p.7 #1 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
ecarlino wrote:
i've seen a half-dozen already say they pre-ordered.
i've prepaid to secure my #2 spot w/ my dealer, but i remain open minded as to whether or not i'll go through with it.
right now for me, my head is at:
i have plenty of f/1.4 lenses, so speed is not a priority @ 135 for me
i'm more concerned about size & weight (otherwise, I'd just go for the 70-200GM, which for me is the alternative to this)
i'm more interested in IQ/rendering than shallow DoF @ 135
i'm liking what i see in the images so far other than swirly backgrounds and this is what i'm trying to determine - how often and under what circumstances will that occur for me.
i'm over the whole 'price' issue - it's 1/3 more than any other Batis, more than the 85GM, but sits in between the Sony and Sigma 135s (with adapters) - so i'll write the price 'thing' off to more of a surprise vs expectations rather than it's actually 'overpriced'....Show more →
I knew from the start I would buy this lens to add to my 18,25,85 collection. Been my intent since I first heard there would be additional Batis lenses. So far the Batis line has really worked out for me and I look forward to what I consider a killer kit: 18, 25, 85 and 135 with full AF features or MF as needed an NO adapters! I really enjoy the consistency of one lens family for many reasons from familiar functionality and "look" to post processing. I admit the price was a bit more than expected, but it is what it is.
Agreed. Swirly bokeh, and oblong bokeh can be conditional and in some cases taken out of the equation altogether. I can confirm the GM 70-200 is also very good at 135 F2.8 and can imagine some seeing it as a viable alternative to a 135 prime.
p.7 #2 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
LBJ2 wrote:
Agreed. Swirly bokeh, and oblong bokeh can be conditional and in some cases taken out of the equation altogether. I can confirm the GM 70-200 is also very good at 135 F2.8 and can imagine some seeing it as a viable alternative to a 135 prime.
that's good to know; for me the trade-off is going to be small size (135 prime) vs flexibility and reaching to 200, b/c i definitely won't be getting a 200mm prime and i'm only getting 1 lens longer than 85mm.
p.7 #3 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
Historically I've seen many pre-orders being canceled as its no skin off anyone to preorder and when push comes to shove, people bail.
Personally I'd never preorder anything as there have been way to many occurrences of issues with the initial release of equipment. I'd rather wait and let the production process get ironed out...afterall what's the rush?
I've had the opposite experience with most of my preorders to date. As a Sony photog for a few years now, up until recently I was starved for certain native lenses so I just got in the habit of preordering almost everything I needed upon announcement. So far so good and with the case of the Batis 25 and 85, I had these lenses in operation for some months while many were waiting for available inventory to meet the demand.
But you are right. Typically, what is the rush? In my early Sony FF mirrorless days when I only had three native lenses available it was more like an exercise in futility waiting for needed lenses. These days for the most part, I can sit back and take my time and make practical decisions. But where's the fun in that
p.7 #4 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
ecarlino wrote:
that's good to know; for me the trade-off is going to be small size (135 prime) vs flexibility and reaching to 200, b/c i definitely won't be getting a 200mm prime and i'm only getting 1 lens longer than 85mm.
Contrary to what I just posted, the GM 70-200 is the one lens where I decided to wait and see for some months to be exact. I didn't like what I was seeing posted in almost 100% of the forum posts/samples I visited to the point where I thought there might be a major problem with this lens. However when I finally got around to buying the lens from a small shop, I was happy to see that it actually is better than my beloved F4 copy. But, at F2.8 70-200 it is naturally a beast and well, I can see the argument for size and weight on the side of the Batis 135 for those looking for just a bit more reach while on travel.
p.7 #5 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Matt Grum wrote:
I don't think so. People are making a big deal of the patents. The 85mm Batis was only based on an optical formula licensed from Tamron. Glass types were changed and the shape and spacing of some of the elements were changed also. Some people are suggesting the designs were commissioned by Zeiss, but this doesn't make sense if they were going to switch to more expensive glasses and change the design (why wouldn't you commission a design with those glass types in the first place).
So if you assume that the designs were done independently and Zeiss used them as a shortcut to getting to market (it's much quicker to take a design and refine it that it is to start from scratch), then it seems unlikely we'll see a Batis 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/2.8, especially as Zeiss have no other stills lenses longer than 135mm in the recent past....Show more →
One cannot defend whether Zeiss changed glasses, radii, etc, or not, as no one knows exactly what is manufactured vs what appears in the patent.
The Tamron 85mm patent that matches the 85mm batis is similar enough that I would say they are the same design, regardless of any small changes to radii or materials.
p.7 #7 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Brandon Dube wrote:
One cannot defend whether Zeiss changed glasses, radii, etc, or not, as no one knows exactly what is manufactured vs what appears in the patent.
The Tamron 85mm patent that matches the 85mm batis is similar enough that I would say they are the same design, regardless of any small changes to radii or materials.
Ok I checked and glass types are not mentioned in the patent so you can't say anything on that front, however previously you said the Zeiss lens was a derivative of the Tamron design and that changes to both radii of the rear element and that that as well as centre contacting the 8th element (which in the patent had an air gap) provided "a gargantuan change in the off-axis performance"...
p.7 #9 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
timde wrote:
I have not pre ordered one, price is the problem, but will think about it. I did preorder the 18, which is very good also fairly expensive IMO.
What I wonder is why this Batis 135 APO has 14 elements while the Leica 135 APO has only 5? Oh, I guess that Autofocus and Stabilisation are responsible for a few ... but this seems like a complicated solution to the problem. Yes, the Leica does cost more, its also smaller and lighter and slower, so apples and oranges please
With the help of software design, use of special glass and improved coating, the more elements to correct aberrations the merrier...
Have you noticed lenses are getting longer (more elements) and better lately?
p.7 #11 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Anyone know what the cost in both manufacturing cost and size weight having OSS in this lens. Seems a little odd Zeiss would include OSS in both the 85 and 135 when Sony cameras have IBIS. I personally love it in the 85, but then I shoot with the A7R.
For people with the A7R2, how effective is the IBIS at focal lengths of 85 and 135?
p.7 #12 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
For people with the A7R2, how effective is the IBIS at focal lengths of 85 and 135?
It seems pretty effective - this is not a proper controlled test but last time I was out I took two images with IBIS on and two with it off, using the Canon 135L:
p.7 #14 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
So why did Zeiss feel they need OS in their 85 and 135 lenses? Surely it adds complexity, cost and size/weight to the lens.
It takes a long time to do R&D for new lenses, and given the history of partnership between Sony and Zeiss, the Batis line likely had its inception when the original a7 and a7R were released without IBIS.
p.7 #15 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
RoseandCharles wrote:
It takes a long time to do R&D for new lenses, and given the history of partnership between Sony and Zeiss, the Batis line likely had its inception when the original a7 and a7R were released without IBIS.
Sure, but don't forget it also takes time to produce a new camera like the A7R2 which surely would have been at least specked out to include IBIS at the time these Batis lenses were being designed.
Still don't understand the logic with these two Batis lenses to include OSS.
p.7 #16 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
Sure, but don't forget it also takes time to produce a new camera like the A7R2 which surely would have been at least specked out to include IBIS at the time these Batis lenses were being designed.
Still don't understand the logic with these two Batis lenses to include OSS.
It probably doesn't cost much to add OSS and given the margins Zeiss is adding, it has a completely negligible impact. For example, I would expect the cost of this kind of lens without OSS to be somewhere around a few-hundred bucks. OSS might add another couple of elements... maybe $50? When you're MSRP is $2K the difference in margin is what... 450% instead of 500%? And it does increase the market appeal of the lens to all non-IBIS body owners and provide a differentiator (whether most buyers will understand the value it provides is another thing).
p.7 #17 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Not 100% sure but I think I read somewhere that IBIS + OSS is more effective than just IBIS. Coupled with a slower aperture, it might make a lot of sense for lowlight performance and likely doesn't take up as much space as just making the lens faster.
You'll see a lot of compact consumer grade lenses incorporate IS/VR/etc... at the expense of aperture
p.7 #18 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
Anyone know what the cost in both manufacturing cost and size weight having OSS in this lens. Seems a little odd Zeiss would include OSS in both the 85 and 135 when Sony cameras have IBIS. I personally love it in the 85, but then I shoot with the A7R.
For people with the A7R2, how effective is the IBIS at focal lengths of 85 and 135?
The first gen a7 series don't, but yeah it's a waste to have produce them like that.
p.7 #19 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
Sure, but don't forget it also takes time to produce a new camera like the A7R2 which surely would have been at least specked out to include IBIS at the time these Batis lenses were being designed.
Still don't understand the logic with these two Batis lenses to include OSS.
I believe the combination of OSS lens (which compensates for Pitch and Yaw) with IBIS (which compensates for Roll as well as X and Y axis movements), provides the best stabilization. That is the case of the Batis 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 lenses.
However, whenever mounting a non-OSS lens, IBIS will perform all 5 movements (Pitch and Yaw, Roll as well as X and Y axis movements) although not as effective, especially at telephoto focal lengths. It seems to work better with normal and wide lenses.
So, it seems we get best stabilization with telephoto lenses when combining OSS+IBIS. How much better is a good question.
p.7 #20 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Anyone know of any reviews or tests that compare say the batis 85 with OSS on versus off on the A7R2. Interested to see how much better built in OSS is in combination with IBIS compared to just plain IBIS.
