RSSmith wrote:
"Final Sale - No Returns or Exchanges"
Seems bold.
Ron
My guess is that it has a complex optical design difficult to produce optimally. Personally I think it's an amazing lens but I was not able to get a review loan that was somewhat centered. Perhaps Adorama is getting too many returns on this one which may have contributed that no return rule.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My guess is that it has a complex optical design difficult to produce optimally. Personally I think it's an amazing lens but I was not able to get a review loan that was somewhat centered. Perhaps Adorama is getting too many returns on this one which may have contributed that no return rule.
I don't doubt that that's true, but I'd be reluctant to gamble $2,000 on a final sale.
saw this beauty when was there this past weekend. Tempted, but instead decided to try the 85/1.8 as something different for me. Besides, I’ve already got and love the 35 GM.
milkod2001 wrote:
Great shots lads, keep them coming.
Anybody upgraded from Zeiss 50 1.4 ZA and found it worthy? I presume AF on 50 1.2GM be much better but what about overall sharpness, colours and rendering? It is worth to get 50 1.2 GM?
I would echo all of j4nu’s positive comments. I had a wonderful copy of the ZA lens a honestly could not imagine that the GM would be better. After seeing a few photos here, I bought one to check it out. Three photos in, I was floored. Simply amazing.
Would I have been happy with the ZA? Sure. It was also a fantastic lens. However, the wide open sharpness of the GM is similar to other lenses at f/8. It’s bokeh is otherworldly, like the 135 GM, and the AF operates essentially at the speed of thought. Even on the a7R3, which I think is a great camera but whose AF capabilities are dwarfed by the a9 and a1, shooting subjects running erratically, the GM missed perfect eye focus only once in 72 shots, and the one it missed had the model’s eye largely obscured by her hair.
Grenache wrote:
I would echo all of j4nu’s positive comments. I had a wonderful copy of the ZA lens a honestly could not imagine that the GM would be better. After seeing a few photos here, I bought one to check it out. Three photos in, I was floored. Simply amazing.
Would I have been happy with the ZA? Sure. It was also a fantastic lens. However, the wide open sharpness of the GM is similar to other lenses at f/8. It’s bokeh is otherworldly, like the 135 GM, and the AF operates essentially at the speed of thought. Even on the a7R3, which I think is a great camera but whose AF capabilities are dwarfed by the a9 and a1, shooting subjects running erratically, the GM missed perfect eye focus only once in 72 shots, and the one it missed had the model’s eye largely obscured by her hair.
KarmaKramer wrote:
That is one expensive dog photo.
Why the criticism? If he'd taken a picture of a Rolls Royce, would that make you feel better? Tell us about the strange economy you seem to require of equipment, photographs, and subjects.
