Fred Miranda wrote:
More sample images from the night before the lens went back.
Gosh it's gorgeous. I'm a bit tempted despite knowing that the use will be relatively given what I do.
But, I'd be sorely tempted to keep the Classic 2/135 Apo Sonnar as well for it's lower contrast, slightly more SA background rendering (coupled with outstanding sharpness at closer distances, if not in the GM league) wide open. But that would be madness.
I am curious about a comparison with the Batis 135 2.8. Are they obviously not even close? I just bought the Batis maybe two months ago. Now once again I am frustrated....Gotta quit jumping the gun I guess.
Neurad1 wrote:
I am curious about a comparison with the Batis 135 2.8. Are they obviously not even close? I just bought the Batis maybe two months ago. Now once again I am frustrated....Gotta quit jumping the gun I guess.
Nothing wrong with the Batis 135. It’s s great lens
Neurad1 wrote:
I am curious about a comparison with the Batis 135 2.8. Are they obviously not even close? I just bought the Batis maybe two months ago. Now once again I am frustrated....Gotta quit jumping the gun I guess.
They are optically close indeed. Both are optically in the very first league, and for practical purposes the optical differences between them either way are not ones that should play any role in your deliberations whatsoever.
But they are very different lenses.
If you want a compact lighter tele for travel that is one of the finest lenses for the system. and are happy with f2.8, the Batis is what you want and the GM is not a starter.
If you want a an f1.8-2 class 135 that is outstanding wide open also one of the best, if not the best, lenses optically in the system (and superb stopped down for when you want to use it that way) the you want the GM and of course the Batis isn't that and so is out of consideration.
I can't imagine there are many people choosing between them. I can imagine owning both (but I'm going to try to stop imagining that)
DavidBM wrote:
They are optically close indeed. Both are optically in the very first league, and for practical purposes the optical differences between them either way are not ones that should play any role in your deliberations whatsoever.
But they are very different lenses.
If you want a compact lighter tele for travel that is one of the finest lenses for the system. and are happy with f2.8, the Batis is what you want and the GM is not a starter.
If you want a an f1.8-2 class 135 that is outstanding wide open also one of the best, if not the best, lenses optically in the system (and superb stopped down for when you want to use it that way) the you want the GM and of course the Batis isn't that and so is out of consideration.
I can't imagine there are many people choosing between them. I can imagine owning both (but I'm going to try to stop imagining that) ...Show more →
That's exactly my predicament, whether or not to keep the B135 (as well as FE85) as lightweight travel lenses when I also have the heavier GM versions?
dshao1 wrote:
That's exactly my predicament, whether or not to keep the B135 (as well as FE85) as lightweight travel lenses when I also have the heavier GM versions?
If you do a lot of travel I'd keep at least one of those. Probably 135. If it's occasional you can probably put up with the weight.
vdo1 wrote:
My fav is the 4th one for three reasons:
- beautiful light
- very natural, looks like a candid
- I can tease you on how much better the palm trees would had rendered with the 100 STF
Thank you!
I wanted the model to be walking around like what you see in the fourth image. It's definitely a plus that the FE 135/1.8 GM is capable of accurately tracking the models eye in low light and in movement.
I will try similar shots with the FE 100/2.8 STF GM.
DavidBM wrote:
If you want a an f1.8-2 class 135 that is outstanding wide open also one of the best, if not the best, lenses optically in the system (and superb stopped down for when you want to use it that way) the you want the GM and of course the Batis isn't that and so is out of consideration.
I can't imagine there are many people choosing between them. I can imagine owning both (but I'm going to try to stop imagining that)
David, I keep imagining that. I decided to hold on to my Batis 135/2.8 until the GM 135/1.8 shows up at my door. The more I think about the more I just don't want to sell my Batis for $0.50 on the dollar. Maybe its not worth $1900 but for people to think they can get that fine a lens for $1000 is a little bit crazy. Maybe it's price will never recover in the market but for $1000 I'm likely to keep it as a lens in my travel bag since I sold my FE 70-200mm f/4 G.
Neurad1 wrote:
I am curious about a comparison with the Batis 135 2.8. Are they obviously not even close? I just bought the Batis maybe two months ago. Now once again I am frustrated....Gotta quit jumping the gun I guess.
I wish I had the Batis 135 APO to test against the 135 GM for this review.
Since this is a rolling review and I have pre-ordered the 135 GM, I should be able to test it against the Batis next month and post some comparisons. (resolution and rendering)
A lens doesn’t automatically degrade or stop working when a similar lens gets announced. Stick to your guns guys, and save for lenses that you don’t have anything close to them.
There’s a french saying “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien”, keep it in mind
swldstn wrote:
David, I keep imagining that. I decided to hold on to my Batis 135/2.8 until the GM 135/1.8 shows up at my door. The more I think about the more I just don't want to sell my Batis for $0.50 on the dollar. Maybe its not worth $1900 but for people to think they can get that fine a lens for $1000 is a little bit crazy. Maybe it's price will never recover in the market but for $1000 I'm likely to keep it as a lens in my travel bag since I sold my FE 70-200mm f/4 G.
I’d keep it. What you paid is irrelevant, it’s what you would get now that matters. Selling is saying it’s not worth a grand to you, which it sounds like it is.
And here’s the thing: I bet we are never going to see the likes of the Batis again. A no compromise but slower and more compact is not an easily marketable idea. The market wants huge fast premium lenses, zooms, and budget slower primes.
So until computational photography and tiny sensors take over in however many years, I don’t think we’ll see a Batis competitor. Hang on!
DavidBM wrote:
I’d keep it. What you paid is irrelevant, it’s what you would get now that matters. Selling is saying it’s not worth a grand to you, which it sounds like it is.
And here’s the thing: I bet we are never going to see the likes of the Batis again. A no compromise but slower and more compact is not an easily marketable idea. The market wants huge fast premium lenses, zooms, and budget slower primes.
So until computational photography and tiny sensors take over in however many years, I don’t think we’ll see a Batis competitor. Hang on!
The Bryce software is available since 1994 yet people still take pics the old fashioned way, and it doesn’t look like Poser is taking over either. I also remember the craze around the Photoshop CS 3 launch time, where 8 out of 10 pictures on the web were heavily photoshopped (and showing it). So I wouldn’t put much fate in “computational photography” either.
vdo1 wrote:
The Bryce software is available since 1994 yet people still take pics the old fashioned way, and it doesn’t look like Poser is taking over either. I also remember the craze around the Photoshop CS 3 launch time, where 8 out of 10 pictures on the web were heavily photoshopped (and showing it). So I wouldn’t put much fate in “computational photography” either.
I'm not expecting it any time soon. But the Light camera with 16 small sensors with the images stitched in complicated computational ways was pretty interesting. Of course it didn't work as well as the propaganda; not well enough to buy. But I would be surprised if something like that couldn't replace most of what we now use in a decade or so. I'll be sad, though. Perhaps I'll still be using full frame in the spirit that some people use film or vinyl now.
DavidBM wrote:
I'm not expecting it any time soon. But the Light camera with 16 small sensors with the images stitched in complicated computational ways was pretty interesting. Of course it didn't work as well as the propaganda; not well enough to buy. But I would be surprised if something like that couldn't replace most of what we now use in a decade or so. I'll be sad, though. Perhaps I'll still be using full frame in the spirit that some people use film or vinyl now.
Interestingly, Sony has purchased Light.
There is no replacement, not from an artistic pov. One may notice that there are two aspects of photography:
- recording images of places, people and objects (the utilitarian aspect)
- medium of artistic expression (the artistic aspect)
From the utilitarian pov, convenience is key. Here smartphones won, as not do they make it extremely easy to capture the images, but also to transmit / disseminate them (via various more or less “social” apps also residing on the phone). Surely there is a minimal technical quality of the image that needs to be attained, but that is largely solved by now.
From the artistic pov, discussing film vs digital, or optical vs synthetic, is like attempting a discussion on “which is better, watercolors or acrylic?”.
vdo1 wrote:
There is no replacement, not from an artistic pov. One may notice that there are two aspects of photography:
- recording images of places, people and objects (the utilitarian aspect)
- medium of artistic expression (the artistic aspect)
From the utilitarian pov, convenience is key. Here smartphones won, as not do they make it extremely easy to capture the images, but also to transmit / disseminate them (via various more or less “social” apps also residing on the phone). Surely there is a minimal technical quality of the image that needs to be attained, but that is largely solved by now.
From the artistic pov, discussing film vs digital, or optical vs synthetic, is like attempting a discussion on “which is better, watercolors or acrylic?”. ...Show more →
I guess my point is that there are technical matters (DR, DOF, resolution, CA, flexibility with perspective) in which larger sensor cameras currently provide significant advantages to those who want to use them for artistic expression.
My prediction is that the time will come when post-Light type tech will be able to produce visually indistinguishable results in a phone type form factor. Not for a while.
Of course many may want to continue using current style tech, because their art is positively influenced by the process they love. That might be a good reason, but that’s a different kind of reason.
We can only speculate what the future will bring but it's a fact that smartphones for the most part, already replaced dedicated cameras for the entry level market. We are a specialized group now that really cares how our images are rendered and we should really enjoy this time as it may not last.
