The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

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

douglasf13

New member
Sample variation certainly exists, but I'm willing to bet that's not the case here. Jld posted this on two different forums, and has yet to come and answer any questions about it.
 

jld

New member
All,

Thank you for the comments. I'm an infrequent visitor to these forums, and travel extensively....hence the delay

On the test method: I run focus from about +15 to -15 microadjustment in increments of 3 typically, as the wall with the Imatest targets has a small but measurable amount of curvature. I plot the results by position (I test 13 points across the frame) and by microfocus to ensure that I have run through optimal focus for all 13 positions. So, focus is not an issue. What I will miss in this testing is de-centering, but I shoot brick walls from a distance to gauge de-centering. I further test lenses by shooting an outside building and then doing comparisons among lenses in LR, similar to but I'm sure not as skillfully is Lloyd Chambers.

I'm not an advocate of Zeiss, Sony, or any other lenses. I care only about results. My experience with Zooms is that they are almost always Significantly worse in sharpness than primes. I just seemed to find a champ in the 70-400 lens. The published test results that I saw for the 70-400 lens were typically pretty good - PopPhoto (best telephoto they've tested), KurtMunger, www.lemondedelaphoto.com. I probably was as surprised as anyone. I DO like the Zeiss 135 f1.8 - it has a little better color, a little better microcontrast than the 70-400 - but I did not find it to be any sharper. My subsequent shoot in Death Valley validated my test results for the 70-400. The copy of the 70-400 lens I have is truly a champ.

I'll post some examples when I can. Day job gets in the way.....
 

dbogdan

New member
I was going to keep my mouth shut on this one, but here's my feelings.
I purchased the 70-400 new, about a year ago, and was sure I got a good copy. Well It was on the camera 70% of the time and I was always amazed at the image quality, especially at 320-360 and wider. Sure I was happy with the results at 400 considering it was a zoom, but below that having owned the Nikon 200-400 for a number of years, I felt for the money it was damn good.
Well I kept hearing about the 135 1.8 and thought, I'm gonna take that step.
Sold the 70-400 to finance the move and started not only checking out the picture quality wide open, beautiful to be sure, but at apertures that give me a touch better depth of field for the type of shooting I do.
Well duplicating shots I had done with the 70-400 at 135 or near showed very little difference, and after some minor post processing little if any difference.
I purchased the 135 from B&H as a 9+ used lens and 2 weeks after the purchase I noticed the dreaded loose barrel syndrome and called them to see if a fix was readily available. They gave me the, that's typical for that lens and if you don't like it send it back.
Well I do very little people work and considering the results I was getting from my testing, It was a no brainer, I looked for a used 70-400 and went back home.
I decided that if I have a fast lens it was gonna be the 85. The only hold up is waiting on sigma to show it's card. If it doesn't cut it, it'll be the ziess for sure.
But back to the 70-400.. it really is better than most realize, considering it's versatility!

davidbogdan
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Well, David, if you are ok with a zoom that gives you 85mm @ f/4 and 135mm at f/4.5, then obviously the ZA primes are not for you. Moreover, it may be that your style of shooting does not benefit from the extra quality of the Zeiss primes, degrading their image in a way that makes them equal to the zoom. (not meant as criticism but a fact. Some photographers like to shoot handheld for instance at lower shutter speeds or things like that).
 

dbogdan

New member
Degrading? hmmm...It was my understanding that both the 135 1.8 and 85 1.4 peaked at about f/4.5, I could be wrong.
Anyway,I guess it all depends on your use of the glass in hand.
 
A

Alan Bee

Guest
Well, David, if you are ok with a zoom that gives you 85mm @ f/4 and 135mm at f/4.5, then obviously the ZA primes are not for you. Moreover, it may be that your style of shooting does not benefit from the extra quality of the Zeiss primes, degrading their image in a way that makes them equal to the zoom. (not meant as criticism but a fact. Some photographers like to shoot handheld for instance at lower shutter speeds or things like that).
@ Edward. I am silent observer on the forum and note that you appear to be one of the guru's. May I ask, why does your lens portfolio end at 135mm? Do you ever find the need for longer focals i.e 200, 300, 400.

I have a line somewhat similar to yours but in place of the 100/2.8, i have a 200G HS Minolta. I do not own a 24-70 Zeiss. Otherwise we have similar line ups.

I find that quite often, even the 200mm seems to come up short. So much that it often plays the role of a long portrait lens as opposed to a true Telephoto.

I have been eyeing the 300mm/2.8 Minolta for additional reach, but I'm not sure if the extra 100mm would make any meaningful difference. And oh, the Sony 300mm is out of the question.

I don't do wildlife or any such extreme sport (birding etc). But I'd like to be able to get a crisp image from 50+ yards

I shoot an a850

Thanks

Alan
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Hi Alan!

One of the gurus!?? God forbid! :D

To answer your question, my line up stops at 135mm because there is nothing that suits me above that in the current Sony offerings. The 70-200 is too bulky and makes my 85 and 135 redundant. Too much money for what essentially will be a 200mm. I have tried the 70-300. Not too bad, but I really couldn't like the luminosity limitations. The 300mm is way above my league both in price and size. Ideally I should add a 200mm prime and a 1.4X converter. I have done that for years before in the Canon days with excellent results. Just waiting for Sony to release its 200/2.8 that has been long overdue.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
In general, I do not consider this Sony and Ziess line-up as specifically a technical wonder ... nor do I try to make it out to be one. There are other choices better suited for scientific evaluation and pixel peeping.

IMO, the lenses have a visual character that can add to artistic intent or objectives. I've never "tested" the corners, or any part of any image I've shot with this system other that to evaluate whether I like the look or not. I'll leave all the pixel peeping to others ... which I basically ignore as long as I'm pleased with what I'm getting out of the Sony A900 and Zeiss/Sony lenses.

I will say that the 70-200/2.8 did pleasantly surprise me ... but it's a lens I use very infrequently ... mostly to shoot at wedding ceremonies from the balcony.

-Marc
 
A

Alan Bee

Guest
Hi Alan!

One of the gurus!?? God forbid! :D

To answer your question, my line up stops at 135mm because there is nothing that suits me above that in the current Sony offerings. The 70-200 is too bulky and makes my 85 and 135 redundant. Too much money for what essentially will be a 200mm. I have tried the 70-300. Not too bad, but I really couldn't like the luminosity limitations. The 300mm is way above my league both in price and size. Ideally I should add a 200mm prime and a 1.4X converter. I have done that for years before in the Canon days with excellent results. Just waiting for Sony to release its 200/2.8 that has been long overdue.
@Ed. In other words, you would not consider legacy Minolta Fast Primes (200/2.8 HS, 300/2.8 HS, 400, 600/4) despite thier legendary reputations.

They seem to be the only options for A-Mount Prime adherents. As to the Sony 300/2.8, I concur. I would have to move into a shelter following a purchase - my wife would insist on it :)

Alan
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Hi Alan,

I'm not a big fan of buying on the used market. I prefer to buy new with warranty. Besides the above Minolta lenses are priced ridiculously. I prefer to wait for Sony to release the 200mm in either f/2.8 or f/4 macro versions. I'm sure it will be priced around the current Minolta used market prices, maybe even cheaper.
 

SeattleDucks

New member
All,

Thank you for the comments. I'm an infrequent visitor to these forums, and travel extensively....hence the delay

On the test method: I run focus from about +15 to -15 microadjustment in increments of 3 typically, as the wall with the Imatest targets has a small but measurable amount of curvature. I plot the results by position (I test 13 points across the frame) and by microfocus to ensure that I have run through optimal focus for all 13 positions. So, focus is not an issue. What I will miss in this testing is de-centering, but I shoot brick walls from a distance to gauge de-centering. I further test lenses by shooting an outside building and then doing comparisons among lenses in LR, similar to but I'm sure not as skillfully is Lloyd Chambers.

I'm not an advocate of Zeiss, Sony, or any other lenses. I care only about results. My experience with Zooms is that they are almost always Significantly worse in sharpness than primes. I just seemed to find a champ in the 70-400 lens. The published test results that I saw for the 70-400 lens were typically pretty good - PopPhoto (best telephoto they've tested), KurtMunger, www.lemondedelaphoto.com. I probably was as surprised as anyone. I DO like the Zeiss 135 f1.8 - it has a little better color, a little better microcontrast than the 70-400 - but I did not find it to be any sharper. My subsequent shoot in Death Valley validated my test results for the 70-400. The copy of the 70-400 lens I have is truly a champ.

I'll post some examples when I can. Day job gets in the way.....
Thank you for the follow-up. Is there any possibility you may have accidentally mistaken which test files were from the CZ85 vs. the 70-400? I intend no disrespect, and I assume the EXIF was verified in sorting the results, I'm just trying to make sense of it.

I mentioned previously my test of the CZ135 which blew away the Sony 70-200/2.8 in detail and sharpness out to the farthest corners, and yesterday I tested the CZ85 which showed a similar stunning performance. However, a tele zoom would frequently be extremely useful for fine-tuning the type of landscape comps I make and the 70-400 is an ideal focal range to suit the way I see, but I have hesitated ordering one because I do not want to compromise the impeccable IQ results I get from the fixed lenses (I do print large which really stresses the optics and technique).

Your results are intriguing, and I may have to bite the bullet and order a copy of the 70-400 to test for myself.

Cheers,
Ross
 

dbogdan

New member
That's where I was coming from in my comparison. I purchased the 135 as a stitching lens, proved to be to limited. And I find the 85 a better suited length for my bokeh experience.
One thing to keep in mind is that the foot on the 70-400 is nothing but a cruel joke. I found using the heavy hand telephoto technique with MLU on a tripod, a must, in less than optimum light. That shutter/mirror can really shake it up.
When used in this fashion I find the image quality pretty remarkable, even if it doesn't say Ziess.

I'm not a guru... I only know what I see...and the 135 may find a home with me, once more useful purchases have been made.:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
T

tigertimb

Guest
Try the 70-400mm @ 400mm with a teleconverter added - if you don't use mirror lock up you might as well not bother!
In fact, if you use a cable release without it, you can still see the image bouncing through the viewfinder, after the shot is taken!

Tim
 

Eoin

Member
I've an RRS MPR-73 3/8ths attached to the foot of my 70-400.
I wouldn't say it adds any stability to the situation but it sure makes life that bit easier with the tripod. I fitted the optional flange to stop rotation of the plate and it works very well.

However I understand where you're coming from with regard to the rigidity of the whole setup. IMO you need the electronic shutter release with MLU to get things vibration free. My last outing with this lens was at night with 20+ second exposure which worked reasonably well.
 

jld

New member
Seattle-

On your question - the files were not mixed up. I am sure of the results. On this whole exercise, I probably spent $100 shipping returning lenses, and I certainly spent a Lot more time than I had originally hoped testing the lenses and interpreting what I saw - had to be at least 1.5 days in total. I cannot explain the Zeiss 85 mm results other than to say I must have gotten 2 poor copies - but what is interesting is that their test results were surprisingly similar, and surprisingly poor - not just in Imatest, but also in side-by-side outside shots where the 70-400 beat it handily. I had them both at the same time, checked, rechecked and triple checked the results. Hope this helps
 
J

Jamesmd

Guest
I was about to sell mine and nearly did last week as I had bought a Min 100 2,8 , and I didn't use it as much .

This morning I went out to the park for a walk only with 85 , and good job I din't sell it ( thanks Jono for your advice once and again ;) ) I would have gone to buy another one . :deadhorse:

Here are some shots






 
Top