Sony The new Wakizashi (Katana)

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Looks like someone just usurped the Fuji 90mm as the new Wakizashi (Katana) of sharp short teles.


Roger's Comments:

As is sometimes the case, I got access to a couple of pre-release copies of the new Sony FE 135mm f1.8 GM lens. Of course, if I get access, it gets MTF bench tested. I mounted the first one, sipped my coffee and then lost my mind and started shouting various expletives, enough to bring Aaron running in from the other room to see what I’d broken.

I hadn’t broken anything; I just saw MTF curves higher than anything I’d ever seen in a normal-range lens. (Lenses like 400mm f/2.8 super telephotos, are about this high. But those are super telephotos. And f/2.8.)

Anyway, I tested the two copies we had and sent a subtle note of congratulations to some friends at Sony.
 
I've been heading a lot about that Sony. Good on them. I really like the 135mm focal length for portraits and use my legacy Nikon AIS version quite a bit.

I can see this being something special for indoor sports, but am curious if it is too sharp for portraits.

Only time will tell. Thanks for sharing.
 
That I believe :) OTOH, it is possible to use judicial softening to alieviate their concerns (I've had to do that for young women especially ...).

M.

Absolutely true. When doing portrait work I use the portrait professional plug in or at times use selective clarity in the negative direction to tame the sharpness.
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard the same thing with people talking about the Fuji 50mm f2 vs the 56mm 1.2 for portraits. And I agree with Luke. Retouching takes care of any over sharp areas.
 
I remember having a buddy over to my place years ago when I got my first really nice stereo. I asked him what he wanted to hear and I put it on. He was NOT impressed. He said it sounded terrible and I told him that it was because the RECORDING was terrible. Then I put on a superb recording and we were transported to the venue...or the venue was transported to my living room. He was flummoxed. I told him that the stereo was so good at resolving, it would show every fault of the original recording. At that point in time, he decided he didn't WANT a better stereo if it was going to make 80% of his records sound "worse".

He also didn't like the idea of my stereo not having any "tone controls". "What if want to turn up the bass?", he asked.

I see a great, sharp lens the same way. The job of the lens is capture as much resolution as is possible. The photographer is in charge of making it look good.
 
But....but...but....what if I'm one of those that think it has to be 100% correct straight from the camera!! LOL
:D
Accuracy has nothing to do with portraits. Or, rather, selling portraits. I took pictures of a friend once, and showed her how I could soften her facial textures a bit. Her response was "oh no. I don't want to have to live up to that".
 
Back in the film days I used Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses. There was a ‘newsgroup’ (anyone else remember those?) where it noted that some of those lenses where too sharp for model’s faces. Especially the 100m macro.
 
I'm slowly getting into deliberate people photography, i.e., portraits. As a result, I'm also learning the double-edged nature of sharpness (haha). So far, none of my subjects have complained, but I've barely dipped my small toe into the genre. At some point I will break out the 56 and draw fire once they see how sharp that tool is.
 
I'll make do with the Fuji 90mm at $699
... which is a fabulously sharp lens - so the same "restrictions" apply; I've had said troubles (concerning adolescent girls and young women) with Sigma Art primes at 35mm (yes, environmental portraiture - not close up at all!) and 50mm, though you can "mitigate" it somewhat by shooting them wide open, and the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 as well... Oh, and with a lens as nice and neutral as the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G ... (which is great for "old men", actually).

M.
 
Back
Top