I have the Batis too....quite a bit wider than my Pentax 28. Frankly I like the Pentax so much a native 28 will have to be something like a CV 28 or Sigma 28i.
SoundHound wrote:
+1 for tsdevine! Too little too late.
I bit the bullet a while ago and got the Batis 25mm F2.0. Iight but not so small and expensive. I, innocently, bought the small, light Sony 28mm F2.0 first. Now I understand it’s approx a 25mm FL but so distorted it auto profiles down to 28mm after a cropped correction.
So my Batis lets me keep the extra, wider, pixels if I wish and mimes the FL of my 26mm iPhone’s “Normal” lens If I want a real Hi IQ 28mm lens it’s my Sigma 28mm F1.4. Not small or light but rather expensive.
Fortunate to acquire a discontinued CV APO 90mm F3.5-small but not light. Bought it from KEH as a to cheap to pass up Bargain condition lens in the low $300s. Overjoyed when it arrived complete with CU lens, etc in mint condition. ...Show more →
I have a friend that loves his CV “M” 28mm and copes (or ignores at F8 or so) with the midfield curvature due to a thicker than Leica sensor stack.
The dirty little secret is that these FLs are “Nominal” likely an artifact of an idealized design or some marketing maven’s idea of what will sell. What’s perplexing is all these new lenses but no “true” 28mm FL.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I appreciate reading your observations. I have the Tamron 24mm 2.8 and actually like it quite a lot. I do wish it were wider at times though...or smaller. I'm still on the fence with the Sigma 24mm 3.5. It is smaller and since I have the 45mm 2.8...I'm sure a bit more enjoyable to use. More expensive though and slower. The Voigtlander 21mm 3.5 has the advantage of wider and small size and I do have several Voigtlanders already.
I have nothing wider than 24mm though. I've considered the Tamron 17-28mm but not sure about that range. When I had the Panasonic 7-14mm I used it mostly at 7mm. The Sigma 12-24mm 2.8 is to big.
I'm rambling. Will probably end up with the Sigma 24mm 3.5 to pair with the 45mm 2.8. That way I have an excuse to buy the 90mm 2.8 and complete the set. I do hope Sigma or Tamron release a compact wide zoom that starts at 14mm though. ...Show more →
I've also struggled with my wide end lens choices. I tried the Sony 20mm f/1.8G as well but it just felt "sterile" to me. Can't really put my finger on it why, but something just felt I couldn't justify the over 1K€ price for it. The CV21/3.5 was one of my favourites and paired up nice with my 40mm Nokton, but I found that such a "slow" lens like this is pretty hard to manually focus as peaking is pretty unreliable, which made it's use limited, at least in my perspective. In addition to autofocusing, the Sigma 24/3.5 also can focus ridiculously close and renders beautifully. Ps. Difference with f/2.8 and f/3.5 ain't really that much. Nothing you would miss.
This new 24mm f/2 surely tempted me a bit. But I don't think I'll switch. I don't want to lose the 24mm f3.5 closeup magnification and the tiny footprint which just makes this little gem so fun lens to use. And if I want to do some environmental portraiture or documentary lowlight shooting, I think I would opt for a fast 35-40mm anyways.
tsdevine wrote:
I have the Batis too....quite a bit wider than my Pentax 28. Frankly I like the Pentax so much a native 28 will have to be something like a CV 28 or Sigma 28i.
I only shoot stopped down landscapes with the Pentax 28, but I love the color I get from the Pentax. Right now I have it in my bag with the Sigma 14-24 on the wider side and the CV 35/2 APO on the longer side.
The Batis is noticeably wider, enough that I don't find them interchangeable.
Petegh wrote:
How do you think the rendering of the Pentax compares to the Batis Tim?
Also, Soundhound, the batis 25's low distortion is one of its advantages, not disadvantages: according to lenstip 'so slight that (its) almost imperceptible'; see https://www.lenstip.com/485.6-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Batis_25_mm_f_2_Distortion.htm
tsdevine wrote:
I only shoot stopped down landscapes with the Pentax 28, but I love the color I get from the Pentax. Right now I have it in my bag with the Sigma 14-24 on the wider side and the CV 35/2 APO on the longer side.
I just didn't get as many "wow" shots from the Batis. And given I have the 14-24 and the GM 24, I'm not sure it make sense for me to keep the Batis.
The Pentax has low CA, resists flare pretty well (although I don't generally shoot with the sun in the frame), and has very rich rendition of blue sky/water.
Could be just me, and I've never been good at describing nuances between lenses.
Petegh wrote:
That's what I'm talking about, i.e. the stopped down rendering!
Harsh lighting has a lot to do with harsh rendering whenever blur can't obliterate the background, especially when the background has lots of branches and foliage. Having said that, it looks like the Sigma 90/2.8i's transition zone (shown in the image from your link) is not the smoothest.
I wish them well, but as a 50-50 street/landscape guy, I need that bokeh performance at varying camera-subject distances. So, a lot of messy backgrounds. Another issue is this: if a slowish max aperture lens can't deliver wide open for all you need, it has problems.
As Dr Nasse used say, slow lenses are renowned for their excellent bokeh. Many modern short tele lenses have this issue, overly contrasty and edgy backgrounds that drag attention away from the subject.
Doesn't mean the 90/2.8 is out for many uses, just that it has a narrower gamut of usage than I had hoped for. Many will be happy with the stopped down excellence, close MFD and near subject bokeh as well. The size/weight, portability, price, build - many positives.
Here is what I expect, one image of many hundreds. We had this 40 years ago from many lens makers. Bokeh should not make your eyes feel like they are straining, not ever, at any level of blur. On the contrary, you should feel comfortable looking into it. I never think about it being off and I don't want to have to, because the shot presents itself and time is tight.
That's exactly why I sold the 85mm 1.8 FE (twice). I tried and it is a sharp lens, but the bokeh is high contrast and very edgy. I was hoping this might be better in the OOF rendering than the 85mm 1.8 but CameraLabs indicated it was very similar...I'll have to see more samples when it gets released.
My favorite 85mm'ish to date is the 45mm 1.2 Olympus PRO. No, not uber sharp but the feathered bokeh is lovely. The final images are very pleasing.
Harsh lighting has a lot to do with harsh rendering whenever blur can't obliterate the background, especially when the background has lots of branches and foliage. Having said that, it looks like the Sigma 90/2.8i's transition zone (shown in the image from your link) is not the smoothest.
I'm quite ready to move on from the batis 85 to the sigma 90 just for the size. I'd wait for more samples to show up and see how people work around the transition zone.
Would be interesting to see if it plays nice with close up filters too but I remember christopher frost having to stop down some before the image cleared up in close focus..
Dustin Abbott has a nice selection of sample images with the 24mm f2. Without the hood, it's fairly compact. The OOF rendering looks quite nice as well.
sselhtrim wrote:
I'm quite ready to move on from the batis 85 to the sigma 90 just for the size. I'd wait for more samples to show up and see how people work around the transition zone.
Would be interesting to see if it plays nice with close up filters too but I remember christopher frost having to stop down some before the image cleared up in close focus..
I'm considering the same. The Sigma 90 being compact means it would travel with me. I love the images I get out of my Batis 85, but I rarely bring it along on trips due to the size.
And again, same with me - love my Batis 85, has clearly surpassed the GM 85, Samyang 85 and Sony 85 for me with its great colors and clean Bokeh.
But a more compact option is really interesting, and back in the day, I had more problems with CA than with slow aperture on my Sony 85mm 2.8 SAM.
I think a Sigma 45i and 90i series sounds like a good travel auto focus option for me. I like the Loxia 25 and I want to get the 85 Loxia as an alternative carry option, which is small as well. Heading in that direction. I've had the 24 and 135 gm and they are great, but for me a small A7 series body and a small lens makes better sense.
MARKFER wrote:
I think a Sigma 45i and 90i series sounds like a good travel auto focus option for me. I like the Loxia 25 and I want to get the 85 Loxia as an alternative carry option, which is small as well. Heading in that direction. I've had the 24 and 135 gm and they are great, but for me a small A7 series body and a small lens makes better sense.
I have the Loxia 25 and 85 and they are my landscape 'dream team' so to speak. Both superlative and if not best in class, near best in class. I really enjoy working with them and they deliver, every time. However, try as I might, I've been much less successful at deploying them for other purposes. I've had to face the facts that my affection for MF is not matched by my ability to nail focus as reliably as Sony's great eye AF.
So, I've been looking for a smaller 24ish/50ish/85ish combo for more general walking around/travel type photography. I have the 45i and love it (AF warts and all) so I'm quite seriously thinking about the 24/3.5 and 90/2.8 to complete that kit. I'm excited to see a few comprehensive reviews of the 90 come out.
I'm with you on this. Don't want to part with all of my voigtlanders, but I switched out a few for AF lenses. Having a few of each works for me. Less frustration.
I had the 24i 3.5 and was very happy with it. Parted ways but wish I did not. The Loxia 25 is a replacement, and it is superior, but the 24 is no slouch and it has nice character and decently sharp.
MARKFER wrote:
I had the 24i 3.5 and was very happy with it. Parted ways but wish I did not. The Loxia 25 is a replacement, and it is superior, but the 24 is no slouch and it has nice character and decently sharp.
Interesting. The issue I have with the Loxia is that I tell myself that I'm fine with sensible compromises...but then I always compare lenses in the 24/25 range to the Loxia, and, well, yes, it is better than all of them for a landscape use case so I have to un-see that and understand that I have the Loxia for landscapes and any other 24 doesn't have to be perfect for landscapes
So, it's good to know that the Sigma is a capable lens. Fred's testing leads me to believe that it is a solid landscape lens...I'm wondering if if the f/3.5 might be a bit limiting...but the close focus is very appealing.
