Got mine in. Did not have any real time for testing tho hope to do so soon. Initial short range results (in home, not rigorous methodology, relatively poor light) are encouraging and shows extraordinary correction--obviously and significantly better than the very good GM 100 STF in that department and probably superior sharpness as well I think tho the GM is very good indeed. The Batis 135 seems to have equal sharpness and greater native global contrast at F2.8. Contrast evens out around F4 or 5.6 but again, too soon to be sure. They are essentially indistinguishable to me in sharpness unless I go to at least 4:1 if not 8:1 to really see any difference and even then it is vanishingly small--call it a tie. I think perhaps at F5.6 I may like the CV by a hair but the Zeiss at F2.8 for sure. I think I may like the CV 110 at F5.6 a touch more than F4, but not sure yet--it may be depth of field. F8 definitely shows some signs of diffraction to me. More later. Hope to do some infinity testing soon.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope Phillip does not mind me posting an image from his FE 90/2.8 G Review.
It seems that at f/4 and f/5.6, even the FE 90's rounded blades can't render circular specular highlights. Having said that, it's definitely more rounded than what we can get with the CV 110 at similar apertures.
Yes that's about what I expect stopped down a bit in most circs, much preferable to my eyes than what I've seen of the CV in those conditions. Of course the CV iris pays for itself in other circs.
GMPhotography wrote:
It maybe correcting in C1. I know you use that program over Fred using LR
It's just what it is. With a manufacturer profile turned on (including CA correction) and an unknown amount of sharpening the infinity tests does not tell us much except about the rough center to corner sharpness differences with different apertures after the lens manufacturer corrected all(? some?) flaws software-wise.
I know I shouldn't bother about a turned off lens profile because I will always let it turned on. But to get a feeling for a new lens I want to see it's raw performance first. A shared RAW-file can help here.
Also, the comparison of the two lenses is not very useful with "FM landscape sharpening". What if one lens benefits more of the used sharpening settings? Especially with different focal lengths, there can be visible differences depending on the distance to the subject. And what if the backed in lens profile of Voigtländer is more sophisticated than the one Zeiss put into the Batis?
Same here, maybe I shouldn't bother too much. And actually, my knowledge of these backed in lens manufacturer profiles is limited. As far as I know they are within the RAW-file and are made of the lens manufacturer. They contain information about distortion, some forms of CA and vignetting...
Does anybody know what a "lens manufacturer profile" can contain?
Regarding the discussion about straight and curved aperture blades and bokeh, this may be of interest: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/thats-weird-new-versions-of-the-fe-28mm-f-2-have-been-secretly-improved/
Sony is supposed to have changed the shape of the aperture blades of the 28/2 FE some time in 2016-17. The new ones are curved at f/2-f/4 and straight stopped down to yield nicer sun stars stopped down to f/8. Maybe a good compromise?
I know for myself my testing sharpening is pretty low and it’s always the same under any test just for consistent accuracy but agree maybe one lens can take more than another in sharpening. Problem is all of a sudden your throwing in a variable that you really can’t control when testing. I’m sure Fred does the same as me and keep it very low. Once we buy the lens and put into use than one can play around here and find the optimum settings but as a lens tester we really should not be adding variables to the test. Does everyone test like this, absolutely not I can almost guarantee it. Too many tests are these pretty images to make their blogs, reviews look good foe there own marketing. Why I trust very little here. The good news here some of us have nothing to market and are going the honest route and have nothing to gain. Why I’m always wary of who is testing these things. One huge reason I always do Big Bronco , I know it’s boring but we also know it’s very consistent from one lens to another. So I deem it a very good test of resolution and also corners even though it’s a mid range zone for most lenses but I know when I do infinity ones with same lenses it usually is identical in performance.
I agree Raw is supposed to be Raw but we simply don’t know the sauce added to these files if you turn everything off are you really turning everything off. Kind of a unknown
bjornthun wrote:
Regarding the discussion about straight and curved aperture blades and bokeh, this may be of interest: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/thats-weird-new-versions-of-the-fe-28mm-f-2-have-been-secretly-improved/
Sony is supposed to have changed the shape of the aperture blades of the 28/2 FE some time in 2016-17. The new ones are curved at f/2-f/4 and straight stopped down to yield nicer sun stars stopped down to f/8. Maybe a good compromise?
Sony and their silent update . I understand that some owners of the older model might just demand an "upgrade" even though they don't even care about sun stars but it's hard to get any feedback to whether using this approach in the future or not, (i.e. for the GM line)
My Sony 90/2.8 is crazy sharp,and does pretty well for portraits involving lots of space from the background (my preference). Foliage bokeh is a bit busy,if you're lookin for it (most clients aren't)
Stefano 1967 wrote:
I am very undecided as a quality image between this 110 cv or 90 Sony macro .. someone has got to compare them?
KarmaKramer wrote:
My Sony 90/2.8 is crazy sharp,and does pretty well for portraits involving lots of space from the background (my preference). Foliage bokeh is a bit busy,if you're lookin for it (most clients aren't)
I'm used to making stolen portraits traveling with both 70 200 and 100 400 wm 110 I would not take for portraits as even the 90 macro ... but I would use it mainly for landscapes and macro .. here my doubt ... which of the two makes the best ....
Stefano 1967 wrote:
I'm used to making stolen portraits traveling with both 70 200 and 100 400 wm 110 I would not take for portraits as even the 90 macro ... but I would use it mainly for landscapes and macro .. here my doubt ... which of the two makes the best ....
For landscapes, it would be hard to beat the CV 110/2.5. I believe the Batis 135/2.8 is the only native at similar FL that comes the closest. The 110mm is way better than my ZM 85 and I would think even the Loxia 85. (I will test them when the weather cooperates)
I have not tested the FE 90/2.8 at macro distance but the 110mm will give you a longer FL (longer working distance), helicoid MF, zero LoCA and perhaps is capable of more resolution across the field. (Not sure about the latter)
I just ordered another FE 90/2.8G and hopefully it will be a decent copy for some comparisons.
The 90macro is not ideal for portraits but it serves the purpose for now(for longer reach than my 50/1.4),in lieu of spending thousands of more dollars. Which I see no need for
Stefano 1967 wrote:
I'm used to making stolen portraits traveling with both 70 200 and 100 400 wm 110 I would not take for portraits as even the 90 macro ... but I would use it mainly for landscapes and macro .. here my doubt ... which of the two makes the best ....
Phillip Reeve Beautiful yield ... I know that I'm not completely normal I would use mainly the 110 cv for landscapes do not have photos about it? for landscapes I'm currently using 65 cv and I'm very satisfied ... this will give me better results?
Fred Miranda wrote:
For landscapes, it would be hard to beat the CV 110/2.5. I believe the Batis 135/2.8 is the only native at similar FL that comes the closest. The 110mm is way better than my ZM 85 and I would think even the Loxia 85. (I will test them when the weather cooperates)
I have not tested the FE 90/2.8 at macro distance but the 110mm will give you a longer FL (longer working distance), helicoid MF, zero LoCA and perhaps is capable of more resolution across the field. (Not sure about the latter)
I just ordered another FE 90/2.8G and hopefully it will be a decent copy for some comparisons....Show more →
Thanks for your opinion I'm more confused than before I'm using with satisfaction the cv65 for landscapes has an impressive clarity .. I would not fall back
Stefano 1967 wrote:
Phillip Reeve Beautiful yield ... I know that I'm not completely normal I would use mainly the 110 cv for landscapes do not have photos about it? for landscapes I'm currently using 65 cv and I'm very satisfied ... this will give me better results?
As far as technical perfection is concerned the CV65, CV 110 and Batis 135 currently are the very best lenses you can buy in E-mount. So will results be better in a technical sense? No. But they would rather different since the 110 is almost twice the focal length.
I can see that I might sell the CV 65 now that I own the 110 since it saw relatively little use after I got the CV 40 and 21/40/110 makes a nice landscape set when weight isn‘t a major concern.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
As far as technical perfection is concerned the CV65, CV 110 and Batis 135 currently are the very best lenses you can buy in E-mount. So will results be better in a technical sense? No. But they would rather different since the 110 is almost twice the focal length.
Don't forget the latest Sigma 40mm ART, which might be in the same league correction wise.
. I understand that some owners of the older model might just demand an "upgrade" even though they don't even care about sun stars but it's hard to get any feedback to whether using this approach in the future or not, (i.e. for the GM line)
