PDA

View Full Version : Sony 55FE 1.8 vs Sony ZA 85mm 1.4 vs Zeiss 135mm F2



Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 10:57
Interesting and difficult test 3 different lenses , 3 different focal lengths and 3 different wide open apertures. Now all on tripods shot with the A7r with 2 second delay. I admit setting this up under my conditions was a challenge I normally can get extremely close but I maybe just a little off when moving the camera as far as image area, not my normal test scene and side light coming in on my face. But I am dead on with focusing as that really is the heart of it. So you may see a little area difference but each lens I focused on exactly the same spot. So here we have a 1.8/1.4 and a F2 assortment of lenses . Just for the record let me post the full frame of each lens at F2. I did not WB and they all have the same sharpening treatment. The only thing I did do is adjust the exposure to try and match each other as this fluctuates when shooting towards the wide open side of glass.

BTW watch the bokeh at F2 on each lens which is interesting.

Oh and yes folks I am squarely focused on the bird **** on the top of the lamp. Great texture. ROTFLMAO

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/55f2.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/sony85f2.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_570709.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 10:59
Nice bokeh on all of them but notice the 55mm has a slightly cooler temp to it. If anything its actually more neutral

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 11:00
Im going to post this but obviously I still have more onion to peel

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 11:02
I tried to keep the lamp the same size.

jagsiva
30th January 2014, 11:27
Nice. Do the highlights on the chroma look a little better on the FE, or it could be just a slightly lower exposure? The 85 shows some CA. I assume DoF would be about the same since you moved the camera to capture the same scene.

I am liking the 55 FE a lot! if it can stay on with the 135ZF.2, that's is pretty awesome, especially considering how much close you'd have to be with the same framing. Thanks!

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 11:27
Give me a hour and i will have everything up

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:34
Alright lets get the lone duck out of the way

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/85_14.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:36
Lets take the 55mm at 1.8 and the 85 at 1.7

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/55_18.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/85_17.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:38
Lets move on to the F2 round but as you see above the 55mm is better wide open than the 85 at 1.7

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_386771.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/85_2.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_713601.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:40
Okay 2.8 across the board

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/55_28.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/85_28.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/135_28.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:45
At 2.8 to me looks like the 55 and 135 even out which not surprisingly the 85 is still a touch behind a real testament to the 55 and 135 here. Folks let me interject here and 85 1.4 lenses on the market put any name on it will perform almost exactly. They all have lens aberrations wide open and almost all of them get really good at F2. This is normal until someone like Zeiss makes a Otus 85 1.4 that will be the size of a truck. The 85 1.4 glass is the look lens wide open but you need to correct it. Some maybe a little better and some a little worse. It really is the nature of the beast.

Lets go to F4

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/55_4.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/85_4.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/135_4.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:50
At 5.6 they should all be at there prime aperture setting. The 85 still looks a little behind but could very well be a contrast thing too.

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/55_56.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/85_56.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/135_56.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:53
Here is my bottom line anything close to the Zeiss 135 F2 Apo has got to be a great lens as i rate it one of the best around. Here is the second bottom line and that is the 55mm as it maybe the best lens around under 1k. Im not going to argue otherwise.

Hope this helps and if you have a opinion love to hear it.

Don Libby
30th January 2014, 12:53
I'll admit to having a bias towards the Sony 55. Of the initial 3- samples I prefer the first, which happens to be the 55; the reason is the hood vents. I really like that particular file over the other three because of this.

It's the little things...

Don

dchew
30th January 2014, 12:55
Hey Guy,
I'll trade you the 135 for my 25! Hehehe...

A few questions:
1. What adapter do you use?

2. The 135 image has a special glow; almost looks like the light is on. Do you think that is a result of adjustments you made or is that a characteristic of the lens?

Thanks for doing this. I was leaning towards a Sumicron 90, but now you've got me thinking to ditch that and go with the 55 + 135. And for the first time ever in your life you would be actually saving someone some money if I did that!
:)

Dave

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:55
One other thing of note I just noticed and that is sensor bloom if you look very close to the pink highlights it disappears faster on the 135mm than the 55 and the 85 is last given the apertures.

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 12:58
Adapters the 85 I used the Sony 4 I think it is but I manual focused everything. On the Zeiss 135 and let me be very clear as i noticed in Yosemite as Bob and Jack as my witness the metabones was pulling away from the body and the Novaflex was working perfectly and not pulling away. The Novaflex adapter is bolted on the 135 and i use the Metabones on the lighter lenses like my Zeiss 35mm. Ill just call it get the Novaflex if you have the Zeiss 135mm and it worked great with the 1.4 tel too.

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 13:00
Hey Guy,
I'll trade you the 135 for my 25! Hehehe...

A few questions:
1. What adapter do you use?

2. The 135 image has a special glow; almost looks like the light is on. Do you think that is a result of adjustments you made or is that a characteristic of the lens?

Thanks for doing this. I was leaning towards a Sumicron 90, but now you've got me thinking to ditch that and go with the 55 + 135. And for the first time ever in your life you would be actually saving someone some money if I did that!
:)

Dave

Crap i must be doing something wrong. LOL

Now my 85 is good but at some point i may look at a Leica 75 cron or 90 elmarit. But for now i am going to wait it out for maybe the next FE 85mm

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 13:07
The 135mm is a look lens and its really nice. I highly recommend it weight and all. This is from Yosemite.

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc1572_1.jpg

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 13:16
Test over and very happy with the 55mm. Obviously from the results it is recommended. I don't know of some troubles that some had like decentering and maybe shutter vibration which really seems off on a 55m but anyway this copy at least looks very good.

Next week I will run the Zeiss 135 with and without the Sigma 1.4 tele so folks can get a good idea on that combo.

jagsiva
30th January 2014, 14:15
Thanks Guy, this is very useful. BTW, have you spent any time looking at the corners? I think I was even more impressed there.

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 14:23
No not yet I may shoot some tomorrow to be sure of everything . I did a real quickie yesterday and things looked fine but I should double check .

thomas
30th January 2014, 14:30
Thanks Guy, this is very useful. BTW, have you spent any time looking at the corners? I think I was even more impressed there.My copy of the FE 1.8/55 ZA is sharp edge to edge on the long side of the sensor wide open. The very corners are very well usable from f2.5. At f4 everything is extremely sharp.

D&A
30th January 2014, 16:55
Thanks Guy, this is very useful. BTW, have you spent any time looking at the corners? I think I was even more impressed there.

Guy a few things to note. I too am curious about corner performance. Having in depth tested lenses all my life, I know what
arduous work it is and it can't all be done in a day. Very useful information, thanks!

One thing though....are you sure you didn't pull the wool over our eyes and simply use the same focal length lens in all the images you posted? Seems the engraving on the circular glass (just under the bird****) indicates the 135! :ROTFL:

Dave (D&A)

Guy Mancuso
30th January 2014, 17:44
Lol its funny I noticed that when I was focusing it too. I thought it was kind of funny it was there.

D&A
30th January 2014, 17:52
Now if you want to do it right, you have to find headlamps that have engraved "55" and "85" and then we can consider all your findings valid. :)

Dave (D&A)

Slingers
30th January 2014, 22:51
Wow all three look great. I prefer the Zeiss 135 the best but the FE 55 is a very close second. I am trying to justify not getting the 55 but it keeps getting harder to not buy it with the results it produces.

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 01:03
I agree the 135 is better controlled and looks the best with the 55 just a notch below it but I'm being real picky here as the 55 is extremely good. I also agree its a hard lens the 55 not to buy. I'm glad I got it. Its hard to ignore how good it really is wide open and that alone makes it worth it.

turtle
31st January 2014, 01:28
And there were those who complained that the 55 1.8 is a 'ridiculous price' for an ordinary 50mm lens. Sure, its expensive, but it seems to be testing in the extra-ordinary category...

D&A
31st January 2014, 04:26
Guy, it's often a crap shoot when trying to match a 1.4x to a 3rd party lens (Meaning the 3rd party lens manufacturer doesn't have a 1.4x for their lens). In this case Zeiss doesn't have a 1.4x for the 135mm. More often than not, in cases like this, I've found the Tamron Pro 1.4x does a slightly better overall than the Tokina 1.4 and by a wider margin improves upon the Sigma, which seems to designed with Sigma 's own lenses in mind. It's more performance in the corners than anything else.

Obviously there's no substitute for actually testing them on lens being used.

Dave (D&A)

Ben Rubinstein
31st January 2014, 05:01
Have to admit that I'm glad the 85mm performs as it does relative to the rest. 85mm is a portrait lens and I'd hate a portrait lens that looked like the 55mm.

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 05:17
Thanks Dave. In Yosemite Jack and I tried his Nikon 1.4 but the rear element on the Zeiss would hit the 1.4 so that was out. Than we tried the Sigma 1.4 which fit perfectly and I got some nice results at F4 actually it was almost perfect. So I ordered one and will test it next week and also check the corners. The shots we took in Yosemite it was of a house across the lake so not a good testing scene. So I'll give it a full run next week when it comes in.

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 05:20
Have to admit that I'm glad the 85mm performs as it does relative to the rest. 85mm is a portrait lens and I'd hate a portrait lens that looked like the 55mm.

Totally agree Ben. The 85 is supposed to be the Mojo lens and why I have that lens. I could back that 55 off with a negative clarity setting to soften it up if needed. But its nice to have 1 laser in the bag in that focal length. Be great for a lot of things including copy work.

PSon
31st January 2014, 05:30
I was going to ask the question if Guy could redo the test again but this time on human skin tone to see how these lens render at such texture for portrait work. Based on the textures I have seen on the chrome of the light rim, I felt the 85mm was smoother and this could be translated to a more pleasant skin tone. Such test should not be undermined when compare to a more scientific test.

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 07:44
I have a big model shoot towards the end of Febuary. Maybe I can do something sooner

Jack
31st January 2014, 07:54
My take: 55 equals the 135 -- and that means it's damn good. 85 does not meet 55 or 135 until about f2.8. At f4 and 5.6, they're all lasers. I suspect photographer had on a dark blue or black shirt and his reflection from being closer is why the 55 chrome highlight looks a little smoother :D

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 08:30
I agree Jack my take as well and really to be expected between the 85 and 135 the surprise is certainly the 55, I did not expect it to that good wide open. I had neutral grey on actually

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 08:33
I actually did 2 tests but the first one I dismissed since i forgot the 2 second delay. I will post a couple of the 55 and than I will do a knock down on clarity as soon as C1 decides to wake up here. Im spinning beach balls. LOL

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 08:50
Gets a little more interesting here as I will post a straight 1.8 shot than the same shot with Minus 8 clarity and minus 23 structure. This is in C1 but the beauty here is you can take down the crispness to more a portrait style. We can always back off very easily without killing the file but you can only add so much sharpness. So nice to have a very crisp lens like the 55mm than back off when needed. I ll post full frame and crops

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2061.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2061_1.jpg

Now the crops. Im focused on the Made In the USA

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_103910.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_180600.jpg

Notice to the right or left even though out of focus how much smoother the minus clarity and structure are

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 08:53
Okay enough of knocking it down , How about at its best aperture 5.6

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_487757.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2065.jpg



Point here is you can do a lot in post and this is pretty normal I would most likely be adding clarity to a landscape shot like this

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 08:55
Oops small mistake it was -13 structure. Just caught that. My bad

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 09:01
Okay lets get back to what I WOULD do with this file at 1.8 again I added clarity 10 points added some saturation and added some vignette and now its a much better image as a piece of art now not a test bed. This would be more normal for us to do.

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2061_3.jpg

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_815335.jpg

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 09:04
Point here folks get real familiar with your post processing. As a Pro I would be a complete failure in the market not being very good in post. Do not under estimate this.

Guy Mancuso
31st January 2014, 09:11
Same settings as above image. Nice bokeh here

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2099.jpg

Guy Mancuso
1st February 2014, 04:44
Okay and I hate talking price since it is so subjective but the pundits out there complaining about its cost well I don't disagree a 1000 dollars for basically a 50 sounds like a lot of money than sure. But if you appreciate a amazing lens and have good use for it not to mention performs better than almost anything else than this is a bargain. Looking at the Otus or a Leica 50 mm that cost 7400:00 dollars for a 50 and given its performance against something like those two great lenses than it does not feel so bad. I have spent so much money on lessor quality glass that paying 1k while feeling heavy budget constraints that to me this was far worth the cost. But I'm also very serious about having the best glass in my hands as well so to me this was worth it. Your mileage will vary no doubt.

Guy Mancuso
1st February 2014, 04:47
Btw this lens feels faster than any other 1.8 lens I have used. The look seems more like a 1.4 to me. Being so sharp wide open it makes the OOF area seem like a faster falloff

Kolor-Pikker
1st February 2014, 07:04
Btw this lens feels faster than any other 1.8 lens I have used. The look seems more like a 1.4 to me. Being so sharp wide open it makes the OOF area seem like a faster falloff

The 55 seems like a scathingly sharp lens... these shots, if you'd have passed them off as medium format, I think you could've fooled some people.

The reason it looks like a 1.4 is because as the recent DxOmark tests show us, this is actually a true T1.8 lens, meaning it's physical aperture is likely larger to compensate for transmission loss. Most lenses lose anywhere from 0.2 to 1 stop in transmission relative to their advertised f/ aperture, especially zooms, some f/2.8 zooms are actually T3.2 or slower. If DxO rated the 55 as t1.8 there is no physical way it can also be f/1.8 because no glass in existence has 100% transmission.

nostatic
1st February 2014, 08:20
Point here folks get real familiar with your post processing. As a Pro I would be a complete failure in the market not being very good in post. Do not under estimate this.


Historically I've used Aperture as I'm a Mac guy. I'd flirted with LR and C1 in the past but switching required too much effort. That said, I ended up getting creative cloud and tried LR again recently when Aperture didn't have raw support I needed. I liked the output I got a little better and preferred the way the tools behaved. Now I'm trying C1 again and like the output but not sure on the way it organizes libraries.

Anyway, point being post tools can be as variable wrt quality and usability as the hardware. Easy to get stuck in old habits - though some of those habits might be good.

Makten
1st February 2014, 09:09
And there were those who complained that the 55 1.8 is a 'ridiculous price' for an ordinary 50mm lens. Sure, its expensive, but it seems to be testing in the extra-ordinary category...
Those complaining were probably fooled by the f/1.8 max aperture, which is almost exclusively found in cheap 50 mm lenses. Had it been f/2, I'm sure fewer would complain. Makes you think about what silly preconceptions a little number can introduce.


Btw this lens feels faster than any other 1.8 lens I have used. The look seems more like a 1.4 to me. Being so sharp wide open it makes the OOF area seem like a faster falloff
I don't think the aperture is larger than f/1.8, but since the background rendering is so smooth, you don't notice the background in the same way as with other similar lenses. It also has the very nice property of being able to isolate things even at ~10 meters distance. Can't say that about many other standard lenses. It looks more like medium format to me.

In my opinion, this lens is a gamechanger. I've used it for a couple of weeks and it's the best standard lens for 24x36 that I've tried so far (out of ~15 or so). I'd choose it over the Noct-Nikkor any day. The only drawback I've found is that the manual focusing ring is almost impossible to use with gloves, since the surface is level with the rest of the barrel.

Ben Rubinstein
1st February 2014, 09:11
I don't know Guy. When I got my Canon 50L I tried to match the 'look' of my old Pentax Tak Super, even matching the f1.2 to 1.4 the canon had a lot more 'modern' contrast. I rode the minus clarity but it looked like a PP rendition rather than a lens rendition. I could get close but it never really replaced the look, it would always look too modern. I'm not quite sure you can get that super sharp 55mm to give a portrait rendition in post. Colour, focus roll off, contrast, structure, it's still not going to be how they design it for a portrait lens. The great thing though is that if you want 'less' sharp there are pretty much all the rest of the world of lenses out there to choose from, most at a fraction of the price! :D.

Kolor-Pikker
1st February 2014, 09:27
I can only imagine what Sony/Zeiss will bring to the table in the future, if they can make a standard lens look this good... or perhaps this will be the norm, seeing as this is the first new digital camera system with all high resolution bodies.

dchew
1st February 2014, 09:58
I can only imagine what Sony/Zeiss will bring to the table in the future, if they can make a standard lens look this good... or perhaps this will be the norm, seeing as this is the first new digital camera system with all high resolution bodies.

It seems Sony already knows what we are figuring out: The combination of small size / high quality is what we all like. The great thing is this camera takes almost any lens. The bad thing is this camera takes almost any lens.

There is this knee jerk reaction to put a big, heavy expensive lens on this camera to extract its full potential. But when we do that we take away the basic benefit of size to quality ratio. Sorting through and settling on our preferred lenses is going to take some time because ultimately we will want excellent, but small and light lenses.

Lenses with those characteristics are precisely what Sony have produced so far...

Dave

Stefan Steib
2nd February 2014, 12:11
Hi Guy

I have recently done a Lens test on both A7/7r for DIGIT! Magazine here in Germany, also with with the 1,8/55mm Zeiss, the 1,4/55mm Otus, a 1,4/35mm ZE the 2,0/135mm ApoSonnar ZE, and also a Sony SAL 1,8/135mm , an (APS-C) SAL 1,8/35, a SAL 2,8/50mm Macro and 2 Zeiss CP2 Cine lenses in emount a 15mm Distagon and a 135mm(=Apo Sonnar).

The Surprises of this test were a) the SAL 1,8/35mm
even when used only in crop format this is incredibly sharp (and cheap) should make a perfect prime for a Nex 7.
b) the 1,8/55mm Zeiss which is very close to the Otus. For most people this should probably do. The Otus has a unique cleanness coming from the total lack of chroma in unfocus areas, even in opposite lights, an even higher saturation and definition and a superior sharpness in the edges especially at open aperture 1,4. At f5,6 they look very, very close.

My personal favourite: the SAL1,8/135 Sony !
It is about as sharp as the Apo Sonnar, has half a stop more open aperture and Autofocus ! Itīs a monster , a huge piece of glass, but what a lens.

I had also compared these with my Hartbleiīs 40,80 and 120 and it is amazing how good these "old" MF lenses were keeping pace with the best of the best of todays 35mm constructions.

There will be full res testchart (a modified 80x100cm siemens star Nurizon Acolens + Gretag DC Target and some more special modifications) ARMīs for both the A7 and the A7r available for download. The tests were shot with Highspeed flash of about 1/10000sec to make sure that there is no influence of any shutter bounce movements.

The part 1 of the test is already out , part 2 with al the test charts and further workflow findings (Shift and tilt, all kind of adapters, e.g. Contax G lenses with autofocus working !!!, Nikon G-ED 14-24 and more) will appear in DIGIT! issue 2 in end of march.

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

Guy Mancuso
2nd February 2014, 12:16
Look forward to reading them.

I was thinking of the Sony 135 1.8 as I have the Sony adapter already. Just have a hard time giving up my Zeiss 135 f2 as that is killer good. Glad to hear of the 55 here as I know wide open we would need to fix the Ca and such wide open. You can see the sensor bloom here in this test. Actually the Z 135 is the best in that area between the three tested here.

narikin
3rd February 2014, 09:50
I agree that the 55mm Sony-Zeiss is an excellent lens - right up there, but it is a shame the Otus is not in your comparison Guy. As nearly everyone says, the Otus is in another league, certainly in the wider apertures. From DigiLloyd to Ming Thein to Lens Rentals there is pretty universal praise that this is simply the best lens ever made for a 35mm type camera.

"the finest lens ever produced for a 35mm SLR or DSLR (or rangefinder). It sets a new benchmark."

"It really is quite possibly the best lens I have ever used, for any format"

"The Zeiss Otus outperforms all other lenses in a degree I have never seen before. Even at open aperture it already reaches a resolution that the other lenses can not deliver before stopped down to f/4.0."

This (http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&catid=40&Itemid=2&limitstart=2) is an interesting German test, which whilst admitting the Sony Zeiss is very impressive, puts the Otus likewise in a class of its own.

I own both Zeiss 55mm lenses, and agree that the Sony-Zeiss 55mm is kind of an Otus-lite, but it is not really there if you want to work with 36Mp below f2.8 (arguably, and certainly f2) for shallow focus, especially if asking for excellent edge definition, and zero CA, then only the Otus itself will do.

Guy Mancuso
3rd February 2014, 10:27
You know as nice as the Otus seems to be i personally would not spend it on a 55mm. A 180, 85mm or a 24mm than I would consider it but to me its a boring FOV. I do need one though but this Sony if perfect for my needs. Would i have liked to test the Otus you bet but to own it its another story. I can buy a lot for its price tag. Don't get me wrong I have spent 6500.00 on a Leica 35-70 2.8 so i am not shy about costs but 50mm area is not my heart throb.

Thomas Fallon
3rd February 2014, 13:44
I am thinking that stitched frames of a 55 Otus would make a fantastic wide angle.

Bill Caulfeild-Browne
4th February 2014, 12:30
Got my Sony/Zeiss 55 f1.8 today and did some quick and dirty testing. At full aperture, I think this the sharpest lens I have ever used. On the a7r it beats my 'Lux 50 ASPH.

Worth every penny of the US$900 I paid for it.

Bill

Guy Mancuso
4th February 2014, 13:37
Awesome Bill. Yea its actually a little scary how good this dang thing is.

tashley
4th February 2014, 14:23
It really is. I'm practically pinching myself.

narikin
4th February 2014, 14:30
Once again... if you think that's good - try the Otus!

It's on another plane, above and beyond.

tashley
4th February 2014, 14:49
I get that but frankly, I don't need any more and in fact, having something this small and light and with AF beats a superfluity of IQ for my needs!

Joe Colson
4th February 2014, 14:59
At full aperture, I think this the sharpest lens I have ever used. On the a7r it beats my 'Lux 50 ASPH.

Worth every penny of the US$900 I paid for it.

Bill

I agree Bill. It's sharper than my 50mm Summilux ASPH, even when the Summilux is mounted on the M 240. Amazingly sharp.

Joe

jaree
4th February 2014, 16:02
Sharpness aside, how about colors and rendering, compared to the Summilux? I am tempted by the 55FE - is it really THAT GOOD compared to the Summilux on A7/R or Summilux on M9/M240?

I need one native AF lens for my A7 - can't decide whether to get the 24-70 when it is available or get the 55FE. I like 50mm focal length.

Eeraj

tashley
4th February 2014, 16:19
If the zoom is good it'll be more useful in the sense of versatile, but everyone needs at least one lens that really shows the wow of what the camera can do...

Guy Mancuso
4th February 2014, 16:25
Yea the zoom for me is more for the PR type work not so much the high end quality images for landscape or other client work. My bet is has no real look to it anyway and like many 24-70 versions out there. Useful no doubt but no mojo.

jaree
4th February 2014, 16:33
Thanks gents. My primary use will be for landscapes and some walk-around work. I guess I should just get the kits lens for walk-around and stick to MF for other work.

Eeraj

Guy Mancuso
4th February 2014, 16:36
My A7r is my landscape unit so manual lenses are perfect and the A7 is for AF but no harm in mixing the lenses around that 55 will always get thrown in the bag regardless of what I am shooting.

narikin
4th February 2014, 16:38
I get that but frankly, I don't need any more and in fact, having something this small and light and with AF beats a superfluity of IQ for my needs!

Understood, and I have no wish to rain on anyone's parade! I own both for precisely the reason you say - to have the option of smaller lighter lens with high IQ and AF, and/or the Otus for the ultimate IQ available to ordinary mortals.

(and without wishing to be a crashing bore, its not simply sharpness, but the complete lack of Chromatic Abberation in the Otus at wider apertures means colors are much cleaner, and have a purity I have not seen elsewhere. No blurry futz around details. Very good light suppression internally also helps. Yes its a beast, and that annoys me, but I can live with it for what you get in return)

On a more general note:

Zeiss call the Otus an 'Apo-Distagon', which seems to be the way all ultra IQ wide angles are going, MF and FF. I think Rodenstock took this path already with their newest range of MF lenses, with highly corrected semi-retrofocal wides. But of course 'Distagon' is a Zeiss name, so they can't use that. Apo-Retrofocal seems to be the way ahead for standard to wide angle lengths, as we hit the buffers with old lens designs, used on digital sensors

tashley
4th February 2014, 16:41
If I end up with the Otus, I'm sending you the bill!

Bill Caulfeild-Browne
4th February 2014, 16:59
Me too!

Luvwine
5th February 2014, 05:35
I have no interest in the Otus on the A7r as the size is too much to me on the A7r. For most uses, I suspect there is no practical difference between it and the FE 55. Having said this, I do have a Lux 50 and think in a few ways it has advantages over the FE 55. To my eyes, at large apertures in the center the Lux 50 is a hair better (note this only applies to close distances, not at infinity). Also, I find the out of focus highlights to be a bit better corrected--slightly less color fringing (usually green) on OOF disks, etc. in general, both have lovely bokeh but this, combined with the ability to use F 1.4 has me prefer the Lux 50 bokeh. it is also nicer to use for manual focus and the FE 55 AF is not always accurate--especially at closer distances in low light. Thus, I use the Lux 50 for low light/portraiture/creative use when corner to corner sharpness us not a concern. Now, overall, the FE 55 is way better than the Lux on the A7r. Away from dead center, and especially at the edges and corners, and at any aperture (other than 1.4;) the FE 55 is sharper. It goes in my bag for infinity use, travel, or any time I want AF.

narikin
5th February 2014, 06:21
If I end up with the Otus, I'm sending you the bill!

No problem! just send it to:

Mr M Mouse,
Anaheim,
California.

narikin
5th February 2014, 06:34
I have no interest in the Otus on the A7r as the size is too much to me on the A7r.

Yes, agree, kind of, but... the point of putting up with that is:

The A7R can do things that no D800/E can do - it has a quality EVF, with focus peaking and instant magnification of user selectable focus area. And that focus is direct from the sensor, with no errors. So it is arguably the best camera to use a manual focus lens on. Switch the EVF to B&W viewing, (your RAW file is still full color) set Focus Peaking to Red and 'High', and focus pops out clearer than any other camera I know of. This is why they make a surprisingly good combination. But... YMMV, of course!

Luvwine
5th February 2014, 07:26
Agreed and most if my lenses are manual focus including WATE, CV 35 1.2, Lux 50, and 90 Cron apo. I just like smaller than 2.2 pound manual focus lenses when I can get them!

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 08:57
Getting back to the 55mm FE. Just in case you where wondering if this lens was good at distance wide open well if this is not a answer i really don't have a better answer. OUTSTANDING

No that is not lens distortion but a very old crooked building. LOL

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2340.jpg

THIS IS WIDE OPEN FOLKS> Handheld

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_148627.jpg

Now that my friends is a HOLY ****

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 09:02
Now of ALL the advice i have given to this forum and its members let me be so dang bold and just say this if you don't buy this lens than your just a dumb ***.

I mean that in the most totally respective way. Okay i can't stop laughing as that is something I should not be saying but I love you folks so pardon my immense bluntness here. Yes you all gave me a hall pass on this one.

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 09:04
Ill go pray for forgiveness now. Guess what lens

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2332.jpg

Stefan Steib
10th February 2014, 10:09
Guy

I would join you on that advice. For under 1k this is a bargain and a joy, more so - a little miracle. But even on top of this, the Otus has a bit more of everything, though for a hefty plus on payment. A bit like the final last 5 % of a very highend audio equipment, the difference between 95% and 98% may cost 5 or even 10x the price.

For all the normal people, who just want to take great images, this little 1,8/55 is a killer........

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 10:14
It really is and I am VERY afraid of even trying the Otus. LOL

Bill Caulfeild-Browne
10th February 2014, 11:20
After a few more comparos, I've sold my 50 'Lux, something I thought I'd never do. But the EF 55 is just that good. And it's lighter, and it's autofocus. (So I lose a half-stop - big deal.)

narikin
10th February 2014, 11:42
For all the normal people, who just want to take great images, this little 1,8/55 is a killer........

Stefan

There aren't any normal people here, are there?

tashley
10th February 2014, 11:43
I'm headed the same way Bill. In fact all my Leica gear is going apart from the 90mm Macro Elmar.

Michiel Schierbeek
10th February 2014, 12:01
Getting back to the 55mm FE. Just in case you where wondering if this lens was good at distance wide open well if this is not a answer i really don't have a better answer. OUTSTANDING

No that is not lens distortion but a very old crooked building. LOL

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/1/_dsc2340.jpg



Those American bricklayers need a level as well! :p

I don't have that lens yet. I am thinking of what to sell....

jlindstrom
10th February 2014, 12:01
I'm headed the same way Bill. In fact all my Leica gear is going apart from the 90mm Macro Elmar.

You're late in the game! I part-ex'd my Leica M-gear for the A7R + 35/55/24-70 Zeiss trio. Still waiting for the Zeiss zoom to arrive though.

Only lens I'm slightly regretting of not keeping was my lovely elmarit-m 90/2.8 which would have apparently been great on the A7R. Maybe I need to re-purchase it later on.. but I'll wait and check the upcoming native Zeiss FE 85mm first.

//Juha

ps. next on the line is my Leica X2 as I'm thinking RX-1R.. but I heard it would be a wise choice to hold on for a bit, before jumping the RX1 wagon.. good things are to come!

Luvwine
10th February 2014, 12:42
Odd, I am loving the Leica glass on the A7r. Maybe it is just a case of never having been able to use Leica glass before (not having owned a Leica body), but I really like the Leica WATE on the A7r, the 90/2 Cron APO is amazing, and even the Lux 50 is good for close up wide open portrait uses. Not sure the Lux 50 is really justifiable in addition to the FE 55, but I am in no hurry to sell. Even picked up a 135/3.4 APO for small size and reach. I will also get the 70-200/4 for the range and the OSS. Maybe it will be good enough to make me sell the 135, but given the weight and size differential (as well as corner sharpness if the MTF's are accurate), there will likely be a place in my bag for the 135 depending upon what I am doing.

lambert
10th February 2014, 13:05
After a few more comparos, I've sold my 50 'Lux, something I thought I'd never do. But the EF 55 is just that good. And it's lighter, and it's autofocus. (So I lose a half-stop - big deal.)

Same here. My 50 LUX ASPH was the one Leica lens I said I would never sell. But the FE 55 is so much better in every way, so I sold the LUX. Amazingly, the proceeds from the sale of the LUX paid for my A7R, FE55 and FE24-70. Well almost ... I had to tip in $100 :)

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 13:45
Just to save weight for landscape work I may get a M 90 cron or elmarit and leave the ZA 85mm home on those gigs. I'm still debating that one though but under like the 85 I see no reason to try and save weight and bulk there with M glass. My Zeiss 35 and Leica 19 are really not big and heavy. Btw don't let the size of Leica glass fool you either they are heavy a lot of them. I did sell the Z135 and ordered the Sony 135 1.8 new today. Here I get the benefit of AF but lose the 1.4 converter as I don't see anything that will work with it?

Right now I'm in debate on the zoom. Since I have the Z35 Nikon mount the 55 I thought about the 24ZA instead. Or I could sell the z35 get a z 28 and get the zoom. I just have this gap between 19 & 35 that's bugging me. Really my last glass decision as all my glass is stellar. I just know from experience 24-70 zooms are not great at the widest focal length and from images I seen so far it distorts pretty heavy at 24. I guess this one we will know soon enough as more folks are getting them. It's not that it looks real bad but just want to be sure about.

ShooterSteve
10th February 2014, 14:13
Great work on this review Guy. We thank you for the time and trouble. I may also jump on this Sony 55mm with my A7R order going out any day now. One question that still bothering me - did you have any evidence of the shutter vibration problem in all you testing? It's obvious your shots are razor sharp even with the 135, but did you intentionally compensate for it?

tashley
10th February 2014, 14:28
Guy, I think the Zeiss 21 F2.8 is great on the A7R with an adaptor. What is stellar and tiny and perfect for travel and hiking is the 90 Macro Elmar, though it is an F4...

tashley
10th February 2014, 14:29
Steve, not sure what Guy will say but I am somewhat ambiguous on this. I think I see it sometimes, at 160th in particular, but then I often get very good results at 1/60th handheld if I brace properly. I also think the VGrip improves things.

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 14:31
No shutter vibration on all my glass except one time doing a vertical in Yosemite with the 135 I seen some evidence on it. I owe a lot of this to adapters too as i have found some real issues on adapters coming from the camera mount like pulling away. Need to check your screws on these adapters as everyone of mine was not real tight. Now i think when you get to longer glass this is more evident with shutter vibration but it happens with a lot of systems as well. I also found your camera plates to be aware of as well and stability. I have the RRS L bracket on this and it runs the full length of the bottom which in my mind gives a much more stable base for the camera. A good head and some nice legs as well. But don't put to much into the tripod . You don't need a series 5 gitzo for example. Anything that has a weight class of about 26 lbs should be fine. I have a great ballhead in the Arca Z1 which i had for several years now and can't recommend it enough as I used it on Tech cams and every Medium Format system I had so I'm built pretty solid now but I would not run out and buy the most expensive tripod and head. If you have long glass like any system you want a good balance in the weight of the glass. I know some folks have run into this more and not sure exactly why that is but it has not been a issue for me.

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 14:34
Guy, I think the Zeiss 21 F2.8 is great on the A7R with an adaptor. What is stellar and tiny and perfect for travel and hiking is the 90 Macro Elmar, though it is an F4...

Yea the Z 21 is great but having that Leica 19mm R is just killer good. I absolutely love that lens. I had the 90 macro at one time and your right that was a nice lens. Ill keep that one in mind for sure, thanks Tim.

ShooterSteve
10th February 2014, 15:43
Guy,

I always assumed I would need to mount the tripod on the lens adapter and not the camera body for better balance and less stress on the mounts, (when using larger adapted lenses of course).

Ben Rubinstein
10th February 2014, 21:10
Now of ALL the advice i have given to this forum and its members let me be so dang bold and just say this if you don't buy this lens than your just a dumb ***.

I mean that in the most totally respective way. Okay i can't stop laughing as that is something I should not be saying but I love you folks so pardon my immense bluntness here. Yes you all gave me a hall pass on this one.

One dumb **** reporting in. :D There's more to a lens than sharpness and I personally do not enjoy the rendering style of this 55mm. Especially for people work. Way too clinical for my tastes. That and I've never liked the zeiss 'look' anyway. Heresy I know but there it is.

jlindstrom
10th February 2014, 21:20
One dumb **** reporting in. :D There's more to a lens than sharpness and I personally do not enjoy the rendering style of this 55mm. Especially for people work. Way too clinical for my tastes. That and I've never liked the zeiss 'look' anyway. Heresy I know but there it is.

First, I like my 55.

With that I totally understand what you're saying, heresy or not :-) I was quite annoyed with Zeiss 28 on my previous M9 due to it's signature. It seemed to give the photos this certain "cartoonish" character, with the lack of any better way of explaining it...

Anyway, if you don't like the Zeiss way then these FE 55/35 lenses are probably not for you..

And unless you're big on manual focus with mirrorless, it actually means the whole A7/A7r system is probably not the best choice either since most af lenses will be Zeiss..

//Juha

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 21:24
One reason I like the 85 1.4 glass out there it's just a much nicer people lens and having the 135 1.8 I should have two longish glass for that people look.

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2014, 21:26
I do agree though Ben if Zeiss is not your cup of tea per say. It's going to be a little tough since Sony uses Zeiss in there native glass on all there systems. But we do have bolt on options for sure.

Ben Rubinstein
11th February 2014, 10:23
Got 4 lenses for my A7r, non are AF. Suits me. Lens sharpness and accurate focus are bourgeois concepts anyway... :ROTFL:

Seriously though, my favourite (http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=24724&c=315) picture taken in a month was from today. I was using peaking at f1.4 and it was far from perfect on a lens that's soft as heck wide open anyway.

nostatic
11th February 2014, 11:07
Now of ALL the advice i have given to this forum and its members let me be so dang bold and just say this if you don't buy this lens than your just a dumb ***.
.

Hopefully it is ok to be a dumb ** and still buy the 55. Otherwise I've broken some law or something... :D

I have to say the A7/55 along with the RX1r is a pretty ridiculous 1-2 punch. Though I still keep lusting for an A7r...

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 11:43
You just need to buy it it and get it over with. Lol

nostatic
11th February 2014, 11:51
oh, you're a lot of help. My cc is still stinging from the RX1r, though at least I picked it up used for $1800 (which feels like a deal to me).

I could get rid of the kit zoom that would pay for like 15% of the A7r. Heck, that's most of the price, right? Right?!?!?

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 11:54
Sony sale going on. I'm so bad.LOL

jlindstrom
11th February 2014, 12:01
You just need to buy it it and get it over with. Lol

True, true.. he just needs to buy!

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

//Juha

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 12:01
I think I'm going to buy a ZA24, sell my Zeiss 35 f2. Than I would have this 24-55 gap . Nice little trick with both cams but the A7r is can go into crop mode and get a 30mm out of it. Its 1.3 ? . I need to check.

Here is why . My feeling the 24-70 is going to be not so hot at 24, so I can have a great Za24 and use the zoom from 28mm on. At 28mm I figure the zoom should be good by than.
And with the 7R I still get a 24 mpx cam . Not to bad


That would give me a Leica 19, ZA 24, 24-70 FE ,55Fe, ZA 85 1.4 and the 135 1.8 ZA. That would be a awesome kit.

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 12:03
To get there just need to sell my 35 Zeiss . Than 1200 for the zoom and I'm in.

Like my fuzzy logic. I'm such a lens slut. LOL

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 12:06
Okay more fuzzy logic . I'm going with ZA for now until more FE because first there Zeiss second there AF but more important they are the only lenses around that are nice to focus manually. They have feel which many AF lenses do not. And they are all kickass good.

jlindstrom
11th February 2014, 12:06
I believe the crop is 1.5, so same as nex series aps-c. So you'd have a 36mm instead of a 30.

//Juha

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 12:11
Great so really than have a 24mm, cropped 36 until I get the zoom and 55. That's perfect gapping. Done I'm committed

I have the Sony AF adapter but I may add the manual version too. I can use one or the other depending on what I'm doing. So I get down to one Leica R adapter bolted on the 19mm. I can sell my Nikon Novaflex although I shaved the coupler inside so its really for ZF. 2 lenses and F lenses now. Than just my Sony adapters . I like less adapters

nostatic
11th February 2014, 12:13
Sony sale going on. I'm so bad.LOL

Actually my local shop was doing a "trade in" sale on the bodies. This was right before the lens deal hit. If I was a frugal guy I'd swap the A7 kit for an A7r body and 24-70/4 lens (and cancel the one I have on order with Adorama). I'm still within my exchange time period and my local shop likes me because they get plenty of my $.

That swap would actually be about a wash financially when all is said and done. A couple hundred off the body, $200 off the lens. Then the only thing I'd really be missing is the EFC on the A7 but I think I could learn to live with the double clack. The RX1r is dead silent so not sure I need the middle ground of the A7 shutter. And then I get all those extra AA-free pixels. Mmmm, pixels...

Guy Mancuso
11th February 2014, 12:21
Honestly I have yet to have any real issue with the A7r but I also don't have any lenses that would create one either. The shutter does not bother me. My A7 sits in the safe or is backup. I'll use it for certain things like when I need the Phase AF and my shows I do. It's me but I like a lot of MPX it gives me options and my clients. But remember you can't go by me either since I'm shooting for commerce. So my choices are more needs than wants.

nostatic
11th February 2014, 12:29
Need...want...there's a difference? :ROTFL:

While I don't get directly paid for shooting, it ends up being part of my day-job description and stuff does show up in online published pieces. For whatever reason I've bonded with the A7, but will admit that I consistently prefer the shots I see from the non-AA cameras (A7r and the RX1r I just picked up). I've already become a less lazy shooter, adapting to the A7 so I only see up-sides in going with the r. I've been shooting some with the EFC off and have gotten more used to the sound/feel of the shutter.

I'm hoping for an A8 with no AA and a leaf shutter. In the meantime, seems that RX1r and A7r would cover things...

jonoslack
11th February 2014, 12:38
Here is why . My feeling the 24-70 is going to be not so hot at 24, so I can have a great Za24 and use the zoom from 28mm on. At 28mm I figure the zoom should be good by than.

Hi Guy
I'm absorbing all this information . . . . . and biding my time - I'm watching Todd's remorse on his A7 purchase . . . . but I like the EFC for hand holding on the A7

As far as the zoom is concerned - have I been lucky? my kit zoom is stupidly sharp (for any kind of a zoom) from corner to corner - I was hoping that the 24-70 woulf have been the holy grail, but if it's only really good from 18-50 I think I'll hang on to the kit zoom - the expensive one doesn't really seem to offerr too much extra..

I really like the A7, and if I decide to go down the Sony route I'll keep it and get the A7r for manual focus. . . .but I have a project to shoot with the M at the moment, so the decision is best left for a few weeks.

That 55 looks impossible to resist though . . . . . . and unlike some, it's a focal length I'm really fond of.

nostatic
11th February 2014, 13:07
Hi Guy
I'm absorbing all this information . . . . . and biding my time - I'm watching Todd's remorse on his A7 purchase . . . . but I like the EFC for hand holding on the A7

<snip>

That 55 looks impossible to resist though . . . . . . and unlike some, it's a focal length I'm really fond of.

Remorse is such a strong word. Perhaps, "consternation". :D The EFC actually is what has kept me on the fence to-date. To me it just feels more solid from a user perspective with the single snick.

I love the 55, and the only niggle I have with the RX1r is that I generally like to shoot a bit longer than 35mm.

jonoslack
11th February 2014, 13:47
Remorse is such a strong word. Perhaps, "consternation". :D The EFC actually is what has kept me on the fence to-date. To me it just feels more solid from a user perspective with the single snick.

I love the 55, and the only niggle I have with the RX1r is that I generally like to shoot a bit longer than 35mm.

Hi there Todd
well, whether it's remorse or consternation . . . my feeling is that until an A8 comes out with 36mp and EFC one really needs both cameras . . . . .or none, I don't really relate to 35mm so I've easily avoided the Rx1.

What I do know is that as a very early buyer of the A7r, I was not in love, but the A7 is a great camera. Right now I have my foot in the water, just considering whether to slip off the side of the pool but if I do, I think that both bodies are relevant.

What I have understood is that (for me at least) it's not an alternative for my RF lenses - but for Leica R lenses (I have a few) and for the native Sony lenses it's a real contender.

dithering

nostatic
11th February 2014, 13:56
Jono, I'm not adapting any legacy glass so that aspect of the A7r is a moot consideration for me (I've got some L glass but too big and heavy for my taste). It really comes down to the shutter being the only difference for a user like me with native lenses. I love love love the 55/1.8 and ability to crop a 36mp file would turn it into a de facto longer lens when need be.

For me, there are situations where I need a totally silent shutter. I was planning on just using my RX100ii for that, and while it works, once you start messing with the A7 files in post the ones from the 1" sensor are just at a huge disadvantage. I start wanting my cake and being able to eat it as well - with ice cream! Hence my picking up the RX1r and putting up with 35mm focal length.

An A8 with a leaf shutter and no AA filter would be a "sell everything else and give me a pair please" moment.

jonoslack
11th February 2014, 14:24
An A8 with a leaf shutter and no AA filter would be a "sell everything else and give me a pair please" moment.

I do still love rangefinders, so the M bodies aren't up for grabs, but with that exception I'm with you

jlindstrom
11th February 2014, 19:45
I don't really relate to 35mm so I've easily avoided the Rx1.

In many ways I'm on the same boat. I've tried to love 35 and it's hard... but as my small camera I'm currently using the Leica X2 and I'm slowly starting to get the grips with a 35 when using that. With that the RX-1r is looking pretty interesting, but I've heard through the grape wine that it's not perhaps the best time to buy it just yet. It's massively expensive here at 3100€ or close 4200USD!!

But on the A7r, it's the 55 that's been bolted on so far. When it comes to lens choices, I'm mostly a 50's kinda guy. Even that 55 is on the edge of being a bit long.. but quality considered, I'm willing to live with it :)

Also I quite liked 90 on my previous M9. So that's something I need to sort out with the A7r as well. Hopefully the native Zeiss 85/1.4 will be out soon or otherwise I'm already eyeing a nice mint sample of Hexanon M 90/2.8, since those are somewhat cheaper than the elmarit-m 90's, but from what I gather optically pretty similar.

I think I'd also like to try those 135's, but there's no way I'll lug around 1kg+ lenses. So if Zeiss doens't come up with a native 135 that's light weight, I'll start eyeballing the Leica apo 135.

//Juha

Guy Mancuso
21st February 2014, 09:34
Just did a test between the Sony Zeiss ZA 135 1.8 and the 55FE 1.8 and without posting images I have to say the 135 1.8 maybe slightly better than both the 55mm FE and the Zeiss 135mm F2 ZF.2.

Its very very slight so not worth going through all the effort of a all out test. But I am impressed by the Sony 135mm 1.8. I was just checking it against the 55FE since we know how good that should be in this thread.

The one thing I have noticed in the 55mm FE is the colors are more neutral compared to the Zeiss 85, 135 and sony 135 which tend to be warmer by about 400 kelvin. I noticed this in the beginning of this thread. Something to be aware of when doing the same gig and switching lenses.

This might be worthy of testing folks is the color output of these lenses

ecsh
21st February 2014, 10:52
I hit the buy button on a 135 1.8 last night, and should have it next week. I really don't mind the LAE4 adapter on the 7r, and have been using it with the CZ50 lens i have. Nice combo. I will compare the 135 to that lens once it arrives. RRS also makes an L bracket for the adapter, so it does not have to be on the body itself.

Guy Mancuso
21st February 2014, 11:03
Have to look at that. I could use it

Guy Mancuso
21st February 2014, 11:09
Just ordered it . Have a big gig Wednesday shooting verticals. I can use it for my 85 and 135. I actually did not have a good solution for this. This is perfect. Thanks for letting me know

ecsh
22nd February 2014, 06:57
It works well. Nice piece of machining. I did not want to bother with the body bracket since i use the grip, and they have nothing for that. This is a very good alternative.

Guy Mancuso
22nd February 2014, 07:32
Agree don't want anything for the grip so this will work nice when I use longer lenses like the 85,135 and I'll probably get the high speed 200 when I get some cash. It has no lens bracket so this will be perfect.