nikonf
Member
:thumbup:Thanks!
Just ordered mine.
Mike
Just ordered mine.
Mike
By the way, 55's are in stock at Amazon US....
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
By the way, 55's are in stock at Amazon US....
Fair enough and I guess I don't know you well enough to know if you were offended by my comments. That wasn't my intent if you were. I was just generally stating that I don't believe I'm as discerning about lenses as you seem to be when it comes to performance. I don't go through nearly as many tests as you do and my tests mostly are done around the house or with a quick walk through a few local places that I've shot before to have comparative shots of known areas. I can promise you that I don't check every corner at 100% at every aperture and maybe that's wrong but that's just how I roll. I'm 100% a hobbyist and before last year I have never even taken any sort of photography class.I don't own or run a lab and I've never shot a Lab test! I don't have a copy of imatest or a bench. All my reviews, whether informally on here or more 'written up' elsewhere, are field tests in which I use realistic real world scenes to check two things: how good a lens is, technically, and how well made it is.
If you were in St Mark's square in Venice and shot one of the facades at the far end, you'd appreciate why i do the harbour side shots: getting home and finding that the facade you shot is sharp on one edge and soft on the other would probably annoy you, as would a shot across the 'basin' to Giudecca with the same effect. Go into the basilica and shoot a fresco and see if you like a result that is soggy at one side or blurry at on corner and sharp at the other.
I too own a lot of lenses that are not 'good' technically. I keep and use them for their look. But there are lenses where are not marketed as 'look' lenses and for which certain levels of technical ability are claimed by their makers. A lens like the 55 F1.8 or the 35 F2.8 should both, at their price and design point, be capable of producing images by F5.6 that are convincingly sharp at the edges when viewed at 50% on a 100dpi screen. Good copies of both clearly are. What I am testing for is de-centering, which is a manufacturing defect rather than a design and price point compromise, and which will make all your shots look like they were taken with a tilt/swing lens.
Of course, if that's your style of shooting (and you're happy for the degree of tilt and swing to remain constant across all shots) then that's your choice and you're very welcome to it! Again, many photographers don't care about the edges. But if your purchased a Mercedes and discovered three years later, that they hadn't put the spare in the trunk, just when you needed it, it would be both Mercedes and you that were to blame by that time. That's why I test carefully at first: to get what I paid for. A look through my personal galleries will show that as a mainly landscape photographer, I very very often don't give a damn for a technically perfect look. But sometimes I do and I don't want my options to be cut off by a dodgy copy of a lens.
Your comment was also specifically regarding what I said about bokeh on this lens. That is less a technical question than an aesthetic one and I was noting that the 55 F1.8 has the double edged bokeh problem that has raised some alarm on the 35 F2.8 - it won't bother me much, but some people hate it. And it does relate to the 'look and character' of the optic rather than the strictly technical performance… there's a difference between aesthetic imperfection, which is in the eye of the beholder (or possibly the client) and manufacturing imperfection, which is in the eye of anyone who likes a sharp snap from a $1000+ lens…. I personally will often choose to keep and not return a partially de-centered lens because it isn't bad enough to be worth the hassle. But as a general point, products which are clearly poorly made and shouldn't IMHO have passed QC are really a form of rip-off and I don't like being ripped off! YMMV...
Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.
Guy,Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.
Im leaning to a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZF in a Nikon mount since i have the adapter now. That also gives me three lenses in Nikon just in case i ever want to go back
OK...... you talked me into it..... I'll get the 135.and speaking of the 135 you can't touch this lens with anything IMHO. I will never sell it. LOL
Lord no! Not offended at all - I just want to make clear that there's a direct creative reason for the testing I do.Fair enough and I guess I don't know you well enough to know if you were offended by my comments. That wasn't my intent if you were. I was just generally stating that I don't believe I'm as discerning about lenses as you seem to be when it comes to performance. I don't go through nearly as many tests as you do and my tests mostly are done around the house or with a quick walk through a few local places that I've shot before to have comparative shots of known areas. I can promise you that I don't check every corner at 100% at every aperture and maybe that's wrong but that's just how I roll. I'm 100% a hobbyist and before last year I have never even taken any sort of photography class.
Guy, I have been thinking about 85mm as well. I have the 85/1.4 G and love it on the D800 and D800E. The MF Nikon 85/1.4 is smaller and also a great lens.Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.
Im leaning to a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZF in a Nikon mount since i have the adapter now. That also gives me three lenses in Nikon just in case i ever want to go back
+1.The more examples I see of the EF 1.8/55, the more I have to say that I really don't care for its OOF rendering.
How about the Contax/Zeiss 85 f1.4? it's a lovely lens, and can be got very reasonably - of course, you need a different adapter, but that's not a problem. It certainly won't lose value if you go elsewhere later.The Zeiss 50 macro is a really nice lens. Thinking be nice to go all zeiss glass.
The Zeiss 25f2 is killer good, I had that lens sold it and kicking myself ever since. Zeiss 50 macro , the 135 is amazing. The 85 in the ZF and ZA has some wide open aberrations but I think still a great choice. A Leica r 80 is just too much money. I'm not that motivated to go M lenses to be honest. Just takes too much Capitol to get there unless you own it already.
The more examples I see of the EF 1.8/55, the more I have to say that I really don't care for its OOF rendering. I find the double-edged bokeh busy and unattractive. I'll stick with my current 50s (Makro-Planar ZF.2, Planar ZM and Summicron-R)...
Many thanks for this sample, Tim! This looks quite nice, actually. Most of the samples I've seen were taken at close range, and there was stronger contrast in the OOF areas than in your image. Was there any CA-removal applied to this image (either in-camera or in LR)? How about other corrections?Like this?
Apologies for the LR processing, it was already done and loaded before I started using C1...
I thought it might be the same lens formulaHow about the Contax/Zeiss 85 f1.4? it's a lovely lens, and can be got very reasonably - of course, you need a different adapter, but that's not a problem. It certainly won't lose value if you go elsewhere later.
1+. Guy, you could possibly install a Leitax F-mount, and then you wouldn't have to change adapters. However, the C/Y 1.4/85 is not listed as compatible on the Leitax site (but it's not listed as incompatible, either). A quick mail to David would clear this up, I'm sure. And if you don't need f/1.4, I can highly recommend the C/Y Sonnar 2.8/85. Small, light-weight, lovely rendering and very high performance.How about the Contax/Zeiss 85 f1.4? it's a lovely lens, and can be got very reasonably - of course, you need a different adapter, but that's not a problem. It certainly won't lose value if you go elsewhere later.