Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lower cost 85mm lenses
#1
This is too off topic for the original thread so I'll start a new one to continue.



[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305649737' post='8419']

Yes, it's still sharper from F2.8 and up than both. Cannikon still has a hole. They don't have a cheap F2.8 85mm lens. That's a hole. twice expensive. You have to pay twice more to get F1.8 lens even though wide open both are inferior.

[/quote]



For starters, I'll put aside the "wide open" part and compare like with like. Even then, only Sony vs. Canon as I'm not familiar with Nikon.



Reference the Photozone test results for Sony 85mm f/2.8 SAM and Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM.



Of course we're entering the danger zone of comparing across systems, so we have two scenarios: absolute MTF (the numbers) and relative scale (the rating bar to the left of MTF results). Comparing relative scales both at f/2.8, the border result is about the same, but the centre is higher on the Canon. Comparing absolute numbers, no contest, the Canon easily beats the Sony result. Maybe the Sony would do better on a higher pixel density sensor, but until that exists, right now the Canon combination will get you a little bit more. So comparing equal aperture, the Canon definitely is superior, although being realistic it really isn't significant unless you do nothing other than pixel peep.



Now going back to the "wide open" case, I'm not sure why you want to compare unequal conditions, but let's do so just for fun. On the relative scale, the Sony does get a bit higher here, sitting at the bottom of excellent rating whereas the Canon is at the top of "very good". In absolute terms, the numbers go to Canon though, although it is very marginal for all practical purposes it is the same.



End of the day, all the above comparison is pretty pointless. You consider whichever one you have the body for, and the practical difference in equal settings is not going to be noticed by anyone outside the hardest pixel peepers. Lens choice is something that needs to be considered when entering a system. To me, a main benefit of the "slow" Sony is the small lens size. But if you want bigger aperture 85mm on the cheap on Sony, I think that only leaves the 3rd party Samyang f/1.4. You could argue there is no ultra-budget choice on Canon, but to be realistic, in all the time on all the forums I've visited, I've never heard of anyone asking for one.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#2
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1305651886' post='8426']

End of the day, all the above comparison is pretty pointless. You consider whichever one you have the body for, and the practical difference in equal settings is not going to be noticed by anyone outside the hardest pixel peepers. Lens choice is something that needs to be considered when entering a system. To me, a main benefit of the "slow" Sony is the small lens size.

[/quote]



Not just the size which is smaller but it's twice cheaper too. So Canon lineup has hole that they don't have twice cheaper 85mm F2.8 lens that's twice smaller. That's a hole too.
#3
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305652683' post='8431']

Not just the size which is smaller but it's twice cheaper too. So Canon lineup has hole that they don't have twice cheaper 85mm F2.8 lens that's twice smaller. That's a hole too.

[/quote]

Don't be silly.



Sony has no 85mm f1.8 lens. If you want to go wider than f2.8, you need to get a 85mm f1.4 lens. That is an REAL drawback, not a fake one. This actually determines the photos made.

Whether someone requires faster than f2.8, that is personal.



Size wise, the difference is quite marginal.



All 3 lenses have the same width, even though the Sony only is f2.8:

Nikon: 72mm.

Sony: 70mm

Canon: 71.5mm



So they occupy the same space in camera bags (the only time size actually matters).



There is a moderate difference in length:

Nikon: 59mm

Sony: 52mm

Canon: 75mm



But this difference is of no consequence.



The actual advantage of the Sony is a lighter weight, which may matter if one pairs it with a light weight APS-C body.

Here the Sony is about half the weight of the other lenses.



A downside of the Sony is AF speed. Even though it only needs to move a much lower weight, it can not compete with the Canon USM here. That only matters, of course, if one uses it for for instance indoor sports... where the Canon also can take advantage of its bigger max. aperture.



So... the Nikon and Canon offer more lens (f1.8 vs f2.8), for more money. The Sony offers less weight, for lens money. And the Canon can double as a great sports lens.



The Nikon and Canon offer a light, affordable substitute for 85mm f1.2/1.4 portrait lenses. The Sony does not, really, as f2.8 gets a bit slow.
#4
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305653741' post='8434']

Don't be silly.



Sony has no 85mm f1.8 lens. If you want to go wider than f2.8, you need to get a 85mm f1.4 lens. That is an REAL drawback, not a fake one. This actually determines the photos made.

Whether someone requires faster than f2.8, that is personal.

[/quote]



Canon has a drawback that it doesn't have 85mm F2.8 that cost $250. So if I need a 85mm portrait lens (and F2.8 on 85mm is pretty shallow DOF), I don't have any choice but to spend 450 instead 250 which is my budget. That's a drawback. A hole.
#5
This is definitely way more a drawback of your budget and needs than of Canon's line-up, I'm afraid.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#6
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305654920' post='8440']

This is definitely way more a drawback of your budget and needs than of Canon's line-up, I'm afraid.

[/quote]



Which applies to everyone who buys entry-level cameras. I know many people who buy entry-level cameras who at best will buy 50mm F1.8 and very cheap slow 55-200, and nothing else.



Everything over $400, there is no chance in hell she is going to buy it (even if she can afford it).
#7
Actually, if I would want a f/2.8 lens in that range, I would prefer a

lens like the Tamron 28-75/2.8 any time. If I go for a 75 or 85mm prime,

I want more than f/2.8. So, for me, Canon has no hole at all. But (as it seems)

you mileage does indeed vary.



Just my 2cts ... Rainer
#8
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1305655196' post='8442']

the Tamron 28-75/2.8 any time.

[/quote]



which is even more expensive, bigger, and not as good wide open.
#9
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305655415' post='8443']

which is even more expensive, bigger, and not as good wide open.

[/quote]



So what? ... Where is your point? ... Is there any point?

You want a 85/2.8 prime ... ok ... get one! Done. Seems, except of

you, noone else wants one!
#10
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1305655880' post='8445']

noone else wants one!

[/quote]



Speak for yourself, not the entire Milky Way Galaxy.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)