dshao1 wrote:
Sorry to ask you this question again Fred, but would you keep the marvelous 85GM if you have an amazing 135GM?
Your review is making me think of giving up 85mm.
I think I will be happy with the 24/1.4 GM, 50/1.4 ZA and 135/1.8 GM combo although I recently acquired the 100/2.8 STF and this lens is growing on me. Sometimes I wish it was a fast 100/2 STF and would not mind the extra weight.
I have 3 out of those 4 (lacking the 50/1.4 as its not a focal I use that much). When/if they eventually get to make a fast 50GM I might consider it (I like the consistency of lens design and want the programmable button).
I'd love a faster STF as well, but gotta take them as they are and think the fast 135GM will compensate - making a great tag team.
I also had a hard time to choose between the 85GM that I had before and the 135GM. Both to own would be an ultimate solution. But the $$$.... Then I thought I used the 85mm most for planned portraits. It seldom came with the 35mm 1.4 and Loxia just for fun based on it's weight and size. So the 135mm with the new firmware and the fast AF, it's better sharpness and nice compression will do the job.
Sometimes I am asking me if the customer wants to see really every micro-hair. I remember in good old times Hollywood used soft focus filters.
Mirror wrote:
I also had a hard time to choose between the 85GM that I had before and the 135GM. Both to own would be an ultimate solution. But the $$$.... Then I thought I used the 85mm most for planned portraits. It seldom came with the 35mm 1.4 and Loxia just for fun based on it's weight and size. So the 135mm with the new firmware and the fast AF, it's better sharpness and nice compression will do the job.
Sometimes I am asking me if the customer wants to see really every micro-hair. I remember in good old times Hollywood used soft focus filters. ...Show more →
Mirror wrote:
Sometimes I am asking me if the customer wants to see really every micro-hair. I remember in good old times Hollywood used soft focus filters.
I occasionally use a Tiffen Black Pro Mist for video (esp talking heads).
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think I will be happy with the 24/1.4 GM, 50/1.4 ZA and 135/1.8 GM combo although I recently acquired the 100/2.8 STF and this lens is growing on me. Sometimes I wish it was a fast 100/2 STF and would not mind the extra weight.
The same 24/50/135 set is my planned combo as well, though I may throw the new SY AF 85 into the mix (but don't need an 85, really).
Also sort of interested (but also don't need) in the 100STF - largely because of the comparisons in this thread.
Anyway, Tic Toc... long month of waiting ahead.
Hopefully Sony ships enough to fill all preorders
bluloo wrote:
The same 24/50/135 set is my planned combo as well, though I may throw the new SY AF 85 into the mix (but don't need an 85, really).
Also sort of interested (but also don't need) in the 100STF - largely because of the comparisons in this thread.
Anyway, Tic Toc... long month of waiting ahead.
Hopefully Sony ships enough to fill all preorders
I want to do a 135 GM rendering comparison to the 100 STF before it goes back.
I ordered the 82-72 already and I also have a 82 mm hood about a inch in depth. I may try the step down and just a 72 filter ring. That way it stays small and blocks the glare. I got options .
GMPhotography wrote:
I ordered the 82-72 already and I also have a 82 mm hood about a inch in depth. I may try the step down and just a 72 filter ring. That way it stays small and blocks the glare. I got options .
OEM hood will never come out of the box
So, the 82-72mm step down ring does not induce vignetting. However, by itself, it does not quite prevent the "ring" flare, although it helps to makes it less apparent.
To completely eliminate the ring flare, one would need to use a 1-inch (or longer) metal hood or the OEM hood. (That goes for the 85 GM and 135 GM)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good news for those planning on using the FE 135/1.8 GM with Lee Seven5 filters. It works!
Just get a 82-72mm step down ring and add a Lee 72mm filter adapter. Zero vignetting at any aperture.
Maybe look for a light source and take a defocused shot and see if the size and shape of the oof highlight(s) changes.
I was using a step down ring with my 70-200mm 4.0 and while I didn't see black corners either the oof light circles were reduced in diameter.
BastianK wrote:
Maybe look for a light source and take a defocused shot and see if the size and shape of the oof highlight(s) changes.
I was using a step down ring with my 70-200mm 4.0 and while I didn't see black corners either the oof light circles were reduced in diameter.
I will check it out Bastian. I was planning on only using it for landscapes stopped down and that should be fine. I also use my 100-400 GM with a 77-72mm step down ring to use with the Seven5 and it works great.
I wanted to compared them side by side at the same exact distance. In order to match depth of field and FOV for both lenses, there necessary cropping and aperture adjustments made.
Since 100mm to 135mm requires a 1.35x crop, I multiplied the FE 100 STF's f/2.8 max aperture to "1.35" so both lenses show equiv. depth of field.
So, the FE 135/1.8 GM will be tested at f/4 which matches the 100 STF @f/2.8 cropped to 135mm.
135/100 = 1.35
f/2.8 x 1.35 = f/3.8 (~f/4)
Let's see the results: (I also added the FE 135 GM @f/1.8 just for fun! )
Fred Miranda wrote:
I want to do a 135 GM rendering comparison to the 100 STF before it goes back.
Yeah, THANKS FRED...I predict after seeing the images you take during that comparison are going to make time seem that much longer for me to wait for the 135! But seriously, that would be terrific, thanks!
Edit: I just saw that you already posted the comparison, and I was right...time is slowing down as I type. Some of the examples seem quite close (compared with 135GM @ F4), in others the smooth transition is more noticeable to me. (viewing on a small macbook).
I was planning on only using it for landscapes stopped down and that should be fine. I also use my 100-400 GM with a 77-72mm step down ring to use with the Seven5 and it works great.
But seriously, that would be terrific, thanks!