• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

New Zeiss Batis is coming


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 April 2017 - 01:52 PM

It's announced from one dealer here as "world debut". WTF?  :mellow: a bloody dull 135/2.8 is already existing in hundreds of variants since decades, if not a full century. Okay, it's the dealer, but they only repeat the marekting blurb coming from Zeiss themselves. It's almost insulting to yell "world debut". Alright, fake news are in fashion, I know.
 
Edit: Had to check... 1930 Zeiss themselves introduced their first 135/2.8 design. Today they claim
 

Thanks to the outstanding correction of all chromatic aberrations, the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135 is a high-performance telephoto lens with an Apo Sonnar design.

 
Now, I really guess, there's a fine difference between "Apo Sonnar design" and apochromatic lens  :D

But after all, it has anti-shake and the OLED distance scale. In Zeiss-terms: plenty of value for only 2k $

 

I take a dozen.



#22 Ayoh

Ayoh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:30 PM

Review

 

http://www.verybiglo...-8-lens-review/



#23 Ayoh

Ayoh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:38 PM

I am really not a fan of those untextured rubber focus rings on the new Zeiss lenses. With the slightest use they seem to cover in dust and oxidize into a cheap looking eyesore. They should have went with a traditional ribbed metal ring design. The body profile which contours with hood also just looks ugly to my eye whe no hood is attached. Oh well i won't be buying any of these lenses anyway at these prices

 

http://www.verybiglo...13528-03600.jpg



#24 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:20 PM

Ugly or not, the hood and front cap are poorly designed. A colleague's Batis and my Touit both have the same cheap feel. I fully agree on the silly rubber rings which even the Otii share, but at least those have a metal hood. In this price class this rubber is a no-go. It's a dust and grease magnet.



#25 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 04:42 PM

I'm still laughing at that price. Will comment when I'm done.



#26 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 05 April 2017 - 04:50 PM

Not the worst background bokeh, but not great at medium distance either. And at $2000, I feel a bit better about my €55 Nikkor 135mm f2.8 "K".



#27 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 05 April 2017 - 05:38 PM

At least for me, this lens doesn't make sense with such a ridiculous price.
Canon and Sigma have faster alternatives that are so hard to beat.
I don't expect this one to be significantly better.

#28 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 05 April 2017 - 08:20 PM

That's even more than what I had in mind when opining that this is a D.O.A. So should I say "D.B.A." (Dead Before Arrival) now? :D

P.S. I do understand that at least this one has some objective value (unlike, say, that "Meyer-Optik" branded junk). Just not $2000. :)

It's announced from one dealer here as "world debut". WTF? :mellow: a bloody dull 135/2.8 is already existing in hundreds of variants since decades, if not a full century. Okay, it's the dealer, but they only repeat the marekting blurb coming from Zeiss themselves. It's almost insulting to yell "world debut". Alright, fake news are in fashion, I know.

Don't they just mean that it's the debut of this lens? I do agree it's an uninspiring release (at least at face value) but you may still be overreacting a little. :) As I had said, it's not nearly as offensive as those "Trioplans" and whatnot.

#29 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 April 2017 - 09:17 PM

Overreacting is my second or fifth name. I lost count during centuries of suffering of marketing blurb.

 

I just think they already used Roger's marketing robot: https://roger.lensre.../generator.html

 

And I do count me in to the "lesser beings"...

 

How much is the Sigma 135/1.8 again? 1400$? Unstabilized, okay, but it will not be so easily blown away in an average tornado as this Batis feather weight. 640 grams... ridiculous. Bulimic glass bored20x18.gif



#30 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:29 AM

With the A7R Mark II and A6500 having IBIS, lack of in-lens stabilization is less of an issue anyway. Well, the owners of older bodies are S.O.L., of course.



#31 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 April 2017 - 10:55 AM

P.S. I do understand that at least this one has some objective value (unlike, say, that "Meyer-Optik" branded junk). Just not $2000. :)

 As I had said, it's not nearly as offensive as those "Trioplans" and whatnot.

https://www.meyer-op...rimagon-24-f2.8

How about this one?

€3999/4999.... For a 24mm f2.8. "For all mirrorless mounts". Of which only 2 (if they mean all including Leica) have FF sensors. For the APS-C rest, it is even more silly.

The Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM costs €149. The Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM costs €485. But those are not for mirrorless.

The Canon EF-M 22mm f2 STM costs around €200. The Fuji 23mm f2 costs €399. 



#32 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

https://www.meyer-op...rimagon-24-f2.8

How about this one?

€3999/4999.... For a 24mm f2.8. "For all mirrorless mounts". Of which only 2 (if they mean all including Leica) have FF sensors. For the APS-C rest, it is even more silly.

The Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM costs €149. The Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM costs €485. But those are not for mirrorless.

The Canon EF-M 22mm f2 STM costs around €200. The Fuji 23mm f2 costs €399. 

Oh, don't even get me started on this one! I would rain black metal punishment and acid bile on that shameful company and their unfathomably insane and infinitely daft ways, trying desperately to out-Leica Leica while having absolutely no claim to that kind of lofty pretense -

Oh wait... I just did. :) Seriously though, they are experts at hitting new lows every time they open their collective mouths to announce something. I hope the market forces - as skeptical as I am of these - would take care of that laughable operation in short order.

Bleh, someone shut me up - I'm at it again. But you get the idea.


  • Brightcolours likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de