rico wrote:
Lens arrived this frigid Chicago afternoon.
I ripped into the box, and spent the next half hour getting frostbite—this thing is a 1.1kg hunk of metal.
Even the control dials are metal.
I initially thought it was standard Utsunomiya product, but now realize it's made by another division: Canon Hydraulic and Iron Foundries. I had to wipe off a layer of coal dust before mounting the lens.
I looked hard at the Batis for its optical performance, but I need tilt/shift rather than fast f/2.8 apertures and AF. The MC-11 is well built, but the resulting front-heavy load is a test for the A7ii mount. I wish Sigma had included a tripod foot.
I'll report fully in a fresh thread, but my capsule assessment is big thumbs up. It's outright freaky to have tilt and shift movements dialed in while shooting 135mm handheld at 1/15sec. Bokeh fore and aft look smooth as silk, bokeh balls are onion free (no aspheres), circular aperture, crazy sharp into the corners (for some definition of corner). Most importantly, there's no LCA to my casual eye, and no defocus fringing. I value that level of correction for tabletop and macro.
Fred Miranda wrote:
For marketing purposes, they should've compromised at f/2.4!
Next FL: 200mm
I have been using the 4/70-200 recently for dogs-in-action now that I have a body that actually tracks.
Works fine; but the sharpness at 200 is only OK and it's not fast enough.
I don't want to use a huge 2.8/70-200
I'd rather an immaculately grea and portablet 2.8/200 prime. There's a Tamron/Batis patent for such a thing (or was it 180?)
Bring it on....
I have been using the 4/70-200 recently for dogs-in-action now that I have a body that actually tracks.
Works fine; but the sharpness at 200 is only OK and it's not fast enough.
I don't want to use a huge 2.8/70-200
I'd rather an immaculately grea and portablet 2.8/200 prime. There's a Tamron/Batis patent for such a thing (or was it 180?)
Bring it on....
I don't think anyone will complain that f/2.8 is too slow for a 200mm lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't think anyone will complain that f/2.8 is too slow for a 200mm lens.
Just you wait!
I could have an f2.8 zoom: what's the point?
F 2.8! f 1.4 and under a kilo or I'm not in!
I have a 50mm lens that is f1.2 and I paid only $500 for it. Why should I pay two grand for an f2.8?
This thing weighs 800g ! Heavier than my f 1.4 85! Outrage!
I could have an f2.8 zoom: what's the point?
F 2.8! f 1.4 and under a kilo or I'm not in!
I have a 50mm lens that is f1.2 and I paid only $500 for it. Why should I pay two grand for an f2.8?
This thing weighs 800g ! Heavier than my f 1.4 85! Outrage!
etc...
It all depends on how well the Batis 135/2.8 sells. I would love to have a Batis 200/2.8 APO to complement it.
I'm keeping an eye on this lens for some of my indoor stuff, but I'd really rather have a 135/2 AF solution (and no the A-mount Sony won't cut it).
That being said, the bit of testing I did manage to do with the display copy in-store showed it to be fantastic wide open, which really sings to me. 70-200/2.8 zooms are just not going to be this good at f/2.8, especially off-center as Fred's tests have shown.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
Yeah, I don't understand why someone would rent something multiple times. Just buy it :-)
Offer $2k on Greentoe.com and see what happens.
Because it sucks. It can’t do 200mm worth a damn . I have to back off to about 193mm. It’s not a great lens I said it numerous times I have issues with it. I don’t have a better option. Now maybe just maybe the A7rIII is good enough to get continous focus with a Canon. I shoot 20k images on this lens. Would buy a lens that barely works. I’d be a idiot to do that. This is money on the line. Please you find something better doing runway than you let me know. I need a net 300mm and I I want to use crop mode because I don’t need 42mpx. 18 is perfect
But there has not been a reliable AF continous 200mm yet on these bodies I can count on. I’m using Eye AF on top of that.
I could have an f2.8 zoom: what's the point?
F 2.8! f 1.4 and under a kilo or I'm not in!
I have a 50mm lens that is f1.2 and I paid only $500 for it. Why should I pay two grand for an f2.8?
This thing weighs 800g ! Heavier than my f 1.4 85! Outrage!
etc...
We all have different needs. I am one that wouldnt go for a 200mm 2.8 personally. If its going to be 2.8 then I rather just get the zoom and have the added flexibility. To each its own..
70-200 2.8 zooms are generally very heavy. I need one for my work, so I have always had one, but would rather have a 135 and 200 2.8 for my personal work if they were small and lightweight.
peter1219 wrote:
I'm interested whether people who bought Batis 135 are keeping it. Despite the great reviews I seldomly see images taken with this lens.
I am keeping it. I love this lens. Really fast and silent AF, sharp edge-to-edge wide open, Eye-AF works well with it, color rendition is really special. Zero complaints. I use it mostly for landscapes, but I think it would excel as a portrait lens, albeit without paper-think DOF, which is my preference. Since it doesn't have a AF/MF switch on the lens, to shift to MF mode, you need to switch it in the menu.
You have some pretty specific needs, Guy.
My point was, if you're going to rent it numerous times, those rental fees add up. Why not buy it, especially at a discounted price like through Greentoe.com or used, and avoid those rental fees as well as the planning involved by having it always at your disposal. Then, when a better option comes along, sell it at minimal loss, or depending on how much you used it, for a financial gain.
Of course, this only makes sense if you're talking 4-5 rentals of a week or so in duration, or more. A one week rental is $135, times 4 would be $540. A new copy at retail price would be $2600. You could probably snag it from Greentoe.com for $2200-2300-ish, brand new. Then you could sell it for $2000.
At that point, you've broken even (with 4 one-week rentals) and the lens has been in your possession making it available to use whenever you want.
It makes financial sense as well as practical sense.
Again, this is only if you rent it 4 times. Your post made me think you've rented it several times with the likelihood of needing it again in the future, but I could be misinterpreting what you wrote/meant.
Just trying to help :-)
