Sony A7x lounge

There's a pop in it i'm not seeing in other 85 or the 90mm macro. i don't know what.

They look great to me. Might pick this lens up in 8 years time when it falls into my price range

But Samyang is never behind. wide open....

second was a cropped from the first one.

Happy Pancake Day!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DwsE​eh

jocau wrote in post #17892005
I find that those images have some sort of soft haze around them. Don't know what it is exactly.

Undercorrected spherical aberrations. Typical of lenses where the quality of the bokeh us given priority in the optical design.

The batis, with its very strongly defined bokeh balls is an example of a lens that overcorrects spherical abberations.

The rendering of this lens is less zeiss like, and seems more akin to the Canon L lenses. Not better or worse, but very different.

LeeRatters wrote in post #17891678
Sorry to bring up the old bag conversation again......

I have a Crumpler messenger bag but I find it a bit to wide, sticking out when carried on the hip, and it obviously looks like a camera bag!! My Flipside 300 is also way to big now.

I'm after something messenger style, that looks good and not like a camera bag, is more slimline and suits someone of my average youth

It needs to hold an A7 and a couple of small lenses. I normally go out with just one extra lens - the biggest of which is a FD85/1.8

I don't want mega expensive but it's my birthday soon and people want to buy me something and we'd rather it's something I need and want

I am currently switching between two bags to carry my Sony gear to and from work. I was looking for something with nice leather, doesn't look like a camera bag, and stylish enough to match my semi-formal daily attire.

First is the Wotancraft Ryker black, and the other is ONA Prince Street antique cognac. Ryker has very soft leather exterior with soft velvet interior, and Prince Street has a somewhat of hard leather exterior with soft beige interior. Prince Street is and looks little bigger but they both fit pretty much same amount of gear. I personally like the Ryker better but has a downside of not having a handle. OTOH Prince Street has a very nice thick leather handle. I highly recommend both bags!

mystik610 wrote in post #17892110
Undercorrected spherical aberrations. Typical of lenses where the quality of the bokeh us given priority in the optical design.

The batis, with its very strongly defined bokeh balls is an example of a lens that overcorrects spherical abberations.

The rendering of this lens is less zeiss like, and seems more akin to the Canon L lenses. Not better or worse, but very different.

Interesting. Didn't know that. I must say that my initial feeling is that I don't like the general soft haze. I much prefer the SY FE 135mm F/2 shots above from vinz.

I love how you're saving me with my GAS problem Joc...

jocau wrote in post #17892149
Interesting. Didn't know that. I must say that my initial feeling is that I don't like the general soft haze. I much prefer the SY FE 135mm F/2 shots above from vinz.

Yeah...modern lenses are able to make it less of a trade-off, but generally correcting spherical aberation gives a rendering with more microcontrast and sharpness, but worse bokeh, and undercorrecting it gives you less defined objects in the out of focus areas (better bokeh), but less sharpness/microcontras​t.

There are some vintage lenses that have defocus control that basically allow you toggle the amount of spherical aberation correction....would be nice to see that again.

vinmunoz wrote in post #17892156
I love how you're saving me with my GAS problem Joc...

...hen

But you're giving me GAS instead with your SY FE 135mm F/2.

mystik610 wrote in post #17892261
Yeah...modern lenses are able to make it less of a trade-off, but generally correcting spherical aberation gives a rendering with more microcontrast and sharpness, but worse bokeh, and undercorrecting it gives you less defined objects in the out of focus areas (better bokeh), but less sharpness/microcontras​t.

There are some vintage lenses that have defocus control that basically allow you toggle the amount of spherical aberation correction....would be nice to see that again.

Is this comparable to Canon DO (Diffractive Optics) or softfocus lenses?

Think Tank is my favorite of all the camera/lens bags here.
I have the Glass Limo and it gets 10+++++ stars.

jocau wrote in post #17892149
Interesting. Didn't know that. I must say that my initial feeling is that I don't like the general soft haze. I much prefer the SY FE 135mm F/2 shots above from vinz.

You have to be careful making these general statements because with the 135F2 shots, most of the image is close to the focus plane whereas in the two raw images I uploaded from the link and quickly tweaked in LR, both shots are at F1.2, not F2, but are also much further away and have the surrounding environment visible and OOF - so what you are seeing are very different. If these were environmental 135F2 portraits shot from 50 feet away, it would be easier to compare the bokeh rendering.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I am a big 135F2 fan but it would be possible to take more similar images that are comparable so as to better judge the relative strengths of each lens.

mystik610 wrote in post #17892261
Yeah...modern lenses are able to make it less of a trade-off, but generally correcting spherical aberation gives a rendering with more microcontrast and sharpness, but worse bokeh, and undercorrecting it gives you less defined objects in the out of focus areas (better bokeh), but less sharpness/microcontras​t.

There are some vintage lenses that have defocus control that basically allow you toggle the amount of spherical aberation correction....would be nice to see that again.

That is a helpfully clarifying post. In my quest for 35mm happiness I have a new Canon 35L II coming in tomorrow to test, and you've made me even more suspicious (than I already was) that it is a soft turd. You see I prefer microcontrast over buttery-smooth bokeh (wish I could have both!!) and what your saying helps me understand why. Although it has awesome specs, the 35L II doesn't appear to produce interestingly rendered images.

Still, I do want to test it out for myself; maybe I'll really like it. I sincerely hope I do. If not my next try could be the classic Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35mm ZE (Canon-mount) - I know for sure that that one excels at microcontrast.

Why not the sigma art 35mm f1.4? It is sharp. I used to owned one with my former 5D3.