DavidBM wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: DavidBM wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: LBJ2 wrote: SoundHound wrote:
135mm F2.8 is the same speed as the midrange of my 70-200 GM. I read somewhere that Zeiss can’t make a 135mm F2.0 cheap enough to sell. Even Canon charges $5600 for their 200 mm F2.0.
The best expedient seems to be the compact EF 135mm F2.0 which takes a 1.4x TC very well for a 189mm F2.8.
From my discussions with a couple of Zeiss reps, Zeiss had several internal discussions over F2.8 vs F2 for the Batis 135. F2 was indeed a serious consideration. The decision to go with F2.8 was further confirmed with early consumer tests where photographers were given a choice between Milvus 135/2 and Batis 135/2.8 and the majority chose the Batis 135 2.8. Ultimately sales will determine if F2.8 was the right decision or not.
Personally, I wanted F2. But once I started using the Batis F2.8, I forgot all about F2.
For marketing purposes, they should've compromised at f/2.4!
Next FL: 200mm
I have been using the 4/70-200 recently for dogs-in-action now that I have a body that actually tracks.
Works fine; but the sharpness at 200 is only OK and it's not fast enough.
I don't want to use a huge 2.8/70-200
I'd rather an immaculately grea and portablet 2.8/200 prime. There's a Tamron/Batis patent for such a thing (or was it 180?)
Bring it on....
I don't think anyone will complain that f/2.8 is too slow for a 200mm lens.
Just you wait!
I could have an f2.8 zoom: what's the point?
F 2.8! f 1.4 and under a kilo or I'm not in!
I have a 50mm lens that is f1.2 and I paid only $500 for it. Why should I pay two grand for an f2.8?
This thing weighs 800g ! Heavier than my f 1.4 85! Outrage!
etc...
We all different needs. I am one that wouldnt go for a 200mm 2.8 personally. If its going to be 2.8 then I rather just get the zoom and have the added flexibility. To each its own..
Dec 10, 2017 at 04:17 PM
Previous versions of GabrielPhoto's message #14284952 « Batis 135, is it a keeper? »
