My copy seems good but it has dust inside (more than I thought I'd be acceptable for QA), not too happy about it.
I remember Fred's test copy also had quite a few?!
Anyone's else finding this issue? I know some dust will always be present sooner or later, but having substantial quantities from the start is off-putting, and my OCD kicks in bad... So much so that I might have to return it..
Ivo Silva wrote:
My copy seems good but it has dust inside (more than I thought I'd be acceptable for QA), not too happy about it.
I remember Fred's test copy also had quite a few?!
Anyone's else finding this issue? I know some dust will always be present sooner or later, but having substantial quantities from the start is off-putting, and my OCD kicks in bad... So much so that I might have to return it..
Dust particles can show up on specular highlights. See if you find any spots on your images.
My review copy did have a fair amount of dust. My first Batis 135 also had too many dust particles and I exchanged it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Dust particles can show up on specular highlights. See if you find any spots on your images.
My review copy did have a fair amount of dust. My first Batis 135 also had too many dust particles and I exchanged it.
Off topic, but Fred you and Guy should consider starting a business that validates lens quality and performance!
A lens that passes your QA will be sold with a markup (like $100-200) on top of the retail price. People will buy at a slight premium but buying with a peace of mind, knowing they get a top quality lens. Sure, some might enjoy doing that QA themselves, but most of us would hate it with all the return hassle.
Well took my new 135 GM out to shoot last night in a bar to watch the son of a close friend perform with his two man band and I'm just not sure yet. It was miserable light. Not so much dark but uneven. Everything was shot at about f/1.8, 1/160th of second and ISO 6400 on an A9 and not the A7Riii. Took the A9 for the silent shutter which was really a must to prevent me from annoying others. Need to put them up on the computer today to see what I really ended up with.
Noticed a few things though. Focus tracking of the A9 worked really well with it but did notice one other thing. I have to admit it was probably me but I notices that with the weight and lack of the Batis 135's additional image stabilization it felt a little shaker to me even though I could use a faster shutter speed. I have to explore this more for sure and see if there is any motion blur or not.
The weight of the package, the 135 GM, A9, and battery grip were not an issue and having the grip definitely made it feel more comfortable to balance and control.
Stoffer wrote:
Off topic, but Fred you and Guy should consider starting a business that validates lens quality and performance!
A lens that passes your QA will be sold with a markup (like $100-200) on top of the retail price. People will buy at a slight premium but buying with a peace of mind, knowing they get a top quality lens. Sure, some might enjoy doing that QA themselves, but most of us would hate it with all the return hassle.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Dust particles can show up on specular highlights. See if you find any spots on your images.
My review copy did have a fair amount of dust. My first Batis 135 also had too many dust particles and I exchanged it.
Lol I have a few vintage lenses that have plenty of dust, I have to inspect and retouch my Tokina 90mm macro pics as they tend to have ugly blobs inside the bokeh balls. OTOH, if you don’t do bokeh balls, the dust has no visible influence.
I am terrorized by the idea that, with time, my 100 STF could gather dust and do the same. All those perfectly smooth balls but with random blobs inside..... aaaaargh!
swldstn wrote:
Well took my new 135 GM out to shoot last night in a bar to watch the son of a close friend perform with his two man band and I'm just not sure yet. It was miserable light. Not so much dark but uneven. Everything was shot at about f/1.8, 1/160th of second and ISO 6400 on an A9 and not the A7Riii. Took the A9 for the silent shutter which was really a must to prevent me from annoying others. Need to put them up on the computer today to see what I really ended up with.
Noticed a few things though. Focus tracking of the A9 worked really well with it but did notice one other thing. I have to admit it was probably me but I notices that with the weight and lack of the Batis 135's additional image stabilization it felt a little shaker to me even though I could use a faster shutter speed. I have to explore this more for sure and see if there is any motion blur or not.
The weight of the package, the 135 GM, A9, and battery grip were not an issue and having the grip definitely made it feel more comfortable to balance and control.
Took mine on the road to South Carolina this weekend and only used it for 20 minutes, but boy was it a nice 20 minutes. Candid and casual set up close in and full body portraits are amazing. It's sharp enough wide open, but killer sharp at f/2.8. AF is dead on (especially with eye-AF) and fast with the A7RIII.
Now I just need to take it out and to the cityscape decentering test to see if it's a complete keeper.
Finally a chance to play with the 135 GM last night. Nothing formal, just took it outside near sunset and got some shots of our daughter running around the yard, riding her bike, playing on the swing. My keeper rate when it comes to what was sharp and in-focus with my A7R3 was almost 100%, and that was using eye AF and her darting around the yard at times. I could see this lens being a freak for indoor sports assuming the focal length makes sense for the venue. Oh- and it can also do great portraits. The dual-purpose of the lens for me will make the price easier to swallow.
As far as build and handling, it seems to balance well, and the hood is better made than most hoods I've used as of late.
This will be one of those "buy and keep as long as I have Sony" types of lenses. I was like that with the 135L in my Canon days, and I see no reason I'd be any different with this lens now.
I sent my 135 back today. I expect they will send another as mine decentered. At F1.8, if I focused on the left side, the right was soft and vice versa. Still, clearly a very fine lens. I have had bad luck lately as I had to send my CV 50/1.2 back for the same reason but I tried out my new copy today and it appears to be well centered so there is hope!
Luvwine wrote:
I sent my 135 back today. I expect they will send another as mine decentered. At F1.8, if I focused on the left side, the right was soft and vice versa. Still, clearly a very fine lens. I have had bad luck lately as I had to send my CV 50/1.2 back for the same reason but I tried out my new copy today and it appears to be well centered so there is hope!
That's sad news.
My review copy was perfectly centered and the same goes for my personal copy (received on Monday). I thought this lens would have low variance from my experience testing two great copies of it.
