Lens under consideration 85mm 1.4 Revisited

I finally got the 1.4 85mm lens to test, as stated it was a manual focus
lens stated to be of the quality of a Zeiss. Well since I don't have
access to a Zeiss make a little hard to say if the claim is BS. Never
the less the lens has beautiful color rendering and is sharp at every
f/stop in ways my other lenses - zooms are not. It competes with my
Nikon 2.8 300mm AF-i for resolution if a comparison can be made- maybe
the Nikon is a touche better

Anyway the $500 msrp this lens may require and the difficulty in
focusing it a manual lens in low light (used at a wedding and a recent
magazine assignment I did) may preclude one to purchase an AF 1.8 Nikon
instead of the 1.4 manual no name new comer lens.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

____ wrote:
I finally got the 1.4 85mm lens to test, as stated it was a manual focus
lens stated to be of the quality of a Zeiss. Well since I don't have
access to a Zeiss make a little hard to say if the claim is BS. Never
the less the lens has beautiful color rendering and is sharp at every
f/stop in ways my other lenses - zooms are not. It competes with my
Nikon 2.8 300mm AF-i for resolution if a comparison can be made- maybe
the Nikon is a touche better

Anyway the $500 msrp this lens may require and the difficulty in
focusing it a manual lens in low light (used at a wedding and a recent
magazine assignment I did) may preclude one to purchase an AF 1.8 Nikon
instead of the 1.4 manual no name new comer lens.

The new Zeiss lenses for Nikon are manual also, so that shouldn't
interfere too much. If the lens is used wide open, AF may not be all
that useful anyways. Does this have the aperture linkage to stop down?
Bodies below D200 won't meter at all, that's more of a hindrance than
focus in my opinion.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

____ wrote:
I finally got the 1.4 85mm lens to test, as stated it was a manual focus
lens stated to be of the quality of a Zeiss. Well since I don't have
access to a Zeiss make a little hard to say if the claim is BS. Never
the less the lens has beautiful color rendering and is sharp at every
f/stop in ways my other lenses - zooms are not. It competes with my
Nikon 2.8 300mm AF-i for resolution if a comparison can be made- maybe
the Nikon is a touche better

Anyway the $500 msrp this lens may require and the difficulty in
focusing it a manual lens in low light (used at a wedding and a recent
magazine assignment I did) may preclude one to purchase an AF 1.8 Nikon
instead of the 1.4 manual no name new comer lens.

The new Zeiss lenses for Nikon are manual also, so that shouldn't
interfere too much. If the lens is used wide open, AF may not be all
that useful anyways. Does this have the aperture linkage to stop down?
Bodies below D200 won't meter at all, that's more of a hindrance than
focus in my opinion.

On my D200, I get an F followed by a Delta designation. No direct F stop
reading. The lens also does not provide any focal info, or shutter speed
info in Lightroom. But it does meter in the camera view finder.

The problem I had was the that Lens in spot metering mode yielded a very
touchy green go light for focus, and upon review the green lit images I
was shooting were not tack sharp at f/2.8 and above - for the so called
in focus areas. Though from playing around I did get sharp images.
Hand holding the camera at 1/25 of a second could have also been part of
the problem

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

____ wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
____ wrote:

...not tack sharp at f/2.8 and above - for the so called
in focus areas. Though from playing around I did get sharp images.
Hand holding the camera at 1/25 of a second could have also been part of
the problem

D700 1/15 sec at f/4 ISO 1250 with the AF 85mm f/1.4
(underexposed 3.3 stops to preserve highlights):
http://edgehill.net/Misc/GARDENS/10-...gpatch/pg2pc10
(waste of a perfectly good lens ;-)
-but I wouldn't have been able to experiment so much with a tripod.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

____ wrote:

The problem I had was the that Lens in spot metering mode yielded a very
touchy green go light for focus, and upon review the green lit images I
was shooting were not tack sharp at f/2.8 and above - for the so called
in focus areas. Though from playing around I did get sharp images.
Hand holding the camera at 1/25 of a second could have also been part of
the problem


With fast/longish lenses I've found that focusing beyond the subject and
then bring the focus back 'just enough' to get sharpness yields the
sharpest results (wide open, close subject). Trying to 'center' the
focus range doesn't work.

(Whether this is me and/or my camera rather than a best technique is
unknown...)

AF SRL's have poor focusing screens for manual focus. With the a900
I'll be buying a focus screen that lets less light
through, but is more contrasty for focus.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
AF SRL's have poor focusing screens for manual focus. With the a900
I'll be buying a focus screen that lets less light
through, but is more contrasty for focus.

... even with a microprism focus region, or split image central spot? Can
you still get those? Better for large-aperture primes than small-aperture
zooms, though.

David

David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
AF SRL's have poor focusing screens for manual focus. With the
a900
I'll be buying a focus screen that lets less light
through, but is more contrasty for focus.

.. even with a microprism focus region, or split image central spot?
Can you still get those? Better for large-aperture primes than
small-aperture zooms, though.

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/

They don't list any for Sony though.

http://haodascreen.com/othercameras.aspx list Sony but not the
A900--perhaps it's coming.



David

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
[]
.. even with a microprism focus region, or split image central spot?
Can you still get those? Better for large-aperture primes than
small-aperture zooms, though.

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/

They don't list any for Sony though.

http://haodascreen.com/othercameras.aspx list Sony but not the
A900--perhaps it's coming.

Many thanks - should keep Alan happy!

Cheers,
David

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:42:39 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

They don't list any for Sony though.

http://haodascreen.com/othercameras.aspx list Sony but not the
A900--perhaps it's coming.

Many thanks - should keep Alan happy!

"Can Such Things Be?" -- Ambrose Bierce

David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
AF SRL's have poor focusing screens for manual focus. With the a900
I'll be buying a focus screen that lets less light
through, but is more contrasty for focus.

.. even with a microprism focus region, or split image central spot? Can
you still get those? Better for large-aperture primes than small-aperture
zooms, though.

Minolta (and now Sony) sell a focus screen for most higher end (D)SLR's
that has a higher contrast (at the expense of some light) that allows
more critical manual focusing.

Indeed fast glass is best ... but that's all I got (from the lowly 50
f/1.7, 135 f/1.8 and the rest are f/2.8 whether FFL or zoom).

Further, with the very bright viewfinder of the Maxxum 9 and now the
Sony a900, sacrificing a little light in the VF to tighter focus control
is well worth it.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.