p.17 #1 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Sounds great David. Your insight is always very valuable. We usually agree on how lenses perform. I'm still on the fence.
Yes I can see why you'd be on the fence Fred. For one thing it's a lot of cash to splash if you aren't a big medium tele user. But the main thing is whether it does the Golidilocks thing - the perfect tradeoff between performance speed and portability - well, and that's intensely personal. It depends more on your habits and preferences that optical qualities. What they seem to have done is not compromised optically, and then gone for a tradeoff between speed and size consistent with minimal compromise optically. That makes it a lot bigger than a compactness optimised lens would be, but still a lot less heavy than a speed optimised one. That's *exactly* what I want at at most focal lengths. And I think it's what I want here - but I just need to see if it stays in the hotel safe on travel. If so, may as well just keep the big F2 for use around here. If not, it's a long term keeper.
p.17 #2 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
GMPhotography wrote:
My feeling if the Sigma 135 is faster on the A9 than I'll stay with the Sigma if not maybe the Batis
You want it for runway and stuff like that don't you Guy? As long as the AF is comparable on the Sigma, yeah, I think it's the better bet because at times you'll want the speed (and keep an eye on a possible GM). I think it depends on whether you want a 135 prime as part of your personal work kit where you are less likely to lug lots of gear.
p.17 #3 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Anyone else surprised that we're not seeing more people posting their Batis 135 shots? Perhaps the combination of the price, focal length and f/2.8 aperture mean that this is a relatively unpopular lens?
I'm still quite intrigued with this lens and would love to see more shots. The main thing I'm trying to figure out is how different of a look it would give me vs. the Batis 85 in crop mode at f/1.8. The DOF should be similar but the 135 will obviously more compression, so I'm curious as to the real-world differences (primarily for portraits).
p.17 #4 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
I think it's a pretty niche lens--those who want high quality but a smaller, lighter package, with cost and aperture as a secondary or tertiary concern. I'll get mine in a few days, and see what I can do with it.
p.17 #5 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
Anyone who is interested in the relative bokeh of distant backgrounds with f2 and f2.8, here is a pair of portraits one with the APO Sonnar (ZF2) at f2, and the other with the Batis at f2.8. The Batis is superb wide open, so there is no temptation to stop down.
FWIW my take is yes, the F2 is noticeably nicer. But not overwhelmingly. But maybe enough for me to keep it rather than sell. But it will never travel with me, and nor would a 2.8 70-200 if I had one, so the Batis earns its keep.
The other thing is that the slight extra DOF of f2.8 is, IMHO, preferable on the actual person rather than the background......Show more →
Nice comparison but it would be nice to also see both at 2.8.
Wish you also had the ZA 135 1.8 which I think has smoother, less harshly drawn background bokeh IMO. The colors of her right arm/sleeve look slightly nicer in the APO 2.0 shot. Nice to have choices!
p.17 #6 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
MrTMan wrote:
Anyone else surprised that we're not seeing more people posting their Batis 135 shots? Perhaps the combination of the price, focal length and f/2.8 aperture mean that this is a relatively unpopular lens?
I'm still quite intrigued with this lens and would love to see more shots. The main thing I'm trying to figure out is how different of a look it would give me vs. the Batis 85 in crop mode at f/1.8. The DOF should be similar but the 135 will obviously more compression, so I'm curious as to the real-world differences (primarily for portraits).
The Batis 85/1.8 should provide more blur when compared to the Batis 135/2.8 whenever the background is not too far away from the subject. If the subject is further from from the subject (> 20m), they should have similar blur.
Compression would be definite higher with a 135mm lens.
p.17 #9 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fine work, Martin, refreshing to see 135mm enviro portraits with elegant OOF content and varying levels of longitudinal definition. It enables the shooter to be more creative, tell a richer story, show relationships between objects and people. Flower pods laid over something more than a uniform wall of blur, works very well. Zeiss is a red pill outfit, prepared to flout the formula approach.
p.17 #11 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Batis 85/1.8 should provide more blur when compared to the Batis 135/2.8 whenever the background is not too far away from the subject. If the subject is further from from the subject (> 20m), they should have similar blur.
Compression would be definite higher with a 135mm lens.
The blur aspect is disappointing. Though as I googled around for comparisons between 85mm and 135mm, it seems like the added compression of a 135 is indeed noticeable for portraits.
Another consideration, in my case, is that I've got kids who will likely be doing sports, recitals, etc. at some point. I don't see myself wanting to carry around a 70-200 zoom, so I also wonder whether a 135mm (with the crop-ability of the A7rII) could be a good alternative for that purpose.
p.17 #12 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
MrTMan wrote:
The blur aspect is disappointing. Though as I googled around for comparisons between 85mm and 135mm, it seems like the added compression of a 135 is indeed noticeable for portraits.
Another consideration, in my case, is that I've got kids who will likely be doing sports, recitals, etc. at some point. I don't see myself wanting to carry around a 70-200 zoom, so I also wonder whether a 135mm (with the crop-ability of the A7rII) could be a good alternative for that purpose.
It is indeed as a substitute for a 70-200 f2.8 that I got mine. I don't plan to crop it much, but 135 is a nice central medium tele length, and i usually have a small prime at the short end. I would never carry a 2.8/70-210 with me, but I think the Batis might well go around with me a bit. The loss of flexibility will be paid for by slightly better IQ but mainly by the fact that it will actually be there....
p.17 #13 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
MrTMan wrote:
The blur aspect is disappointing. Though as I googled around for comparisons between 85mm and 135mm, it seems like the added compression of a 135 is indeed noticeable for portraits.
Another consideration, in my case, is that I've got kids who will likely be doing sports, recitals, etc. at some point. I don't see myself wanting to carry around a 70-200 zoom, so I also wonder whether a 135mm (with the crop-ability of the A7rII) could be a good alternative for that purpose.
Yes, I use my 135/2 APO on my A7RII for candids during sports, plays, etc., so 135mm is a very useful lens for such things.
p.17 #16 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
I can confirm 2.8 for shots 1&3 (btw. full resolution is available on flickr). I believe 2.0 would not have done the job since the distance between background and subject is simply not enough for more "cream". And for me I want the environment to be part since it gives the photos their context.
Oh and BTW (forgot to mention): The flower shot above was taken with the a9.
Oh btw, MrTMan: Shot 1 is from Montreal, shot 3 from Picton on my way back from Toronto. A lovely country you have over there!!
p.17 #17 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
MaTiHH wrote:
I can confirm 2.8 for shots 1&3 (btw. full resolution is available on flickr). I believe 2.0 would not have done the job since the distance between background and subject is simply not enough for more "cream". And for me I want the environment to be part since it gives the photos their context.
Oh and BTW (forgot to mention): The flower shot above was taken with the a9.
Oh btw, MrTMan: Shot 1 is from Montreal, shot 3 from Picton on my way back from Toronto. A lovely country you have over there!!
I agree with that. If the background is close to the subject (Like 1 or 2m), f/2 and f/2.8 would not make too much of a difference in the amount of blur.
The faster lens really starts to pull ahead when the background is a bit more further way.
p.17 #18 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
MaTiHH wrote:
I can confirm 2.8 for shots 1&3 (btw. full resolution is available on flickr). I believe 2.0 would not have done the job since the distance between background and subject is simply not enough for more "cream". And for me I want the environment to be part since it gives the photos their context.
Oh and BTW (forgot to mention): The flower shot above was taken with the a9.
Oh btw, MrTMan: Shot 1 is from Montreal, shot 3 from Picton on my way back from Toronto. A lovely country you have over there!!
I hope you had a great time on your trip!
I've concluded that I could probably use a 135mm. I mean, I have 18, 25, 35, 50, and 85mm primes, so who am I kidding -- I'm going to end up getting a 135mm! I've also concluded that I have no interest in carrying around something that's the weight of the Sigma.
So I'm now left with the decision of getting the Batis 135 vs. a potential Sony 135/1.8 GM, and that's of course a tricky decision, since there's no specs to compare...
p.17 #19 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
GMPhotography wrote:
The big question I have is focusing in low light for like events,weddings and such. If it can't do that than it's worthless to upgrade too.
Guy, did you ever mention how the Sigma 135/1.8 focuses on the A9?
Have you tested for that? So many threads I've lost track!
