Has anyone used both the 85ZA and the Lux R80 on the A900/850?

[apsheng]

I have used the converted Lux 80 on my A900 for a while now. But am still missing the focus on a good fraction of the shots @1.4/2.0, even with the matt screen. I am considering the 85ZA. Would appreciate any input comparing the IQ of the two lenses re: sharpness and out of focus areas. I use this focal length mainly for portraits.
Thanks,
Alan

 

[edwardkaraa]

I am not familiar with the Lux 80, but have been using the ZA 85 for almost 2 years now. It has a flat field curvature that produces excellent results center to corner even wide open. The bokeh is very pleasing as well. It is also corrected for close range with floating elements. Highly recommended.

 

[Eoin]

Hi Alan,

I've never used the Lux R80, but have used several 85 (ish) primes such as Leica M Summicron 75 APO & 90 non ASPH as well as Canon's 85's both L and non L.

Hand on my heart, my favorite 85 of all time was the Canon 85L and I still miss it's dreamy pastels even today.
However that being said, the ZA85 took a while to grow on me, I much preferred the ZA135 for portrait shooting. But as often is the case, space restrictions often dictated the use of the 85 in it's place.

I've since warmed to the ZA 85 and in particular it's size on the a900, often choosing it over the 135 just for it's compactness and weight.

In terms of IQ, it's hard to fault, some colour fringing on high contrast subjects as they move in and out of focus, but in general and normal shooting hardly noticeable if at all.

I use a Rokkor 58 1.2 with the matte screen on one of my a900s, and that's a bugger to get focus spot on. So I understand the frustration your having with the R80. I normally find it helps when I focus past the subject and bring it back into focus, my keeper rate with the 58 improved quite considerably.

Below are a few images I had taken this past weekend while messing around with the kids. Lighting was poor, but they may give you a feeling of the focus fall off. They were shot f:/2.8 @ 1/60

 

[apsheng]

Thanks Eoin and Edward. The fall off appears to be nice and smooth at f2.8. Would you have any shot at 1.4?

Yes, I've read about the 85 and 135. While most people think both are exceptional, the 135 seems to garner more praises. But the 135 would be a little too long for my needs. I like the Lux 80 for its wide open (1.4 or 2.0) rendering of not being clinically sharp and with creamy smooth oof. It does however have substantial ca. I also have the Lux 75M and Cron 90M, again difficult to focus spot on. Looking for something similar but does not challenge my eye-sight.

Dad

 

[Eoin]

Hi Alan,

Here are 2 @ f/1.4 and 1 @ f/2.

I think it's a lot sharper than any lens I've had at this focal length before. That being said it's not as brutally sharp as the ZA135.

 

[apsheng]

Thanks Eoin, the bokeh is smooth and pleasing but does not appear to be as creamy as the Lux 80. I'll probably stick with my <50% focus hit rate for a while.

Alan

 

[Eoin]

Alan, yes you are right, it's not as smooth and creamy as others I've used. That being said, Zeiss glass is renowned for it's attribute of rendering a 3D effect. This may not be fully evident in the web samples. It's unique in this regard amongst 85's I've used and something I've slowly come to like.

The other option would be to consider a Minolta 85 f:/1.4 G. By all reports an excellent lens at 70% of the cost of a ZA85. Try http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-85-F1.4-G-D_lens2.html for image samples and user reports.

Eoin