Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the samples Eric.
Personally I think both are great lenses but the 85/1.4GM has "it". Is it worth the extra money and weight? For portraits, I would say yes. Rendering, and bokeh shape really matters for this application. I'm also not a fan of swirl bokeh and that's how the Batis draws. (the bokeh distortion creates this effect)
The GM has that Minolta G/Canon L look. It's very detailed with 'just-right' micro-contrast and natural colors. Tonal and blur transitions are smoother as well. In my view, it's perfect for portraits just like the Canon 85/1.2L (EF or FD)
However, for landscapes, the Batis may be a better choice. (higher micro-contrast, bolder colors, lighter, etc..)
I was thinking how crazy the sunburst would be from the 85GM. 22 points?
Like you wrote, we have so many choices for the E-mount now.
I'm a big fan of the Loxia and G/GM lines.
Fred...Show more →
Thank you Fred !
Thank you all for your perspective and testing here.
Eric thank you for your tests too At first I thought it was crazy testing in a mall, but in truth it was ideal with the complex lighting and background. I understand now what bothers me with the Batis 85 is the bokeh in this type of shooting environment. At the same f stop of f/2 the GM is smooth and pastel and does not distract you from the subject and yet both very sharp. The Batis 85 is a superb lens, AF is fast, responsive and relatively light. For me having the subject separation, smoothness, roll off and pastel fade at different f stops is important.
As mentioned in Australia we will not see the GM 85 until the end of April if we are lucky. With some QC issues that need to be addressed there may be some further delays
The 70-200/4G is no slouch. It's one of my most used lenses. It's great throughout the entire range at infinity.
The sweet spot is 135mm f/5.6 and at 200mm it perform better at infinity than at closer distances.
It's so good at 135mm, it's very difficult to tell apart from my Canon 135/2L at f/5.6.
At 85mm it's very good and almost as good as the 85/1.4GM prime one stop down from f/5.6 and smaller.
GMPhotography wrote:
Really wish it was just my imagination but I feel it, hear it and see the lose metal shavings around the gearing. I'm going for a return unless it stops which it's not doing yet. I'm the last person to actually complain about something like this in public.
The loose metal shavings are a worry. Might be a reason to return at least at some point in the window.
But if Roger Circala is right, that might be a different issue from the noise, which he thinks results from using a different kind of motor (a piezo electric one) to move the heavy elements.
Actually, is this the GM lens with two kinds of motors? I remember from the original presentation that one of them had two motors for different focussing elements. If so, that might explain why the noise is present in certain parts of the focussing range.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 70-200/4G is one of my most used lenses. It's great throughout the entire range at infinity.
The sweet spot is 135mm f/5.6 and at 200mm it perform better at infinity than at closer distances.
At 85mm it's very good and almost as good as the 85/1.4GM prime from f/5.6 and smaller.
What do you guys think?
GM is unsurprisingly contrastier, but a very good showing from the zoom.
My recollection of close distance tests between the zoom and the Batis were that the Batis was noticeably better until f8 across the field (but the zoom was still impressively good)
One interesting feature of the zoom seems to be that at the long end it's even at infinity and sharp but not super sharp. The centre is sharper at close distance, but not nearly as even.
DavidBM wrote:
GM is unsurprisingly contrastier, but a very good showing from the zoom.
My recollection of close distance tests between the zoom and the Batis were that the Batis was noticeably better until f8 across the field (but the zoom was still impressively good)
One interesting feature of the zoom seems to be that at the long end it's even at infinity and sharp but not super sharp. The centre is sharper at close distance, but not nearly as even.
The GM also resolves more fine detail in the center. What's scary is that it perform this good starting at f/1.6!
Fred Miranda wrote:
The GM also resolves more fine detail in the center. What's scary is that it perform this good starting at f/1.6!
Yep 1.4 is no slouch; 1.6 more contrast. Astonishing really.
I'm torn. I have the Batis; I don't mind the slight swirl as some do. But I do prefer the GM bokeh. I don't think there's any sharpness difference (or indeed significant rendering difference) from f2.8 in any test I've seen.
For landscape and travel the ergonomic advantages of the Batis swing it for me. For portraits around home base I can see the GM as having an advantage. But not, for me, at the price given I'd want to keep Batis as well. I think!
Maybe I'll rent GM if and when Australian rental houses get it. Oh to be able to use LensRentals!
I used one at Digidirect Melbourne yesterday that had no scratching / loud noise. I could hear the AF motor but it was quiet and sounded natural. AF speed was close to Batis. Wish id been able to take it away and try it in the studio - I don't mind the rendering of the Batis at all and so would only make use of the GM wide open. With all this talk about stopping down to 1.6 anyway I might sit on the fence until a few galleries of studio portraits wide open start appearing.
Great ergonomics though, actually loved holding it. Really well thought out textures. If theres one thing i don't like about the Batis its Zeiss's new design. I find the focus ring hard to grip and my sweaty hands do not enjoy the perfectly smooth surface of the lens in general.
See what you just said does not follow my copy at all. Mine is quite loud and not fast AF either. Plus I can feel the friction. I understand AF motor noise but this beyond that.
Alaarx wrote:
I used one at Digidirect Melbourne yesterday that had no scratching / loud noise. I could hear the AF motor but it was quiet and sounded natural. AF speed was close to Batis. Wish id been able to take it away and try it in the studio - I don't mind the rendering of the Batis at all and so would only make use of the GM wide open. With all this talk about stopping down to 1.6 anyway I might sit on the fence until a few galleries of studio portraits wide open start appearing.
Great ergonomics though, actually loved holding it. Really well thought out textures. If theres one thing i don't like about the Batis its Zeiss's new design. I find the focus ring hard to grip and my sweaty hands do not enjoy the perfectly smooth surface of the lens in general....Show more →
Alaarx wrote:
I used one at Digidirect Melbourne yesterday that had no scratching / loud noise. I could hear the AF motor but it was quiet and sounded natural. AF speed was close to Batis. Wish id been able to take it away and try it in the studio - I don't mind the rendering of the Batis at all and so would only make use of the GM wide open. With all this talk about stopping down to 1.6 anyway I might sit on the fence until a few galleries of studio portraits wide open start appearing.
Great ergonomics though, actually loved holding it. Really well thought out textures. If theres one thing i don't like about the Batis its Zeiss's new design. I find the focus ring hard to grip and my sweaty hands do not enjoy the perfectly smooth surface of the lens in general....Show more →
Interesting. If your sample is indeed quieter than the 50 roger Circala tested then.....a batch that went bad?
Problem is one persons quiet is another's loud, and one persons natural...
And recordings don't help, because there is no way to control for the gain at the recording end, or the right setting for playback. I suppose an SPL meter: but I wouldn't trust two different people to put it in exactly the same location.
David please your side stepping the issue. It's very audible. And it's not just sound you can feel the tension focusing it. How many times do I have to say this to get the message across. I'm no fanboy and I don't make excuses for anyone. It's not normal. Folks please stop making excuses the message needs to get to Sony they have a seriou issue. I respect Rogers opinion but let's not forget who I am either and it seems a bad batch did not get to him and I have one and others do as well.
GMPhotography wrote:
David please your side stepping the issue. It's very audible. And it's not just sound you can feel the tension focusing it. How many times do I have to say this to get the message across. I'm no fanboy and I don't make excuses for anyone. It's not normal. Folks please stop making excuses the message needs to get to Sony they have a seriou issue. I respect Rogers opinion but let's not forget who I am either and it seems a bad batch did not get to him and I have one and others do as well.
I'm not doubting yours in unacceptable: if you say so, given what you have seen I'm 100% sure you are right!
There seem to be production issues for sure; and Sony needs to know.
I was just wondering if the ones Roger has tested are less loud that yours (i.e. all are louder than other lenses because of the piezo design for the heavy focussing group, but some - including unfortunately yours - are louder still because of a problem). Or, on the other hand, maybe all of Rogers are bad too, - which if the guy from Melbourne really had a totally silent one, seems to be indicated.
I have no idea which of these is true: but I am sure yours is bad as you have worked with it a lot!
DavidBM wrote:
Interesting. If your sample is indeed quieter than the 50 roger Circala tested then.....a batch that went bad?
Problem is one persons quiet is another's loud, and one persons natural...
And recordings don't help, because there is no way to control for the gain at the recording end, or the right setting for playback. I suppose an SPL meter: but I wouldn't trust two different people to put it in exactly the same location.
Its hard to say whether mine was quieter than those tested by Roger but i doubt it, 50 is a decent sample size. When i say quiet i mean quieter than a 100L Macro but not at all silent. Could probably hear it from a metre away, it was a smooth sound though - definitely not scratching.
Alaarx wrote:
Its hard to say whether mine was quieter than those tested by Roger but i doubt it, 50 is a decent sample size. When i say quiet i mean quieter than a 100L Macro but not at all silent. Could probably hear it from a metre away, it was a smooth sound though - definitely not scratching.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to take a shot of your on the inside. Like photo above I'm seeing fresh metal in those two slots. On surface I'm not but I can see when turning the lens where the friction is and metal slivers . It's the silver I'm seeing wearing away. I posted photos of mine a few pages back
Guy, it seem like hit and miss QC issue since Fred's copy is surviving the metal grinding while your copy and mine had it. To think of it, the red letter G on the lens mean "GRINDING"
GMPhotography wrote:
I wonder if you would be so kind as to take a shot of your on the inside. Like photo above I'm seeing fresh metal in those two slots. On surface I'm not but I can see when turning the lens where the friction is and metal slivers . It's the silver I'm seeing wearing away. I posted photos of mine a few pages back
Its not actually my copy its instore at Digidirect (I've got a deposit for one down but waiting for this issue to be commented on by Sony) but ill see if i can swing by today and take a photo.
