Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by bargainguy, Sep 14, 2016.
Carl Zeiss will announce a new Loxia 2.4/85 lens | Photo Rumors
1400euro for another MF lens...while you can get the Samyang 85mm 1.4 for $300. Not interested at all
Will be curious to see the specs and how they compare relative to the old Contax 85mm F/1.4 (which I have). Regardless of price and whether this turns out to be a lens I'd want, I'm glad to see Zeiss continuing to develop lenses for digital - it's part of what is drawing me towards Sony.
Many, many moons ago, I had a Contax 85/2.8. That was a honey of a lens, wish I never would have sold it. I'm wondering if the new 85/2.4 is an attempt to resurrect the 85/2.8 design.
Used a small Rollei HFT Sonnar 85mm/2.8 and a Sony AF SAM, which should be a Sonnar too (besides a lot of 85mm legacy lenses).
So I don't think this 85mm will be an option for me.
I tried to use 85mm MF lenses and failed miserably: focus was almost always off because I and/or the subject moved between focussing and releasing the shutter. So, if I'd be buying an 85mm it would have to be an AF lens.
Probably due to the more critical, narrower DOF at many apertures. I've had the same problem - maybe. I'm thinking it was lack of IBIS and a bit of wiggle at my end, but it may have simply been the DOF issue making it too critical and the sunshine beating on me sufficient to "quit quibbling" and try to squeeze it off. My impatience or the lens? Not sure. I'm not giving up on the MF just yet! but I'm also sticking with my existing 85mm F/1.4, too. But thanks for the alternate possible explanation, and it might limit the Loxia's range of appeal.
Too similar to the Minolta MD 85/2 I already have. The Minolta wide open at f/2 isn't the most rock solid (like I'd expect of a modern T* Sonnar) but from 2.8 on down it is great. Colors and contrast seem to hold up better than most of my other legacy lenses - more similar than most to my Sony/Zeiss primes. Not least of all, the form is very reasonable - even has the 49mm filter thread!
If I'm going to spend over $1000 updating my 85mm, I'll be much more inclined to get the Batis with AF, stabilization and a significant speed increase.
This new Loxia does complete the Loxia set very nicely, though. I sure wouldn't mind doing a road trip with just those 4 compact & exquisite manual primes.
In my case I'm quite positive that focussing errors with the Minolta MD 2/85 were the main culprit because almost always something else in the picture was perfectly sharp. There's just no such thing as depth of field with an 85mm @ f/2 at even 5 meters distance. And that was with the A7, so without IBIS but apparently shutter speeds of around 1/100 s were adequate to prevent excessive motion blur, but sometimes not subject movements. IBIS and Eye AF on the A7R2 work wonders with focal lengths between 50 and 135mm in my experience, all the more reason for me to stick to native AF lenses because Eye AF doesn't always work with non-native AF lenses combined with adapters. And yes, before anyone tells me so, I know some lens/adapter combinations seem to work but up to now I simply refuse to make an elaborate study of what might work and what doesn't.
Must say I didn't believe the Loxia 2.4/85 rumor because it seemed so unlikely: who in the world would want an expensive, MF, relatively slow 85mm lens? Enough others apparently.
[broken record]Carl, gimme a Batis 1.4/40![/broken record]
Sorry, that just slipped out...
Yep, the good news here is that the 85 is a Loxia so there's still hope for a B40 or B45 as the second lens they were supposed to announce this year.
You and me both, Jeff!
[QUOTE="addieleman, post: 120234, member: 851]
Must say I didn't believe the Loxia 2.4/85 rumor because it seemed so unlikely: who in the world would want an expensive, MF, relatively slow 85mm lens? Enough others apparently...[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly! Especially as @Jefenator said since we have other great IQ, faster and cheaper! af options like the Batis 85mm
I want to be tempted by this lens. At first glance, it seems to be exactly what I've been dreaming of.
Thing is, while it's narrower than the Batis 85, it weight more and it's no shorter in length. I'm not sure why I wouldn't just go for the Batis. At least for me, AF vs. MF isn't an issue; I've gotten plenty of practice with the FD85L. Hitting focus is breeze now.
The loxia lineup that I have used so far have been thoroughly enjoyable to shoot - the build is at another level above the batis and the drawing style (assuming it is similar to 35 and 50) is super cinematic.
I think that it looks like a beautiful lens that would be very enjoyable to shoot. Optically it will probably be up there with the 85 GM at similar apertures. On the other hand I don't think I **need** another 85. I think this loxia would have been better if they had introduced it as a 100mm F2/2.4.
Yes I was thinking 21-35-50-90 to match Leica
I've been comparing the data sheets of the Loxia 85 to the Contax 85... and I guess I'm not completely sure I know how to read these (okay, I've never done it before!), but it does look like the specs for the new 85 are better. Not waaaaay better, which says some good things about the old Contax glass, but still it ought to be very nice. Not sure how much wiggle room or "sale" mark down folks like B&H and Adorama give to Zeiss on Black Friday and the like... but I can be patient. BTW... any resource out there for reading comparative Zeiss charts?
Don't know. I just have a hard time or even think of paying that much for DIY (manual focus lenses) .
I'm still holding out on the big Sony GM. Let's see what Sigma has in its sleeves next week.
85mm f1.4 Art, 24-70mm f2 Art and maybe a 70-200 f2.8 Sport?
Fair to have alternate preferences and needs to drive one's GAS. Your preferences are for speed and zooms. I'd agree with the speed - I like my Contax 85/F1.4 just fine. But for my style of shooting, zooms work against my instinct for composition and enable my weaknesses. I like primes, and the Loxia line-up is the reason for switching from Fuji to Sony in my view. Fact is that though many Contax CY mount lenses have fallen in price in recent years, the asking prices are still quite a bit north of the new Loxia's for the fast 21, 35 and 100 so-called "supers". That's a head scratcher. What I don't know is how well a Loxia handles... I'm renting a 21mm and a A7-2 next week... but if it is as good or similar to the old line, then I'm "in" and I'll re-set my course as planned. Personally, the 21mm and 35mm are primes I use more... but the 85 is a sweet FOV. Agree with "wish it were faster".
But FWIW, I used to think this Manual Focus was for the birds, too. That changed when I figured that if my preference was for smaller lenses, the key give-up was AF/AE. While before the thought of MF/ME was unacceptable, inconvenient and just... really? All of a sudden it made sense and became part of the fun. Yeah... and at first I thought I'd have to go back to film and maybe Medium Format to get back to the "real experience", but then it clicked and I changed my approach, got over my fear of being a gearhead, a techy, and a nerd, and just accepted that its tech work and part of the price of being an (amateur) photographer. Swallow hard, and just do it.
So there's still a place for AF, but frankly most of what I do, I don't require it. Birds and sports would, but landscapes and a fair amount of "street" (and street style).... not really, or at least less so. Would it be convenient and enabling? Yes. But that's a two edged sword in my case. So more training? Yeah, and I'm far from done. But it's amazingly no harder than manually setting exposure with OMG! a Sekonic meter, or setting WB with a gray card or color checker. Do it and look at the results... and you'll wonder why you don't do this all the time. Do it a bit more, and the speed begins to pick up where you REALLY wonder why you don't do it all the time. Can auto-everything do the same thing? Sure, and in many cases it can do a great job or "good enough", too. But if it's about control.... and you want to exercise it, then... well, I gave up resisting and I guess I'm moving to have fewer but (hopefully) "better" tools and making sure I know how to use them... and use them without fail. Zeiss won't be everybody's choice, and I'd guess it's about 25% or more over-priced, but it is what it is. Sad to admit, but the more I slow down because my methodology takes time to execute, the higher percentage of good shots I seem to be able to produce technically, and the intangible elements of composition, lighting, and subject start to get more attention almost inadvertantly... as if it just happened. Not everybody's cup of tea, and I'm a long, long way from making art by all means for more reasons than just time and opportunity (I'm reading Joe Cornish's "First Light" and yeah.... by contrast to what I produce, that boy can shoot!), but it's working and things are on the right track. Maybe it's a phase, and you've all been through it... but it's where I am at the moment.
For my money... and maybe I speak for many here, I think I've enough decent gear on hand to switch to the rent-before-you-buy thing, and/or buy it 2nd-hand mode - EXCEPT in rare instances when it's EXACTLY what you need. Interesting that at 2.4 rather than 1.4 and with a 52mm barrel, they've still got a bigger lens than my old 1.4/85 with a 67mm barrel. Dimensions are about 30mm longer, but only 1 gram more in weight. Note that the additional 30mm corresponds very closely (eyeball measurement rather than caliper) to the length of the Novoflex adapter. So the dirty little secret of mirrorless lens engineering continues to rule! and smaller bodies continue to require bigger lenses! Oh well.... it's not the size, it's the experience that matters.
For me MF would be fine in a lot of cases and this discussion gets me wondering why I hate using legacy glass in the field. Ultimately that boils down to 2 things: 1) the inability of the A7 camera's to toggle peaking and magnified view by just 1 button press and 2) the lack of EXIF data of the lens. The Loxia does away with gripe #2 so that leaves just the peaking thing. Is that so important, you'd ask? Yes, it is. When doing landscapes, a lot of the scene is in focus and overlaid by peaking color and I want to have peaking in magnified view to be absolutely sure of perfect focus. I was thinking hard about getting me a Loxia 21mm but this is the thing that holds me back. I now use AF zoom lenses in the field for landscape photography because I can simply point the focus spot to where I want it to be and the viewfinder image is free of distracting peaking color. I don't think I would exchange the FE 4/70-200mm by primes but the FE 4/16-35mm is a more likely candidate, I think I could get by with the Loxia 21mm and Sony's FE 2/28, 1.8/50 and 4/70-200.