This topic is in the 2020 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2020Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
p.1 #1Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
Dear all,
I am currently looking for an extension of my current equipment. Usually I do just pictures of people, however, due to COVID-19 I experimented a bit with nature and felt in love with it. As of today I do have a 24-105 G as well as a 100-400 GM (and primes 351.8, 55 1.8, 85 1.8 for my people shots) and am satisfied with my setup. However, sometimes when I am out in the nature I miss a wider lens for landscapes.
One year ago I would have simply bought the Batis, but the new 20 1.8 G is also a great lens. I have read through a lot of reviews already, however, not too much make a comparison between these lenses. The Batis sells used for roundabout 880€ in Germany, a new 20 1.8 G (currently hard to get used) is 990€. The price difference does not matter, both would be fine.
I tend a bit to the Batis because it offers 2mm more, but learned somewhere in the www that the Sony is also a bit wider than 20mm. Anyone here with a first hands experiences in regards of these lenses that could help me choose?
Best regards,
Joerg
I am currently looking for an extension of my current equipment. Usually I do just pictures of people, however, due to COVID-19 I experimented a bit with nature and felt in love with it. As of today I do have a 24-105 G as well as a 100-400 GM (and primes 351.8, 55 1.8, 85 1.8 for my people shots) and am satisfied with my setup. However, sometimes when I am out in the nature I miss a wider lens for landscapes.
One year ago I would have simply bought the Batis, but the new 20 1.8 G is also a great lens. I have read through a lot of reviews already, however, not too much make a comparison between these lenses. The Batis sells used for roundabout 880€ in Germany, a new 20 1.8 G (currently hard to get used) is 990€. The price difference does not matter, both would be fine.
I tend a bit to the Batis because it offers 2mm more, but learned somewhere in the www that the Sony is also a bit wider than 20mm. Anyone here with a first hands experiences in regards of these lenses that could help me choose?
Best regards,
Joerg
Aug 18, 2020 at 08:22 AM
p.1 #2Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
I rented the Batis 18mm for a week and bought the Sony 20mm. The Sony that I have is more evenly sharp, edge to edge, corner to corner than the Batis that I rented on an A7RIV. The Sony is sharp edge to edge by f4. I didn't do any direct comparisons, but my guess is that the Sony is at least as sharp as the Batis in the center as well. The Sony has virtually no chromatic aberration and I have not seen any significant field curvature. The Batis has some chromatic aberration (not bad) and some field curvature.
The Sony has medium contrast and medium color saturation. The Batis has higher contrast and bolder (Zeiss-like) colors.
The Sony is a lot smaller/more compact.
I prefer the Sony. I paired it with the Sony 24-105mm G on a recent trip, and it was a great combination. The Sony 24-105mm is not as wide as a true 24mm I don't believe when corrected for distortion. There's a significant difference in field of view between the Sony 20mm and 24mm end of the zoom.
They're both great lenses.
The other comment I have is that I recently purchased the Sony 16-35mm GM. It's a lot more expensive, and quite a bit larger than both, but it's an unbelievable lens. If it were me, I would start with the Sony 16-35mm GM because it's that good. I don't plan on selling any of my primes in this range, but I'd still start with the Sony zoom.
The Sony has medium contrast and medium color saturation. The Batis has higher contrast and bolder (Zeiss-like) colors.
The Sony is a lot smaller/more compact.
I prefer the Sony. I paired it with the Sony 24-105mm G on a recent trip, and it was a great combination. The Sony 24-105mm is not as wide as a true 24mm I don't believe when corrected for distortion. There's a significant difference in field of view between the Sony 20mm and 24mm end of the zoom.
They're both great lenses.
The other comment I have is that I recently purchased the Sony 16-35mm GM. It's a lot more expensive, and quite a bit larger than both, but it's an unbelievable lens. If it were me, I would start with the Sony 16-35mm GM because it's that good. I don't plan on selling any of my primes in this range, but I'd still start with the Sony zoom.
Aug 18, 2020 at 08:51 AM
p.1 #3Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
The Batis shares 77mm filters with the 24-105 and 100-400 GM, so that's convenient.
I had the Batis 18 as part of my travel kit (paired with 24-105 or several primes).
I tend to prefer zooms at the wide angle and tele sides and so I bought the Tamron 17-28/2.8 and compared it pretty comprehensively against the Batis through a detailed series of shots at infinity on tripod.
I found that my copy of the Tamron at ~18mm was as sharp or sharper than my copy of the Batis wide open depending on area of the frame. The Batis improved a bit more than the Tamron stopped down (past maybe 5.6 the corners were better, center same on the Tamron and most of the frame) and the Batis had very slightly better (punchier) color rendition, but the Tamron I think has very nice color (doesn't have the very neutral, almost muted palette and low microcontrast of the 24-105). Weight and volume were pretty much a wash so I sold the Batis to gain the extra flexibility of the zoom. I've been extremely happy with images from the lens. I thought the Batis was great though, can't go wrong especially at current prices.
The 20/1.8 appears to be a technical tour de force of a lens with no compromising flaws, so if you are good with 20mm as your wide angle, great choice.
Edited on Aug 18, 2020 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
I had the Batis 18 as part of my travel kit (paired with 24-105 or several primes).
I tend to prefer zooms at the wide angle and tele sides and so I bought the Tamron 17-28/2.8 and compared it pretty comprehensively against the Batis through a detailed series of shots at infinity on tripod.
I found that my copy of the Tamron at ~18mm was as sharp or sharper than my copy of the Batis wide open depending on area of the frame. The Batis improved a bit more than the Tamron stopped down (past maybe 5.6 the corners were better, center same on the Tamron and most of the frame) and the Batis had very slightly better (punchier) color rendition, but the Tamron I think has very nice color (doesn't have the very neutral, almost muted palette and low microcontrast of the 24-105). Weight and volume were pretty much a wash so I sold the Batis to gain the extra flexibility of the zoom. I've been extremely happy with images from the lens. I thought the Batis was great though, can't go wrong especially at current prices.
The 20/1.8 appears to be a technical tour de force of a lens with no compromising flaws, so if you are good with 20mm as your wide angle, great choice.
Edited on Aug 18, 2020 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
Aug 18, 2020 at 08:58 AM
p.1 #4Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
I am not sure how you feel about Sigma but the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DN in Sony E-mount has earned a stellar reputation, not only here on FM but in general. In addition to that, it is not heavy nor large for what it offers. I would seriously consider that lens if I were you. Of course the new GM 12-24 would be awesome but at 3X the price of the Sigma. Just another option...
The Sony 20mm f/1.8 would be great if you need that aperture, of course but if you stop down...
The Sony 20mm f/1.8 would be great if you need that aperture, of course but if you stop down...
Aug 18, 2020 at 09:01 AM
p.1 #5Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
httivals wrote:
I rented the Batis 18mm for a week and bought the Sony 20mm. The Sony that I have is more evenly sharp, edge to edge, corner to corner than the Batis that I rented on an A7RIV. The Sony is sharp edge to edge by f4. I didn't do any direct comparisons, but my guess is that the Sony is at least as sharp as the Batis in the center as well. The Sony has virtually no chromatic aberration and I have not seen any significant field curvature. The Batis has some chromatic aberration (not bad) and some field curvature.
The...Show more →
I have both and agree completely with this ^^^ although I'm split over which lens I prefer. I like the handling, appearance, MF implementation, and speed of the 20 G. I prefer the colors, contrast, and overall rendering of the Batis. They are both very sharp centrally and good enough (excellent) elsewhere.
It is hard to justify keeping both. The Batis 18 gaps better with my lenses (24GM, 35/1.8, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, Batis 135). As good as the 20 G is, I'm not willing to dump both the Batis 18 and the 24 GM for it.
I ended up keeping the 20 G because it is better centered, sharper, and flatter in field than very good copies of the Loxia 21 and Voigtlander Nokton 21/1.4. I sold those lenses and am letting it stand in as a manual focus 20mm along with my other MF lenses (CV 15/4.5, 7Artisans 28/1.4, CV 50/1.2, CV 110/2.5). It also gives me other gapping options with the AF lenses (ie: 20-35-85 is a great three lens kit)
Edited on Aug 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM · View previous versions
I rented the Batis 18mm for a week and bought the Sony 20mm. The Sony that I have is more evenly sharp, edge to edge, corner to corner than the Batis that I rented on an A7RIV. The Sony is sharp edge to edge by f4. I didn't do any direct comparisons, but my guess is that the Sony is at least as sharp as the Batis in the center as well. The Sony has virtually no chromatic aberration and I have not seen any significant field curvature. The Batis has some chromatic aberration (not bad) and some field curvature.
The...Show more →
I have both and agree completely with this ^^^ although I'm split over which lens I prefer. I like the handling, appearance, MF implementation, and speed of the 20 G. I prefer the colors, contrast, and overall rendering of the Batis. They are both very sharp centrally and good enough (excellent) elsewhere.
It is hard to justify keeping both. The Batis 18 gaps better with my lenses (24GM, 35/1.8, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, Batis 135). As good as the 20 G is, I'm not willing to dump both the Batis 18 and the 24 GM for it.
I ended up keeping the 20 G because it is better centered, sharper, and flatter in field than very good copies of the Loxia 21 and Voigtlander Nokton 21/1.4. I sold those lenses and am letting it stand in as a manual focus 20mm along with my other MF lenses (CV 15/4.5, 7Artisans 28/1.4, CV 50/1.2, CV 110/2.5). It also gives me other gapping options with the AF lenses (ie: 20-35-85 is a great three lens kit)
Edited on Aug 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM · View previous versions
Aug 18, 2020 at 09:55 AM
p.1 #6Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
I don't have any experience with the Batis 18, but I ended up with a 20/1.8 G in a trade and I can say it's sharpness is pretty mind blowing. Not memorable as far as colour or contrast goes, but it seems like it was designed with astro shooters in mind, who I would imagine would want a fairly neutral rendering.... Maybe I'm wrong. At any rate colour and contrast can be improved upon in post, to a certain extent of course. I originally planned to try to get some Milky Way shots with it, but it has turned into a fun walk-around lens as well.
I posted this image & crop in the FE images thread, it shows the sharpness level at f/2 on a pretty demanding camera:
A7R IV + 20/1.8 G
100% Crop
I posted this image & crop in the FE images thread, it shows the sharpness level at f/2 on a pretty demanding camera:
 |
||
 |
||
 |
A7R IV + 20/1.8 G
|
||
 |
||
|
100% Crop
Aug 18, 2020 at 09:56 AM
p.1 #7Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
helimat wrote:
I don't have any experience with the Batis 18, but I ended up with a 20/1.8 G in a trade and I can say it's sharpness is pretty mind blowing. Not memorable as far as colour or contrast goes, but it seems like it was designed with astro shooters in mind, who I would imagine would want a fairly neutral rendering.... Maybe I'm wrong. At any rate colour and contrast can be improved upon in post, to a certain extent of course. I originally planned to try to get some Milky Way shots with it, but it has turned into...Show more →
Beautiful!
After seeing these I'm reminded that the MFD of the 20 G is 18 cm (0.2x) while the MFD of the Batis 18 is 25cm (0.1x)
I don't have any experience with the Batis 18, but I ended up with a 20/1.8 G in a trade and I can say it's sharpness is pretty mind blowing. Not memorable as far as colour or contrast goes, but it seems like it was designed with astro shooters in mind, who I would imagine would want a fairly neutral rendering.... Maybe I'm wrong. At any rate colour and contrast can be improved upon in post, to a certain extent of course. I originally planned to try to get some Milky Way shots with it, but it has turned into...Show more →
Beautiful!
After seeing these I'm reminded that the MFD of the 20 G is 18 cm (0.2x) while the MFD of the Batis 18 is 25cm (0.1x)
Aug 18, 2020 at 10:02 AM
p.1 #8Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
smpetty wrote:
Beautiful!
After seeing these I'm reminded that the MFD of the 20 G is 18 cm (0.2x) while the MFD of the Batis 18 is 25cm (0.1x)
Thanks.
The short MFD was a surprise to me, a very happy surprise. 
Beautiful!
After seeing these I'm reminded that the MFD of the 20 G is 18 cm (0.2x) while the MFD of the Batis 18 is 25cm (0.1x)
Thanks.
The short MFD was a surprise to me, a very happy surprise. Aug 18, 2020 at 10:05 AM
p.1 #9Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
helimat wrote:
I don't have any experience with the Batis 18, but I ended up with a 20/1.8 G in a trade and I can say it's sharpness is pretty mind blowing. Not memorable as far as colour or contrast goes, but it seems like it was designed with astro shooters in mind, who I would imagine would want a fairly neutral rendering.... Maybe I'm wrong. At any rate colour and contrast can be improved upon in post, to a certain extent of course. I originally planned to try to get some Milky Way shots with it, but it has turned into...Show more →
It’s a good but not great Astro lens—it gets some bat wings in the corners that aren’t entirely resolved at 2.8. And agree on color and contrast, and that sharpness is really exceptional.
I don't have any experience with the Batis 18, but I ended up with a 20/1.8 G in a trade and I can say it's sharpness is pretty mind blowing. Not memorable as far as colour or contrast goes, but it seems like it was designed with astro shooters in mind, who I would imagine would want a fairly neutral rendering.... Maybe I'm wrong. At any rate colour and contrast can be improved upon in post, to a certain extent of course. I originally planned to try to get some Milky Way shots with it, but it has turned into...Show more →
It’s a good but not great Astro lens—it gets some bat wings in the corners that aren’t entirely resolved at 2.8. And agree on color and contrast, and that sharpness is really exceptional.
Aug 18, 2020 at 10:19 AM
p.1 #10Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
Don't have the Batis 18, but have the 40 and the 20 G. If I had to put a divide between them, I'd say the Batis lens will probably have better colors/contrast (as others have said) and in my view a more sturdy construction. In contrast, the 20 has the best technical performance of any lens I've used (colors, after all, are subjective) in terms of field curvature, cross field resolution, general aberration correction, and AF.
In other words, the Batis lens will produce the better image but the 20G is reliability incarnate.
In other words, the Batis lens will produce the better image but the 20G is reliability incarnate.
Aug 18, 2020 at 10:22 AM
p.1 #11Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
Wow, thank you so much for your fast response!
From your explanations and experiences I feel a bit confirmed in my opinion that the 20G might be the better option. I fully agree that zoom lenses do have their advantages, however, over the last 10 years I found out that I much prefer shooting primes. Of course, I do have my both zoom, but just because they are handy.
Your pictures @helimat are looking wonderful, I especially like the colors. I know from my own experiences that Zeiss lenses are coming with more microcontrast as well as more saturated colors which I like. Due to the fact that I just capture raw-files the advantage is, however, somewhat limited.
I think I will go for the 20G!
From your explanations and experiences I feel a bit confirmed in my opinion that the 20G might be the better option. I fully agree that zoom lenses do have their advantages, however, over the last 10 years I found out that I much prefer shooting primes. Of course, I do have my both zoom, but just because they are handy.
Your pictures @helimat are looking wonderful, I especially like the colors. I know from my own experiences that Zeiss lenses are coming with more microcontrast as well as more saturated colors which I like. Due to the fact that I just capture raw-files the advantage is, however, somewhat limited.
I think I will go for the 20G!
Aug 18, 2020 at 10:37 AM
p.1 #12Sony 20 1.8 G vs. Zeiss Batis 18 2.8
With 20 you get faster lens that none of the zooms can provide. If you get Batis, you might as well consider Tamron 17-24 zoom that is on sale right now.
Aug 18, 2020 at 11:41 AM