Matt Granger (Click here) compared the Batis vs Otus 85mm lenses. Of course the [shoplink 38439 ebay]four times more expensive Otus lens[/shoplink] is a better lens. But how close does the new Batis get to it? Check it out on the video below:
And Mirrorlessons made a Batis 85mm vs 90mm macro vs 55mm f/1.8 comparison:
You will notice that the Zeiss Batis has a smoother bokeh and produces less of a “swirl” effect than the 90mm. But the latter looks good in terms of bokeh rendering too. Both are really sharp. The 55mm on the a6000 does a good job as well. It is slightly less sharp but this is also due to the lower resolution of the a6000. The bokeh is less smooth than the other two lenses but I like its rendering and it remains a more than valid choice for portraits.
Preorder links:
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).
168 Responses
Next time make the shooting session with a hot girl ! 😛
*With a cute one*
Ok, can we stop calling the Sony FE55 the mini Otus now?
It’s a mini 55mm Otus 🙂
Exactly. There is the Otus 55 and 85, now we have mini Otii for both.
As long there is no Batis 55 we will all call it the mini Otus 😉
Let’s call it short-Batis 🙂
my God… he could have shot a flower or anything, but now i had to see the face of that ugly fat fuck enlarged :<
I don’t know how the Mattgranger cropped images were made but its clear from those that the lenses are not the same, aside from the batis being at a wildly different focus point on the left image, the otus has MUCH better definition visible in this match up and EVEN the glint of light in the eye has a completely different contrast level. Further in the tests he shows the OOF close up of text and here the Otus is smoother. Is it that hard to understand that to have basic image quality one thing and extremely pleasing image quality quite another which requires careful balancing of those factors disregarded in the lesser priced lens and in respect of more expensive production for the improved one etc. If you don’t even require very good image quality wide open you may well easily beat those two on price and other factors, but that’s not really the point is it. Its coming to the time we should be shown best practices and usage of lenses rather than ourselves assumed naive. That way even if the lens is used badly we can estimate the ability of the reviewer from past tests and qualify anything remaining in doubt in our minds. But a misfocused comparison test of wide open definition on lenses which have that as a defining feature and regards cost, alone? hint: you surely can’t determine much overall from just close up tests and the like. Its also high time people appretiated the actual qualities of great rendering and definition because this way they only seem to appretiate great compromises to open wide sharpness and like Matt here, miss focus anyway defeating the cost/quality/sharp/rendering part of the equations anyway. Or at least, with a better idea of misfocused shot opportunites in the examples given could rate the lens on actual performance, OBVIOUSLY by a VERY competent shooter preferably. There are good lens testers online who show important factors and routinely for many lenses, so why is this sort of thing instead admissible?
I can’t keep pointing out all qualifying factors of proper image quality estimation, I want high quality in accordance with value to price, quite disregards the sort of thing these narrow qualifications made in these sort of ‘hands on reviews’ address.
Face on left turned, plane of focus lost, no fair test.
The comparison image are not so practical. But the Otus seems to be much sharper with better micro contrast
Download the ones on his webpage and look at them in LR at 100%. Much sharper is ridiculous. The Batis looks very very good, too and is very close for a much lower price. Glad I ordered it.
If Otus is *much* shaper, what word would you use when comparing Otus vs Canikon 85mm 1.8?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9669965965/otus-readings-the-zeiss-85-f-1-4-otus-comparison
(I am too lazy getting RAW-files to LR – but according to Matt, the Otus is better than the Batis and the Batis is (way) better than Canikon 85mm 1.2/1.4)
Didn’t I say that? And DP says so too.
Does it surprise anyone that longer lens produces smoother out of focus areas and transitions from in-focus to out of focus than shorter one?
bs, contrary, medium teles should be easier to get sharp and have smooth rendering still.
Thanks for constructive response.
You are unwelcome for being the ones to now make a near insoluble problem worse, and we are watching you do it now for regards later.
Oh man, I forgot, it’s you, the one with hard to read comments – giving up straight away at this point.
Hahaha, he is quite famous around here. Reading his comment needs a decoder to decipher what it actually means
I find them quite entertaining, at least the ones I can decipher.
IKR, But till this day I don’t understands what he wrote or trying to express.
Don’t antagonise me, I’m the best photographer. Now regards their comment, notice that they rejected the dimensional quality oof rendering produces in considering the Zeiss 55 1.8 a match used on APSC. That’s what the hexx was afterall. FAIL. No dimensionality in those ones at all.
NO contrast drop off and no meaningful contrast in the whole image either. Contrast = light to dark and thats how we see dimensionality in a flat image at all, more than most factors in a photograph.
Don’t go with their bs because you go against the best photographer in doing so.
You said something important about this which was interesting, note that it applies here, they don’t know that even with the master photographers whole research monitored. I don’t put the lens testing onto PC either.
Vintage well selected lenses on A7R cam at lower ISO’s and in good lighting=too good.
Reading comprehension skills on your part are the ones that need illuminated observation 😉
IlluminatedObserver you forgot to take your pills.
Sentences are getting shorter??
Yes you are the best photographer alright~ One of a kind actually which you can’t find else where.
I am the best. That doesn’t make what I must do easy. I also have very limited time to get established. I can criticize all found images, few if any would be so great as to not be criticized. I however will produce photographically ideal photos and with artistry of course, all in good time.
I haven’t come across anyone who knows the basics even, as I do. In three years learning, self teaching from scratch and with NO subject to use 35mm camera on at all, or by which to select lenses, but I still did. Using my instinct. Incidentally, I will start to address the matter of great manual focus control of lenses being of up most importance soon, you lazy AF users have had your fun now, you are only going to abuse it beyond this point.
Oh great and the best photographer, do enlighten us with your works or profile thus we may be bless with the holiness of your divine work with absolute awe and respect.
I am, like I said, I can criticize all photos, I am therefore the best. I can make better, I have natural talent like no one else for photography: I learnt it all in three years, what no one else knows, and is basic to it.
I always knew I had talent, but through application must it be found, I found photography and I can finally apply it. So that’s a lifetime of not giving up and learning what matters.
So show us your great master piece then oh great one or I must say they have Internet access on mental institute nowadays and are accessible to all patient~XD
They don’t allow it.
Regardless I am working on my web presence too and if anything bad happened I might lose that and it cost more than all your camera gear put together and could not be got again.
Careful oh great one, don’t allow the male nurse to discover your quest to save the photographic world with your great born talent, they will stop you at all cost~XD
Analog photography stopped me, digital freed me and of course my understanding of such things I developed over a long period.
Now you have to live with the fact there is a real master of photography, in digital photography.
Who dares to stop the all mighty observer of illumination. They shall be punished~!!!
Yes. I don’t like to be punished for it, for instance, in making a theme of say native american, can’t you reduce it to something in of itself symbolic to you and meaningful rather than just meme?
My specialism if it can be considered that will be portrait and of that, related to fashion. do you know fashion? I’m learning that too, fast.
I can’t comprehend your great words oh holy one, maybe normal English please?
Your work with native american theme has a subject which was covered by a great photographer once, did you know that?
Edward Sheriff Curtis
Now whatever his particular prejudices or ignorance, he produced great photography, will you likewise?
Because whatever it was that drove him to shoot like he did, drives me too, and modernism. So expect great things from me. I simply haven’t got time to study the history of photography and a glance through recent history proves to me I need not study that at all.
Perhaps you do not need to study photography, but you truly do need to study how t write…please believe me, yhat is the greatest of truths…
Learn to wright…
With that skill you can
COMMUNICATE
And perhaps also become the master of communication.
And there would be no need to show us your greatness…you would be able to
TELL US!
yes, learn to write..that secret could perhaps be even greater than…42.
Everyone considering mastering photography, don’t learn to write ‘properly’ if you don’t do so naturally, in school? don’t. Focus instead on the missing link: the visual, and true meaning, find the real meaning of scientific discovery and its use as pleasing and effective but otherwise somewhat meaningless, a pointer in time and a reference only to the true nature of things. Learn to speak, not to write. Reevaluate everything, and unlearn what you are ‘educated’ with. Don’t go to school, or higher education if you can avoid it, if you have a family willing to support you properly and all willing to confront councils and the law and personal attacks on your superior understanding: compulsory education is a human right. Yeah right…
Those who know nothing must protect themselves from that fact right? well that’s the antagonism against getting into photography in general. I am a master, how do I show it without also showing that antagonism? Coders, avoid all anonymous groups and if you do anything DO something, don’t become like these people, positively discriminating and false.
So you are
THE MISSING LINK
That explains much.
I had that conflict of detail and close viewing, with expression and composition on the other hand, I went through abstraction to resolve it, like many, but also other art forms in combination, latterly video, and now do still photography, this answers all those problems, its VERY high resolution already and I suppose would need to be far greater to match those giant paintings of old: medium or large format?
The problem for photographers would be capturing meaningful description with ANY quality of camera and lens. i know how and even think to do that, I am the master photographer. I liked screen printing and mixed media on top of that, the screen printing is fast and can render many different ways, some photographic looking in fact. I liked that a lot, which is why I might say I am a printmaker, and found immediately the application of my experimental processes in digital relation to it, and music etc etc.
Sorry Barry – this time I will help the llluminatedObserver:
A picture says more than 1000 words – and he is BEST photographer 🙂
“Learn to wright…” Brilliant.
After learning to wright – I guess you can fly !!!!…..
fligh not fly 🙂 If you don’t misstype it, he will not understand…
Right + Write = Epic Win
You mean you are Edward Sheriff Curtis?
If so, can I get an autograph with the native American pint as a gift? It will be a great addition with the rest of my native American headdress collection.
Edward Sheriff Curtis worked with heavy analog gear. I will be using light digital gear, and hopefully medium format soon too, from Sony.
Aww, that’s a let down~ Yeah, MF sounds good. Pentax 645Z?
That has a smaller frame size than the older glass covers. And I want it for shallow depth of field and rendering quality, so If you can prove the likes of leica cameras and more importantly digital 35mm cameras and lenses match the most shallow and best rendered of medium format please do.
Ah I see~
If you were a really smart photographer, you would recognize that Sony would make a medium format camera without any real compromise, seeing as it would have EVF and interchangeable compact form factor most likely and otherwise perhaps a fantastic fixed focal length lens, which it would be if it were normal or just wider. Compromises after that fact may be price relative to the A7 line but presumably less expensive than anything similar, and more compact too: just like their new 35mm A7 cams compared to previous nex APSC. That cam would beat all 35mm sensor cameras by way of the images it produced.
You would also recognize all photography stuffs ahead of time, like me, and this 90mm for portrait for instance. Or the A7Rii and all its new functionality. If you were a real master and truth teller you would be repeated in the headlines having been banned for what you said before.
The politicals with no identity or photography. Both means you lose the masters voice.
IKR, why don’t they make one since they already made the MF sensor for Hassy, Pentax, PhaseOne, etc. For the new mount and lens wise, they can use back the strategy they used on E mount…
Make it modular and we might have a very versatile system.
But yeah, I don’t expect to be much in this field , not even a real photography in mind because last time during high school time I started and joined a photo club just to skip classes and avoid other sport activities, and during college time, I use photography just to get to know show girls at trade shows (Most Epic time evar!)… I’m not that passionate about photography to be frank because I know it is not my thing and I really have no impulse to do shooting
And speaking of 90mm , I used to use a Tamron 90mm Macro for portraiture works~ (which is a 135mm on an APS-C during last time)Those where the good old days and here is one I made before. Haha, don’t laugh or get too serious , this is just another armature stuff~XD
http://s30.postimg.org/ohquj27hd/4203552190_36f9fbe098_o_singular4.jpg
This is from a while back when my editing was still a bit crude.
(Hint: avoid looking at the eye)
Regards your image, I must say that vintage glass will surely be most important for lots of my portraits though we shall see 🙂
I almost envisage having a line of them going to bad and trying them until I go to near the end for the right level of rendering quality.
I have plenty of really good ones. Ever tried a normal lens on tele adapter? I may try that out too, it makes for different effects.
The picture is edited? I thought I was straight out of a camera~!? I didn’t notice the eye till you mentioned it. I must say your editing skill it simply master gradely top notch~ It should be hang in the Lourve, right over Monalisa~!!!
Can I have a special autograph of yours on this master piece ? I will send you the mailing address later!
I think he’s trying to communicate with us.
Now that kinda make sense
You can critisize all photos therefore you are the best and the master.
I can critisize you…therefore that must make me the best of the best, and the master of the master….
But then again lots of people critisize me…
I’m so confused…
Criticizing images, not opinion, and criticizing with an understanding that perhaps often surpasses the original maker, to attribute better practices to that situation even retrospectively without resorting to ‘changing the weather’ etc. That’s what I can do with some understanding of a medium, and of photography, in film it would be trickier at the moment, not least because of budget constraints and so on incurred by subject matter and context, and finding best practices from making films myself etc My photographic opinion is possibly the most valuable online, and would set up interesting counter arguments like: well some don’t need to go online to sell their ideas etc etc. Whereas I don’t need qualifications, I am objectively the master already. Remember, I am not a reviewer and I am doing what I must do to progress, that is good all round, and valuable for its objectivity, you are not objective, you don’t see value and require qualifications that actually negate meaning of objective theory and practices in demonstration.
You can change the wheather…WOW!
I can change my clothing.
I can independently change colours as in hues, of an image, such as paintings, for the best ones aesthetically.
We can go one better than that, and discuss photography business operations, unless we only consider proof or provisionally only with reference to a salary in photography at all. My qualification against that would be that my ideas are themselves worth more than a salary proves and that all such arguments are futile. I can state what I later prove that way too anyway, and the implication would be that I have proven the status quo accepted for that proof, entirely wrong and mastery more general than even photography- perhaps business operation also. That’s something we can qualify even closer by addressing what it is that is wrong in my ideas and statements that later prove most correct. that’s in part how iv’e already proven my mastery of photography for those able to truly understand photography.
3 years learning and self teaching, and you are a master photographer and the best there is..oh master.
And acording to you…taking pictures is really difficult..oh master
You knew nothing about any of the macro options, have never done any of them own and have used virtually no equipment except the most basic inexpensive equipment…..oh master.
Have complex problematic solutions for problems that have long ago been solved and have simple solutions….oh master
but you are completely unaware of the simple solutions….oh master.
But I seem to be forgetting..you are the master of course…oh master.
Perhaps if I jumble up this comment more you will find it easier to read…oh master.
Of course no one knows the basics as you do, but based on you cryptic confusing comments you don’t know the basics…oh master.
No, shooting is easy. Invented a solution to THE age old problem in photography. I have another simple CHEAP way too to solve that, I’m just not saying (I could use it on my trips to New York). Correct, no one I have come across knows the basics of photography, only cinematographers seem to know anything. Did I mention i’m interested in that too? you can learn a lot now easily or a lot later with more difficulty, but most likely not at all ever, and almost certainly, were it without me. I have realized over this short time that to master something is to be a master more generally. In my case a master artist, and as I say, moving into cinema seemingly, gradually and progressively. I always criticize what I watch its just I don’t generally use conventional structure in art, however in film I think I find conventional structures I could actually work with. Survival/exploitation/horror etc. However, ironically i recently witnessed the reverse, that in fact assumptions are made by cinema people regards still and its from that I suppose I must suppose I’m master of all, at least lay people such as yourselves and not knowledgeable directors or engineers etc. more than that Its fair to assume the readership who post are ignorant regards great photography practice, sorry but its true. I spend a lot on it for best gear and would spend more if I had it and will do in future, however you don’t even respect those who buy and consider just for pleasure! your excuses are fast running out to start learning and demonstrating greater knowledge and simple understanding to provide basis for instructive opinions on gear.
Your too late…the answer to life , the universe and everthing has already been found…it is…
42
You keep saying you have very limited time
How much time?
Why so little time?
And what happens when that time runs out?
Having my own family as it is now. I owe no one anything, I simply provide great source of understanding for those who can use it, freely online for the moment. I hate politics and positive discrimination so I am bucking those trends too, by it. Objective photography, mastery, masters, all good 😀 My keyboard is at a 90 degree angle and has been last week, I still posted relatively well, you are all just failing photography and mastery of it. The ruiners are responsible for all the bad and none of any good, that sole good I try even to just present here directly. They are like police and corrupted government, never become an anarchist, become a master.
That means none of them.
Why do you assume there is an actual meaning?
I didn’t look at other review and I know why you referred to it. NO Sony A7 cams. We know.
YES~!!! I didn’t notice it till you mention it. Maybe I’m not a bokeh guy but this is very interesting find, Same focal length, Same Aperture but different level of blur.
124mm Otus + ~20mm Adapter = 144mm
vs.
92 mm Batis
52mm difference
so at roughly 3m distance
Otus:
http://www.qpic.ws/images/screenshot20150714at133247.png
Batis:
http://www.qpic.ws/images/screenshot20150714at133853.png
Does this really make a difference in Bokeh ? I seriously have no experience.
Isn’t subject distance the distance from the sensor to the subject?
Still not an expert but I think it is the distance to the nodal point of the lens. So, yes, this is only an estimate since I do not know the difference of both lenses in this respect.
I don’t think it matters.
The two DOF figures you got from your calculations would make very little difference to the background. We’re talking millimetres here.
That is correct. Olry is going off on a completely incorrect tangent.
You’re way off base. The adapter is used to maintain the flange focal distance.
They’re both 85mm lenses.
Your attention to detail is unmatched…
@11mins into the vid he did some tests with the sunlight… just wondering, isnt that going to damage the sensor? you are pretty much magnifying the light on the sensor and it could burn?
Good question, I was asking myself the same…
(Maybe a DSLR can, because Sensor is dark most time, but not a mirrorless)
I vote for the 90mm macro.
I vote for 85mm Batis!
Smaller, Faster & Leightweight ! (Yeah – sounds like a Ferrari vs Pickup comparison)
BTW: If I use Batis with Macro-Extension-Tubes and a DIY lens-cap with a small hole, do I get then equal macro capabilities as with the 90mm???
The 85 has such a low magnification to begin with, you’ll hardly ever reach 1:1.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
You’ll just need to reach 85 mm of tubes… Three sets of 10mm + 16mm will do the job.
Matt Granger reached with some Macro-tubes 38mm side to side distance (video 3:17). That is almost 1:1 on a 36mm wide sensor. Batis specs similar to the tested 85mm1.4G lens regarding macro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EabLpntSMhk
why lens-cap with a hole?
To stop it further down to something like f32-f40 for widening the DoF.
You will only introduce vignetting, not stopping down more. And if you want more DOF, better use focus stacking instead of destroying your image.
I thought, it should reduce vignetting… I will try it on a manual lens.
What is focus stacking?
You use multiple frames with the focus pointed moved and combine them after http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5717972844/focus-stacking-in-macro-photography
Even with a good macro, f16 is about as far as you want to push it… If you’re looking into stacking, invest in a decent tripod and head, then follow a guide. Good one here http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/focus-stacking-made-easy-with-photoshop–photo-12621
Personally I prefer the creative solution and rarely go above f8 though.
I’m almost sure 85/1.8 batis will cover FF with aperture in front of it, because it’s a symmetrical fast lens. if it was slow retrofocus, it would surely not.
I`m interested Is Sony planning release some APSC lenses with a7000 premiere?
I start to like that FE 90 even more than the Batis. The 85 has such a long mfd, seems limiting to me. Also, I like the Bokeh of the Macro, including that swirly look.
I went for the 90mm macro because, well, I need a macro.
But that swirly bokeh crap will definitely not be welcomed.
Well, if you look at the Batis wide open, a little swirlyness can be seen too.
I got bitten by the adapter bug whole I was waiting for this – if you can live with MF there are some amazing vintage macro lenses out there…
Give it time. I actually enjoy some swirliness. In any case, it is mostly visible on specific backgrounds, such as foliage. Overall, it shouldn’t be much of an issue.
It may not work for you, but 2.6 feet MFD is in line with other 85’s. The Nikon G is the same and the Canon 1.8 is a little longer at 2.8. Bokeh is subjective, but IMO it looks better on the Batis and 1.8 makes the background much creamier.
But everyone’s needs or vision is different. Both look like excellent lenses, IMO you really can’t go wrong with either. I’m going the Batis w/extension tubes as I don’t shoot much macro. YMMV.
I can only second that.
Right now I’m waiting for the other lenses to get announced, maybe Sony is gonna throw out another 85 (an even faster, unstabilized one) or a 135 and then I will decide. Not that it would make it any easier… 🙂
This is where individual shooting styles and prime preferences stand out – I’ve owned the 135L and found the working distance to be awkward. I was always too close or too far away, so I settled on 35/85 as my main primes. 50 is another awkward FL for me – not wide enough outside or not enough reach inside. 135 is a gaping hole in the FE lineup though, hopefully Sony or Zeiss fills it quickly.
90 Macro it is then.
I had a chance to try the 90mm macro for portraits and felt that the wide-open bokeh was quite good (especially for a macro!)
It’s definitely good for a modern macro, but the bokeh on the Tokina 90/2.5 won me over in the end (which has the advantage of being the sharpest lens I’ve ever used wide open).
90mm is too short for macro, 2.8 is a little slow for portraits, so what’s the point then? 🙂
I guess it depends on the type of portraits you’re shooting but for the headshots I took I found that f2.8 was almost too shallow. I likely would have shot them around f4 except that I wanted to see what the quality of blur was like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mars_observer/18571098424/in/dateposted-public/
Some fairly killer pics you’ve got there. Nice mix of subjects. Portraits aren’t over edited either.
Very nice portraits, and subjects!! A tad too much usm for my taste tho.
http://s1.postimg.org/sk5mso9v3/Image_from_Photistoric_and_edited_without_permis.jpg
Medium Format please Sony! 😀
Great portrait – Sony employs great models 🙂
Great portrait – Sony employs great models 🙂 That was a head shot though… For a full body f4 may not give enough separation, especially if the background is close. My little sweeties:
Otus 85 @ f/1.4: https://flic.kr/p/rWNZew https://flic.kr/p/qjCF7B https://flic.kr/p/qfdYpx. I don’t mind if next year Zeiss will make another “Otus 85+” f/1.2 🙂
135 f/2 APO @ f/2: https://flic.kr/p/vKJLs1. I wouldn’t go further than f/2 in this shot for sure.
Disqus changes the resolution so the pics may not look sharp, but they are: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maximenco/
2.8 is plenty fast for a portrait, young padawan.
For a headshot, young padawan. But you won’t use a 90 mm for headshots unless you are a very very young baby padawan or aiming for a slightly distorted image.
I repeat. 2.8 is plenty fast for a portrait.
It’s not nice to copy your master, padawan.
Your “repeat” doesn’t sound too convincing padawan, if that’s all you got, go back to your master. Do you think the f/1.4 lenses are made just for lulz?
I thought you would be smart enough to realize. Just stop and read now.
1.4 lenses made for better image quality stopped down or when it’s low light.
LOL. I shoot the Otus wide open, am I doing it wrong? Go back to school padawan.
Sigh I hope you have a caretaker at home because you can’t read.
Looks like I’m done here.
“Just stop and read now.” =/
That was a nice conversation! 🙂
Repeating the same line over again is not an effective way of defending your statements or explaining yourself.
Not sure what exactly am I repeating. I don’t feel I need to continue this conversation after reading “1.4 lenses made for better image quality stopped down or when it’s low light.” statement, that sounds pretty much like a clinical diagnose for Wesley: terminal stupidity. People don’t buy Otus-like lenses to shoot stopped down, I hope that’s obvious and doesn’t require much explanation.
Of course, I’m surprised Zeiss bothered to include an aperture ring. Nobody is going to use it. 😉
@ f/5.6 you won’t see much difference, so why really bother to buy an Otus if you can have the same for less? http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9669965965/otus-readings-the-zeiss-85-f-1-4-otus-comparison
Well some people like to do more than one thing with a lens.
I hope those people would also appreciate the versatility a wider aperture can provide 😉
*** 1.4 lenses made for better image quality stopped down or when it’s low light. ***
You just won a title $$$ Ret@rd of the Month $$$. Congrats!!!!!!!!!!
I indeed won that title if I’m wrong but too bad I’m not, sorry haha.
At least you’re not the dumbest one around Oleg 😉
Wesley, I don’t think we need to continue this conversation. Keep shooting your cheap crappy glass at f/9 and enjoy the results 😉
Still bitter judging by the false remark. Oh well.
I’ve shot 90mm full body at f4 and that was really good bokeh…
I’d say that 90mm is just right for macro on full frame if you’re shooting with flash. It’s close enough to the subject that a hotshoe flash on a bracket can provide nice illumination (positioned above the subject, with plenty of diffusion). You get harsher highlights and less natural looking lighting with a direct head-on flash, and it’s hard to avoid that with a longer macro lens.
In my opinion a longer lens is only preferable for macro if you’re shooting in natural light with a tripod/monopod, so shorter macro lenses definitely have their place.
I tried the Sony 100mm Macro with a regular flash and it was just too close for insects at 1:1. Also ended up buying an on-lens flash (Metz MS15) because the camera body was dropping some shadow if I use a regular flash. It wasn’t a good experience at the end so I sold both and got the Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO, and that one provides enough distance to do not scary insects and do not drop shadow from a flash gun (I stick to the smaller F43M, the F60M isn’t very reliable in a long run). Well, that was my experience – I know plenty of folks shoot macros around of 100mm and feel quite happy 🙂
180mm is more ideal for Macro work if you’re shooting insects and other creatures. 90mm is way too short for most uses.
I have Otus 85 and ZA85. The ZA is much closer to the Otus, bokeh, color, contrast, sharpness, than what I see here for the Batis. ZA has identical neutral color balance to the Otus, and both match the ZA135 perfectly as well.
The Batis warmer color reminds me of my Tamron zooms. It’s rich and flattering but can get hyper saturated in the greens. Otus, ZA, and Minolta primes keep the greens neutral.
Ridiculous. This is a crop of the full size image posted by Matt Granger.
What do you want to tell us? Looks like 400% crop on my monitor.
That’s 100%. I checked matt’s website. He might have tweak the size of this picture. I don’t know why he called this full size sample either.
I downloaded the files on M. Grangers website (6000×4000) and compared in LR. The size shown above is more than 400% in LR on my McBook. Did he use different files? Other than that, the Batis looks excellent.
I haven’t looked through his review yet. Resolution is definitely stunning. What camera he used for this?
How big are the files you downloaded ? It’s a 1.6mb on his website from what I found.
So what? I know it is not raw. But I can generate similar files with my D750 and 85/1.8g for comparison and I know it is not as sharp and has more CAs wide open than the Batis. The Nikon is a great lens, but the Batis is better (should for the larger price). Furthemore, you have a similarly generated OTUS file for comparison. Not perfect, but useful for me.
Do you think a human’s eyes really look like that ?
If the eyes look like that what can you learn about the lens ?
Nothing.
Ridiculous.
Are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally?
Do you understand the concept of a 100% crop?
It’s a 1.6mp file. Do you understand what a full size crop is ?
File size has nothing to do with this.
A full size crop is a crop from a full resolution file (6000×4000 in this case). They are usually presented at 100%, so that 1:1 pixel level viewing is possible.
I don’t know if you simply lack basic knowledge or you are being intentionally dishonest (your past doesn’t do you any favours here), but that sample you posted above is over 400%, which is why it is so pixelated.
The attached crop is 100%.
The light is different on both portraits, and while the Otus (the dude’s right eye) looks clearly sharper, it’s really hard to compare both shots also due to the huge amount of JPEG compression artifacts. The whole comparison worth nothing at the end.
DPR has recently published a great and _usable_ 85mm test on the 5dsr and the 810: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9669965965/otus-readings-the-zeiss-85-f-1-4-otus-comparison, but without the Batis.
I would call Batis Tamronis as a poor’s man Otus, I think it deserves this title 🙂
I’m not quite sure why these comparisons are done in such a fashion. With this type of portrait example you are mostly shooting within 10 feet of your subject- maybe closer. It’s fairly easy to pull out a lot of detail beyond a 100 percent crop with most ILC’s and a decent prime. There should be more variance in the distance to subject to judge overall sharpness IMO.
The ZA has a quite heavy CA 😉
It does, but it’s also “dirt cheap” now slightly used and still has all those other characteristics Zeiss is known for.
Yep, the ZA is a great “classic” lens, and it’s f/1.4.
The A7RII is giving me less reason to buy into FE lenses. I mean, cost wise there is a ton of value of in A mount glass right now. FE Bodies- sure. As far as glass, I’m now considering the 24 zeiss and 24-70 2.8 SSM. For what I can get these lenses for I just can’t complain. I think they’re built better as well.
Why not the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L? I’ve heard it’s best in the class (I don’t have it though).
I just thought about the 85mm ZA – seems like Sony needs to make another adapter to AF those screw driven lenses if the SLT-based EA4 isn’t considered cool anymore, something like EA3 but with a motor.
Never thought about it, but I like to be able to still use them natively on my Sony A mount bodies. I’d probably sell this A7 I have if it wasn’t for a wedding I have coming up- two actually. I mostly shoot using the A77II and 50 and 135 Zeiss. Works for me at least. Anyway, I also want the 70-400 SSMII. All the lenses I want are still in A mount. I’ve seen that 85 go for under 700 and I wish I had bought it 4 months ago.
That’s correctable. Color wise, for non professional it could difficult to tune them to match.
“…due to the lower resolution of the a6000”. And they’re reviewing the lenses…
Hong Kong area is already shipped. I got my Batis 85mm F1.8 today, very fast, very light
https://www.flickr.com/photos/58521449@N00/sets/72157653539572034
Nice. What’s your take on the build? Is the body all aluminum?
seems the whole body are Aluminum, but the hood is totally plastic
Wondering about AF speed compared to FE 1.4/35.
must faster than fe35/1.4 a lot
How much battery life does that electronic display use? =o
May I ask what is the street price in HK?
The new fe bodies also have a slightly different color rendering. I personally favors the old lineups.
IMO even if the otus is 4 times more expensive and very praised, i find the images from Otus too much bright compared to Batis. I prefer warm colours than bright ones even if it makes the images less natural.
around 0.9 x 1199
free with B+W filter, as Hong Kong has no import taxes, the price usually is much more cheaper
My B&H pre order now says Mid August.
I thought the Bokeh looked decent on the Batis until you compare it to the OTUS or the Canon 85mm 1.2.