JadedWriter wrote:
I have a photo dump to put in here when it's finally done uploading to Flickr. I like this more than my 105 1.4.
I’m still evaluating whether to sell my beloved and once thought “I’ll never sell it” 200mm F2.0VRII. It is THAT good and fits in my hand a little better.
The 200 feels more unique, but man the 85 has a very nice look to it. this is me wrote:
I’m still evaluating whether to sell my beloved and once thought “I’ll never sell it” 200mm F2.0VRII. It is THAT good and fits in my hand a little better.
JadedWriter wrote:
Thank you. This lens is no joke. I'm glad I didn't switch to Canon for their version
Because we're such an analytical bunch , we will need someone who has the 1.8s too to humour us with side by sides like was done with the 50 1.2/1.8s. Pity yours is no more. There's definitely a look to the 1.2(both 50 and 85) but the 1.8s seem to punch above their weight whereas the 1.2s suffer the "I expect no less from you, son" response from me.
I like the 85 and will most likely keep it for if I ever get a ZFC, but the 85 loses me with it's AF to be honest. It's decent, but not as quick or consistent as the 1.2 is. I like the 1.8 for very specific things like the outdoors off camera flash headshots I was doing for work, but I prefer the 1.2 for studio work because the AF is better. The 1.8 is great in that price range and is highly portable and honestly better than Sony's version. It's just not the 1.2. I don't use the 1.8 for event work because I'm always inside and the AF just feels not as confidence inducing. The 1.2 has been on every work shoot from last week and it's going to be at the two I have today as well. It's probably replacing my 105 1.4 for a full native kit unless I really need that extra 20mm. You ain't getting those side by sides from me either. I don't have time for that nonsense SiMuMe wrote:
Because we're such an analytical bunch , we will need someone who has the 1.8s too to humour us with side by sides like was done with the 50 1.2/1.8s. Pity yours is no more. There's definitely a look to the 1.2(both 50 and 85) but the 1.8s seem to punch above their weight whereas the 1.2s suffer the "I expect no less from you, son" response from me.
JadedWriter wrote:
I like the 85 and will most likely keep it for if I ever get a ZFC, but the 85 loses me with it's AF to be honest. It's decent, but not as quick or consistent as the 1.2 is. I like the 1.8 for very specific things like the outdoors off camera flash headshots I was doing for work, but I prefer the 1.2 for studio work because the AF is better. The 1.8 is great in that price range and is highly portable and honestly better than Sony's version. It's just not the 1.2. I don't use the 1.8 for event work because I'm always inside and the AF just feels not as confidence inducing. The 1.2 has been on every work shoot from last week and it's going to be at the two I have today as well. It's probably replacing my 105 1.4 for a full native kit unless I really need that extra 20mm. You ain't getting those side by sides from me either. I don't have time for that nonsense ...Show more →
Hahaha. Already been at the 1.8s thread and looked at what you achieved with it. I am certain that the above feedback will benefit many. Lovely output from the lens.
I don't post my headshot work in that thread, because I don't really post that stuff to my Flickr. The 85 1.8's very capable, just not the first thing I grab as a bokeh junk SiMuMe wrote:
Hahaha. Already been at the 1.8s thread and looked at what you achieved with it. I am certain that the above feedback will benefit many. Lovely output from the lens.
I used to have the R5 with the 85 DS, my most used lens over the RF 70-200. Sold the Canon as I was using the Z system and liked how it was growing. Now I have the Z 85 1.2 and can already tell I’m glad I sold the Canon as I have this lens and the 400 4.5 S. I need more testing with this lens but it’s more silent than the RF version and I’m sure it’s slightly faster and the Canon was very good on the R5.
JadedWriter wrote:
Thank you. This lens is no joke. I'm glad I didn't switch to Canon for their version
I think we're at the point where Z users don't really have a single piece of glass to be jealous of regarding RF users. There's the 135 1.8, but we all know that's on the roadmap. bbn1982 wrote:
I used to have the R5 with the 85 DS, my most used lens over the RF 70-200. Sold the Canon as I was using the Z system and liked how it was growing. Now I have the Z 85 1.2 and can already tell I’m glad I sold the Canon as I have this lens and the 400 4.5 S. I need more testing with this lens but it’s more silent than the RF version and I’m sure it’s slightly faster and the Canon was very good on the R5.
JadedWriter wrote:
I think we're at the point where Z users don't really have a single piece of glass to be jealous of regarding RF users. There's the 135 1.8, but we all know that's on the roadmap.
For me, 28-70/2 RF is still interesting. Now with 50/1.2S and 85/1.2S, 28-70/2 ,size seems normal nowaday
I played quite a bit with my friend's copy with R5/R3 and while wide open, it is softer than 50/1.2S or 85/1.2S wide opened but
its rendering is beautiful and more in line with f1.2 primes rather than the 24-70/2.8. Of course, let say that I can adapt it to Z system, with the two f1.2s and upcoming 35/1.2S, I have no idea if I will ever get to use it much instead of the prime lenses.
But it may be one of those, I want it because I can't have it now but forget about it once I have it syndrome or not
The 28-70mm f2.0 has a nice rendering except for bokeh ball that are plain awful due to grinding marks. One of the worst example I have seen. For me it completely rules out that lens.
I can only carry so many cantaloupe sized lenses in my camera bag I have 0 interest in the 28-70. I shoot with flash and I have enough fast primes at enough focal lengths to not really need that lens that badly. I usually go between the 24-70 and the 50 or 85 1.2 and that will more than enough get the job done. It's a thing for versatility sake and even then 28's too narrow for some rooms and group shots at times. suteetat wrote:
For me, 28-70/2 RF is still interesting. Now with 50/1.2S and 85/1.2S, 28-70/2 ,size seems normal nowaday
I played quite a bit with my friend's copy with R5/R3 and while wide open, it is softer than 50/1.2S or 85/1.2S wide opened but
its rendering is beautiful and more in line with f1.2 primes rather than the 24-70/2.8. Of course, let say that I can adapt it to Z system, with the two f1.2s and upcoming 35/1.2S, I have no idea if I will ever get to use it much instead of the prime lenses.
But it may be one of those, I want it because I can't have it now but forget about it once I have it syndrome or not
bernardl wrote:
The 28-70mm f2.0 has a nice rendering except for bokeh ball that are plain awful due to grinding marks. One of the worst example I have seen. For me it completely rules out that lens.
It is really a shame about the bokeh ball. But I have to say that one of my favorite picture of myself that my friend took was
with 28-70/2. Not sharp enough to show all the aging sign on my face but really pop and really beautiful rendering non the less.
JadedWriter wrote:
I can only carry so many cantaloupe sized lenses in my camera bag I have 0 interest in the 28-70. I shoot with flash and I have enough fast primes at enough focal lengths to not really need that lens that badly. I usually go between the 24-70 and the 50 or 85 1.2 and that will more than enough get the job done. It's a thing for versatility sake and even then 28's too narrow for some rooms and group shots at times.
On Saturday, I was shooting Z9 with 400/2.8S together with Z7 ii with 200/2 for a few hours. After that, I feel 3 or 6 cantaloupe size lenses is no biggy
Shot a family gathering over the weekend with the 85mm f/1.2S, and I am very happy with the results. Not posting any pics from this set, but this lens is definitely a keeper. Almost all shots taken were between f/1.2 and f/1.8. Rendering on this lens is still very nice even stopped down a little. Transition areas in and out of focus are sublime. Sharpness and contrast may increase slightly when stopping down, but this lens is quite sharp wide open, if you hit the mark on focus. At MFD, it may be slightly lower contrast wide open, but what I am seeing could just be missing focus - the in-focus plane at MFD is razor thin. Absolutely in love with the rendering on this lens!
