The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

85mm Batis v 90mm Sony?

jrp

Member
Has anyone compared these two lenses, for people shots?

Reading various forums suggests that:

  • The Batis is more compact / lighter
  • The Sony is faster focusing and, being a macro lens, it focuses closer
  • The quality control on the Sony is less reliable
  • The bokeh on the Sony is swirlier
  • The colour on the Sony is more muted
  • The Sony has better micro-contrast, if you get a good copy
  • The Sony is less expensive, but they are comparable in price
  • The Sony is over a stop slower

The weight suggests going for the Batis, but am I missing anything?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
There both really good lenses. I don't have the 90 but from mages I have seen it looks very very good. I'm very pleased with the Batis 85
 

dandrewk

New member
I think that "more swirly" bokeh has been suggested about the Batis, not the Macro, although I haven't seen any real examples of it being an issue with either.

I have the 90 Macro. Best bokeh of any lens I own. But then, that's often a personal judgement.

re: Colors being more muted. I really don't know what this means. Color saturation, hue, fidelity are all part of post processing. If it refers to straight out of camera .jpeg, that's another thing. But for RAW... if the colors are too muted it's probably due to the RAW convertor, and it's the easiest thing to fix. Again, it varies by the individual.
 

davidstock

New member
I compared test reports, RAW files and user comments for these two lenses carefully before buying the Batis 85mm. I've only had it for a little while, but I'm very satisfied. It's relatively light and fits perfectly in my hands, which is important. It seems to maintain contrast in shadow areas very well, and I like its color rendition.

I would be careful about concluding that the macro resolves more fine detail than the Batis until more full test reports are available. The only truly comparable mtf 50 tests I've seen put the two lenses neck and neck, with the Batis significantly better wide open. I can say for sure that my copy is very, very sharp all over.

In most respects, the Batis is a worthy successor to the previous classic Zeiss 85's. Plus it has autofocus and image stabilization.

One thing that made me hesitate was its noticeable pincushion distortion.That's easy to correct, without doing visible damage to the files. But the purist in me still wonders why that was necessary.

As far as bokeh goes, I think the Batis is great. Almost any lens has weak spots in terms of bokeh, in certain specific situations. In the limited wide-open shooting I've done with the Batis, I find its bokeh creamy smooth and convincing. Much better than my Zeiss Planar 1.4.

Good luck with your decision.

--d
 

jrp

Member
Well, in the end, I rang a dealer that I have been using for years and they had a Batis. (Fortunately, they don't seem to be good at getting their stock onto their web site -- they are a small chain.)

What swung me was (i) the hope that the QA on the Zeiss lenses is better than the Sony (I don't have time to fart around with misaligned lenses); (ii) the slightly faster aperture; (iii) the slightly lower weight. (Not necessarily in that order.)

I'll report back when I've had a chance to get the feel of the lens.
 

MrTMan

New member
I've been very happy with my Batis 85. I audibly gasped when I saw the first images that I took with it -- I've been very impressed with the sharpness, even wide open, and the overall rendering. I also chose it over the Sony 90 for many of the same reasons.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I don't have the Batis but my FE 90/2.8 is the best lens I own - even if it isn't the most versatile.

If you are a portrait photographer I don't see why you wouldn't own a Batis.

If you are a landscape and/or macro photographer who occasionally takes portraits then I don't see why you wouldn't go with the Sony.

Horse for courses.

LouisB
 

Annna T

Active member
I don't have the Batis but my FE 90/2.8 is the best lens I own - even if it isn't the most versatile.

If you are a portrait photographer I don't see why you wouldn't own a Batis.

If you are a landscape and/or macro photographer who occasionally takes portraits then I don't see why you wouldn't go with the Sony.

Horse for courses.

LouisB
Everything tells me that the 90mm rendering is what would suit me best. But there are also things I don't like with the 90mm : the size and weight, the Sony quality control and the risk of getting a decentered sample. This may lead me to the Batis 85mm instead. On the A7r I was using the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro (an older very sharp version, in Canon mount), I could get AF using the Metabones v. III adapter (it was slow, but this lens was slow even on Canon bodies). But on the A7rII plus Metabones adapter v. IV, AF doesn't work anymore.

(OT) There is really a lack of coherence between the different lenses natively available. What I'd like is a complete line of lenses with the Loxia form factor, but allowing AF (my eyes don't see enough to get in focus easily). As is, we have three lines of lenses (five counting the Sony-Zeiss and the G series). But none is able to build a system by themselves, so you end up with an heterogene set of lenses.

Zeiss explicitly said that the Loxia lenses were targeting both the videographers and the street shooters. I think that they missed the boat, because :
  1. serious videographers would use a real video camera,
  2. old school photographers to whom the concept may appeal have grown older and more often than not tend to prefer AF to be sure that they got in focus.

So the target market for the Loxias is really small. Hence IMO the success of the Batis line. Too bad they made them larger than the Loxia. Who really needs F2 with a 25mm focal length, given the Sony sensor IQ ? F2.8 should be enough and would allow a smaller size.
 
Last edited:

biglouis

Well-known member
Everything tells me that the 90mm rendering is what would suit me best. But there are also things I don't like with the 90mm : the size and weight, the Sony quality control and the risk of getting a decentered sample. This may lead me to the Batis 85mm instead. On the A7r I was using the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro (an older very sharp version, in Canon mount), I could get AF using the Metabones v. III adapter (it was slow, but this lens was slow even on Canon bodies). But on the A7rII plus Metabones adapter v. IV, AF doesn't work anymore.

(OT) There is really a lack of coherence between the different lenses natively available. What I'd like is a co plate line of lenses with the Loxia form factor, but allowing AF (my eyes don't see enough to get in focus easily). As is, we have three lines of lenses (five counting the Sony-Zeiss and the G series). But none is able to build a system by themselves, so you end up with an heterogene set of lenses.

Zeiss explicitly said that the Loxia lenses were targeting both the videographers and the street shooters. I think that they missed the boat, because :
  1. serious videographers would use a real video camera,
  2. old school photographers to whom the concept may appeal have grown older and more often than not tend to prefer AF to be sure that they got in focus.

So the target market for the Loxias is really small. Hence IMO the success of the Batis line. Too bad they made them larger than the Loxia. Who really needs F2 with a 25mm focal length, given the Sony sensor IQ ? F2.8 should be enough and would allow a smaller size.
Anna

I am too very unhappy with Sony quality control but I have managed to get a FE 90/2.8 which is nothing short of stellar. Maybe, just maybe they all are?

I was also unhappy about the size but I seem to have adjusted to it. I can honestly say it is one of the best designed camera lenses I have bought - which surprised me!

I totally agree with you about your analysis of the lens family. I do have the 2/35 Loxia and it is a joy to use but in this day and age I am afraid AF is not a nice-to-have but a necessity. It is a shame the new 21 is a manual focus Loxia. What we all want is a Batis 21/2.8 with autofocus. Why Zeiss are playing a coy game with the product line is beyond me unless Sony is shortly to announce a FE G 21/2.8.

I have been using at CV 21/1.8 to good effect but the obvious darkening of the live view as you stop down is a total pain.

LouisB

Added: actually, I would settle for a Batis 4/21 as speed is not essential but size is.
 
Last edited:

Jim DE

New member
Annna just curious if you get the Techart to work with your cg90 would you be thinking about getting either of these?
 

Viramati

Member
Like Louis I luckily have a good copy of the FE90 macro and love the way it renders and it very versatile being a macro. Yes it is on the large side but does handle well and I like being able to assign focus hold to the button on the lens. Also I do wish Sony designed all their FE lenses with the same AF/MF focus ring. All in all a great all-rounder but if you need 1.8 and don't do macro then the Batis maybe a good option. Unlike Louis though I am happy that zeiss are bringing out the Loxia 21/2.8 as at this wide end of the lens spectrum I prefer a good manual lens with DOF scale
 

Annna T

Active member
Annna just curious if you get the Techart to work with your cg90 would you be thinking about getting either of these?
That would exclude the Batis 85mm. But the 90mm is a macro, so not exactly the same. For sure, i prefer the size and weight of the Contax G lenses !
 

Annna T

Active member
Anna

I am too very unhappy with Sony quality control but I have managed to get a FE 90/2.8 which is nothing short of stellar. Maybe, just maybe they all are?

I was also unhappy about the size but I seem to have adjusted to it. I can honestly say it is one of the best designed camera lenses I have bought - which surprised me!

I totally agree with you about your analysis of the lens family. I do have the 2/35 Loxia and it is a joy to use but in this day and age I am afraid AF is not a nice-to-have but a necessity. It is a shame the new 21 is a manual focus Loxia. What we all want is a Batis 21/2.8 with autofocus. Why Zeiss are playing a coy game with the product line is beyond me unless Sony is shortly to announce a FE G 21/2.8.

I have been using at CV 21/1.8 to good effect but the obvious darkening of the live view as you stop down is a total pain.

LouisB

Added: actually, I would settle for a Batis 4/21 as speed is not essential but size is.

Two out of my four Sony lenses were deceiving (16-35mm and 70-200mm). I love the 55mm F1.8, it is perfect (clinical doesn't bother me) and my 24-70mm seems to do rather well, especially when compared to the 16-35mm.
I must admit that while there were a lot of unhappy owners at the beginnings of the system, i didn't hear about many decentering complaints for the 90mm.

I would also set on slower lenses for wide angle in exchange of less weight.. May be i could do with MF on a 21mm : using it stoped down and with zone focus would be OK. But starting at 35mm i need AF and then i'd have to mix lenses series..
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Don't let the hoods deceive you , they are big and ugly. I don't use either one on my 25 and 85. I use some cheap screw in metal hoods and they work great and a lot smaller.
 

Annna T

Active member
Don't let the hoods deceive you , they are big and ugly. I don't use either one on my 25 and 85. I use some cheap screw in metal hoods and they work great and a lot smaller.
I tend to think that the hoods designed by the manufacturers are there for a good reason, in order to fight effectively against flare etc.. and in order to provide the best performance available to the optics.. That's why even if i find the hoods cumbersome, i tend to keep them. But yes, they are a pain in the bag when you want to remain compact.
 

dandrewk

New member
I can't speak for the Batis, but I love my FE90. It's rare to have such a sharp lens render bokeh so beautifully.

The images speak for themselves, but what isn't apparent to non-owners is the build quality. It's the most solid lens I own, maybe the best ever. Sure, it's large and heavy, but fits VERY well on the A7 series and is very comfortable to hold. I absolutely love the manual/auto focus push/pull ring. It's ideal for everything, but particularly macro. I let the AF narrow down the focus, a simple pull and then I fine tune with MF. The friction focusing is a smooth and tactile as it gets.

It looks really cool too, modern industrial art. The lens almost sells itself once you demo one in a store.

 
Last edited:

Jim DE

New member
Annna, You know I am in nearly the same mode as you.... the Techart adapter is a huge ? for me and I really don't trust Chinese tech companies after my experience with DJI and drones. I shoot my macro's with a APC because I like the increased DOF APC affords me and my 180mm macro is just a awesome macro lens. This means I can use the CG 90 manually or get the 90mm macro or 85 Baetis. It's a focal length I really do not use much... I avoid shooting people like the plague in fact if I have people in my shots unavoidably I will clone them out. Years and years of event and wedding photography back in the 60's and 70's burned me out with people as subjects. I just don't do them and really don't enjoy seeing them in anyones photo's. So my need for this lens is for when I want a slightly tighter perspective on my scenics. All three can give me that..... I am still debating this one out between my ears.
 

Jim DE

New member
Odd that back a few months we saw a bunch of Pics posted using the Sony 90 but the past month or so very few with the 90 and far more with the 85 Batis. I guess the love is gone ;)

I am still debating 90-85-or just stay with the cg90 with my Kipon and save the $1000-$1300. I prefer macro with APC bodies, don't shoot people shots ever, and it will only be used for scenics needing a bit more reach or for panos.
 
Top