...Show more →
From my experience, generally speaking, Zeiss (Batis, Loxia, ZE, ZF, ZM, Milvus, Otus) are better than Zeiss/Sony (ZA) or Sony (standard, G or even GM) as far as quality control goes, but some lenses are better than others. (simple vs complicated designs)
Last year I tested a few Canon/Nikon lenses to adapt and didn't have much luck either, especially with zooms.
Leica, Zeiss, Sigma (in this order) has given me the best results. Still, I had issues with the Loxia 21/2.8 and Batis 85/1.8 while I had many copies of the Loxia 50 and 85 and they were always perfect. One of my RX1R copies were not so good either...
I can tell you that zooms are never really perfect throughout the entire range and usually the issues at the long range. It's rare to find a great zoom so I already know I will have trouble finding a good FE 16-35/2.8 GM! That's why I wrote you, we can't expect to get perfect aligned optics and this will get even worse once we have 70-100MP sensors and check our images at 1:1. Perhaps your luck with Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic were with lower MP bodies. With that, I hope all companies find better ways to improve their manufacturing and quality control as megapixels increase.
From the samples I've seen, I agree with you on the FE 85/1.8 OOF smoothness at mid-distances. I'm afraid only the 85GM will give you that. I have a FE 85/1.8 on order and I hope it's going to be good.
Jochenb wrote:
In the beginning I also thought Sony isn't worse than the other manufacturers, maybe I was just REALLY unlucky. However, those thoughts have completely evaporated after the non-stop row of faulty Sony items (cameras and sometimes even multiple copies of a lens). It's a reason why I'm hardly shooting native lenses nowadays.
In my Canon days + Zeiss ZE I only had to return 1 lens. That's it.
When I started trying mirrorless cameras I also hardly had these issues with Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic.
With this new FE 85/1.8 the focal plane tilts from the right foreground to the left background, often resulting in a very soft bottom left corner/foreground while the right one is in focus. That's not acceptable.
Now I'll have to figure out if I'm going to play the Sony roulette again or go straight for a refund. I quite like it's rendering in the closer ranges. Nicer colors than expected. When shooting more distant subjects I don't really enjoy it. The bokeh gets rougher than I usually like. ...Show more →
When I switched from Canon I found hitherto unseen problems with some of my Canon glass. I thought at first it was down to adapters. Then I realized that if I matched magnification with the old Canon body the problem sort of went away .. it was just that I was now looking at pixel level with more pixels.
So more pixels means more hassle getting lenses that are even at 1:1. Having said that some of the Sony lenses, especially early ones, do have high variation. The later, complex, ones have a fair bit too, but no more than other leading brands...
Fred Miranda wrote:
From my experience, generally speaking, Zeiss (Batis and Loxia, ZE, ZF, ZM, Milvus, Otus) are better than Zeiss/Sony (ZA) or Sony (standard, G or even GM) as far as quality control goes, but some lenses are better than others. (simple vs complicated designs)
Last year I tested a few Canon/Nikon lenses to adapt and didn't have much luck either, especially with zooms.
Leica, Zeiss, Sigma (in this order) has given me the best results. Still, I had issues with the Loxia 21/2.8 and Batis 85/1.8 while I had many copies of the Loxia 50 and 85 and they were always perfect. One of my RX1R copies were not so good either...
I can tell you that zooms are never really perfect throughout the entire range and usually the issues at the long range. It's rare to find a great zoom so I already know I will have trouble finding a good FE 16-35/2.8 GM! That's why I wrote you, we can't expect to get perfect aligned optics and this will get even worse once we have 70-100MP sensors and check our images at 1:1. Perhaps your luck with Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic were with lower MP bodies. With that, I hope all companies find better ways to improve their manufacturing and quality control as megapixels increase.
From the samples I've seen, I agree with you on the FE 85/1.8 OOF smoothness at mid-distances. I'm afraid only the 85GM will give you that. I have a FE 85/1.8 on order and I hope it's going to be good. ...Show more →
Yes, 42MP certainly is not forgiving for any flaws and it will only get worse when we get those even higher resolution sensors in the future.
It's a pity that so many users never notice things like decentering (I'm not talking about the FM members). Because of that the manufacturers just keep shipping out a big amount of crappy products. I'm not paying a lot of money for faulty items. I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record.
Before buying the FE 85/1.8 today I also played with both the 85 and 24-70 GM lenses again. They seem to be really nice, but I'm hesistant to spend that kind of money on Sony lenses (because of all what I said in this and previous posts).
BTW, switching between the FE 1.8 and 1.4 GM was interesting. The GM feels huge and heavy in comparison. It's also a lot louder. You can hardly hear any sound coming from the 1.8. The AF speed is another big difference: the 1.8 is quite a bit faster.
Just to give you guys an idea of how bad my 85/1.8 is, here is a comparison between two corners:
I never managed to get a nonfaulty Sony lens the first try. Not even when I bought the RX1 and later the RX1RII. I sometimes ask myself why I keep spending money on this company. 
, I keep in mind there is a sanity threshold where perfectly centered optics won't make much difference in real images...I know, it's still very irritating...
