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!
I agree. If one needs true and extensive macro capability then the 90 Macro is a better option. The 100mm is better for people that want a "portrait" or a "look" lens that can provide limited Macro capability (when compared to a dedicated Macro lens).If you shoot a lot of stuff on a close distance (not macro) in good light, the 100 STF will shine. On everything else, the 90/2.8 G Macro may be the better solution.
Thanks for the feedback!I agree. If one needs true and extensive macro capability then the 90 Macro is a better option. The 100mm is better for people that want a "portrait" or a "look" lens that can provide limited Macro capability (when compared to a dedicated Macro lens).
Absolutely!The real purpose (and advantage) of the STF over the macro is the buttersmooth bokeh, if that's what you're after.
The Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 fills the bill...small, light weight, and very sharp lens (and AF) as well. I really want a 24-70mm f4 lens as my walk around lens for the A7RII....but not the Sony Zeiss f4----it is VERY weak from all reviews; terrible distortion, depending on in camera profiles to correct them (JPG only---I shoot RAW only). A third party (Sigma, Tamron) could find a niche here.Absolutely!
It's really nice to see Sony - that once bought Minolta and (AFAIK) kept a large part of Minolta's lens designers - extending this part of its history. The old 2.8/135 STF back than was reason enough for quite a few people to buy into the Minolta system. Just as the Zeiss 4/120 APO Macro lens was reason enough for people to buy into Contax 645...
Special lenses make people buy into a system.
A great fast 50mm or 85mm is not what sets a system apart today (because all brands have very, very good offerings).
I wonder why they don't offer top quality Zeiss Tilt/Shift Lenses. These kind of lenses would make the system even more interessting. I would also love to see slow but (optically) extremely well corrected and small lenses... something like a f2.8 (or f3.5)/28mm or a f2.8 (or f3.5 or even f4)/35mm with literally no distortion and no CAs.
Anyway... the STF is a really nice specialty-lens that makes the system as a whole much more interessting...
The lens is T5.6 and F/2.8. If it were F/2.0 it would still be T4.0 at best so not really suitable for low light.Then there was my preference that Sony would've made this an f/2 lens (even if it would mean a 77mm filter ring size) to be able to shoot at lower ISO and still retain the super creamy bokeh. Even still I'm seriously considering selling my 85 Batis and 135/1.8 A-mount to get this one.
Yeah I know but I want the f/2 DoF. It's useful for artistic portraits or when you want more shallow DoF. The Contax Yashica 100/2 is one of my favorite lenses ever. The light transmission would be T4.0 (or is it T3.9/T4.1... who knows without measurements) but the DoF would given would still be f/2 (despite ~T4 light transmission) if that were the case as well.The lens is T5.6 and F/2.8. If it were F/2.0 it would still be T4.0 at best so not really suitable for low light.