Zeiss 85 f/1.8 and FE 90mm f/2.8

I know both lenses aren't even out yet and no one should really compare performance, but I want to ask for advice about this in my lens line up.

I do a lot of portrait & studio photography, just recently started dabbing into weddings, but really love to travel and shoot scenery and food as a hobby.

I have a Samyang 135 f/2 that I don't use too much for paid photography because of the manual focus. Even with Focus Peaking, sometimes I miss focus in the eyes, etc.

I've had a Sigma 85mm before and liked it, but not the weight nor the MFD. No experience with the 100mm Macro when I shot with Canon.


* Both lenses will have OSS
* I assume both lenses will be incredibly sharp
* Both are pretty much the same focal length

My current camera & lenses:
a7
a7s
FE 24-70
FE 28
Samyang 135 f/2

The Samyang is pretty specialized, and I usually don't carry it with me because of the size and weight. I'm afraid the 90mm Macro will be similar.

Which lens would be a better fit in my lens lineup and for what I shoot overall?

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #17562498
I know both lenses aren't even out yet and no one should really compare performance, but I want to ask for advice about this in my lens line up.

I do a lot of portrait & studio photography, just recently started dabbing into weddings, but really love to travel and shoot scenery and food as a hobby.

I have a Samyang 135 f/2 that I don't use too much for paid photography because of the manual focus. Even with Focus Peaking, sometimes I miss focus in the eyes, etc.

I've had a Sigma 85mm before and liked it, but not the weight nor the MFD. No experience with the 100mm Macro when I shot with Canon.


* Both lenses will have OSS
* I assume both lenses will be incredibly sharp
* Both are pretty much the same focal length

My current camera & lenses:
a7
a7s
FE 24-70
FE 28
Samyang 135 f/2

The Samyang is pretty specialized, and I usually don't carry it with me because of the size and weight. I'm afraid the 90mm Macro will be similar.

Which lens would be a better fit in my lens lineup and for what I shoot overall?

I'm expecting the Zeiss 85 to be a better wedding/portrait lens...primarily because you're getting a 1.3 f-stops going fro f2.8 to f1.8. Goes a very long way when shooting weddings, as you're often starved for life, and the long-ish focal length is useful during the reception and ceremony. The 85L has saved my butt a few times, as it was long enough, and fast enough to shoot in very dimly lit ceremonies where I wasn't allowed to use flash.

Also, that extra 1.3 stops gives you more creative control of DOF. Not that you should shoot all of your shots at f1.8, but the ability to do so when appropriate goes a long way....particularly during the reception, where you're often contending with a lot of distracting elements in the background that you'd want to blur out as much as possible.

On big plus for the 90mm, however, is the fact that its a macro lens....which can open to new ways of shooting creatively, but in the realm of studio, portrait, and wedding photography, has very limited utility.

mystik610 wrote in post #17562521
On big plus for the 90mm, however, is the fact that its a macro lens....which can open to new ways of shooting creatively, but in the realm of studio, portrait, and wedding photography, has very limited utility.

That is an interesting point you brought up and I'm curious. Of course in studio, I'd be stopped down anyway so both lenses would work just as fine, but in weddings, would a Macro offer a unique benefit: wedding details (ring shots, accessories, etc)?

That's just a small portion of the massive number of wedding photos a photographer takes, I understand, but would having a fast 85mm prime outweight the "loss" of those type of photos?

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #17562653
That is an interesting point you brought up and I'm curious. Of course in studio, I'd be stopped down anyway so both lenses would work just as fine, but in weddings, would a Macro offer a unique benefit: wedding details (ring shots, accessories, etc)?

That's just a small portion of the massive number of wedding photos a photographer takes, I understand, but would having a fast 85mm prime outweight the "loss" of those type of photos?

I'd say its a personal decision, but I think that 1.3 stops would be used more frequently in the grand scheme of a set of wedding shots than the close focusing ability of a macro lens. In lieu of a legitimate macro lens, I typically will slap extension tubes behind my lenses for detail shots (ring, dress, etc etc). You lose the ability to focus to infinity when using an extension tube, but it gets the job done!