SAM 85 f2.8

[pakodominguez]

Kurt Munger's Review (I'm not specially fond on his reviews, but at least he is consistent and methodical)
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_85mm_f_2_8_reviewid189.html

[bfitzgerald]

Can't say I'm fond of them either (he's got some iffy copies of lenses before)
The lens looks decent, but not as decent as the Canon 85mm f1.8

[pakodominguez]

Barry,

It is remarkable how you always have something bad to say about Sony...

The Canon lens cost at Adorama 376 US$ (it used to cost 570 US$ when introduced) + 30 US$ for the lenshood, while the Sony, introduced few months ago, 85f2.8 cost 225 US$ -more than twice the price of the ZA 85 F1.4 LENSHOOD!

In any case, you can not fit the Canon on your Sonys or Pentax bodies so, what's the point?

[bfitzgerald]

Sorry but I think the point is very valid.
What's remarkable is how you'd actually forget there is a pretty big difference between f2.8 and f1.8
I believe Sony made a mistake here and they should have actually made a better at least f2 with half decent plastics.
I think the extra (not that much really) cost of the Canon is justified..it's a better lens, likely much better build, much faster, and has a real USM motor and not a cheapo SAM.

Not having a go at Sony just for the sake of it (I sometimes wonder why you can't see these points as they are obvious) I just think it's the wrong lens for this focal length. That aperture difference is critical for portrait shooters. I've actually been critical of Pentax for not having some affordable primes..so it would not make any difference if this 85mm f2.8 has Nikon, Pentax or any other maker stamped on it.

[peterottaway]

Barry, I may be out of step with normal practice with my Minolta 85 but I can't remember the last time I used less than f 2.8 except for one concert in a very dark location. From f 2.8 to f 4.0 is much more usual for portraits. The new Sony is priced for a much broader market and photographers who would not usually buy fixed focal length lenses.

[bfitzgerald]

Well there must be a reason Canikon have 85mm f1.8 lenses in their range. I'm not questioning as much the build, or even SAM, plastic mount etc at this price you expect compromises. But honestly I think the aperture needs to be faster for a lens of this type.

Sure I might not use very fast apertures esp close up head shots (as you need more DOF here) but for more distant shots you should see a fair difference from f1.8 to f2.8 for background blur. I might use my 50mm at f2.8 quite a bit (and I do) but I'd not be very interested in a 50mm f2.8 over an f1.7/f1.8 one. As it is you might be better off stumping up a bit more cash and getting a 90mm f2.8 macro...least you can do two things with it

[pakodominguez]

I think the extra (not that much really) cost of the Canon is justified..it's a better lens,

You reveal yourself in all your splendor: you are a troll, Barry, just a troll.

[Dr. Harout]

Barry, I have both the Rokinon (Samyang) 85/1.4 and SAM 85/2.8 and working on comparison. I don't know yet the final conclusion but still I'm very fond of the latter. Like the 30/2.8 Macro which I use most, it's a real gem (as David would've point it out).

[Lonnie Utah]

Sure I might not use very fast apertures esp close up head shots (as you need more DOF here) but for more distant shots you should see a fair difference from f1.8 to f2.8 for background blur. I might use my 50mm at f2.8 quite a bit (and I do) but I'd not be very interested in a 50mm f2.8 over an f1.7/f1.8 one. As it is you might be better off stumping up a bit more cash and getting a 90mm f2.8 macro...least you can do two things with it

Eh. Unless your are shooting film or using it simply for it's low light capabilities, who cares about anything below f/2.8 anymore anyway? When you can easily create the defocused effects digitally that most folks were using these lenses for back in film days, why spend 2 and 3 times more for a lens just for that application? Low F-stop lenses are relics of film days and expensive toys with a status symbol bling factor for those that must validate themselves via their quiver of lenses and bodies not their skill behind the lens......

[Wes Gibbon]

Am I to assume from this that the Sony 85mm f1.4 has beein discontinued?

[pakodominguez]

Am I to assume from this that the Sony 85mm f1.4 has beein discontinued?

Why?
it is a totally different product - this two lenses only share the focal distance...

[Dusty]

Am I to assume from this that the Sony 85mm f1.4 has beein discontinued?

Still available, but being a CZ, it's $1369 USD, quite a difference!

Dusty

[Lonnie Utah]

Am I to assume from this that the Sony 85mm f1.4 has beein discontinued?

Still available, but being a CZ, it's $1369 USD, quite a difference!

Dusty

Which gets exactly to my point above. Why, given the sharpness of the 2.8 version, would I spend $1000 more for the CZ? In an 8x10 print the average user will not be able to tell the difference in the lenses. All I have to do is create a new local adjustment brush in CS5, dial up a bunch of negative clarity, paint the areas where I want softness and I get a very nice soft focus effect with a cool grand in my pocket. Of course there are always those that feel more expensive is always better.....

[pakodominguez]

Am I to assume from this that the Sony 85mm f1.4 has beein discontinued?

Still available, but being a CZ, it's $1369 USD, quite a difference!

Dusty

Which gets exactly to my point above. Why, given the sharpness of the 2.8 version, would I spend $1000 more for the CZ? In an 8x10 print the average user will not be able to tell the difference in the lenses. All I have to do is create a new local adjustment brush in CS5, dial up a bunch of negative clarity, paint the areas where I want softness and I get a very nice soft focus effect with a cool grand in my pocket. Of course there are always those that feel more expensive is always better.....

Sharpness: 85mm or 100mm or 135mm are "easy" designs, having a "sharp" lens on that focal distance is not a biggie.

Price: I bought a Minolta 85 f1.4 years ago when people were deserting the A-mount camp, I paid 600 US$ for it and gave it very little use, mostly because it is a huge and heavy (and beautiful) lens, hard to find it a proper spot on my bag, I was always afraid to risk it on any "location" job, I used only at studio shots. I sold it last year at market price (a little more than 800 US$) and understood I don't need an expensive lens that will sit home the most of the times. I didn't even consider to buy a 1.7 version of this lens (I did used a Nikon for a while, nice lens but it is still a little big and heavy)

With this little SAM things are different, it is small and light and easy to carry on my bag or pocket. And, if something happens to it, it is just a 225 US$ lens...

Regards

[bfitzgerald]

You reveal yourself in all your splendor: you are a troll, Barry, just a troll.

I think the words you are grasping for are "we disagree"
I've never used the term, nor would I ever..it's simply a throwaway comment and has no place on any forum.
It's just a personal view I would much prefer a £300 85mm f1.8 with a good in lens motor that's quiet, better build, and more speed over a £200 f2.8 85mm. Saying that for APS-C 70mm would be a somewhat better focal length (which would give 105mm equivalent on APS-C a classic for portraits)

If you can't take part in a civilised discussion then don't post. This isn't DPR where you have a bar brawl if you don't agree with someone.

Unless you want to argue aperture is irrelevant (and for portraits it's critical) I don't get your point.