One of the lenses on Sonys roadmap (details here) is the 90mm f/2.8 OSS FE macro lens. The Chinese site Nphoto spotted a Sony patent describing the lens design. Here it is:
Clear? 🙂
One of the lenses on Sonys roadmap (details here) is the 90mm f/2.8 OSS FE macro lens. The Chinese site Nphoto spotted a Sony patent describing the lens design. Here it is:
Clear? 🙂
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
266 Responses
Time to start getting out those more affordable lenses. Any time now Sony. I’m waiting.
Thanks but I’ll take the macro…
More ‘market’ knowledge or you JUST want cheaper compromised lenses..or rather you think the ones available are not good value..What Is It exactly? tell me as i only have the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 which in many ways is the best normal system lens at the price that it is no? The 28mm 2 is on its way and not too badly priced depending of course on how good it is, still, its a fantastic lens to make and there should be no complaining about it until something specific can be said about its specific qualities. If you want ONLY compromised choices available get canikon.
Do you even know anything about the use of that lens, what it might be used for and how its useful as opposed to say an 85mm 1.4 which to my eyes has limited use anyway..i don’t know about macro of this sort…do you?
Wall of text.
Photographer thinker
You will still miss the point where it is explicit like all the best shots, so there’s no problem
As usually…but the word “troll” is missing. Either this is fake or he gets tired and makes mistakes.
Thanks for giving us the short answer SharpShooter…. 🙂
Use nikon, survival of the fittest in Sony camp.
Your English really sucks
You speak like a robot, but then you are a robot XD
Speak English or shut up, you illiterate fool
Demonstrate great ‘real’ photography or be outclassed
I seriously never understand when people make this comment. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the Sony FE system. If it doesn’t have what you want, whether lens, body, or price-wise then there are so many other systems out there. Get one of them. What good does it do to whine about the FE system?
It was a positive comment. The G macro isn’t here, but it signifies a shift to me toward “affordable” lenses. I’m just saying, it’s talking forever.
Sure: that’s exactly how your zen line read, but on other more specific matters, did you even notice it shows 1:1 macro on the diagram? that would be useful for some product shots or at least some extra close-up shots for whatever genre, such as wedding photography etc.
Any troll clarify with yes or no, is this lens 1:1 macro from the information presented?
From the image it is a 1:1 macro also most Minolta and Sony macro lenses have been. I think Minolta made a 0.5X macro years ago, Canon still sells a 0.5x 50mm macro and perhaps Zeiss. The A-mount macro lenses are 1:1 as is the previous E-mount 30mm macro. The A-mount macro has a good reputation the E-mount not as good. I expect at the price and with the G rating the new 90mm Macro should be very good, competitive with Canon 100mm f/2.8L and the Nikon micros. Internal focusing makes it handy as you do not have to back off to account for lens growth, but it may also mean some change in focal length with magnification.
Cool, thank you 🙂
From memory Minolta made a 3x Macro and Canon still make a 1-5x Macro, both I think were 65mm.
Yeah a shift around March…about as moot a comment as it gets
Let me forecast for you: the macro shooting necessitates tripod shooting anyway making image stabilizer pointless, the AF is not only also pointless but will make it worse for macro and general manual focusing (could be true)
AND i don’t see why portraitist get features at extra cost and problems to macro shooters and those on budget for this FL or purpose: its neither good for macro nor portrait nor versatile nor fast…
OR
Exactly what i said…
well, theres nothing wrong with optimism that 90mm plus ibis + a good autofocus system might make possible SOME shots without a tripod. or at least a fair chance before the critter scoots, slithers, or flies away. just saying i wouldnt go so far as to say image stabilization with macro is pointless..
granted you cant get a good shot of a flies balls without a tripod..but still..i wouldnt be apocalyptic about it..
True, i was being rhetorical regards my supposedly detailed expose of the lenses possible versatility: for weddings for instance : in previous post, being trolled…Remember shutter speed for stopping subject movement though :I What i was saying is that stabilizer may even preclude the need for a new camera with inbody stabilizer and also surpass that alone, but hey i say what i believe and it gets trolled whatever…
im not sure how the upcoming 90mm focuses that im REALLY REALLY REALLY looking fwd to, but the seemingly often forgotten and ignored by most 50 zeiss macro is one of my favorite daytime lenses.. even at much narrower apertures if youre reasonably close gives you tons of subject isolation..so if its anything like that..it ought to be a terrific lens for blur aesthetics to add to the collection.
Yes, they keep them coming and you wont even need Otus for a perfect set, or 10000 pounds for JUST lenses either XD
I would spend on lenses but i’m talking for the silent bigotry…
I actually got the zeiss 55mm 1.8! and i have all vintage otherwise, not cheaper but vintage and manual focus…close focus…I wont tell people what lenses are best for them, i like mine JUST because, but i can give the most objective answers and suggestions
JUST the standard lens options from Canon if they were two zooms may have no close focus at all: limited at 1.5 metres on the 70 to 200mm 2.8 for instance…Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens has 95cm close focus
This Sony has 1:1 and image stabilizing…..
with Sony A7R i don’t want those options, expense and those weight and such limitations, i want my own choices, and Sony is providing options that seem sensible to me: um you could use that lens for weddings forgoing ridiculous shallow depth of field head shots..that is..
Trolls use canon: hypothetically, because its easier to look up arbitrary details for…That canon 100mm looks cherry picked actually: i’m tired of the trolls, i will let them play but i will never stop believing they are nihilistic and lead to nihilistic results: I would shoot long tele and presumably go to Nikon? for the better AF and image quality:
That ‘idea’ of correct perspective JUST might as well be my own…
These trolling details are starting to take away from photography
I thought all the other reviewers and commentators were ‘pro’ or only talked about canikon..or well we have these trolls i suppose supporting something that isn’t defunct as if it were to be considered so already
JUST in case Sony cameras become inoperable like some kind of Brancusian shiny embryo of a camera that fits in the sweaty palms of enthusiastic ‘doll’ collectors
Very true, and I like the idea of releasing top notch no compromise lenses first until the roadmap is complete. Perhaps a second roadmap utilizing a more cost conscious approach will be designed by Sony or third party vendors. But there is no getting around the fact that the FE system of lenses is pricey.
I prefer having a few really good lenses as opposed to a lot of mediocre ones, others may disagree.
Complaints help the industry, compliments don’t. Complaints add more features and cheaper prices. You really shouldn’t criticize someone for criticising a company
No. If designers hear complaints about everything, they need to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. There’s no room for good things to evolve.
Straw man fallacy. I’m not talking about starting from scratch. Criticizing things like lossy raw, poor sealing (no rubber seals in the camera), poor wireless flash options, etc etc do not harm the industry. They help it
So far only you have been specific.
I’m not interested in your thoughts!
Sorry to hear about the burning smell… your brain can’t make the connections and your neurons are short circuiting. Next time I’ll bring out the sock puppets.
You have sock puppets, that explains a thing or two……..
Yeah, take that low IQ internees………..
the only vote that really matters is your dollar. anyone that feels that FE is not meeting their needs has many other choices.
Yes there’s millions and millions of mirrorless full frame options available right now. I can hardly browse them because there’s so many they literally crash my browser
Early adopter and affordable rarely go hand in hand. Pick an old & established system if you want cheap prices.
Has a meta name that was simply based upon the opposite of my idea of process before image: JUST saying…
I’m eager to find out whether this lens is spectacular enough to upgrade my excellent Minolta 100mm macro.
I hope that it deserves its G rating as the second G rated macro lens since the Minolta 200 f4 APO G.
Well, I’d rather see an 85 f/1.4, but I’m not a macro guy. I’m sure it will be top notch glass.
not rather, but also 😉
The portrait lens will come.
Sony Zeiss FE 85mm f/1.4 is already rumored for a late 2015 release, and Zeiss also implied a Zeiss Loxia 85mm f/2 coming up next.
Yes, I like both for different things. There are actually more compact 85/1.4 than the new FE 35/1.4 which really seems a bit oddly big… I hope they don’t get lazy starting to recycle huge DSLR lenses…
I like the looks of it (and will sell my Minolta 200 f4 Macro as soon as I find out this lens is as good as that one!)
anything on FE 24-105 f4 ?
Why you asking a comment section?
Ask them:
http://blog.sony.com/contact/
https://twitter.com/sonyelectronics
https://www.facebook.com/Sony
https://www.pinterest.com/sonyelectronics/
https://plus.google.com/+Sony/posts
Interesting. When I first saw the mock ups I assumed it was a ported/updated Minolta but it looks like they actually use all that length. Very promising but I’m not enough of a macro shooter to warrant the cost.
Here come all the “what about” comments on the FE lenses missing that would make FE a “real” system.
I doubt FE will become a real system anytime soon… seems that Sony just forfeited this battle to Canikon and concentrated on gadgets.
helpless with you duott. FE bashing here, bashing there. So pathetic that you’re actually calling yourself a frustrated Sony user. Please jump ship to whatever other brand is offering what you want, but please just go away from this site…
>Please jump ship to whatever other brand is offering what you want
Don’t you think I’d do that a looooong time ago along with everybody else who’s frustrated with Sony’s behavior?
Sony were the only manufacturer who produced EVF-based DSLRs, so now nobody does.
See post above. Bye-Bye!
He doesn’t see the HUGE AUDIO/VIDEO ECOSYSTEM Sony has built around these tiny still cameras. Unlike Nikon, mit head in sand, Sony actually SEE the future of imaging and it aint some grass & twig photographic society.
Very nice looking lens, love the huge focusing ring. Can’t wait to see some sample images from this beast.
Is someone willing to conclude from the patent whether or not this lens (with focus limiter set to the far-setting) will be a quick one to focus? As far as I can see it, 4 Elements in 3 Groups need to be shifted in opposite directions. will that mean slower focussing speed or maybe even faster speed as both directions set at the same time may mean they need to travel only half the distance? Any Opinions on that?
I would much prefer a slow and accurate focusing mechanism for macro work with a long travel. Manual focus using magnification works best for me.
Fast AF would be good, for macro stuff you use MF hopefully anyway, but in the case of shooting portraits fast AF would be nice.
Any hint if it does extend when focusing? Does it use focus-by-wire or the MF ring will have a mechanical coupling like SSM lenses?
Who cares? Nikon and the gruff trolls have it all sorted out for us XD
He’s just fishing for something to complain about (troll), just ignore him.
Yes, so the only person apart from the trolls isn’t allowed to speak…
‘Not Allowed’
:I
???
Me the camera user
The patent shows that too. Out shows internal focus, by moving those two lens groups.
The patent makes it looks like it has internal focusing. Only the middle elements are moving when gong to 1:1 magnification.
Any a mount news?
:X
I like macro lenses for the ability to be flexible and sharpness. When I had the EM1 I enjoyed using IBIS when traveling to get macro shots. Right now I use the Tamron 90, great lens but I get only three axis stabilisation and the adapter provides no direct way of seeing the aperture you use, to not get into diffraction territory. I’m very interested in this lens, however, I would have preferred a longer focal length (I know, this would make the lens too large, MILC are supposed to be small,,,).
You could always use one made in Four Thirds mount?
I don’t know what you mean. I used the 60mm Olympus on the EM1 and now the 90mm Tamron on the D810 and A7ii via adapter.
Just gimme that.
What would YOU use it for?
Medication reminder.
Not Devon, Pennsylvania remember
QUESTION: Where in the world could you go to find a place where half of all women are r*ped?
Hint: The answer isn’t s*xchats*xchat
Nor is it alpharumours…
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4522962350_cafc55d297.jpg
Nihilists only like r*pe and reverse psych so i guess this is a bit lost on them..correct again?
Hint: ask the newbie or regards that dull g*yunlesssheisl*s anarwhatever
..spectator reader
Barkeep!? I’ll have what this guy is having.
Correct: there are worse things, like living a life without meaning
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38214823@N08/3995311829/in/photostream/
Life without meaning *cough* a soul doesn’t have to be all that bad…
hhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/38214823@N08/3995310995/in/photostream/
In fact, it can be pretty good
But wait…
What Is This?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38214823@N08/3995282109/in/photostream/
There is some kind of jamming in operation…
Or rather..Who Is This?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38214823@N08/4203552190/
Its not who i remember, not of the same asian persuasion: her mother was extremely kind in offering that i go the wedding all that time after but…
*squints* I JUST dont think thats the same one :I
It doesn’t look like your average ‘BRAIN CHEMIST’ who did many many years at Kings College London somehow…
Maybe that’s JUST my memory after the first and really last ‘REAL’ convo on phone when it first happened and id been staying at EVIL sis where he said ‘you’ve already said this and there is no history and this sort of thing’
I LOVE that last one, well actually i really don’t XD
I want the evil godots to leave me and my life alone forever and a lifetime! ALREADY!
Those photos suck, are you a friend of genotype’s?
I DID NOT take those :I
f2.8 but why not f2 . I just going to keep my zeiss100mm macro I need f2
You shoot macro at F2?
He wants a lens that does double duty between macro and portrait.
Then he will have to add an extension tube because 1:2 reproduction ratio is not considered a true macro lens. His comparison is invalid.
“his comparison is invalid”. Now you have won the argument.
Seriously? *That’s* what you’re going to pounce on? I do hope you regularly write letters and e-mails every time a manufacturer uses the term macro beyond its technical definition, too. Equal opportunity nitpicking and all…
SAL 85/2.8 is a joy for portraits and travel. No need for heavy macro.
Zeiss ZE 100mm Macro offers only a 1:2 maximum reproduction ratio instead of the far more common 1:1 maximum reproduction ratio of alternative macro lenses. I believe this lens is a true 1:1 macro.
The ZE 100 F2 is a close focusing portrait lens not the same category.
That lens has poor correction at both normal and macro. Plus it can’t focus close. You might as well get the ZA 135/1.8 because it focuses very close too.
There you go again………….out-talking your experience!
You likely have low standards. The 100/2 MP is an overrated piece of junk. The 135/2 Apo Sonnar, on the other hand, is how more lenses should be. Still it’s not the best though…
As for my experience, check the equipment I have/used in my flickr profile.
Through your inert arrogance (or is it, lack of a clue) you give people only one choice but to be honest. Your work is TERRIBLE, its a collection of happy snaps with no direction and absolutely no creative evolution. Just Sayin’
Lol you think you have intelligence to judge? I’m going to leave it at that because i know you won’t get it even if i explained to you. Sheep like you only can open coffee table books and try to replicate. We’re different paradigms.
😉
Oh yeah… by someone who doesn’t know that the message doesn’t go in the name field and is yet to discover the space bar on the keyboard. Fascinating… rofl
Got nothing to do with the fact that your work blows and you STILL have an inability to recognize good work when its pointed out to you. If you cannot recognize good work HTF are you ever going to produce any. You silly sod!
“Silly sod” awww getting emotional? Can’t put thoughts in to a rereasonable argument without running in to a wall of frustration? See i told you to shut then computer/phone down… technology is dangerous for people like you.
Why argue. Your work is third grade at best yet you talk WAY ABOVE your ability. Calling it as I see it. You are CLUELESS!
Just like a 3rd grader, when shown any complex math equation, would say it’s maths as if it’s the same maths they’ve done in school… you think it’s 3rd grade because you haven’t been to school beyond that ROFL
You tell him, stupid aren’t they!
……….stop stamping your feet.
It should be “stomping” not “stamping” rofl… what do you think I’m going to do? Post my feet in the mail? Here’s one i made just for you… shut up and shut down 😉
Sure in your version of the queens English maybe mate!
If i call it “stamping”, im worried you’ll want to lick the envelope 😉
We will stamp out this Aussie rebellion…….
Now im worried you want to lick me
NO, your way to easy to set-off. No talent, and no capacity to learn.
I reply to everything… don’t get excited.
And it’s “you’re” or “you are”… at which grade did you drop out from school?
Any photographers you rate highly? Serious question………
There’s good in everyone… not just the highly rated ones. Every discovery was made from what others thought were the ordinary… that’s what intelligent people do. What they don’t do is blindly worshipping what masses follow. I have mastered technique… i apply it to what i see… not what others see because I take photos for myself. My photos aren’t prostitutes made to satisfy others.
Interesting. I think you may have anti-social tenancies……. Your aren’t in a relationship, have issues with intimacy, and don’t care to be liked!
Lol nah my properties are rented out to pretty friendly tenants, thank you very much.
Also… are you looking for a fling with me? Not in to cyber dating ROFL
Wow, we now have Aussie English to learn……………….
Rofl I didn’t learn English from Australia. I spoke better English before i got here
He dodges, he weaves……………but is anyone else in the whole world actually a photographer of note………….he’ll never tell you, his name “Super-Aussie-Photog.”
But he’s a master of charts & graphs, so by definition he’s the tops…….. LOL
>so by definition he’s the tops…….. LOL<
that's clever for a Nikon user. 🙂
Wot dus paradime meen dad?
Its an Aussie word son, something to do with “lifestyle choices.”
All published work is crap now, you get more entertaining with every passing comment…………
Wow, old jerry over at Zeiss is making junk now……….. thanks for the heads-up……….. ROFL.
Yeah zeiss has some junk lenses in their line up. You have no clue about the subject do you?
It only mags to about 4:1. But is also very sharp wide open and has AF.
Yes… i found it being unusually close focusing for a lens of that type. I didn’t think it had particularly good image quality wide open… point it at something bright during the day and it would show all its flaws. In more controlled light it was superb… this is also exactly the same behaviour of the 85L (sans the close focusing).
Zeiss makro planar 100mm lacks 1:1 magnification, but keep it anyway. Its probably the best lens ever produced.
I am using this lens mostly in video (98%) With this lens you can do lovely macro and portrait . F2 is very handy in low light situation . Magnification 2:1 is enough for me .
Zeiss 100mm f2 is sharp straight from f2 , I like feeling of this lens , metal no any plastic .Of course is not perfect lens , no AF ( in video not necessary ) , focus ring very smooth but very a long throw focus .
Looks like it has internal focusing, that is important for a macro lens. If not you could get that cute bug all over the front lens. Looks like a very nice lens. Also for portrait.
On the slide the 35/1.4 says “new developed highly responsive actuator”. Meaning super fast AF? Because its so much glass to move around? Seems strange to only say it on that one lens.
I will probably get this lens. I love the focal point. I have a canon 85/1.2 which is excellent but heavy. The larger aperture would be nice but I bet going from 2.8 to 2.0 would be a significant increase in size and weight. Still seems like a pretty sweet lens. Will look good on my a9. Speaking of the a9, any more news on this camera and possible release date. Especially since A-mount has obviously taken a back seat to the E-mount. A-mount is Sony’s red headed step child.
Really hot for some A9 rumors! Especially the form factor and price point, since the rest will surely be better than A7II. So I expect high MP low noise sensor, better AF, 6FPS, same or better IBIS, better EVF, true weather sealing, maybe 4K….
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38214823@N08/3995311829/in/photostream/
Life without meaning *cough* a soul doesn’t have to be all that bad…
In fact, it can be pretty good
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38214823@N08/3995285983/in/photostream/
But wait…
What Is This?
It’s a macro lens first and a general purpose lens second. If it’s f/2 it would be the other way around like the Zeiss 100/2 MP.
If this lens focusses accurately and without hunting (like the Nikkor does) it may make for an excellent portrait lens too. I’m with you on the 85L, too heavy, it is also slow focussing and doesn’t really focus close enough but it is an excellent portrait lens, especially at f/2.
This is mirrorless… it focuses off the main center and doesn’t miss focus if done correctly. The only time lenses might hunt (if OSPDAF not present) is if the the subject moves.
And how is a 90/2.8 an alternative to the 85/1.2? If you were on Canon and got the 85L to shoot no faster than at 2.8 there’s a problem behind the camera.
Are all portraits shot wide-open at f/1.2? No. Is the 85L ever shot for portraits at F/2.8? Yes. Will a 90mm macro lens at f/2.8 look as good as the 85L at f/2.8. Absolutely. Does the Nikkor macro A/F hunt on the A7 platform? Well, you must give that a try for yourself!
Yep, all portraits MUST be shot wide-open at f/1.2…………… well according to the Aussie “scientist” but not to those of us who have a clue.
Nikon lenses don’t AF at all on A7. He is right the CDAF will be quite different to using PDAF with a traditional Macro, the difference is they are designed to hunt, PDAF isn’t and can be very slow to do so.
So as pointed out, buy the 85L or Sony 90…………. I’d say the 90 would be the better buy for 99% of the people on this board.
Old mount, they will retire it if and when they get with the 21st century.
People use the wrong tool for job all the time. It’s no justification. The 85L’s best between 1.2 and 1.8. When stopped down further it loses its magic to lesser lenses. The 85/1.8 pulls ahead from there onwards.
And of course, the 90/2.8 macro will look better from 2.8. It might have a bit more vignetting than a 1.2@2.8 but that’s it.
I was referring to Nikon lenses hunting on nikon dslrs. Who buys a nikon to use on a sony E when Canon lenses do it better? 😉
>People use the wrong tool for job all the time. It’s no justification<
No such situation exists in art http://leejeffries.500px.com go study Mr Jeffries work and get back to us young man. C.
Jeffries is an ace shooter, don’t know from a moral standpoint what I think, but those portraits on a 24 are stellar…….you can only imaging how close he must be…….they don’t look too clean.
Like i told the other guy… try to learn what artistic identity means. My photography is purely based on my interpretations… i can do that because i have impeccable technique, i know my tools to the point I’ve made my own damn cameras that are not even documented elsewhere… i don’t need to follow others’ exercises.
So you’re the mullah of photography, we must obey blindly ’cause you decree it? No I don’t think so, IT’S MEDIOCRE CRAP! Jeffries stuff is art, an interpretation, even though I may not like it, IT IS GOOD WORK.
I know logic is not your strong suit but at least sit down and take an aspirin when you’re faced with a situation that needs thought before typing. I didn’t say I’m the greatest… i just don’t need to follow others because im not one of those dumb people. I’m capable of independent thought and functioning. By all means marry your boyfriend Jeffries or whoever. .. no one stopped you LOL
You really are clueless aren’t you. Too wrapped-up in your own magnificence (NOT) to even offer a shred of credit to an actual photographer. Ignorant Aussie git!
“Ignorant Aussie git”?
Rofl… wow… you’re quite smart aren’t you?
Get off the internet… this place was better before you low functioning types started coming here thanks to dumbed down computers. They should make web browsers come with diaabled text fields and have an IQ test the user has to pass before they can be enabled. People like you would be very quiet and this would be a much better place.
Doesn’t change the fact that your work, after all that point-headed posturing is she-ite mate!
Lol remind me that time when i told you that I’m going to dedicate myself to taking photos for low functioning individuals to enjoy.
Precious baby, no one appreciates all his effort……………
But I know he’s a way better photographer than you, I’ve seen his and your work. Time to wind it in a notch.
Oooooh wait let me start caring. Should i also care when people watch NASCAR? Some like it so it must be good for everyone, right? LOL
He’s waffling again…………
It was 4.27pm at the time you wrote that. Please get off the computer and put your helmet back on.
Yes, IGNORANT of any artistic value……. did you look at Lee’s work yet, anything about it you like, no comment again, SURPRISE!
And you’re smart because you can only tell the artistic value of what others have pointed out to you? Wow… smarty smarty… careful you might smart yourself. The difference between you and me is I’m capable of independent thought… at a level it should make me a whole different species LOL
I can see that from your portfolio………
Oh you saw it, did you? Just like the million other things you’ve seen in your life you feel the same way about… like logic, maths, science, good taste… lol
But what about the art, the love of life the wonder we see everyday………
Do you see art in cloud formations too?
What, so you can bully and BS you way around, passing off your camera-club masterpieces as examples of craft. No, you need to be kept in check………….
Bullying? ROFL Did you give yourself a wedgie over on your side, sitting in front of your dumpster crt with its glare diffuses on your flaky bald head? Got a tip for you… no one here is in to that but you. So keep it to yourself, finish off and don’t wake your mommy up when you get to bed.
BUT, you do follow, you follow me, and your work, like your thought process is predicable. Like ya know, you’ll have replied to a least two of these comments by the time you read this, that’s what I’m talking about……….
Bye-Bye…………… I WON 😉
LOOKED UP LEE JEFFRIES YET?
Looked up how to lame it is to call yourself a pro and still not know how to register your username?
Deflection……….Pathology……..YOU!
Got one, can I play now, you’re silly…………
Impeccable technique, mmmmmm. Sounds kinda boring really, have you tried a little free expression, experimentation, exploration? ART, over science…………
Science is reason. Art without reason is called a fluke… or drug effects. I don’t give credit to people who didnt reason out what they did.
Yeah, look what Oppenheimer created from “reason” – you idiot, you don’t even know your own subject!
Oh you must be the praying man/woman from the other comment… pretty easy to tell. Keep praying…
What a load of crap. You truly are a “bookworm” not a photographer I’m afraid. You think you can tell the difference between a random shot at f/1.8 & f/2? If you say you can I’m calling you out for being full of it!
Stop attempting to give advice you’re OBVIOUSLY not qualified to offer! And enough with the winking – WTF Dame Edna. 😉
Did i say anything about random shots? My advice is based on experience and knowledge of the subject. You clearly have neither.
Sure, look up Lee Jeffries yet………..experience in WHAT exactly, BS?
Experience and knowledge, WOW. So why are your images so crap?
Lol what do you know about anything?
Number One of Two
Obvious, looking at your amateur-hour work – LOTS!
>Who buys a nikon to use on a sony E when Canon lenses do it better? ;)<
Anton Berlin, that's who.
That may explain his bad attitude!
There’s this thing called an identity… would be good to get one 😉
Got one, no point playing nice with you, you are oblivious and arrogant when it comes to accepting anyone else opinion, especially when they’re correct and you know it! 😉
I got one now, can I play, I like you, you’re silly………
You dont know how to use a computer so you wouldn’t know… just don’t give yourself credit thinking you’re the first to try what you’re doing lol
Go back to school
TWO of TWO – I win………… yeah!!!!!!!!!!
Your incorrect generalazation is based on an irrational fear of diffraction and for most purposes way out of line.
The increased depth of field at f8-12 far outwigh the loss of contrast and make the overall picture look much sharper.
If your intent is to see one tiny spot and blur everything else out then your advice is sound…otherwise youre advice should not be followed.
Absolutely, practical photography 101.
Stop toying with me, you’ll make me mad……..
Irrational fear of diffraction? Lol i use lens movements or changes in perspective to get around diffraction barry… because i know my tools. You’re the one who is putting blind faith in to a “diffraction reduction technology” that you have said you habe no clue about. Does that sound rational to you? Please…
While the phenomenon of difraction does exist it is as I have said a gradual reduction in contrast as the aperture decreases…there is no set point where diffraction is suddenly unnaceptable..rather it is a compromise between contrast and dof.
While in normal photographs highest contrast may be the best option, in macro dof becomes much more important.
As for my faith in technology..true I do not fully understand how the a77II reduces diffraction, however I shoot the a65, a77, and a77II and actually see the differrence I have described with my own eyes..the overall picture quality is very simular, but the finest details that are visible exhibit considerably more contrast.
This yechnology is specifically geared towards the highest resolution visible on a 24mp c size sensor…since that closely matches the pixel density this tech will definitely improve the quality of the new 50 ish mp ff sensors.
You may not fully understand the science like I do Mr Barry, but I can assure you, I am not half the photographer you are sir………
“it is as I have said a gradual reduction in contrast as the aperture decreases…”
Oh my… so it’s not like a switch, Barry? Are you sure? Are you reallllly sure? Did you just get back after visiting George Biddell Airy’s grave? How else could anyone else know!!! (Sarcasm)
I didn’t even read the rest of your reply because you have no clue about what the discussion is.
It’s about practical photography professor waffle. Stick to your classroom theory………..
Diffraction is real… exists when expecting gajillion pixels worth of detail when shooting macros in practice. You probably can’t tell because you don’t know.
Also you should use a hypen between photography and professor…
…………..clueless. Ever wonder why your partners are unimpressed with your bedroom gymnastics? Its called too much theory not enough experience.
Wonderful come back… I’m guessing the rest of your time is spent on rehab forums.
Again I agree with you..apparently I have no clue what the discussion is because I cannot understand the points you are trying to make.
The point is, whether you get this lens or any other lens, when shooting macros you will have diffraction that will not yield the benefits of a future higher res sensor.
Canon claims to be desighning a whole new series of lenses to have sufficient resolution for the new higher res cameras
Tamron claims its new lenses be able to resolve sufficient for the new higher res senskrs.
Glass can be ground to +- 1/4 wavelength, or at higher expense +- 1/ 10 wavelength…as Questar claims.
The whole world is saying one thing…and Genotypwriter says it cant be done because of diffraction.
Incidentally ..it is a sceintific fact that bumblebees are aerodynamically unstable and cannot fly…look it up!
Just don’t tell the bumblebees!
Those manufacturers are not referring to macro photography. And even if they did, why are you taking their word so much when all they’re interested in is making money?
What I say is based on science… a science which you apparently haven’t learned. Go take it up with your highschool for not teaching you how to plug in some values to an equation… or blame yourself for not finishing highschool… whichever is relevant.
Yep, we use movements ALL THE TIME when we’re shooting our PR accounts. We just make the client wait whilst we set-up the view camera when they want that factory scene sharp front to back.. Only an IDIOT stops down past optimum aperture of f/5.6…………..
What you said was all wrong. Stick to a topic you know.
What, now you are contradicting yourself. My goodness. It never ends.
Nah i always thought you people are clueless
Really, I pity your empty loveless existance.
Hahahhahhaha… stand on your head, it should reduce the bleeding.
That’s your issue small Asian man, you feel inconsequential and therefore worthless.
ROFL
Again… you’re clueless as usual
You don’t know what I know, you only know what you think you know and I know from what you show that you don’t really know how to shoot anything of consequence.
Your brain must be half functional because you’re unable to see how your logic is just one-sided.
Yep, that Lee Jeffries bloke is CLUELESS, his pictures would be far more convincing if he utilized the correct portrait focal length lens………..
You really are desperate to cause a stirr but you can barely lick the spoon LOL
No i didnt say that. Learn the subject and come back.
You reason like a small Asian bloke with no creative ability. You talk BIG, but the output is unimpressive.
*slow clap*… print this page and put it on your wall. You can’t do any better than this.
You really do come out with some peaches…………WTF.
Im not here to make friends. Learn to use the internet to read before you write.
I just want some RESPECT……….
Is that why you duplicated my profile photo to imitate me? Rofl your wit is a danger to yourself.
If only your talent matched your sarcasm.
Oh you how to discover talent huh? How come you haven’t figured out how to register a username that even kids know how to do? LOL
Open your eyes, your heart, embrace people for what they are…….
Embrace huh? Sorry… no free hugs here LOL
All backed up are we? LOL
New high res cameras will be out soon…my big question is will this be a higher res than other 90mm macros to give superior results with higher res cameras…or is this of similar performance as other 90mm macros but made for native E mount?
This 90mm macro any good for shooting animals, Barry?
No, better get a rifle for that.
I’m waiting for Sony to start making rifles …
90mm aint good for animals. Too much recoil. 7.62mm should be enough.
90mm f2.8 macro is an excellent lens for animals.
If I could only carry 2 lenses it would be 90mm macro on a ff camera , and a good long lens.
I currently have a really good 60mm f2 macro for apsc that is equivelent to a 90mm on ff and this is the most used of my macro lenses.
I generally carry this plus a 180 macro plus a long lens on 3 bodies ready to go…I carry other lenses with me but these 3 are always ready to go.
Actually my favorite lens for my NEX 5N is the Sigma 60/2.8, one of the sharpest lenses I have and cheap. I was trying to find on the net any info if it takes advantage of A6000 faster AF, but didn’t get a clear answer
How does Mp help you when get waterboarded for Sony use?
Lens diagram says Sony’s not fooling around. I can’t see why they would stop half way.
90mm macro is a highly usefull macro focal length.
Although I already have a good 90mm f2.8 I would actually consider buying this lens and a new high res camera to go with it. Although it is quite possible I will need to go with a Canikon to go with the long lens I plan to get…that lens would stay with that camera,and I am willing to dedicate a 90mm macro to a new body but only if the combination is really really good.
High res camera for macro? Still trying to get your head around the concept of diffraction i see 😉
Difractiin..a wave function..iis a gradual functiin, not an abrupt absute limit to resolution.
Sony has developed a difraction reduction technology to actually reduce the effects of diffraction and it is also based on wave function to reduce diffraction without rrducing overall light….although I have seen the patent I do not fully understand how it works ,so I cannot do a better job of explaining it.
This technology was first introduced in the A77II.
I also expect this technology to be improved and included in future sony high res cameras.
Deconvolution matrices are used to “fix” diffraction softness in software but that’s as good as fixing CA… what’s not there can’t be brought back. There’s no need to discuss further about that as it doesn’t get simpler than that.
F/64 isn’t the most thought through approach and sharpness was not high on their priority list. Are you referring to imagon types? Such a wonky iris would show up in the OOF highlights. With large format, there’s very low reproduction magnification and diffraction shows less. Some people contact print and there’s no magnification there. Honestly it shouldn’t even be in this discussion.
Macro work is very similar to large format work as both produce substantiall higher magnification at the film plane.
Ansel Adams exposed at very high f#s in order to capture extreme detail, depth and texture.
I would not describe his work as wonky or OOF highlights.
AgianI remind you that diffraction is a gradually increasing lessening of contrast…its presence does not render a high resolution photo useless, and in fact is often extremely difficult to detect.
Since we are talking about less contrast in the image coorection can be done on the computer.
Compare the same images taken on the a77 and a77II and overall you will see minor differrences…but when you specificall examine the finest details the differrence is quite dramatic.
This is the direct result of the diffraction reduction technology that you say “should not even be discussed”
“Out of focus highlights” isn’t a description of photographs. Can you be more out of context?
“and in fact is often extremely difficult to detect.”
You go to the symphony and didn’t know if they’re playing the right notes, maybe you shouldn’t be there because you can’t appreciate what’s being done.
Let me put it in another way… images taken with a mediocre lens will show improvements with software lens “corrections” turned on. It doesn’t mean they becomes as good as the same photos taken with a good lens.
I specifically used the example of Ansel Adams to illustrate the magnificent tone, texture and detail he achieved throgh use of the combination of high magnification…large format…and high f #s.
Since we are talking about macro here the principles are very similar.
His photographs are highly valued for precisely the qualities I described here…you appear to be so hung up with your obsesion with defraction that you cannot see whats in front of your eyes.
Psssst. You are correct, do whatever it takes to get the shot, that’s what’s important in photography. Its a better idea than spouting off like me on the internet whilst wearing my white lab coat………
When I make the decision to use bright lighting and stop way down on my macro shots I realize that I will incur some loss of maximum sharpness.
I adjust the f stop to achieve sufficient depth of field to include my entire subject, I even alter my position and composition to place my subject on a flatter plane to more easily keep the subject in focus…but even a very flat subject like a butterly still requires f8-f 12 to include the body, antenea, eyes and legs in focus…and if I want to inclde elements of the environment dof becomes even more critical.
Yep!
If you put straps on labcoat sleeves they can be used as straightjackets.
Sharp Shooter shoots better than genotypewriter, makes more sense too.
Rofl… what a stretch you’re trying to make. You’re like “hmm i should say something about AA because people know he was good so by supporting him I’ll be good too”. Here’s an inference… AA was good at B&W and so are you… except AA used it for his photography and you use it for your thought process 😉
AA has nothing to do with the original point.
I use my photos exclusively as refference for my animal paintings.
I incorporate some of the gualities in my art that I have seen in the work of a very few artists I greatly admire.
Ansel Adams is one of them..I admire the texture , detail, and subtle tones of his work.
These are qualities I try to incorporate in my own painting..not to make my style looke like his but to incorporate the qualities of his work that I find most relevant.
So Ansel Adams is very very relevent to this discussion.
You were asking if this macro lens is capable of resolving more detail on a very high resolution sensor than other macro lenses. If you don’t get the problem in what you’re saying by now there’s nothing to talk about. And what kind of tiny flat animal parts do you need to resolve at a higher resolution?
The fact that you can even ask such a question proves you are clueless
Butterflys hav
Barry I’ll admit that, as I stand, I might be clueless in your field of high magnification body part photography… never claimed I was. However, light doesn’t care whether it’s bouncing off something organic or not.
Butterfly wings are flat and they don’t need extra DOF. But feathers, etc.? They’re deep and require stopping down. When you stop down, diffraction will be your limiting factor… not the lens. So, your original question about if this lens is better than other macro lenses for future super high res sensors is moot.
Like you calling your work artistic. WTF
LOL And you are?
Go look at his work online, its pathetic, your stuff is SO MUCH BETTER, so don’t waste your time on him Barry.
I paint what I consider to be the ideal painting…therefore I generally favor my own work over that of others…I am therefore totally biased and will not attempt to make a comparison.
Good for you, that’s proper art.
Yeah, theory trumps reality anyway doesn’t it. We sure told Barry didn’t we………
You say photos taken with a really good lens will be better than those taken with a mediocre lens, even with diffraction reduction technology.
I agree with that.
Again you’ve missed the point. Use diffraction avoidance… not “correction”… that’s what I’m saying.
I said I agree with you, but you still dissagree with me!
That’s because he’s so ARROGANT he cannot think straight, why bother?
Unlike you Barry, he cannot shoot at his talking weight…….
JUST found this with dolls 😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyoCugLEqJs&list=RDRyoCugLEqJs#t=6
Thanks hulksmash for this. What exactly is this again?
Apologies to genotypewriter, may his troubled soul find Jesus………
Amen brother