Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.15 #19 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899) | |
philip_pj wrote:
As with others of its ilk, the 135/2 APO really gives you traditional 'softish' f2 performance for portraits and close work; but it won't match the Batis with both at f2.8 (not even close) and adds outer frame curvature and astigmatism. The 135/2 APO then makes a surprising comeback at smaller apertures and is actually a smidgen better by f4-f5.6 (where both peak).
The Leica is not quite at this level, unfortunately. It's also just a few mms shorter than B135, with adapter added. Working from the Leica 135/3.4 to B135 the arithmetic goes like this: add a half stop, 115 grams (adapter included in L135), AF, OIS and take off $1800. From B135 to 135/2 APO: add one stop, ~700 grams (Milvus vsn, needs adapter) and $200, and take away AF and OIS.
It's hard to think of three more different lenses (made for three mounts and very different cameras), only one is an 'all rounder', has AF, OIS and is native mount. The Batis is stronger/faster than the Leica and half the cost while giving up very little in weight; and cheaper than the 135/2 APO and less than half the weight and about as strong overall, and has AF and stabilization, needs no adapter. This calculus might overcome tastes re appearance etc. for some buyers. Zeiss obviously planned this rather carefully, as with the Loxia 85/2.4. These are not 'formula' or niche lenses, but that is a Zeiss trademark too, a feature not a bug. They don't want to 'beat' C/N/S but sell to enthusiasts who need a bit of everything (portraits, 'scapes, travel, etc) at the highest levels with acceptable portability.
refs:
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120927_2-Zeiss-135f2-APO-Sonnar-MTF-full-range.html (full aperture range of MTF)
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130319_1-Zeiss-vs-Leica.html ...Show more →
I agree with much of what you say here, but there are a couple of things you seem to be missing. First on price comparing new lens to new lens at least right now doesn't give a very good picture of what you are able to get. The Leica 135 f/3.4 APO can easily be bought used for $2,000, so the difference between the Batis and the Leica APO in price can also be accurately described as the difference between getting a new lens and a used lens in excellent condition. Second, although the difference between MTF charts you describe between the Batis and MIlvus are there, they are actually very close. At f/2.8 we are talking about 5% contrast at 40 lp/mm and even less at 20 and 10 lp/mm where either lens has an advantage. Even with today's high resolution sensors you would be very hard pressed to see this difference in any photograph even blown up or at 1:1 pixels on a high res monitor. This is a very small difference, and Leica is only about 10% lower contrast at 40 lp/mm and even this is extremely hard to see even at the highest magnifications. IMO, you are way over stating the differences in sharpness and way over interpreting these small differences in MTF charts. Importantly, when we consider testing at the lens rentals blog these differences are so small that they easily fall within the copy variation of even the most consistently made lenses and if you look at their testing on the effect of focussing on MTF charts they at least show inconsistency in their best focussing manually with magnification on a tripod that exceed these differences. So, even in the future if higher res cameras can make these small differences in MTF charts noticeable it is not at all clear that lenses can be made with enough consistency and focussing can be obtained with enough consistency for such small differences in MTF charts to be meaningful. Third, the Milvus 135 is in no way "soft" either for portraits or for close ups and the MTF charts are totally consistent with that observation.
Despite these quibbles I agree with your general characterization. I do think the Batis is the best all-arounder. It is relatively small, has AF which many people like, has lens based OIS, and is an excellent performer. I would say that despite the small sacrifice in sharpness I would prefer the Leica APO for landscape work. It is noticeably smaller and lighter (although not shorter if you don't consider the hood), and the 10 blade aperture will be better for sun stars. Despite these advantages I have the Milvus and I do because I love how good it is at close ups and that is where I use the lens the most. It also adapted extremely well for use with the Fuji GFX, which I hope I will be getting any day. I do plan to get the Basis for my wife's kit in time, but I don't plan to preorder it, so I do see the value in that lens as well.
|
After shooting with my latest toy (the 100 STF), I find that blowing out the b/g is less necessary when the bokeh is sufficiently soft, as in Gaussian. If keeping attention on the subject is the goal, then the (slower) STF makes a perfect tool while avoiding those massive front elements.