SAM 85 f2.8

[pakodominguez]

I actually had to seek her advice on the stand mixer, as it's something she's wanted since before I ever had my Alpha, and I am almost as fond of photography as she is of cooking.

That explain everything...

Guess what I'm doing Wednesday!

making sure Santa DO exist?

[CharlieWebster]

One thing about this lens: 170g (if I'm not mistaken)

Is there ANY 85mm remotely close to this for apsc?

[KevinBarrett]

One thing about this lens: 170g (if I'm not mistaken)

Is there ANY 85mm remotely close to this for apsc?

Yes, under my Christmas tree, there is a DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM beside the 85mm f/2.8 SAM. They are very close, though in their wrapping paper I can't tell which is which.

[pakodominguez]

One thing about this lens: 170g (if I'm not mistaken)

Is there ANY 85mm remotely close to this for apsc?

Yes, under my Christmas tree, there is a DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM beside the 85mm f/2.8 SAM. They are very close, though in their wrapping paper I can't tell which is which.

you are spoiled...

[CharlieWebster]

One thing about this lens: 170g (if I'm not mistaken)

Is there ANY 85mm remotely close to this for apsc?

Yes, under my Christmas tree, there is a DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM beside the 85mm f/2.8 SAM. They are very close, though in their wrapping paper I can't tell which is which.

The DT 35 is quite nice, got mine last week. Works well on the nex-5.

But of course there are many small light 35mms--some great old RFs. But the lightest 85mm lens I've seen so far is about 300g.

[Winkler Prins]

better lens, likely much better build, much faster, and has a real USM motor and not a cheapo SAM.

Good lens without lens hood is of no use at all. The Sony SAM in the 85/2,8 is actually very fast, accurate and near silent.

[KevinBarrett]

A lot of thoughts and samples have been accumulated here about the 85mm f/2.8 SAM.

I recieved the 85mm f/2.8 SAM as a present this Christmas and am greatly enjoying it. It's close-focusing ability (60cm from the sensor) is worth considering if ever you should unfairly compare this lens to the CZ, which is four times as bright and six times as expensive. The SAM lens focuses 250mm closer than the Zeiss, and won't weigh you down. I took the SAL-85F28 SAM to a zoo and it never left my a700, being useful for lions and elephants at a distance, and critters in the darkened herpetarium just inches away.

I put it on my wish list because of it's reported sharpness from wide open and it has not disappointed me. It's plenty usable for everything from tight head-shots to full-length portraits at a distance, and when stopped down to just f/3.5, it's sharper than my 70-210/4 "beercan" anywhere. There's no distortion or vignetting to speak of when used on an APS-C sensor, and so little CA that shooting with it is a care-free exercise.

Low points: It certainly doesn't feel as nicely as it performs, being all-plastic. I find it very difficult to fit the lens cap when the lens hood is attached. There are no depth of field indicators. You must change from AF to MF by the switch on the lens, and not with any controls on your camera body. It is visually indistinguishable from the 35mm f/1.8 SAM, except by reading the lens markings, which are completely covered on either lens when stored with the (identical) lens hood reversed and the lens cap attached--one must finally look at the finely-printed sticker bearing the serial-number to distinguish between the two lenses.

High points: It's sharp at all settings--you hardly have to think about stopping down for sharpness, just dial in the depth of field you want. It's cheap. The only lenses in this range that focus closer are macros, which generally focus slower and aren't so great at infinity. It's small and light. It's cheap.

Verdict: There are a lot of compromises in this lens, but image quality isn't one of them. You may never justify the purchase price of a Zeiss until your photography is earning you an income, or until you've got the car, house, and school loans paid off. However, if you want to start taking great pictures at the 85mm focal length today, the SAL-85F28 is, indeed, an easy choice.

[Dr. Harout]

Kevin, you are absolutely right.
But I do encourage you and highly recommend to use/buy/try the Samyang 85/1.4.
I just chipped it (AF confirm chip with a preset EXIF to 85/1.4 ) very neatly (not like David did to his, but don't tell him that his not dexterous).

[Birma]

Very nice review Kevin - thanks for sharing. The SAM lens compatibility with Nex is also appealing if you are considering going down that route. I think we are lucky to have 4 such reasonable priced primes in a-mount that all seem to perform very well.

[pakodominguez]

Melisa's Headshot
A850 + 85 f2.8 @ 5.6

100%

[Dr. Harout]

Price and quality don't match. Isn't it so, Pako?
Those SAM lenses are really wonderful.

[agorabasta]

Those new 35/1.8 and 85/2.8 have their front elements moving with focusing. It means that there's a lot of air flow going on while you are simply focusing, not zooming. Chances are, you focus more often than you do zoom, in general. So no air sucking with zooming with those primes, but still a lot of that with focusing. Adding those considerations together, you get at much more aerosol settling at internal element surfaces.

What it all means, is that you need to buy a new lens every other year or every other week, that's if you shoot any restaurant kitchen or just a bunch of drunk fellas in a small room.

So the lenses are cheap, and they are quite expendable along with that... And at the same time they are unbelievably great optically, that's while they are still fresh...

[bossel]

So the lenses are cheap, and they are quite expendable along with that... And at the same time they are unbelievably great optically, that's while they are still fresh...

This would mean that all zoom lenses would need to be exchanged every year due to the evil air they suck in. That's contrary to my experience, can't believe that.

[agorabasta]

This would mean that all zoom lenses would need to be exchanged every year due to the evil air they suck in. That's contrary to my experience, can't believe that.

You missed one important point - you zoom far less often than you do focus.

I have two copies of the kit 18-55mm, got them about 1.5 years apart from each other. They are completely incomparable at this time. That's because they suck air both at focusing and zooming...

[bossel]

You missed one important point - you zoom far less often than you do focus.

That's a personal thing. I zoom a lot to frame but then don't always take the shot. Then, sometimes I focus a lot without zooming. Couldn't say I do one more than the other - but certainly the movement and the air moved for zooming from 70-200 or 16-80 is more than half a centimeter or so for focussing. If these little cheap lenses are good value for money, lets be happy and don't 'focus' on little details.