In the unedited RAW, the grass is completely dark black. I raised the shadows to the maximum in Lightroom. Usually, that makes the image appear low in contrast. However, with the B135, strong micro-contrasts were visible instead. In Lightroom, I also slightly reduced the highlights. Everything else such as saturation, color dynamics, contrast, etc. remained unedited. It is difficult to produce flares with the Batis 135. However, if they do occur, I really like them.
I posted this today in response to an inquiry about the Batis 135 on the DPR forum:
---
I was shooting bees with zooms, mostly at 200mm. I bought the 135 Batis to see if I'd like a prime better, despite its shorter focal length. But I ended up sticking with 200mm.
I ran a test of the Batis OSS on my A7R4 and the OSS was fabulous.
I've hardly used this lens because when I seek greater focal length, I jump all the way to 200mm. I have not found an application for f2.8 at 135mm, tending to use f4 at 200mm (Sony 70-200mm f4).
If you compare PC Mag imatest results to zooms that cover this range, most of the zooms are sharper than the Batis. (PC Mag is the only imatest review I've found for the Batis).
Despite that, I suspect that the Batis will excel for some applications. I just haven't found those applications yet. Portrait may be it. end
-----
The mention above about walking with the Batis triggered my remembering how absolutely superb my Sigma 90mm f2.8 is and it only weighs 290g. It is sharper than my 90mm f2.8 Sony Macro. And a 10mm extension turns the Sigma into a great macro lens. I much prefer walking with its 290g than the 614g Batis. But I won't let my Batis go, I'm still hoping to find a great application for it.
Shot with Sigma 90mm f2.8 on 10mm extension tube at f8, resized to 1800 pixels
ILCE-7RM590mm F2.8 DG DN | Contemporary 021 lens90mmf/8.01/90s100 ISO-0.5 EV
There is no way the Sony 70-200 f4 macro is sharper than the batis 135. I’ve never used the Sony zoom, but I own the Batis 135 and it is incredibly sharp. The zoom is probably nice, but no way equal the the Batis.
AeroPhoto wrote:
I posted this today in response to an inquiry about the Batis 135 on the DPR forum:
---
I was shooting bees with zooms, mostly at 200mm. I bought the 135 Batis to see if I'd like a prime better, despite its shorter focal length. But I ended up sticking with 200mm.
I ran a test of the Batis OSS on my A7R4 and the OSS was fabulous.
I've hardly used this lens because when I seek greater focal length, I jump all the way to 200mm. I have not found an application for f2.8 at 135mm, tending to use f4 at 200mm (Sony 70-200mm f4).
If you compare PC Mag imatest results to zooms that cover this range, most of the zooms are sharper than the Batis. (PC Mag is the only imatest review I've found for the Batis).
Despite that, I suspect that the Batis will excel for some applications. I just haven't found those applications yet. Portrait may be it. end
-----
The mention above about walking with the Batis triggered my remembering how absolutely superb my Sigma 90mm f2.8 is and it only weighs 290g. It is sharper than my 90mm f2.8 Sony Macro. And a 10mm extension turns the Sigma into a great macro lens. I much prefer walking with its 290g than the 614g Batis. But I won't let my Batis go, I'm still hoping to find a great application for it....Show more →
Just looked up those reviews and you should not compare them, They tested the Batis 135 on a A7 mark 3 (24mp) and they tested the zoom on the A7R mark 4 (61mp). Nothing useful can come from that comparison.
AeroPhoto wrote:
I posted this today in response to an inquiry about the Batis 135 on the DPR forum:
---
I was shooting bees with zooms, mostly at 200mm. I bought the 135 Batis to see if I'd like a prime better, despite its shorter focal length. But I ended up sticking with 200mm.
I ran a test of the Batis OSS on my A7R4 and the OSS was fabulous.
I've hardly used this lens because when I seek greater focal length, I jump all the way to 200mm. I have not found an application for f2.8 at 135mm, tending to use f4 at 200mm (Sony 70-200mm f4).
If you compare PC Mag imatest results to zooms that cover this range, most of the zooms are sharper than the Batis. (PC Mag is the only imatest review I've found for the Batis).
Despite that, I suspect that the Batis will excel for some applications. I just haven't found those applications yet. Portrait may be it. end
-----
The mention above about walking with the Batis triggered my remembering how absolutely superb my Sigma 90mm f2.8 is and it only weighs 290g. It is sharper than my 90mm f2.8 Sony Macro. And a 10mm extension turns the Sigma into a great macro lens. I much prefer walking with its 290g than the 614g Batis. But I won't let my Batis go, I'm still hoping to find a great application for it....Show more →
TakenWild wrote:
There is no way the Sony 70-200 f4 macro is sharper than the batis 135. I’ve never used the Sony zoom, but I own the Batis 135 and it is incredibly sharp. The zoom is probably nice, but no way equal the the Batis.
Having the Batis for 6 years and the 70-200 f4 zoom for 6 months, I agree NO way is the zoom sharper. I use the Batis in the 26mp crop mode at 202mm and I prefer its rendering to the zooms too.
How do you find having the batis and the zoom? Do you use them for different purposes or do they overlap for you?
SpecFoto wrote:
Having the Batis for 6 years and the 70-200 f4 zoom for 6 months, I agree NO way is the zoom sharper. I use the Batis in the 26mp crop mode at 202mm and I prefer its rendering to the zooms too.
Mainly I use the Batis 135 for my outdoor portraits, see my post on the 1st page of this thread. Notice in photos 3 & 4 of my post that the Batis is very sharp, even close up. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1702592/0#15605391
I bought the 70-200 f4 to use as a travel zoom, as previous to it the only zoom I had was the 100-400GM which is a bit heavy to carry overseas for general use. I noticed on my first outing with the 70-200 f4 that the lens weakest point was at the longest F/L of 200mm. Not that photos at 200mm were soft, but they surely were not as crisp as photos in the lower ranges, or when using the closeup feature of the lens. Adding my 1.4x tc did increase the softness a bit at the long end. But that is OK for my use as I am putting convenience over absolute sharpness and this is usually the case with almost all zooms, they tend to have sharper photos at one end or the other. But if I was going on a trip to photograph wildlife, the 100-400GM along with the Batis 135 would be in my bag, not the 70-200.
I love the Batis 135mm, not too short, not too long, just the right amount of telephoto usually. Lightweight, sharp, stabilized, APO, crisp colorful contrast, what's not to like! Yesterday captured this image with the Batis 135mm while out with just a relatively small kit consisting of the Voigtlander 21mm /f.3.5, Voightlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton, Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO and the Zeiss Batis 135mm.
ILCE-7RM5ZEISS Batis 2.8/135 lens135mmf/8.01/250s250 ISO-1.0 EV
In the RAW file, I significantly reduced the colors in Lightroom (color dynamics -40). I can't recall ever doing that before. The contrast was also reduced, and the shadows were raised almost to the maximum. The image shouldn't really have any colors left and should look very low in contrast. Still, the colors and contrast appear very vibrant to me.
adventure_photo wrote:
I love the Batis 135mm, not too short, not too long, just the right amount of telephoto usually. Lightweight, sharp, stabilized, APO, crisp colorful contrast, what's not to like! Yesterday captured this image with the Batis 135mm while out with just a relatively small kit consisting of the Voigtlander 21mm /f.3.5, Voightlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton, Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO and the Zeiss Batis 135mm.
In addition to the amazing APO colors, contrast, and micro-contrast, there's also optical stabilization. You can shoot at 135mm with impressive exposure times. Plus, the intricate weather sealing means you won't find any fine sand or dust inside the housing even after many years. Snow or a little rain might be an issue for the camera, but not for the lens. I also love the natural and vivid skin tones you get without spending a lot of time in Lightroom. The bokeh of the B135 is something I really enjoy. I had the 85/1.4 GM I for many years, which is considered a reference for bokeh. The bokeh of the B135 is just as pleasing to me, but it has its own unique style. Weighing in at 614 grams, it’s a really fine, sturdy, and lightweight 135mm lens to carry in your backpack that meets the highest standards. I really like this lens, and taking photos with it is a lot of fun!
Schwarzlicht wrote:
In addition to the amazing APO colors, contrast, and micro-contrast, there's also optical stabilization. You can shoot at 135mm with impressive exposure times. Plus, the intricate weather sealing means you won't find any fine sand or dust inside the housing even after many years. Snow or a little rain might be an issue for the camera, but not for the lens. I also love the natural and vivid skin tones you get without spending a lot of time in Lightroom. The bokeh of the B135 is something I really enjoy. I had the 85/1.4 GM I for many years, which is considered a reference for bokeh. The bokeh of the B135 is just as pleasing to me, but it has its own unique style. Weighing in at 614 grams, it’s a really fine, sturdy, and lightweight 135mm lens to carry in your backpack that meets the highest standards. I really like this lens, and taking photos with it is a lot of fun! ...Show more →
