Later this year I'd like to upgrade my 85mm arsenal.
This lens would be used almost 100% for portraits.
Currently I have a very nice copy of the Canon 85/1.8, but you know.... I also have the Planar 85/1.4, but it's surprisingly not to my liking.
I am torn between the following options, and would greatly appreciate any feedback from those who own at least any two of them: (I am not overly concerned about super-fast aperture, just IQ at close-range, and at f/2 or under.)
Canon FD 85/1.2L
Canon FD 85/1.2 asp
Minolta MC 85/1.7
Minolta MD 85/1.7
I'd take the 85L FD if the choice were those four. Also consider...
Sigma's got the 85/1.4 coming out.
If you're willing to give or take 5mm, there's the OM 90/2 macro, which was a little too sharp a portrait lens for all subjects IMO, but fantastic for those with flawless skin or those with fur.
I love the 80/1.4 R 'lux, but it's dreamy style isn't to everyone's tastes.
Apart from some physical differences these two are very similar:
- Canon FD 85/1.2L
- Canon FD 85/1.2 asp
If you check my posts you'll find comparative shots.
I think IQ is identical.
Physical differences are:
- the 9 aperture blades of the 85/SSC vs. the 8 of the 85/L
- the metal aperture ring of the 85/SSC vs. the plastic ring of the 85/L
- the metal ring is also a bit further away from the camera, which makes it better accessible.
I love my 85/SSC. This said, I also miss the Planar 85/1.4 which I sold last summer...
m-a-x wrote:
Apart from some physical differences these two are very similar:
- Canon FD 85/1.2L
- Canon FD 85/1.2 asp
If you check my posts you'll find comparative shots.
I think IQ is identical.
Physical differences are:
- the 9 aperture blades of the 85/SSC vs. the 8 of the 85/L
- the metal aperture ring of the 85/SSC vs. the plastic ring of the 85/L
- the metal ring is also a bit further away from the camera, which makes it better accessible.
I love my 85/SSC. This said, I also miss the Planar 85/1.4 which I sold last summer...
I've read that the SSC isn't as easy to adapt as the L due to the position of the aperture, um, coupling, I guess would be the best choice of words (not that either appear all that easy to adapt). Is that true from your experience?
Cableaddict, you might consider the forthcoming Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar 90 mm f3,5 SL-II
It is due to ship in April, it is a native EF mount, with electronics, its price seems very reasonable, weight is low, bulk is minimal, and the reputation of other APO-Lanthars is excellent (even stellar for the 125mm). Specification indicates that it must be pretty good up close, because its MFD is half that of the Zeiss 85, and ont third if you add the close up lens that gets it into macro territory.
Hope this helps
If you have the time I'd actually wait and see what results the coming Sigma 85 f/1.4 can produce. If its even close to the Sigma 50 f/1.4 I'll absolutely consider it myself (will probably take the Nikon 85 f/1.8 while I wait)
I would strongly consider the Rokinon (Samyang) 85mm f1.4 it is a stellar lens.
And you will likely have a big smile on your face as you look at the great pictures you take and all the money you save.
-Jim
m-a-x wrote:
Apart from some physical differences these two are very similar:
- Canon FD 85/1.2L
- Canon FD 85/1.2 asp
If you check my posts you'll find comparative shots.
I think IQ is identical.
Yep, I saw that thread, thanks Max. IMO, the asp had slightly better plasticity. I'd bet good money that I could tell those two apart in a blind test at least 80% of the time. Probably 100%.
(feel free to post such test shots, that would be interesting)
Well, that could be due to sample variation, I guess. It's very unclear if Canon changed anything at all in the optics when they released the L.
I know you said 85, but if you are considering manual lenses, the IQ and handling of the Canon 90mm TS-E is phenomenal and worth a look. Though you lose a stop, you get back closer MFD (though if you are really only using this for portraiture, the value of that is dubious), and of course the movements.
I've used them all except the MD 85/1.7 and I chose the Rokinon. The 85/1.2 SSC Asph is wonderful, but the Rokinon is 98% of that lens for much less money and hassle. Have you seen my direct comparison? If not, let me know and I will show you.
Bottom line; of the lenses you mentioned and based on your specific criteria, the Rokinon is the clear choice. The FDs bring basically nothing to the table over the Rokinon except 1/3rd of a stop, a much higher price tag, more weight and a conversion hassle (I know from experience). The MC and MD might be good options, but again they will be more expensive than the Rokinon and will require conversion. Simply not worth it for a slower lens unless you absolutely must have "the Minolta look".
I never would have sold my FD 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical and MC 85/1.7 if the Rokinon didn't perform. It does and now it is my goto 85mm lens.
Ok, I own cogitech's old FD 85mm asph and I've compared it to several others including the Rokinon. The FD 85 is hands down the sharpest. The Rokinon comes fairly close considering the price difference but I found it a lot harder to focus and a lot lower contrast. Since you're portrait oriented as I am, I'd also take a look at a version 2 Summicron 90. It's sharper than the Planar 85 and has a somewhat different style which I like. What you ultimately like best will be very subjective so try several from the field and sell the ones that don't work for you. Everybody else's opinion on here is just that, a subjective opinion. Try several and see what works for you.
I had the FD 85/1.2 ssc at the same time as the EF 85/1.2 L. Although I never compared them properly, ie shoot the exact same images, I felt that they performed pretty much identically. I don't know if they are the same optical design but they certainly perform like they are. In any case, I preferred the Leica R 80 which I kept over the FD 85/1.2 ssc, EF 85/1.2 L and Contax 85/1.4.
zombii wrote:
Ok, I own cogitech's old FD 85mm asph and I've compared it to several others including the Rokinon. The FD 85 is hands down the sharpest. The Rokinon comes fairly close considering the price difference but I found it a lot harder to focus and a lot lower contrast. .
I think you're right about the contrast, or more importantly the micro-contrast. The Rokinon looks great at first, but the more I see example pics (esp those in this thread) the more I realize that its images are kind of flat. - Make that REALLY flat.
The FD 85's both seem much better in this regard, (much better than most Canon glass) though I have never seen a head-to-head comparison. Sharpness is just icing on the cake. The Minolta seems to be in the same ballpark as the FD's, maybe less sharp but more micro-contrast. But so hard to tell without careful tests.
Hence, this thread.
The MTF's on the new Vivitar don't really look all that amazing, but we shall see....
I guess now I also have to consider Leica, though I've never been a huge fan of the typical Leica look. The Voigtländer (Philber's suggestion) would be too slow.
