SAM 85 f2.8

[Dr. Harout]

Barry, you may be right concerning 70mm in APS-C, but the 85/2.8 SAM is not a DT lens, it's a FF one

[bfitzgerald]

Barry, you may be right concerning 70mm in APS-C, but the 85/2.8 SAM is not a DT lens, it's a FF one

I know just thinking out loud on this. I feel and have done for some time that 105mm (FF) is perfect for portraits. But you can wing it either way. A fast 50mm is a bit short, but I have done portraits on 35mm FF with one.
On the 35mm f2.8 macro SAM lens, I'm sure it is nice and decent. On that you could argue it's a macro lens thus it won't be as fast, some might like a 35mm f1.8/f2 in preference. All down to taste really.

On the lens speed front at 85mm in natural light shooting you'll want to counter the camera shake issue (ok SSS works well but still to a point) every bit of speed might count..and over a stop could mean get the shot or not. That's in addition to the DOF argument too.

[pakodominguez]

I think the words you are grasping for are "we disagree"
I've never used the term, nor would I ever..it's simply a throwaway comment and has no place on any forum.

You are a troll because you came from nowhere with "Canon is better than Sony" when you haven't even see (don't tell about try) the Sony lens. You have not read the specs of the lens.

This thread is about the SAM 85f2.8. Please, show us your experience with this lens and stop trolling.

[Lonnie Utah]

Unless you want to argue aperture is irrelevant (and for portraits it's critical)

No, it isn't. I USED to be, but as I've pointed out, and you've ignored, there are digital solutions to the problem that work much better because you can control where the blur is. When shooting wide open, you can't precisely control where your lens blur occurs. In CS5 (and other programs), I can. It's a much better solution to shoot at f/8, get sharp details everywhere you need them, and blur later in post production.

I don't do much portrait work, but I still feel my siggy 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 (on my a900) are great portrait solutions, which don't box me into a single focal length.....

[bfitzgerald]

You are a troll because you came from nowhere with "Canon is better than Sony" when you haven't even see (don't tell about try) the Sony lens. You have not read the specs of the lens.

This thread is about the SAM 85f2.8. Please, show us your experience with this lens and stop trolling.

Translated into English means something along the lines of
"I don't have an argument to present so I'll resort to name calling"

I'd suggest a nice forum that suits that need perfectly. This isn't it.
I have a point (even if you disagree) Either stick to the topic or move along. And how does the spec sheet help when the entire point I'm making is lens speed. f2.8 is f2.8 and nothing changes that. So the lens is pretty sharp at f2.8..find me an 85mm that isn't!

[bfitzgerald]

No, it isn't. I USED to be, but as I've pointed out, and you've ignored, there are digital solutions to the problem that work much better because you can control where the blur is. When shooting wide open, you can't precisely control where your lens blur occurs. In CS5 (and other programs), I can. It's a much better solution to shoot at f/8, get sharp details everywhere you need them, and blur later in post production.

I don't do much portrait work, but I still feel my siggy 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 (on my a900) are great portrait solutions, which don't box me into a single focal length.....

I did read your post but I disagree. Fast lenses are not relics from the film days, they have a use (if you need them open to debate)
I also think it's inappropriate to shoot at f8 and use software for a number of reasons.

1: It rarely looks as good as the "real thing"
2: It's time consuming and far easier to shoot it in camera how you want.

By your thinking we might as well just get a kit lens and stop it down to f8 and that's it folks. Sure I can and have used kit lenses, and slower lenses..but it's really no substitute for sound photographic technique. What you're suggesting is a logical as taking "wonky horizon shots all the time" and correcting them with processing. Why?

Why not just do it properly in the first place? I'm starting to wonder what's happened with some folks thinking..great we've all had a bit of help from software at times, we all make mistakes. I don't see why you would want to "play it safe" all the time.

[pakodominguez]

You are a troll because you came from nowhere with "Canon is better than Sony" when you haven't even see (don't tell about try) the Sony lens. You have not read the specs of the lens.

This thread is about the SAM 85f2.8. Please, show us your experience with this lens and stop trolling.

Translated into English means something along the lines of
"I don't have an argument to present so I'll resort to name calling"

I'd suggest a nice forum that suits that need perfectly. This isn't it.
I have a point (even if you disagree) Either stick to the topic or move along. And how does the spec sheet help when the entire point I'm making is lens speed. f2.8 is f2.8 and nothing changes that. So the lens is pretty sharp at f2.8..find me an 85mm that isn't!

This is the "Lens Lore" section of the forum

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lore
1. Accumulated facts, traditions, or beliefs about a particular subject. See Synonyms at knowledge.
2. Knowledge acquired through education or experience.
3. Archaic Material taught or learned.

I'm asking you to share your experience with this lens. Apparently you didn't event read the specs because you think the SAM 85f2.8 is a DT lens, but it is a FF lens...

So, please, stick to the topic -and the topic is not Sony vs Canikon (REF http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 575#p48575 and http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 628#p48628 ) The topic is your EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE about the SAM 85f2.8 Do you have any?

[Dusty]

I don't have either lens, so let me just say this in defense of the 1.8: My experience has always been that the faster a (quality) lens is, the better it sharpens up when stopped down to the same aperture of a slower quality lens. Thus I would expect the 1.8 to be sharper at 2.8 than the 2.8, and to probably hold that edge until at least f8.

Dusty

[pakodominguez]

2: It's time consuming and far easier to shoot it in camera how you want.

...
What you're suggesting is a logical as taking "wonky horizon shots all the time" and correcting them with processing. Why?

I do agree. Digital is good but not the ultimate solution.

[pakodominguez]

I don't have either lens, so let me just say this in defense of the 1.8: My experience has always been that the faster a (quality) lens is, the better it sharpens up when stopped down to the same aperture of a slower quality lens. Thus I would expect the 1.8 to be sharper at 2.8 than the 2.8, and to probably hold that edge until at least f8.

Dusty

Best quality of a lens can be found at the "middle aperture", if the lens have a wide aperture, like f1.4 or 1.8, you will get the best quality of the lens at a wider aperture than a, lets say, f3.5 lens.

But, as Peterottaway stated (REF http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 629#p48629) f4 is more usual for portrait and, as the Kurt Munger's review said, at f4 most of this lens weakness vanish.

[alphaomega]

Fearing being accused of not sticking to the subject, I would like to point out that probably BF is not comparing apples with apples. Sony have their fast 85mm FF lens with the CZ one. They have brought out a lighter and cheaper one to complement the CZ and provide users with a cheaper and lighter alternative. The Sony F2.8 is around £75 cheaper than the Canon and weighs in at 175g and is 70x52mm. The Canon is heavier at 425g and 75x71.5mm. So you can disagree with the Sony strategy and state that they should have simply done a Canon lookalike rather than provide top glass at top pricing and a lower cost light weight alternative. That can be debated. Owners of the CZ 85mm sing their praises over the quality of that lens. Is it worth the money? I don't know but some people buy it. Others buy the F28 for weight and costs. Not sure it is fair to criticise Sony for whatever they do. Seems to me like a reasonable solution.

[Lonnie Utah]

I did read your post but I disagree. Fast lenses are not relics from the film days, they have a use (if you need them open to debate)
I also think it's inappropriate to shoot at f8 and use software for a number of reasons.

1: It rarely looks as good as the "real thing"
2: It's time consuming and far easier to shoot it in camera how you want.

Sez who? The photographer or the consumer? Do you really think the consumer can tell the difference in a print taken at f/1.4 vs f2.8 or f/5.6 and digitally altered when taken by a camera in 12-24 mp range and printed at 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 sizes? Heck no they can't. And the simple fact of the matter is I have WAY more control over the final image in post production that I do shooting it in camera (assuming it's properly focused and exposed to begin with). But, I cannot, to an effective degree, sharpen details that are not sharp to begin with (as taken wide open). However, I can EASILY soften them where I want and to the precise degree I want in post if the are sharp in the raw file. On most images, it takes me 5 mins or less to do my post processing. I will agree that you can get a look with a fast lens, and that it's a time proven technique. I can get the same look using software and it's a modern technique. We are not the final judges, the consumer is and most of them can't tell the difference (if you need an example of that simply look at all the crappy HDR photographs out there that the general public seems to be in love with).

By your thinking we might as well just get a kit lens and stop it down to f8 and that's it folks. Sure I can and have used kit lenses, and slower lenses..but it's really no substitute for sound photographic technique. What you're suggesting is a logical as taking "wonky horizon shots all the time" and correcting them with processing. Why?

Why not just do it properly in the first place? I'm starting to wonder what's happened with some folks thinking..great we've all had a bit of help from software at times, we all make mistakes. I don't see why you would want to "play it safe" all the time.

There is no correlation between using expensive lenses and having good photographic technique. Just because you are using an expensive lens, doesn't mean you are using good technique and vice versa. My original post was not talking about using sloppy technique such as crooked horizon lines. I'm taking about using ALL the tools at our disposal to get the best final product possible. My point is that there are other ways to do it, that don't require spending $1,000+ on a lens.

Another point that is lost in this discussion is that when these lenses were developed, we were using film in the iso 25-50-100 range. Anything more than that, and the grain was awful. So, back in the day, lens speed was important, esp if you were going to do enlargements. Today, we get great results with film speeds that are 3, 4 even 5 stops faster. And this is without stabilization that can get me 3 to 4 MORE stops. This fact is often over looked.

I won't deny that fast glass is sexy. It's cool to have expensive lenses. But I cannot justify spending 3x-10x as much on a lens for 2-3 stops when I can get the same results from CS5. There is a significant amount of gear envy and "flag" waving among photographers. I see this all the time when shooting in the classic locations here in the SW. A great example is the carbon fiber tripod. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen some out of shape photographer jump out of their car with a super lightweight, super expensive CF tripod, and have them walk 100 feet or less and set up for a shoot. The only reason they have that piece of gear is 1). Somebody told the it was "the best" and 2). They want to justify to the other photographers there that "they have pro gear, they must be a pro". Truth is, for most of them, a decent al tripod would do them the same job and save them over 1/2 the price of the CF one.

But I digress. Buy what you want, and shoot what you want. I have no doubt that I could buy the 85 f/2.8 or the F/1.4 and be perfectly happy with the photos from either of them. If it's going in my pack on a hike, I know which one I'd take.

[bfitzgerald]

Sez who? The photographer or the consumer? Do you really think the consumer can tell the difference in a print taken at f/1.4 vs f2.8 or f/5.6...

There is no correlation between using expensive lenses and having good photographic technique (snip). My point is that there are other ways to do it, that don't require spending $1,000+ on a lens.

Another point that is lost in this discussion is that when these lenses were developed, we were using film in the iso 25-50-100 range. Anything more than that, and the grain was awful. So, back in the day, lens speed was important, esp if you were going to do enlargements. Today, we get great results with film speeds that are 3, 4 even 5 stops faster. And this is without stabilization that can get me 3 to 4 MORE stops. This fact is often over looked.

I won't deny that fast glass is sexy. It's cool to have expensive lenses.

But I digress. Buy what you want, and shoot what you want. I have no doubt that I could buy the 85 f/2.8 or the F/1.4 and be perfectly happy with the photos from either of them. If it's going in my pack on a hike, I know which one I'd take.

On point no. 1. (sez who)
I can tell and I'd throw the "time factor in". Imagine taking portraits and spending a lot of time doing pp work that could be saved shooting it how you wanted at the time.

On expensive lenses. I don't own any..so I'm not sure what the point is here. There are plenty of fast lenses at some focal lengths that are not expensive. Sure long fast zooms cost a ton..fast 50mm's and 85mm's don't.

On the film point. I like grain..some don't it's down to taste. Point noted about how good we have it high ISO wise. But still some would want more speed lens wise and at 85mm land speed isn't expensive (not at f1.8 anyway)

I'm sure some people buy tasty lenses to look "sexy" wandering around. Up to them, not really the main reason for buying a lens (any lens!)

[Lonnie Utah]

On point no. 1. (sez who)
I can tell and I'd throw the "time factor in". Imagine taking portraits and spending a lot of time doing pp work that could be saved shooting it how you wanted at the time.

Tell me someone, who shoots for $$$ who doesn't do post to some degree, esp for portrait work. What I'm talking about takes 30-60 seconds. It's not a lot of time.

On the film point. I like grain...

And that too, can be added, digitally....

What I'm on about here is that folks often dish lenses based on reports that split hairs and pixel peeping that most of us, not to mention our customers would never notice in 100 years for normal size prints. The cannon 85 f1.8 may be better/sharper than the sony f/2.8. Could any of us tell on a 5x7 sized print from a 5dMkII or A900 respectively? I doubt it.

[KevinBarrett]

There's an SAL-85F28 sitting in my living room, and I can't open it for 24 more days. This sucks.