p.8 #1 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
chez wrote:
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.
There is no way to turn off in-lens OSS while keeping IBIS enabled - its either both or nothing. So such a test can't exist. I suppose someone could do a similar test with the Batis 85 vs the FE 85 and see what the results are like.
Jim Kasson has done some testing of IBIS effectiveness and I think it works fine until longer focal lengths where the IBIS travel is no longer enough to compensate. If I recall, that focal length was longer than 135 though. His blog is: http://blog.kasson.com
p.8 #2 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Lensrentals just posted MTF charts at infinity today. There is also a comparison between the new Batis 135/2.8 against the Zeiss 135/2 APO and Canon 135/2L. Incredible results.
However, Roger writes: "this is a prototype lens, and it’s one copy. So this is a hint of what we can expect".
p.8 #3 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
tzhang4284 wrote:
Not 100% sure but I think I read somewhere that IBIS + OSS is more effective than just IBIS.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
The theory is that the pitch and yaw corrections are better done in lens because those depend on the focal length - the longer the lens the fast the sensor would be required to move in order to correct the camera shake.
This all makes sense, there is clearly a limit to how fast the sensor can move, the question is at what point does the sensor stabilisation system start to struggle?
I haven't seen any evidence from my own shooting that it is struggling at 135mm, so I imagine the same is true of 85mm.
It is a little puzzling that they have included OSS in the Batis 85/135 it seems they were likely wrongfooted by the introduction of IBIS in the A7II/A7RII or want to maximise the appeal to A7/A7R shooters and people shooting APS-C bodies.
Apr 07, 2017 at 01:47 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #4 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Lensrentals just posted MTF charts at infinity today. There is also a comparison between the new Batis 135/2.8 against the Zeiss 135/2 APO and Canon 135/2L. Incredible results.
However, Roger writes: "this is a prototype lens, and it’s one copy. So this is a hint of what we can expect".
Wow! I believe that is the best MTF that I have seen from the lens rental testing. Looking at the blog it is just one copy. Perhaps that is an especially good copy, but it does seem consistent with the Zeiss MTFs as well. It will be nice to see what the ten copy average looks like.
p.8 #5 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Wow! I believe that is the best MTF that I have seen from the lens rental testing. Looking at the blog it is just one copy. Perhaps that is an especially good copy, but it does seem consistent with the Zeiss MTFs as well. It will be nice to see what the ten copy average looks like.
It's just one copy. Roger also hints at the fact that, since they only measure MTFs wide open, this may end up being comparable to the 135/2 Apo Sonnar at f2.8.
p.8 #6 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Wow! I believe that is the best MTF that I have seen from the lens rental testing. Looking at the blog it is just one copy. Perhaps that is an especially good copy, but it does seem consistent with the Zeiss MTFs as well. It will be nice to see what the ten copy average looks like.
What's the big deal? The Zeiss ZE and Canon MTF results are at f/2. Roger says the ZE may surpass it (and the Canon likely right behind it) at f/2.8
p.8 #8 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
pdmphoto wrote:
What's the big deal? The Zeiss ZE and Canon MTF results are at f/2. Roger says the ZE may surpass it (and the Canon likely right behind it) at f/2.8
It looks like the Batis 135/2.8 wide open MTF is similar to the Zeiss 135/2 APO one stop down. That's no easy task.
If Zeiss can pull this off, it may explain their pricing.
p.8 #9 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It looks like the Batis 135/2.8 wide open MTF is similar to the Zeiss 135/2 APO one step down. That's no easy task.
If Zeiss can pull this off, it may explain their pricing.
Not sure why more are not commenting about the MTF results for this lens. I agree. On paper this lens looks like the Zeiss 135/2 reborn with OSS and AF albeit one stop slower.
p.8 #10 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It looks like the Batis 135/2.8 wide open MTF is similar to the Zeiss 135/2 APO one stop down. That's no easy task.
If Zeiss can pull this off, it may explain their pricing.
Adding AF and an optical stabilizer makes that task even harder. I say, well done, Zeiss!
p.8 #11 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Wow! I believe that is the best MTF that I have seen from the lens rental testing. Looking at the blog it is just one copy. Perhaps that is an especially good copy, but it does seem consistent with the Zeiss MTFs as well. It will be nice to see what the ten copy average looks like.
Well Zeiss own MTF they publish are from an average of large number off an actual production, so there's no need to wait to see Roger's (useful though they are).
As @Fred Miranda said, the MTF is comparable to the f2 Apo Sonnar stopped down to f2.8. Comparable, but when you compare what Zeiss charts show is that is that the new 2.8 is marginally *ahead* of the f2 stopped down to f2.8!
I doubt it'll be visible - but that is truly impressive for an f2.8 lens
And that's what makes this lens worth it for me, I think. Sure there are tons of good 135 lenses. Below I give the MTF for maybe the best of them - the Contax 2.8/135 at f2.8.
The Batis is way ahead at f2.8 (though the gap closes of course as you stop down)
And this is the point. To make a usefully excellent compact 135 it is not enough to shrink it by making it f2.8. Because if you find yourself wanting to stop down your 135 (which you'll often be wanting to use to seperate your subject) to f4 or f 5.6 then you haven't in effect got a lens you use at f2.8 at all, but rather f 4 or 5.6. And f2.8 might well be the sweet spot that you often use your f2 lens at, or at least the smallest aperture that you want to use for many purposes.
So the lens, to meet this brief, has to be just about peak performing from wide open. And that's not easy or cheap. Maybe it's easier to make an F2 lens that performs to this quality at f2.8! But that gives up on weight and size.
p.8 #15 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
Well Zeiss own MTF they publish are from an average of large number off an actual production, so there's no need to wait to see Roger's (useful though they are).
As @Fred Miranda@ said, the MTF is comparable to the f2 Apo Sonnar stopped down to f2.8. Comparable, but when you compare what Zeiss charts show is that is that the new 2.8 is marginally *ahead* of the f2 stopped down to f2.8!
I doubt it'll be visible - but that is truly impressive for an f2.8 lens
And that's what makes this lens worth it for me, I think. Sure there are tons of good 135 lenses. Below I give the MTF for maybe the best of them - the Contax 2.8/135 at f2.8.
The Batis is way ahead at f2.8 (though the gap closes of course as you stop down)
And this is the point. To make a usefully excellent compact 135 it is not enough to shrink it by making it f2.8. Because if you find yourself wanting to stop down your 135 (which you'll often be wanting to use to seperate your subject) to f4 or f 5.6 then you haven't in effect got a lens you use at f2.8 at all, but rather f 4 or 5.6. And f2.8 might well be the sweet spot that you often use your f2 lens at, or at least the smallest aperture that you want to use for many purposes.
So the lens, to meet this brief, has to be just about peak performing from wide open. And that's not easy or cheap. Maybe it's easier to make an F2 lens that performs to this quality at f2.8! But that gives up on weight and size....Show more →
Yeah, the ZF/E also gets a bit harsh stopped down, but it's the wide-open performance that makes it special.
p.8 #16 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
Well Zeiss own MTF they publish are from an average of large number off an actual production, so there's no need to wait to see Roger's (useful though they are).
As @Fred Miranda@ said, the MTF is comparable to the f2 Apo Sonnar stopped down to f2.8. Comparable, but when you compare what Zeiss charts show is that is that the new 2.8 is marginally *ahead* of the f2 stopped down to f2.8!
I doubt it'll be visible - but that is truly impressive for an f2.8 lens
And that's what makes this lens worth it for me, I think. Sure there are tons of good 135 lenses. Below I give the MTF for maybe the best of them - the Contax 2.8/135 at f2.8.
The Batis is way ahead at f2.8 (though the gap closes of course as you stop down)
And this is the point. To make a usefully excellent compact 135 it is not enough to shrink it by making it f2.8. Because if you find yourself wanting to stop down your 135 (which you'll often be wanting to use to seperate your subject) to f4 or f 5.6 then you haven't in effect got a lens you use at f2.8 at all, but rather f 4 or 5.6. And f2.8 might well be the sweet spot that you often use your f2 lens at, or at least the smallest aperture that you want to use for many purposes.
So the lens, to meet this brief, has to be just about peak performing from wide open. And that's not easy or cheap. Maybe it's easier to make an F2 lens that performs to this quality at f2.8! But that gives up on weight and size....Show more →
p.8 #18 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
I've warmed up to it. But I'll let someone else be the guinea pig
The price is throwing me off. 135 is a bit of a specialized focal length, so while I might be able to justify $2k for a phenomenally good 35, for example, that's tougher to do for a lens that will only see occasional use. But I'm willing to be persuaded, as more sample shots and reviews come in.
p.8 #19 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm warmed up to it but I feel a Louisville Slugger coming on. Lol
Who the heck did I lend my baseball helmet too. I might need it back. Lol
The kicker is it's deadly wide open. That's worth 2 k for me. If I sold the Rok than it's not so bad out of pocket wise.
What is the real weight of the Sammy 135/2 E-mount? The specifications show 840g but that's about the same weight as the Canon/Nikon versions. The extra 1 inch "tube" must add more weight to it.
p.8 #20 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Fred Miranda wrote:
What is the real weight of the Sammy 135/2 E-mount? The specifications show 840g but that's about the same weight as the Canon/Nikon versions. The extra 1 inch "tube" must add more weight to it.
I can't find the specs for the Sony version, but the local Samyang site has a Fuki X version (didn't know they made them!) listed at 880g, so that would be pretty similar you would expect. Which is some saving over a high quality adapter but not much. Personally I'd be tempted to get it in a mount that I had a good Rayqual or Novoflex or maybe MC-!11adapter for: with a tele lens tilt is unlikely to be a problem, and the Rayqual and MC-11 are baffled nicely which should be better in some conditions than the plain tube on the back of the Sammy. Also resale on Canikon mount might be better or at least quicker.
