jtra wrote:
One more possible advantage of Sigma 135 would be that it can be used with TCs when you cut out baffle that is inside. I have tested my F-mount Sigma 135 on manual Novoflex adapter with both Sony TCs: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1582388/0#14748398
But ultimately I decided against modifying my E-mount Sigma when I tested flare difference between F-mount on adapter vs E-mount. Flare was much worse on F-mount when I shined light into lens from corner position. I am not sure if lack of baffle or adapter itself has caused that. Add to that that I would want fast AF at 189/2.5 or 270/3.6. I am not even sure if it would AF....Show more →
If your adapter flocked?
Mar 21, 2019 at 09:48 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
As he reports having a Novoflex adapter, it won't be flocked but it has very nice matte paint and I have never seen internal reflections from any of my Novoflex adapters. I doubt it is causing any flare.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It looks like light is reflecting from the lens' front threads.
It's hard to be certain, but this product shot of the lens seems to show a (somewhat) less shiny surface than your sample has. Let's hope this is just a pre-production lens.
Forget about AF, you will not be able operate the lens at all!
Fred has reported that the TCs will not let any other lens that Sony recommends (with electrical contact between the lens and the body) to use with to be operational.
jtra wrote:
One more possible advantage of Sigma 135 would be that it can be used with TCs when you cut out baffle that is inside. I have tested my F-mount Sigma 135 on manual Novoflex adapter with both Sony TCs: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1582388/0#14748398
But ultimately I decided against modifying my E-mount Sigma when I tested flare difference between F-mount on adapter vs E-mount. Flare was much worse on F-mount when I shined light into lens from corner position. I am not sure if lack of baffle or adapter itself has caused that. Add to that that I would want fast AF at 189/2.5 or 270/3.6. I am not even sure if it would AF....Show more →
Mar 21, 2019 at 10:02 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
realVivek wrote:
Forget about AF, you will not be able operate the lens at all!
Fred has reported that the TCs will not let any other lens that Sony recommends (with electrical contact between the lens and the body) to use with to be operational.
There probably is a way to do it but not with the FE version. If you use the Canon version and the MC-11 you should be able to use it with a TC, because the TC only sees the MC-11 which Sony allows. You still probably need to "modify" the baffle and of course there are other downsides to using the lens adapted, but if using a TC was really important to you, you may be able to do it this way.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
It's hard to be certain, but this product shot of the lens seems to show a (somewhat) less shiny surface than your sample has. Let's hope this is just a pre-production lens.
I think it's just different lighting Mike.
The front threads in my lens look like the one you posted. It's painted black but it's not a matte finish.
I was told this review copy is not a pre-production or prototype and it's already a production copy. (Same sent to Roger for this test, except that he tested 10 and averaged them)
Luckily, the copy I received is well centered and seems to be a great copy. (Hard to know for sure without testing another one)
Steve Spencer wrote:
As he reports having a Novoflex adapter, it won't be flocked but it has very nice matte paint and I have never seen internal reflections from any of my Novoflex adapters. I doubt it is causing any flare.
I flocked all my Novoflex adapters with felt and I was just wondering if he did the same. It makes a difference.
I think a body “sees” a lens via the MC11. Otherwise, there will beno auto anything.
Steve Spencer wrote:
There probably is a way to do it but not with the FE version. If you use the Canon version and the MC-11 you should be able to use it with a TC, because the TC only sees the MC-11 which Sony allows. You still probably need to "modify" the baffle and of course there are other downsides to using the lens adapted, but if using a TC was really important to you, you may be able to do it this way.
Mar 21, 2019 at 10:54 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Steve Spencer wrote:
Interesting, I should probably flock mine even though I haven't seen anything. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, after all.
It's also very easy to do with a self-adhesive flocking paper.
Mar 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
realVivek wrote:
I think a body “sees” a lens via the MC11. Otherwise, there will beno auto anything.
Maybe Joshua can help us here. I know he has used the MC-11 to stack TC and I thought it was in a way that would not be allowed without the MC-11. In that case it was clear the camera was seeing something but not what was actually mounted. I don't remember the details, but I am wondering if a similar trick could be used here.
vdo1 wrote:
My prediction is that the 85 GM will cream it in the bokeh side by side test. And lose on the sharpness one.
The FE 85/1.4 GM will definitely lose to the FE 135/1.8 GM in resolution/contrast wide open but IMO it is still plenty sharp for portraits as long as your model is still.
I agree it's something special. Also Joshua kept delighting us for a while with these focus - out of focus - sharper - softer transitions similar to what Fred just posted. I hope that after his fling with the 135mm he'll dust off his 85mm and resume posting the beautiful pics he accustomed us with
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 85/1.4 GM will definitely lose to the FE 135/1.8 GM in resolution/contrast wide open but IMO it is still plenty sharp for portraits as long as your model is still.
Love this shot and rendering. One thing I'm still interested to see is more examples like this one comparing the 135 GM rendering for portraits to the 85 GM and if one holds an advantage at certain subject distances (i.e. is the 85 better at half body, is the 135 better at full body, etc.). Mark Galer's test was useful but he shot in APS-C mode with the GM for a similar working distance. I'm more concerned with the portrait rendering regardless of working distance (fully understanding that it changes what's included in the background).
