p.4 #1 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
virtualrain wrote:
It's funny watching this thread transition from "This is nuts" to "It's not that bad"
It's like GAS has five stages when a new high-end FE lens is announced...
1. Shock
2. Anger
3. Depression
4. Acceptance
5. Pre-order
I personally don't use 135mm much so this is definitely not for me but it's hard to deny this is a very high performance lens.
Slower lenses are usually stigmatized as having lower IQ but Zeiss has made a point that it's possible to deliver amazing IQ with compact designs like the Loxia 85/2.4 and Batis 135/2.8. I don't own either lens but applaud their effort.
p.4 #3 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
In general, almost any lens will resolve more on a 42MP sensor than a 24MP sensor. That may make the higher MP sensor worthwhile even if there are lenses available which will have even greater resolution.
Given the incredibly wide array of different and often conflicting demands that photographers place on their equipment it is likely that, at times, using lower resolution lenses may offer other benefits that are more than compensatory.
I myself have just bought the outstanding Fuji 90/2 to use on my X-T2 and have zero issues regarding the resolution I may miss out by not putting the 135/2.8 on my A7r2.
In fact, there are plenty of reasons to use the A7r2 that don't involve super high MP imagery.
In any case, this Batis will be a fine lens and should reward anyone that puts the effort into mastering it.
By the way, which is it - 85GM, 100mm STF or 135 Batis?
p.4 #4 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
virtualrain wrote:
It's funny watching this thread transition from "This is nuts" to "It's not that bad"
It's like GAS has five stages when a new high-end FE lens is announced...
1. Shock
2. Anger
3. Depression
4. Acceptance
5. Pre-order
If Zeiss hadn't spent a month with stupid social media marketing, I wouldn't "blame" them (but I do, because they did) for the initial reaction that many had (still have) - but they wasted a month with nonsense rather than positioning this product. Frankly, I still don't see them doing anything other than using these ridiculous "pro photogs" who everyone knows are in their pocket.
I would think a prestigious high end brand (a German one at that) would be much more practical about such a technical item and really do a better job at preparing the market and positioning the product.
Prior to moving to Sony in 2013, I always had a bag of Nikon f/2.8 zooms and I've been waiting for a 'smaller' solution to reaching beyond 85mm - so this 135mm focal length is new to me (in a prime) and i've been 'nervous' about ending up with a giant lens - i wasn't looking forward to it at all. Fred & Guy piqued my interest with the ZM f/4 they like.
Now that we have something actual to compare with existing alternatives, I spent the day thinking about size, weight, price and IQ and the only thing I've come up with so far as to the whole $2000 shock this morning is that i was comparing it to what i had in my head (granted there was no reason for it to be in my head) and not anything based on reality. The Samyang is an outlier; the Canon is not a comparable optic and the Sony A-mount+adapter costs 10% more than this while the Sigma+adapter is 15% less. So, the price is not insane - unless you're hung up on the fact that somehow f/2 -> f2/8 should save you $500.
So, I'll be the first to admit that i've nearly done a 180 in about 12 hours - but in this case, it's really more about realizing what the proposition of this lens is and not listening to the peanut gallery.
p.4 #5 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
tzhang4284 wrote:
It's not BS at all - what's the point of having 42mp of resolution when your lenses can't resolve it? Plenty of lower resolution and smaller sensor camera and lenses that are more than adequate if you're not aiming for best in class IQ. Personally, I would rather spend my hard earned dollars on a few excellent lenses than a lot of good but not great ones - however that's just me though. You're welcome to make your own camera gear buying decisions.
The bigger point again i was making is that if you're complaining about the price of this native AF Zeiss lens vs. the MF Samyang 135mm f2, then it's probably not for you. This lens is very much targeted for those who want or need the best 135mm in a compact package with AF capability. The only alternative is really the Sigma 135mm f1.8, which is a heavier lens without weather sealing and with adapter, priced pretty closely to this ($1650 vs $2k). All other lenses require serious compromises in features and/or performance and if you're ok with that, then great but then the batis is not for you. The price point is fair when you look at the alternatives but not a value by any means.
I'm opting out of this lens too since I recently acquired the Loxia 85 and my wallet is still recoiling from that. I also think 85mm and 135mm are close enough that I don't need lenses at both focal lengths however, as I mentioned in another thread, I can see the Batis 25, Sony 50mm f1.4 and Batis 135mm f2.8 be an excellent trio of no compromise moderately fast AF primes that is good for all weather conditions....Show more →
Well I don't shoot with the A7R2, but I do shoot with the A7R and depending on what I shoot, I don't always need to utmost image quality. When I'm shooting landscapes, yes I do need this quality and I use a trio of lenses ( Loxia 21, Zeiss 35 and Zeiss 100 ) as my goto gear. But then, I print my landscape images large...sometimes very large and at those sizes, the difference in lenses is noticeable.
Now when I'm traveling doing environmental street photography that I won't print larger than say 24", then my quality requirements are not so stringent and I value the light lenses more than the utmost quality. I use the following lenses when traveling ( Sony 16-35, Sony 28, Sony 35 2.8, Batis 25 and Batis 85 ). I am just as happy with my images from the Sony 28mm as I am from the Batis 85 when shooting street.
So I still don't buy your notion of always getting the best lenses as far as image quality goes as there are times when image quality is not the most important aspect of the lens...sometimes size and weight are very important and the resulting mediocre drop in image quality is just fine for the purpose of the images.
Can you tell me what your end goal of your images are since you seem to strive for utmost quality. What do you shoot and where do your images end up?
p.4 #6 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
ecarlino wrote:
I'm not smart enough to know whether or not it's as easy as you say to be sharp across the frame at f/2.8,
but this lens is about a lot more than 'sharp'.
They didn't use 8 ED elements just for sh!ts 'n giggles.
They arent just ED elements either; they are APD elements.
That's more anamalous partial dispersion glass than is in any lens I know about off hand...
p.4 #7 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
GMPhotography wrote: . I do have a need for it even though the Rokinon 135 is just sweet as can be , I can use AF on gigs like events, podium and even runway type work. Given that it's smaller than the Rokinon it would have been nice here in Texas shooting this gig. Even though the Rokinon is killing it. I could also use it for portraits as I normally throw my 85 into APSC mode anyway.the price hurts a bunch but I'll pull it off at some point. Since I sold the GM 85 because of the AF speed I also know I downgraded some bokeh. My sort of plan was get the 50 1.4 again and use the Sony 85 and get a real good 135. The Sigma does pop up because I could use the speed but we also have to think next gen cam will the higher ISO be even better. If so than you pick up on any noise issues. Really lots to weigh in here. My biggest problem in this long career is I do everything as far as what I get hired for. I'm really all over the map. So in a sense I'm a generalist which is non specific and requires a diverse set of tools. If I shot food than maybe only two lenses I would ever need. Unfortunately sort of that is the case with me I just need everything. . So I'm stuck buying a big range of glass. I'm in the field right now with the CV12, Firin 20, ZM 25,35,85 and the Rokinon 135. Most used lens without even looking the ZM 85 than the 135 and right now I would kill for a 50 I don't have. I need a damn locker room full.
This is going to take some discussion between my ears with the Devil and the Angel. This still does not hide the fact it's overpriced and going to kill my wallet. That's a given
But let me point out a fact I'm damn sure of this Rokinon can match this Batis with no problems at all, forget the freaking price folks. You have to take my word on this part. It's the sharpest tool in my shed. That's saying a lot. It may not be this or that but the resolving power is amazing
Ditto ! Best 135mm training wheels I ever had. The Samyang 135/2 is the lens that helped me discover how much I like the look of 135mm. Little did I know how extraordinary the at the time, $499 now $450 lens would turn out to be. Sadly many will miss out on this gem due to MF only. Its a keeper for me since resale value would probably only net me enough to buy the Batis 135 hood
p.4 #8 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
shaolin95 wrote:
I had two copies I sold for a profit. Didnt see anything phenomenal about it. It was a legend but its very outdated these days. The Samyang runs circles around it being sharper at F2 than the Canon at F4 with little CA unlike the Canon and smoother Bokeh...and much cheaper if you can deal with MF.
Anyways, back to the Batis...which is not in my list at ALL based on 2.8 and much less on a 2K price. At 2.8, heck it better be sharp ..I dont see that as a huge accomplishment.
Of course, there is always people that will find a specific lens to fit their needs and that is fine, but just trying to face the facts that a 2.8 135mm is nothing to be shocked about just because is sharp.
If it was 2 or 1.8 sharp across the frame wide open then I would be impressed. ...Show more →
Please. Let's keep reality/rational thinking out of this $2K for 135/F2.8! This is a family forum afterall But them again, I am the same guy struggling to make the decision to keep or return the new 100mm T5.6 STF. The new STF IMO makes F2.8 look really good again ! Hoping the same for the Batis 135/F2.8 with a bit more compression to make magic with.
I always advise my children. Do as I say, not as I do.
p.4 #9 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
They arent just ED elements either; they are APD elements.
That's more anamalous partial dispersion glass than is in any lens I know about off hand...
And the Batis 135/2.8 has with its eight APD elements got twice the number of APD elements that's in the Milvus 135/2, which has got "only" four APD elements.
p.4 #10 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
GMPhotography wrote:
We need a betting pool , who is going to wait the longest and who is going to fold first.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld "The Contest" episode. I thought I was "master of my domain". Then I read more, watched videos, read reviews, looked at MTF charts, listened to you guys. Now, as Kramer said in the episode, "I'm out." Pre-order placed. Figuratively smoking a cigarette.
p.4 #11 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Taking a step back...putting an optically excellent $2k lens on a camera with the ability of the A7R2 (and future generations of FE-mount) isn't crazy at all. Hell, sports/wildlife guys spend multiple times that for the best of the best. BUT- those lenses are justified because they see a LOT of use in most cases, and are kept for years.
As I said earlier, that's why I didn't bat an eye at the Batis 18's $1,500 price. Gets used for important stuff in my world.
So I guess as long as you see this lens getting the quantity of use or being used to get "The shot" over an extended period of time, the price isn't as big of a factor. And as has been discussed here, there are plenty of alternatives, but each one is a give & take. Or- you just want the best and can afford it, in which case by all means pick one up and post pics!
Just like the Zeiss 135/2 APO, contrast and resolution are very similar wide open and f/5.6 especially at center and mid-zone. Outstanding MTF.
Indeed. And actually, staggeringly, slightly better wide open at f2.8 than the 2/135 stopped down to f2.8! (Though both are so good, and I suspect so is the Rokinon and the Sigma, that it's of no consequence practically)
That means it passes the test that I set when I was comparing my 2/135 at f2 and f2.8, and deciding that I could live with the surprisingly mild subjective difference to DOF in exchange for weight reduction. The test: for those comparisons to be relevant the new kid needs to be about as good wide open as the big beast at f2.8. I thought that might be a hard thing to achieve. But looks like maybe that goal has been exceeded.
p.4 #13 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Personally, I'm on the fence. I think I'm ok with the f/2.8 size/weight tradeoff -- but the price does give me some pause, given that a 135 is only for occasional use, and I'm not entirely convinced on the bokeh. I'd really want to see more sample shots and reviews before making up my mind.
It seems like an extremely competent lens, but I think I've only seen a couple of images from it so far that I've found super appealing, in the "take my money now!" sort of way.... As opposed to, say, the Loxia 85, which is a lens I don't really need, but the pictures I've seen from that lens have really impressed me.
And of course, I also wonder whether it might be worth waiting for a Sony GM 135/2.
p.4 #14 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Yikes! Looks like a fantastic lens (though I hate the Batis look)
I was hoping this would be a really nice travel lens, but it's too heavy and too expensive for that. I'll keep my expensive and heavy 135/2 APO Zeiss for a while longer.
p.4 #15 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
The lens appears to have some great attributes, the same attributes I look for in different focal lengths, and I'm betting it'll make a killer landscape/nightscape lens, but the portrait samples I've seen have all the personality of my Elmarit-R 100.
p.4 #16 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
I've recently taken a shine to the classic 135mm FL, mostly for headshots, so this Apo Sonnar is of interest to me. The element count is inflated by the stabilization feature, but is still high enough to indicate we aren't talking the underperforming 5-element CZ designs of yesteryear—and the ED count is truly impressive. Be aware that the Rok 135/2 has exactly one ED element (and no aspherics), so counting exotics is no indication of performance. As noted by Guy and others, the Rok 135 is optically stellar: probably the best-performing lens ever made (dependent on one's choice of criteria, of course). The Rok has drawbacks including build, flare control, and AF.
p.4 #17 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
Indeed. And actually, staggeringly, slightly better wide open at f2.8 than the 2/135 stopped down to f2.8! (Though both are so good, and I suspect so is the Rokinon and the Sigma, that it's of no consequence practically)
That means it passes the test that I set when I was comparing my 2/135 at f2 and f2.8, and deciding that I could live with the surprisingly mild subjective difference to DOF in exchange for weight reduction. The test: for those comparisons to be relevant the new kid needs to be about as good wide open as the big beast at f2.8. I thought that might be a hard thing to achieve. But looks like maybe that goal has been exceeded....Show more →
It's a very impressive MTF, in part due to aberration control. What bothers me is the cat-eye specular highlights shape towards the corners 'ala' Batis 85/1.8.
p.4 #18 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
What bothers me is the cat-eye specular highlights shape towards the corners 'ala' Batis 85/1.8.
Yep, that's been my concern for the past week(s) - that the B135 would share the swirly bokeh that I didn't like on the B85 (which i think is related somehow to the the cat-eyes).
I've actually been looking at as many sample images as i can find and trying to figure out under what conditions it gets to a point that it really bothers me. So far, it seems a certain subject distance vs background distance (co-dependent on having a background of small repeating patterns) causes the effect that I really don't like - maybe someone a lot smarter than me (not hard to do) could explain if that makes any sense or I'm just associating the effect with an unrelated cause.
I haven't seen anything that makes me think the B135 is nearly as bad as the B85, but there aren't a lot of samples to review yet.
This series of shots (i like this photographer on Flickr, or maybe it's just that I really like this model) starts out with a nice background given the close subject and increasingly as the subject distance grows, the backgrounds gets more swirly. And this isn't even as extreme as I've seen the B135, it's just a nice series from near to far with the same model in a similar environment for comparison.
The first 2 are quite nice (but the subject distance is close and the backgrounds aren't difficult)
The 3rd is OK.
The last 2 are starting to get nervous.
p.4 #20 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
Well I don't shoot with the A7R2, but I do shoot with the A7R and depending on what I shoot, I don't always need to utmost image quality. When I'm shooting landscapes, yes I do need this quality and I use a trio of lenses ( Loxia 21, Zeiss 35 and Zeiss 100 ) as my goto gear. But then, I print my landscape images large...sometimes very large and at those sizes, the difference in lenses is noticeable.
Now when I'm traveling doing environmental street photography that I won't print larger than say 24", then my quality requirements are not so stringent and I value the light lenses more than the utmost quality. I use the following lenses when traveling ( Sony 16-35, Sony 28, Sony 35 2.8, Batis 25 and Batis 85 ). I am just as happy with my images from the Sony 28mm as I am from the Batis 85 when shooting street.
So I still don't buy your notion of always getting the best lenses as far as image quality goes as there are times when image quality is not the most important aspect of the lens...sometimes size and weight are very important and the resulting mediocre drop in image quality is just fine for the purpose of the images.
Can you tell me what your end goal of your images are since you seem to strive for utmost quality. What do you shoot and where do your images end up? ...Show more →
i'm a little confused - you listed 8 lenses you own that and except for the 28mm f2, are all at least $800 or more new retail price today and on a camera that has a 36mp sensor. Of the 8 lenses you listed, 3 out of the 5 of the lenses you claim to bring for travel overlap in focal length coverage with the 16-35mm zoom you also bring. Aren't you basically agreeing with me and subscribing to my point of view? It's not like you carry only a 28-70 or 24-70 and saying that's good enough. Seems like the only issue is that the new batis might be more than you're willing to pay but it's very much in a comparable price class as a Loxia 21 for example.
I've tried all the Sony G (not GM) and Sony Zeiss zooms and honestly they don't deliver the image quality I like to see. You don't notice it if that's all that you're used to but comparing an image taken with a good prime vs those and it's very clear which image came from which lens on a Sony A7R II, hence my view on the subject. You're already using very good and expensive primes so I do agree any incremental difference faces significant diminishing marginal returns.
I also didn't know photography was supposed to have an end goal? I enjoy documenting my personal travels and being able to look at the images later to remind me of what I saw. I occasionally print for myself and sometimes share on the internet to gauge what works and what doesn't, but it's mostly for my own consumption. I do like the fact that 42mp gives me the ability to zoom in or drill down on specific parts of a scene - it's quite addicting to do that actually.
