After waffling back and forth on this lens for quite some time I just placed my order. I'm looking forward to testing it side-by-side with my Canon 135L to ensure that the price difference is worthwhile. I'm sure it will be but I definitely need to satisfy my curiosity before the return period is over!
Absolutely see if it fits you better no question. Also look at operationally and function for you. I need fast AF and the Batis is probably the best at it but your style may not need that. But look at accuracy as well. Test hard and make a good buying decision. That's what's it all about
Jonathan Brady wrote:
After waffling back and forth on this lens for quite some time I just placed my order. I'm looking forward to testing it side-by-side with my Canon 135L to ensure that the price difference is worthwhile. I'm sure it will be but I definitely need to satisfy my curiosity before the return period is over!
The $2000 certainly makes it feel like a luxury item and also a very personal decision.
But there's no denying, once in hand, it performs beyond any expectations. Certainly, some feel the need for a faster lens (where low light or shallow DoF are priorities) and in those cases, this lens simply isn't for them. But it's been a silly mistake on this forum for those criticisms to dissuade anyone else from giving this lens a try if you don't need those apertures b/c the upside is a perfect optic in a small and light form factor that is truly a pleasure to use.
It will be interesting to hear your feedback once you've had the opportunity to compare the 2 lenses.
ecarlino wrote:
i've made my thoughts/feelings known about this lens from the beginning (it's perfect) but another great test Fred (i know how much work goes into putting that together)
but really what i wanted to ask is - what time can i bring the kids over for a dip in the pool - i'll bring some veal chops for the grill! (fantastic backyard and location - every time i see that, i just think: "damn California taxes"!)
Jonathan Brady wrote:
After waffling back and forth on this lens for quite some time I just placed my order. I'm looking forward to testing it side-by-side with my Canon 135L to ensure that the price difference is worthwhile. I'm sure it will be but I definitely need to satisfy my curiosity before the return period is over!
These two lenses could not be more different in look!
I shot with the Canon for more than 10 years and really like its rendering. Resolution and contrast are noticeably lower in comparison but like the Batis, it's pretty much flat field. It would be a nice bokeh comparison to have both at f/2.8 but I suspect the Batis will be cleaner and the Canon slightly smoother.
It's an older design not highly corrected for color aberration. It's also lower in micro-contrast and not as flare resistant. (especially veiling flare)
On the A7RII, AF is adequate with current smart adapters but definitely not in the same level of a native lens. You will also lose 'reliable' EyeAF which I find essential for portraits at 135mm.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was curious about the Batis 135/2.8 APO 'bokeh rendering' when compared to some other telephotos I have. (85/1.4 GM and Batis 85/1.8). It's difficult to test lenses with different focal lengths but it's still a valid test just to get an idea of how they compare at different distances. (camera to subject and subject to background)
First I had to make these lenses equivalent. (Similar to what we would do if comparing APS-C lenses with full frame)
So, in the case of the 85/1.4 GM, I had to test it at f/1.7 against the Batis 135mm at f/2.8.
The math is: 85 x 1.59 (crop factor) = 135, and f/1.7 x 1.59 = f/2.8 (rounded numbers)
I shot my subject at the exact same distance with both lenses (tripod) and in post-processing, I carefully cropped the 85/1.4GM images using the 1.59x crop factor to match the Batis 135.
You may think this is not fair because the 85GM opens up to f/1.4 and therefore capable of slightly more blur but IMO, this lens performs best at f/1.7 for optimum resolution and CA control. LoCA is actually only well-controlled at f/2.8, but there is an improvement from f/1.4 to f/1.7 or f/2.
Thank you very much for this comparison - it's exactly the kind of test I needed to compare using the 85 GM in crop mode vs using the Batis 135 in FF. I also keep the GM at 1.6-1.7 for improved performance so this is very useful.
oddjobprime wrote:
Thank you very much for this comparison - it's exactly the kind of test I needed to compare using the 85 GM in crop mode vs using the Batis 135 in FF. I also keep the GM at 1.6-1.7 for improved performance so this is very useful.
I'm with you on the f/1.6 or f/1.7 for the GM. It's a big improvement.
They are very similar but I can still see the Batis being noticeably superior in resolution and contrast at these settings. (Better color aberration correction goes without saying..)
Fred Miranda wrote:
These two lenses could not be more different in look!
I shot with the Canon for more than 10 years and really like its rendering. Resolution and contrast are noticeably lower in comparison but like the Batis, it's pretty much flat field. It would be a nice bokeh comparison to have both at f/2.8 but I suspect the Batis will be cleaner and the Canon slightly smoother.
It's an older design not highly corrected for color aberration. It's also lower in micro-contrast and not as flare resistant. (especially veiling flare)
On the A7RII, AF is adequate with current smart adapters but definitely not in the same level of a native lens. You will also lose 'reliable' EyeAF which I find essential for portraits at 135mm.....Show more →
I think a recent update enabled Eye AF with the 135L. It works with my MBIV.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tried it with the Sigma 135/1.8 but IMO, it's not as reliable as shooting with a native lens. Do you agree?
Jonathan Brady wrote:
oh, for sure! I thought you meant it wasn't present at all. Yeah, definitely not as reliable as native.
I have been using that Sigma 135mm Art lens with Metabones V. The trick is to set the Metabones on the green mode and turn the Face Detection Mode on. It is almost as good as native in the AF-C mode. In the AF-S mode, you can even turn the Eye-AF on and it is right on the money. But again for portraits of people in this case, of course and using the A7r II.
My 5-year-old is fascinated with spiders (spiderman, etc..). He spotted a spider out in the yard and ask me to take a picture of it. Luckily, I had the Batis 135 APO in hands. '
AF-C helped a lot as it was windy and the web was moving back and forward.
I have been using that Sigma 135mm Art lens with Metabones V. The trick is to set the Metabones on the green mode and turn the Face Detection Mode on. It is almost as good as native in the AF-C mode. In the AF-S mode, you can even turn the Eye-AF on and it is right on the money. But again for portraits of people in this case, of course and using the A7r II.
I actually use my Sigma 135mm in Advanced mode so I can use Continous Eye AF instead and the results for my portrait work are fantastic. Sure it is not as fast as native but still amazing. Even more amazing is using Eye AF with my older 300mm 2.8 non is!
1. price is too high, especially for "only" f/2.8
2. the OOF rendering is a bit nervous
3. f/2.8 doesn't provide shallow enough DoF
4. f/2.8 isn't fast enough for dark places
I respect everyone's personal budgets and $2000 is definitely not cheap for a prime lens, but the whole "especially for an f/2.8" part is a bit weak b/c it ignores what this lens is all about.
The OOF rendering was my biggest concern (especially since the B85 was too much for my tastes). After having evaluated the B135 in the harshest of conditions (foliage) and being honest about how frequently I'd find myself in those conditions, I decided I could live with the worst case given the low percentage of shots i'd find myself in those situations - and it wasn't nearly as bad, IMO, as the b85.
Shallow DoF and subject-separation were never concerns for me. I've never been interested in portraits where ONLY the eyeballs are in focus but not the nose nor ears - at typical portrait distances, 135mm @ f/2.8 for me is perfectly fine (if perhaps a bit too shallow even). I also personally find @ 135mm that compression is what i really enjoy and NOT obliterating backgrounds is more frequently my goal, even if i still want there to be some 3D effect. There have been a few occasions with mid-distance subjects and relatively close backgrounds where a bit more separation would have been preferred, but it's not that big of a deal and doesn't happen for me often enough to really make it a deal-breaker (e.g. not that it's an interesting shot, but fire hydrant on previous page would have been nicer if the fence was a bit more blurred - although a bit of processing to pop the hydrant may have helped if it was a shot i cared about).
As far as 'dark places' - that's simply not something i'd ever need 135mm for, but that seems like a very specialized use-case and for those people, then this lens simply won't do (although the a7r2 does some pretty amazing things in the dark, but i understand that in some cases, especially with moving subjects, every stop counts).
My point in these comments is that when this lens was announced, the criticisms were all of the nature that the B135, given it was only f/2.8 was a very 'specialized' lens of limited use. My experience has been completely the opposite - given its light weight, small size and absolutely perfect IQ from wide-open, it is really a work horse of a lens that gets a lot of use in almost every situation. And for all of the whole "f/2.8" nonsense, i'd simply point out that walking around with a f/1.8 is a non-starter for me and I would think that such a large size (e.g. a fast 135 or f/2.8 70-200 zoom - of similar IQ) would make those lenses more of a 'special use' lens than the b135. Certainly there may be pros and hobbyists who don't mind that their "gear IS the point" or at least don't mind that the gear is obviously around their neck or hanging off their shoulder - but for me the whole point of the sony bodies is to enjoy my life again and not have the photography get in the way and i never thought i'd be walking around with something longer than 85mm b/c the size of a high IQ lens would simply be too much for me to enjoy - but the B135 ticks all the boxes for me and it's been a lot of fun.
I'm in the middle of shooting some corporate headshots tethered right now. The lens loves this stuff. Just gorgeous shots well at least technically. Lol
BTW: B&H and Adorama are both selling the Batis 135/2.8 APO for $1,899. (You must add it to Cart to see the new price)
Full Zeiss warranty. (They are authorized resellers)
ecarlino wrote:
I've heard 4 arguments against this lens:
1. price is too high, especially for "only" f/2.8
2. the OOF rendering is a bit nervous
3. f/2.8 doesn't provide shallow enough DoF
4. f/2.8 isn't fast enough for dark places
I respect everyone's personal budgets and $2000 is definitely not cheap for a prime lens, but the whole "especially for an f/2.8" part is a bit weak b/c it ignores what this lens is all about.
The OOF rendering was my biggest concern (especially since the B85 was too much for my tastes). After having evaluated the B135 in the harshest of conditions (foliage) and being honest about how frequently I'd find myself in those conditions, I decided I could live with the worst case given the low percentage of shots i'd find myself in those situations - and it wasn't nearly as bad, IMO, as the b85.
Shallow DoF and subject-separation were never concerns for me. I've never been interested in portraits where ONLY the eyeballs are in focus but not the nose nor ears - at typical portrait distances, 135mm @ f/2.8 for me is perfectly fine (if perhaps a bit too shallow even). I also personally find @ 135mm that compression is what i really enjoy and NOT obliterating backgrounds is more frequently my goal, even if i still want there to be some 3D effect. There have been a few occasions with mid-distance subjects and relatively close backgrounds where a bit more separation would have been preferred, but it's not that big of a deal and doesn't happen for me often enough to really make it a deal-breaker (e.g. not that it's an interesting shot, but fire hydrant on previous page would have been nicer if the fence was a bit more blurred - although a bit of processing to pop the hydrant may have helped if it was a shot i cared about).
As far as 'dark places' - that's simply not something i'd ever need 135mm for, but that seems like a very specialized use-case and for those people, then this lens simply won't do (although the a7r2 does some pretty amazing things in the dark, but i understand that in some cases, especially with moving subjects, every stop counts).
My point in these comments is that when this lens was announced, the criticisms were all of the nature that the B135, given it was only f/2.8 was a very 'specialized' lens of limited use. My experience has been completely the opposite - given its light weight, small size and absolutely perfect IQ from wide-open, it is really a work horse of a lens that gets a lot of use in almost every situation. And for all of the whole "f/2.8" nonsense, i'd simply point out that walking around with a f/1.8 is a non-starter for me and I would think that such a large size (e.g. a fast 135 or f/2.8 70-200 zoom - of similar IQ) would make those lenses more of a 'special use' lens than the b135. Certainly there may be pros and hobbyists who don't mind that their "gear IS the point" or at least don't mind that the gear is obviously around their neck or hanging off their shoulder - but for me the whole point of the sony bodies is to enjoy my life again and not have the photography get in the way and i never thought i'd be walking around with something longer than 85mm b/c the size of a high IQ lens would simply be too much for me to enjoy - but the B135 ticks all the boxes for me and it's been a lot of fun....Show more →
The very good news is ...as far as 135mm primes goes there is something for everyone as well as for those of us that need more than one 135mm prime :-)
1. Sigma 135/1.8 ( Pretty much stole the show this year ) I WILL try this lens at some point
2. Samyang 135/2 (Native MF, very good IQ for only $400-$500 )
3. Canon 135 ( Small and still loved by many)
4. Batis 135/2.8 ( Native, lot of goodness packed in this lens)
5. Carl Zeiss Classic or Milvus 135/2 ( The 135mm Otus)
LBJ2 wrote:
The very good news is ...as far as 135mm primes goes there is something for everyone as well as for those of us that need more than one 135mm prime :-)
1. Sigma 135/1.8 ( Pretty much stole the show this year ) I WILL try this lens at some point
2. Samyang 135/2 (Native MF, very good IQ for only $400-$500 )
3. Canon 135 ( Small and still loved by many)
4. Batis 135/2.8 ( Native, lot of goodness packed in this lens)
5. Carl Zeiss Classic or Milvus 135/2 ( The 135mm Otus)
Indeed! 135mm lovers *(like someone I know..cough cough ) are in Paradise right now with all the options.
