They indeed listed the E-mount at 840 grams and the Canon version at 830 grams. So, the extension tube is only 10 grams? Hard to believe. It should be at least 40-50 grams extra.
They indeed listed the E-mount at 840 grams and the Canon version at 830 grams. So, the extension tube is only 10 grams? Hard to believe. It should be at least 40-50 grams extra.
Especially as the Samyang pages AND the B&H pages both have the Fuji X mount as 880: and I can't see why the Fuji X mount would be 40g more than Sony E!
Unless somehow there are other changes to save weight in the version...but that seems unlikely.
Ah well.....not a difference that would make a difference to anyone's decision, I think.
p.9 #5 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
Especially as the Samyang pages AND the B&H pages both have the Fuji X mount as 880: and I can't see why the Fuji X mount would be 40g more than Sony E!
Unless somehow there are other changes to save weight in the version...but that seems unlikely.
Ah well.....not a difference that would make a difference to anyone's decision, I think.
There's nothing else to be done! Inquiring minds must know! @gmphotography Guy has to weigh it for us, with and without lens hood and caps! And while we are at it we need to measure the difference in weight between the different filter sizes that different 135s use.......
p.9 #7 · 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.
Roger suggests that even the Canon 135/2 at f/2.8 rivals the Batis at f/2.8.The Canon is a stop faster, very well built, less expensive, and not that much heavier/bigger! From the samples I've seen, I might even prefer the bokeh of the Canon at f/2.8 over the Batis.
p.9 #8 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
pdmphoto wrote:
Roger suggests that even the Canon 135/2 at f/2.8 rivals the Batis at f/2.8.The Canon is a stop faster, very well built, less expensive, and not that much heavier/bigger! From the samples I've seen, I might even prefer the bokeh of the Canon at f/2.8 over the Batis.
that's one way to read what he says; what he says is that projecting from the Canon's noticeably worse MTF at f2; you might - by guesswork - think it'll be only a little bit worse than the Basis at f2.8.
But as an ex-owner of the Canon I know for sure, that fine lens though that is, at f2.8 (or indeed f2) it was no match for the Apo Sonnar. And the Apo sonnar at f2.8 (see my post above) looks from the MTFs to be a little less good than the Batis. As for the bokeh, the Canon had rather more LoCA. It's also lower contrast overall than the Apo Sonnar, and that makes the bokeh out of camera look a touch quieter. But you can always lower the contrast of the bokeh in post losslessly (whereas increasing it is not lossless compared to a higher contrast original)
Having said that, the Canon is light for its speed, perfectly usable (amazingly so for its era) wide open, and perhaps now there are AF adapters that will autofocus it (it would not autofocus on my MB3). So it makes a perfectly good choice for a lot less money. Though I think my budget choice would be the SamRokWalBow which is optically amazingly good, especially if I could just keep ordering them from Amazon until I got a good one.
p.9 #9 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
pdmphoto wrote:
Roger suggests that even the Canon 135/2 at f/2.8 rivals the Batis at f/2.8.The Canon is a stop faster, very well built, less expensive, and not that much heavier/bigger! From the samples I've seen, I might even prefer the bokeh of the Canon at f/2.8 over the Batis.
When I shot with Canon, my 135L might as well have had the aperture fused open at f/2. I honestly don't think I ever shot a photo with that lens at any other aperture. And the photos were some of my favs. Although I wonder how it would hold up on a 42Mpix sensor. I guess Roger is implying it would hold up well? It's remarkable, given the Canon is a 20-year old design from the film era.
They indeed listed the E-mount at 840 grams and the Canon version at 830 grams. So, the extension tube is only 10 grams? Hard to believe. It should be at least 40-50 grams extra.
My Samyang 135/2 Emount + lens hood weighs 926G without front and back lens caps. Without lens hood, front/back caps = 867G. Used two different kitchen scales to be sure.
"I tested the Batis 2.8/135 with the 24MP Alpha 7 II. I've been doing my best to streamline tests on the 42MP Alpha 7R II [deleted ad], but I didn't have one available during my time with the lens. Because of this, sharpness numbers are going to be a bit lower than some of the best lenses we've tested with the 7R II."
"At 135mm f/2.8 the lens scores 3,271 lines per picture height on Imatest's center-weighted sharpness test. Image quality is just as strong at the edges of the frame as it is at the center. It's an top-end score for a 24MP camera; much higher than the 1,800 lines we look for at a bare minimum."
"Stopping down doesn't do much to change the score—we see 3,269 lines at f/4, 3,292 lines at f/5.6, and 3,266 lines at f/8. All are close enough together to be caused by very slight changes in focus or minor vibration. Diffraction cuts the resolution a very small amount at f/11 (3,125 lines) and f/16 (3,045 lines). It's not a real issue until you get to the minimum f/22 aperture (2,607 lines)."
p.9 #12 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Thanks for that info LBJ2! Do you happen to have the FE55/1.8 as well? Would be great to get a photo of both lenses side by side. I know the Samyang is huge, but it is always easier to imagine with something familiar next to it
p.9 #13 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
nampramos wrote:
Thanks for that info LBJ2! Do you happen to have the FE55/1.8 as well? Would be great to get a photo of both lenses side by side. I know the Samyang is huge, but it is always easier to imagine with something familiar next to it
p.9 #15 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
nampramos wrote:
Thank you!
About double the lenght then. Too bad it's not double the weight also
I really wish Samyang (and other manufacturers) would adapt their formulas to the mirrorless cameras instead of adding that silly extension ring.
Makes the 614 g listed for the Batis 135 w/AF and OSS very interesting ;-)
In its day, the Sammy was considered huge for Emount. But that was before the G Masters came out. I quickly got used to the weight and size on the A7r and found for MF, a larger lens actually gives me a little bit more to hold on to to help steady the shot.
p.9 #16 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
Yes, the weight of the Batis 135 with AF, OSS and incredible resolving power is indeed pretty good. Not complaining there.
I never had any interest on the GM line due to its size and weight so the Samyang falls on the same plate, even more since it does not have AF (not questioning its optical performance). I really enjoy MF lenses and the majority of my lenses are MF but then they need to be smaller than the equivalent AF versions.
p.9 #17 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
nampramos wrote:
Yes, the weight of the Batis 135 with AF, OSS and incredible resolving power is indeed pretty good. Not complaining there.
I never had any interest on the GM line due to its size and weight so the Samyang falls on the same plate, even more since it does not have AF (not questioning its optical performance). I really enjoy MF lenses and the majority of my lenses are MF but then they need to be smaller than the equivalent AF versions.
No doubt about it. An oddball of a lens. Samyang appears to have bolted an Emounted extension tube on a DSLR design. But some how it all came together in an outstanding IQ result that too few will attempt. As you said I am sure Samyang learned a thing or two since.
p.9 #18 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
pdmphoto wrote:
Roger suggests that even the Canon 135/2 at f/2.8 rivals the Batis at f/2.8.The Canon is a stop faster, very well built, less expensive, and not that much heavier/bigger! From the samples I've seen, I might even prefer the bokeh of the Canon at f/2.8 over the Batis.
I've shot with the Canon 135/2 for more than 10 years. One of my favorite lenses especially at f/2.8. There was some fringing and it had low contrast at wider apertures but it had a nice rendering for portraits. I'm sure Canon will have a replacement very soon. It's definitely a deal at current used prices.
p.9 #19 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
We live in an era where optics are getting extraordinary, and just recently some of the best are pushing the limits of the human visual system.
When I first got the Canon 2/135 more than a decade ago, it was a revelation to me. I had always thought my Zuiko 135 was unbeatable! And here was this extraordinary beast capable of pin sharp results at f2!
Then when the APO Sonnar came out and tests said it was even better, I really doubted that it was visibly better. After I got Sony and my Canon 135 didn't AF well on my adapter, I eventually changed over to the APO Sonnar. It was, to my surprise, easily visibly better (especially in contrast and colour aberration). But that didn't make the Canon bad! If the newest one is a touch better at f2.8 even than the F2 AS, I really suspect that won't be visible, though I've said that before...
But the point of this post is to say the obvious; the fact that after 20 years there are 135mm lenses that are even better than the lynchpin of holy trinity Canon primes is not surprising, and doesn't make all the wonderful images that have been taken with it worse, and doesn't mean that it still isn't a great choice at its price point, even on Sony. In fact one might think that for some users getting f2 in a lighter package is worth the slight trade offs.
p.9 #20 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899)
DavidBM wrote:
We live in an era where optics are getting extraordinary, and just recently some of the best are pushing the limits of the human visual system.
When I first got the Canon 2/135 more than a decade ago, it was a revelation to me. I had always thought my Zuiko 135 was unbeatable! And here was this extraordinary beast capable of pin sharp results at f2!
Then when the APO Sonnar came out and tests said it was even better, I really doubted that it was visibly better. After I got Sony and my Canon 135 didn't AF well on my adapter, I eventually changed over to the APO Sonnar. It was, to my surprise, easily visibly better (especially in contrast and colour aberration). But that didn't make the Canon bad! If the newest one is a touch better at f2.8 even than the F2 AS, I really suspect that won't be visible, though I've said that before...
But the point of this post is to say the obvious; the fact that after 20 years there are 135mm lenses that are even better than the lynchpin of holy trinity Canon primes is not surprising, and doesn't make all the wonderful images that have been taken with it worse, and doesn't mean that it still isn't a great choice at its price point, even on Sony. In fact one might think that for some users getting f2 in a lighter package is worth the slight trade offs....Show more →
On weight alone, I think the native Batis 135 is the most attractive. (Sure, a stop slower...)
It's about 300 grams lighter than the Canon + smart adapter and even more so than other modern alternatives. That's a main consideration for many shooters especially on the A7 series.
