ajamils wrote:
Anybody used Samyang 75/1.8 or 85/1.4 II? If so, how do they compare?
The 85 1.4 Series II is very nice rendering, very light and good AF overall. The Samyang lenses have good eye-focus and I was quite happy with the results. The lens is not quite as sharp at 1.4 is say the Viltrox or Sigma but it makes for nice portraits. The 75 1.8 is decent but not quite in the same league as the 1.4 lens.
For me, it would depend on the distance available. I use Sigma 85/1.4 for object distances below 4 m; Batis 135/2.8 or Tamron 70-180/2.8 for distances greater than 5m. I also employ Tamron 35-100/2.8 in intermediate situations. As a dance photographer, I find 70-180 usable in a variety of cases.
The Planar 50mm f/1.4. It's huge, the AF absolutely sucks, and yet it is pure magic. I really think it is one of the most aesthetically appealing lenses in terms of rendering that I have ever had (the Voigtlander 180/4 being the other). Set it between f/1.8 and f/2.2 and it is just ... the best.
ajamils wrote:
Anybody used Samyang 75/1.8 or 85/1.4 II? If so, how do they compare?
The Samyang 85/1.4 II is good but there is a noticeable drop in sharpness from f/2 to f/1.4. If you want something that's actually sharp at f/1.4, the Sigma 85mm Art and 85 GM are it.
F/1.4 is not necessary for portraits. You can get plenty of background separation with f/2 at 85mm or f/2.8 at longer focal lengths. The Samyang f/1.8 lenses I've used have been very impressive. The 85mm f/1.8 P lens may be worth a look. I have not used it but their MTF claims it is sharp wide open.
85 was my main goto, but I also used 105 and 58 quite a bit, 135 less. If I were getting back into serious portrait, I'd grab the 50-150/2 GM and be done. Everything right there at your fingertips, and f2 is absolutely fast enough.
One however-but caveat: From the images I've seen from that lens on higher resolution bodies, I'd also make sure I had 1/8th and 1/4 black net diffusion filters for it -- and maybe even a 1/2 too...
Final FWIW my .02 PS: If I already owned a 70-200/2.8 GMii, I might be perfectly happy with that for a while. But the 50-60 range definitely comes in handy in certain situations; and in my experience more often than the 150-200 range ever would UNLESS you do a lot of runway. But then for runway, you could add the 1.4x to the 50-150 and probably be completely set...
I had the 70-180mm G1/G2 sold that and use the 85mm ART or the 135GM for my portraits. They are not the newest lenses, but work great. No issues I'm sure they do better than what I'm capable of.
In my lens kit, I have the FE 70–200mm GM II f/2.8, which I use extensively for sports photography. I also have the FE 85mm f/1.8, which I use for portraits, mainly corporate portraits.
I don’t know why, but I started thinking: why not replace the 85mm with the 70–200mm for portraits? Since almost all of my portraits are taken at f/4.5 or narrower, I was wondering whether there might be any drawback I haven’t considered to replacing the 85mm with the 70–200mm.
In my lens kit, I have the FE 70–200mm GM II f/2.8, which I use extensively for sports photography. I also have the FE 85mm f/1.8, which I use for portraits, mainly corporate portraits.
I don’t know why, but I started thinking: why not replace the 85mm with the 70–200mm for portraits? Since almost all of my portraits are taken at f/4.5 or narrower, I was wondering whether there might be any drawback I haven’t considered to replacing the 85mm with the 70–200mm.
Thank you.
At f/4.5 the difference between the zoom and prime is likely somewhere between non-existent and negligible.
I use the Tamron 70-180 and Sony 85 f/1.8, if I'm doing a portrait session the 70-180 almost always gets used. I like having the 85 because relatively it's small and light.
In my lens kit, I have the FE 70–200mm GM II f/2.8, which I use extensively for sports photography. I also have the FE 85mm f/1.8, which I use for portraits, mainly corporate portraits.
I don’t know why, but I started thinking: why not replace the 85mm with the 70–200mm for portraits? Since almost all of my portraits are taken at f/4.5 or narrower, I was wondering whether there might be any drawback I haven’t considered to replacing the 85mm with the 70–200mm.
Thank you.
I'll go a step further -- wide open at f2.8, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference between the 70-200/2.8 GMii at 85 and the 85/1.8; and might or might not even notice the DoF difference with the 85 at f1.8.
Like I said earlier, if I owned the 70-200/2.8 GMii, I'd use it and done. If I needed wider than 70, I'd probably add a good 50 or even 35 I liked. (For me the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 is pretty sweet, but the 35 and 50 GM's are really nice too.) And then again, here I could probably get away with the 24-70/2.8 GMii and be done.
Sony started out great with the ZA (Zeiss Alpha) lenses (55/1.8 and ZA 50/1.4 for portraits) then realised they need to make super sharp suburban white bread lenses that were so boring they were acceptable to the pro segment that Sony coveted support from. It's been downhill ever since, aesthetically speaking.
'Launched in late 2013 alongside the groundbreaking Sony A7 and A7R, the 55mm f/1.8 served as the flagship standard prime that convinced skeptical DSLR shooters to adopt the new mirrorless system.
While Sony never published exact unit sales numbers, industry reception and its remarkably long shelf-life in production mark it as one of the best-selling and most beloved mirrorless prime lenses. It remained a staple recommendation for a decade, creating a blueprint for high-performance compact optics on modern mirrorless platforms.'
Needing light lenses, I still take mine along but favor the Simera 50mm and Simera 75mm, and CY 100/3.5 most of the time for people photography.
Anyone can find terrible photos shot in bad lighting with a great lens just to 'prove' their favorite option is better. That’s exactly what the "comparison" above shows by pitting a poorly shot Otus 85 against the Simera.
I'd go with the 85 1.4. longer makes it hard and wider just gives more u needed background. Unless you're going for a more environment take on the portrait. But a 200 f2 is very dreamy and a dream
baan wrote:
I'd go with the 85 1.4. longer makes it hard and wider just gives more u needed background. Unless you're going for a more environment take on the portrait. But a 200 f2 is very dreamy and a dream
I've noticed my Sigma 85mm f/1.2 lends a better quality fall off from in focus to out of focus area than my Sigma 200mm f/2.0. The 200 gives a more of that 'cut out' look. That said, I'd choose which one to use based on my desired outcome and the environment.
