DavidBM Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · difference between Loxia and Batis? Autofocus? | |
Dustin Gent wrote:
Haven't really looked at the Batis lenses, but i see that they have similar FLs as the Loxia offerings. I know Loxia is full manual and Batis is AF, but are there any other differences? I know google is my friend, but i would rather get real world feedback from people who have used them.
Selling the 14-24 in a few weeks, and I am 99.85% sure i am getting the Lox 21mm 2.8 as my first post 14-24 landscape lens. From what i have read on here, the Batis aren't as good IQ wise as the Loxia, and sunstars aren't as spectacular as the 21mm? (18mm Batis specifically)
Sorry for all the recent threads - it is painful for me to make decisions sometimes. .... ...Show more →
Well, I have and use them all except for the 2.4/85 Loxia (it's great, but for landscape which is what I'd use it for the ZM is almost as great, much smaller and lighter, and the reduced speed doesn't matter)
I really don't think there is a lot to be said about their differences; there are more differneces between Loxias than there are between recent Loxia designs and Batis designs IHMO.
In particular, choosing between the 21, 18 and 25 is all about choosing focal length if it's overall IQ that you are asking about. Obviously the haptics are very different; some hate the Batis MF (I'm fine with it) and some find a couple of things about Loxia fiddly (the lack of somewhere to grip the lens when mounting, the tendency to shift focus when changing aperture).
The only systematic IQ difference between these three is down to the iris; the Loxia gives you ten pointed sunstars, the Batises 18 points, and that's a matter of preference. (I'm I'm the 10 point cheer group that lives on this forum; but the 18 point has its own appeal I can see)
The older Loxias (the ones based on ZM designs) are a bit different from this group. The 35, which I rather like, is in particular a very different looking lens. It does have a similar look (just down to good resolution and great contrast) stopped down, but at wider apertures various aberrations give it a more classic look (it is after all a classic design). The 50, which is one of the best classic double gauss designs ever, nevertheless has some of the outer field issues that double gauss designs always have at wide apertures (though no issue that's ever made a difference to my photography, since when I want corner to corner sharpness, I'm usually stopped down for independent reasons).
But ultimately I'd choose on haptics and focal length, not looking for elusive systematic family resemblances.
|