Advise on next upgrade lense.

[rawshooter]

Since you already have 50mm 1.4,CZ 85mm 1.4 will not get you much further unless IQ is what you are going after (of cos you have to pay higher too). You can get 85mm range with 50mm just by standing 3 steps back.

I own a Minolta 100mm 2.8 Macro. Macro capability is what it is really meant for. At 100mm, it can double up as a good portrait lens. HOWEVER, its focusing is much slower with its magnification tube moving in and out like a zoom lense! you can imaging how bad the tube moves from 1:1 to infinity (about 5cm). Personally, it's quite annoying shooting someone with it without being self-conscious.

If i am you, i will get 100mm 2.8 Macro. for it's range and macro at a much cheaper price.

 

[rawshooter]

50mm just by standing 3 steps back.

it should read 3 steps forward

if you really have spare cash get the STF 135mm instead. Super bokeh for portraits with good range.

 

[stvc11]

Haiyooo.. dizzy liaw.. quite hard to really decide now.

IMO. Some1 with a SAL100mm 2.8 shd come forth and comment abt the lense

True dat macro lenses are slow focussing but there's this thingy something lock?

Like a Sigma 70mm 2.8 i tried before on Canon it cd AF infinitely to 1:1 and then when i switch the lock, the AF is limited to a certain proportion thus creating a faster focusing speed.

Also, I thought primes, regardless of focal length are faster in AF due to the fixed focal length?

As I've said, my purpose would be for portraiture. That 100mm tho, having 1:1 macro capability seems like a bonus?

Then agen Im not much of a macro fan. Preferring 1.4 for low light shooting. With my 50mm 1.4 tho, I need to step forward alot more. ALOT. sometimes theres no space to do so.

Considering as well CZ 85 1.4 is abt 2k & SAL 100mm 2.8 is abt 1k

I really cant decide, so I'm gonna let this thread soak a bit longer as well as my thoughts along with it. hopefully, more comments on the two lenses 85 1.4 and 100 2.8

Believe me, I've tried other lenses.. Like the 70-200 2.8, 135 1.8, 24-70 2.8. etc.

I really cant decide now.. :dunno:

Btw, Thanks guys for the helpful suggestions and comments.

Well, 100mm Macro are mainly main for macro, if you want to use it for portrait for model still quite OK, but if mode small kid then jialat. F2.8 still not good enough for some low light condition.

If i were you i will go for 85CZ since you mention for portraiture.

For macro, also depend what kind of macro you doing, Macro normally shoot at very small aperture like F11 to F16. , so most of the time will be mount on tripod. If you want to shoot like butterfly, dragonfly.. i prefer 180mm F3.5 Tamron, with the long range will not scared away your subject. Doesn't mean the 100mm Macro not good just that the range too short for butterfly like i say, but i do have 1 lol.

Actually i think you can get both lens at 2.2k or lower.

CZ85 is only 1.7-1.8k ( i think is lower )and 2nd hand 100mm Macro about 500sgd.

 

[tsan81]

Since you already have 50mm 1.4,CZ 85mm 1.4 will not get you much further unless IQ is what you are going after (of cos you have to pay higher too). You can get 85mm range with 50mm just by standing 3 steps back.

I own a Minolta 100mm 2.8 Macro. Macro capability is what it is really meant for. At 100mm, it can double up as a good portrait lens. HOWEVER, its focusing is much slower with its magnification tube moving in and out like a zoom lense! you can imaging how bad the tube moves from 1:1 to infinity (about 5cm). Personally, it's quite annoying shooting someone with it without being self-conscious.

If i am you, i will get 100mm 2.8 Macro. for it's range and macro at a much cheaper price.

1) 100mm macro 's AF is still very fast if you shoot outdoor. Indoor's AF is acceptable for me. Portrait subject will not be moving too much, so can wait till focus locks on.

2) Can set focus limit so that the lens tube won't extend at its fullest.

3) If portrait is too sharp, can add some gaussian blur with software.

4) Cheaper than 85mm, and can be used for macro. Value for money.

 

[Agetan]

Here is my point of view.

For type of photography you mentioned that you are going to do, CZ 85 is great. Of course, Minolta 85mm f1.4 G is great too. I own both copy and I must say, Minolta 85 is a little nicer in tonal gradient but CZ is sharper. However, a tiny boost with unsharp mask works great to match the sharpness of CZ.

I think CZ lenses are too "perfect" in their design which cause the lens to lose some part of the "individualism" and look to the image.

I will go for 85mm anytime if compared to 100 macro, the thing is, f1.4 is more valuable than the ability to focus closer to subject. Love the softness when shoot at ISO 3200 at f1.4 for Minolta 85mm.

Won't go wrong with 85mm.

You should try Minolta 50mm f1.2 MD/MC lenses and shoot it wide open.

Hart

 

[Mirez]

Thanks guys, your input has proven much value to me.

What I am actually deciding right now is which to get first? (& for pricing to hopefully drop)

These two lenses are part of my wishlist and yes, I know what they are capable off, just not sure which to get first.

I'd sure love to get both these lenses in one go + maybe a SAL 35mm 1.4 G right after.

Then agen, looks like the 85 1.4 will be much useful for me & I myt sell off the current 50 1.4 :cry:

Ps. Im not much of fan of Macro.