Diglloyd (Click here) is the first blogger having the chance ot test both new Batis lenses. And his first conclusion is unmistakably favorable:
Both the Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2 Distagon and 85mm f/1.8 Sonnar are must-haves for the serious Sony shooter. I intend to buy my own set along with the new Sony A7R II. I suspect that the Zeiss Batis lenses will be in very high demand just as has been the case with the Zeiss Loxia lenses.
Both Batis lenses are now available for preorder in USA and Europe (UK/Germany)
Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 lens in US at Adorama, Bhphoto. In Eu at Amazon DE, WexUK. In Asia at Digitalrev.
Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2.0 lens at Adorama, Bhphoto. In EU at Amazon DE, WexUK. In Asia at Digitalrev.
In Europe and Asia the Loxias can be found in Stock via [shoplink 36456 ebay]eBay sellers (Click here)[/shoplink] and Digitalrev (Click here).
32 Responses
You can’t be serious if you don’t use Batis.
Waiting for the Batis 135mm f/1.8
I’m more of a whimsical Sony shooter myself…
what about the rest? I read on b&H reviews of the 24-70 are not consistent. Some are saying at 24 that distortion is real bad and at 70 it’s just ok….Some people are very happy some gave them a low rating.
24-70 is an ok lens, nothing else. It’s certainly not at the level of Sony A-mount 24-70 SSM II F2.8.
If I were to switch then I’d get all primes 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 do you you know if the 70-200 E mount is any good?
It is good, great in good light, not so great in lowlight due to maximum aperture of f4. If have one along with the FE28/2, FE35/1.4 and FE55/1.8 and the FE 70-200 G is my favourite lens to amble about with.
The Batis 85/1.8 will hopefully be my last E-mount purchase for a long time, because this lot is starting to add to up to real money.
It’s very good and 16-35 is very good too. The thing is it adds up quickly and is a lot of serious money: A7R II for $3200 body and $3700 for 3 lenses you mentioned (FE55, Batis 85 and FE70-200). Altogether almost $7000. Too damn expensive.
Yea, because D810 with 85 f1.4, 70-200 f4 and 50 1.4 Art is so much cheaper. And the Nikon has better video, stabilized primes and the ability to shoot with PDAF with A and EF lenses using a simple electronic adapter. Sony is such a fail.
I’ve been using one for a few days now, and while it’s not the very sharpest lens, I very much enjoy the color, contrast, and focus rendition. The overall look surpasses anything else I own.
Nice to know. Sharpness certainly isn’t the be all and end all. What are you comparing it with?
Admin: Any new rumors on the a6/7xxx? Do you think there will be an announcement this month as the previous rumors told? or do you think now with the rx10/100 and a7r2 announcement that the rumored a6/7xxx announcement will come later this/next year? Don`t see the point to not announce the camera at the same time as the other three, if all of them was planned for this month.
Thank goodness I’m not a serious Sony shooter so I’ll get by with a single super prime and maybe an off-shoot lens that’s widely unpopular.
Why do you choose the 85/1.4 and 50/1.4? To make Nikon look more expensive? I would stick to the same f-stop when comparing lenses.The 85/1.8g is excellent (how it realtes to the Batis remains to be seen), the 50/1.8g is very good but not in the same league with the 55/1.8. But is is still acceptable for many situations, see for example: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3858881 and the link therein. Nikons 70-200/4 is excellent value for the money and was tested better. Nevertheless, I find the A7rii very intriguing and will buy one iff the AF is living up to the hype (e.g. people claim Canon AF as fast as with native Canon bodies; so far these are anecdotes as long as there is no serious review available).
So you say the 50 1.8G does not compare to the ZA 55 1.8 but my choice is still biased because of that 0.66 stops difference? Gimme a break. I obviously chose lenses that are comparable in the real world and not some spec sheet.
If you can’t tell by all those samples online that the 85 1.8G and the Batis are totally different lenses apart from specs, then why even bother with 42mp? Could just as well use any APS-C body with decent lenses. No full frame but so what? Still good (or ‘acceptable’ as you might say) in most situations.
Would be great to know what the other 8 lenses are before I throw any money at these Batis.
Me too. I want this 85, but I keep hearing about the 1.4 version with better quality build. I want to get that if its coming. Otherwise, this one is fine. The plastic kind of turns me off a bit.
I’d say it is quite certain there will be a 85/1.4 very similar to the 35/1.4. They already denied the f/1.2, but you never know.
I’m personally more interested in an f/1.8 or f/2 as long as the IQ is as good as the Nikkor 85/1.8G and the rendering/colors/bokeh as good as the other Zeiss primes.
I dont mind 1.8. Its good enough for me. Im just afraid of paying 1k for plastic and it breaks on me. Id pay 2k just for metal
Based on what I’ve seen thus far these two lenses are markedly unremarkable. I would much rather see an 85 built on the design as the Sony/Zeiss 1,4 35mm
Absolutely, I don’t know if its possible to make an 85/1.4 or 135/2 in the same size as the 35/1.4, but that would be great. On the other hand, it really is the maximum size and weight I would go for… I sometimes rather pack in the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8.
Well I absolutely agree with you on those two lenses at the very end. Especially the 55 as sometimes Sony/Zeiss nails it just right.
“Must have” with 3% distortion on a 85mm lens at 1200$ ? Yeah…Maybe Yongnuo should use the same pricetag on their lens, it will be a must-have too.
3% pincussion distortion on the Batis. There went my urgent need to jump on that lens.
Patiently waiting for a Loxia 85/105/135mm announcement (fingers crossed for an 85mm). Not going to bother with the Batis line as the first hands-on reviews and samples have failed to impress me.
+ Loxia 35/1.4 Distagon please!
the new german page with extended trailor is online 🙂
http://www.zeiss.de/camera-lenses/de_de/website/landing_pages/batis.html
For me a comparison needs to be done according to similar maximum f-stops, otherwise we can find a multitude of weird arguments to make a choice supporting ones beliefs. Why not go for an Otus directly? We all know that faster lenses are larger, heavier and more expensive. My guess is a Batis 85/1.4 would be at least 1700 Euros, for example. The new 35/1.4 is a different beast, too, compared to a 35/2.8 or 35/2 Loxia, in size and price. A Sigma 35/1.4 seems to be at least as good, at half the price, according to the reviews I have seen so far. A 50/1.8 is optically not as good as a 55/1.8 (corners lack wide open, center is very good), but still better than expected by many, and that for an extremely low price, so I would stick with it unless I need ultimate quality and use the Sigma.
The 55/1.8 is for me the surprise in quality in Sony’s lens lineup. The 85/1.8g is a fine lens and in my opinion the difference to the Batis will be not that large optically, it is even sharper than the 85/1.4g. I have it and we use it professionally on the D810. Very sharp even wide open, with, for me, a nice rendering, too. Let the Zeiss be a bit better (in real world usage I guess this difference will not be as pronounced as you imply it), but for 1/3 of the price what is there to complain? The samples at diglloyd or here at SAR were not that much superior to what I am used to. The samples were even criticized by many for not showing the potential of the lens or being underwhleming. So unless I don’t see more, I would be careful. Nevertheless, I will buy it and I am looking forward to compare it with my 85/1.8g.
‘We all know that faster lenses are larger, heavier and more expensive’
Yes, with all other optical parameters equal that is. Which happens so often in the real world (like, never). Those engineers at Sigma must be really retarded for designing such a huge, heavy and complex lens just for the boring spcs of a 50 1.4 right? And what’s up with that crazy Nikkor 58 1.4. Better buy a cheap Canon.
Aperture size dictates the minimum size and cost of a lens. Nothing more. That’s the truth that seemingly no one remebers these days.
On the one hand you say lenses should be priced according to glass quantity/quality and then you complain that a Zeiss lens with several special glass elements should be priced comparably to a Nikkor with 100% ordinary optical glass and no aspherics because ‘everyone on the internet says the Zeiss is disappointing’. Does that make any sense?
“On the one hand you say lenses should be priced according to glass quantity/quality and then you complain that a Zeiss lens with several special glass elements should be priced comparably to a Nikkor with 100% ordinary optical glass and no aspherics because ‘everyone on the internet says the Zeiss is disappointing’.”
Did you read my comment, or where is this coming from? Never said anything like this. I think this is a misrepresentation since I didn’t intend to say anything like this. I don’t care whether the Batis has this an that aspherical element. For the price it should deliver. _My_ comparison/reference for this lens is the 85/1.8g. It is similar in size and weight, as well as light gathering. My guess is the Batis is very good and that’s why I buy it (and I need a portrait lens for my A7ii). Nevertheless, the “ordinary” Nikon 85/1.8g, used by many professionals and raved in reviews will hold its own in my opinion.
So now that 3D-Kraft has published 85 1.8G with 85 1.8 Batis, what do you think? Apart from sharpness I don’t see much of a similarity between these two lenses. But I guess if sharpness and maximum f-stop is your only criteria, the Zeiss won’t offer you much more except for OS. Personally I’d strongly prefer the Zeiss because of the better axial correction resulting in much better clarity and OOF rendering (for me).
I think it to be very good. My downside with the 85/1.8g was CAs. The samples I downloaded showed these to be minimal (especially around difficult areas like hair). Contrast is slightly improved, too and OOF rendering is a little better (difficult to judge, however, since the focus point and view changed slightly). Sharpness is equal for me. The Batis is not leaps and bounds better, but I like it. As we use these lenses professionally, I will definitely not cancel my preorder. M. Granger criticized the AF performance compared to DSLRs, however, he used the A7r which is definitely slower than the A7ii I currently use. My only problem is, after looking at the samples, I want the 25/2 now, too.