New 85 g master images

Graham Best · Mar 19, 2016

sean lancaster said:
Graham Best said:

sean lancaster said:

Graham Best said:

sean lancaster said:

I had this lens for a while with my A7. I think it can perform admirably and is a good purchase for the price. But it's not a lens you buy if you want to shoot head shots unless you're going to crop on every shot. It has a pretty terrible minimum focusing distance. I sold it.

Click to expand...

Minimum focus distance:

Nikon 85mm f/1.4 - 3 feet.

Canon 85mm f/1.2 - 3.12 feet.

Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 - 3.3 feet.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I no longer have it but B&H lists the Emount version of the Rokinon 85/1.4 at 42" (or 3.5 feet or 106.7 cm).

Compare that with the Batis 85 and the 85 G Master both at 80 cm or 2.6 feet. That near foot makes a huge difference to me.

Click to expand...

Not that it makes much difference, but B&H lists the Rokinon (E mount) as having a "minimum focus distance of 3.3' (1.01 m)". That's 39.76378 inches.

My point in replying was the Rokinon's minimum focus distance is within several inches of industry standard Canon's and Nikon's fast 85's. That would indicate ~3 feet isn't "terrible" (as you described the Rokinon's MFD).

Yes, there are several 85's available that offer shorter minimum focus distances including the Batis and Sigma's 85mm. Remember, at 40 inches focus distance, the depth of field of an 85mm lens mounted on a full frame sensor camera at f/1.4 is .47 inches. At 26 inches (same settings), the DOF is .18 inches.

On what feature of a head shot does one focus with an .18 inch depth of field?

Click to expand...

For tighter head shots, I would personally recommend stopping down a bit even with an f/1.4 lens. Maybe 4 or 5.6 even and focus on the eyes.

At a 26 inch distance to subject, the depth of field of an 85mm lens, mounted on a full frame sensor, STOPPED DOWN to f/11 is 1.41 inches. 1.41 inches isn't sufficient to have both the nose and eye's in focus on an adult human when the camera is perpendicular to the subject, much less when the subject is at an angle to the camera.

My point in addressing this subject isn't to prove who's right (your opinion or mine), or that there is a "right" answer, but to illustrate to new photographers who might read this thread that the ability to focus closer than 40 inches to a (adult human) portrait subject using an 85mm lens is a specialized need.

One could take an 85mm lens on a full frame camera, and at 6 feet to the subject, have a depth of field of 4.17 inches at f/4. Enough DOF to include both the nose and eyes in focus.

Want less DOF? At the same 6 foot distance to subject, open the lens to f/1.4, and the DOF is 1.47 inches, almost the same DOF of the lens when stopped to f/11 at 26 inches to the subject.

Robgo2 · Mar 19, 2016

dtray187 said:
I'm not sure what people really mean when they say this G master looks "digital".

is it because the resolution is so high?

We are using digital cameras...I have had a few old lenses on my a7r and havnt been crazy about them.

I do have the mitakon 50mm 0.95 , as a character lens I love it , I guess it doesn't feel " digital" at all, but it not versatile.

At 1800.00 I don't want something that is so much of a character lens that it isn't versatile.

I think the G master 85 will be an amazing lens.

All we are seeing right now are basically , quick shots, not much editing, and I must say they look better than most shots from other high end 85s that are not edited much.

cant wait to see what some of my favorite photographers do with this lens!

You ask a good question: What do people mean when they say that a particular lens looks "digital?" I believe that the defining characteristic of a digital look is a lack of micro contrast which renders an image tonally flat. In turn, this makes the image visually flat, i.e. lacking a sense of depth, roundness and space. It is a fact that many high end modern lenses are designed for extreme sharpness, resolution, correction of aberrations and wide-open performance. The trade-off seems to be a reduction in micro contrast. The resulting images are super sharp and detailed from corner to corner but lack a three dimensional feel.

Does this apply to the new G-M lenses? Early samples that I have seen suggest that the answer is yes. Will most people even notice? Probably not, because they will be so impressed by the sharpness and detail across the frame at maximum aperture. That is what buyers are demanding and manufacturers are pushing these days.

Here is a link to Yannick Khong's website where he explains in a series of perceptive articles what seems to be going on:

The Problem With Modern Optics

Rob

brick33308 · Mar 19, 2016

Douglas Boyd said:
The reason to have a 85mm f1.4 lens mounted is to make your pictures look as different as possible from an iPhone selfie. Then you can feel you have the "professional look" e.g. shallow DOF, butterly smooth background, etc. For $2000 less than the Sony 85mm GM lens, you can do this with the Rokinon 85mm lens. Of course it is a manual focus lens, so it takes about 1/2 sec longer to focus. Here I shot wide open with the Rokinon with focus set on the rim of the glasses. This was a snapshot inside a food court at the Greenland Market in Las Vegas. Is it worth the money to go for the expensive GM lens over this? You decide.

Rokinon 85mm f1.4 FE lens at 1/320, f1.4, ISO 1200 focus on eyeglass rim, 5x4 crop from landscape photo

--
==Doug

why does EXIF state that the lens used is the 28/f2?

--

Irwin Fayne

Explore Irwin Fayne’s 408 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Sean_Jayhawk · Mar 19, 2016

Robgo2 said:
dtray187 said:

I'm not sure what people really mean when they say this G master looks "digital".

is it because the resolution is so high?

We are using digital cameras...I have had a few old lenses on my a7r and havnt been crazy about them.

I do have the mitakon 50mm 0.95 , as a character lens I love it , I guess it doesn't feel " digital" at all, but it not versatile.

At 1800.00 I don't want something that is so much of a character lens that it isn't versatile.

I think the G master 85 will be an amazing lens.

All we are seeing right now are basically , quick shots, not much editing, and I must say they look better than most shots from other high end 85s that are not edited much.

cant wait to see what some of my favorite photographers do with this lens!

Click to expand...

You ask a good question: What do people mean when they say that a particular lens looks "digital?" I believe that the defining characteristic of a digital look is a lack of micro contrast which renders an image tonally flat. In turn, this makes the image visually flat, i.e. lacking a sense of depth, roundness and space. It is a fact that many high end modern lenses are designed for extreme sharpness, resolution, correction of aberrations and wide-open performance. The trade-off seems to be a reduction in micro contrast. The resulting images are super sharp and detailed from corner to corner but lack a three dimensional feel.

Does this apply to the new G-M lenses? Early samples that I have seen suggest that the answer is yes. Will most people even notice? Probably not, because they will be so impressed by the sharpness and detail across the frame at maximum aperture. That is what buyers are demanding and manufacturers are pushing these days.

Here is a link to Yannick Khong's website where he explains in a series of perceptive articles what seems to be going on:

The Problem With Modern Optics

Rob

There is a comment there that disagrees with the premise and apparently a follow up is coming. I am not sure I fully agree with the premise either, particularly without side by side images to prove the point, so I look forward to the follow up.

Loris Gerber

Sorry but i can't agree with the pictures. All I see is that the 3D-effect only comes from the different lighting styles.

I'd like to see the picture comparison again with the same set-up and models to see the difference. In this case, nobody can clearly see the difference of the lenses with such different pictures that are shot in such different ways and apertures.

But in general I understand the struggle with the actual lens technologies.

Yannick Khong

The next article will feature side by side studio test with
1- a statue head
2- a grey card
3- a d750 on a tripod for shooting on same position
4- a flash pointed down on the head through octobox
5- 2 sigma lenses and 2 nikkor af-d lenses

Raw files available for all to download and repeat the analysis

PaulR · Mar 19, 2016

Robgo2 said:
That is a nice portrait but it is not a sharp photo. Hard to tell if that is the lens, your focusing, or the ISO 1200 but don't kid yourself that the photo shows the lens in a positive light.

Not a sharp photo? Are you serious? You are being fooled by the paper thin DOF at f1.4. Those portions of the image that are in focus (nose, lips, glasses) are plenty sharp while the OOF areas show a soft, creamy bokeh. Also, I suspect that there may be some noise reduction going on.

Rob

You may find it a pleasing photo and a softer lens may be ideal for portraits but it is not sharp. It doesn't have anything to do with DOF. The rim of the glasses, which is supposedly the point of focus, aren't sharp. No part of the photo is critically sharp. My guess is because it was a manually focused lens and a subject that couldn't have been perfectly still the point of focus was probably slightly in front of the glasses. Or maybe it is the noise reduction because of the high ISO. My point is that you simply can't tell anything about the lens from a photo like that.

Robgo2 · Mar 19, 2016

sean lancaster said:
Robgo2 said:

dtray187 said:

I'm not sure what people really mean when they say this G master looks "digital".

is it because the resolution is so high?

We are using digital cameras...I have had a few old lenses on my a7r and havnt been crazy about them.

I do have the mitakon 50mm 0.95 , as a character lens I love it , I guess it doesn't feel " digital" at all, but it not versatile.

At 1800.00 I don't want something that is so much of a character lens that it isn't versatile.

I think the G master 85 will be an amazing lens.

All we are seeing right now are basically , quick shots, not much editing, and I must say they look better than most shots from other high end 85s that are not edited much.

cant wait to see what some of my favorite photographers do with this lens!

Click to expand...

You ask a good question: What do people mean when they say that a particular lens looks "digital?" I believe that the defining characteristic of a digital look is a lack of micro contrast which renders an image tonally flat. In turn, this makes the image visually flat, i.e. lacking a sense of depth, roundness and space. It is a fact that many high end modern lenses are designed for extreme sharpness, resolution, correction of aberrations and wide-open performance. The trade-off seems to be a reduction in micro contrast. The resulting images are super sharp and detailed from corner to corner but lack a three dimensional feel.

Does this apply to the new G-M lenses? Early samples that I have seen suggest that the answer is yes. Will most people even notice? Probably not, because they will be so impressed by the sharpness and detail across the frame at maximum aperture. That is what buyers are demanding and manufacturers are pushing these days.

Here is a link to Yannick Khong's website where he explains in a series of perceptive articles what seems to be going on:

The Problem With Modern Optics

Rob

Click to expand...

There is a comment there that disagrees with the premise and apparently a follow up is coming. I am not sure I fully agree with the premise either, particularly without side by side images to prove the point, so I look forward to the follow up.

Loris Gerber

Sorry but i can't agree with the pictures. All I see is that the 3D-effect only comes from the different lighting styles.

I'd like to see the picture comparison again with the same set-up and models to see the difference. In this case, nobody can clearly see the difference of the lenses with such different pictures that are shot in such different ways and apertures.

But in general I understand the struggle with the actual lens technologies.

Yannick Khong

The next article will feature side by side studio test with
1- a statue head
2- a grey card
3- a d750 on a tripod for shooting on same position
4- a flash pointed down on the head through octobox
5- 2 sigma lenses and 2 nikkor af-d lenses

Raw files available for all to download and repeat the analysis

Sean,

There are also other comments to the article that are in agreement with the premise.. Check out related pieces on the site.

When a friend sent me the article, I immediately understood what Yannick Khong was getting at. Not long before, I had run comparisons of identical portraits taken with a Batis 85 and a C/Y 85/2.8 on an A7II. The differences were striking. While the Batis images were razor sharp, they were also flat as a pancake. In comparison, the C/Y images were rounded and lifelike (and plenty sharp), and I preferred them strongly. Upon inspection, it all came down to micro contrast, which is the separation of subtle tonal differences. The C/Y portraits contained more fine tonal gradations than the Batis portraits. This may not be something that we take notice of, but our brains translate 2D micro contrast into 3D depth.

It is true that lighting, OOF transitions and other factors also contribute to a sense of depth, but they cannot fully compensate for a lack of micro contrast, which, BTW, cannot be recovered in PP, if it is not present in the original image. I urge you and others to be aware of this vital feature when evaluating lenses. Sharpness and resolution are not the only qualities that matter. They may not even be the most important.

Rob

brick33308 · Mar 19, 2016

PaulR said:
Douglas Boyd said:

The reason to have a 85mm f1.4 lens mounted is to make your pictures look as different as possible from an iPhone selfie. Then you can feel you have the "professional look" e.g. shallow DOF, butterly smooth background, etc. For $2000 less than the Sony 85mm GM lens, you can do this with the Rokinon 85mm lens. Of course it is a manual focus lens, so it takes about 1/2 sec longer to focus. Here I shot wide open with the Rokinon with focus set on the rim of the glasses. This was a snapshot inside a food court at the Greenland Market in Las Vegas. Is it worth the money to go for the expensive GM lens over this? You decide.

Rokinon 85mm f1.4 FE lens at 1/320, f1.4, ISO 1200 focus on eyeglass rim, 5x4 crop from landscape photo

--
==Doug

Click to expand...

That is a nice portrait but it is not a sharp photo. Hard to tell if that is the lens, your focusing, or the ISO 1200 but don't kid yourself that the photo shows the lens in a positive light.

I'm guessing the lens is capable of sharper and that lack of critical sharpness is a focusing issue. Which is why for my money I wouldn't buy a portrait lens that can't take advantage of eye focus on my A7RII.

--

Irwin Fayne

Explore Irwin Fayne’s 408 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Lightfinity · Mar 19, 2016

brick33308 said:
PaulR said:

Douglas Boyd said:

The reason to have a 85mm f1.4 lens mounted is to make your pictures look as different as possible from an iPhone selfie. Then you can feel you have the "professional look" e.g. shallow DOF, butterly smooth background, etc. For $2000 less than the Sony 85mm GM lens, you can do this with the Rokinon 85mm lens. Of course it is a manual focus lens, so it takes about 1/2 sec longer to focus. Here I shot wide open with the Rokinon with focus set on the rim of the glasses. This was a snapshot inside a food court at the Greenland Market in Las Vegas. Is it worth the money to go for the expensive GM lens over this? You decide.

Rokinon 85mm f1.4 FE lens at 1/320, f1.4, ISO 1200 focus on eyeglass rim, 5x4 crop from landscape photo

--
==Doug

Click to expand...

That is a nice portrait but it is not a sharp photo. Hard to tell if that is the lens, your focusing, or the ISO 1200 but don't kid yourself that the photo shows the lens in a positive light.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the lens is capable of sharper and that lack of critical sharpness is a focusing issue. Which is why for my money I wouldn't buy a portrait lens that can't take advantage of eye focus on my A7RII.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/134526783@N05/x357Ve

I couldn't agree more. Manual focus with a fast lens is icky, especially when you're missing out on some of the best focusing automation available (continuous eye focus).

--

Loading…

www.lightfinity.net

Robgo2 · Mar 19, 2016

PaulR said:
PaulR said:

That is a nice portrait but it is not a sharp photo. Hard to tell if that is the lens, your focusing, or the ISO 1200 but don't kid yourself that the photo shows the lens in a positive light.

Not a sharp photo? Are you serious? You are being fooled by the paper thin DOF at f1.4. Those portions of the image that are in focus (nose, lips, glasses) are plenty sharp while the OOF areas show a soft, creamy bokeh. Also, I suspect that there may be some noise reduction going on.

Rob

Click to expand...

You may find it a pleasing photo and a softer lens may be ideal for portraits but it is not sharp. It doesn't have anything to do with DOF. The rim of the glasses, which is supposedly the point of focus, aren't sharp. No part of the photo is critically sharp. My guess is because it was a manually focused lens and a subject that couldn't have been perfectly still the point of focus was probably slightly in front of the glasses. Or maybe it is the noise reduction because of the high ISO. My point is that you simply can't tell anything about the lens from a photo like that.

Let me phrase it differently. That portrait photo is sharp enough. Moreover, considering the f1.4 aperture, it is impressively sharp. No doubt, stopping down would make it even sharper, but that is true of all lenses, including those costing several times more than the Rokinon.

Rob

ijustloveshooting · Mar 19, 2016

sumofallfears said:
I can see a subtle bokeh difference, although the bokeh balls look just like zeiss and aren't perfectly round in all photos.

I canceled my order because I can wait, seems like you just get a little more background blur and low light performance, the pictures I'm seeing aren't blowing the batis away.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

here's my quick and dirty comparison with fuji 56 1.2,,,fuji 56 1.2 background blurr/bokeh (except than bokeh rings) are almost same, i explained there,,,i bought batis for bokeh, but i found same bokeh with fuji, and sold it...today, i'm totally blown away by G-master.

and G-master rules fuji even at F1.7,,,,at F1.4, g-master is in another league....

Difference between batis and g-master is simply HUGE

ijustloveshooting · Mar 19, 2016

I had batis, and now still have fuji 56 F1.2,,,on normal monitor viewing at 1600*900 at 15' screen, i can not tell which one is batis, which one is fuji...However at %100, batis details are a lot more than fuji, thus i can easily tell...but, in terms of DOF and Bokeh, i can not see difference as long as there's no bokeh ring behind (cat eyes of batis can be seen easily)...

today, i've tried G-master 85, and compared it with fuji 56 1.2,,,even if g-master at F1.7 and fuji at F1.2, i can easily say this one is gmaster from a small view,,,,background is totally more blurry, less defined,,,bokeh is awesome...i totally surprised to see that...from that comparison, bokeh of g-master at F1.7 is much better and more blurry, less defined , more POP than batis, easily...

i was also thinking to get batis again, however after i see much better bokeh even at F1.7, i'm on preorder list now...at F1.4,,,is totally another league!

fuji 56 1.2@ 1.2, on tripod. (consider as batis85, not different bokeh)

View: original size

G-Master at F1.7

View: original size

G-Master at F1.4

and a FULL SIZE JPEG, shot with GM 2470!!damn impressive sharpness and great bokeh again.

Sean_Jayhawk · Mar 19, 2016

Robgo2 said:
sean lancaster said:

Robgo2 said:

dtray187 said:

I'm not sure what people really mean when they say this G master looks "digital".

is it because the resolution is so high?

We are using digital cameras...I have had a few old lenses on my a7r and havnt been crazy about them.

I do have the mitakon 50mm 0.95 , as a character lens I love it , I guess it doesn't feel " digital" at all, but it not versatile.

At 1800.00 I don't want something that is so much of a character lens that it isn't versatile.

I think the G master 85 will be an amazing lens.

All we are seeing right now are basically , quick shots, not much editing, and I must say they look better than most shots from other high end 85s that are not edited much.

cant wait to see what some of my favorite photographers do with this lens!

Click to expand...

You ask a good question: What do people mean when they say that a particular lens looks "digital?" I believe that the defining characteristic of a digital look is a lack of micro contrast which renders an image tonally flat. In turn, this makes the image visually flat, i.e. lacking a sense of depth, roundness and space. It is a fact that many high end modern lenses are designed for extreme sharpness, resolution, correction of aberrations and wide-open performance. The trade-off seems to be a reduction in micro contrast. The resulting images are super sharp and detailed from corner to corner but lack a three dimensional feel.

Does this apply to the new G-M lenses? Early samples that I have seen suggest that the answer is yes. Will most people even notice? Probably not, because they will be so impressed by the sharpness and detail across the frame at maximum aperture. That is what buyers are demanding and manufacturers are pushing these days.

Here is a link to Yannick Khong's website where he explains in a series of perceptive articles what seems to be going on:

The Problem With Modern Optics

Rob

Click to expand...

There is a comment there that disagrees with the premise and apparently a follow up is coming. I am not sure I fully agree with the premise either, particularly without side by side images to prove the point, so I look forward to the follow up.

Loris Gerber

Sorry but i can't agree with the pictures. All I see is that the 3D-effect only comes from the different lighting styles.

I'd like to see the picture comparison again with the same set-up and models to see the difference. In this case, nobody can clearly see the difference of the lenses with such different pictures that are shot in such different ways and apertures.

But in general I understand the struggle with the actual lens technologies.

Yannick Khong

The next article will feature side by side studio test with
1- a statue head
2- a grey card
3- a d750 on a tripod for shooting on same position
4- a flash pointed down on the head through octobox
5- 2 sigma lenses and 2 nikkor af-d lenses

Raw files available for all to download and repeat the analysis

Click to expand...

Sean,

There are also other comments to the article that are in agreement with the premise.. Check out related pieces on the site.

When a friend sent me the article, I immediately understood what Yannick Khong was getting at. Not long before, I had run comparisons of identical portraits taken with a Batis 85 and a C/Y 85/2.8 on an A7II. The differences were striking. While the Batis images were razor sharp, they were also flat as a pancake. In comparison, the C/Y images were rounded and lifelike (and plenty sharp), and I preferred them strongly. Upon inspection, it all came down to micro contrast, which is the separation of subtle tonal differences. The C/Y portraits contained more fine tonal gradations than the Batis portraits. This may not be something that we take notice of, but our brains translate 2D micro contrast into 3D depth.

It is true that lighting, OOF transitions and other factors also contribute to a sense of depth, but they cannot fully compensate for a lack of micro contrast, which, BTW, cannot be recovered in PP, if it is not present in the original image. I urge you and others to be aware of this vital feature when evaluating lenses. Sharpness and resolution are not the only qualities that matter. They may not even be the most important.

Rob

Thanks for the follow up. I checked out the blog and there is an updated test here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/

This is a test using the modern Sigma Art 35 and 50 versus equivalent 1980's Nikkor lenses. I loved the Sigma 35 Art on my Canon 6D. I can see some of what the guy is talking about in this test and I don't disagree with what he's noting. I am not sure I see it as a problem, per se, but it's there. Then again, I don't want to assume that Sigma and Zeiss or Sony have the same issues in how they design lenses. I guess I am surprised that glass designed to sharpen so much would also be able to distort that much at the same time.

Robgo2 · Mar 19, 2016

sean lancaster said:
Robgo2 said:

sean lancaster said:

Robgo2 said:

dtray187 said:

I'm not sure what people really mean when they say this G master looks "digital".

is it because the resolution is so high?

We are using digital cameras...I have had a few old lenses on my a7r and havnt been crazy about them.

I do have the mitakon 50mm 0.95 , as a character lens I love it , I guess it doesn't feel " digital" at all, but it not versatile.

At 1800.00 I don't want something that is so much of a character lens that it isn't versatile.

I think the G master 85 will be an amazing lens.

All we are seeing right now are basically , quick shots, not much editing, and I must say they look better than most shots from other high end 85s that are not edited much.

cant wait to see what some of my favorite photographers do with this lens!

Click to expand...

You ask a good question: What do people mean when they say that a particular lens looks "digital?" I believe that the defining characteristic of a digital look is a lack of micro contrast which renders an image tonally flat. In turn, this makes the image visually flat, i.e. lacking a sense of depth, roundness and space. It is a fact that many high end modern lenses are designed for extreme sharpness, resolution, correction of aberrations and wide-open performance. The trade-off seems to be a reduction in micro contrast. The resulting images are super sharp and detailed from corner to corner but lack a three dimensional feel.

Does this apply to the new G-M lenses? Early samples that I have seen suggest that the answer is yes. Will most people even notice? Probably not, because they will be so impressed by the sharpness and detail across the frame at maximum aperture. That is what buyers are demanding and manufacturers are pushing these days.

Here is a link to Yannick Khong's website where he explains in a series of perceptive articles what seems to be going on:

The Problem With Modern Optics

Rob

Click to expand...

There is a comment there that disagrees with the premise and apparently a follow up is coming. I am not sure I fully agree with the premise either, particularly without side by side images to prove the point, so I look forward to the follow up.

Loris Gerber

Sorry but i can't agree with the pictures. All I see is that the 3D-effect only comes from the different lighting styles.

I'd like to see the picture comparison again with the same set-up and models to see the difference. In this case, nobody can clearly see the difference of the lenses with such different pictures that are shot in such different ways and apertures.

But in general I understand the struggle with the actual lens technologies.

Yannick Khong

The next article will feature side by side studio test with
1- a statue head
2- a grey card
3- a d750 on a tripod for shooting on same position
4- a flash pointed down on the head through octobox
5- 2 sigma lenses and 2 nikkor af-d lenses

Raw files available for all to download and repeat the analysis

Click to expand...

Sean,

There are also other comments to the article that are in agreement with the premise.. Check out related pieces on the site.

When a friend sent me the article, I immediately understood what Yannick Khong was getting at. Not long before, I had run comparisons of identical portraits taken with a Batis 85 and a C/Y 85/2.8 on an A7II. The differences were striking. While the Batis images were razor sharp, they were also flat as a pancake. In comparison, the C/Y images were rounded and lifelike (and plenty sharp), and I preferred them strongly. Upon inspection, it all came down to micro contrast, which is the separation of subtle tonal differences. The C/Y portraits contained more fine tonal gradations than the Batis portraits. This may not be something that we take notice of, but our brains translate 2D micro contrast into 3D depth.

It is true that lighting, OOF transitions and other factors also contribute to a sense of depth, but they cannot fully compensate for a lack of micro contrast, which, BTW, cannot be recovered in PP, if it is not present in the original image. I urge you and others to be aware of this vital feature when evaluating lenses. Sharpness and resolution are not the only qualities that matter. They may not even be the most important.

Rob

Click to expand...

Thanks for the follow up. I checked out the blog and there is an updated test here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/

This is a test using the modern Sigma Art 35 and 50 versus equivalent 1980's Nikkor lenses. I loved the Sigma 35 Art on my Canon 6D. I can see some of what the guy is talking about in this test and I don't disagree with what he's noting. I am not sure I see it as a problem, per se, but it's there. Then again, I don't want to assume that Sigma and Zeiss or Sony have the same issues in how they design lenses. I guess I am surprised that glass designed to sharpen so much would also be able to distort that much at the same time.

It's a problem if you value depth and a lifelike appearance over aberration-free sharpness plus high resolution at maximum aperture. Current trends in lens design suggest that the latter is increasingly the popular choice, an unwise one IMO, but people are sometimes misled by technical advances.

I think that perhaps the most interesting of Khong's observations is that micro contrast decreases as the number of elements in a lens increases. Nine elements seems to be the cutoff between good and bad. I would like to see scientific confirmation of this claim, but it does seem reasonable. In any event, assuming it is correct, it means that all lens makers will face the same limits as they add elements in an effort to correct optical flaws that are present only at very wide apertures. As a photographer, my solution is simply to stop down slightly, and the aberrations are gone, but many folks think that great photography is shot at the max. Hence, we now have bigger lenses with more elements.

Rob

Douglas Boyd · Mar 19, 2016

brick33308 said:
why does EXIF state that the lens used is the 28/f2?

The Samyang/Rokinon 85mm lens has no electrical connection to the camera body, and pass no EXIF info. Lightroom apparently randomly filled in the field for the lens info. This is a major disadvantage of these lenses-- Lightroom cannot automatically apply corrections unless you manually enter the correct EXIF including lens brand, lens type, and f-stop.

--

==Doug

Douglas Boyd · Mar 19, 2016

Lightfinity said:
brick33308 said:

PaulR said:

Douglas Boyd said:

The reason to have a 85mm f1.4 lens mounted is to make your pictures look as different as possible from an iPhone selfie. Then you can feel you have the "professional look" e.g. shallow DOF, butterly smooth background, etc. For $2000 less than the Sony 85mm GM lens, you can do this with the Rokinon 85mm lens. Of course it is a manual focus lens, so it takes about 1/2 sec longer to focus. Here I shot wide open with the Rokinon with focus set on the rim of the glasses. This was a snapshot inside a food court at the Greenland Market in Las Vegas. Is it worth the money to go for the expensive GM lens over this? You decide.

Rokinon 85mm f1.4 FE lens at 1/320, f1.4, ISO 1200 focus on eyeglass rim, 5x4 crop from landscape photo

--
==Doug

Click to expand...

That is a nice portrait but it is not a sharp photo. Hard to tell if that is the lens, your focusing, or the ISO 1200 but don't kid yourself that the photo shows the lens in a positive light.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the lens is capable of sharper and that lack of critical sharpness is a focusing issue. Which is why for my money I wouldn't buy a portrait lens that can't take advantage of eye focus on my A7RII.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/134526783@N05/x357Ve

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Manual focus with a fast lens is icky, especially when you're missing out on some of the best focusing automation available (continuous eye focus).

I also like eye focus when it is appropriate. Question: do you think eye focus will work behind sunglasses? And in this shot, would setting the focal plane on the eye and leaving blurred sunglass rims be better? Or if you would prefer the rims sharp, which auto focus mode would accomplish that? I guess that's why Sony offers DMF.....

--
==Doug

philip pj · Mar 19, 2016

and not just because I largely agree with you. Well expressed and adds to the discussion in a meaningful way. Ijust bought a Batis 85 - eyes wide open however, since I have reservations it will fully replace the CY 100/3.5 that I have been serendipitously using since I got into street portraits more fully.

I figure the B85 to be a great all round option and I like almost all I have seen. I don't want to be critical about these images linked to above, but the light handling is not to my liking..and 3D is special to me and is so much more than simply providing a fully blurred background.

It may even be that modern lenses handle highlights less well - I see some fine depiction of tonal roll off in the CY lenses I have, and remember these lenses were designed for an era with very narrow DR media - E6 slides and C41 (usually machine processed) neg film. A couple to throw into the mix.

And another factor is lens design - so many of the older simpler (4-5-6 elements) Sonnars (as well as Planars) had a kind of transparency to the images they make, you see this in Leica lenses too. And priorities..I want the viewer to connect fully with the subject so this 'photorealism' quality might matter more to photographers like me than for general studio work, where the setup is more formal and stylized.

(both CY 100/3.5, a 5/4 design)

textural background

from fine facial hair, perfect skin tone to 'pillowy' bokeh, of cars and roadway.

OFremen · Mar 19, 2016

I really don't see huge differences in your images. Maybe its my eyes, but staring at the bokeh actually gives me a headache, I tend to focus more on the things in focus.....but even when I force myself to look at it in those shots, I don't see anything beautiful about it..its just blurry background .....

Abrak · Mar 19, 2016

Robgo2 said:
dtray187 said:

To me, with 85 being my most used focal length , I'm just seeing an openness and more of a 3D pop than the batis.

I hope it doesn't hunt as much and is accurate , I'm excited about it. Already sold my batis , I loved it but 1.8 isn't enough for certain studio , modeling portraits for me.

Click to expand...

And my impression is that there isn't much 3D pop in those 85 G-M photos, but I would say the same of the Batis. Super sharp and detailed with lovely bokeh, but rather flat tonally.

Rob

I really wish someone would properly explain what this 3D pop is and what optical characteristic of a lens creates it. A year ago or so, I spent an hour trying to find out exactly what it was and didnt get very far.

Conceptually in art you see depth through aerial perspective whereby the background is 'seen' further back in 2D through less clarity and contrast. By definition, any fast 85 'helps' achieve this through the OOF areas having less clarity and contrast through bokeh. I understand that some lenses are contrastier than others but as that effects the whole image it should not affect depth. Of course 3 other factors are more important....

1. The choice of background and the lighting on the background

2. The choice of subject and the lighting on the subject

3. The post processing of the image (if you cant get it right in camera just do it in post)

pre flat

post better

One would have thought that the new GM would have slightly more of a 3D look because it is a bit faster. Other than that I would guess those claiming better 3D pop for any lens are just looking at a combination of subject, lighting and PP.

--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/

Robgo2 · Mar 19, 2016

Abrak said:
Robgo2 said:

dtray187 said:

To me, with 85 being my most used focal length , I'm just seeing an openness and more of a 3D pop than the batis.

I hope it doesn't hunt as much and is accurate , I'm excited about it. Already sold my batis , I loved it but 1.8 isn't enough for certain studio , modeling portraits for me.

Click to expand...

And my impression is that there isn't much 3D pop in those 85 G-M photos, but I would say the same of the Batis. Super sharp and detailed with lovely bokeh, but rather flat tonally.

Rob

Click to expand...

I really wish someone would properly explain what this 3D pop is and what optical characteristic of a lens creates it. A year ago or so, I spent an hour trying to find out exactly what it was and didnt get very far.

Conceptually in art you see depth through aerial perspective whereby the background is 'seen' further back in 2D through less clarity and contrast. By definition, any fast 85 'helps' achieve this through the OOF areas having less clarity and contrast through bokeh. I understand that some lenses are contrastier than others but as that effects the whole image it should not affect depth. Of course 3 other factors are more important....

1. The choice of background and the lighting on the background

2. The choice of subject and the lighting on the subject

3. The post processing of the image (if you cant get it right in camera just do it in post)

pre flat

post better

One would have thought that the new GM would have slightly more of a 3D look because it is a bit faster. Other than that I would guess those claiming better 3D pop for any lens are just looking at a combination of subject, lighting and PP.

l_d_allan · Mar 19, 2016

Graham Best said:
At a 26 inch distance to subject, the depth of field of an 85mm lens, mounted on a full frame sensor, STOPPED DOWN to f/11 is 1.41 inches. 1.41 inches isn't sufficient to have both the nose and eye's in focus on an adult human when the camera is perpendicular to the subject, much less when the subject is at an angle to the camera.

And that's with a COC (circle of confusion) from the film-era.

According to a more flexible, advanced DOF calculator at: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

The DOF shrinks dramatically using 20/20 vision instead of "standard viewer" and a medium to large print at standard viewing distance (diagonal).

At f1.4 and a COC commensurate with a 42 mpx sensor, the DOF would be just a sliver. It could be non-trivial to have both eyes in focus, if that is the look you are going for.

New 85 g master images

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts