Is there something wrong with this Batis?

[PaulR]

The bokeh on the 90mm is MUCH nicer than the Batis shots. I received the 90mm a few weeks ago and returned it because the lens was decentered but except for that my test shots were exceptional. The replacement comes today. Hopefuly this copy will be perfect.

These are close-up shots. From my reading of online reviews, FE90mm generates good bokeh for close-up and macro photos. But for portraits, FE90mm has worse bokeh than Batis 85mm. An example of such review can be found here:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/0...s-batis-85mm-f1-8-vs-90mm-macro-vs-55mm-f1-8/

Steve Hoff also states that in his blog.

My experience with Sony lenses is that 40-50% of the lenses are less than optimal but once you get a good copy the lenses are terrific. At least that has been my experience with the 15-35mm, 24-70mm, 35mm F2.8 and 55mm F1.8. Only bad lens in my opinion is the 28mm. I tested two copies and both were equally bad. I'm surprised about all the glowing reviews of that lens. But I guess the price is right.

Steve Hoff compared Sony FE28mm and Zeiss Batis 25mm. He states that he can barely tell the differences. So it is not just the price....

 

[Alithenake]

except the vertical shift of the letters doesn't look like a bokeh effect....

I agree.. but what is it? Because if you look at the girl, there's no vertical shift!

 

[PaulR]

The bokeh on the 90mm is MUCH nicer than the Batis shots. I received the 90mm a few weeks ago and returned it because the lens was decentered but except for that my test shots were exceptional. The replacement comes today. Hopefuly this copy will be perfect. My experience with Sony lenses is that 40-50% of the lenses are less than optimal but once you get a good copy the lenses are terrific. At least that has been my experience with the 15-35mm, 24-70mm, 35mm F2.8 and 55mm F1.8. Only bad lens in my opinion is the 28mm. I tested two copies and both were equally bad. I'm surprised about all the glowing reviews of that lens. But I guess the price is right.

You can't compare shots of different situations at different distances and different apertures.

Seriously? Haven't we all seen enough shots of the Batis 85mm taken in a wide range of distances, apertures and circumstances to conclude the lens has very busy, swirly bokeh? Honestly, if it wasn't Zeiss branded I think we would all be much more critical.

 

[Alpha Photo]

I just don't believe these double letters have ANYTHING to do with bokeh or the lens used. I may be wrong.

 

[Rey66]

except the vertical shift of the letters doesn't look like a bokeh effect....

I agree.. but what is it? Because if you look at the girl, there's no vertical shift!

--
http://www.allinpopescu.ro

i think its a flaw in manufacturing...only seems to happen on certain depth of field...I checked all my similar shots with 90mm G macro and I don't see this doubling..even the FE70-200mm F4

 

[Alpha Photo]

I really wish you had taken a second shot with the camera turned 90 degrees. Would the letters than all shift horizontally???

Too late now, but it remains a total optical mystery.

 

[HFLM]

The bokeh on the 90mm is MUCH nicer than the Batis shots. I received the 90mm a few weeks ago and returned it because the lens was decentered but except for that my test shots were exceptional. The replacement comes today. Hopefuly this copy will be perfect. My experience with Sony lenses is that 40-50% of the lenses are less than optimal but once you get a good copy the lenses are terrific. At least that has been my experience with the 15-35mm, 24-70mm, 35mm F2.8 and 55mm F1.8. Only bad lens in my opinion is the 28mm. I tested two copies and both were equally bad. I'm surprised about all the glowing reviews of that lens. But I guess the price is right.

You can't compare shots of different situations at different distances and different apertures.

Seriously? Haven't we all seen enough shots of the Batis 85mm taken in a wide range of distances, apertures and circumstances to conclude the lens has very busy, swirly bokeh? Honestly, if it wasn't Zeiss branded I think we would all be much more critical.

You can't use a macro lens at 1:2-1:3 and say bokeh is different (very obvious) to an 85. It better be at such small distances. Use both lenses at the same distance using the same aperture for the same scene, otherwise you just can't judge whether one lens is able o render the scene better than the other. Was done at http://www.mirrorlessons.com/. The bokeh of the Batis was at least as good at f2.8 but could do even better when going to 1.8. I own the Batis, the Nikon 85/1.8g, the 85/1.4g shot with the Canon 85/1.2, owned the Fuji 56/1.2. The Batis is in a similar league when looking at f1.8 background blur (without the chromatic) aberrations, but is much sharper. Admiringlight.com compared it to the Fuji 56/1.2. The bokeh of the Fuji was a little smoother, but not significantly so.

 

[blue_skies]

Admittedly the Batis 85 is a nice lens. However, I'm finding the 55 is fine for my portrait needs. It's wide enough to easily encompass a group portrait shot, unlike the Batis 85 where you would need in that situation to back up far enough that eye focus would no longer work, and wide open it has a pleasing bokeh.

 

[blue_skies]

Loading…

photography-on-the.net

Simple remedy: stop down to f/2.5 or so when 'bright bokeh' may be present?

Canon 35L

Canon 85L @1.2 - clipped bokeh

More bokeh comments here: http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/eight-photography-effects/

My point in all the above? You cannot have and both sharpness, and both amazing soft bokeh.

Sigma's come to mind on E-mount, at f/2.8, they are revered for sharpness, but not for bokeh. Almost any Zeiss lens has the same attribute, great for sharpness, including wide open, but not for soft bokeh. Leica (f/1.4) lenses that produce nice soft bokeh do also go quite soft there. Similar has been observed in Sony E30, E50 and FE35Z/1.4 and FE/55Z.

Otus wins by being f/1.4, whereas Batis is at f/1.8. I think that local, contrast and sharpness win over in the design, making this a wonderful lens. If bright bokeh object surface (daytime or highlighted background/lights), I would simply use it at f/2.5 or so.

Not even sure that this is a lens design problem. Bokeh in ZM lenses also trailed 'lower IQ' competition, but sharpness was amazing.

Funnily, you can likely get smoother bokeh from the FE70200, @200, than from the Batis @85 - just have sufficient light

--
Cheers,
Henry

 

[JLim22]

Don't get me wrong. I love the photos that come out from the Batis 85mm f/1.8 mounted on my Sony A7s.

But, in some occasions I saw some strange lines doubling, or how should I call it? Well, below is an example. Look at the leaf on my girl's hand

Would you happen to have the raw file for this particular shot?

Maybe you have a bad copy? I received my 85 last Saturday and although I have not been able to test the lens in similar situations as yours, but my normal use seems to show very pleasing bokeh.

My daughter is too young to hold a leaf like your daughter and I couldn't find any leaves like the one she's holding.



I'll keep an eye out for similar situation to test lens, but as for me, the 85 is a keeper.

 

[Alithenake]

Of course I have the RAW file, but what do you need it for?

Actually doesn't really matter, here is the file - http://s.go.ro/3dvwkuuw

 

[JLim22]

Of course I have the RAW file, but what do you need it for?

Actually doesn't really matter, here is the file - http://s.go.ro/3dvwkuuw

--
http://www.allinpopescu.ro

Thanks. I just wanted to see if it was at all possible to reduce the appearance of the double lines with different settings in raw. But it appears that is not the case.

I'll try to do some test shots this week to see if my copy exhibits similar double lines.

 

[Alpha Photo]

in out of focus areas can happen with ANY lens under certain circumstances. I don't see anything unusual here....

 

[andrewD2]

Admittedly the Batis 85 is a nice lens. However, I'm finding the 55 is fine for my portrait needs. It's wide enough to easily encompass a group portrait shot, unlike the Batis 85 where you would need in that situation to back up far enough that eye focus would no longer work, and wide open it has a pleasing bokeh.

 

[JLim22]

in out of focus areas can happen with ANY lens under certain circumstances. I don't see anything unusual here....

I think his image looks fine.

But I just wanted see which circumstances would cause that because I took over a hundred shots over the weekend and I didn't really find those double lines.

 

[steelhead3]

Onion ring bokeh is not desireable and gives rise of "busy background" comments. I would go on flickr or whatever and look for other double lines and see if maybe your lens may or not be up to par.

 

[JLim22]

Onion ring bokeh is not desireable and gives rise of "busy background" comments. I would go on flickr or whatever and look for other double lines and see if maybe your lens may or not be up to par.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Looking through my images the Batis does not show any onion ring bokeh. And neither is the OP talking about onion ring bokeh.

If anything, the 90 macro probably shows some onion ring bokeh when shooting portraits.

You should go on flickr.

 

[blue_skies]

Admittedly the Batis 85 is a nice lens. However, I'm finding the 55 is fine for my portrait needs. It's wide enough to easily encompass a group portrait shot, unlike the Batis 85 where you would need in that situation to back up far enough that eye focus would no longer work, and wide open it has a pleasing bokeh.

 

[andrewD2]

Admittedly the Batis 85 is a nice lens. However, I'm finding the 55 is fine for my portrait needs. It's wide enough to easily encompass a group portrait shot, unlike the Batis 85 where you would need in that situation to back up far enough that eye focus would no longer work, and wide open it has a pleasing bokeh.

 

[andrewD2]

I have a shot with the blurred outer areas having rotated motion blur but the in focus area is sharp. It was the IBIS using its automatic setting but because there was a close up filter on the cameras information doesn't match the actual focal length or real focus distance.

I think its perfectly possible for the IBIS to correct at the subject distance and not for the background. Tested at all with no OSS or IBIS on?

Andrew