« on: September 12, 2014, 03:20:24 PM »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I was excited at first, but I really like the extra 5mm at 35mm and the bulbous front that precludes (or makes it a a pain to use) filters is a non-starter for me. I am very happy with my 16-35 f/4 IS and after taking some shots in really dim lighting the other night, I realize I don't miss f/2.8 all that much.
DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.We did shoot f1.4 portraits back in the old days, where no AF was available. I had the first 50mm f1.2L lens and have lots of good shots with it, wide open.
What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually.
What am I missing? Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?
A major part of being a photographer then was to practice your manual focusing skills. People were also shooting all kinds of sports and wildlife at the time. Very few (if any) shot f1.4 though, but you still had to handle the movement issues. So adding a precision focusing screen to your camera (I use Ec-S on my 1DX), you can clearly shoot portraits handheld with this lens. But you have to practice quite a bit to master it. If you pick up these manual lenses only once every now and then, I agree, you will not make it. I have lots of close portraits taken with the Otus 55mm at f1.4 (and the Zeiss 135mm at f2.0), where focus is exactly where I want it, so I imagine I will be able to do it with the 85mm also.
So are you saying that a well practiced manual focusing photographer could use this lens as an effective portrait lens in close quarters wide open? What do you think the keeper rate would be hand held? What percentage of those keepers would use to the fullest extent this very expensive glass? I think it would be disappointingly low.
One of the first posts here had a link to some real world examples, I even went to the flickr site referenced. Guess what? No portraits. Some beautiful photos, but no portraits.
In the past photographers practiced their manual focusing. Nowdays it is the videographers out trying to perfect this skill.
I agree that this lens could have a place, but my real gripe was with DXO, who doesn't seem to understand the lens other than by its stats.
I have never purchased a non-canon lens, but I must admit I am interested in this one. Looking forward to the reviews.
I once only owned Canon lenses. I now have three Tamrons and a Sigma. Both are doing great things at a great price, compared to Canon.
Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....
T value is not aperture value, an f1.4 lens is a "true" f1.4 if the apparent aperture diameter is focal length divided by 1.4. The T value relates to actual light transmission and is pretty much irrelevant with TTL metering stills cameras.
Aperture value is always lower than T (transmission) value because however good the glass is you always lose some.
Quite a few of the latest EF lenses do seem to have a T value that is the same as the aperture: the 24-70 IS, 40 pancake, 24/28/35 IS primes. These are all slower lenses but it does look like Canon are achieving a very high light transmission efficiency - you know - to make up for the sensor.........
It's probably just me, but I wasn't blown away by the images in the video. Maybe I am now just jaded.
Not sure which version of photoshop you're using, but certainly on CS6 I'm finding that the stitching is as good as, if not better than, PTGui pro.
You're certainly right about the need to still B&B despite the likes of Exmor, just need to write it in really BIG letters.
Thanks, Dustin. Looks helpful.