Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D (FX)
#31
[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1305662856' post='8452']

But I can also understand that for many people who spend $600 for an entry level DSLR, $400 for a 85/1.8 might be too much. Just remember your student life <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />

[/quote]



Exactly, and not just for students, but for 99% of people who buy a $600 camera, $400-$500 lens is expensive, even if they can afford it. $250 is far more palatable, especially if it's superior wide open <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />
#32
If a short f/2.8 tele is all you need and want and the budget is that limited, the used market also offers some attractive options: macro lenses.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#33
Guys, have you all missed the smiley? Here's a reminder.



[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1305619848' post='8400']

And Sony answered with 85 F2.8. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> [/quote]



For god sake, it was only a joke! Why wasn't it clear enough? Think about this. Apart from FL these lenses have nothing in common. Heck, you can't even mount them on the same camera.



So, can we please end this silly debate with Markus' conclusion?



[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305651552' post='8424']

Can we maybe agree to a more practical conclusion: all three are great at f/2.8 and beyond.[/quote]



Kids, we all know what Klaus always says about comparing MFT results from different systems, don't we? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />
#34
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305667313' post='8459']

If a short f/2.8 tele is all you need and want and the budget is that limited, the used market also offers some attractive options: macro lenses.

[/quote]



Macro lesses are a lot slower to focus though than a portrait lens.
#35
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305673602' post='8466']

Macro lesses are a lot slower to focus though than a portrait lens.

[/quote]

And luckily, lenses do not have to be very fast in focussing for portraits. Which is good, else the Canon Ef 85mm f1.2 L USM II would not be very usable as portrait lens. But it is.



Fast focussing portrait lenses can double as indoor sports lenses though (Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM as prime example).

And macro lenses with a focal length in portrait range can, besides shooting portraits, "double" as macro lenses.



Seems like win-win situation for both types. Which the Sony does not qualify for.



Besides, many macro lenses focus about as fast as the Sony 85mm f2.8, like the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR, the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM, the Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS USM. It is not like all macro lenses are as slow in focussing as my Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro.

And this Tamron still makes a good f2,8 90mm portrait lens, it is still fast enough for that. The Tamron still misses the f1.8-2.8 f-stop range, though, so not a real substitute for a 85mm f1.8.



Of course, you can use the Sony 85mm f2.8 for macro too, with adding a Kenko extension tube set. Then it gets the focus distance needed for close up shots. But then it gets bigger, heavier and more expensive again.



And compared to the 85mm f1.8's it still misses 1 1/3rd stop to isolate subjects as well.
#36
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305674427' post='8467']

And luckily, lenses do not have to be very fast in focussing for portraits.

[/quote]



That's your personal opinion. Focusing can be important, even for portrait, especially if you are taking photos of children, snapshots, around the house. Macro lenses are far slower to focus.



>Seems like win-win situation for both types.



in your opinion, not mine



>Which the Sony does not qualify for.



85mm F2.8 has closer min. focus distance than both Canikon 85mm F1.8 (that are 0.85m). Sony F2.8 is 0.60m, which is superior than both. It's enough for everyday flower shots that most people will use.



So it's twice cheaper, twice smaller, with shorter min focus. Thanks for brining that point. This is another area that twice cheaper lens is superior.



DOF is shallow enough for 85mm lens at F2.8. Most people with be more than happy with it.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sizes/o/
#37
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305676866' post='8468']

So it's twice cheaper, twice smaller, with shorter min focus. Thanks for brining that point. This is another area that twice cheaper lens is superior.



DOF is shallow enough for 85mm lens at F2.8. Most people with be more than happy with it.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sizes/o/

[/quote]



Actually, since 85mm F2.8 has closer superior min focus than Canon (that has smaller sensor too), at the closet focusing point, which one would have shallower DOF?



F1.8 at 0.85 mm or F2.8 at 0.60mm? I suspect 0.6 would have a shallower DOF
#38
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305677778' post='8469']

Actually, since 85mm F2.8 has closer superior min focus than Canon (that has smaller sensor too), at the closet focusing point, which one would have shallower DOF?



F1.8 at 0.85 mm or F2.8 at 0.60mm? I suspect 0.6 would have a shallower DOF

[/quote]

You obviously have no photography experience.

Photography is about framing your shots. Not about getting a more shallow depth of field by going closer, just for the sake of it.

Going closer will change the framing of your shots drastically.

So, no, for the same portrait shots the 85mm f2.8 from Sony will have 1 stop worth less DOF separation than the f1.8 lenses from Nikon and Canon. And 65mm is a bit too close for portraits, but not close enough for macro. Still will need extension tubes for that.



Also, 85mm is way too long to take "snapshots from children, around the house", Especially for a 85mm on APS-C, which behaves like a 135mm lens. Unless one happens to have a huge house with very large rooms. But in that case, one would not have a budget APS-C DSLR with 85mm f2.8 lens.



And still, the macro lenses mentioned are fast enough focussing for children who play outside.
#39
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305702489' post='8472']

You obviously have no photography experience.

[/quote]



Would you stop posting personal insults and stick to discussing topic? You are the same guy who never even touched a camera but were crying about photozone review and rating. Talk about speaking from experience.



Macro lenses are much slower to focus. Maybe you don't have experience of using a macro lens. I would rather use a fast focusing portrait lens than wait around with macro lenses to photograph people.



And maybe the first thing you should do is start listing all the 85mm macro lenses that cost $250. Make your list here



1.

2.

3.



Then we can continue this discussion after that.
#40
DNFTT.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)