Zeiss Loxia is a full frame lens, not APS-C. I think the Batis is a perfect lens for Sony ff cameras. Sony are making tremendous strides in the market and I love their cameras. The a7s is brilliant. There's no other way to describe it. I do think the Otus are not a reasonable acquisition for just about anyone so comparisons are great for benchmarking but not particularly relevant as a purchasing decision. I use my Nikkor 85mm 1.4D on the a7s and the results are simply smashing. I'll be purchasing the Batis to compare though. Thanks for the review. Glad to see you're doing well.
Thanks for the review. It's nice to see someone who isn't primarily a mirrorless shooter review these cameras and lens combinations. It really does help determine if this system is what I am looking for. Can't wait to see that Otus vs. Batis review.
Good luck if you want to buy a Batis lens.I ordered one in August from a camera store in HK (DREV) .They cancelled my oder last week as they were unable to get the lens
Matt Granger 13:35 Loxia is for full-Frame, NOT just for APS-C. You are probably mixing it up with the Zeiss Touit lenses. Loxia however are MF just like the Otus, but you get a nice (mechanical) Focus and aperture ring,s o those are cool for Video guys :)...
Well, as an a7 shooter who only shoots primes, this is a long awaited lens and there's no debating whether I'm going to get it or not. It's gonna have happen.
Matt, I've been shooting with sony for a little over two years. I think you're having the same problem with Sony and Mirrorless that most DSLR shooters have. DSLR is the best for Single Shot Contrast Focus. The strength of the mirror to dedicated focus sensor. Though when using live view on sensor focus is slow.Mirrorless is best for Continues Phase Detection Focus. The strength of on sensor pixel focus detection. Gives you the whole frame for focus. Though in Contrast its slower.If you're coming from DSLR you need to adjust the way you look at focus.
Matt, Thanks for the review . I know you mentioned reviewing against the Otus , but it would be really interesting if you reviewed it against the Nikon 85 1.8g on the A7r and on the D810. Thank you .
The old 85mm 1,4 zeiss a-mount lens has autofocus as well as all of the zeiss sony lenses like the 24-70 2,8, 16-35 2,8 and the newer 135mm 1,8 all of which are zeiss lenses.
For some reason the thing that excites me about mirror-less is actually putting more glass in that additional space. Maybe I can walk around with a lightweight f0.9 lens with autofocus one day. I also love how light that combo looks. So much more discrete. You could fool people into thinking you were just a tourist photographer. :)
On almost all Sony E and FE lenses, the aperture blades are designed to be (almost) perfectly round for the first couple stops down from wide open, to enhance the bokeh, and make it nearly circular (not polygonal). Do these new Batis lenses have that round aperture blade design? - Thanks!
Got a review of the 25mm coming too? I'm curious to see comparison with the Otus, something few of us can afford and even fewer could justify. If the Batis comes close, at least in center sharpness at 1.8, then what a great setup it will make with the upcoming A7R2.
I'm about to invest in a Sony a7ii kit, from a Fuji setup. I've been eyeing that Loxia 50/2 very seriously for the past few weeks. I would really love and appreciate a review of it when you get the chance. I really love your channel and have been a fan for a long time. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for the review. According to recent (as of August 2015) "first looks" and reviews, the AF in the new "A7 II R" seems to be very fast, specially in low light. But by now, you may already know this :-) So the new camera tech plus the 85/1,8 seems like a perfect combo to suck me into buying into this system (together with the 55/1,8 Zeiss/Sony)...
Related to the AF Speed - I am getting PRETTY fast and accurate focus with the Sigma 85 1.4 ( which apparently is the fastest focusing 85 1.4 on the market ) on my D3 and mostly accurate on my D810 ( the D3 simply trunches the D810 in terms of focus speed and especially precision - go figure ). So not all 85s are slow but most of them are.
Matt! The Sony camera bodies they gave you focus with CDAF only. Slow, hunt. The A7II, by comparison, as well as the upcoming A7RII use hybrid focusing -- mostly PDAF like a DSLR, switching to CDAF in lower light. So that accounts for the vast majority of the focus speed issue that you observed. Question: What do you think of the 85mm Batis on an APSC Sony mirrorless like the a6000? I think that 130mm effective would be amazing portrait lens. (My main rig is D750 with mostly Nikon glass, but for travel and hobby shooting I go a6000. Need a great, fast 130mm effective prime.) I know that FF glass does not always translate its advantages to smaller format even though the smaller format cuts away the corners where the glass is weaker. (I still don't understand why FF glass does not always shine on APSC....). Anyway that's my question: Batis 85mm f/1.8 on a6000. What do you think?
Art Altman When you say that FF glass doesn't shine on APS-C well I don't know personally what to say to that. I've used FF medium format lens on their crop and it looks amazing to my eyes. Don't know what to say.
Neopulse00 This has been shown to sometimes be true for example the fe 55 1.8z performs better on full frame www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18 www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-mounted-on-Sony-A6000__942
chris thackray FF glass often always performs better on FF cameras. This is due to pixel density on a APS-C sensor demanding more from the lens optics then they can provide. This shouldn't put anyone off from using FF glass on a APS-C body, however keep note that the older the lens the likely it will not perform was well on newer APS-C body. Since APS-C lens are actually updated more frequently, you often find they can perform on par or even better on a APS-C body. That said, I haven't seen any FF lens that does not perform better on a FF camera then being put on a APS-C body.
Art Altman The hybrid CDAF + PDAF focusing is still slow and lacking compared to DSLR. Sony mirrorless still has a very long way to catch up to DSLR speed even with hybrid focusing. Also like you said, once the light slightly lowers, it will switch to CDAF and be even more slow to focus.
You say that the fairer comparison for the Batis would be with a (much cheaper) 85/1.8 from Canon/Nikon. I would say that neither comparison is fitting. This is the lens it should go up against: Fuji 56/1.2 With the crop factor applied the Fuji lens is equivalent of an 84mm 1.8, it is for mirrorless and the price is in the same range. These two lenses are actually the closes to being "the same product" you'll find right now. Differences: The fuji doesn't have image stabilization.
The Zeiss Batis has inside stabilization😳, something unique for a true Zeiss lens, made in Germany. The other Sony Zeiss lenses are made only by Sony in Japan. Unfortunately Zeiss Batis is so popular that is out of stock for many many months. Its price around 1000$ is very good for a true Zeiss lens. The cheapest Zeiss lens starts from around 600 dollars. For me is a must have for Sony A7 users.
It took me nearly six months to receive my Batis order - they're that much in demand. The 85mm is more abundant than the 25mm which is as rare as hens teeth it seems. Still, it's the best AUD$3800 I've spent on two lenses! I really can't see myself using my original Sony prime glass anymore.
A7r and A7s both rely on contrast-detect only autofocus so it's no surprise it's slow. I'm curious how it'll perform on the A7ii and A7rii though. I'm considering making the jump to an 85mm of some sort for my A7ii but not sure if I should spend more for a Batis 85/1.8 or just get a used Minolta 85/1.4G or a Sony Zeiss 85/1.4 for cheaper. The Batis would have less bulk for sure...
Maxwell Starr The Sony ZA 85mm f/1.4 is actually more expensive than the Batis and more so the Minolta 85 by a fair bit. ZA is around $1700 new versus $1200 for the Otus. You can find the ZA 85 for around $1000-$1200 used and the Minolta for around $800. My friend owns the ZA and from my experience, the Batis seems to be superior in almost every way except for light-gathering capability. The downsides to the ZA are screw-driven AF and colour-fringing, but these aren't really much of a problem since you'll probably be manual-focusing the ZA at wide-open and colour-fringing is easily corrected in LR and PS. I really love the images the ZA spits out though, really nice colours, great sharpness, and it's metal build.
MrKdr500 Yeah, the Otus is definitely not $1200, lol - he may mean $1200 for the Batis... except that in Canada, the Batis is $1500 and the ZA 85/1.4 used is $1200, the Minolta for 700-900. I'm personally a huge fan of 1st generation Minolta AF glass on the Sony system, they tend to offer great colour and resolving power despite being 30yr old lenses (in fact, many A-mount designs are still based on them), but I'm also a junkie for the Zeiss colours that my FE 24-70/4 can produce. I'm also interested in the native E-mount weather sealed compact design, but is it worth the extra money for a smaller aperture sharp but not super stunning lens when I could more easily afford an 85/1.4... Decisions, decisions.
If you have an A7ii and want a 85mm with AF I'd spring for the Zeus Batis. I had an a7ii and la-ea4 adapter and the AF performance, while serviceable, was a little lack luster (I used it with a Minolta 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and Sigma 70-200 2.8). The performance from my native e-mount glass (24-70 f/4 and 55 f/1.8) was much better. That being said After my A7ii required warranty repairs after 6 months of ownership with moderate use (not to mention being well taken care of) I sold off all my Sony gear and am back with a Dslr for the time being. The A7rII looks pretty nifty and according to the reviews Af performance with adapted lenses is much better since it can now use the sensors on chip phase detection. Perhaps in a few years I'll come back to Sony.
Do these Batis lenses have the "round aperture" feature that all the Sony FE lenses have, where the aperture stays nearly perfectly round, the first couple stops from wide open?
Unfortunately both Zeiss Batis lenses are not measured in DxO and I can't really compare their sharpness. But from the video they are really innovative and good.
I wonder why can't Sony, Zeiss or any other manufacturer do FF mirrorless lenses that are as small as FF rangefinder lenses. I understand Rangefinder are manual focus, but looking at other non-full frame auto-focus lenses (e.g. MFT) I don't see Auto-Focus adding too much bulk to the lens.
+Matt Granger Are you going to review the a7r mark ii? It's looking like a game changer. If the AF is great on it I think much more people will switch. Great review of the 85mm, I really want this lens.
skatertwig26 Matt when you review the A7R2 please be sure to check speed of the autofocus in moderate light. That along with limited lens selection have been major stumbling blocks for Sony mirrorless FF. Thank you.
skatertwig26 Great camera, but like any new "amazing" camera the tech from it will start going to other cameras. I can't see myself ever switching to mirrorless. It's just too different. That's not a criticism though; what I'm saying is that DSLRs offer things mirrorless don't and visa-vesa. I see in the future maybe cameras that are more hybrids of both mirroless and DSLRs. For now though I'll be using my D800/Nikon lenses for a long time to come.
martinaee Yeah maybe other Sony cameras, but as far as Canon no. They are far back in body design. I mean it's different but not too much. After having a EVF it would kill me to use a OVF again. I like it that much. It uses canon and other lenses with all the AF points very quick. That is amazing. I did not see that coming. The IBIS, 399 af points, internal 4k, super 35 mode( almost completely gets rid of rolling shutter) back illuminated sensor and 42MP make it one well rounded camera. That's why I went with Sony, they're always setting the bar when others just follow. I understand how you feel though making a switch with that expensive of a camera is a huge risk.
Good review Matt as always... I have a request, could you have a go with the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8 on your Nikon? I would like to see your opinion vs the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 or the new Tamron 15-30mm. Thanks.
So recently I purchased the Sony Zeiss 85mm f1.8 ZA and Sony 24-70mm f2.8 ZA in A Mount for use on my A7ii. The 85mm has excellent colour and that big 1.4 iris. The problem is the lens isn't sharp wide open, has slow auto focus, no eye detect AF and suffers uncontrolled from CA. Did you experience any fringing which would be difficult to auto correct in post? Did you miss the blur from a faster 1.4? Thanks
Great review, yet you could have started and stopped the video with it focuses too slow. I'm looking to upgrade my full-frame to a smaller setup with more DR that focuses fast, maybe next year.
Matt Granger Matt, I think of your really going to compare pricing from the Nikon & Lens to the Sony A7 & Lens. You really should throw in the medical bills for back surgery from lugging that heavy DSLR and lens around.. :-D
Just a quick comment about the common "it's only f1.8" thing. What people often forget when comparing fast lenses is that the F-stop marked on the lens doesn't really matter. DXOMark hasn't tested the 85 Batis yet, but let's take another example. Nikon 50/1.4 is actually 1.6 T-stops and 58/1.4 is 1.7 T-stops. The FE 55/1.8 on the other hand is 1.8 T-stops. So, it doesn't "cheat" like most lenses. So, what if the Batis ends up actually being T1.8 while the Nikon 85/1.4 is T1.7? The 0.1 difference in light transmission is hardly a difference worth mentioning. F-stops are just numbers from the marketing department. :)
Miika Järvinen All you said is just for people who are interested in low light photography. If you want background blur and/or shoot with a tripod the T-stop doesn't matter at all. Considering a 85mm is mainly for portraiture, the F-stop should be more important.
Arthur Nazarian I've been shooting with Canon 85/1.2L for years, for a long time I only/mostly shot wide open. However, now I think stopping down to f2 gives that minor increase in DOF which matters when shooting portraits. Yes, there can be too much bokeh, when most of the subject is blurry. Sure, some shots works best with subject's one eye only in focus. IMO, 1.8 is just perfect balance. BTW, there are bokeh example shots Batis vs Otus (1.4) on Flickr, most people wouldn't even be able to tell which is which.
Miika Järvinen Ok, that's your personal opinion about the usage of f/1.2-f/2.0 (and I agree). But I was replying to your comment about the T-stop. Those are hardly important for photographers, and "F-stops are just numbers from the marketing department" is a very bold statement. How many photographers buy f/1.4 glass instead of f/1.8 glass, especially for the decreased DoF? And how many photographers choose the 50/1.4 instead of the 58/1.4 only to get that 0.1 T-stop (that's the difference between ISO 100 (as if this is a 100% correct actual value) and ISO 107) more light gathering? I think the former group is the vast majority.
Miika Järvinen Loss of light occurs in ALL lenses. So the FE 55/1.8 will lose light as well - it is NOT 1.8 with 100% of light transmitted. The F number isn't just numbers... they are accurate in the amount of light and DOF there is. Plus, the T stop is affected by the camera... on dx bodies there is more loss of light and the number is higher.
AminTheMystic I'm not sure what you're saying about DX. Yes, the sensor is smaller and not the full potential of light gathering of FF lenses will be used, but that is different from "transmission".
Merry Christmas, great video as always. Summarize and help me please. I've seen pictures on the internet very weak sony90 color, a little off, but I've been very clear. I have seen the quality Batis 85 a brutal but I see that magic Zeiss micro level contrasts. See 90 more versatile for all, useful for all, I am a lover of the definition, but also the magic Zeiss. Do you think that when shooting portraits with the 90 will miss Batis or definition in the eyes, eyebrows etc ... will make me forget about other factors as more creamy bokeh? For this bokeh and I have 35 f1.4 that eats everything In your eyes definition note both? Thank you
Thank for another great review.. I'd say the lens is quite big for an 85 f/1.8. I thought the whole idea with mirrorless was smaller size and weight...
You can't make that comparison. Even though they are both full frame, the Canon, being a DSLR has an optical viewfinder which requires a pentaprism as well as the mirror box which also implies size. The "mirror less" Sony being a mirrorless camera does without the mirror box as well as the pentaprism and has an electronic viewfinder. I wouldn't say one is better than the other as both have pros and cons.
I didn't make a comparison, I linked to a site that shows camera size differences and didn't say anything about better or worse. There is a difference in size that is all it shows. If you have a problem with the size differences take it up with somebody who cares.
kinachahue I can´t find the Batis 85 at that site, but from the specs I can tell that both the Canon 85 f/1.8 and the Nikon 85 f/1.8 are smaller, lighter, and way cheaper. The bigger size defeats the purpose of mirrorless cameras. Further, the ergonomics is far better with a DSLR than on an A7x, and that makes the added weight of the Batis lens an even bigger issue. The shorter flange distance on mirrorless should allow smaller lenses - that is the main reason why Leica lenses are so compact. Why doesn´t Sony focus on smaller lenses?
Matt Granger I'm currently using a Canon FD 85mm F1.2L for portraits. Do you think I should sell it to the get Zeiss 85 Batis? I'm currently using a Sony A7 btw. I just find it really to let go of my beloved FD 85 L.
Gathering my dough for the A7. Bored with Canon, and with their release schedule, the lack of features and that they are intentionally never going to release something similar to the 24-105 F4 for APS-C.
Jee Vang Actually I intended to sound like someone who can afford FF equipment, but doesn't like the bulk at all. I thought it might be clear that the reason I'm planning to buy in a whole new setup is that I can hardly justify tons of weight for the same performance. But english is not my mothertongue, hence the confusion. You do sound like someone who comes to conclusions early tho.
JP Photography This is something I've thought about a bit as well. Especially since the Sony doesn't exactly have a brilliant battery life to begin with.
Hi there, i made pause at 00:48, nude portraiture is a hit !!! :))) . That's the camera that uses Grosjean, the master of nude photography, but with the 24-70 Zeiss. Cheers from PERU !!!
It could really use a good review. We have lots of little videos saying it's brilliant, but not many that show us why or back it up with comparable results.
Yep it's a excellent lens on full frame. I've had it for about 6 months and used it a lot on both my a7 and a7ii. It also performs well on a3000 and a6000. Rendering is very nice. Bokeh is smooth. The lens focuses very fast on the a7ii given good light. Eye Detect AF seams to work perfectly on the a7ii. The results are razor sharp on full frame. It's light weight and very well balanced on any F/E camera I've tried it on. Things I don't like Image can be clinical (opinion) Image can be overly sharp (opinion) Colours are have that Zeiss pop but i prefer the look of old Minolta AF (opinion) I miss the extra blur of a f1.4 The hood is very large and when inverted it's difficult to remove the lens from the body. (annoying) Out resolves the a7 24mp sensor but strangely not visibly so on the a7ii AF is not the best if the phase detection pixels lack the light to be active. It's also a pain at distances under 2 meters. This is not limited to this lens but all FE glass. It's also body dependant. Lastly the price is pretty high but it's quality
The Emo Emu yep, it's to slow for moving subjects. Portraits not a problem. My version of low light might be closer to your dark. Its better than the 5D2 with 50 1.4.
Phiniox Glade Ah cool, then I think I could manage with that. Because I've been using (specifically) 5D2 w. Sigma 50/1.4 for club-photoes and small venue concerts.
Matt is there any reason you did not test Batis 85 on Sony A6000 which has the top AF system in Sony mirrorless out of released Sony mirrorless bodies? It is a very cheap camera to buy but would probably be a good indication of AF abilities of A7RM2. Most of us owners or former owners of A7r we know how slow lenses are on it, so your review on that point is nothing new.
Dmitry Brodsky I agree that Matt chose the wrong models to test autofocus. Even the a7ii would have been a better choice to test autofocus. Sorry Matt, but this review got misleading when you started talking about autofocus.
Christopher Cox how is it misleading to discuss how I found it on the A7r? I even acknowledge it is largely affected by the body... I didn't say it wouldn't be better on newer bodies, I give you credit that you can think for yourselves :)
Matt Granger Any chance you can test the lens on the A6000? I am curious to see how it performs, both in IQ and AF. The A7II should also fair much better than the A7R
bladerealm124 You are so right. My opinion is Identical to yours in that I find it to be a decision everybody has to make individually. Not reasonable to excpect Mless bodies to fill all the gaps immediately...perhaps in 2-3 yrs?
+bladerealm124 I bought both the 25mm and 85mm lenses for my A6000 with a view to upgrading to a full frame camera later on. I can vouch that these lenses are amazing on the A6000. In dark light, there is still some minor autofocus hunting but nothing serious. In bright sunlight, multi-photo bursts are very much in focus. Manual focus is a doddle and is actually getting me more interested in using manual in general (that focus ring feels so good to turn).
Now we just need the Sigma Art 85mm to give this and the Otus a real competitor like they have with the 35 and 50mm ones. Well. Close enough at least given the much lower price range.
Likely. If you use adapted non electronic lenses on the a7 you get longer battery life. Staying that all the focus by wire lenses I've got have AF and AF is why I shoot with them. I useless don't use direct manual focus (AF you can override manually)
IMHO, that's nice prine lens, but's too expensive compared to it's class, Nikon 85 mm F1.8G that got better IQ... with the same basic parameter of shooting. thanks matt.
16-35 f4 / 55 f1.8 / 90 f2.8 / 70-200 f4 - those will be my first four lenses. The first for a gimbal, the second mainly for photography, the third for macro (both video and photo), the fourth for mainly video. At a later date the 85 f1.8 Batis for photography only. I guess it depends on what you will be mainly shooting.
I think the Zeiss lenses are ugly. But it's nice to see, that they start implementing auto focus. Focus by wire is not ideal though. But lets see what they manage to produce in a couple of years or so... Thanks for the review.
Contrast detection AF is going to be slow. It has nothing to do with the motor or the logic. It's simply that it is and it has to be a wasteful process. What I mean by that is that with Contrast AF, the camera is looking for contrast peaks. There us no way to know how far away from it you currently are. You'll only know you have found the peak after you went past it and contrast falls. You then backtrack and grab the highest point. With phase detection AF you actually know how far away you are from alignment! You don't have to overshoot and zero in. Having said that contrast AF is actually more accurate if you want to split hairs. It's all history though since ALL of the current generation of Sony A7 (from the Mk II onwards) and A6000-series cameras have both contrast detection AF and phase detection sensors embedded on the sensor itself.
"...waiting for quality glass." are you kidding me. The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is one of the best lenses ever made. Some call it "the best autofocus lens ever" and you are telling me you wait for quality glass. I understand, that there was no 85mm focal lenght in sonys lineup but there was some stunning glass before the Batis came out. Sony is still building its lens lineup and there are still some gaps and i can see, that this is a critical point to pros but there was quality glass before the Batis. Comparing the Otus against the Batis seems a bit wrong too me, since the Otus doesnt even have autofocus. In my opinion you should compare it to the best autofocus 85mm for dslr. (and the obvious point, the otus is 3x the price of the batis)
Jee Vang First of i am not talking about all mirrorless i am talking about sony ff mirrorless. And the lenses can compare espacialy the primes (look at zeiss 35 1.4). If people say the zooms are not up to dslr quality thats kind of true. I have an nex7 and an a7 and the battery life on the a7 is bad against my nex7 but you can get 280 shots and maby a bit more in real life situations. if you take a shot every 6 sec (thats impressive), then you realy have to change the battery every 30 minutes. But does it realy take that long to change a battery 3 sec maybe 8. If you would have said they are bad for sports photography i would have agreed but for wedding photography i mean every body has his opninion but in the case of wedding photography they are up to the game.
The Sony line is getting there the best I think is the 55mm, 85mm,24mm,25mm, 90mm macro, 70-200( yes it's f4 but still great) and 16-35. There others like the 24-70 are good but not great. If they make more zooms, an ultra wide and a 135mm they will have enough for most people.
skatertwig26 Thought about the 135mm. Although I have a feeling it will be a f/2.8 Macro if they decide to make it. They have a f/1.8 on the A-Mount and it can't be of the wide aperture pro lenses (like f/1.4 and f/2.8) since they are so far prosumer class lenses (like f/1.8 and f/4).
Neopulse00 I don't think it will be macro since they have a 90mm macro. I feel they would do f2 like Samyang/Rokinon did. Which for a 135mm is great, 1.8 on a 135 is just crazy.
skatertwig26 But f/2 would be in the realm of professional rather than prosumer. Plus they already have released an f/2 APO-Sonnar which people (including myself) have adapters for their A7-camera lines. Obviously your prediction does have some weight. Let's hope they do make an f/2 of it. Although I see myself sticking to my APO-Sonnar no matter what.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Zeiss Loxia is a full frame lens, not APS-C.
I think the Batis is a perfect lens for Sony ff cameras. Sony are making tremendous strides in the market and I love their cameras.
The a7s is brilliant. There's no other way to describe it. I do think the Otus are not a reasonable acquisition for just about anyone so comparisons are great for benchmarking but not particularly relevant as a purchasing decision.
I use my Nikkor 85mm 1.4D on the a7s and the results are simply smashing. I'll be purchasing the Batis to compare though.
Thanks for the review. Glad to see you're doing well.
Thanks for the review. It's nice to see someone who isn't primarily a mirrorless shooter review these cameras and lens combinations. It really does help determine if this system is what I am looking for. Can't wait to see that Otus vs. Batis review.
Good luck if you want to buy a Batis lens.I ordered one in August from a camera store in HK (DREV) .They cancelled my oder last week as they were unable to get the lens
Matt Granger 13:35 Loxia is for full-Frame, NOT just for APS-C. You are probably mixing it up with the Zeiss Touit lenses.
Loxia however are MF just like the Otus, but you get a nice (mechanical) Focus and aperture ring,s o those are cool for Video guys :)...
Lofote Good point.
Lofote spot on - thanks
Yup.
Well, as an a7 shooter who only shoots primes, this is a long awaited lens and there's no debating whether I'm going to get it or not. It's gonna have happen.
Matt, I've been shooting with sony for a little over two years. I think you're having the same problem with Sony and Mirrorless that most DSLR shooters have. DSLR is the best for Single Shot Contrast Focus. The strength of the mirror to dedicated focus sensor. Though when using live view on sensor focus is slow.Mirrorless is best for Continues Phase Detection Focus. The strength of on sensor pixel focus detection. Gives you the whole frame for focus. Though in Contrast its slower.If you're coming from DSLR you need to adjust the way you look at focus.
The AF on the A7R2 is much faster than the A7R AND the shutter is much better also.
Matt,
Thanks for the review . I know you mentioned reviewing against the Otus , but it would be really interesting if you reviewed it against the Nikon 85 1.8g on the A7r and on the D810. Thank you .
The old 85mm 1,4 zeiss a-mount lens has autofocus as well as all of the zeiss sony lenses like the 24-70 2,8, 16-35 2,8 and the newer 135mm 1,8 all of which are zeiss lenses.
For some reason the thing that excites me about mirror-less is actually putting more glass in that additional space. Maybe I can walk around with a lightweight f0.9 lens with autofocus one day. I also love how light that combo looks. So much more discrete. You could fool people into thinking you were just a tourist photographer. :)
Always happy to see Your videos and hear Your thoughts.
On almost all Sony E and FE lenses, the aperture blades are designed to be (almost) perfectly round for the first couple stops down from wide open, to enhance the bokeh, and make it nearly circular (not polygonal). Do these new Batis lenses have that round aperture blade design? - Thanks!
Great review but the Loxia is a full frame lens. Saving money to get the 85 soon. 25 maybe in the future.
Got a review of the 25mm coming too? I'm curious to see comparison with the Otus, something few of us can afford and even fewer could justify. If the Batis comes close, at least in center sharpness at 1.8, then what a great setup it will make with the upcoming A7R2.
The images from Peru you displayed are awesome Matt! like the sailors most!
I'm about to invest in a Sony a7ii kit, from a Fuji setup. I've been eyeing that Loxia 50/2 very seriously for the past few weeks. I would really love and appreciate a review of it when you get the chance. I really love your channel and have been a fan for a long time. Keep up the great work.
The Loxia lenses work on full frame cameras - the Touit series' lenses only cover APS-C sensors.
Hey Matt, love your reviews.
Please do a D810+ Nikkor 85mm f1.8g vs Sony A7R + Batis 85mm. Live to see the image quality comparison.
Thx.
Thanks for the review. According to recent (as of August 2015) "first looks" and reviews, the AF in the new "A7 II R" seems to be very fast, specially in low light. But by now, you may already know this :-) So the new camera tech plus the 85/1,8 seems like a perfect combo to suck me into buying into this system (together with the 55/1,8 Zeiss/Sony)...
Related to the AF Speed - I am getting PRETTY fast and accurate focus with the Sigma 85 1.4 ( which apparently is the fastest focusing 85 1.4 on the market ) on my D3 and mostly accurate on my D810 ( the D3 simply trunches the D810 in terms of focus speed and especially precision - go figure ). So not all 85s are slow but most of them are.
Just got it and love it so far! Might become a Zeiss fanboy too :-)
What about comparison with Sony 90 macro G, except macro mode which one perform better for portraits? Thanks
Matt! The Sony camera bodies they gave you focus with CDAF only. Slow, hunt. The A7II, by comparison, as well as the upcoming A7RII use hybrid focusing -- mostly PDAF like a DSLR, switching to CDAF in lower light. So that accounts for the vast majority of the focus speed issue that you observed.
Question: What do you think of the 85mm Batis on an APSC Sony mirrorless like the a6000? I think that 130mm effective would be amazing portrait lens. (My main rig is D750 with mostly Nikon glass, but for travel and hobby shooting I go a6000. Need a great, fast 130mm effective prime.)
I know that FF glass does not always translate its advantages to smaller format even though the smaller format cuts away the corners where the glass is weaker. (I still don't understand why FF glass does not always shine on APSC....).
Anyway that's my question: Batis 85mm f/1.8 on a6000. What do you think?
Art Altman When you say that FF glass doesn't shine on APS-C well I don't know personally what to say to that. I've used FF medium format lens on their crop and it looks amazing to my eyes. Don't know what to say.
Neopulse00 This has been shown to sometimes be true for example the fe 55 1.8z performs better on full frame www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18
www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-mounted-on-Sony-A6000__942
Art Altman I use 85mm on my Canon 70D (APS-C), its amazing focal length for outdoor photography.
chris thackray FF glass often always performs better on FF cameras. This is due to pixel density on a APS-C sensor demanding more from the lens optics then they can provide. This shouldn't put anyone off from using FF glass on a APS-C body, however keep note that the older the lens the likely it will not perform was well on newer APS-C body. Since APS-C lens are actually updated more frequently, you often find they can perform on par or even better on a APS-C body. That said, I haven't seen any FF lens that does not perform better on a FF camera then being put on a APS-C body.
Art Altman The hybrid CDAF + PDAF focusing is still slow and lacking compared to DSLR. Sony mirrorless still has a very long way to catch up to DSLR speed even with hybrid focusing. Also like you said, once the light slightly lowers, it will switch to CDAF and be even more slow to focus.
Great Review ...You said you were 'ill for a while..hope you are ok now...cheers!
You say that the fairer comparison for the Batis would be with a (much cheaper) 85/1.8 from Canon/Nikon. I would say that neither comparison is fitting.
This is the lens it should go up against: Fuji 56/1.2
With the crop factor applied the Fuji lens is equivalent of an 84mm 1.8, it is for mirrorless and the price is in the same range. These two lenses are actually the closes to being "the same product" you'll find right now.
Differences: The fuji doesn't have image stabilization.
The Zeiss Batis has inside stabilization😳, something unique for a true Zeiss lens, made in Germany.
The other Sony Zeiss lenses are made only by Sony in Japan.
Unfortunately Zeiss Batis is so popular that is out of stock for many many months. Its price around 1000$ is very good for a true Zeiss lens. The cheapest Zeiss lens starts from around 600 dollars. For me is a must have for Sony A7 users.
It took me nearly six months to receive my Batis order - they're that much in demand. The 85mm is more abundant than the 25mm which is as rare as hens teeth it seems. Still, it's the best AUD$3800 I've spent on two lenses! I really can't see myself using my original Sony prime glass anymore.
I think the best combination would be Sony A7r ii + Zeiss otus 85
I already preordered A7r ii and I have Zeiss Otus 85 with me. Can't wait to try!
this + a7rII =
Hi Matt, what do you think about the cheaper Zeiss lenses? Specifically the 32mm Touit, and the 35mm f2.8 FE lens. Thanks, awesome video as always!
A7r and A7s both rely on contrast-detect only autofocus so it's no surprise it's slow. I'm curious how it'll perform on the A7ii and A7rii though. I'm considering making the jump to an 85mm of some sort for my A7ii but not sure if I should spend more for a Batis 85/1.8 or just get a used Minolta 85/1.4G or a Sony Zeiss 85/1.4 for cheaper. The Batis would have less bulk for sure...
Maxwell Starr The Sony ZA 85mm f/1.4 is actually more expensive than the Batis and more so the Minolta 85 by a fair bit. ZA is around $1700 new versus $1200 for the Otus. You can find the ZA 85 for around $1000-$1200 used and the Minolta for around $800. My friend owns the ZA and from my experience, the Batis seems to be superior in almost every way except for light-gathering capability. The downsides to the ZA are screw-driven AF and colour-fringing, but these aren't really much of a problem since you'll probably be manual-focusing the ZA at wide-open and colour-fringing is easily corrected in LR and PS. I really love the images the ZA spits out though, really nice colours, great sharpness, and it's metal build.
Yup.
Timothy Tasmin " versus $1200 for the Otus" where do you get an Otus this cheap?
MrKdr500 Yeah, the Otus is definitely not $1200, lol - he may mean $1200 for the Batis... except that in Canada, the Batis is $1500 and the ZA 85/1.4 used is $1200, the Minolta for 700-900. I'm personally a huge fan of 1st generation Minolta AF glass on the Sony system, they tend to offer great colour and resolving power despite being 30yr old lenses (in fact, many A-mount designs are still based on them), but I'm also a junkie for the Zeiss colours that my FE 24-70/4 can produce. I'm also interested in the native E-mount weather sealed compact design, but is it worth the extra money for a smaller aperture sharp but not super stunning lens when I could more easily afford an 85/1.4... Decisions, decisions.
If you have an A7ii and want a 85mm with AF I'd spring for the Zeus Batis. I had an a7ii and la-ea4 adapter and the AF performance, while serviceable, was a little lack luster (I used it with a Minolta 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and Sigma 70-200 2.8). The performance from my native e-mount glass (24-70 f/4 and 55 f/1.8) was much better.
That being said After my A7ii required warranty repairs after 6 months of ownership with moderate use (not to mention being well taken care of) I sold off all my Sony gear and am back with a Dslr for the time being. The A7rII looks pretty nifty and according to the reviews Af performance with adapted lenses is much better since it can now use the sensors on chip phase detection. Perhaps in a few years I'll come back to Sony.
I really like your pro overcoat
Do these Batis lenses have the "round aperture" feature that all the Sony FE lenses have, where the aperture stays nearly perfectly round, the first couple stops from wide open?
wait for a7R II and you will change idea about focus speed and quality on mirrorless
Thanks for the review, Matt :)
Love your reviews - a lot of information & common sense shared - thank you Matt.
Unfortunately both Zeiss Batis lenses are not measured in DxO and I can't really compare their sharpness. But from the video they are really innovative and good.
Matt, would you be reviewing the 25 mm?
Perhaps the Zeiss will perform much better when Sony updates the body. Which is the weaker link?
Perhaps it is similar to the Panasonic LUMIX G Leica DG Nocticron 42,5 mm f / 1.2 ASPH OIS an exeptional MFT lens.
I wonder why can't Sony, Zeiss or any other manufacturer do FF mirrorless lenses that are as small as FF rangefinder lenses. I understand Rangefinder are manual focus, but looking at other non-full frame auto-focus lenses (e.g. MFT) I don't see Auto-Focus adding too much bulk to the lens.
you should check out the sony zeiss 55mm f1.8. Its super sharp-even dxo thinks its a tiny bit sharper than otis(probably not true)
+Matt Granger Are you going to review the a7r mark ii? It's looking like a game changer. If the AF is great on it I think much more people will switch. Great review of the 85mm, I really want this lens.
skatertwig26 Matt when you review the A7R2 please be sure to check speed of the autofocus in moderate light. That along with limited lens selection have been major stumbling blocks for Sony mirrorless FF. Thank you.
Art Altman
Oh I am sure he will and I don't think it will disappoint. Sony has a petty good lens selection now, it's getting there.
skatertwig26 Great camera, but like any new "amazing" camera the tech from it will start going to other cameras. I can't see myself ever switching to mirrorless. It's just too different. That's not a criticism though; what I'm saying is that DSLRs offer things mirrorless don't and visa-vesa. I see in the future maybe cameras that are more hybrids of both mirroless and DSLRs. For now though I'll be using my D800/Nikon lenses for a long time to come.
skatertwig26 no
martinaee
Yeah maybe other Sony cameras, but as far as Canon no. They are far back in body design. I mean it's different but not too much. After having a EVF it would kill me to use a OVF again. I like it that much. It uses canon and other lenses with all the AF points very quick. That is amazing. I did not see that coming. The IBIS, 399 af points, internal 4k, super 35 mode( almost completely gets rid of rolling shutter) back illuminated sensor and 42MP make it one well rounded camera. That's why I went with Sony, they're always setting the bar when others just follow. I understand how you feel though making a switch with that expensive of a camera is a huge risk.
Good review Matt as always... I have a request, could you have a go with the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8 on your Nikon? I would like to see your opinion vs the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 or the new Tamron 15-30mm. Thanks.
I think you should review all the 85mm, i mean, if you have the Nikon 85g, put in there too.
Cheers from Chile
So recently I purchased the Sony Zeiss 85mm f1.8 ZA and Sony 24-70mm f2.8 ZA in A Mount for use on my A7ii.
The 85mm has excellent colour and that big 1.4 iris. The problem is the lens isn't sharp wide open, has slow auto focus, no eye detect AF and suffers uncontrolled from CA.
Did you experience any fringing which would be difficult to auto correct in post?
Did you miss the blur from a faster 1.4?
Thanks
Hi Matt, I was wondering if you have used a Sony 85mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss and what you think of it compared to the Batis.
Great review, yet you could have started and stopped the video with it focuses too slow. I'm looking to upgrade my full-frame to a smaller setup with more DR that focuses fast, maybe next year.
Matt Granger Matt, I think of your really going to compare pricing from the Nikon & Lens to the Sony A7 & Lens. You really should throw in the medical bills for back surgery from lugging that heavy DSLR and lens around.. :-D
every bigger youtuber got a sony camera and holding it into the video. should i get one too?
God if they ever make that one on EF, I'd buy it in half a heartbeat.
Loxia lenses are full frame too
Dude you're using an A7R. Of course it is slow. Why did you not use it on the A7II? The AF speed would have been completely different.
Just a quick comment about the common "it's only f1.8" thing. What people often forget when comparing fast lenses is that the F-stop marked on the lens doesn't really matter. DXOMark hasn't tested the 85 Batis yet, but let's take another example.
Nikon 50/1.4 is actually 1.6 T-stops and 58/1.4 is 1.7 T-stops. The FE 55/1.8 on the other hand is 1.8 T-stops. So, it doesn't "cheat" like most lenses. So, what if the Batis ends up actually being T1.8 while the Nikon 85/1.4 is T1.7? The 0.1 difference in light transmission is hardly a difference worth mentioning. F-stops are just numbers from the marketing department. :)
Miika Järvinen All you said is just for people who are interested in low light photography. If you want background blur and/or shoot with a tripod the T-stop doesn't matter at all. Considering a 85mm is mainly for portraiture, the F-stop should be more important.
Arthur Nazarian I've been shooting with Canon 85/1.2L for years, for a long time I only/mostly shot wide open. However, now I think stopping down to f2 gives that minor increase in DOF which matters when shooting portraits. Yes, there can be too much bokeh, when most of the subject is blurry. Sure, some shots works best with subject's one eye only in focus. IMO, 1.8 is just perfect balance. BTW, there are bokeh example shots Batis vs Otus (1.4) on Flickr, most people wouldn't even be able to tell which is which.
Miika Järvinen Ok, that's your personal opinion about the usage of f/1.2-f/2.0 (and I agree). But I was replying to your comment about the T-stop. Those are hardly important for photographers, and "F-stops are just numbers from the marketing department" is a very bold statement.
How many photographers buy f/1.4 glass instead of f/1.8 glass, especially for the decreased DoF? And how many photographers choose the 50/1.4 instead of the 58/1.4 only to get that 0.1 T-stop (that's the difference between ISO 100 (as if this is a 100% correct actual value) and ISO 107) more light gathering? I think the former group is the vast majority.
Miika Järvinen Loss of light occurs in ALL lenses. So the FE 55/1.8 will lose light as well - it is NOT 1.8 with 100% of light transmitted. The F number isn't just numbers... they are accurate in the amount of light and DOF there is. Plus, the T stop is affected by the camera... on dx bodies there is more loss of light and the number is higher.
AminTheMystic I'm not sure what you're saying about DX. Yes, the sensor is smaller and not the full potential of light gathering of FF lenses will be used, but that is different from "transmission".
Does the focus throw matter if you're using auto focus? I would opt for the 50mm Loxia if I intended to use manual focus.
Matt, I hope that you won't be doing any "public bodies" in Malaysia any time soon
Merry Christmas, great video as always. Summarize and help me please. I've seen pictures on the internet very weak sony90 color, a little off, but I've been very clear. I have seen the quality Batis 85 a brutal but I see that magic Zeiss micro level contrasts. See 90 more versatile for all, useful for all, I am a lover of the definition, but also the magic Zeiss. Do you think that when shooting portraits with the 90 will miss Batis or definition in the eyes, eyebrows etc ... will make me forget about other factors as more creamy bokeh? For this bokeh and I have 35 f1.4 that eats everything In your eyes definition note both? Thank you
Thank for another great review..
I'd say the lens is quite big for an 85 f/1.8. I thought the whole idea with mirrorless was smaller size and weight...
The sensor is full frame which determines a lot about lens size. M43 lenses are smaller as are APS-C.
Lars Kvinge Compare the bodies here - camerasize.com/compare/#312,579 - and you will see there is a difference.
You can't make that comparison. Even though they are both full frame, the Canon, being a DSLR has an optical viewfinder which requires a pentaprism as well as the mirror box which also implies size. The "mirror less" Sony being a mirrorless camera does without the mirror box as well as the pentaprism and has an electronic viewfinder. I wouldn't say one is better than the other as both have pros and cons.
I didn't make a comparison, I linked to a site that shows camera size differences and didn't say anything about better or worse. There is a difference in size that is all it shows. If you have a problem with the size differences take it up with somebody who cares.
kinachahue I can´t find the Batis 85 at that site, but from the specs I can tell that both the Canon 85 f/1.8 and the Nikon 85 f/1.8 are smaller, lighter, and way cheaper. The bigger size defeats the purpose of mirrorless cameras. Further, the ergonomics is far better with a DSLR than on an A7x, and that makes the added weight of the Batis lens an even bigger issue.
The shorter flange distance on mirrorless should allow smaller lenses - that is the main reason why Leica lenses are so compact. Why doesn´t Sony focus on smaller lenses?
Matt Granger I'm currently using a Canon FD 85mm F1.2L for portraits. Do you think I should sell it to the get Zeiss 85 Batis? I'm currently using a Sony A7 btw. I just find it really to let go of my beloved FD 85 L.
Try Zeiss Batis on the new Sony A7II or Sony A7RII and auto focus will be very much better .....
i want to rent this but i only have an NEX 5... is it worth it or should i just focus on saving up for a new camera
Hey Matt,
Not a criticism, however when are you planning on filming your videos in 4k, is that something in the pipeline?
Thanks in advance
Brilliant... I'd love to see one for Nikon.
Great review. Thanks.
what chair is that you are seating? nice review btw.
I am so happy and convinced with my Canon 85mm F1.8 with a Canon 5D Mark 2 that I would not consider to purchase any other lens.
The Batis lenses are like waiting for Godot. When will they ever become available for purchase?
hi Matt i have a question about this lent , i have a6000 and i am wondering if this lent is good idea to buy for my camera a6000
Gathering my dough for the A7.
Bored with Canon, and with their release schedule, the lack of features and that they are intentionally never going to release something similar to the 24-105 F4 for APS-C.
Jee Vang Actually I intended to sound like someone who can afford FF equipment, but doesn't like the bulk at all.
I thought it might be clear that the reason I'm planning to buy in a whole new setup is that I can hardly justify tons of weight for the same performance.
But english is not my mothertongue, hence the confusion.
You do sound like someone who comes to conclusions early tho.
Any idea why the ARW file is not sharp at all?
does it make the battery drain faster?
JP Photography This is something I've thought about a bit as well. Especially since the Sony doesn't exactly have a brilliant battery life to begin with.
JP Photography Yes it will. But it's just an OLED display, so power consumption will be almost negligible.
Jee Vang
Unless it's an OLED display, which will have hardly any effect on battery life. Do you even know anything about OLED?
things would be different with the A7r II
Roberto Pagliari totally, should have only be reviewed on the R2
i c u have a Loxia over there..yummm how about eh 35mm 1.4
hi matt, thx for your informative videos. you are honest, that's the best way. j.
In a dark setting, would the OLED become a light source? Is there a way to dim it?
tape
Hi there, i made pause at 00:48, nude portraiture is a hit !!! :))) . That's the camera that uses Grosjean, the master of nude photography, but with the 24-70 Zeiss. Cheers from PERU !!!
Your website is down!
Matt, please review the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar. Everybody are praising it. But I fear it might just be hype. Thank you.
It could really use a good review. We have lots of little videos saying it's brilliant, but not many that show us why or back it up with comparable results.
Yep it's a excellent lens on full frame. I've had it for about 6 months and used it a lot on both my a7 and a7ii. It also performs well on a3000 and a6000.
Rendering is very nice. Bokeh is smooth. The lens focuses very fast on the a7ii given good light. Eye Detect AF seams to work perfectly on the a7ii. The results are razor sharp on full frame. It's light weight and very well balanced on any F/E camera I've tried it on.
Things I don't like
Image can be clinical (opinion)
Image can be overly sharp (opinion)
Colours are have that Zeiss pop but i prefer the look of old Minolta AF (opinion)
I miss the extra blur of a f1.4
The hood is very large and when inverted it's difficult to remove the lens from the body. (annoying)
Out resolves the a7 24mp sensor but strangely not visibly so on the a7ii
AF is not the best if the phase detection pixels lack the light to be active. It's also a pain at distances under 2 meters. This is not limited to this lens but all FE glass. It's also body dependant.
Lastly the price is pretty high but it's quality
Phiniox Glade
"AF is not the best if the phase detection pixels lack the light to be active."
So the AF turns crap in low light situations?
The Emo Emu yep, it's to slow for moving subjects. Portraits not a problem. My version of low light might be closer to your dark.
Its better than the 5D2 with 50 1.4.
Phiniox Glade Ah cool, then I think I could manage with that. Because I've been using (specifically) 5D2 w. Sigma 50/1.4 for club-photoes and small venue concerts.
Matt is there any reason you did not test Batis 85 on Sony A6000 which has the top AF system in Sony mirrorless out of released Sony mirrorless bodies? It is a very cheap camera to buy but would probably be a good indication of AF abilities of A7RM2. Most of us owners or former owners of A7r we know how slow lenses are on it, so your review on that point is nothing new.
Dmitry Brodsky I agree that Matt chose the wrong models to test autofocus. Even the a7ii would have been a better choice to test autofocus. Sorry Matt, but this review got misleading when you started talking about autofocus.
Christopher Cox how is it misleading to discuss how I found it on the A7r? I even acknowledge it is largely affected by the body... I didn't say it wouldn't be better on newer bodies, I give you credit that you can think for yourselves :)
Matt Granger Any chance you can test the lens on the A6000? I am curious to see how it performs, both in IQ and AF. The A7II should also fair much better than the A7R
bladerealm124 You are so right. My opinion is Identical to yours in that I find it to be a decision everybody has to make individually. Not reasonable to excpect Mless bodies to fill all the gaps immediately...perhaps in 2-3 yrs?
+bladerealm124 I bought both the 25mm and 85mm lenses for my A6000 with a view to upgrading to a full frame camera later on. I can vouch that these lenses are amazing on the A6000. In dark light, there is still some minor autofocus hunting but nothing serious. In bright sunlight, multi-photo bursts are very much in focus. Manual focus is a doddle and is actually getting me more interested in using manual in general (that focus ring feels so good to turn).
Now we just need the Sigma Art 85mm to give this and the Otus a real competitor like they have with the 35 and 50mm ones. Well. Close enough at least given the much lower price range.
TalesOfWar this is only for sony apha mount - the other two you mention are DSLR lenses.
Matt Granger I thought they did them for the E mount too. Apparently it's just the A mount. Either way, I want that Sigma 85mm Art to drop!
That is small. I like it. It goes with the body.
This digital focus ring do not consumes more battery?
Likely. If you use adapted non electronic lenses on the a7 you get longer battery life.
Staying that all the focus by wire lenses I've got have AF and AF is why I shoot with them. I useless don't use direct manual focus (AF you can override manually)
i shoot all my vids with sony a7r, its not as bad as people say
Can this lens be used on the Sony A6000 and does it have stabilization control?
Yes it's an e mount lens
Nice video
IMHO, that's nice prine lens, but's too expensive compared to it's class, Nikon 85 mm F1.8G that got better IQ... with the same basic parameter of shooting. thanks matt.
can you or your audience recommend 3 lens for a person who is getting an Sony Alpha a7S II mostly video.
16-35 f4 / 55 f1.8 / 90 f2.8 / 70-200 f4 - those will be my first four lenses. The first for a gimbal, the second mainly for photography, the third for macro (both video and photo), the fourth for mainly video. At a later date the 85 f1.8 Batis for photography only.
I guess it depends on what you will be mainly shooting.
onenarrowdoor ty just short videos of things like video essays on topics.
that Nikon guy is slowly become that Sony/Zeiss guy ;)
nice review , nikon guy
10:10 CAT
Hi Matt, the Eye AF is it applicable on Batis?
Thanks!
+C K Tham This lens is manual focus only. You will not be able to use Eye AF with this lens.
Thank you for your advise!
+C K Tham The Batis has AF! It is not exclusively manual focus. You were informed incorrectly
+Neopulse00 Many sincere thanks for your advise!
C K Tham No problem, just wish I had answered you sooner.
That Zeiss Guy!
I am not sold into the mirrorless cameras..I don't know why, but the whole view finder thing does not click !
I think the Zeiss lenses are ugly. But it's nice to see, that they start implementing auto focus. Focus by wire is not ideal though. But lets see what they manage to produce in a couple of years or so... Thanks for the review.
A7R focus is slow. Sony has gone past that though, A7II and A7RII will be much faster.
Contrast detection AF is going to be slow. It has nothing to do with the motor or the logic. It's simply that it is and it has to be a wasteful process. What I mean by that is that with Contrast AF, the camera is looking for contrast peaks. There us no way to know how far away from it you currently are. You'll only know you have found the peak after you went past it and contrast falls. You then backtrack and grab the highest point. With phase detection AF you actually know how far away you are from alignment! You don't have to overshoot and zero in. Having said that contrast AF is actually more accurate if you want to split hairs.
It's all history though since ALL of the current generation of Sony A7 (from the Mk II onwards) and A6000-series cameras have both contrast detection AF and phase detection sensors embedded on the sensor itself.
Well No, Batis will be quicker now on Sony a7Rii ;)
Sony need to pass Matt a A7RII :)
i want it!
"...waiting for quality glass." are you kidding me. The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is one of the best lenses ever made. Some call it "the best autofocus lens ever" and you are telling me you wait for quality glass. I understand, that there was no 85mm focal lenght in sonys lineup but there was some stunning glass before the Batis came out. Sony is still building its lens lineup and there are still some gaps and i can see, that this is a critical point to pros but there was quality glass before the Batis.
Comparing the Otus against the Batis seems a bit wrong too me, since the Otus doesnt even have autofocus. In my opinion you should compare it to the best autofocus 85mm for dslr. (and the obvious point, the otus is 3x the price of the batis)
Jee Vang First of i am not talking about all mirrorless i am talking about sony ff mirrorless. And the lenses can compare espacialy the primes (look at zeiss 35 1.4). If people say the zooms are not up to dslr quality thats kind of true. I have an nex7 and an a7 and the battery life on the a7 is bad against my nex7 but you can get 280 shots and maby a bit more in real life situations. if you take a shot every 6 sec (thats impressive), then you realy have to change the battery every 30 minutes. But does it realy take that long to change a battery 3 sec maybe 8. If you would have said they are bad for sports photography i would have agreed but for wedding photography i mean every body has his opninion but in the case of wedding photography they are up to the game.
The Sony line is getting there the best I think is the 55mm, 85mm,24mm,25mm, 90mm macro, 70-200( yes it's f4 but still great) and 16-35. There others like the 24-70 are good but not great. If they make more zooms, an ultra wide and a 135mm they will have enough for most people.
skatertwig26 Thought about the 135mm. Although I have a feeling it will be a f/2.8 Macro if they decide to make it. They have a f/1.8 on the A-Mount and it can't be of the wide aperture pro lenses (like f/1.4 and f/2.8) since they are so far prosumer class lenses (like f/1.8 and f/4).
I go the 16-35, 55, 35 2.8, 70-200 and finally the 28-70 in order of quality. Completely based on what I own.
Phiniox Glade
That 16-35mm gets my attention. But the 85mm feels like a necessity to have in ones bag :-/
Neopulse00
I don't think it will be macro since they have a 90mm macro. I feel they would do f2 like Samyang/Rokinon did. Which for a 135mm is great, 1.8 on a 135 is just crazy.
skatertwig26 But f/2 would be in the realm of professional rather than prosumer. Plus they already have released an f/2 APO-Sonnar which people (including myself) have adapters for their A7-camera lines. Obviously your prediction does have some weight. Let's hope they do make an f/2 of it. Although I see myself sticking to my APO-Sonnar no matter what.