Is there anyone out there actually using Batis 135?

[oriomenoni]

With it's stellar price tag of 2000$ for an f2.8 lens, I still have to meet someone in my photographic acquaintances that has actually purchased the lens and is using it.
Yet, the lens seems to deliver!
However, with only 500$ or so more needed to get the 70-200 G Master (also f2.8), there doesn't seem to be much reasons left to go for the Batis. Especially now that Sony has announced a new 135 that is likely to be faster.
So... anyone out there using the Zeiss beast and wanting to share some images?

 

[sjazz]

I asked Zeiss recently about the availability of the 135mm in Australia and they asked me to contact their local distributors but they only sell to stores and none of the shops I know have it in stock. It's only available by order.

So the Sigma 135mm was available, I tried it, I liked it and regardless the size and weight, it's a superb performer that produces excellent images, ultra sharp and it costed half the price of the Zeiss over here which is sold almost in AUD 3000, around $300 more than USD 2000 converted to AUD

 

[oriomenoni]

I read that the Sigma 135 produces inconsistent autofocus results with both the Metabones and Sigma adapters, what is your experience in that regard?

 

[terryreid]

I read that the Sigma 135 produces inconsistent autofocus results with both the Metabones and Sigma adapters, what is your experience in that regard?

Yes it is sharp and feels great on the camera just the right size. I will sell it and get the GM when it comes out which was the plan when I ordered it but only for the AF/MF switch and Focus button for Eye Focus and I think I will like the MF and AF better with a Sony GM. The one thing about the Batis that is good and bad is the throw is sooooooo long on MF which is nice for nailing focus but it is so long you wonder if you are turning it the right direction it is a long throw. I wish all my Sony's has a longer throw and particularly my Loxia's but not quite this long.

Outstanding lens though.

 

[FF Pro]

I can't justify that cost for that focal length. I'm sure it's a great lens because the other three I have are amazing lenses. I just can't bring myself to purchase the B135.

 

[tommiejeep]

Yup, had it for a while. Does what t is supposed to do and I like the FL on the a7rii. Is it worth the asking price...maybe not ...but is being discounted in some places in the world.

It is very dependable with no real flaws. A bit larger than I would have liked. I've posted a few images in other parts of Dpr.

I really bought it for travel to replace the 70-200 f4. I use it for Documentary , candids so not bothered about f2.8. I have several 135mm lenses but MF.

These probably do not show the lens very well

I was shooting some Storks and she pulled her bicycle up and leaned it against the front of my Jeep and took her Smartphone out

Just finished the new village Soccer Pitch. Batis 25 would have done nicely

Construction workers having lunch

and the Storks, huge crop, D500 with 300 f2.8 w/TC1.4 was better

Full disclosure , I was actually buying a Leica M Telyt APO 135 f3.4 but a series of unfortunate events caused the deal to fall through. For the Travel Kit, size is certainly a factor. If I were a Conon shooter I would have thought about the Sigma Art but as a Nikon shooter...no. Here the Sigma Art 135 + adapter is not that much cheaper than the Batis.

--

Anticipate the Light and wing it when you get it wrong but always have funTomhttp://taja.smugmug.com/http://images.nikonians.org/galleries

 

[Luis Gabriel Photography]

I read that the Sigma 135 produces inconsistent autofocus results with both the Metabones and Sigma adapters, what is your experience in that regard?

Not true unless you are using the MC-11 with the A9.
I have the Sigma and not only is it razor sharp wide open across the frame, but also no CA and great bokeh (kind of a first for Sigma! lol). Is an amazing lens in all regards. The Focusing has very very reliable to me with both adapters (I have not used for jobs with MC-11 and firmware higher than 1.05 since I started using the metabones V now with it).

With the latest Metabones firmware I love it even more since I can use Eye AF in continuous mode all across the frame. With the MC-11 it has limitations if used in Continuous mode but still works great.
You can see a small comparison video I did with the different adapters with the 135mm Art.

 

[sjazz]

I read that the Sigma 135 produces inconsistent autofocus results with both the Metabones and Sigma adapters, what is your experience in that regard?

I only had there shoots with the 135mm. The first was in low light and it was fantastic, nailed AF and Eye AF, always consistent and extremely sharp, same in the second shoot. Then for my third shoot, I updated the firmware of the MC-11 to v.1.07 and I got a few inconsistencies and AF was a bit less easier regardless there was plenty of light . Anyway I downgraded the MC-11 to V.1.05 and I expect an stellar performance again.

 

[biza43]

With it's stellar price tag of 2000$ for an f2.8 lens, I still have to meet someone in my photographic acquaintances that has actually purchased the lens and is using it.

Batis is not the type of lens I see often being used. Actually, Sony ILCE 7 is not a system I see people using around me. Small market I suppose.

Yet, the lens seems to deliver!
However, with only 500$ or so more needed to get the 70-200 G Master (also f2.8), there doesn't seem to be much reasons left to go for the Batis.

The Batis 135 weighs around 600g, less than half the weight of the zoom. That is reason enough for me (I am saving for one). I think Zeiss made the right choice of making a lens that is robust, light weight, fits well with the ILCE cameras, and it is optically probably perfect for all purposes and intents. Of course they could have made it f2, but then it would be the size and weight of the Milvus 135; not really "mirrorless-friendly".

Especially now that Sony has announced a new 135 that is likely to be faster.

Have they?

 

[terryreid]

With it's stellar price tag of 2000$ for an f2.8 lens, I still have to meet someone in my photographic acquaintances that has actually purchased the lens and is using it.

Batis is not the type of lens I see often being used. Actually, Sony ILCE 7 is not a system I see people using around me. Small market I suppose.

Yet, the lens seems to deliver!
However, with only 500$ or so more needed to get the 70-200 G Master (also f2.8), there doesn't seem to be much reasons left to go for the Batis.

The Batis 135 weighs around 600g, less than half the weight of the zoom. That is reason enough for me (I am saving for one). I think Zeiss made the right choice of making a lens that is robust, light weight, fits well with the ILCE cameras, and it is optically probably perfect for all purposes and intents. Of course they could have made it f2, but then it would be the size and weight of the Milvus 135; not really "mirrorless-friendly".

Especially now that Sony has announced a new 135 that is likely to be faster.

Have they?

 

[kelly15]

With it's stellar price tag of 2000$ for an f2.8 lens, I still have to meet someone in my photographic acquaintances that has actually purchased the lens and is using it.

Batis is not the type of lens I see often being used. Actually, Sony ILCE 7 is not a system I see people using around me. Small market I suppose.

Yet, the lens seems to deliver!
However, with only 500$ or so more needed to get the 70-200 G Master (also f2.8), there doesn't seem to be much reasons left to go for the Batis.

The Batis 135 weighs around 600g, less than half the weight of the zoom. That is reason enough for me (I am saving for one). I think Zeiss made the right choice of making a lens that is robust, light weight, fits well with the ILCE cameras, and it is optically probably perfect for all purposes and intents. Of course they could have made it f2, but then it would be the size and weight of the Milvus 135; not really "mirrorless-friendly".

Especially now that Sony has announced a new 135 that is likely to be faster.

Have they?

 

[biza43]

Mirrorless friendly or not the value os this lens is not 2000 euro IMHO.

Around 800/1000 euro it is acceptable as the only benefit compared to Sigma 135 is the reduction of weight.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But then you really need to check the price of Zeiss lenses from other ranges: ZM, Milvus, Batis, Loxia. We are talking about a lens that is practically optically perfect, from Zeiss, that features (true) APO, T* coating, OSS.

How one expects such a lens to be cheaper than the other Batis lenses is difficult to understand.

 

[terryreid]

Mirrorless friendly or not the value os this lens is not 2000 euro IMHO.

Around 800/1000 euro it is acceptable as the only benefit compared to Sigma 135 is the reduction of weight.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But then you really need to check the price of Zeiss lenses from other ranges: ZM, Milvus, Batis, Loxia. We are talking about a lens that is practically optically perfect, from Zeiss, that features (true) APO, T* coating, OSS.

How one expects such a lens to be cheaper than the other Batis lenses is difficult to understand.

 

[Mike Evangelist]

There is an informative thread about this lens over on Fred Miranda - Batis 135 thread on FM Lots of images.

Hopefully it's OK to link to another forum. ;-)

 

[Luis Gabriel Photography]

Mirrorless friendly or not the value os this lens is not 2000 euro IMHO.

Around 800/1000 euro it is acceptable as the only benefit compared to Sigma 135 is the reduction of weight.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But then you really need to check the price of Zeiss lenses from other ranges: ZM, Milvus, Batis, Loxia. We are talking about a lens that is practically optically perfect, from Zeiss, that features (true) APO, T* coating, OSS.

How one expects such a lens to be cheaper than the other Batis lenses is difficult to understand.

--
www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

I agree, lenses of this quality are not inexpensive and the reduction in weight is huge compared to the Sigma 39.8oz vs 21.6 that is a LOT! That would be worth it just for the weight difference to me and frankly would rule the Sigma out entirely not to mention adapted lenses do not perform like native lenses. As much as I want the Sony if it weighs that much its going to be a close call for me I already have enough heavy glass with the 70-200 & 100-400GM (shortly) I do not need any more.

--
Please do not put words in my mouth. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Adapted lenses may not perform like native, although in some cases forcing PDAF at smaller apertures will actually work better than native, but still are more than a viable option specially if not for fast tracking/ sports as my video clearly shows how the new firmware on Metabones works with the Sigma.

Not all of us value size over other aspects and when it comes to IQ the Sigma is a stunning lens, not to mention the amazing blur from the 1.8 aperture and razor sharp performance wide open across the frame. So "mirrorless friendly" is not really an accurate term as it just depends on our own preferences and requirements.

Of course, when a 135m GM comes out, I will surely take a look to see how it compared to my Sigma as long as it is as expected, at least F2.

 

[No account anymore]

We are talking about a lens that is practically optically perfect, from Zeiss, that features (true) APO, T* coating, OSS.

Balance between high and low freqiency contrast is excellent and very consistent wih my Zeiss lenses (Loxia), and we also talk about very high build quality.

 

[kelly15]

Mirrorless friendly or not the value os this lens is not 2000 euro IMHO.

Around 800/1000 euro it is acceptable as the only benefit compared to Sigma 135 is the reduction of weight.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But then you really need to check the price of Zeiss lenses from other ranges: ZM, Milvus, Batis, Loxia. We are talking about a lens that is practically optically perfect, from Zeiss, that features (true) APO, T* coating, OSS.

How one expects such a lens to be cheaper than the other Batis lenses is difficult to understand.

--
www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

Not only the 135 is crazy expensive but in general all of Baitis range.

85 mm in twice the Sony and three times the more than decent Canon equivalents.

So for the 25 which is more expensive than 1.4 24's in the market.

But it is just me.

 

[Dan_168]

With it's stellar price tag of 2000$ for an f2.8 lens, I still have to meet someone in my photographic acquaintances that has actually purchased the lens and is using it.
Yet, the lens seems to deliver!
However, with only 500$ or so more needed to get the 70-200 G Master (also f2.8), there doesn't seem to be much reasons left to go for the Batis. Especially now that Sony has announced a new 135 that is likely to be faster.
So... anyone out there using the Zeiss beast and wanting to share some images?

As a huge fan of 135mm, I just can't bring myself to a 135 F2.8 lens while I already have an excellent Zeiss 135 F2 APO and Samyang 135 F2, it's not even about the cost, I am willing to trade my 135 APO with a new Milvus 135 for few hundred bucks more than the Batis but will not want to go back to a F2.8 lens, also I don't like the MF ring on all Batis lens, if this one is same as the the other Batis I have or had before, so I will pass this time. some people mentioned the Sigma 135 above, now that's the lens I will get, after trying my friend's new toy, I think I will get one myself very soon. G.A.S kicked in again........( disclaimer: Size and weight means nothing to me in gear selection, in fact I am the one complaining A7R II being too small all the time and wish Nikon buys this sensor and put in in their D5 body, so......)

 

[biza43]

Not only the 135 is crazy expensive but in general all of Baitis range.

85 mm in twice the Sony and three times the more than decent Canon equivalents.

So for the 25 which is more expensive than 1.4 24's in the market.

But it is just me.

It is not just you, the perception of "value" and "crazy expensive" is personal. Zeiss lenses were always more expensive than lots of other lenses.

As I said, I value things that Zeiss offers; would I wish their lenses would be less expensive? Of course... but I am willing to save and buy the Batis, rather than cheaper ones, because to me the added performance and construction quality are valuable.

In the recent years, new top quality lenses from Canon, Nikon, and others, are becoming increasingly dearer; people demand perfection zoomed in 400%, so they are getting it... at a cost.

Actually, I find the FE 85 f1.8 (EUR 600) to be "expensive" compared to Canon EF 85 f1.8; but then, the latter was introduced I think in 1992?

 

[biza43]

Not all of us value size over other aspects and when it comes to IQ the Sigma is a stunning lens, not to mention the amazing blur from the 1.8 aperture and razor sharp performance wide open across the frame. So "mirrorless friendly" is not really an accurate term as it just depends on our own preferences and requirements.

Ok, how about if Zeiss chose to make the Batis f1.8 or f2, at about 1,200 kg and EUR 2,600? Mirrorless friendly means a compromise between size, weight, and balance on a smaller camera. For those wanting a Zeiss 135 f2, there is the Milvus. Indeed, my preference is for a lighter lens that I can carry around all day without a spinal injury The difference between f2.8 and f2 is irrelevant to me. But I accept it is important to others, of course.

If I wanted to carry a heavy lens, I would go for the GM 70-200.