It's a happy family of auto focus Zeiss lenses! After dumping all my Nikon gear except an F6 and a few old Nikon lenses, I have finally moved on to the auto focus world wit Sony and Zeiss
So what's the line up there. I see 135,24-70, 351.4 but the other 2 ?
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
You need the mini otus and an a7r
Funny, I considered exactly the same thing the other day. I even considered changing the F6 for a Maxxum 9, but no, cost and the lovely F6 stopped me... at least so far
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=61105
Thanks for the info you have been posting. A long time/current Canon user, I picked up an A99 on a whim and I have been trying to figure out what lenses to get.
How does the 85 compare to the 50 IQ wise? Do you have any portraits shot with the 24-70?
I currently don't have any zooms except the 70-200mm 2.8 GII and that lens is amazing. I like it better than to Nikon 70-200 VRII.
If you want to see some 24-70 pics, look here zeissimages.com - Photos taken with a Zeiss ZA Vario-Sonnar T* f2.8 24
Have a look at this in large size with the 50. http://www.sonyalphaimages.com/galle...0407.SEQ.1.jpg Amazing lens!
The 85 is superb but I enjoy the 50 too much for the time being to play with the 85. Maybe this weekend I will grab some shots with the 85 and 135 and post them. But all I can say is you wont be disappointed with either.
I have the ZA16-35/2.8, ZA24/2, ZA24-70/2.8, ZA50/1.4, ZA85/1.4, ZA135/1.8.
I went looking for portraits shot with the 24-70/2.8 and realized I hadn't shot many because I always reach for the ZA85/1.4. I mainly use the ZA24-70/2.8 at weddings where I need be flexible in shooting a waist up couple > to a big group right after that.
I haven't had the ZA50/1.4 very long, but can offer the opinion that it's better than the Sony 50/1.4 I used prior to it … the ZA50/1.4 shot of the "dramatic little girl" laying in leaves was her idea, but it was a shot sure NOT to sell to her mother 'cause it's so creepy.
The ZA85/1.4 is NOT a SSM AF lens, but seems fast enough that I've not noticed any issue … the ZA50/1.4 is a SSM AF lens, and of course it is fine. The 85 can show some CA in extreme backlit or white against dark contrast conditions but usually is easy to correct in post. Obviously, the 85 can separate the subject from the background better than the 50, and distorts less when shooting closer up … plus, IMO it renders tonal gradations a bit less clinically (preferred for portraits I think).
If you have questions about any of the lenses I listed, just ask. I've probably done at least couple thousand shots with each one of them (except the ZA50/1.4)
(Just click on an image for larger view)
1 Member(s) liked this post
Marc, thanks for your post. I am completely sold on the 50mm; I can't believe how little press the lens has gotten. Its the best SLR AF 50mm lens I have seen. It's definitely the next lens on my list but I want to wait a little while to be sure that Sony is still committed to the A mount before I invest. In the mean time I will continue to shoot the Sigma 50 1.4
Interesting that you dropped the Otus for the ZA 50. I shoot a A7R, and love the pictures with the Otus, but the weight is holding me back, and I don't have a 50 that I am happy with. I was actuall wondering if the ZA 50 wasn't a plausible alternative, since Jorge Torralba also switched to it from the Otus. Could you describe what the differences are?
My take on the Otus vs the ZA is as follows. The Otus is a superior lens. It is just as sharp at 1.4 as it is at 5.6 and so on. It yields a bokeh to simply die for. In the right hands this lens is unmatched. Have a look at some samples at www.zeissotus.com
Having said all this, there is a fine balance between the benefits of the Otus and the ZA and vice verse. The ZA is a superb lens. It yields beautiful bokeh, contrast, color and sharpness. It is weather sealed, much much lighter than the Otus and much much easier to handle plus the obvious auto focus. Not just that it will focus on an object but it will focus on a moving object. Doing this with the Otus is extremely difficult. I think The Otus is more of a studio/landscape lens than anything else. The ZA does exhibit fringing which the Otus does not. But a simple dial adjustment in Lightroom corrects that.
For me, at this point the benefits of the auto focus ZA outweigh the advantage in image quality from the Otus. Learn to shoot with the ZA, find it's strength and yu will be a happy camper.
The ZA at f1.7 and and above is great. The street scene of the Annex bar is at f4 and I have a few at 3.2 which look just as sharp. For portraits, it is amazing. This picture
was taken at 3.5 and it is simply full of detail. I tend to shoot at f2 most of the time with my 50's for the separation of subject from background. But that really depends on the subject matter. Wide open, the lens works very well and much better than any of the others I have seen. Have a look at this
where the focus was the red stitching on the steering wheel. And while you look, take in that bokeh and really appreciate it
Forget about the Nikon or Canon 1.4 auto focus lenses. They are simply garbage and only a die hard fan boy will tell you otherwise. Granted you will get great pictures with just about any 50. Even the garbage ones but the colors , micro contrast and sharpness of the ZA really puts it ahead f the others. I had the 1.8 FE and that was stellar. Close to Otus performance. But, it would not work on my A99 and I prefer the larger bodies. Here are some comparisons between the ZA and FE http://www.sonyalphaimages.com/showreplies.php?qid=1069