I just got mine a few days ago and its centered and extremely sharp from 2.8. inglis wrote:
Thank you Guy, and for you work and discussion of this lens
darbo wrote:
I would love to keep mine, but I just ordered a FE 100-400mm GM, and if I love it (hope I do) I'll have to sell my Batis 135mm.
The size and performance of the 135mm is amazing, and I have no problem returning the 100-400mm if dealing with a big lens proves annoying.
So many great Emount lenses these days! If it makes you feel any better, the GM 100-400 is a fantastic lens too. IMO, the GM 100-400 doesn't feel like a big lens either. I waited some time for such a telephoto lens for my FE system and I am in no way dissappointed. Couldn't be happier actually and am more than impressed with how the 1.4xTC performs on it too.
Most samples below, were taken under high contrast lighting and a few showing water reflection in OOF areas. That would be a green/magenta fringing show if shot with less corrected lenses.
I also tried some moderate action when shooting my son in AF-C mode and sometimes using EyeAF. This lens does brilliantly here with mostly keepers. Action shots are much more difficult to shoot with manual focus lens like the Sigma 135/2 or Zeiss 135/2 APO. (Although high performers)
I will post more samples as I have more time with this lens. (so far two days)
Together with the new CV 65/2 APO, this Batis is just oustanding. Highly recommended.
BTW: I didn't showcase bokeh blur with this lens yet but will post more samples soon.
Worse case scenario: High contrast foliage at close distance to subject
Received my Batis 135 Friday. While it's taken some nice, crisp images, It appears that there are FAR more shots with poor IQ, than good - particularly as compared with other lenses I own.
One thing I'm seeing is a softness, light haze or glow that almost looks like internal reflections. Sometimes the lens seems to be very sharp, and other times not even remotely sharp.
Excepting the photographer's choices, below are a few examples of what I'm seeing.
Do I have a dud?
In the tree samples below, the focus point was off center, on the lower right side of the tree on the left. Two shots with the Batis, and a comparison shot with the Sigma 135 Art - at max aperture.
The sun was in and out of the clouds yesterday. When it peeked out strongly, the shutter speed might jump to, and over, 1000, so I turned EFCS off at one point, though I don't think any of the Batis tree shots below were at very high shutter speeds, FWIW.
You can see the glowy characteristic on the Batis shots, that is clearly lacking in the Sigma.
In the last one of the building, the odd aberrations around the sides of brick structure are very obvious - and unexpected.
Hood was used on both lenses. Minimal PP (profile, CA. The building also had "auto exposure applied because it was backlit and the brickface was dark)
bluloo wrote:
Received my Batis 135 Friday. While it's taken some nice, crisp images, It appears that there are FAR more shots with poor IQ, than good - particularly as compared with other lenses I own.
One thing I'm seeing is a softness, light haze or glow that almost looks like internal reflections. Sometimes the lens seems to be very sharp, and other times not even remotely sharp.
Excepting the photographer's choices, below are a few examples of what I'm seeing.
Do I have a dud?
In the tree samples below, the focus point was off center, on the lower right side of the tree on the left. Two shots with the Batis, and a comparison shot with the Sigma 135 Art - at max aperture.
The sun was in and out of the clouds yesterday. When it peeked out strongly, the shutter speed might jump to, and over, 1000, so I turned EFCS off at one point, though I don't think any of the Batis tree shots below were at very high shutter speeds, FWIW.
You can see the glowy characteristic on the Batis shots, that is clearly lacking in the Sigma.
In the last one of the building, the odd aberrations around the sides of brick structure are very obvious - and unexpected.
Louis, it may have to do with the difference in exposure between your Batis images and that coming from the Sigma. That can be adjusted easily in PP. In the case of the brick structure, it may the result of "sensor blooming". Or it is indeed a faulty or at least, not up to par Batis lens. At any rate, I would try to get it exchanged if I were you.
AGeoJO wrote:
Louis, it may have to do with the difference in exposure between your Batis images and that coming from the Sigma. That can be adjusted easily in PP. In the case of the brick structure, it may the result of "sensor blooming". Or it is indeed a faulty or at least, not up to par Batis lens. At any rate, I would try to get it exchanged if I were you.
Thanks. My copy is used, from B&H, and I'm planning to return it.
While I'm not a buyer at ~2k, I wanted to know if there was some quirk in my shooting that might have produced the aberrations, if it might be a quirk of the lens I didn't know of, etc.
I played with LR adjustments and they didn't improve the Batis images significantly (lack of sharpness and the "glow" was still present).
I have other images in which they almost look like there's a haze or misfocus, but these have more obvious and specific aberrations.
I would love if it was a f/2 lens while having the same weight/size but that would not be possible at this level of CA correction and IQ. (and price)
I can only applaud Zeiss for deciding on the f/2.8 aperture, which is very controversial, and developing one of the best 135mm lens in the market.
What I like about the 135mm FL is the compression 'look' it gives my subject just as much as the 'blur'...and f/2.8 gives great results depending on background distance. A f/2 lens would start to show more blur if the background was further way (say 15 feet or longer) in relation to the subject. When the background is closer (say 3-6 feet) the blur difference should not be that different. (comparing f/2 to f/2.8)
When looking at my past images with the Canon 135/2L, I noticed that rarely shot it wide open. They were mostly from f/2.5 to f/4 anyways.
bluloo wrote:
Received my Batis 135 Friday. While it's taken some nice, crisp images, It appears that there are FAR more shots with poor IQ, than good - particularly as compared with other lenses I own.
One thing I'm seeing is a softness, light haze or glow that almost looks like internal reflections. Sometimes the lens seems to be very sharp, and other times not even remotely sharp.
Excepting the photographer's choices, below are a few examples of what I'm seeing.
Do I have a dud?
In the tree samples below, the focus point was off center, on the lower right side of the tree on the left. Two shots with the Batis, and a comparison shot with the Sigma 135 Art - at max aperture.
The sun was in and out of the clouds yesterday. When it peeked out strongly, the shutter speed might jump to, and over, 1000, so I turned EFCS off at one point, though I don't think any of the Batis tree shots below were at very high shutter speeds, FWIW.
You can see the glowy characteristic on the Batis shots, that is clearly lacking in the Sigma.
In the last one of the building, the odd aberrations around the sides of brick structure are very obvious - and unexpected.
Hood was used on both lenses. Minimal PP (profile, CA. The building also had "auto exposure applied because it was backlit and the brickface was dark)...Show more →
This looks like an AF issue, especially when you wrote: "Sometimes the lens seems to be very sharp, and other times not even remotely sharp."
Did you try manual focusing and see if you get similar results? My Batis 135/2.8 is the sharpest lens I have so I'm surprised by your results.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This looks like an AF issue, especially when you wrote: "Sometimes the lens seems to be very sharp, and other times not even remotely sharp."
Did you try manual focusing and see if you get similar results? My Batis 135/2.8 is the sharpest lens I have so I'm surprised by your results.
No one was more surprised than me.
Thanks for the response.
A few other shots were manually focused, and weren't much better, but it was also rather windy that day, and the subjects were moving, so that wasn't unexpected.
I didn't notice the extent of the IQ issues until I uploaded the images to the computer (and compared them to the Sigma), so the MF shots weren't useful in terms of a valid comparison between MF and AF performance in and of itself.
I'd guess that any AF issues would be related to my specific copy, so I've packed up the lens and have started a return with B&H.
I'm guessing I received a lemon, so I'll have to decide whether or not to play the used lottery again, look for a (discounted) new/known good copy etc.
Thanks for the response.
A few other shots were manually focused, and weren't much better, but it was also rather windy that day, and the subjects were moving, so that wasn't unexpected.
I didn't notice the extent of the IQ issues until I uploaded the images to the computer (and compared them to the Sigma), so the MF shots weren't useful in terms of a valid comparison between MF and AF performance in and of itself.
I'd guess that any AF issues would be related to my specific copy, so I've packed up the lens and have started a return with B&H.
I'm guessing I received a lemon, so I'll have to decide whether or not to play the used lottery again, look for a (discounted) new/known good copy etc....Show more →
When in doubt, it's worth trying another copy. It could be an element spacing issue, AF issue, decentering/tilt....a 'lemon' like you wrote...and a headache you shouldn't have to go through.
I was surprised mine was so well centered at first try. (Not the case with the other Batis lenses I've tried). I also own the Batis 85/1.8 and although not as color corrected, love it as well.
Thanks for the response.
A few other shots were manually focused, and weren't much better, but it was also rather windy that day, and the subjects were moving, so that wasn't unexpected.
I didn't notice the extent of the IQ issues until I uploaded the images to the computer (and compared them to the Sigma), so the MF shots weren't useful in terms of a valid comparison between MF and AF performance in and of itself.
I'd guess that any AF issues would be related to my specific copy, so I've packed up the lens and have started a return with B&H.
I'm guessing I received a lemon, so I'll have to decide whether or not to play the used lottery again, look for a (discounted) new/known good copy etc....Show more →
BTW, Here is what to expect from sharpness wide open (all handheld).
They are 1:1 magnification crops from some of the sample images I posted above.
Here are more samples concentrating more on bokeh rendering at diverse distances..mostly wide-open.
(One sample showing its sunstar rendering at f/5.6)
