The 100mm f/2.8L has outstanding resolution by any yardstick. Perhaps not as high on the Imatest as the Zeiss 135, but high enough to qualify as "excellent." Further, the 100mm f/2.8L bests the Zeiss in several areas: lack of barrel distortion, bokeh, speed of AF, weather sealing, as well as the best IS in the business, all for less money.
Shifting your arguments I see, you wrote that the 100/2.8 L has "as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss," and now you have to obviously abandon that argument. Now you want to argue that .15% barrel distortion is an issue on the 135/1.8? Perhaps you should be worried about the .98% barrel distortion on the 85/1.2 L. Bokeh on the 135/1.8 is outstanding and there is nothing to complain about there, and I never had a problem with AF using it either. Want to pay less? Sure, we all do, I've got a Sony 85/2.8 that is featherlight in my bag and works great on my A850 and it cost me $250. As for the weathersealing, I agree that's something Sony should address, but it's not a deal killer for me.
Well, I wonder what experience you have with the bokeh on the Canon 100mm f/2.8L? Since you like to quote Photozone so much, here is what your own reference point states of the Canon: " the Canon lens does truly shine here (bokeh). Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far," as well as "The AF performance is ... vastly better than third party alternatives." So you're the one who's talking nonsense here.
Funny that you would say I "like to quote Photozone so much," since I only mentioned it once and you have proceeded to base almost your entire response to me on it. OTOH, since you seem to be the one fixated on Photozone and are now citing it extensively, I'll play along. To wit, Photozone says of the 135/1.8 bokeh that its qualities are "outstanding" and that its "blur is exceptionally smooth and uniform."
You're right in a sense about the apples to oranges, but I am not deluding myself in overall perspective. You are deluding yourself into trying to elevate a limited system to the same playing field as Canon over one lens. As I said in the beginning, if I were only doing wedding/portraits, then maybe ... but for someone looking to build a full system, the Sony doesn't make much sense.
It's not about one lens, it's about whether the system has the lenses to meet my needs or not. I mostly do landscapes with a lot of other stuff thrown in for good measure. I would be happy with Canon, Nikon, or Sony as all three meet my needs; you feel otherwise and that's your prerogative, but that is not a license to distort facts. For me Sony has been missing the T/S lenses, but some have been working around that with the Mirex adapter. I am currently getting outstanding results using my Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-micro with a non-optical adapter for close-ups and my Schneider 28/2.8 PC for architectural and landscapes, and I'm looking ahead to using the Schneider 50mm and 90mm T/S lenses when they become available and when I have the money to spend on them.
I wrote:
"The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle."
Speaking of self-delusion, Tony, this is flat-out balderdash you're spewing. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much peerless.
Once again, since you like Photozone so much, here is a direct refutation of your position by your own reference point: Of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Photozone says, "The rather long min. focus distance of 1m is a bit disappointing compared to other lenses in this class ... the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is still a tad better (with bokeh) especially with respect to the foreground blur ..."
Meanwhile, of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Photozone says, "The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is a lens where Canon "shows off" - it's ... a marvel within the lens lineup ... you're getting quite some glass for your bucks here ... The (bokeh) potential is more than extreme! If required this lens will smoothen even the most difficult back- and foregrounds ... Out-of-focus highlights are rendered perfectly and the blur is very smooth ... The center (resolution" performance is nothing short of breathtaking and the borders are only slightly weaker ... All-in-all an exceptional lens!"
So your own reference material rates the Canon 85mm better than the Zeiss, pretty much across the board.
Since you are so enamored of relying on Photozone, perhaps some screenshots are in order here.
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/Photozone%2085mm%20Reviews.jpgIt is also worth noting that the ZA 85/1.4 costs $720 less than the Canon 85/1.2 L, and I will have more on that below.
The Canon offers better super-telephoto lenses, for less money, and has more of them to choose from. And, by all accounts, the Schneider cannot in any way compare to the Canon T/S lenses. Thus, in buying the Sony, you commit yourself to having less choices, in many cases inferior choices, and in virtually all cases you're stuck having to pay more money for them. So whatever short money you saved buying the Sony body ... costs you more in the end ... both in terms of versatility as well as overall lens prices.
Well, I've already written that Canon is the better choice for fast telephoto lenses, hardly the kind of thing a fanboy of another system would say.
Regarding Schneider not comparing in any way to Canon's T/S lenses, there are no accounts of that and you are fabricating that to bolster your argument that Canon is the best and greatest system ever.
As for the price of Sony lenses being too high relative to Canon (or Nikon for that matter), lets add it up:
Fast primes:
Sony 24/2 $1250 v. Canon 24/1.4 $1661 My verdict: I can live with f/2 and pocket the $400.
Sony 50/1.4 $369 v. Canon 50/1.4 $379 My verdict: No difference.
Sony 85/1.4 $1369 v. Canon 85/1.2 $2089 My verdict: I'll definitely pocket the $720 here, and that's a total savings of $1130 for these three primes using the Sony system.
f/2.8 zooms:
16-35 Sony $1900 v. Canon $1614 My verdict: I'm not sure, Canon has a bad reputation in this category, if pressed I would look for other options for both brands and Nikon kicks butt here with their 14-24/2.8
24-70 Sony $1600 v. Canon $1329 My verdict: Canon saves you $271 here, but I am not a fan of this zoom range anyway even though many are.
70-200 Sony $1800 v. Canon $2374 My verdict: A lot of photographers use all three of these zooms in their kit, adding it up it's a dead heat in terms of overall price with both systems costing about $5300 for these three lenses.
100mm f/2.8 macros:
Sony $679 v. Canon $996 My verdict: I've seen the bokeh of the Minolta 100mm macro, and I regret somewhat not spending the extra $200 I saved buying the Sigma 105/2.8, but I solved that by buying the Sony 85/2.8, so in the end whatever works for you here. Personally, I prefer T/S for close-up photography (I'm not a macro shooter anyway), and Canon has that whereas I have solved this by using my Nikkor [see above in this reply], so given that the Schneider isn't here yet and is going to cost a lot, I would give this one to Canon or Nikon, but if you just want a good 100mm macro then there's nothing wrong with the Sony option.
Tony used to cheerlead Nikon a few years back, now he is cheerleading Sony.
Well, I see good things in all three systems being discussed here and am willing to say as much. I've opted for the A850 because it meets my needs better than any other option out there right now, and I am not feeling limited by lens options right now (finances due to the Great Recession are a different matter though). OTOH, you have been a die-hard Canon fanboy for years now, and that along with your abrasiveness just makes your posts loathsome to read.
I just realized it's time to update my profile here, the page where I show my photos disappeared due to some re-organizing of the site where I keep my online photos, so I'm addressing that now (in case anyone is interested, I would be). I'll let my photographs speak for themselves; in the end the system we choose is rarely the thing that prevents or enables us to get photographs, and as I said in my first post in this thread, I'm content with Sony for now.