hi,
today in düsseldorf i had the sony alpha 900 with zeiss 85mm 1,4 in my
hands. motor is nothing like usm, it really sounds like my old nikon D70s with
external drive.
from handling i really prefer my 5D. but thats another story.
douglasf13 wrote:
That's what I've always thought that it was. So, the ZA 85mm is not internal focus.
Then Sony has it wrong in its description in its product literature. I was merely reporting what Sony had claimed (and posted the source). I didn't make this stuff up.
I should also point out that there is nothing wrong with internal focus, or external focus. Its 2 different means to an end.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Actually, I do believe you are wrong. According to the Sony datasheet I have on the lens, which is in German, it clearly says, "Innenfokussierung". This means Internal focus. It is VERY difficult to design a fast 85mm AF lens without using an internal focus design. Too much glass for the AF mechanism to move otherwise.
Interestingly, none of the A-mount fast 85's are IF designs, while pretty much every other fast AF 85 is (The Pentax FA*, Nikkor, Canon L's, Contax N).
Minolta only made 700 of these, and it has a thicker front element than the regular 85G. It supposedly beats them all. I've seen them go on ebay for $2000-$3000.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Anyone can put up a website and sell it as more than it is. There is still the implicit perception in the general public that if someone has a website it must be right. That fallacy is exploited everyday, every minute and every second on the internet. Certainly some are more explicitly fraudulent than others, but these rinky-dink, home-brew, un-trained and ill-equipped, pass-yourself-off-like-you-know-what-you're-doing lens test sites (of whatever scale) are no exception. It all about driving people to your site and collecting ad revenue. Most people don't know what is accurate, or reliably and appropriately done. Feed them any sort of makeshift "test", masquerade as an authority, advertise your commercial website in all the appropriate forums (like this one) and drive the sheep to click over to your site and then collect the advertising. ...Show more →
How very, very true and as accurate an assessment of much Internet content as I have ever read or seen. I spent 8 years of my life with AOL as a project director. It was a great time for me, and one of the most challenging. But during that time (1992-2000) I watched the Internet burst with content, visitors and an overwhelming number of charlatans, many of whom still reside on the web and do a land mine business ... despite the nonsense that fills their web pages.
I don't know all that much about Photozone, their testing techniques or their accuracy. I read their tests from time to time and lump their assessments into other reviews I come across, particularly user reviews. I DO know that there has been more than one instance where I have found a review of theirs to be way off the mark if not dead wrong. There are also many areas of contradiction on Photozone, ie barrel distortion of one lens is considered "pronounced" at 2% while another lens the same level is regarded as "well-controlled."
cogitech wrote:
Indeed, if I am going to grow dependent on IS, I'd rather have it in the body.
I don't understand why. In-body IS doesn't eliminate the unsteady image you see through the viewfinder. Only in-lens IS can do that. I think that seeing a 100% steady image through the viewfinder when using really long focal lengths is one of the great benefits of in-lens IS ... not to mention the REAL, final image benefits.
veroman wrote:
I don't understand why. In-body IS doesn't eliminate the unsteady image you see through the viewfinder. Only in-lens IS can do that. I think that seeing a 100% steady image through the viewfinder when using really long focal lengths is one of the great benefits of in-lens IS ... not to mention the REAL, final image benefits.
- Steve
Viewfinder? Soon you'll be taking your DSLR pictures while looking at the LCD. Viewfinders sounds so archaic. Unfortunately, this is where the camera war is taking us. They're killing photography.
Canon says the 85/1.2 L uses the "front group linear extension" focus method. Rear group is stationary, front group moves to focus.
Perhaps the ZA 85 does the same - does the rear element remain stationary when focusing? If yes, perhaps Sony just has a loose definition of "internal focus".
I think the rear element is stationary in the ZA 85 (it's not with me right now to double check,) rgallie, but the 85L does not change length when focusing, whereas the ZA 85mm does.
veroman, you've been drinking Canon kool-aid too long. Both types of stabilization have advantages. In lens IS is good for stabilizing the viewfinder and is perhaps slightly better at longer focal lengths, but in body IS is good for ALL lenses....even alternative lenses, which is the thread we're in currently.
douglasf13 wrote:
veroman, you've been drinking Canon kool-aid too long. Both types of stabilization have advantages. In lens IS is good for stabilizing the viewfinder and is perhaps slightly better at longer focal lengths, but in body IS is good for ALL lenses....even alternative lenses, which is the thread we're in currently.
Yeah ... but I like Canon Kool-Aid. Delicious.....
Minolta only made 700 of these, and it has a thicker front element than the regular 85G. It supposedly beats them all. I've seen them go on ebay for $2000-$3000.
Yes, pretty much all of the non-AF fast 85's are non-IF designs. There's little advantage to IF with MF lenses until you get into the longer tele's (180+mm).
And I've seen some results from the G LE, it's superb, but different look from the Zeiss.
veroman wrote:
I don't understand why. In-body IS doesn't eliminate the unsteady image you see through the viewfinder. Only in-lens IS can do that. I think that seeing a 100% steady image through the viewfinder when using really long focal lengths is one of the great benefits of in-lens IS ... not to mention the REAL, final image benefits.
- Steve
Because in-body IS allows IS with any lens, and with lenses that otherwise couldn't be equipped with IS (pancakes, reasonably sized f2.8 normal zooms, really fast lenses that aren't massive).
Having owned systems that use both kinds of IS (Nikon and Canon with in-lens, Pentax for in-body), the only advantages I see for lens IS is that it works with film bodies and is more effective with truly long lenses (200mm or more). It has no performance advantages with shorter lenses since you hit a hard limit of effectiveness at anything longer than 1/6 of a second or so and that robs both systems of their range of effectiveness. With a 16/17mm lens you're only getting around a stop of advantage over handheld with either system (My experience is a K10D with Sigma 17-70 vs a D300 with the 16-85VR). And frankly, the viewfinder wiggle seriously weirds me out, it's a detriment rather than an advantage to me although I can understand why serious long-lens shooters like it. Personally, I'm not much for anything more than 200mm or its equivalents and normally I stay under 135mm or equivalent.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think the rear element is stationary in the ZA 85 (it's not with me right now to double check,) rgallie, but the 85L does not change length when focusing, whereas the ZA 85mm does.
veroman, you've been drinking Canon kool-aid too long. Both types of stabilization have advantages. In lens IS is good for stabilizing the viewfinder and is perhaps slightly better at longer focal lengths, but in body IS is good for ALL lenses....even alternative lenses, which is the thread we're in currently.
According to reviews of both the MK I a and MK II, they both extend slightly when focusing.
MK II:
"Since the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens is a front-focusing lens (part of the slower focusing speed reason I'm sure), the lens extends a small amount while focusing."
"The lens features a first generation USM AF drive with a front group linear extension system - therefore the length of the lenses changes slightly during focusing. "
I've actualy had a chance to use both the Canon 135mm f/2 (on a 40d and 1V), and the Zeiss on a A700 (my friends). Truth be told the Zeiss is a noticably better lens. It's sharper wide open, and I even like the color and contrast a bit more. It is the best portrait lens I've ever used.
It would have been better if it was the fast focus motro (I think they call it SWD or something), and that's where the Canon is better. Would i switch to Sony for it I don't know. I'm saving to buy a 5d mkII, and I'm really considering buying the A900 with this beauty as just a portrait camera. I'd have to spend about $1300 more for the extra lens, or sell my EF 135mm f/2. But I'll tell you, that's how good this lens is. Any Zeiss I've ever owned has been a fine lens (Hassy and Contax), but this is awesome, and it's really making me think hard about switching, or at least buying another brand. I'm afraid that once i get use to these Zeiss wonder lens, I'd end up trying to replace me canon "L" lens with all Zeiss.
douglasf13 wrote:
the 85L does not change length when focusing
mine does. one of its foibles is that if you have been focussing close, and remove the lens to put it away in a very crowded bag, you end up having to put it back on the camera as without power there is no way to return the lens to infinity.
I don't know. I'm saving to buy a 5d mkII, and I'm really considering buying the A900 with this beauty as just a portrait camera. I'd have to spend about $1300 more for the extra lens, or sell my EF 135mm f/2. But I'll tell you, that's how good this lens is. Any Zeiss I've ever owned has been a fine lens (Hassy and Contax), but this is awesome, and it's really making me think hard about switching, or at least buying another brand. I'm afraid that once i get use to these Zeiss wonder lens, I'd end up trying to replace me canon "L" lens with all Zeiss. 