Fun portrait lens comparison

Tom Ames said:

The GM has better colors and more pleasing background in my eyes.

Click to expand...

I have both and I think the busy background on the OP post is not typical of a 100 STF from what I have seen and my own use. It doesn't blow the background out like my 85GM can but it's smooth and often is more natural but still brings your eyes right to the subject.

Most people who have the 100 STF really like the lens plus its a great med telephoto one of Sony's absolute sharpest and incredible at F8 lots of pop and color. A tad slow in lower light but with a a7rIII ISO 200 or 400 make up for that.

The 85GM has more blur and a bokeh but total different look, both are tops!

They have such a different look, you almost have to play with both lens and viola one of them is going to be more to your liking at different subject to background distances or session. That is why we have more than one lens.



--

-Terry






100STF I grabbed from some review




100STF from a DPreveiw regular but I forget who

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.


100mm STF


85mm 1.4 GM

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.

100mm STF

85mm 1.4 GM

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying Luis but I don't like the bokeh on the 85GM in this pic it is blurry but not enough. It is all personal opinion but I greatly prefer the background of the STF in this shot.

I like the smooth transistion of the in focus to out of focus on the ground around her better with the STF also. I stopped and went back to look at full screen before sending this and like you said neither is optiminal here.

I don't think its possible to get the kind of bokeh from this distance with either of these two FL so I would rather have a less distracting background which I find a half blurred yet very definable background taking away from the photo.

How would you reshoot this, would you use a different lens?

--
-Terry

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.

100mm STF

85mm 1.4 GM

Click to expand...

We've talked about this before. There's definitely a noticeably different rendering to the out-of-focus areas. Obviously the larger aperture blurs the background more. But if you look, for instance, at the clay pots in the background you'll notice that they have that kind of traditional double blur to them with the G Master lens. With the 100 stf, yes, they are not blurred as much, but the blur is much more natural-looking. To me, that natural looking blur is more pleasing.

terryreid said:

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying Luis but I don't like the bokeh on the 85GM in this pic it is blurry but not enough. It is all personal opinion but I greatly prefer the background of the STF in this shot.

I like the smooth transistion of the in focus to out of focus on the ground around her better with the STF also. I stopped and went back to look at full screen before sending this and like you said neither is optiminal here.

I don't think its possible to get the kind of bokeh from this distance with either of these two FL so I would rather have a less distracting background which I find a half blurred yet very definable background taking away from the photo.

How would you reshoot this, would you use a different lens?

--
-Terry

Click to expand...

Honestly I am very confused about your analysis.

The GM shows a level of blur and subject isolation that gives it a much more 3D look than the STF which in this sample barely has blur in comparison. I feel compelled to match the exposures in post so that it does not become a distraction because there is really no comparison from my point of view when it comes to the 3D pop and isolation.

The STF bokeh at this distance barely does anything for me to stand out.
As to how I shoot a photo like this I would change the composition, lower to the ground and her position and likely make the subject larger in the frame. And the light surely not in that position either.
But I wouldnt have a problem using my 85mm for this shot although when possible I grab the 135mm 1.8 art or 300mm 2.8 non is.
Either one of those lenses make me happy with the results I get.
Here is one of my favorite shots with the 85mm so far

Jonathan Brady said:

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.
We've talked about this before. There's definitely a noticeably different rendering to the out-of-focus areas. Obviously the larger aperture blurs the background more. But if you look, for instance, at the clay pots in the background you'll notice that they have that kind of traditional double blur to them with the G Master lens. With the 100 stf, yes, they are not blurred as much, but the blur is much more natural-looking. To me, that natural looking blur is more pleasing.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sure it has a more traditional rendering but the moment I look at both images one pops with 3D while the other just seems flat in comparison.
Guess that to each its own, I much rather have the extra pop and isolation over the more perfect but much less blur of the STF.
I may end up buying the 135mm STF if I can find one for a good price though.

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.

100mm STF

85mm 1.4 GM

Click to expand...

That's a good illustration of the amount of blur and its effect. This is the reason i bought the 135/1.8 Art for my Nikon as I think it would be a more appropriate tool than either for such situations ... Maybe a 70-200 as well.

All great tools, a great excuse to have more tools in the ol' toolkit

--
Dave Sanders

This wasn't meant to be a comparison as I was shooting a family session and decided to use the 100 STF for this shot so they don't line up exactly. But, here's a comparison of the Batis 85 wide open vs the 100 STF wide open...




Sony A9 with Zeiss Batis 85mm at f/1.8, ISO 100, 1/250 The 85 is not only making use of the larger aperture, but I was also closer AND frame tighter, so there's more subject isolation than there would have been with equivalent framing




Sony A7RIII with Sony 100mm STF GM at f/2.8 (t/5.6), ISO 250, 1/125

Again, the subject is smaller in the frame with the 100 STF meaning I'm closer to the subject with the 85 so the amount of background blur is amplified with the 85 vs equivalent subject framing. BUT, notice the wood on the building behind the subject. With the 100 STF, that "double bokeh" isn't present and it's smoothly out of focus. The same goes for the turpentine pots hanging on the tree.

I think the 100 STF is the PERFECT lens for INCLUDING the background in a non-distracting way. Sure, if you have an ugly location, you can/could/should melt it with a fast aperture, but when you have a pretty background, why not include it in a manner which is visually pleasing?

Here's another comparison... same two lenses, similar subject size in the frame. This time, I'll present the 100 STF first, then I'll present the Batis 85 twice. The 2 Batis 85 images are actually the same image. In the first, I didn't do anything to the background. In the second, I manually selected the background and then applied -100 Clarity in Capture One because I found the background SO distracting.













You may need to view these at full screen and flip between them to see the effect fully.

What do y'all think?

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

terryreid said:

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying Luis but I don't like the bokeh on the 85GM in this pic it is blurry but not enough. It is all personal opinion but I greatly prefer the background of the STF in this shot.

I like the smooth transistion of the in focus to out of focus on the ground around her better with the STF also. I stopped and went back to look at full screen before sending this and like you said neither is optiminal here.

I don't think its possible to get the kind of bokeh from this distance with either of these two FL so I would rather have a less distracting background which I find a half blurred yet very definable background taking away from the photo.

How would you reshoot this, would you use a different lens?

--
-Terry

Click to expand...

Honestly I am very confused about your analysis.

The GM shows a level of blur and subject isolation that gives it a much more 3D look than the STF which in this sample barely has blur in comparison. I feel compelled to match the exposures in post so that it does not become a distraction because there is really no comparison from my point of view when it comes to the 3D pop and isolation.

The STF bokeh at this distance barely does anything for me to stand out.
As to how I shoot a photo like this I would change the composition, lower to the ground and her position and likely make the subject larger in the frame. And the light surely not in that position either.
But I wouldnt have a problem using my 85mm for this shot although when possible I grab the 135mm 1.8 art or 300mm 2.8 non is.
Either one of those lenses make me happy with the results I get.
Here is one of my favorite shots with the 85mm so far

Click to expand...

Excellent example and I agree with your accessment but it sure shows what you are talking about in this image.

I just think Johnathon and I both preferred the STF background one that one particular example.

They both capture exceptional images and my thoughts are one will not always look better than the other and they will go back and forth depending upon subject to camera & background distances and what the subjet and background is.

Would you agree or do you think I am off base with that assumption?

Did you crop this image or downsample it to 2,000 pixel?

--
-Terry

terryreid said:

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

terryreid said:

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

My main issue with the 100mm STF was the lack of blur at anything but very close distances to the subject. For example check this shot (ignore the bad lighting but focus on the background/foreground rendition) vs the GM
Photo is not edited not how I would shoot this but was a sample photo to show the differences in rendering.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying Luis but I don't like the bokeh on the 85GM in this pic it is blurry but not enough. It is all personal opinion but I greatly prefer the background of the STF in this shot.

I like the smooth transistion of the in focus to out of focus on the ground around her better with the STF also. I stopped and went back to look at full screen before sending this and like you said neither is optiminal here.

I don't think its possible to get the kind of bokeh from this distance with either of these two FL so I would rather have a less distracting background which I find a half blurred yet very definable background taking away from the photo.

How would you reshoot this, would you use a different lens?

--
-Terry

Click to expand...

Honestly I am very confused about your analysis.

The GM shows a level of blur and subject isolation that gives it a much more 3D look than the STF which in this sample barely has blur in comparison. I feel compelled to match the exposures in post so that it does not become a distraction because there is really no comparison from my point of view when it comes to the 3D pop and isolation.

The STF bokeh at this distance barely does anything for me to stand out.
As to how I shoot a photo like this I would change the composition, lower to the ground and her position and likely make the subject larger in the frame. And the light surely not in that position either.
But I wouldnt have a problem using my 85mm for this shot although when possible I grab the 135mm 1.8 art or 300mm 2.8 non is.
Either one of those lenses make me happy with the results I get.
Here is one of my favorite shots with the 85mm so far

Click to expand...

Excellent example and I agree with your accessment but it sure shows what you are talking about in this image.

I just think Johnathon and I both preferred the STF background one that one particular example.

They both capture exceptional images and my thoughts are one will not always look better than the other and they will go back and forth depending upon subject to camera & background distances and what the subjet and background is.

Would you agree or do you think I am off base with that assumption?

Click to expand...

From my personal experience with the 100mm STF I would mostly use it for close up shots of flowers or similar for MY needs. Of course that does not mean everyone has the same views as I do and in the end, we got many options and whatever delivers the images we like is what really matters.

terryreid said:

Did you crop this image or downsample it to 2,000 pixel?

Click to expand...

There was some crop but this is a downsample to 2048 which I normally use to share depending on the photo.

terryreid said:

-Terry

Click to expand...

Jonathan Brady said:

This wasn't meant to be a comparison as I was shooting a family session and decided to use the 100 STF for this shot so they don't line up exactly. But, here's a comparison of the Batis 85 wide open vs the 100 STF wide open...

Again, the subject is smaller in the frame with the 100 STF meaning I'm closer to the subject with the 85 so the amount of background blur is amplified with the 85 vs equivalent subject framing. BUT, notice the wood on the building behind the subject. With the 100 STF, that "double bokeh" isn't present and it's smoothly out of focus. The same goes for the turpentine pots hanging on the tree.

I think the 100 STF is the PERFECT lens for INCLUDING the background in a non-distracting way. Sure, if you have an ugly location, you can/could/should melt it with a fast aperture, but when you have a pretty background, why not include it in a manner which is visually pleasing?

Here's another comparison... same two lenses, similar subject size in the frame. This time, I'll present the 100 STF first, then I'll present the Batis 85 twice. The 2 Batis 85 images are actually the same image. In the first, I didn't do anything to the background. In the second, I manually selected the background and then applied -100 Clarity in Capture One because I found the background SO distracting.

You may need to view these at full screen and flip between them to see the effect fully.

What do y'all think?

Click to expand...

Well I think by now you know my preference so I will say no more and just say, lets just use whatever tool delivers the photos we like and makes us shoot more.

Interesting comparison, thanks for posting these! In both cases I favor the better subject isolation of the Batis. Loved mine, but sold it in favor of the Batis 135 which I love even more, except for the out-of-focus effect it had on my wallet

my preference, leica, then 85mm , 100mm last

Jonathan Brady said:

This wasn't meant to be a comparison as I was shooting a family session and decided to use the 100 STF for this shot so they don't line up exactly. But, here's a comparison of the Batis 85 wide open vs the 100 STF wide open...

You may need to view these at full screen and flip between them to see the effect fully.

What do y'all think?

Click to expand...

No, you don't really need any big screen even on the Iphone screen I can easily see the difference, to my eyes there is pretty huge difference between those. and I am a huge fan of the background isolation from large aperture lens, 6 months ago I thought I would get one myself too but now I am going to just stick with my 85 F1.4 GM and have zero interest in the STF after playing with it a for a weekend, it just doesn't give me that kind of isolation I want, I am actually playing with the Nikon 105 F1.4 E ED now instead, both you and Luis demonstrated the difference very good and should give those who is sitting on the fence for either lens a great idea what to buy. Thanks for sharing.

This is an awesome photograph. May I ask if the model is really sitting in water? Or is it some other post-production technique, please. Thanks.

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

Click to expand...

Dan_168 said:

Jonathan Brady said:

This wasn't meant to be a comparison as I was shooting a family session and decided to use the 100 STF for this shot so they don't line up exactly. But, here's a comparison of the Batis 85 wide open vs the 100 STF wide open...

You may need to view these at full screen and flip between them to see the effect fully.

What do y'all think?

Click to expand...

No, you don't really need any big screen even on the Iphone screen I can easily see the difference, to my eyes there is pretty huge difference between those. and I am a huge fan of the background isolation from large aperture lens, 6 months ago I thought I would get one myself too but now I am going to just stick with my 85 F1.4 GM and have zero interest in the STF after playing with it a for a weekend, it just doesn't give me that kind of isolation I want, I am actually playing with the Nikon 105 F1.4 E ED now instead, both you and Luis demonstrated the difference very good and should give those who is sitting on the fence for either lens a great idea what to buy. Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

In all fairness that shot of her with the STF is not typical of the background of most the shots I get with the lens or see. That shot would make a STF buyer run for the hills it is annoying busy.

The lens gives one of the most visually pleasing background / bokeh that you will find and a much more natural look. Not the kind of bokeh or isolation of a 85 GM for sure. I got rid of my first STF.

But when I was looking at some images I shot with it using it as a med telephoto was measurmised by how sharp it is, how it renders and the pop! Only then did I start seeing and realizing it is not supposed to blur like a 1.4 lens but how do you find fault in this background I keep sharing that someone posted on here?

I prefer it much so over a totally isolated background personally. Different look for sure but its a good look too.




pleasing natural background from a 100 STF I did not take this another regular on here did.



--
-Terry

terryreid said:

Dan_168 said:

Jonathan Brady said:

This wasn't meant to be a comparison as I was shooting a family session and decided to use the 100 STF for this shot so they don't line up exactly. But, here's a comparison of the Batis 85 wide open vs the 100 STF wide open...

You may need to view these at full screen and flip between them to see the effect fully.

What do y'all think?

Click to expand...

No, you don't really need any big screen even on the Iphone screen I can easily see the difference, to my eyes there is pretty huge difference between those. and I am a huge fan of the background isolation from large aperture lens, 6 months ago I thought I would get one myself too but now I am going to just stick with my 85 F1.4 GM and have zero interest in the STF after playing with it a for a weekend, it just doesn't give me that kind of isolation I want, I am actually playing with the Nikon 105 F1.4 E ED now instead, both you and Luis demonstrated the difference very good and should give those who is sitting on the fence for either lens a great idea what to buy. Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

In all fairness that shot of her with the STF is not typical of the background of most the shots I get with the lens or see. That shot would make a STF buyer run for the hills it is annoying busy.

The lens gives one of the most visually pleasing background / bokeh that you will find and a much more natural look. Not the kind of bokeh or isolation of a 85 GM for sure. I got rid of my first STF.

But when I was looking at some images I shot with it using it as a med telephoto was measurmised by how sharp it is, how it renders and the pop! Only then did I start seeing and realizing it is not supposed to blur like a 1.4 lens but how do you find fault in this background I keep sharing that someone posted on here?

I prefer it much so over a totally isolated background personally. Different look for sure but its a good look too.

pleasing natural background from a 100 STF I did not take this another regular on here did.

--
-Terry

Click to expand...

Very beautiful photo. Would it be any better if the background were blurred into obliteration? Not at all. This is an excellent example of what the STF id capable of.

I wound up buying the stf on the basis of this post and Jonathan's and I like it a lot, not just for portraits. I certainly can see the strengths of the other lenses as well which is why I have the 85 1.8 and Samyang 135 F2. It's great to have the right tools for the job at hand.

Cheers

terryreid said:

Dan_168 said:

Jonathan Brady said:

This wasn't meant to be a comparison as I was shooting a family session and decided to use the 100 STF for this shot so they don't line up exactly. But, here's a comparison of the Batis 85 wide open vs the 100 STF wide open...

You may need to view these at full screen and flip between them to see the effect fully.

What do y'all think?

Click to expand...

No, you don't really need any big screen even on the Iphone screen I can easily see the difference, to my eyes there is pretty huge difference between those. and I am a huge fan of the background isolation from large aperture lens, 6 months ago I thought I would get one myself too but now I am going to just stick with my 85 F1.4 GM and have zero interest in the STF after playing with it a for a weekend, it just doesn't give me that kind of isolation I want, I am actually playing with the Nikon 105 F1.4 E ED now instead, both you and Luis demonstrated the difference very good and should give those who is sitting on the fence for either lens a great idea what to buy. Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

In all fairness that shot of her with the STF is not typical of the background of most the shots I get with the lens or see. That shot would make a STF buyer run for the hills it is annoying busy.

The lens gives one of the most visually pleasing background / bokeh that you will find and a much more natural look. Not the kind of bokeh or isolation of a 85 GM for sure. I got rid of my first STF.

But when I was looking at some images I shot with it using it as a med telephoto was measurmised by how sharp it is, how it renders and the pop! Only then did I start seeing and realizing it is not supposed to blur like a 1.4 lens but how do you find fault in this background I keep sharing that someone posted on here?

I prefer it much so over a totally isolated background personally. Different look for sure but its a good look too.

pleasing natural background from a 100 STF I did not take this another regular on here did.

--
-Terry

Click to expand...

Thanks Terry for the compliments on my photo.

Honestly you are all spot on with the STF its not a lens you use to remove a background its a lens you use to artistically include it.

The 85 I use when I am running and gunning and when I come across a beautiful background I pop the STF on and artistically include it.

I will share another STF favourite of mine.


This was just me testing the levels of bokeh from different distances


Closer


Artistic shot in Munich

Sehr gut !!! Shows the strengths of this lens really well.