I have the Loxia 21 and 25, as well as all the Batis except the 85. I kind of always wanted the Loxia 85, and to complete the Batis set.
Can't imagine picking up 3 lenses, but we'll see where prices go.
johnvanr wrote:
If I used Sony, I definitely buy the Loxia 21mm and a few Batis lenses right now. Nothing will equal that look in that mount anytime soon, if ever.
rob_ww wrote:
I am tempted to add the Batis 135 to get a complete set. But do I need it and will I use it, or do I just want to complete the set
I asked myself the same question. I've had the Batis 135 for a few days now and I'm wondering "why didn't I buy it sooner?"
If you like the Batis colours, you will love the 135. It's a real APO. Zeiss says all color errors are fully corrected. I can imagine having the beautiful Batis 40/2 with me as an all-rounder and the Batis 135 as a telephoto supplement. These are two really exceptional lenses that together weigh as much as the 135 GM. In the first portraits I took with the Batis 135, I really liked the delicate, natural and vivid colors of the skin. I also find the bokeh very attractive so far. I also plan to use the 135 for various landscape shots.
tsdevine wrote:
I have the Loxia 21 and all the Batis except the 85. I kind of always wanted the Loxia 25 and 85, and to complete the Batis set.
Can't imagine picking up 3 lenses, but we'll see where prices go.
Unless it's for special purposes and/or slow work, I'm wary of using manual focus lenses beyond 50mm.
Then again, I don't shoot Sony, so I have no platform for either the Loxia or the Batis lenses. My Zeiss lenses are either for the EF mount, the M-mount or the old Contax G mount.
Landscape shooting use cases for me, I agree for portrait and other use cases AF makes more sense. And if I buy the Batis 85 too, I have that covered.
johnvanr wrote:
Unless it's for special purposes and/or slow work, I'm wary of using manual focus lenses beyond 50mm.
Then again, I don't shoot Sony, so I have no platform for either the Loxia or the Batis lenses. My Zeiss lenses are either for the EF mount, the M-mount or the old Contax G mount.
johnvanr- You make a good point. I have the Loxia 85 and I was at my sisters yesterday with it and I was trying to get my niece to take a photo with me in it. She could not nail the focus, even though she is a tech wizard. I don't have a problem, but on these telephoto manual focus lenses it takes experience and doing it to develop that sense of how to use it. The 85 Zeiss Loxia is a real special lens that I will never sell, I use it for for hiking and still life and nature, but moving people would be a challenge for even me at this point.
Schwarzlicht wrote:
I asked myself the same question. I've had the Batis 135 for a few days now and I'm wondering "why didn't I buy it sooner?"
If you like the Batis colours, you will love the 135. It's a real APO. Zeiss says all color errors are fully corrected. I can imagine having the beautiful Batis 40/2 with me as an all-rounder and the Batis 135 as a telephoto supplement. These are two really exceptional lenses that together weigh as much as the 135 GM. In the first portraits I took with the Batis 135, I really liked the delicate, natural and vivid colors of the skin. I also find the bokeh very attractive so far. I also plan to use the 135 for various landscape shots.
Thank you for the feedback. I can see what you mean when I look at the Batis 135 thread. It's just about adapting to the 135mm focal length. Might take a little while!
In fact. looking back through the general Batis thread all the way to 2016 there is a consistently high performance. It's clear that newer is not always better, if the quality is there in the first place.
rob_ww wrote:
In fact. looking back through the general Batis thread all the way to 2016 there is a consistently high performance. It's clear that newer is not always better, if the quality is there in the first place.
Newer nowadays is often sharper and more resistant to the technical challenges in lens design, but often at the cost of character. And more sharpness is also not something you necessarily want. I understand portrait shooters now often use black mist filters to tone down the sharpness of their new lenses. Compensating for stellar performance at extra cost...
johnvanr wrote:
Newer nowadays is often sharper and more resistant to the technical challenges in lens design, but often at the cost of character. And more sharpness is also not something you necessarily want. I understand portrait shooters now often use black mist filters to tone down the sharpness of their new lenses. Compensating for stellar performance at extra cost...
johnvanr wrote:
Newer nowadays is often sharper and more resistant to the technical challenges in lens design, but often at the cost of character. And more sharpness is also not something you necessarily want. I understand portrait shooters now often use black mist filters to tone down the sharpness of their new lenses. Compensating for stellar performance at extra cost...
Yes today the race is all about sharpness right into the corners. I love my Batis and Zeiss ZE lenses…might not be the sharpest on the test bench but they do produce consistent striking images…which is where the rubber meets the road.
I know this is a Zeiss mourning thread, but I couldn't see much difference between Batis 85 and Sony FE 85. I replaced my Batis 85 with Sigma 90 DG DN for its compact size, lightweight, elegant design and haptic feedback; the image quality is fantastic too. I certainly enjoy using it more than Batis. Batis just didn't work for me. It was a good lens, but that's the problem with Zeiss in general. Good is just not good enough when you have other as good or better choices available and often for cheaper.
Batis 135 images are a lot like images posted in Tamron 35-150; someone claimed earlier that Batis series was made my Tarmon, so maybe that's why. You can get better alternatives cheaper than Zeiss in almost every single category.
This is true for any of the brands' lens offerings. Is Tamron really special? Is Sony really special? Is Sigma really special?
Everyone will have their own opinions on that....... We see that almost daily...."I love the GM 85/1.4 rendering wide open"....."No, it's too soft, I like the Sigma 85/1.4 better as it's more well corrected and sharper wide open."
People who like Batis and/or Loxia lenses will probably continue like them, and those that like other lenses probably will continue to like those other lenses. People who have cost as the primary concern will probably continue to have cost as the primary concern.
Convincing someone that they should like something else is a tough row to hoe, especially for someone who already has 2 or 3 Batis (like a few of us on this thread) that they are happy with. For example, convincing them to buy the FE 85 may not make as much for that person as you might think, as having consistency with color between the other Batis lenses they have might matter more, etc.
And as for the Batis 135, it has OSS.....for the Tamron you rely on IBIS. Maybe it makes a difference for telephoto, maybe it doesn't. Maybe that is a plus for the Batis, or maybe it's a plus for the Tamron. Also, the Tamron 70-180 is longer.....whereas the Batis 135 fits in my backpack in a slot vertically and its lighter. Silly stuff like that matters to some people, just like cost, etc.
And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't get hung up on who designed a lens.
Anyway....no argument to your points, but everyone's shooting style and preferences will always get in the way of having some master consensus. (Which isn't a bad thing....) I don't think anyone here is saying people should run out and buy the Batis or Loxia lenses if they don't like them, don't need them, or like different lenses.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I know this is a Zeiss mourning thread, but I couldn't see much difference between Batis 85 and Sony FE 85. I replaced my Batis 85 with Sigma 90 DG DN for its compact size, lightweight, elegant design and haptic feedback; the image quality is fantastic too. I certainly enjoy using it more than Batis. Batis just didn't work for me. It was a good lens, but that's the problem with Zeiss in general. Good is just not good enough when you have other as good or better choices available and often for cheaper.
Batis 135 images are a lot like images posted in Tamron 35-150; someone claimed earlier that Batis series was made my Tarmon, so maybe that's why. You can get better alternatives cheaper than Zeiss in almost every single category. ...Show more →
chez wrote:
Yes today the race is all about sharpness right into the corners. I love my Batis and Zeiss ZE lenses…might not be the sharpest on the test bench but they do produce consistent striking images…which is where the rubber meets the road.
I'm with you Chez! I could not care less about price evolution, I just love the results my Batis and C/Y lenses give me.
Yes. I didn't mean to imply that people should or shouldn't buy Zeiss lenses. I just purchased some Loxia lenses myself. I was just discussing my generic thoughts on the state of Zeiss lenses in the current photography market.
tsdevine wrote:
This is true for any of the brands' lens offerings. Is Tamron really special? Is Sony really special? Is Sigma really special?
Everyone will have their own opinions on that....... We see that almost daily...."I love the GM 85/1.4 rendering wide open"....."No, it's too soft, I like the Sigma 85/1.4 better as it's more well corrected and sharper wide open."
People who like Batis and/or Loxia lenses will probably continue like them, and those that like other lenses probably will continue to like those other lenses. People who have cost as the primary concern will probably continue to have cost as the primary concern.
Convincing someone that they should like something else is a tough row to hoe, especially for someone who already has 2 or 3 Batis (like a few of us on this thread) that they are happy with. For example, convincing them to buy the FE 85 may not make as much for that person as you might think, as having consistency with color between the other Batis lenses they have might matter more, etc.
And as for the Batis 135, it has OSS.....for the Tamron you rely on IBIS. Maybe it makes a difference for telephoto, maybe it doesn't. Maybe that is a plus for the Batis, or maybe it's a plus for the Tamron. Also, the Tamron 70-180 is longer.....whereas the Batis 135 fits in my backpack in a slot vertically and its lighter. Silly stuff like that matters to some people, just like cost, etc.
And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't get hung up on who designed a lens.
Anyway....no argument to your points, but everyone's shooting style and preferences will always get in the way of having some master consensus. (Which isn't a bad thing....) I don't think anyone here is saying people should run out and buy the Batis or Loxia lenses if they don't like them, don't need them, or like different lenses.
Right, if they were selling like hotcakes.....Zeiss wouldn't be in the position it is in.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Yes. I didn't mean to imply that people should or shouldn't buy Zeiss lenses. I just purchased some Loxia lenses myself. I was just discussing my generic thoughts on the state of Zeiss lenses in the current photography market.
