Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

  1. #1
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Hi,

    LensRentals did run a short test on Sony 90/2.8G Macro, and it was amazingly good. Now DxO-mark has tested the 90/2.8. This gave me the opportunity to compare it to the probably best lens in that range, the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4.

    The image below shows both lenses at f/4 which is probably best aperture for both.


    Now, stopping the Otus down to f/5.6 essentially makes the curves overlap, as the Otus is a bit limited by diffraction. The Sony is still at f/4, so it is less limited by diffraction.


    This says that the Otus is the better lens, but the Sony 90/2.8G is pretty close at optimal apertures.

    For me it seems that the Sony 90/2.8G may be the best 85-90 mm option if f/1.4 - f/1.8 is not needed. I guess that I cancel my order for the Batis and buy the Sony 90/2.8G macro instead.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Homepage: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
    Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/in.../photoarticles
    Portfolio: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    I wonder how the Batis 85 would compare.

    For me low-light capability is very useful in a long lens and the 1.8 of the Batis is therefore indispensable. It is also smaller and cheaper than the Otus which works even better. I am willing to accept a slightly lower image quality - from what I see in my own tests, it is better than 'good enough' for me.

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    I wonder how the Batis 85 would compare.

    For me low-light capability is very useful in a long lens and the 1.8 of the Batis is therefore indispensable. It is also smaller and cheaper than the Otus which works even better. I am willing to accept a slightly lower image quality - from what I see in my own tests, it is better than 'good enough' for me.
    I have no doubt that the 90 Macro is very likely to outperform the 85 Batis in resolution charts. Most people buy the Batis for it's look/speed for portraits. In any case they're similarly priced so go with the one that best fit your needs. If you want the more sterile/maximum sharpness then the Macro is your lens. If you want more character, microcontrast, pop, and stunning transitions then go for the Batis.

    From using both of the Batis lenses I'd expect them to be somewhere between the 35 Distagon FE and the 55 Sonnar FE on DXO charts (probably closer to the 35 than the 55 though.) I could be wrong though.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  4. #4
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Hi,

    What is in focus for me is good performance at large apertures and with little or no axial chromatic aberration (green/magenta fringing in OOF areas).

    I think that the Batis fills that bill, but it seems that the new 90/2.8G is also extremely sharp already at full aperture.

    Originally, I ordered the Batis, but I may feel that a Macro lens is more useful. It is hard to judge axial chroma on basis of the DxO-tests, but lateral chroma is well corrected (about half amount compared to Otus) so it seems a generous amount of SD/AD glass was used.

    All indications I have seen on the Batis are really excellent and I have little doubt it will do very well in different tests.

    For me a large aperture is not important, but macro is something I need. So, what I think the 90/2.8 offers is a macro lens with a decent maximum aperture that performs very well at that aperture.

    Guy Mancuso posted some raw images shot with the Batis 85/1.4 recently, and it is definitively very good at full aperture.

    So, if I would need a portrait type lens large aperture shooting I would go with the Batis, but I just want a very well corrected lens at full aperture. So I go with the Macro.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    I wonder how the Batis 85 would compare.

    For me low-light capability is very useful in a long lens and the 1.8 of the Batis is therefore indispensable. It is also smaller and cheaper than the Otus which works even better. I am willing to accept a slightly lower image quality - from what I see in my own tests, it is better than 'good enough' for me.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Quote Originally Posted by HiredArm View Post
    I have no doubt that the 90 Macro is very likely to outperform the 85 Batis in resolution charts. Most people buy the Batis for it's look/speed for portraits. In any case they're similarly priced so go with the one that best fit your needs. If you want the more sterile/maximum sharpness then the Macro is your lens. If you want more character, microcontrast, pop, and stunning transitions then go for the Batis.

    From using both of the Batis lenses I'd expect them to be somewhere between the 35 Distagon FE and the 55 Sonnar FE on DXO charts (probably closer to the 35 than the 55 though.) I could be wrong though.
    The 90 is probably sharper from what I am hearing. But since I do not need Macro, the quality of the Batis is more appealing to me.

    As an aside, I am not convinced DXO numbers are really that reliable or truly transferable to field conditions, but that's just my own opinion.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    The 90 is probably sharper from what I am hearing. But since I do not need Macro, the quality of the Batis is more appealing to me.

    As an aside, I am not convinced DXO numbers are really that reliable or truly transferable to field conditions, but that's just my own opinion.
    I agree and that's why I bought the 85 Batis myself.

    Resolution isn't everything (as certain aesthetics like "character" are sometimes considered optical faults) but I have no doubt the DXO tests are completely accurate when it comes to quantifying characteristics of a lens/sensor combination. A higher number doesn't always mean that a certain lens is "better" though I agree.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  7. #7
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Hi,

    Well, Guy Mancuso's raw image of that building shows that the Batis can generate a lot of Moiré at full aperture, that is a excellent proof that it does outresolve the sensor.

    I did not look at the DxO-mark numbers but looked at all diagrams at some depth and have drawn my conclusions.

    Now, I am perhaps shooting twenty times more macro than large aperture, small DoF images. So Macro is important to me. Would I need large aperture and no close up, I would go with the Batis. But, if I can have one lens instead of two I prefer to have a single lens. Based on the available data I canceled the Batis and ordered the Sony instead. It was a close call.

    Just to say, MTF data for the Batis at the Zeiss site is very promising, but so is data for the 90/2.8G at LensRentals.

    It would be nice to order five samples of each and shoot them under real life conditions for a few months and make an educated choice, but I don't feel I have that option. So I am very interested in tests.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    The 90 is probably sharper from what I am hearing. But since I do not need Macro, the quality of the Batis is more appealing to me.

    As an aside, I am not convinced DXO numbers are really that reliable or truly transferable to field conditions, but that's just my own opinion.
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 22nd July 2015 at 14:38.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    I just took delivery of this lens yesterday and will be working on a review. First impressions are that it is very sharp and that the autofocus on an A7II is disappointing for portraiture in dusk light, even with the focus range limiter in use.

    A few of my first shots around the yard:


    DSC00328
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00343
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00362
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00409
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00410
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Sorry: which lens was this? and wide open?
    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    I just took delivery of this lens yesterday and will be working on a review. First impressions are that it is very sharp and that the autofocus on an A7II is disappointing for portraiture in dusk light, even with the focus range limiter in use.

    A few of my first shots around the yard:


    DSC00328
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00343
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00362
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00409
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr


    DSC00410
    by Amin Sabet, on Flickr

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Quote Originally Posted by rga View Post
    Sorry: which lens was this? and wide open?
    Thanks
    Just look at the Flickr pages? Could you take a close-up of a tomato with the Batis? 90/2.8.

    Who needs f/1.8 with that shallow DOF and nice bokeh? I love the FE 90/2.8, it's a really great lens.
    -- My website
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Yep, was the 90 macro. Probably the sharpest lens I have ever tried, and the bokeh is very much to my liking as well!
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: That 90/2.8 macro may be very good, 90/2.8 vs. Otus 85/1.4

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    Yep, was the 90 macro. Probably the sharpest lens I have ever tried, and the bokeh is very much to my liking as well!
    I also like the bokeh from my 90 macro. It is a special lens.

    -Bill

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •