Sony Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 SAL-85f14Z Experiences

[jld]

I am considering the purchase of the Sony Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 SAL-85f14z. I am a Sony a900 owner. I have read the online test results (8 or so, see the list on http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=317), but thought I would ask the readers and members of this forum to share their impressions of the lens on a full-frame, 24 MP camera - the Sony a900 or Sony a850. I would like to use the lens for landscape photography. If you have used the lens, please share your experiences and viewpoint on it. I'm particularly interested in:

• Sharpness - in general and especially in the corners. Any comparisons to other lenses (e.g. the Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 or the 24-70 mm f2.8) would be especially helpful. My most common f-stops are 5.6, 8, and 11. I will shoot at f4 once in a while.
• Chromatic aberration
• Coma and astigmatism
• Autofocus. I've read that the autofocus of this lens can be problematic

If you have any lenses between 70-120 mm that you prefer over the SAL-85f14Z please let me know.

Much appreciated. Thank you

 

[douglasf13]

Here is a good review of the lens:

http://kurtmunger.com/sony_85mm_f_1_4_carl_zeissid264.html

 

[edwardkaraa]

Unquestionably the best 85 1.4 Zeiss ever made

 

[fotografz]

Unquestionably the best 85 1.4 Zeiss ever made

Well, maybe not "unquestionably" ... in my experience the Contax N 85/1.4 holds that title. But we've had this discussion before

Now that I've actually shot with the ZA 85/1.4 for some time (real-world verses charts), I am convinced of my preference for the Contax N version... probably because I'm in the business of shooting people not landscapes.

I liked the N version because it was internal focusing and didn't extend the front element, and most certainly had a better handle on CA ... which plagues my use of the ZA 85/1.4 in the situations I frequently shoot in. And it is NOT fully correctable even using C1s powerful fringe and CA controls. The N version featured 11 elements verse the ZA's 8 and I also found the N version better when used close-up and wide open.

But, hey ... it's a moot point as the ZA actually exists and has a modern digital body to use it on. My greatest photographic lament was the loss of the Contax line of products and any further development (especially the Contax 645) ... and I admit being more than happy when Sony took up the 35mm DSLR slack ... I think the A900 even resembles the Contax N a little bit.

(Sorry for the tiny jpgs, they were the only ones I could locate without digging out a Hard Drive in my archives).

 

[Eoin]

I use 4 lenses in the focal range you mention. The 24-70ZA, 85ZA, 135ZA & 70-400G. IMO while they are all very good, there is one jewel amongst them. Without doubt my single favorite lens amongst these is the 135ZA. I'm not shooting landscapes with this lens, more so portraits and it's often a toss up between the 135 & 85 due to space constraints.

I find the difference between the 2 lenses really comes down to personal taste and subtle nuances and obviously the suitability of the focal length. I don't suffer from any significant CA issues like Marc, but there are lateral CA issues I have seen and sensor blooming if the exposure is not quite right.. However these are really not an issue in my photography or subject matter.

Given the choice I'd pick the 135 every time, there is just something about it I can't quite put my finger on.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Well, Marc, I don't entirely disagree with you. The N was a great portrait lens and designed by Zeiss as such. The ZA is very sharp down to the extreme corners and can be used for a variety of subjects including landscapes.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I recommend the 85mm F1.4. 135mm is too long for my tastes as a portrait lens - a compromise focal length. The 85mm only weakeness is some lateral CA at wide apertures, not usually a problem though. I have no focusing issues. Nice lens.

 

[jld]

Thank you for all of your comments.

So, here is what I did: I purchased multiple lenses, tested them inside (Imatest) and outside. The lenses purchased and tested were:

Zeiss 85mm f1.4 for Sony, SAL-85F14Z, 2 copies
Sony 70-300mm f4-5.6 G, 2 copies, SAL-70300G
Sony 100mm f21.8 macro, SAL-100M28
Sony 70-400mm, f4-5.6, SAL-70400G

The hands-down winner for sharpness and overall IQ was the Sony 70-400mm, f4-5.6, SAL-70400G. The SAL-70400G was extraordinarily sharp between 70-200mm - I could not tell the difference pixel-peeping between that and the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 that I own. A very distant 2nd place went to the SAL-703000G, which was consistent copy to copy. 3rd place was the Sony 100mm f2.8, with the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 in dead last place. Both Zeiss copies were very soft in all 4 borders and corners beyond about 60% of the distance from center to the edge of the frame. They were most disappointing lenses.

I took the Sony 70-400 f4-5.6 to Death Valley for the wildflower show, where it performed extraordinarily well, and was on my a900 80% of the time.

 

[Tex]

JLD, IMO most folks purchase the 135 & 85 for purposes other than pixel peeping. I normally shoot my 85 & 135 wide open or down 1 stop. Both are simply stellar (especially the 135).

I have read that your 70-400 is a great lens though.

Regards,

Robert

 

[jlm]

guess what? i have a 135 for sale, like new, for $1200

 

[SeattleDucks]

Thank you for all of your comments.

So, here is what I did: I purchased multiple lenses, tested them inside (Imatest) and outside. The lenses purchased and tested were:

Zeiss 85mm f1.4 for Sony, SAL-85F14Z, 2 copies
Sony 70-300mm f4-5.6 G, 2 copies, SAL-70300G
Sony 100mm f21.8 macro, SAL-100M28
Sony 70-400mm, f4-5.6, SAL-70400G

The hands-down winner for sharpness and overall IQ was the Sony 70-400mm, f4-5.6, SAL-70400G. The SAL-70400G was extraordinarily sharp between 70-200mm - I could not tell the difference pixel-peeping between that and the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 that I own. A very distant 2nd place went to the SAL-703000G, which was consistent copy to copy. 3rd place was the Sony 100mm f2.8, with the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 in dead last place. Both Zeiss copies were very soft in all 4 borders and corners beyond about 60% of the distance from center to the edge of the frame. They were most disappointing lenses.

I took the Sony 70-400 f4-5.6 to Death Valley for the wildflower show, where it performed extraordinarily well, and was on my a900 80% of the time.

Can you post the test results for us to see?

 

[douglasf13]

Can you post the test results for us to see?

+1

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I love my 70-400 G too, the sharpest zoom of its type I've ever owned.

BUT - the 135/f1.8 is the one I pull out for those bad light shots. It is simple superb at full aperture.

Bill

 

[edwardkaraa]

Sorry but I find it difficult to believe especially the 85 softness.

 

[fotografz]

Sorry but I find it difficult to believe especially the 85 softness.

+1.

-Marc

 

[picman]

Sorry but I find it difficult to believe especially the 85 softness.

+2

 

[Eoin]

.....The hands-down winner for sharpness and overall IQ was the Sony 70-400mm, f4-5.6, SAL-70400G. The SAL-70400G was extraordinarily sharp between 70-200mm - I could not tell the difference pixel-peeping between that and the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 that I own. .....

This I find quite surprising, along with the 85 being soft in all 4 corners. If any of the lenses were to display soft corners the 70-400 in my experience is the primary culprit. Granted it's very sharp in the center, that I have no dispute with.

IMO the 135 has no peer, I either have a perfect example of the 135 or a dog example of the 70-400. And my 85 is excellent also across the whole frame.

So I'm kind of agreeing with both sides here but across the whole frame focal length for focal length, aperture for aperture I'm sorry MY 70-400 just doesn't out perform the Zeiss primes.

 

[SeattleDucks]

This I find quite surprising, along with the 85 being soft in all 4 corners. If any of the lenses were to display soft corners the 70-400 in my experience is the primary culprit. Granted it's very sharp in the center, that I have no dispute with.

IMO the 135 has no peer, I either have a perfect example of the 135 or a dog example of the 70-400. And my 85 is excellent also across the whole frame.

So I'm kind of agreeing with both sides here but across the whole frame focal length for focal length, aperture for aperture I'm sorry MY 70-400 just doesn't out perform the Zeiss primes.

This is exactly the results that would be expected, and why it would be helpful for the OP to respond with test data and images because his stated results fly in the face of a large body of reviews and owner data on the Zeiss primes.

I just finished this week running my own testing on Sony 70-200/2.8, Zeiss 135/1.8, Minolta 100/2, Minolta 100/2.8 macro, and Minolta 200/2.8 APO (on an A900). All the primes handily beat the zoom in terms of CA, distortion, and resolution into the farthest corners, while the CZ135 stands out above them all with an uncanny ability to render fine detail and texture and the cleanest look I've seen from any DSLR/lens combo, giving the sense of scrolling through one of my drum scans from 4x5 (deconvolution sharpening in Raw Developer aids this).

One variable in comparison lens testing that is absolutely critical to bring under control is exact plane of focus among the various lenses - most lenses require tweaking of the A900 microadjust feature individually using something like LensAlign, and even an inch of difference in focus testing telephotos at anything under infinity makes a difference in resolution.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Oddest results I have ever read. I find the 85mm F1/4 to be very sharp, and sharper than other A900 lenses I own. Its the one lens I'd never sell.

Quentin

 

[Steen]

I for one firmly believe in sample variation.

(And by the way not only with regards to lenses, but even with regards to cameras ... )