85mm f1.4 does brand matter?

deadwolfbones · 09-14-2009, 09:33 AM

And just to clear it up a little more regarding the cheaper manual focus 85/1.4s... Bower, Samyang, Polar, Rokinon, and Vivitar are all the same lens optically.

pasipasi · 09-14-2009, 10:45 AM

People bring up that you can get the same fov with 50/1.4 that you did with 85mm on film, but has anyone considered that 85mm on digital gives the same fov as 135mm on film? That's what I'm after.

Class A · 09-14-2009, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by pasipasi

People bring up that you can get the same fov with 50/1.4 that you did with 85mm on film, but has anyone considered that 85mm on digital gives the same fov as 135mm on film? That's what I'm after.

It would have to be 55/1.4 on APS-C. That's most likely why the new DA 55/1.4 is a 55mm not a 50mm.

What do you want to use a 130 (not 135, although the 5mm in this range are more negligible than around 50mm) for? For portraits it is a rather long, isn't it? (Yes, you can shoot portraits with a 10-20 and with 200mm, but that's not my point.)

Blue · 09-14-2009, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Class A

It would have to be 55/1.4 on APS-C. That's most likely why the new DA 55/1.4 is a 55mm not a 50mm.

What do you want to use a 130 (not 135, although the 5mm in this range are more negligible than around 50mm) for? For portraits it is a rather long, isn't it? (Yes, you can shoot portraits with a 10-20 and with 200mm, but that's not my point.)

135mm lenses is the second or 3rd most common focal length out there for film followed by ~50 or 55 and close to 35mm. I don't know why people find that odd on digital. Although I prefer 105 to 135 on film.

jogiba · 09-14-2009, 03:44 PM

YouTube - Pentax K-7 in 1536x1024 *** mode with 85mm F1.4 Rokinon and Pentax 1.7x AF adapter (145mm F2.38)
YouTube - Pentax K-7 with 85mm F1.4 Rokinon

85mm F1.4 Rokinon with 1.7x Pentax AF adapter

jolee1990 · 09-14-2009, 03:51 PM

woah thak you all for all these informations

Marc Sabatella · 09-14-2009, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Class A

What do you want to use a 130 (not 135, although the 5mm in this range are more negligible than around 50mm) for? For portraits it is a rather long, isn't it? (Yes, you can shoot portraits with a 10-20 and with 200mm, but that's not my point.)

Personally, I think that's a very nice focal length for portraits, getting you a pretty tight head and shoulder shot from a comfortable distance. Not as nice as 70mm overall for me on APS-C, but agreeably tighter without pushing the issue as much as 100mm (which I find useful for face-only shots). It's all subjective, but I find any of these focal lengths on APS-C (70, 85, or 100) more useful for portraits than 55.

Class A · 09-14-2009, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by jogiba

YouTube - Pentax K-7 in 1536x1024 *** mode with 85mm F1.4 Rokinon and Pentax 1.7x AF adapter (145mm F2.38)

You can embed youtube (and vimeo videos) directly.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSEFjZNbCE[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSEFjZNbCE[/yt]

... and boy, you've got nice toys to play with.

Class A · 09-14-2009, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Blue

135mm lenses is the second or 3rd most common focal length out there for film

OK, but why?
Sometimes there is a technical reason, like "can be still handheld without SR", "any longer and resolution wasn't that swell anymore (in the 70's)", etc.
Is there a particular application for a 135mm on FF? I don't find the FL odd, just wondering what the primary application was/is.

Originally posted by Blue

Although I prefer 105 to 135 on film.

That matches my liking for 70mm on APS-C. I really want that Sigma 70/2.8 Macro badly, as it doubles really nicely as a portrait lens.

D W · 09-15-2009, 06:31 AM

If you want new, higher quality than the Samyang variants can live with manual focusing but with A setting check out the Zeiss ZK 85/1.4.

Blue · 09-15-2009, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Class A

OK, but why?
Sometimes there is a technical reason, like "can be still handheld without SR", "any longer and resolution wasn't that swell anymore (in the 70's)", etc.
Is there a particular application for a 135mm on FF? I don't find the FL odd, just wondering what the primary application was/is.

That matches my liking for 70mm on APS-C. I really want that Sigma 70/2.8 Macro badly, as it doubles really nicely as a portrait lens.

As far as why manufacturers made them, people bought them as part of a basic prime kit. It is my understanding that prior to computer designs, it was easier to build a good 135mm lens mathematically. The FL was used for portraits with a little distance so the use probably had to do with shooting style.

CFWhitman · 09-15-2009, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Class A

OK, but why?
Sometimes there is a technical reason, like "can be still handheld without SR", "any longer and resolution wasn't that swell anymore (in the 70's)", etc.
Is there a particular application for a 135mm on FF? I don't find the FL odd, just wondering what the primary application was/is.

That matches my liking for 70mm on APS-C. I really want that Sigma 70/2.8 Macro badly, as it doubles really nicely as a portrait lens.

Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that for portraits just a slight amount of compression distortion ("telephoto" distortion) is considered flattering (especially for people with one exaggerated feature, such as a large nose). Then, of course, comfortable working distance (comfortable for the subject generally being the main concern) enters into it.

Of course, there will not be just one point where the combination of these factors is perfect and a millimeter or two off messes everything up, so we are dealing with a range of focal lengths here. That's really all there is to it. Classically you will hear slightly different variations on the portrait range for 35mm film, the narrowest generally being 85mm to 135mm. Sometimes you will see 85mm to 150mm or 70mm to 150mm (possibly even ranges including up to 200mm occasionally). Of course for APS-C this translates to ranges starting from 50 to 55 millimeters and ending from 90 to 100 millimeters (or 135mm to cover up to the 200mm mark).

brian s. · 09-15-2009, 01:51 PM

The Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4 is the sharpest 85mm lens in the K mount. It It's mf though.

Zeiss ZA Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ( Sony SAL-85F14Z ) - Review / Test Report

virgilr · 09-15-2009, 01:52 PM

Just want to pitch in that I do like my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 for indoor portraiture in available light. ISO 200 on my K100DS, f/4, and a bit of "softening" in LR/PS to keep the dermitologist analysis effect at bay, since it's a pretty sharp lens.

I can shoot from a comfortable distance for the subject and still get nice tight head/shoulder shots. Of course, this isn't going to work out when shooting the family around the tree at Christmas!

Class A · 09-15-2009, 05:53 PM

Charlie,

Originally posted by CFWhitman

Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that for portraits just a slight amount of compression distortion ("telephoto" distortion) is considered flattering (especially for people with one exaggerated feature, such as a large nose).

Yes, that's why I often object when people refer to a 50/1.4 as a perfect portrait lens on APS-C. It is really a bit too short for that. Having said that, I recently used an FA 50/1.4 for portraiture and it worked very nicely most of the time, in particular when keeping an appropriate distance and cropping in later.

Originally posted by CFWhitman

Classically you will hear slightly different variations on the portrait range for 35mm film, the narrowest generally being 85mm to 135mm.

I thought the longest end in the classical range was shorter, but you are right. Thanks, that FL now makes more sense to me now. Thanks also to Blue and Marc.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: For collectors--Brand New K1000 and Brand New M 50mm f1.7	artistcjconrad	Sold Items	12	08-28-2009 10:28 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Pentax FA*85mm F1.4 BRAND NEW	tsiklop	Sold Items	8	06-13-2009 02:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: Brand New Pentax Brand m42 to k mount converter Free shipping!	GatorPentax	Sold Items	1	10-28-2008 08:11 PM

09-14-2009, 09:33 AM	#16
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	And just to clear it up a little more regarding the cheaper manual focus 85/1.4s... Bower, Samyang, Polar, Rokinon, and Vivitar are all the same lens optically.

09-14-2009, 10:45 AM	#17
pasipasi Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Oulu Photos: Gallery Posts: 532	People bring up that you can get the same fov with 50/1.4 that you did with 85mm on film, but has anyone considered that 85mm on digital gives the same fov as 135mm on film? That's what I'm after.

09-14-2009, 01:44 PM	#18
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by pasipasi People bring up that you can get the same fov with 50/1.4 that you did with 85mm on film, but has anyone considered that 85mm on digital gives the same fov as 135mm on film? That's what I'm after. It would have to be 55/1.4 on APS-C. That's most likely why the new DA 55/1.4 is a 55mm not a 50mm. What do you want to use a 130 (not 135, although the 5mm in this range are more negligible than around 50mm) for? For portraits it is a rather long, isn't it? (Yes, you can shoot portraits with a 10-20 and with 200mm, but that's not my point.)

09-14-2009, 02:10 PM	#19
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Class A It would have to be 55/1.4 on APS-C. That's most likely why the new DA 55/1.4 is a 55mm not a 50mm. What do you want to use a 130 (not 135, although the 5mm in this range are more negligible than around 50mm) for? For portraits it is a rather long, isn't it? (Yes, you can shoot portraits with a 10-20 and with 200mm, but that's not my point.) 135mm lenses is the second or 3rd most common focal length out there for film followed by ~50 or 55 and close to 35mm. I don't know why people find that odd on digital. Although I prefer 105 to 135 on film.

09-14-2009, 03:44 PM	#20
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	YouTube - Pentax K-7 in 1536x1024 *** mode with 85mm F1.4 Rokinon and Pentax 1.7x AF adapter (145mm F2.38) YouTube - Pentax K-7 with 85mm F1.4 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Rokinon with 1.7x Pentax AF adapter

09-14-2009, 03:51 PM	#21
jolee1990 Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: cincinnati Posts: 88 Original Poster	woah thak you all for all these informations

09-14-2009, 07:30 PM	#22
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Class A What do you want to use a 130 (not 135, although the 5mm in this range are more negligible than around 50mm) for? For portraits it is a rather long, isn't it? (Yes, you can shoot portraits with a 10-20 and with 200mm, but that's not my point.) Personally, I think that's a very nice focal length for portraits, getting you a pretty tight head and shoulder shot from a comfortable distance. Not as nice as 70mm overall for me on APS-C, but agreeably tighter without pushing the issue as much as 100mm (which I find useful for face-only shots). It's all subjective, but I find any of these focal lengths on APS-C (70, 85, or 100) more useful for portraits than 55.

09-14-2009, 08:56 PM	#23
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by jogiba YouTube - Pentax K-7 in 1536x1024 *** mode with 85mm F1.4 Rokinon and Pentax 1.7x AF adapter (145mm F2.38) You can embed youtube (and vimeo videos) directly. [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSEFjZNbCE[/yt] [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSEFjZNbCE[/yt] ... and boy, you've got nice toys to play with.

09-14-2009, 09:02 PM	#24
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Blue 135mm lenses is the second or 3rd most common focal length out there for film OK, but why? Sometimes there is a technical reason, like "can be still handheld without SR", "any longer and resolution wasn't that swell anymore (in the 70's)", etc. Is there a particular application for a 135mm on FF? I don't find the FL odd, just wondering what the primary application was/is. Originally posted by Blue Although I prefer 105 to 135 on film. That matches my liking for 70mm on APS-C. I really want that Sigma 70/2.8 Macro badly, as it doubles really nicely as a portrait lens.

09-15-2009, 06:31 AM	#25
D W Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Hogtown, ON, Canada Posts: 329	If you want new, higher quality than the Samyang variants can live with manual focusing but with A setting check out the Zeiss ZK 85/1.4.

09-15-2009, 07:17 AM	#26
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Class A OK, but why? Sometimes there is a technical reason, like "can be still handheld without SR", "any longer and resolution wasn't that swell anymore (in the 70's)", etc. Is there a particular application for a 135mm on FF? I don't find the FL odd, just wondering what the primary application was/is. That matches my liking for 70mm on APS-C. I really want that Sigma 70/2.8 Macro badly, as it doubles really nicely as a portrait lens. As far as why manufacturers made them, people bought them as part of a basic prime kit. It is my understanding that prior to computer designs, it was easier to build a good 135mm lens mathematically. The FL was used for portraits with a little distance so the use probably had to do with shooting style.

09-15-2009, 08:09 AM	#27
CFWhitman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Upstate New York, US Photos: Albums Posts: 225	Originally posted by Class A OK, but why? Sometimes there is a technical reason, like "can be still handheld without SR", "any longer and resolution wasn't that swell anymore (in the 70's)", etc. Is there a particular application for a 135mm on FF? I don't find the FL odd, just wondering what the primary application was/is. That matches my liking for 70mm on APS-C. I really want that Sigma 70/2.8 Macro badly, as it doubles really nicely as a portrait lens. Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that for portraits just a slight amount of compression distortion ("telephoto" distortion) is considered flattering (especially for people with one exaggerated feature, such as a large nose). Then, of course, comfortable working distance (comfortable for the subject generally being the main concern) enters into it. Of course, there will not be just one point where the combination of these factors is perfect and a millimeter or two off messes everything up, so we are dealing with a range of focal lengths here. That's really all there is to it. Classically you will hear slightly different variations on the portrait range for 35mm film, the narrowest generally being 85mm to 135mm. Sometimes you will see 85mm to 150mm or 70mm to 150mm (possibly even ranges including up to 200mm occasionally). Of course for APS-C this translates to ranges starting from 50 to 55 millimeters and ending from 90 to 100 millimeters (or 135mm to cover up to the 200mm mark).

09-15-2009, 01:51 PM	#28
brian s. Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Northern California Photos: Gallery Posts: 37	The Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4 is the sharpest 85mm lens in the K mount. It It's mf though. Zeiss ZA Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ( Sony SAL-85F14Z ) - Review / Test Report

09-15-2009, 01:52 PM	#29
virgilr Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lachine, Quebec, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 453	Just want to pitch in that I do like my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5 for indoor portraiture in available light. ISO 200 on my K100DS, f/4, and a bit of "softening" in LR/PS to keep the dermitologist analysis effect at bay, since it's a pretty sharp lens. I can shoot from a comfortable distance for the subject and still get nice tight head/shoulder shots. Of course, this isn't going to work out when shooting the family around the tree at Christmas!

09-15-2009, 05:53 PM	#30
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Charlie, Originally posted by CFWhitman Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that for portraits just a slight amount of compression distortion ("telephoto" distortion) is considered flattering (especially for people with one exaggerated feature, such as a large nose). Yes, that's why I often object when people refer to a 50/1.4 as a perfect portrait lens on APS-C. It is really a bit too short for that. Having said that, I recently used an FA 50/1.4 for portraiture and it worked very nicely most of the time, in particular when keeping an appropriate distance and cropping in later. Originally posted by CFWhitman Classically you will hear slightly different variations on the portrait range for 35mm film, the narrowest generally being 85mm to 135mm. I thought the longest end in the classical range was shorter, but you are right. Thanks, that FL now makes more sense to me now. Thanks also to Blue and Marc.