Batis 85mm Image Quality

I just received my 85mm Batis.

While waiting (almost 5 months), I really vacillated on whether or not to cancel the order and purchase the FE 90mm f2.8 Macro. DXO rated the 90mm as stellar in terms of sharpness and the reviews on the Batis, while overwhelmingly positive, did have some reviewers that liked the lens, but were not overly impressed by it. Even the Luminous Landscape site published a few photos that were not exactly pin-sharp, which really concerned me.

Well, I must tell you, I'm am blown-away with the lens. Shot wide open and reviewed on a 5K monitor at 100%, the sharpness is every bit as good as the FE 55mm f1.8, if not better. I have shot a lot of expensive glass and must say that this might be the best lens I have ever shot (never shot the Otus)... and the bokeh is like warm cream. The contrast is good wide-open and the colors are very neutral.

I was almost dissuaded by reviewers to not buy the FE 35mm f1.4 and it turned-out to be outstanding. The same with the Batis. From now on, I am going simply judge for myself. It is too easy for a reviewer to miss focus, or not shoot in controlled conditions, and then report mediocre results. Of course, there is also sample variation to contend with.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to mount zoom lenses on my A7RII.

Thanks for that report, Jeff. It makes me feel better about my own wait. There have been so few decent tests of the Batis 85mm, so this is helpful. I'd love to know what you think of the corners for landscape when stopped down to f8 or so.

--d

Sounds great. I am glad its such a beautiful lens. Can you post some samples?

I've seen a few images and some showed lovely creamy bokeh when the subject was fairly close. Another showed the subject a bit further away and bright highlights looked a little harsh.

Greg.

Everything will look sharp on a high dpi screen such as your 5k

All makers can produce lenses with superb sharpness - go through each range and there they are. But this not a contest worth winning, once all lenses achieve a certain threshold.

If fine images are your goal, use lenses that get you there - those with high impact, balance, color, bokeh. I prefer the B85 rendering to that of the technical best 85mm (and best overall by most accounts) lens ever made for 35mm photography - the Otus. But for anyone who just shelled out $4500 for an Otus, it would be sacrilege to say so. ;-)

Sony and Zeiss have realized all this, so you see this well-developed character in all their modern FE primes. No one makes anything like the FE 35/1.4, it's an achievement so good that if it was a C/N lens, people would be doing back flips. Before long, it will be driving reviewers crazy that they cannot use FE/Loxia/Batis lenses on any other platform. The 'sharpness uber alles' crowd like the Sigma; not everyone sees lens drawing styles as important.

What can be an issue is that character lenses are generally narrow in scope, and this is true of the FE 35/1.4 and golden oldies like Canon's f1.2 lenses, and Nikon's new 58/1.4.

The Batis pair are true Zeiss in that they suffer no such compromises. Like the RX1 Sonnar, they are up for any fight at any aperture in any environment. These are hallmarks of Zeiss through their long history.

On comparing across FLs - you can't. The rule of thumb is this: the longer the focal length the stronger the lens performance. The 'best' lenses are mid-long telephotos, then in the regular FL ranges most use, it's 85-100, then 75, 55-60, then 45-50, then 35 and so on. So traditionally, designers aim for strong centers in wider lenses to compensate.

The FE55, good as it is, cannot match the B85, and the FE35/1.4 cannot match the FE55 except in one huge respect - center performance, where it does better below f4. From f4 on, the FE55 walks away from it all over the frame.

thanks for your remarks. We are very lucky to be using Sony, if only for the lenses. Reviewers often carry large biases towards established market participants, and that is understandable.

For example, the Photozone site has still not tested the FE55, two years after release and it being the mainstay of the range. In fact, they have only tested ONE FE prime. Not many Canon users will want to know about FE. It's only bad news for them...Zeiss had great success with the ZE range, so much so it's now morphed into Milvis. Many people don't like Canon's color balance but Zeiss made the ZEs work so well they delivered far superior results - on the same sensors. So it's the EF lenses as well.

Here are some images to illustrate this point.

Test of new Tamron prime lenses on Canon 6D - see if you would be happy with the woman's complexion and lack of tonal range in other images - most un-Sony like:


(scroll down)

I agree that the Batis is exceptional value for the quality it produces. I have the 85mm on order and can't wait to get it. In the meantime I'll make do with the 90 macro which is amazingly sharp but lacks the Zeiss rendering magic.

ncsakany said:

I agree that the Batis is exceptional value for the quality it produces. I have the 85mm on order and can't wait to get it. In the meantime I'll make do with the 90 macro which is amazingly sharp but lacks the Zeiss rendering magic.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you. What's this rendering magic your seeing? From what I've seen, the Batis swirly bokeh is not that pleasing to the eye, and is actually quite distracting, as it draws the eye away from the subject (not what you want in a portrait lens).

The Sony 90mm is exceptionally sharp (sharpest ever AF lens tested on DXO), and also has nice rendering and bokeh. It focusses faster with Sony's new AF system, doesn't have a Tamron designed/manufactured AF and stabilisation system, and is dual purpose being a macro lens as well as a portrait lens.

It was/is over $700 Au cheaper than the Batis 85mm in Australia.

J

Congrats again. Is the Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA still your favorite lens?

Fully agree here.

Are you talking about the 90macro or the B85 in the 2nd paragraph? The thread title says B85, the description you were posting points to the 90macro.

ncsakany said:

Everything will look sharp on a high dpi screen such as your 5k

Click to expand...

This is not even close to being true. I run dual monitors - one at 1920px and the other at 5000px (27 inch). Photos that look pin-sharp on the lower resolution monitor can easily be revealed as being unsharp on the high-resolution monitor. The 5K monitor is very unforgiving.

Wouldn't that be a little huge? @@ batis 135 I definitely hunger for, but f/2.5 would b a good enough compromise for me, if size can be kept minimum

No. For me it is not about size in the first place, but ability for subject separation vs. size and price. A 135 is great at that. The next interesting lens would be a 200/2, but Nikon's and Canon's lenses are extremely expensive, large and heavy.

jaybr said:

ncsakany said:

I agree that the Batis is exceptional value for the quality it produces. I have the 85mm on order and can't wait to get it. In the meantime I'll make do with the 90 macro which is amazingly sharp but lacks the Zeiss rendering magic.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you. What's this rendering magic your seeing? From what I've seen, the Batis swirly bokeh is not that pleasing to the eye, and is actually quite distracting, as it draws the eye away from the subject (not what you want in a portrait lens).

The Sony 90mm is exceptionally sharp (sharpest ever AF lens tested on DXO), and also has nice rendering and bokeh. It focusses faster with Sony's new AF system, doesn't have a Tamron designed/manufactured AF and stabilisation system, and is dual purpose being a macro lens as well as a portrait lens.

It was/is over $700 Au cheaper than the Batis 85mm in Australia.

J

Click to expand...

No need to get defensive. The 90mm macro is a great lens in its own right (and I know personally as I have one). It is sharp, no one is disputing that. But it's also sterile; it has no character - which is actually good in a macro lens. The Batis, however, is full of character and has a spectacular rendering style. That's why I plan to keep both, once I do get my 85mm Batis.

I'm not being defensive. I just don't agree with your opinion.

"Sterile" and "no character" ???

It really depends on how you shoot. If you can't get "character" out of your photography, why blame the lens?

J

jaybr said:

I'm not being defensive. I just don't agree with your opinion.

"Sterile" and "no character" ???

It really depends on how you shoot. If you can't get "character" out of your photography, why blame the lens?

J

Click to expand...

You're not getting my point. That's fine, I'll be moving on now.

ncsakany said:

Opposite. True pixel sharpness cannot be ascertained on high dpi screens because pixels are too small to individually see. If you're experiencing what you wrote, then you or your software are doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

That's true if you're zooming in to 100%, but if you're scaling the image so that it fills the screen, then a high DPI screen is better for judging sharpness.

mgrum said:

ncsakany said:

Opposite. True pixel sharpness cannot be ascertained on high dpi screens because pixels are too small to individually see. If you're experiencing what you wrote, then you or your software are doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

That's true if you're zooming in to 100%, but if you're scaling the image so that it fills the screen, then a high DPI screen is better for judging sharpness.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant pixel level, 100%