digital_AM wrote:
How does the Lox 85 compare to this lens? I'm intrigued by this lens but would hate selling my Loxia 85 for it unless there were enough differentiators. Thanks.
I think the CV is at least as sharp as the Loxia, but I cannot say it is sharper. The Loxia 85 is terrific from wide open. The CV is better corrected and a half stop faster. They are both great lenses. The CV is more versatile with macro. I am keeping both, but am using the CV more.
Luvwine wrote:
I think the CV is at least as sharp as the Loxia, but I cannot say it is sharper. The Loxia 85 is terrific from wide open. The CV is better corrected and a half stop faster. They are both great lenses. The Loxia is more versatile with macro. I am keeping both, but am using the CV more.
typo, you meant CV is more versatile.
Although I have not tested the Loxia 85/2.4 directly against the 65/2 APO, I did test it against my ZM 85/4 (LINK) and decided to keep the ZM. They were just too similar at these apertures.
If you guys remember this test, the Loxia was sharper at f/4 but similar at f/5.6 especially at f/6.3....Well, the CV 65/2 does noticeably better resolution-wise against the ZM 85/4 @f/5.6 and f/6.3 (at infinity)...so I'm assuming it will be at least slightly better against the Loxia 85/2.4 but didn't test them side-by-side.
I will post the CV 65/2 APO vs ZM 85/4 test soon...promise.
Fred Miranda wrote:
typo, you meant CV is more versatile.
Although I have not tested the Loxia 85/2.4 directly against the 65/2 APO, I did test it against my ZM 85/4 (LINK) and decided to keep the ZM. They were just too similar at these apertures.
If you guys remember this test, the Loxia was sharper at f/4 but similar at f/5.6 especially at f/6.3....Well, the CV 65/2 does noticeably better resolution-wise against the ZM 85/4 @f/5.6 and f/6.3 (at infinity)...so I'm assuming it will be at least slightly better against the Loxia 85/2.4 but didn't test them side-by-side.
I will post the CV 65/2 APO vs ZM 85/4 test soon...promise. ...Show more →
Yes. I will edit my comment. You have a typo in that I think you decided NOT to keep the 85 ZM.
I read one review, the guy said the CV's focus ring was oriented towards the short end, with less than ideal near-infinity rotation. I don't know, but this is a big deal for mountain photography, to have ultra fine control of far focus.
I'll post some Loxia 85 in a few days. I used it for ultra mountain environments, sweeping scenery, portraits, architecture, some casual Himalayan flower images. Might help answer some questions of the 'which one for what use' variety. Though have to say, at this level, other factors besides sharpness enter the picture. And for what I want, an 85mm or near is essential.
WRT portraits of strangers, you tend to stand in the same spot, the same distance from the subject. With short FLs I have to talk to people more to reassure them, even with a 55mm - a personal space issue. On the other hand, 85mm is easier to miss focus; I am using f3.2-f3.5 mostly. It's a stayer, the kind of lens that when you mount it, you give yourself a very good chance.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I meant it right. I decided to 'keep' the ZM when comparing it to the Loxia 85/2.4. Against the CV 65/2 APO is another story though.
Ok. Saw you had put it up for sale after getting CV..//
I really like the look of this lens and the focal length would fill some nice gaps for me. I can see it as part of a modern super high performance kit with the Milvus 35 f/1.4 and 135 f/2 APO. I think you would get very close to Zeiss Otus performance with those three lens, but nowhere near Otus prices. The Milvus lenses are pretty big, however.
I also see this lens as fitting very well with some of the best classic Zeiss C/Y lenses. I have always been very impressed with the C/Y 35 f/1.4 and the 100 f/2. For focal length as size (if not quite look) I think the CV 65 f/2 APO would be a very nice complement to those two classic and IMO beautiful lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I really like the look of this lens and the focal length would fill some nice gaps for me. I can see it as part of a modern super high performance kit with the Milvus 35 f/1.4 and 135 f/2 APO. I think you would get very close to Zeiss Otus performance with those three lens, but nowhere near Otus prices. The Milvus lenses are pretty big, however.
I also see this lens as fitting very well with some of the best classic Zeiss C/Y lenses. I have always been very impressed with the C/Y 35 f/1.4 and the 100 f/2. For focal length as size (if not quite look) I think the CV 65 f/2 APO would be a very nice complement to those two classic and IMO beautiful lenses....Show more →
I've been enjoying shooting 35/65/135. It has worked well for my shooting style. It's basically a small kit with great coverage. In the past I shot 35/50/85/135 but sometimes found these FLs too close to each other.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been enjoying shooting 35/65/135. It has worked well for my shooting style. It's basically a small kit with great coverage. In the past I shot 35/50/85/135 but sometimes found these FLs too close to each other.
Fred, your lens lineup, 35/65/135 plus the Loxia 21mm would be ideal for landscape. What a combo! I will get the CV 65mm a little later in the year.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been enjoying shooting 35/65/135. It has worked well for my shooting style. It's basically a small kit with great coverage. In the past I shot 35/50/85/135 but sometimes found these FLs too close to each other.
Fred,
For portrait, do you reach for the 135 or 85 GM (or both)? GM indoors and Batis out or?
I'll go for the 135 each and every time unless I got a space issue myself. 85 is way too close for headshots. It bugs people being that close to them with a rig in there face. Unless it's a model which are more used to that. Even than I like my distance
For portrait, do you reach for the 135 or 85 GM (or both)? GM indoors and Batis out or?
In my opinion, 85mm is the best 'people' lens with no distortion and good distance from subject. The 85/1.4GM is a very special lens with gorgeous OOF rendering. Because of the faster aperture, there is more blur, especially if the background is close to the subject. However, some people 'look' better at 135mm, especially models and if the background is further from the subject, there will be a lot of blur...So, I would think about grabbing my 85GM first but depending on the lighting, subject and/or background distance, the Batis 135 would also be on my mind.
The Batis 135/2.8 APO is about 200g lighter making it a better landscape option. There will be no CA and higher micro-contrast as well. I found it to be amazing from center to the very edges even wide-open with no weak zone and it seems to be replacing my Vario-sonnar 100-300 for that. I decided to start carrying my 100-400GM instead since when something above 100-135mm is needed, for me, it's usually 400 or 500mm.
I also own the Batis 85/1.8 which IMO is superb in on-par with the Loxia 85. At infinity, starting at f/4 the Batis 85 is just as good as the 135/2.8 APO. It's my traveling favorite being smaller and lighter of the three.
Fred Miranda wrote:
In my opinion, 85mm is the best 'people' lens with no distortion and good distance from subject. The 85/1.4GM is a very special lens with gorgeous OOF rendering. Because of the faster aperture, there is more blur, especially if the background is close to the subject. However, some people 'look' better at 135mm, especially models and if the background is further from the subject, there will be a lot of blur...So, I would think about grabbing my 85GM first but depending on the lighting, subject and/or background distance, the Batis 135 would also be on my mind.
The Batis 135/2.8 APO is about 200g lighter making it a better landscape option. There will be no CA and higher micro-contrast as well. I found it to be amazing from center to the very edges even wide-open with no weak zone and it seems to be replacing my Vario-sonnar 100-300 for that. I decided to start carrying my 100-400GM instead since when something above 100-135mm is needed, for me, it's usually 400 or 500mm.
I also own the Batis 85/1.8 which IMO is superb in on-par with the Loxia 85. At infinity, starting at f/4 the Batis 85 is just as good as the 135/2.8 APO. It's my traveling favorite being smaller and lighter of the three....Show more →
Interesting. I really like that the Zeiss 100-300 is so light and compact. The Batis line is light but not compact (Loxia takes less room in the bag than Batis at 85). I could try the Batis 135. I also have a great 180 that is compact and better than the 100-300 even at F2.8 (and takes extenders), and so the prime versus zoom debate continues....
Portrait focal length: I always think of a story about Imogen Cunningham, who was feisty. Apparently she saw a photographer doing a portrait with a long lens and she walked up to him and said, "What's the matter with you? Don't you like people?" I guess she never used a long lens for her portraits.
As for the CV65, I'm loving it more and more, but the shape of the bokeh balls between wide open and f8 is definitely problematic at times for me. I think I might have to sell my OM 50/2, as planned, but get an OM 50/3.5 so I at least have a mid depth of field option.
Really depends if your doing a headshot a 50 will distort a face. But if your including the upper torso not so much. For many of us we are in a set with lighting and that stuff becomes cumbersome to space and room to fit in. I'm in a lot of small conference rooms so it's really tough with 4 light setups, subject and me. I like to be on the backside of the lights not in them
Personally a 65 would be my bare minimum. Heck I've used 300 mm lenses for this stuff. Really just depends
That is a good line from her though. jlehet wrote:
Portrait focal length: I always think of a story about Imogen Cunningham, who was feisty. Apparently she saw a photographer doing a portrait with a long lens and she walked up to him and said, "What's the matter with you? Don't you like people?" I guess she never used a long lens for her portraits.
As for the CV65, I'm loving it more and more, but the shape of the bokeh balls between wide open and f8 is definitely problematic at times for me. I think I might have to sell my OM 50/2, as planned, but get an OM 50/3.5 so I at least have a mid depth of field option....Show more →
jlehet wrote:
Portrait focal length: I always think of a story about Imogen Cunningham, who was feisty. Apparently she saw a photographer doing a portrait with a long lens and she walked up to him and said, "What's the matter with you? Don't you like people?" I guess she never used a long lens for her portraits.
As for the CV65, I'm loving it more and more, but the shape of the bokeh balls between wide open and f8 is definitely problematic at times for me. I think I might have to sell my OM 50/2, as planned, but get an OM 50/3.5 so I at least have a mid depth of field option....Show more →
The OM 3.5/50 doesn't have the nicest bokeh balls, at mid apertures they are distracting hexagons (six blades). I'd rather the decagons of the cv.
Seems to be the weak spot of so many short macros. For macro use 11 or 15 curved blades would be ideal...
DavidBM wrote:
The OM 3.5/50 doesn't have the nicest bokeh balls, at mid apertures they are distracting hexagons (six blades). I'd rather the decagons of the cv.
Seems to be the weak spot of so many short macros. For macro use 11 or 15 curved blades would be ideal...
I don't know the 50/3.5 first hand, but the 50/2, which is also 6 bladed. The hexagons are often obnoxious, but sometimes kind of soft. The 50/2 is good for three stops, up to f4, and then the 6 bladedness of the thing takes over. I was thinking the 50/3.5 might also yield a few stops of goodness before the aperture is a problem.
I guess the decagons are sometimes soft too, but sometimes very hard and structured. I've been experimenting a lot and I really can't get a full handle on when and why they are sometimes so dramatic and other times hardly there. Even at f8, when they are often gone, they sometimes can show up dramatically. It seems they might be worst around f4 to 5 or so.
I've been using the OM 50/2 along with my OM 90/2 (and I also own the Bokina, and own but rarely use the Sony 90, which I'm going to get around to trying to sell again). I do like a shorter macro a lot of the time. Maybe some smooth lens with a macro lens or extension tube is the solution.
