Joed700: Ok, I got the point--the IQ is excellent even at f/2. IMO, a 50mm or longer lens would make the pictures even better....
At least samples that would show how the highlight discs are rendered towards corners with lens wide open like in photos 2 and 3.
Maybe some full length portraits with more nervous background, like some trees closer to the subject and light coming trough the foliage.
Wide angle lens will also show more of the distant background landscape vs telephoto lens.
Rishi, how do you think the bokeh quality of this zoom compares to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art?
Interesting lenses and I hope the new Tamron's have decent f1.8 performance and reliable AF.
Next they should introduce 90mm f1.8 VC and 135mm f1.8 VC please :)
Xentinus: Despite they are 1.8 lense,they are big and heavy!
Samsung 45mm 1.8:Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 1.75 x 2.44" (44.5 x 62 mm)Weight 4.06 oz (115 g)
Tamron is designed for full frame sensor and has IS. Optical construction is more complex too.
Also it can focus closer while having similar focal length so the extension must be longer I guess...
arra: Canon on Canon body = sharp from edge to egde and low noise. Canon lens on Sony A7R body = poor edge to edge sharpness and low of noise even @iso100.
You mean that Canon glass somehow causes more noise on Sony sensor?
I have yet to experience that...in fact my TS-E lenses give much better IQ on A7R than with current Canon bodies (the 5DS R is not available yeat). Anyway I'll wait for Sony 50MP camera instead and get better dynamic range with less money.
There's no mention of flash metering, so I assume it can't do that.
I think the price is very high for so simple plug-in device. Dedicated light meters with much better features won't cost too much more money compared to the Lumu.
kadardr: I don't have a Sony right now, I just have a question: why do have the A7s and the two other A7's different mounts. Why the s version is heavy duty and the others are not? Something is not adding up here.
Huh? You don't seem to understand.
If there's any loose compenents between less and camera body, then shutter shock will make them move resulting in more blur. That's why one point tripod attachment may not be enough for A7R and large magnification depending on adapter and lens combo.
Might be so but I've used macro lenses for product photography with A7R and hate the shutter shock with certain shutter speeds.
Naturally the mount should be as robust as possible with no play be it for stills or film production.
Most still shooters don't usually drop their cameras or use them as baseball bat, so talk of "stress point" etc. is a bit funny IMHO.
For high resolution still photography with A7R and somewhat longer lenges, the shutter mechanism and any play in mount or adapter connections will sometimes cause blur in images if both the lens and camera body are not secured properly to a tripod.
I don't quite buy it that only video use would require somehow more robust mount than still photography. Fe. camera shutter is not used (no vibrations) and resolution is much lower and there's usually slight motion blur in footage anyway.
Sdaniella: let's hope 7DMkII's new sensor has improved uncompressed RAW DR 16-17 EV by at least +2EV over the old 7D/5DMkIII RAW DR 14-15 EV sensors
and extended dual iso (dual gain) sensor architecture to read all pixel lines with two (or more) iso/gain amplification, not just one per alternating pixel (grbg doublet) lines, OFFER IT OPENLY or at least automatically (not hide it), so one need not rely on ML hack to extract (divert) the two potentially SELECTABLE different ISO image data from the sensor processed to the memory card ...
if you got what I'm getting atthat puts pressure on Canon to deliver MULTI-ISO (multi-gain) capture (customizable handheld fast capture HDR stills and Cine video) sooner, not later
reminder: 4k H.265 ... Samsung APSC NX1 (digital 35mm 4k Cine) is here US$1500 ...
Yes I've used and tested 5D mk II & III vs. Nikon D800 in this regard as dynamic range is important for my work in high contrast situations. The shadow noise quality of 5D mkIII is bad. The dynamic range is simply nowhere as good as with Nikon or Sony. And this is a wellknown fact among pro photographers.
LOL Where did you get this figure of 14-15 EV dynamic range for 5D mkIII?
Its DR is mere 10.97 EV @ ISO 100 according to DxOMark screen mode (1:1 pixels) compared to D810's 13.67 EV @ ISO 64.
Canon sensors are NOT known for good dynamic range and shadow noise performance. D810 in comparison has the smoothest shadows (at ISO 64) I've seen so far in a DSLR.
qwertyasdf: This might be the first and last time that I say this to a M43 lens:
It's priced reasonably. Given it's longer range than 70-200 FF lens, it is way way more versatile, and I have confidence in the IQ of a Oly HG lens. Oh....also, the 0.21x magnification, taking into account of the crop factor of M43 sensor, is class-leading.
You don't seem to have clue. It is a true f2.8 lens, DOF has nothing to do with that.
Yes, I know but RStyga claimed that the Zuiko 150/2.8 is not a f/2.8 lens at all.
Please go read some photo science before posting here. This Zuiko definitely is F2.8 lens by definition which means its focal length divided by diameter of the maximum aperture is indeed 2.8.
Mssimo: DXOMark has the review out already.
Nice information, but I would not propably call it the best performing portrait lens. Without fast autofocus I wouldn't use it for general portraiture but for anything else where AF is not necessary and subjects don't move too much. For portraiture it is not necessary to have the best absolute sharpness. More important is to have lens focused where it should be.
If one compares the results to Nikkor AF-S 85 f/1.8G on D800, it is surprising that the Nikkor actually has less distortion (0.1% vs 0.2%) and its T-stop is closer to the manufacturer rating than with Otus. Where Nikkor looses is wide open performance and CA & LoCA, but for portraiture this is usually not a big issue for me.
erotavlas: we all know everyone who uses this lens will still end up tweaking their photo's to death in Lightroom and Photoshop making whatever benefits this lens offers with respect to colour, clarity, sharpness, contrast etc kind of pointless.
I think 99% of clients don't even now what LoCA is.
The greatest artistic potential is and should be behind the viewfinder. Equipment has not much to do with the art anyway. Equipment image quality != art.
That said, this Otus should be great lens for certain situations but not so practical for general use.
Wedding photographer: I believe that the new perfect portrait lens should have: 1) beautiful pattern bokeh (Yes); 2) accurate and fast autofocus (No);
In my opinion modern lenses have acceptable sharpness (considering possibility of their mediocre autofocus systems).
I think, other parameters such as “flawless sharpness” and especially “No distortion“ should be placed on fourth or fifth place.
However Marketers of Zeiss have other point of view. They look based on synthetic tests of manual sharpness - far from real life.
Separate lenses of course :) One with ultrasonic AF for portrait use and one MF lens with tilt and shift for different cases.
Photoman: Wait till Sigma release their 85/1.4 lens. 1/4 price and better quality, like their 50/1.4 ART lens.
Sigma has much lower price compared to Otus that I wouldn't be too concerned what happens after ten years of use (if professional). It can obviously be used as manual focus lens too...
I would certainly be more interested if Zeiss would introduce 85mm tilt shift lens with shorter min focus distance. Obviously with even higher price tag :)
For a portrait lens to be used for about zillion frames, the lack of autofocus is a turn off.