It's just the rendering. The shots are sharp, the bokeh is nice, the colors seem accurate.....but the images are imo lifeless. The lens is doing everything Perfectly and I think that's the problem. I'm really not digging the clinical look. The images just look incredibly boring and I know that many older lenses I own would have rendered the same or similar images with a lot more flavor. This just definitely isn't a lens for me. I like lenses that show some unique rendering and character. this lens just doesn't.

@Magnar W

A lot of it has to do with contrast and color rendition. The colors out of this lens (or the sony body) look incredibly dull to me. There is no distortion to speak of which is very odd and imho takes away from the image, Look up images taken with lenses like the 42.5mm f0.95 nokton or the 50mm f1 or f0.95 leica. There is a character and individuality to the images. You can spot photos from those lenses out of acrowd. I could never do that with the shots out of this one.

dulynoted: I think it is extremely hard to judge color qualities and contrast (low & high frequency) just from some sample photos on the web, without any pictures to compare with directly. We don't even know how the samples were developed from raw, or which camera settings was used if they are jpg files out of the camera. I don't think people are able to draw such conclusions from the available Dpreview sample pictures.

@Spongemac
It isn't hard. The f0.95 lens I referred to is for the m43 format. So the dof control is basically the same as an f1.8 lens for the full frame format. So the 42.5mm f0.95 is like having an 85mm f1.8 on a full frame camera and gives you about the same low light capabilities as the ff camera as well. The dof is shallow enough for pretty much any usage, but not as ridiculously shallow as you get on a full frame camera with an f0.95 lens on it. It gives you a nice tradeoff with the m43 system. If you need a tiny lightweight kit you can have it and for special circumstances you can have the faster glass too.

They are manual focus only but the m43 cameras are especially well designed to handle manual focus. The in evf focus assists are accurate and quick to use. I actually do not use any auto focus lenses on my m43 cameras. I only use manual glass, the feeling of focusing and adjusting the aperture manually is a big part of the enjoyment of photography for me.

Sprongemac wrote: "The f0.95 lens I referred to is for the m43 format."

But this tread is about full frame lenses, or more correct, about a certain high end Sony FE lens.

Why then chime in with m43 bla bla bla ... ?

I had the Batis and expected Nikkor 1.8/85 results or better, I was disappointed.

Wide aperatures have a look that many love. You don't, cool. Consider that others may have different aesthetic preferences than you, judging it as snobbish vanity just because *you* aren't into is pretty rude and self-absorbed.

Btw, many fast manual primes available are much cheaper than most modern medium and slow speed lenses. My f/1.2 and f/1.8 lenses were both ~$350. Not sure where my bragging rights to having ulra-expensive gear comes in.

C'mon pal. Not that I like those bokeh thing as I prefer my type of photography such as landscape, macro and bird, in focus as much as possible, someone can like it and it's not reserved only for pros. They can just like it and not thing to do with looking like pros.

Totally agree... I've actually did a simple test with average people and they rarely said ohhh look how blown out that background is... As a matter of fact some people said why can't I see the trees... I personally think great lighting, posing and camera angle is so much more important... Also sharpness is a bit overrated when you can see every pore and blemish in the face only to photoshop it later....

It's even worse when people spend hundreds of thousands or millions on Ferrari and supercars thinking it will make them look like a "F1 racer". What a joke.

How people, including pro and amateur photographers, or anyone else spend their money is their concern. I don't waste time being "astonished", or in mocking them.

Enjoy your photography, in whatever way you choose.

Ferrari's (like the 250GTO) aren't worth millions because they are fast, because they aren't anymore, they are collectable, special items.
Not a great analogy.

Professionals pay $1000 extra for the best lens Sony has, because, $1000 to a professional for a lens that'll pay for itself 100 times over is nothing.

9 times out of 10 shallow DoF is used because either an amateur thinks it is 'artistic' or he is too lazy to find an interesting background or one that is not distracting.
And who cares if a lens is 'sharp' if 90% of the frame is out of focus. :)

Today, unless shooting for a cover, its probably better to shoot to the 16:9 screen, at that distance for a head & shoulders a quality 85 @ f/1.4 looks wonderful.

'A sucker born every day'; Sounds like something people say when they can’t afford the good stuff.

Since it was shot on an A7r2, it had IBIS

I'm thinking this would likely come down to processing

So the micro-contrast is that magic magical stuff...

Just kidding. Micro-contrast, as a characteristic of a image (not a lens) is something very "measurable" ... in PP you can enhance the microcontrast of a image, to obtain .. just that: more pop.

Anyway, the article you linked to is very, unacademic. Aproximative quote: "take a image, convert it to B&W and analize the shades of grey" .... really? You know that what you obtain is very dependent on how you tweak channels...

Also if you shoot a flat illuminated thing, you'll get no pop even with some magical 1950 leica...

Now, on the agreement part, some lenses render more flat then others... so you could say they have "less microcontrast", and i agree. But "NO microcontrast" is kind of nonsense...

My point was that more often than not on these forums people appear proclaiming that this has, or this other hasn't got a good level of 'Micro Contrast' as if it's some kind of 'in the know' measure of quality.

So many elements of an image will determine such 'easily visible' aspects of itself, not least the subject matter itself.

When talking about micro contrast as opposed to (just) contrast and a particular lens' ability to resolve that the assumptions of the quality of the lens one way or the other are just that: assumptions.

The terminology is a bit ridiculous. It's just jargon. Saying that a lens is flat and has no micro contrast doesn't actually say anything about the qualities of the lens. You may as well say "I don't like it".

It means about the same, which is nothing.

badi was right. "micro-contrast is that magic magical stuff..."

When creating a lens you can optimise for a focus point (the airy disk) to be very small thus maximising resolution but at the cost of a larger dimer circle around that tight circle. This improves resolution but at the cost of overall contrast. If you go for a slightly larger airy disk (non diffraction limited of course) then there is less of a surrounding circle which will result in overall better image contrast (and what people actually call micro-contrast) but lower actual resolution. These are never measured (not that I know) so you're right its all based on supposition.

Well, after all it's a portrait lens. It has already a high resolution, pumping up the micro contrast would make it a macro lens. A macro lens is never good for portraits, not only because the definition will reveal all skin imperfections, but also because it gives also more contrast to the color of the skin, which will result in bad color with harsh shade transitions!

Can't believe so many people are ignorant of what micro contrast is. It has nothing to do with overall image contrast and you can't add it in PP, it is the ability of a lens to differentiate different tonal areas at the highest spatial frequencies on a lens chart. In pictorial terms that means defining the edges of small structures. As such it is primarily an effect of resolution although lens coatings are a factor.

A simple way to understand it is if you imagine a picture of a boat on a lake. A mediocre lens will still resolve the shape of the boat and masts well enough to make an attractive picture. A lens with great micro contrast might resolve each bolt on the portholes which are just a blur of tones on the lesser lens. Overall both images might contain the same tonal information, but the lens with micro contrast will define the edges of small structures in the picture.

Misunderstandings about contrast are why there are often disagreements about lens quality on the net. A lens with mediocre resolution can still turn it bitingly sharp' images providing the subject in the photograph is sufficiently large. A good example in e-mount is the Sigma 30mm f2.8 which has very poor 'small structure' contrast compared to the Touit 32mm or the ZA 24mm, but is nicely sharp if you shoot portraits, or general scenes that contain largish objects.

1 of 2

@RubberDials - Nobody is saying that micro contrast doesn't exist per se. Only that referring to it as being the most important factor (or not) in the context of real world subject matter can only give an impression of whether or not it has improved (or not) the image.

As it happens, on some of the images in the samples gallery it could be said that the micro contrast is very good. Would a Nikon or Canon (or other) equivalent lens appear to show the same micro contrast resolution under the same conditions? We don't know, simply because they weren't tested like for like next to the Sony! Exposure, camera movement (or not), and of course the actual resolution and even atmospheric noise and colour characteristics on a different sensor can and do make a huge difference (or not!) to how micro contrast is recorded at the moment of capture.

2 of 2

It's there, and nobody is saying it isn't. My first questioning post was all about pointing out that proclaiming that this lens has "No MicroContrast" is a nonsense, all too frequently spewed out on these forums in an attempt to sound like one knows what one is discussing.

"This lens is poor because it has no Micro Contrast"

It would be ignorant to think that you were the only person here who knows what Micro Contrast is, but there you go.

heh... the comparison in itself is interesting, but only in an academic way. In real world it doesn't matter that much. You don't shoot too often static subjects with an 85/1.4 lens. ... Maybe unless it's a macro lens :)

leonche64 - with that apparently amazing new adapter, they actually do make FE lenses! DO WANT! DO WANT SO MUCH! If I had an a7XII that is. All AF modes work though that adapter? Awesome. Very excited for real world reviews of it.

Excellent point! We live in a world of options.

with all due respect all Sigma lenses, for how sharp some of them they may be, they lack carisma. ... and they brake down easily BTW.
These new sony lenses, on term of "look" not mentioning sharpness, are on the same league of Zeiss and Leica.

RE:people get mad at long as it's a sony

lol

not really, nobody cares for Canon. :P

Did my post say ANYthing about touch screens?! What does that have to do with anything I was talking about? Read my post again and let me know where I said anything about touch screens.

Charrick1 is right, just stop down the lens of buy a wide angle lens if more depth of field is your goal.

Charrick is right and the touch screen was an appropriate analogy.

@snapa - clearly Sony has failed. No 1.4 lens should have such a narrow plane of focus!

Sorry Snapa, Charrick1 is right

Behold the power or an aperture ring!

PS. - may prove too complicated for some shooters

@quiquae
Canon portrait photographers swear by the 50mm 1.2 because they spent 2 grands and signed a "no complain agreement" to canon. ;)
only amateurs shoot portraits at less than f2.8, never mind if they get away at making a living at taking photos.

Red dye for letter G contains led and rubber ring is not made from recyclable materials. Furthermore the lens designer emptied a bucket with water on a dog passing under his window... Yeah! We smashed them!!!

though, they are doing pretty well. ppl are buying the A7 series for weddings

Sony has been a big player in the pro video area for a long time.
They know how to do colours.

Unless you're into color calibration and customization, then I'd say it all comes down to the profiles :)

When I'm in a rush I use Huelight A7RII camera profiles with ACR/LR which make quick work of the A7R II colors. - never tried OOC JPG's however.

Define "get Photography". Obviously you must do with the brilliant statement of "Terrible picture can't be improved by 'sharpness'.

So are you saying that Sony has a design strategy of building sharp lenses to compensate for "tech geeks" that shoot "terrible picture"?

no, he is trying to say that sony should concentrate to make a camera that produces amazing photos (you know, make composition for you, auto trigger when interesting stuff happens, call for models, and so on) ... not just producing a tool that can take high resolution sharp images of uninteresting stuff you point it at...

Well quoted of course - but irrelevant for this article.

I am, and so are all other here, well aware of that sharp lenses no fantastic images do take. It needs a photographer for that.

This is a sharp lens though. Do you think it is wrong to make it? Or buy it?

Sharp lens also can be used to make good composition. I don't see why sharp lens is bad.

It's another in an endless stream of posts suggesting we shouldn't discuss the tech aspects of photography...on a tech site. :)
I have 3 or 4 legacy lenses which won't be sharp (have lots of 'character') on this sensor...so I already have that angle covered.

why shouldnt one discuss sharp....this lens is seriously sharp...that lady in Blue..thats macro sharp

Seeing as how this is a story on a photography GEAR site, demonstrating a new lens... Why wouldn't we talk about it being sharp (& other characteristics)?
This isn't a photographer critique thread and the people shooting aren't pro photographers.
Smh at some people on here. I wonder if they're just butt hurt that Sony is pumping out more, and better, lenses than the currently stagnant Canon & Nikon lens depts?
Or perhaps they're just miserable in general and jump at the chance to share their negativity with any audience they can...?
Who knows.

This lens looks awesome. Very sharp. The transitions are very smooth, almost the opposite of Zeiss in that regard. Great color, great bokeh. This should be a very flattering portrait lens. I've been waiting to see if Sony would bring a pro level portrait lens out, and they did not disappoint. Lens looks to beat the older Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4.
If I shot Sony, This would probably be the first lens I bought.

Good job Sony!

So we shouldn't discuss lens sharpness if we want to be good photographers? Gosh. I guess Leica and Zeiss did it all for nothing all those years.

Sony: We've made the sharpest lens in the world!
Critic: Sharpness doesn't matter.
Sony: We've made the highest resolution FF!
Critic: Resolution isn't everything.
Sony: We've delivered the worlds first mirrorless MF camera
Critic: Sensor size isn't everything.

And so-on and so-forth... :)

Good morning Roland - given that (as of 9 am CST) there are 72 different mentions of the word "sharp" on this page, versus five mentions of "color", seven mentions of "render", 25 mentions of "bokeh", and 12 mentions of "pop" (accutance, right?), I think reminding the sharpness-hounds that sharpness isn't everything is relevant, and that reminder has been relevant for 175 years!

Why would you think I disapprove of buying it? Don't put words in my text - I think it looks like a lovely lens and I'm looking forward to technical teardowns (LensRentals!) and discussions of real-world use.

For the rest of you - I enjoy the responses to things I didn't actually write (but you interpreted that I meant). This is fun.

This doesn't seem to be a 'pop' lens (ala Zeiss), instead focusing on getting everything else right.
I don't remember the specifics, but I read a great article & discussion a while back that talked in-depth about the trade offs in lens design.
If I'm not mistaken- the 'pop' comes from 'micro contrast'. Usually lenses like zeiss tthat have lots of 'pop' are seen as being very clinical, and don't always have the nicest bokeh.
Where as other portrait lenses(like the Nikon 58mm 1.4g) may focus more on smooth rendering, a flattering 'creamy' look & very pleasing bokeh.
I'm not the best person to explain it, probably butchering it- but in a nutshell that's what I've come to notice in tele lenses.

This lens seems to walks the line by having the best of all worlds.
I prefer the higher contrast Zeiss style formulas but I respect the hell out of this lens, and foresee it doing VERY well in reviews(particularly ones that take bokeh into account).

Of course. But are they "seriously sharp"? I doubt it, because "seriously sharp" is, as far as I know, a label that is handed out only at Sony outings.

Just joking of course.

You might actually be right! for years lens designers have realized that portrait Lenses need to have slight optical defects built in. But DXO Mark etc., with their lack of experience criticized those lenses, the danger of this is we now get lenses that are perfectly unsuitable.

It is a good sharp lens but not a portrait lens, as some people will find out when they photograph their girl friends and family, unless they are being prepared for laser surgery.

@Cytokine: "But DXO Mark etc., with their lack of experience criticized those lenses"

If only DXO would have hired you...a truly experienced lens critic. Then, they might be as well known and respected in the world of photography as you are.

regular postings on this site count as photographic experience critisim in my cv! especially being critical online is my forté!

Could the simplest explanation indeed be the correct one? That in the wake of test chart sharpness obsession, Sony went the Sigma route with lenses only optimized for sharpness, ignoring all other characteristics, and Zeiss said NO?

They're coming from cheap land, a fantasy world.

Also canon 85L is $1900

Yup! I didn't want to include it since it's a f/1.2, but yeah, i know. Good glass is pricey, what a surprise!

how cheap do you want it? $100? get a job maybe!

Pentax FA 85mm f1.4 for $1,000.

"Good glass is pricey, what a surprise!"
Not always.

Looking at your forum activity you seem to think that just about everything is too expensive. Wrong hobby, maybe? My I suggest knitting or even sky gazing, perhaps?

Pentax 85 from 1992? Might as well include minolta in there too!

135/2.0 from Samyang , still not a patch on the sony, or any other £££ lens ( but great value !!!!!!!!) , the pentax, from a lot of reviews suffers from chromatic aberration

pretty sure if you account for inflation, the pentax would cost the same today as then

Why some people are so mean in this site? What with "photography" and ego? You have your opinions, he has his. Geez

I look at some of your photos in your websites, you might as well need to change your hobby to "knitting or even sky gazing" With all that money you spent for your expensive tools, it doesn't help. There, do i fit in this hostile environment yet?

Hostile? The guy keeps trolling with his nonsense comments all over the board, begging for unreasonable prices, like the lens should be $400. BTW, before you start talking trash about people's photos, why don't you share your own. Fair, no?

Agree, this is a 1.4 bright & expensive lens, but it seems that most of the photos has been made by standard zoom kit.
Making wide open portraits should be the main aim there, but
no one full-length portraits on 1.4, no one nightly portraits with tons of bokeh.
Wires, dead legs and bricks.
Ok with 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 but
it is interesting the author of this photos tried to google "85/1.4 lens samples" before to better understand why people spend their money for 85/1.4 .
Sorry for the little rude comment.

Sorry my money is on the Sony with its 11 aperture blade , and it's way to early to judge a lens "booked" from these samples.

sorry but I sold that 56mm 1.2 + Fujifilm X-T10 after 3 weeks. WHen you hold A7Rii and Canon L lens, you will throw these fujifilm to trash can right away...

@Banh Mi
Well, you are comparing a $1,600 Fuji combo to a $5,100 combo. I hope that would give you something for that price difference.