Sony Alpha portrait Lens ??

[Smiths]

Has anyone here used the Sony Planar 85mm T* f/1.4 a (Alpha) lens versus the Tamron Telephoto SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens for portrait work? I've had nice results from the Tamron products in the past and there's about a 650.00 difference in price between these lens... Anyone had a chance to compare... is it worth the extra money to go with the Sony lens over the Tamron

[cyclohexane]

The f/1.4 max aperture of the Sony will give you a lot more control in regards to blurring the background, hence the difference in price.

[cordyc]

I have the Minolta version of the 85 and it a wonderful lens, but a 2.8 should also give you a good blur. You can read reviews at dyxum.com on lots of the A mount lens.

[Smiths]

I decided because of lack of funds to try a Sony SAL-50F14 Normal 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus for a portrait lens at 350.00 rather than 1245.00 for the 85mm lens. This lens is actually 75mm because of the APS factor so I believe it should do a fine job. I may find that I made a mistake but well you know you try things out and make mistakes along the way...

[Kalypso]

I love my Tamron 35-105/f2.8 for portraits! It's an unusual size but won numerous awards and performs like many of my primes! As in:

[Smiths]

Kalypso, Beautiful capture... I haven't been able to get out with one of my models as of yet with this new lens, but the few pictures that I have taken with it appear to be getting me closer to what I needed... The 85 1.4 is probally worth every cent but well you know us photog's, we don't have a lot of cents....

This 50 1.4 appears to be capturing as a 75mm lens would on a 35mm camera, so the aspect of the picture is correct, and the 1.4 ap is letting me take available light pictures with some really crisp clarity to boot... I like to shoot most of my portraits with availble light....

Is your Tamron 35-105/f2.8 actually a 52.5 - 157.5mm lens on the Sony or is it as stated on the lens ?

This 1.4 ap is allowing me to hand hold my alpha in available light with an ISO of 100, this is really gonna be awesome when working with the models and some dramatic lighting conditions...

[cyclohexane]

Is your Tamron 35-105/f2.8 actually a 52.5 - 157.5mm lens on the Sony or is it as stated on the lens ?

Lenses ALWAYS state the actual focal lengths.

The "effective" focal lengths reflect the cropped views captured with sensors smaller than 24mm x 36mm in size. For your Sony Alpha, you need to multiply the actual focal length by 1.5 to get the equivalent view. Your statement on the 52.5-157.5mm effective view is correct, as is your 50mm having a 75mm effective view.

Don't worry, it took me forever to figure it out. =)

[Smiths]

So you get more distance shots out of the lower mm size lens with the sensor difference but I guess that isn't so good when trying to capture wide angle shots of scenery then as it must work the same for the smaller mm size lens also Well my using the Alpha saved me some money for right now using the 50 mm 1.4 lens for portrait work, I may have made a correct decision in going with this camera after all... Actaully I'm pretty sure I did make the right decision as I have also used a Nikon D200 and was not that much more impressed with it than the Sony's capabilities and captures...

Anyways I guess that would be a whole other thread to it's self...

Thanx for the information...

[cyclohexane]

I guess that isn't so good when trying to capture wide angle shots of scenery then as it must work the same for the smaller mm size lens also

Yes, so the traditional 17-35mm wide angle lenses give you the field of view of a less attractive 25.5-52.5mm lens.

Luckily, there are alternatives, such as the 10-20mm, 11-18mm, and 12-24mm lenses available from various manufacturers to make up for the wide end.

[Kalypso]

The Kit lens really isn't that bad. I've earned my share when I needed the short end...

[redwoodtwig]

I like this hunk of glass quite a bit and am quite happy with it. I can't compare with the other lenses mentioned here, only with other lens I've used in the past and mostly I've found it worth the money.

[Smiths]

Redwoodtwig, Which lens did you use for that image ?


I've found the Sony 50mm lens I bought to be quite successful, although it also requires alittle more attention to actual use.. settings etc... than the kit lens...

Looking to see some wild flowers this spring so it may be time for a wider lens....

Thankyou for the information...

[redwoodtwig]

Originally Posted by Smiths

Redwoodtwig, Which lens did you use for that image ?

The 85mm set at 1/13th of a second at F2, most likely in program mode. EV was 0. I had it on a tripod and I did use manual focus. The background is one of those huge TV screens my brother has and the lighting was a couple of house lamps. I did tweak it somewhat for the lighting and curve.

The disadvantage is that I have to be fairly far away, like about 6 feet in this case.

I've found the Sony 50mm lens I bought to be quite successful, although it also requires alittle more attention to actual use.. settings etc... than the kit lens...

Looking to see some wild flowers this spring so it may be time for a wider lens....

Thankyou for the information...

This portrait was also taken with the 85mm, though I did smooth the skin a bit using the clarify setting in Lightroom.

I can't decide whether I want to look for a macro or a telephoto for my next prime lens. In any case, it's going to be a while,