ChaseD wrote: Dj R wroteKarmaKramer wroteA group shot at 1.4! Cuh-razay
ChaseD wroteThis lens is bonkers.yep
but he's got good technique
they are all on the same focal plane
I do have 1 question
OP are you concerned that you don't have a steady hand? is that why your SS is so high?
I mean, medium to high ISO is a huge strength of the A7III, so 640 is nothing! so you're totally cool.
I was just curious b/c I'm nosey tonight.
the A7rIII on the other hand, I really try to keep the ISO down as low as possible, it's not as good as the A7III with regard to medium to high ISO. all dem megapickles!
great shot.Thanks! The fiery fall tree seems to really work with this image. To answer your question about the higher shutter and ISO, yes. The sun was fading fast so I cranked the ISO to keep the shutter pretty quick. My hands are not the most stable to begin with. Trying to combine shaky hands with fast moving kids and a big fat hunk of glass like the 85GM results in a bad time if I don't keep the shutter pretty fast. Could I have go away with a slower shutter? Probably, but I find the mid-high iso performance on the A7III to be great.
I took a similar shot on my Mamiya RZ67...I'm excited to see how that comes out from the lab.
great approach with excellent results,
thank you for the explanation.
always looking to learn!
and I agree, the A7III mid to high ISO is amazeballs!
CHEERS!
I’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.
Hodie wrote:
I’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.
I had tested the 85GM vs the 105 Sigma and could say that the difference is too negligible - quality wise.
Yes, the Sigma is a tad sharper at 1,4 but the heft of the lens is too high. Also it is so big that you do not want to go hiking with it.
If you want a real unique look, get the Canon 200mm 1,8 or 2,0 and an adapter. That is really worth the heft.
Bernhard
killermac wrote: Hodie wroteI’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.I had tested the 85GM vs the 105 Sigma and could say that the difference is too negligible - quality wise.
Yes, the Sigma is a tad sharper at 1,4 but the heft of the lens is too high. Also it is so big that you do not want to go hiking with it.
If you want a real unique look, get the Canon 200mm 1,8 or 2,0 and an adapter. That is really worth the heft.
Bernhard
Thanks for the rec. For me, the added compression/separation of the 105 is really the selling point. But I hear you that the size/weight is hard to ignore. I had the GM before but exchanged it for the Loxia 21, which I still have and love. But I regret ever letting the GM go.
killermac wrote: Hodie wroteI’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.I had tested the 85GM vs the 105 Sigma and could say that the difference is too negligible - quality wise.
Yes, the Sigma is a tad sharper at 1,4 but the heft of the lens is too high. Also it is so big that you do not want to go hiking with it.
If you want a real unique look, get the Canon 200mm 1,8 or 2,0 and an adapter. That is really worth the heft.
Bernhard
So, don't get the heavy lens, get the even heavier one?
I've got the Nikon 2/200 and the Sigma 1.4/105 and they look identical in terms of subject separation and almost in bokeh as well.
The Sigma is the more versatile of the two, by a significant margin. Smaller, lighter, faster, less compromised FL for more scenes/subjects.
killermac wrote: Hodie wroteI’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.I had tested the 85GM vs the 105 Sigma and could say that the difference is too negligible - quality wise.
Yes, the Sigma is a tad sharper at 1,4 but the heft of the lens is too high. Also it is so big that you do not want to go hiking with it.
If you want a real unique look, get the Canon 200mm 1,8 or 2,0 and an adapter. That is really worth the heft.
Bernhard
Isn't that simply a matter of working distance? I'm aware of the reduced background and additional blur with the same f-stop but longer FL. If you are about that an 85 will not win against a 200/1.8. On the other hand, it's more difficult to connect to the person you portrait with a 200mm.
IMO it's better to choose FL first and take the lens that is available than the other way around. Especially with all the quality lenses that are available (native or adapted).
Why Canon? Nikon makes a superb 200mm f/2. I guess if you prefer canon, I’ve been a Nikon user for more than 20 years. Now I’m fully a Sony user.
killermac wrote: Hodie wroteI’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.I had tested the 85GM vs the 105 Sigma and could say that the difference is too negligible - quality wise.
Yes, the Sigma is a tad sharper at 1,4 but the heft of the lens is too high. Also it is so big that you do not want to go hiking with it.
If you want a real unique look, get the Canon 200mm 1,8 or 2,0 and an adapter. That is really worth the heft.
Bernhard
Hodie wrote:
I’m still struggling to figure out if I want the 85 GM or the Sigma 105 Art. I can get the GM at a discount but the uniqueness of the 105 is hard to ignore. If I get the Sigma, I might just get the 85 1.8 to hold me over.
I decided to go for the GM. It's an old itch that needs to be scratched.
KarmaKramer wrote:
I had the Sigma 85art & 135art and they are definitely not walkin around lenses.
I have no issues carrying around the 85art. I use it for Church gatherings, walking around with the kids. I just traveled to the Turks with the 85 and 35 art lenses. Are they small? Hell no, but I am beyond happy with the 85 art over the 85gm. No chance I would pay the premium just for a smaller lens. (not knocking anyone's decision to buy the GM).
I have had nothing but extremely sharp photos, very fast focusing, and amazing eye focus with my Sigma Art lenses. As time progresses I am sure I will continue to stick with the Prime Art lenses from Sigma unless GMs can match their pricing. Just my .02