cogitech wrote:
the "technical quality" difference is minute and not worth the dramatic price difference.
Ah finally the 1DmkIII threads have calmed down and we can go back to classic Fred Miranda territory. Now...should I buy a 24-70 or a 24-105...?
Cogitech - you cannot argue "worth" in this context as it is a subjective issue. Personally if the 85L cost £3000 I would pay it since to me the 85/1.8 just doesn't do it for me (though I have one and love it for what it can do - fast focussing and all that). Is expensive wine "worth" more than cheap wine? How much more? It all depends who is answering the question.
The 85L is DEFINITELY different to the 1.8 when fully open - it has to be. Compare them at f5.6 and the differences are harder to spot. Looking at the 1.8 thread I see lots of nasty bokeh, whereas to me the 85L's bokeh has that lovely painterly quality that definitely makes it "worth it" for me.
Ask any group of people whether something (anything) is worth the price tag and you will get different answers. I simply gave my answer.
BTW, bobbytan, don't get too excited about those Zeiss ZA lenses. Unfortunately, Zeiss is taking a very "hands off" approach to this whole arrangement which is likely why the "SONY" label is so much bigger on the lenses than the tiny "Zeiss" logo. This is the first time another manufacturers name has ever appeared on a Zeiss lens (even the ones for Contax don't say Contax on them). Zeiss has even indicated that their role in the process is quite limited.
Lord Fluff wrote:
........
The 85L is DEFINITELY different to the 1.8 when fully open - it has to be. Compare them at f5.6 and the differences are harder to spot. Looking at the 1.8 thread I see lots of nasty bokeh, whereas to me the 85L's bokeh has that lovely painterly quality that definitely makes it "worth it" for me.
f1.2 @ 1/8000th
Lord Fluff - you've brought up one of the very key differences.
Here's one more candid street photo from New Year's Eve in NYC.
yeah, I don't agree... the shot would have been subtly different, but the difference between this from the 85L and an identical one from a 85/1.8 @ f2 would not be noticed by almost anyone after post processing.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
It's a stellar shot, as are many of the others in this thread. Considering it was at f/2, are you saying that it wouldn't be as good if shot with the 85 1.8 @ f2?
PS I'm not "ripping on the L" either... or even suggesting it isn't worth the cost... just that there probably isn't anything in the referenced photo that relies on using the 85L
cogitech wrote:
BTW, bobbytan, don't get too excited about those Zeiss ZA lenses. Unfortunately, Zeiss is taking a very "hands off" approach to this whole arrangement which is likely why the "SONY" label is so much bigger on the lenses than the tiny "Zeiss" logo. This is the first time another manufacturers name has ever appeared on a Zeiss lens (even the ones for Contax don't say Contax on them). Zeiss has even indicated that their role in the process is quite limited.
I am hoping the ZA and ZF lenses are designed and manufactured at the same place, as the ZF lenses are supposedly the best/sharpnest Zeiss lenses ever, according to this Photodo report:
dhphoto wrote:
..and if that group has already invested heavily the answers given will not be entirely without bias
David
David,
Seems like you have a problem with investments.
If somebody wants to pay for a F1.2, it's fine, if he doesn't, he can get another 85 version.
Does it matter if he's a pro or someone just enjoying photography? Guess not.
If only the best of the best are worthy for shooting with a F1.2, then finally just one photographer will own and use that lens.
I for one like photographing, I don't have to pay my bills with it, and I'm definitely not the best photographer, an amateur at best. But I do shoot with the 85 1.2L, and other L's.
I paid for them and never regretted, because they are a pleasure to work with.
If you're happy with other versions, fine. But you cannot blame other, maybe lesser photographers than you (?), for using one.
Being new to cameras, but old at other things, this is a tired comparative argument for anything remotely analogous.
Why do I pay $700 for a pair of hockey skates? Simply due to the fact that I can tell the subtle nuances of $700 pair compared to a $400 or $500 pair. I can tell in the high speed change of directions. I can tell in the glide, I can tell when pushing off and fighting in the corners down low just how accurately my power is centered over the blade. It's not always something I can quantify, but I can tell.
I think the same goes here for the 1.2 vs 1.8 argument. Personally, I am in the process of buying a 1.8, and am completely stoked about using it. I can't afford the 1.2, or come even close to justifying the extra cost. Would the 1.2 make me take better pictures? Highly doubtful. Could my newbie eye tell the difference b/t a shot at f/2 from both lenses?... maybe, but I doubt it. If anything, I could probably tell the difference @ f/2 on a FF vs crop.
Anyhow, the point being is if one buys the 1.2, you know why you are, and you want that little bit of extra performance which may or may not be apparent to all. The only judge on which is better for you, is you, and you really shouldnt have to argue or justify as to why. The exact same thing can be said if you own the 1.8.
My $.02.
I respectfully bow out now... m(- -)m m(_ _)m
I will add there are some absolutely stunning pictures in this thread. They have given me something to aspire to.
@ Trenchmonkey:
I can hardly wait for that feeling of firing off my first 1-series shots...
RT, I've owned and used the BEST gear all my working life, from Sinars to Hasselblads to Schneiders.
I have no issue at all with people spending money on their gear. What I find 'odd' is that the results are so poor. With notable exceptions the images posted here are dull, not showing off the lens' qualities and clearly have been bought by 'average' photographers (this is after all the work they choose to display). I find this interesting.
I see your point. But keep in mind, a post like this will evoke more people to show their 85 pictures publically, pictures that otherwise would have never been shown on forums like these, simply because they might not be interesting enough for a single post.
And ofcourse, with this post you will find a mixture of photographs ranging from poorly, to average (most), to superb (happy few).
Thats statistically inherent to a question like this post.
dhphoto wrote:
RT, I've owned and used the BEST gear all my working life, from Sinars to Hasselblads to Schneiders.
I have no issue at all with people spending money on their gear. What I find 'odd' is that the results are so poor. With notable exceptions the images posted here are dull, not showing off the lens' qualities and clearly have been bought by 'average' photographers (this is after all the work they choose to display). I find this interesting.
David
David, this is not odd at all. The majority of us here are non-professional average-to-good photographers who enjoy shooting with the best equipment. The best equipment gives us room to grow and take better photos as we get better and better at it. So even though we are getting only mediocre images from this terrific piece of lens, the "feel good" factor is very high and it gives us immense satisfaction.
dhphoto wrote:
RT, I've owned and used the BEST gear all my working life, from Sinars to Hasselblads to Schneiders.
I have no issue at all with people spending money on their gear. What I find 'odd' is that the results are so poor. With notable exceptions the images posted here are dull, not showing off the lens' qualities and clearly have been bought by 'average' photographers (this is after all the work they choose to display). I find this interesting.
David
These are some bold conclusions David... Based on seeing one or two pics you qualify photographers as being average. Not only that... But reading between the lines of your posts, one can easily get the impression that you actually deny these "average photographers" to use an expensive lens like the 85L. As if they are not worthy... Interesting indeed. But hey... everybody is entiteld to an opinion. That's what a public forum is all about, isn't it? I just wonder what's motivating you...
bobbytan wrote:
I am hoping the ZA and ZF lenses are designed and manufactured at the same place, as the ZF lenses are supposedly the best/sharpnest Zeiss lenses ever, according to this Photodo report:
They aren't (made at the same place). They don't have the same specifications and/or designs, etc. Basically, the ZA lenses are older Zeiss designs implemented by the lowest bidder, whereas the ZF are the latest Zeiss designs implemented (under strict control of Zeiss) by Cosina. (Notice, as well, that the ZF lenses do not say "NIKON" or "Cosina" anywhere on them).
Edited by cogitech on Feb 06, 2008 at 03:47 PM GMT
Average is relative and quite subjective in art. And perhaps David is used to looking at a very high level quality of work. However, I think that the photos posted in this thread are beautiful and I hope that his post does not chill others from posting. Not everybody needs to be Ansel Adams to enjoy photography, and threads like these are about sharing their joy.
Daan B wrote:
These are some bold conclusions David... Based on seeing one or two pics you qualify photographers as being average. Not only that... But reading between the lines of your posts, one can easily get the impression that you actually deny these "average photographers" to use an expensive lens like the 85L. As if they are not worthy... Interesting indeed. But hey... everybody is entiteld to an opinion. That's what a public forum is all about, isn't it? I just wonder what's motivating you...
pookipichu wrote:
Average is relative and quite subjective in art. And perhaps David is used to looking at a very high level quality of work. However, I think that the photos posted in this thread are beautiful and I hope that his post does not chill others from posting. Not everybody needs to be Ansel Adams to enjoy photography, and threads like these are about sharing their joy.
Perhaps David thinks (as I do) that the $1200 would be better spent on a photography course. Certainly that would result in far more joy.
