Cresent moon with the 90 mm macro - need a Loxia 85 mm?

The Sony 90 mm f:2.8 is a great lens. Makes me wonder: Do I need the 85 mm Loxia f:2.4 lens? The Zeiss lens is much more compact, but the macro lens handles beautifully on the A7 for general work and when going close as well. Thoughts?


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/30 sec, F:5.6, ISO 800, camera on the ground. Great sharpness.


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/125 sec, f:2.8, ISO 800, handheld. Great sharpness.


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/60 sec, f:2.8 in low light. The file is pushed a lot.

Well..............

You have a macro lens

You have a OSS lens

You have a auto focus lens

You have a really sharp lens

Aperture is a wash

Weight is a wash

You have a macro lens that seems to focus/be sharp at infinity.

The only question is if you prefer manual focus and rendering.

I have the Loxia 21 and love it. I'm assuming the 85 will be as good. I have the Batis 85 but mainly shoot landscape so the Batis may have a limited life. However I also like autofocus! MMMMMMMMMMMMM

Do I wait for a 135 native mount.

MMMMMMMMMMMMM

Brian

ps really like the pictures :-D

Nice photos .

It's a wonderful lens. And I love the manual focusing implementation .

Magnar W said:

The Sony 90 mm f:2.8 is a great lens. Makes me wonder: Do I need the 85 mm Loxia f:2.4 lens?

Click to expand...

Need? No, want? Yes.

Member said:

The Zeiss lens is much more compact, but the macro lens handles beautifully on the A7 for general work and when going close as well. Thoughts?


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/30 sec, F:5.6, ISO 800, camera on the ground. Great sharpness.


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/125 sec, f:2.8, ISO 800, handheld. Great sharpness.


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/60 sec, f:2.8 in low light. The file is pushed a lot.

Click to expand...

Nice shots.

I don't think you'll see much difference in image quality, but you will feel a difference in how you use it, AF + macro vs manual focus.

My recommendation is to try the Loxia in store and see if you like the feel, if it feels good to you then try and rent one to see if it is a better fit to how you shoot in the field than the 90.

--
I don't have any AF lenses, so if I want a picture, I have to do more than squeeze a button.
I just bough my first camera, Best camera EVER!!!1
Interested in Adapting lenses? head here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1065
My shots:
My lenses:
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
-Mark Twain
Reputation is the shadow. Character is the tree
-Abraham Lincoln
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????

Magnar W said:

The Sony 90 mm f:2.8 is a great lens. Makes me wonder: Do I need the 85 mm Loxia f:2.4 lens? The Zeiss lens is much more compact, but the macro lens handles beautifully on the A7 for general work and when going close as well. Thoughts?


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/30 sec, F:5.6, ISO 800, camera on the ground. Great sharpness.


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/125 sec, f:2.8, ISO 800, handheld. Great sharpness.


Sony A7, 90 mm macro, 1/60 sec, f:2.8 in low light. The file is pushed a lot.

Click to expand...

Are you bored? You are a very accomplished and experienced photographer, and certainly capable of making informed purchase decisions.

I think you made a pretty good case for staying with the 90/2.8. And you didn't even mention the focus lock button at the front of the lens. The Loxia doesn't have one of those! Oh, wait, it's a MF lens. The aperture differences are small.

Only reasons I can think of to go with the Loxia:

• Love the MF
• Want a smaller lens.
• Money burning hole in pocket.

Consder some other 85s?

• Zeiss 85/f M. Really small.
• Batis 85/2. A stop faster than the 90/2.8, and still pretty light in comparison.
• Otus 85/1.4. IQ bragging rights. Low LoCA. Great flare performance.

Jim

--

JimKasson said:

Are you bored?

Click to expand...

No, not at all! Just interested to hear others thoughts on this.

JimKasson said:

Only reasons I can think of to go with the Loxia:

• Love the MF
• Want a smaller lens.
• Money burning hole in pocket

Click to expand...

The two first are true.
The last one, no, I do not have that much money.

JimKasson said:

Consider some other 85s?

Click to expand...

Since I already have the 21 mm and 35 mm Loxia lenses, and they are great. The 85 mm Loxia would build a compact and pretty much complete package for traveling. Uh?

Your main problem is not your photographic limitations, but the word "need"... The way I know you, my dear brother, whenever you lay your hands on one of these, you will buy it - no matter if you need it or not, the loxia lenses is just to beutiful to ignore ... :-D

Just give in for the urge, and start saving.

--
Andre JF
AndreJaingam.smugmug.com

You don't need it. You belong to those who can make great photographs with any gear at hand - and the 90mm is indeed a fine lens.

Now, you may want the Loxia. But that's not the same.

Of course, you know that.

BTW, the ship in your moon pics, is it "Hurtigruten"?

--
"Sharpness is a bourgois concept." (Henri Cartier-Bresson)

This reminds me of the discussions in the past about "90 macro versus Batis 85, which one?" The twist now is that the Loxia 85 is slower and MF, and smaller.

The answer is the standard one: if you shoot macro, the Loxia will be useless. If you shoot portraits the 90 macro is overkill. If you do a bit of both you can:

1. Get the 90 macro only, it will do nice double duty

2. Get the 90 macro and another portrait lens.

Personally, I think the Loxia 85 will have a hard time, with so many legacy nice 85mm lenses available...

olstrup said:

Now, you may want the Loxia. But that's not the same.

Click to expand...

Sure, you are right! ;-)

olstrup said:

Of course, you know that.

BTW, the ship in your moon pics, is it "Hurtigruten"?

Click to expand...

You are right, again! ;-)

Huh, it sounds like you want one, but you try now to get some good reasons against it.

I have the 90/2.8 G Macro, the 85/1.4 GM, a Contax Zeiss Planar 85/1.4, Leitz Wetzlar Elmar 90/4 and a Schneider Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 90/3.5, but I'm still thinking about the loxia. It's because of Loxia-handling and rendering. I expext something special here. I will borrow one, as soon as it is released (and available) and will find out if it touches me.

Until then there is no answer to your question, no matter how many pictures you show of the 90. Especially because the 90 is a stellar lens without any weakeness.

Cheers, Seb

--
flickr

Magnar W said:

The Sony 90 mm f:2.8 is a great lens. Makes me wonder: Do I need the 85 mm Loxia f:2.4 lens?

Click to expand...

No, you do not.

The FE 90 is in Otus territory in terms of image quality. This lens is a gem and is extremely versatile.

One could make an argument for a smaller, lighter portrait lens, but the Loxia is not lighter.

I honestly would keep my money and wait for a longer prime.

Lovely photos! Good dialogue!

Hmmm..... on the Loxia 85MM. Good macros do tend to resolve a lot of detail, and I like a long macro for landscapes sometimes, although I don't have the 90MM (use the older Sigma 105MM in A-mount)

85MM is a good focal length for me for US western landscapes, so although I have the Batis 85MM I am kind of intrigued/tempted, and let's face it, the Loxia is just going to feel good and solid in the hand. I wouldn't even consider using it for portraits, though. I really need autofocus for that. And really, why, why, give up eye autofocus????? So the Loxia would have to be a second 85MM for me.

Also, for compressed urban landscapes here in NYC, or for shooting the cityscape across one of our rivers, the 85MM just isn't quite long enough in most circumstances, to give me a good composition. I don't think I have more than a few urban landscape photos taken with 85MM focal length in my portfolio, although I do have a few. But most of my favorites of this type of urban landscape are at 135MM.

In the right light. I'm still using the old Minolta 135MM f2.8, which is small, light and amazingly detailed and sharp. It is not good in bright sun, but boy is it ever great at dusk and dawn. Still far superior across the frame to the native 70-200MM f4.

I would snap up a Loxia 135 f2.8 with modern coatings, just for compressed urban landscapes, in a nanosecond.

Sh_la_m said:

I would snap up a Loxia 135 f2.8 with modern coatings, just for compressed urban landscapes, in a nanosecond.

Click to expand...

Same here, I find 85mm is good for portraits and travel in general, but for landscapes, I would prefer something more towards doubling the standard 50mm lens. In my case, doubling my 55mm lens

I am waiting delivery of a CZJ 135 f3.5 M42 mount lens, see how that will work. But indeed, a 135mm Loxia with 52mm filter diameter (one of the constraints that Zeiss has imposed on the Loxia line, apparently) would be great. Not sure if that would work with f2.8, but for me even f4 would be enough.

yes, gotta love that 55MM lens for landscapes! Just can't be beat.

The old 135MM Minolta "pocket rocket" has a 55MM filter diameter so I don't know if 52MM f 2.8 is feasible, but like you, for a manual focus 135MM lens I could also compromise to f4 - after all, I wouldn't use it for portraits (eye AF again!)..... and probably I'm going to be focusing at infinity 90% of the time, so f8-f11 should be giving great sharpness on a Loxia....

just dreaming, I guess! I've been looking for that 135MM f 2.8 update from some manufacturer for several years now.....

Interesting thoughts! Thanks! I am not a big fan of overlapping focal lengths, although the Loxia is tempting. Probably I should use my 90 mm more!

Lloyd Chambers has just posted the first images taken with Loxia 85. To put it short: I think this lens will be hard to resist!

Strictly speaking - the moon is not a macro object (unless beeing there). Guess you are using the wrong lens for the job. Amateurish!

So if wanting to work like a pro (doing things correctly) it seems like there is no way around getting the new Loxia lens.

Trollmannx said:

Amateurish!

Click to expand...

That's me! :-D

Tristimulus said:

So if wanting to work like a pro (doing things correctly) it seems like there is no way around getting the new Loxia lens.

Click to expand...

One of the best arguments for a while! ;-)

Snupi6 said:

To put it short: I think this lens will be hard to resist!

Click to expand...

To put it short: Go!