Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

[douglasf13]

No problem. There are a couple of good online Alpha lens rental places in the US that you may wanna consider in order to get a feel for some of the more expensive lenses.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Well since I have a friend at Sony, I will call upon him to get me the kit, after all I might be Producing/Directing their high end Commercials for the Sony Style,
so that should count for something

 

[Eoin]

It's a difficult choice to pick your first 2 lenses from the 4 Zeiss offerings. I couldn't do it so I bought all 4. Truth be told and for what I like to shoot the 24-70 and the 85 are my most used lenses. I prefer the 85 for portraits over the 24-70 but much prefer the 135 for portraits in general. However space constraints usually dictate the 85 is chosen over the 135 but given space the 135 is my goto lens. It's one beautiful optic that even the 85 has a hard time competing with IMO.

With regard to the 16-35 and 24-70, I see no obvious vignetting in the 16-35. Again choosing between the 2 given the overlap in focal length I really only use the 16-35 for ultra wide shots. I find it excellent at all FL but suffers a bit with distortion at the wide end.

Without knowing what and how you shoot, it's hard to recommend which path to take. I could get by with the 24-70 & 135 as a 2 lens setup, but I wouldn't give up my 16-35 or 85 now.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Thanks Eoin, very well put toughs.

I shoot mainly Portrait, with predominantly Beauty Shots, full body shots, have about 20%, of my work were, mid body shots have about 30% and 50% is done as Beauty shots, face only with at times a bit of shoulder showing, this is in regards to portrait work, which in turn it takes about 70% of all my work, leaving 20% to Landscape and 10% to Architecture.

So as you can see Portrait has the absolute priority, and since I don't do weddings and such, but concentrate most of my work in High end commercial work, both in Studio and on field, I say my strongest focal have always been the 85 & 135, also the 135 been my most used, even so the 85 1.2 II from Canon had seen more use then any other 85 used in the years past.

The wide angle is really a need for those occasions when a landscape or architecture shots comes along, but the again I never really do Super Wide as I always need to avoid Distortion, but now days that too is easy to eliminate in post.

Because this will be a set up carried along with my Cinema gear I only have very limited space, but I absolutely want to fit in a full size camera body and Lenses, just no many.

If the Sony 20mm was better or at list as good as the 16-35 or 24-70 at their 20mm Focal, my choices would be as fallows.

A) *Sony 20 - CZ 85 - CZ 135

B) *CZ 16-35 - CZ 85

C) *CZ 24-70 - CZ 135

Again absolute the highest IQ and sharpness of the lens is a must and a priority here, I would put the 35 in the mix as well but I do need to have at list a wide range near the 20mm.

 

[Eoin]

Well Ketch, if you have the space required for full body shots with a 135mm, then this is absolutely the lens to have. In a straight shootout between a 135 & 85 the 135 is so much better in every respect, almost in a class of it's own.

My favorite lens of all time was my EF 85 L when I shot Canon. I still admire and can pick the images I've shot with this lens. I never found a lens which gratified my soul to the same extent until I found the ZA 135 f:/1.8. Serious hunk of glass with extreme image quality the 85L never had, yet has the painterly smooth bokeh of the 85L.

You owe it to yourself to purchase this lens first, providing you can use it or the 24-70 for full body shots.

 

[Cerebus]

No one's mentioned it, but Kurt Munger did a quick comparison between the Sony 16-35mm vs the Minolta 20mm here ( you have to scroll down):

http://kurtmunger.com/lenscomparisonpageid113.html

Hope it helps.

eric

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Well Ketch, if you have the space required for full body shots with a 135mm, then this is absolutely the lens to have. In a straight shootout between a 135 & 85 the 135 is so much better in every respect, almost in a class of it's own.

My favorite lens of all time was my EF 85 L when I shot Canon. I still admire and can pick the images I've shot with this lens. I never found a lens which gratified my soul to the same extent until I found the ZA 135 f:/1.8. Serious hunk of glass with extreme image quality the 85L never had, yet has the painterly smooth bokeh of the 85L.

You owe it to yourself to purchase this lens first, providing you can use it or the 24-70 for full body shots.

Thanks again Eoin, the 135 will be definitely in my Bag!!

No one's mentioned it, but Kurt Munger did a quick comparison between the Sony 16-35mm vs the Minolta 20mm here ( you have to scroll down):

http://kurtmunger.com/lenscomparisonpageid113.html

Hope it helps.

eric

Thanks Eric, great Link and comparison there.

 

[wayne_s]

Eoin,
Do you think the 135 is sharper than the 85?
How does the za 85 compare to the 85Lmk2,especially wide open?

Ketch,
Since portrait and fashion shooting is large percentage of your work, I would think that the 135, 85, and a fast 50'ish prime would be a good choice.If MF is ok with you, then a nice Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 with its world class bokeh would be sweet.Just another alternative which would be smaller than the zooms.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Eoin,
Do you think the 135 is sharper than the 85?
How does the za 85 compare to the 85Lmk2,especially wide open?

This I can answer for you, as every one has told me the same, and also coming from personal experience in every format ever used in the past twenty years I have always found the 135's always sharper then the 85's, especially so with the remarkable 135L against even the newer 85L II which I had, so I assume that is just the same on the Sony Zeiss, and every one confirmed so, even in this thread if you read all posts.

Ketch,
Since portrait and fashion shooting is large percentage of your work, I would think that the 135, 85, and a fast 50'ish prime would be a good choice.If MF is ok with you, then a nice Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 with its world class bokeh would be sweet.Just another alternative which would be smaller than the zooms

I have considered such lens and now that you also recommend it I will definitely give it a shot, will be testing and shooting it as well as the Sony 50 1.4 as every also seem to think is great lens, but I imagine not as good as the Gold series such as the 35, but will be testing it against the 24-70 at 50.

 

[Steen]

As far as I know the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 has the old manual focus Minolta MC mount, not the Minolta A mount (now Sony Alpha mount).
So I think you would need to have the lens mount converted.

 

[wayne_s]

As far as I know the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 has the old manual focus Minolta MC mount, not the Minolta A mount (now Sony Alpha mount).
So I think you would need to have the lens mount converted.

Yes, you need to convert the lens.I have seen ones converted to sony a-mount on ebay before.
I see Eoin has one.
The conversion was very simple for canon mount, I did it for both my copies.
Should be pretty easy to convert to a-mount.
If not the Rokkor, maybe some other fast 50 like sony 50.

 

[Eoin]

Eoin,
Do you think the 135 is sharper than the 85?
How does the za 85 compare to the 85Lmk2,especially wide open?

Absolute sharpness is one element, micro contrast is another factor, I don't know how to decipher one from the other but in terms of what I consider image sharpness, yes the 135 is sharper (my copy anyway) than the ZA 85. I'm not saying my 85 is not sharp, on the contrary it's very sharp. But the 135 has a depth and quality in the image (micro contrast ?) that is somewhat missing from the 85.

I never had the 85L MkII version but I believe they were the same except for coatings and a change in the focus motor/gearing. The 85L suffered from CA and purple fringing very easily wide open in many situations if allowed. Yet closed down it managed to perform well. There was a certain softness / glow to the image yet it was sharp and the colours and bokeh were what I'd always describe as "pastel" in look. It was a lens I liked to use for head & shoulder portraits on a 1.25x crop body (1D II) shot between f:/2.2 & f:/5.6

Step forward to Sony full frame and Zeiss 85, the colours are much stronger yet don't have the depth of the ZA135. I guess this is as much to do with the sony sensor then the lens. CA wide open is better controlled once you expose correctly, get it wrong though and it's a mess also. Lateral CA in high contrast areas is present till f:/4 but not a problem in general shooting. Overall sharpness is better than the 85L but it lacks the "Glow/Softness" magic the 85L had. Without a doubt the ZA 85 is better corrected optically and produces stunning images, but the magic within the imperfections of the 85L is not there with the ZA 85 IMO.

Yet this is all subjective, I've often thought of getting a Canon body just to use this lens again, but with the Sony and 135 I have another completely different look which I've loved from the first image I saw on screen.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks again Eoin, the 135 will be definitely in my Bag!!



Thanks Eric, great Link and comparison there.

IMO the ZA 135/1.8 is a no brainer choice ... one of the main reasons to own a Sony.

The ZA 24-70/2.8 can produce some delicious Bokeh @ 70mm up close with nice 3D effect (depending on subject to background distance) ... but is not a lens I'd select for precision WA work due to some moustache distortion at 24ish focal lengths which cannot be fixed in post.

The ZA 85/1.4 is not an APO lens and sharpness can be affected by CA even when somewhat corrected in post. This CA is fickle as it can appear when not expected, and not appear when you would. I really hated the CA produced by the ZF 100/2 Macro and was disappointed to see it in this lens.

However, compared to the Canon 85/1.2 which also can suffer from CA (I used both versions), the ZA 85/1.4 more consistently produces a desirable 3D effect. In fact, it produces this effect more frequently than the ZA 135/1.8 does. I think it is due to the sensor size and relative focus fall off of the ZA 85/1.4 ... for this 3D reason I put up with the occasional CA.

If you are looking for ultimate IQ, skip the SA 50/1.4. It is roughly the same IQ as it's Canon and Nikon counterparts ... and no match for something like a Leica R 50/1.4 or the legendary CZ 55/1.2.

One of my favorite portrait lenses on the A900 is the Zeiss 110/2FE via an adapter. While it is stop down metering it isn't much of an issue because I rarely stop it down except when in tight for head shots ... which, BTW this lens focuses quite close. I also use the superb Zeiss 250/4FE on the A900 which performs like the 135/1.8 except it compacts up the perspective even more.

Lots of fun to be had with the Sony when it come to optics.

-Marc

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Thanks Steen for the heads up, then no go.

Ill give the Sony 20 & CZ 16-35, and Sony 50 1.4 and CZ 24-70 a try and see which one I like better in their focal.

 

[douglasf13]

For those interested, here is a really good Zeiss paper about field curvature and MTF. Also, page 32 gives some insight in the CA like in the ZA 85

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Yes Douglas, stabled across that PDF some time ago when checking out the ZE for canon, good reading.

 

[JayMcKinsey]

What about the ZS 25/2.8 with a chipped adapter? This is a lens I am thinking about on an A850.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

No adapters for me, but the ZS 25 it is a good lens as well.

Sony lenses only for the Alpha, or CZ for sony off course.

 

[wayne_s]

Absolute sharpness is one element, micro contrast is another factor, I don't know how to decipher one from the other but in terms of what I consider image sharpness, yes the 135 is sharper (my copy anyway) than the ZA 85. I'm not saying my 85 is not sharp, on the contrary it's very sharp. But the 135 has a depth and quality in the image (micro contrast ?) that is somewhat missing from the 85.

I never had the 85L MkII version but I believe they were the same except for coatings and a change in the focus motor/gearing. The 85L suffered from CA and purple fringing very easily wide open in many situations if allowed. Yet closed down it managed to perform well. There was a certain softness / glow to the image yet it was sharp and the colours and bokeh were what I'd always describe as "pastel" in look. It was a lens I liked to use for head & shoulder portraits on a 1.25x crop body (1D II) shot between f:/2.2 & f:/5.6

Step forward to Sony full frame and Zeiss 85, the colours are much stronger yet don't have the depth of the ZA135. I guess this is as much to do with the sony sensor then the lens. CA wide open is better controlled once you expose correctly, get it wrong though and it's a mess also. Lateral CA in high contrast areas is present till f:/4 but not a problem in general shooting. Overall sharpness is better than the 85L but it lacks the "Glow/Softness" magic the 85L had. Without a doubt the ZA 85 is better corrected optically and produces stunning images, but the magic within the imperfections of the 85L is not there with the ZA 85 IMO.

Yet this is all subjective, I've often thought of getting a Canon body just to use this lens again, but with the Sony and 135 I have another completely different look which I've loved from the first image I saw on screen.

Thanks Eoin very much for sharing your insight on these lenses. I have been wanting a Zeiss 85mm lens to go along with my 85L since I enjoy the better color and microcontast of zeiss lenses, especially for outside portraits. Ever since I converted my ZA 135 to canon mount for my 1ds3 I have thought about getting the ZA 85. I recently got the contax 100/2 planar and still need to evaluate it more but it hasn't satisfied me enough to not want to try the ZA 85 or maybe the contax N 85.
As one of the few Sony shooters I know shooting the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 on the A900 I am really wanting to know how you like the lens and if you love it as much as alot of us who shoot it on Canon FF cameras? I don't understand why Sony hasn't come out with an updated version of this lens design which is one of the best Minolta lens designs period. If Sony did that they would have an incredible portrait prime trio and I would definitely buy an A900 then.

 

[Eoin]

Wayne, I picked up a minty 58 1.2 pretty cheap, I put a chipped mount on it and to be honest I haven't used it much. My eyesight isn't so good and even with the M focus screen and focus confirmation it's a PIA for me to use stopped down more than f:/4.

But from what I've seen from it, yes it's impressive and very good at f:/1.2 which surprised me. However I'm blind & lazy and tend to use the ZA 85 instead of the rokkor for most things around this focal length.

I will get around to using it when I get time, it does have something special to offer in the right situation.