Hi, yes the actual offical price is high (€ 1,700) but when there are "Zeiss discovery weeks" you get it at € 1.400 and this is a fair price. Together with the A7R III with firmware 3 you get a blazing fast short tele prime combo.
Thanks Mat. That really was very interesting. The 135 has been one of my favourite focal lengths in the 35mm format for many years, actually since I starting using a Minolta MD Rokkor 135 from the Leica-Minolta collaboration years. I then added a Hektor f4 13,5 cm lens to the M outfit. Rediscovering it's quality even on an EPL3 sensor is impressive enough, and along with other optics I have, is really leaning me toward the A7II . Had I not already invested what's of the piggy bank in Linhof gear, the Zeiss Batis 135mm would be a ... what's that term we use? .. a "no brainer" .. I too, love Zeiss optics. 30 years of Hasselblad did that to me.
As for the price, why not? I'm not rich by any means. If it becomes a "must have", I'll go without something else, sell off gear I'm not using and just tighten the belt. Photographers with workflow can usually acquire via leasing arrangements, paying it off with tax deductible monthly payments.
I have the Canon 135 f2 and the images I get more than seven years after buying are still outstanding. I will keep my Canon 135 f2 and Zeiss can keep their 135 f2.8.
I own this lens and if the camera is placed on a tripod and a remote release is used to avoid all shake, and the lens is stopped down a few F stops, I found this is the best lens I have ever used as far as image quality and sharpness, and I own many excellent lenses. I also shot back-lit images into the sun and this lens showed the least flare of any lens I own. It is a magnificent product.
Thanks Matt, nice looking lens. I have the Canon 135/2L on a Sigma MC11, plus an old Canon FD 135. I love my Batis 85, but $2,000 is just crazy for a 2.8. Felt you struggling with the price :-)
Hi there iosif. I have the 135/2L and 200/2.8L. Both are very quick to focus with the MC11. You can use continuous and single shot focus. However, you cannot use eye AF. For me that is not a deal breaker. I purchased the 200/2.8 for $550 with the Sigma MC11. Then added the 135/2L for $700. Both in mint condition, hardly used.
Well to be fair it's not that crazy. F 1.8 lens won't be T 1.8 anyway. The higher number the closer F is to T. And most of Batis lenses seem to have +/- same aperture opening(narrowest hole in lens) So naturaly "longer" lens will have "worse" aperture.
Seems Zeiss has learned from its Batis-85 mistakes. The 85 was quite expensive but it was the only native 85 for E-mount. And Zeiss could have sold much more than they produced that time. So it was expensive, but not expensive enough. Now the price is at a stage to sell still all produced 135, but getting more money and having less negative press because of too many customers waiting too long. Zeiss simply want's to make as much money as possible before a consumer Sony FE135 kicks in and takes a big part of the business.
Pricey. You have to weigh the choice against the 75-200 f2.8 GM. Also there's a hole in Sony's lineup for a 35-135 f4 or f2.8 zoom for stills. I'd buy the latter if it was released.
As i recently switched to the Sony system, i'll certainly purchase the Batis 85mm f/1.8, because i want to use it on a 7R MkII but also on my A6500 body and the size is not too big ! I will probably also go for the 25mm f/2 for street photography... But instead of the 135mm, i will go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM... More versatile and i don't think that at 135mm it will be worse than the Batis ! What do you think ?
Love this lens. It is so incredibly sharp. The price has dropped a little ($1699 as of 7/22/2018) and I have seen it even lower when on sale/promotion.
It;s the wide open sharpness from corner to corner that does it all to me. As i love the u43 where the wide opens lens is the sharpest iris setting, so this one seems to be of the same blood.
Great Video Matt, Goddam that price tho, at least $2650 AU + Shipping is an unreasonable stretch for a 2.8. I'd go the 85 G-Master 1.4 or even the new FE 1.8, and use APS-C mode to get more reach if i ever need it.
Just comparing the weights of the 135mm the Sony Zeiss A-mount 135mm f/1.8 is 985g, Zeiss Milvus f/2 135mm (manual focus) 1123g. and this Batis 135mm f/2.8 with autofocus & Optical image stabilisation at a low weight of 614g. That is over half the weight while losing one stop and gaining autofocus and image stabilisation. Granted the price tag makes it so that you have to love the focal length. I have all the other Batis lenses which I love, and I think it will be quite some time before I get this one if I get it at all. Some normal length Batis lenses would be nice.
$2000 US - pass When the Samyang 135mm F2 is $500 and easily focusable with an a7 2nd series body where you get focus aids and stabilisation yeah.... pass
Samyang has recently released the 50mm f/1.4 and 14mm f/2.8 autofocus FE lenses. If they release a 135mm f/2 FE autofocus lens, it would be a very compelling option.
TomAss Mer The Samyang is actually one of the best performers when it comes to 135mm. It's very close in performance when compared to the Zeiss classic 135mm which is possibly the sharpest lens ever made for full frame. Your point is still correct however, in this case, the Samyang is up there in performance but also very cheap. It's a rare exception.
I actually want to see this pinned up against the Zeiss 135mm f/2 from Cosina/Milvus line. The change in optical formula from 11/8 to 14/11 for an APO-Sonnar design I really want to see. I love my f/2 version on my A7II. Really want to see how this performs.
Great review! 135mm for portrait, indoor sports, landscape, and concert... If this new lens has better IQ and 2X faster autofocus than Sony / Zeiss 135f/.1.8, will be amazing at USD.1,999.99... I really need to see more evidence of the IQ... Maybe, the Sony 70-200 GM will be my best option right now, but at this moment I can deal with my only five lenses (SonyA7RII and SonyA99 + Sony LA-EA4 Adapter)): 1. Zeiss Loxia 21f/.2.8. 2. Sigma 35f/.1.4 (A-Mount). 3. Sony / Zeiss 55f/.1.8. 4. Sony / Zeiss 24-70 f/.2.8 SSM (A-Mount) 5. Minolta 70-210f/.4 (A-Mount).
Sorry to say I wasn't overly impressed with the image quality. The sharpness didn't blow me away, and while the bokeh looked nice, it was somewhat lacking in smoothness. All that for $2000? Nope.
Jonathan Stewart I was looking through their Instagram at all the images taken before they officially announced the lens and I could tell that they weren't shoot at 1.8 or even 2.0 (although those are quite similar in production). I tricky then that this was not going to be f1.8 or 2.0, but I had my own hopes that it would be.
Hmm. This on an A7Rii seems nice. Doubling down with it and throwing it on a "B" camera like the A6500 giving yourself a 200mm Telephoto Prime with blazing auto focus seems nice, too. I get that it's not cheap, but there's some serious potential here.
I love the images you produced using that lens, but for me, the price will have to drop about $500.00 before I jump on it. I will be keeping my eye on that price point over time. All that said, keep in mind I don't make a living with my camera, so price is a bigger deal to me than it would be with a pro.
I never heard you say "Having said that" that often before... I guess you did do quite much together with Chris from TheCameraStore or listen to their videos, eh :-D
In 5 years, I am nearly certain, a very good photog, could shoot a wedding on the latest cellphone at the time, and for most clients, that will be more than enough. Zeiss, like Porsche in the car world, has clearly decided, that going after price is a completely losing strategy - and they are right. I would be willing to bet, a lot of money, that 85% of professional photogs, could not tell the difference between new Zeiss Batis 135 F2.8 images from a Sony A7Rii and the brand new Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2 images taken at 135mm F2.8 - and that is Pros not wedding / portrait clients. By any logical price / value metric, the Batis is insanely priced - but Zeiss is correct to price it this way - that way when it goes on sale for $1699, they will sell it to every Zeiss crack addict who just has to have it. The price of this new Batis does not portend well for those hoping the new rumoured Canon 135F2 IS is going to be priced at $1499. I personally don't get this lens - 135mm has to be F2 - otherwise there is no point.
Thanks for sharing. I own the A-MOUNT variant for my A7II and that 1.8 is fantastic. I was hoping for at least a F2 of not f1.8. Though this new native 135 is very enticing I'll pass for now and wait until the Sony/Zeiss variant comes out or maybe a GMaster and hopefully one of those replaces the legendary A-MOUNT 135 1.8 with a 1.8. That's too bad that Zeiss chose to go with 2.8, I love my Batis 1.8/85 and surely would have added this 135 to my collection.
I agree with you. I loved my A mount 135. The thing that scares me now, is when the G Master 135mm comes out, it's going to be priced even higher than this.
Jonathan Stewart you're absolutely right! I even stop my 135 down to 3.2 a lot when taking photos of family's and even kids alone because it is so easy to miss focus at 1.8. I typically shoot at 2 or 2.2 when I'm working one-on-one with a client where the outcome is more controllable. I don't even use it for weddings because I only manually focus it since the AF on my A7II isn't that reliable. This "m aaa y" (that's a very slight may too) be an option but not now. Back to your point though and we are easily looking at $2200-2400 GM or Somy/Zeiss variant with that 1.8.
We've got the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 with the MC11 as an option as well, but that's going to be HUGE. Honestly, the 100mm STF is looking more attractive now at $1500.
Jonathan Stewart I was looking at that STF also. My fav FL for portraits is 135 though. The Sigma is HUGE, even on a DSLR. The front element is like 88mm. It is fuly featured though and the IQ is top notch. I'm still going to wait to see what comes next.
On my budget the price puts this lens and many other beyond my reach. However I will say it brings out great detail at a price tag of 2000 they could have squeezed out at least 1.8
I think this would be a nice lens to have, and I think the money is worth it. as the camera market is opening up, parts are shrinking and some times that means higher prices sadly.
zagan1 I agree with the worth but it's just not appealing at 2.8. Sure some of stop the lens down in use but when the additional light is needed I'd rather have that come from the aperture with a smaller bump in ISO than shooting 6400
yes you can, just not sony. read the other comments 999$ gets you brand new canon 135/2L. sony is batshit crazy with prices of lenses when we have nikon & canon around
I fear that the Zeiss is out of my budget. HAVING SAID THAT it seems a worthwhile lens for someone who has the budget for it. And yes, I'm poking fun at +Matt Granger but I mean no disrespect. :)
I'll likely pass as this falls into the range of my 70-200 2.8 GM. If I were to buy a fast prime, it'd an 85 would be what I would prefer (adapted sigma 85 1.4 art or batis). Otherwise, I plan my next lens to be a macro lens.
Matt - just a b-roll tip that I like to see. The panning needs to be smoother, and you need to play with lighting and bokeh. I see some tech tubers using lighting to assimilate the passing of time
135mm is my favorite portrait focal length. I listed my 85mm GM on eBay before going to bed, knowing that this will be announced today. Seeing the price of this 135mm, I've changed my mind. What are they thinking? $2000? The f2.8 is no problem for me, but at this price, no no.
I don't think this will sell well if it's really $2000. On DPreviews sony forum people assumed this was going to be $1500 a few days ago based on leaks from alpharumours, and there was long debate if this lens was worth $1500, and most thought it wouldn't we worth a buy. I can just imagine their shock face when they find out it's priced even higher at $2000.
My guess is because of the price more than the actual video. On the other hand, I did just read an article the other day that "Internet trolls are winning" so that might be it also :)
Just to expensive. I liked the quality of your sample images.Still at this pricepoint it would really need to make me some money to justifiy it. And I cant see a scenario where it is essential to getting a contract. And if you buy it just for prestige (or fun) reasons you might as well save for the Otus. So no not for me. At $1000-1300 I would be thinking about it but no way for $2000.
Frustrating to get this comment - I test, review and teach - and go across brands. I am not meaning to sound angry - but every time I do something with sony I get comments about 'selling out etc'. For the record. I Primarily shoot stills with Nikon, and do video with Nikon and Sony. But I will go where the quality/value/experience is
Trolling a little bit here, i admit and apologize, as i have nothing to do or no intention to buy this lens. Nothing surprising about the price of this lens, and every G master or Zeiss lens that will come. The bait of the Sony was obvious, although not a lot of people noticed it. Things were like this for Sony buyers. They start with the body priced, they say, way better than any Canon for the specs, crazy deal(A6300, A6500, A7ii), versus what Canon offers(no 4k). Then, they realize that they have to get out of the pocket money for batteries first , eventually a grip, for Metabones adapters, one or two, then, if they are not happy with the adapters, they sell them for peanuts, and jump into the G Master-Zeiss options. They end up not being covered properly on all focal distances, combining old Canons with adapters that they didn't want to sell, some third party cheap Sigmas where is possible, some cheap slow Sony Zooms, and throwing their last money on a G master to impress, or a Zeiss. Not talking about the proprietary flashes, triggers, that they needed to buy, selling their Canons and Nikons for peanuts, again. I was almost the guy that took that road, when i ordered the A6500, watching Manny Ortiz beautiful wife in portrait sessions, and trying to encourage myself that i can do professional work with that camera, but in the end returned the A6500, found the Canon 5div for 2750(ebay , recommended by Fstoppers) ordered also the GH5, with their superb lens lineup, and i think i should be covered for anything.
It’s just so small even 3 years later there’s yet to be a smaller 135 for Sony, the closest is the g master at over 2 pounds in weight and over 1/4 inch longer
Since its only 600 odd grams. And the barrel isnt too big/fat as well. Good. F2.8?...to some its a bummer.. I think its still OK... i mean...even the very popular 70-200 are F2.8.. And if u want it lighter n smaller.. It cant be a fast lens. But. Why isit $1999... How?. It's 2.8 dude..... not 1.8 right? If this is 135 F1.8. $2000.. sure... I can understand. (altho people will still say its expensive) But now.. $2000 for F2.8. This is not right.. doesnt make sense. Initially I thought it may be $1688.. same cost as the GM or the new 100 STFs. But.. I was so wrong. I already had the 85GM.. even if i dont have 1... at this cost. I'lll rather get the GM than this really overprice Batis. This is way too much. And if you think about it. Surely there will be a 135 GM coming. if this is $2000. What about the 135 GM.
you're already playing their game and you dont even know it LOL next thing you know they make a 15% off "promotion" and you will run there with your money getting all hot realistically this lens is worth maybe 600-700$ brand new, not more! wake up
You mention to many compromises you have to make on an artistic and even technological level to think its justifiable. You say you wish it was faster to be able to get some shots, but its a small camera so thats alright, my art can suffer... and anyway I can compromise on shutter speed to make up some of the short fall. I really really do not like this kind of review. You skitter over most points in your mind. It looks to me like you just dont want to go on the Zeiss black list of product reviewers. Head to head this with some of the other 135 primes. You used to be so good at that kind of review.
Couple of issues. FIRST, didn't you just recently announce how you were screwed by Sony support and would no longer shoot it? Then immediately review a Sony system lens. HMMMMM. Second, NOBODY wanted the 135mm focal range for YEARS because way to long for video, not versatile for hybrid shooters or studio work, dead focal length. SUDDENLY all the manufacturers are releasing 135mm lenses at the same time, WHY? Too hard to differentiate at other focal lengths, lets make a 135 and all just coming around the same time. MAJOR PROBLEM: It STILL is a limited focal length, MAIN USE IS PORTRAIT WORK. Lets see, at 135mm and used for portraits does it really take advantage of new high resolution sensors? NO? When shooting at 135mm your subject is almost always already going to fill the frame so major crops are NOT involved, standard outputs will not show any major difference between a 20MP FF sensor and a 50MP FF sensor. Next, will you want to show all that resolution on a portrait shot (skin imperfections, etc.) NO! Finally the perfect 135 has been around nearly forever, the Canon 135MM F/2L. And for what, half the price of the Zeiss and 75% of the Sigma Art? GOOD LUCK with that sale on the new 135's. SUCKERS get in line.
First - no. Over a year ago I gave in detail the issue I had with Sony support in Sydney Australia and said I wouldnt use it for my professional stills. I have still used it for video and I also now live in USA outside of Aus support area. I also have used and love Zeiss glass for years. In any case - I can review anything for my viewers. Second - what a pointless statement - nobody wanted...??
Yes of course you can review anything you want! And I actually enjoy and appreciate the majority of them. I apologize, did not want to insult you but the last video of watched of yours was the one when you had issues with Sony. My comments are not meant to be about you, but about this lens. The statement nobody wanted is absolutely NOT pointless, look at the sales of all manufacturer's lenses, the 135mm focal length is one of the least purchased over the last decade. DigitalRev had a review on the Canon 135mm stating that it was a great lens, but was actually almost too sharp for portrait work and that the 135mm focal length was rarely used anymore. I personally have NEVER seen anyone (besides myself) using a 135 prime in public. Most shooters today are shooting both video and stills and the 135 is not versatile enough. And more to the point, almost ALL of those purchasing a Sony E-mount camera are doing so for that very reason, to have both great stills and video. If anything they are looking for wide, versatile, fast lenses (say what, a VERY expensive, long prime lens with a slow f/2.8 aperture, one of the main reasons to have a prime is to have it faster than a zoom!!) And Sonyrumors.co announced this lens with "the new announced high price Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 lens (Adorama & B&H Photo Video) seems not welcome for most Sony mirrorless shooters."
Not so long ago on a video of yours you was winging about Sony taking to long when you sent your camera away to have some work done on it and they did not clean your censer ,and here you r reviewing Sony lens just wish people would make there mind up and stop taking shit
Hi, yes the actual offical price is high (€ 1,700) but when there are "Zeiss discovery weeks" you get it at € 1.400 and this is a fair price. Together with the A7R III with firmware 3 you get a blazing fast short tele prime combo.
Great review Matt and man that close up on my face was amazing lol.
Having said all of that....I'm buying it.
Thanks Mat. That really was very interesting.
The 135 has been one of my favourite focal lengths in the 35mm format for many years, actually since I starting using a Minolta MD Rokkor 135 from the Leica-Minolta collaboration years. I then added a Hektor f4 13,5 cm lens to the M outfit. Rediscovering it's quality even on an EPL3 sensor is impressive enough, and along with other optics I have, is really leaning me toward the A7II .
Had I not already invested what's of the piggy bank in Linhof gear, the Zeiss Batis 135mm would be a ... what's that term we use? .. a "no brainer" .. I too, love Zeiss optics. 30 years of Hasselblad did that to me.
As for the price, why not? I'm not rich by any means. If it becomes a "must have", I'll go without something else, sell off gear I'm not using and just tighten the belt. Photographers with workflow can usually acquire via leasing arrangements, paying it off with tax deductible monthly payments.
I have the Canon 135 f2 and the images I get more than seven years after buying are still outstanding. I will keep my Canon 135 f2 and Zeiss can keep their 135 f2.8.
I own this lens and if the camera is placed on a tripod and a remote release is used to avoid all shake, and the lens is stopped down a few F stops, I found this is the best lens I have ever used as far as image quality and sharpness, and I own many excellent lenses. I also shot back-lit images into the sun and this lens showed the least flare of any lens I own. It is a magnificent product.
Also important comparisons:
- Sony Zeiss 135 F1.8 A-mount
- Zeiss Milvus 135 F2.0 (F/EF-Mounts available)
One of the last e-mount lenses from every manufacturer with internal optical stabilization.
Thanks Matt, nice looking lens. I have the Canon 135/2L on a Sigma MC11, plus an old Canon FD 135. I love my Batis 85, but $2,000 is just crazy for a 2.8. Felt you struggling with the price :-)
I have a question for you:Canon 135/2L works well on Sigma MC11?I ask because this lens is not in the list with compatible lens for Sigma MC11.
Hi there iosif. I have the 135/2L and 200/2.8L. Both are very quick to focus with the MC11. You can use continuous and single shot focus. However, you cannot use eye AF. For me that is not a deal breaker. I purchased the 200/2.8 for $550 with the Sigma MC11. Then added the 135/2L for $700. Both in mint condition, hardly used.
Well to be fair it's not that crazy.
F 1.8 lens won't be T 1.8 anyway. The higher number the closer F is to T.
And most of Batis lenses seem to have +/- same aperture opening(narrowest hole in lens) So naturaly "longer" lens will have "worse" aperture.
Canon 135 f2L wiil be find on 42 mp in a7r mark2 ??
I also use fd 135 f/2. Cheap and goooooood
Seems Zeiss has learned from its Batis-85 mistakes.
The 85 was quite expensive but it was the only native 85 for E-mount. And Zeiss could have sold much more than they produced that time. So it was expensive, but not expensive enough.
Now the price is at a stage to sell still all produced 135, but getting more money and having less negative press because of too many customers waiting too long. Zeiss simply want's to make as much money as possible before a consumer Sony FE135 kicks in and takes a big part of the business.
Pricey. You have to weigh the choice against the 75-200 f2.8 GM. Also there's a hole in Sony's lineup for a 35-135 f4 or f2.8 zoom for stills. I'd buy the latter if it was released.
As i recently switched to the Sony system, i'll certainly purchase the Batis 85mm f/1.8, because i want to use it on a 7R MkII but also on my A6500 body and the size is not too big !
I will probably also go for the 25mm f/2 for street photography... But instead of the 135mm, i will go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM... More versatile and i don't think that at 135mm it will be worse than the Batis !
What do you think ?
This lens is supposed to have almost no LoCA . That is why the images look so clean , not only sharp ...clean
Bravo Matt, Just what I hoped for.
Love this lens. It is so incredibly sharp. The price has dropped a little ($1699 as of 7/22/2018) and I have seen it even lower when on sale/promotion.
Congratulations, you are the first to test this lens...
It;s the wide open sharpness from corner to corner that does it all to me. As i love the u43 where the wide opens lens is the sharpest iris setting, so this one seems to be of the same blood.
the price :D -> good luck Zeiss, there are tons of other lenses to buy instead
Great Video Matt, Goddam that price tho, at least $2650 AU + Shipping is an unreasonable stretch for a 2.8. I'd go the 85 G-Master 1.4 or even the new FE 1.8, and use APS-C mode to get more reach if i ever need it.
you could buy the FE85 and an apsc body for that price and have 135mm 2.8 equv combo lol.
You are Always the best out there Matt !
Which camera are you using the most now, the Sony or the D5?
+Sergio Pappalardo for stills, D5 by a long margin
The squirrel at 09:47 was awesome.
Just comparing the weights of the 135mm the Sony Zeiss A-mount 135mm f/1.8 is 985g, Zeiss Milvus f/2 135mm (manual focus) 1123g. and this Batis 135mm f/2.8 with autofocus & Optical image stabilisation at a low weight of 614g. That is over half the weight while losing one stop and gaining autofocus and image stabilisation. Granted the price tag makes it so that you have to love the focal length. I have all the other Batis lenses which I love, and I think it will be quite some time before I get this one if I get it at all. Some normal length Batis lenses would be nice.
+Matthew Leite note the canon f2 is only 150 grams more
$2000 US - pass
When the Samyang 135mm F2 is $500 and easily focusable with an a7 2nd series body where you get focus aids and stabilisation
yeah.... pass
Blake Parry I agree. The A7 2nd series body will combo just fine with Samyang. This price is insane. Pass!
Samyang has recently released the 50mm f/1.4 and 14mm f/2.8 autofocus FE lenses. If they release a 135mm f/2 FE autofocus lens, it would be a very compelling option.
Agreed completely, and the Samyang is SHARP event at f2.
$2000??? that's more expensive than the current Zeiss f2 which is the best in terms of performance.
TomAss Mer The Samyang is actually one of the best performers when it comes to 135mm. It's very close in performance when compared to the Zeiss classic 135mm which is possibly the sharpest lens ever made for full frame. Your point is still correct however, in this case, the Samyang is up there in performance but also very cheap. It's a rare exception.
If you look at the old technology of the zeiss a mount 135mm, it came out at $1700 and that was almost ten years ago.
Matt... If you happen to have or can get your hands on the 70-200 GM..
Could you do a 135 F2.8 test? Would be nice to see that.
lol.
As of now, mint copy of this used lens runs around 1k, good time to grab one ?
David Peng yes always
I actually want to see this pinned up against the Zeiss 135mm f/2 from Cosina/Milvus line. The change in optical formula from 11/8 to 14/11 for an APO-Sonnar design I really want to see. I love my f/2 version on my A7II. Really want to see how this performs.
Great review!
135mm for portrait, indoor sports, landscape, and concert...
If this new lens has better IQ and 2X faster autofocus than Sony / Zeiss 135f/.1.8, will be amazing at USD.1,999.99...
I really need to see more evidence of the IQ... Maybe, the Sony 70-200 GM will be my best option right now, but at this moment I can deal with my only five lenses (SonyA7RII and SonyA99 + Sony LA-EA4 Adapter)):
1. Zeiss Loxia 21f/.2.8.
2. Sigma 35f/.1.4 (A-Mount).
3. Sony / Zeiss 55f/.1.8.
4. Sony / Zeiss 24-70 f/.2.8 SSM (A-Mount)
5. Minolta 70-210f/.4 (A-Mount).
a masterpiece. phenomenal portrait lens. that sharpness at max aperture is simply amazing. the (big) problem is the price XD
Another awesome alternative is using the Fujifilm 90mm on an Xseries camera, a great image quality for half the price
you can get the mitakon 135 1.4 if you want some fast glass, maybe a review of that lens?
Sorry to say I wasn't overly impressed with the image quality. The sharpness didn't blow me away, and while the bokeh looked nice, it was somewhat lacking in smoothness. All that for $2000? Nope.
Jonathan Stewart I was looking through their Instagram at all the images taken before they officially announced the lens and I could tell that they weren't shoot at 1.8 or even 2.0 (although those are quite similar in production). I tricky then that this was not going to be f1.8 or 2.0, but I had my own hopes that it would be.
Hard to shoot at f1.8 or f2.0 when it is a f2.8 lens.
Canon 135mm f/2 might be a bit on the old side, but it's made of pure and unadulterated love. Can't put a price on love. Or well, you can. It's 999$.
Beautiful images however I get relatively the same image from my Voightlander 58mm 1.4 using my feet plus my new Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 G2 arrived today.
Hmm. This on an A7Rii seems nice. Doubling down with it and throwing it on a "B" camera like the A6500 giving yourself a 200mm Telephoto Prime with blazing auto focus seems nice, too. I get that it's not cheap, but there's some serious potential here.
i ll waiting for the sony E mount 135 1,8 with de click f stop
Little trivia: Zeiss also does a few Autofocus lenses for at least one other company: The Zeiss Touit lineup is also available for Fuji X-mount ;)...
I thought Touit was MF.
How would Batis 135mm f2.8 vs 70-200 gmaster at 135mm be
I love the images you produced using that lens, but for me, the price will have to drop about $500.00 before I jump on it. I will be keeping my eye on that price point over time. All that said, keep in mind I don't make a living with my camera, so price is a bigger deal to me than it would be with a pro.
What happened Matt, your last bar meet you said you don't shoot Sony camera's..? I'm glad you are doing reviews on Sony camera's and related lenses.👍
I still use my A7r2 regularly for filming. And snapshots. Not for professional stills.
I never heard you say "Having said that" that often before... I guess you did do quite much together with Chris from TheCameraStore or listen to their videos, eh :-D
In 5 years, I am nearly certain, a very good photog, could shoot a wedding on the latest cellphone at the time, and for most clients, that will be more than enough. Zeiss, like Porsche in the car world, has clearly decided, that going after price is a completely losing strategy - and they are right. I would be willing to bet, a lot of money, that 85% of professional photogs, could not tell the difference between new Zeiss Batis 135 F2.8 images from a Sony A7Rii and the brand new Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2 images taken at 135mm F2.8 - and that is Pros not wedding / portrait clients. By any logical price / value metric, the Batis is insanely priced - but Zeiss is correct to price it this way - that way when it goes on sale for $1699, they will sell it to every Zeiss crack addict who just has to have it. The price of this new Batis does not portend well for those hoping the new rumoured Canon 135F2 IS is going to be priced at $1499. I personally don't get this lens - 135mm has to be F2 - otherwise there is no point.
Thanks for sharing. I own the A-MOUNT variant for my A7II and that 1.8 is fantastic. I was hoping for at least a F2 of not f1.8. Though this new native 135 is very enticing I'll pass for now and wait until the Sony/Zeiss variant comes out or maybe a GMaster and hopefully one of those replaces the legendary A-MOUNT 135 1.8 with a 1.8. That's too bad that Zeiss chose to go with 2.8, I love my Batis 1.8/85 and surely would have added this 135 to my collection.
I agree with you. I loved my A mount 135. The thing that scares me now, is when the G Master 135mm comes out, it's going to be priced even higher than this.
Jonathan Stewart you're absolutely right! I even stop my 135 down to 3.2 a lot when taking photos of family's and even kids alone because it is so easy to miss focus at 1.8. I typically shoot at 2 or 2.2 when I'm working one-on-one with a client where the outcome is more controllable. I don't even use it for weddings because I only manually focus it since the AF on my A7II isn't that reliable. This "m aaa y" (that's a very slight may too) be an option but not now. Back to your point though and we are easily looking at $2200-2400 GM or Somy/Zeiss variant with that 1.8.
We've got the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 with the MC11 as an option as well, but that's going to be HUGE. Honestly, the 100mm STF is looking more attractive now at $1500.
Jonathan Stewart I was looking at that STF also. My fav FL for portraits is 135 though. The Sigma is HUGE, even on a DSLR. The front element is like 88mm. It is fuly featured though and the IQ is top notch. I'm still going to wait to see what comes next.
Having a7RIII + 85 1.8 and going to S35, it gives u around 135ish.. equil. and its 600$? Yeah, its 18 MP, but isnt this enough?
On my budget the price puts this lens and many other beyond my reach. However I will say it brings out great detail at a price tag of 2000 they could have squeezed out at least 1.8
Matt can you provide details on your orange sling strap. Really that setup.
I think this would be a nice lens to have, and I think the money is worth it.
as the camera market is opening up, parts are shrinking and some times that means higher prices sadly.
zagan1 I agree with the worth but it's just not appealing at 2.8. Sure some of stop the lens down in use but when the additional light is needed I'd rather have that come from the aperture with a smaller bump in ISO than shooting 6400
WOW and this is why I will be sticking with my a6000 cant afford FF glass prices unfortunately. Great vid as usual Matt !
yes you can, just not sony. read the other comments 999$ gets you brand new canon 135/2L. sony is batshit crazy with prices of lenses when we have nikon & canon around
Buy the Sigma use it for your Canon and Sony and save money! 2 bodies and 1 lense
Without a faster auto focus. I can stay with the a mount 135mm. Save $2000 and gain an extra step of light.
That's pretty steep at 2.8. At that point may as well opt for the GMaster 70-200.
I fear that the Zeiss is out of my budget. HAVING SAID THAT it seems a worthwhile lens for someone who has the budget for it. And yes, I'm poking fun at +Matt Granger but I mean no disrespect. :)
This lens just happens to be $500 off until April 15, 2018 right now.
I'll likely pass as this falls into the range of my 70-200 2.8 GM. If I were to buy a fast prime, it'd an 85 would be what I would prefer (adapted sigma 85 1.4 art or batis). Otherwise, I plan my next lens to be a macro lens.
Matt - just a b-roll tip that I like to see. The panning needs to be smoother, and you need to play with lighting and bokeh. I see some tech tubers using lighting to assimilate the passing of time
135mm is my favorite portrait focal length. I listed my 85mm GM on eBay before going to bed, knowing that this will be announced today. Seeing the price of this 135mm, I've changed my mind. What are they thinking? $2000? The f2.8 is no problem for me, but at this price, no no.
are any these videos available as podcasts? thats my thing..
I don't think this will sell well if it's really $2000. On DPreviews sony forum people assumed this was going to be $1500 a few days ago based on leaks from alpharumours, and there was long debate if this lens was worth $1500, and most thought it wouldn't we worth a buy.
I can just imagine their shock face when they find out it's priced even higher at $2000.
What's up with the dislikes? lol
Can't handle a little constructive criticism?
Great review, Matt.
My guess is because of the price more than the actual video. On the other hand, I did just read an article the other day that "Internet trolls are winning" so that might be it also :)
most of those were submitted before it was live.
What are the "trolls" winning? (Except a lot of raised eyebrows).
haha
Sigh... People should be rating the video, not the product or its price.
What Rexx Fernandez said. Love everything, but AUD$2,600 ?????????? No way.
Price dropped alot over the year huh. I see it at about 1700 now. Still expensive, but at a way better spot.
hi, i am big fan of you. which camera model best for a beganer ? (nikon )
D5.
sajib sony d7100
B&H has it at $1200 now. At $2000 or $1700 it just isn't worth it.
Who can guess how many times Matt said, "Having said all that...." ?
Very hard to justify especially as I have he 70 - 200 2.8 G master. I'd appreciate the lighter weight but I'd gladly sacrifice that for a faster lens.
Those of you that can not afford the price of this lens you don't have to buy the lens. Quality cost money you get what you pay for.
hoped for a new nikon body like D820( or D900 )
$2K - ouch!!!! Could buy but won't; value isn't there for me. $1.5 maybe and $1.25K and it's a yes based on a field test.
Too expensive. I would rather buy the Sigma 135mm 1.8 with the MC-11 which I already own so it doesn't add to the cost of the lens.
Just to expensive. I liked the quality of your sample images.Still at this pricepoint it would really need to make me some money to justifiy it. And I cant see a scenario where it is essential to getting a contract. And if you buy it just for prestige (or fun) reasons you might as well save for the Otus.
So no not for me. At $1000-1300 I would be thinking about it but no way for $2000.
135mm f/2.8? Why? Canon beats it by a stop, and Sigma by even more. I'd trade sharpness for aperture any day.
Am getting old Matt.. when did you switch to Sony?
Frustrating to get this comment - I test, review and teach - and go across brands. I am not meaning to sound angry - but every time I do something with sony I get comments about 'selling out etc'. For the record. I Primarily shoot stills with Nikon, and do video with Nikon and Sony. But I will go where the quality/value/experience is
Trolling a little bit here, i admit and apologize, as i have nothing to do or no intention to buy this lens.
Nothing surprising about the price of this lens, and every G master or Zeiss lens that will come. The bait of the Sony was obvious, although not a lot of people noticed it. Things were like this for Sony buyers.
They start with the body priced, they say, way better than any Canon for the specs, crazy deal(A6300, A6500, A7ii), versus what Canon offers(no 4k). Then, they realize that they have to get out of the pocket money for batteries first , eventually a grip, for Metabones adapters, one or two, then, if they are not happy with the adapters, they sell them for peanuts, and jump into the G Master-Zeiss options. They end up not being covered properly on all focal distances, combining old Canons with adapters that they didn't want to sell, some third party cheap Sigmas where is possible, some cheap slow Sony Zooms, and throwing their last money on a G master to impress, or a Zeiss. Not talking about the proprietary flashes, triggers, that they needed to buy, selling their Canons and Nikons for peanuts, again. I was almost the guy that took that road, when i ordered the A6500, watching Manny Ortiz beautiful wife in portrait sessions, and trying to encourage myself that i can do professional work with that camera, but in the end returned the A6500, found the Canon 5div for 2750(ebay , recommended by Fstoppers) ordered also the GH5, with their superb lens lineup, and i think i should be covered for anything.
It may be a bit pricey but compared to Leica lenses it's a bargain.
Lol 2000 wtf. What are they smoking? Maybe if it was f1.8....
It’s just so small even 3 years later there’s yet to be a smaller 135 for Sony, the closest is the g master at over 2 pounds in weight and over 1/4 inch longer
Well, if you've got $2000 that you don't really need, and nothing better to do with it ... uh .... purely hypothetical of course.
At 1299-1399.- I would have thought "well, Zeiss has never been cheap", at 2000 I do not even start to think about it. Sorry, no interest at all.
1300 Euros Amazon
Since its only 600 odd grams. And the barrel isnt too big/fat as well. Good. F2.8?...to some its a bummer.. I think its still OK... i mean...even the very popular 70-200 are F2.8.. And if u want it lighter n smaller.. It cant be a fast lens.
But. Why isit $1999... How?. It's 2.8 dude..... not 1.8 right? If this is 135 F1.8. $2000.. sure... I can understand. (altho people will still say its expensive)
But now.. $2000 for F2.8. This is not right.. doesnt make sense. Initially I thought it may be $1688.. same cost as the GM or the new 100 STFs. But.. I was so wrong.
I already had the 85GM.. even if i dont have 1... at this cost. I'lll rather get the GM than this really overprice Batis.
This is way too much.
And if you think about it. Surely there will be a 135 GM coming. if this is $2000. What about the 135 GM.
it's the ZEISS tax mate!!!
you're already playing their game and you dont even know it LOL
next thing you know they make a 15% off "promotion" and you will run there with your money getting all hot
realistically this lens is worth maybe 600-700$ brand new, not more! wake up
As lovely as the zeiss is, I think the Sigma Art 135 is miles better value.
The guy with the hat, focus is way off, or camera shake.
I'd pay $2000 for f/1.8, but f/2.8? Nope.
You mention to many compromises you have to make on an artistic and even technological level to think its justifiable.
You say you wish it was faster to be able to get some shots, but its a small camera so thats alright, my art can suffer... and anyway I can compromise on shutter speed to make up some of the short fall.
I really really do not like this kind of review. You skitter over most points in your mind. It looks to me like you just dont want to go on the Zeiss black list of product reviewers.
Head to head this with some of the other 135 primes.
You used to be so good at that kind of review.
Squirrel!
That price point leaves me out, so I'll downvote your video. Just kidding. I appreciate the content.
you want a zeiss you pay the price
Too expensive.
having said that 😜😜
$2000? Hah! Not worth it honestly. Might as well save up that $2000 for a better lens.
Couple of issues. FIRST, didn't you just recently announce how you were screwed by Sony support and would no longer shoot it? Then immediately review a Sony system lens. HMMMMM.
Second, NOBODY wanted the 135mm focal range for YEARS because way to long for video, not versatile for hybrid shooters or studio work, dead focal length.
SUDDENLY all the manufacturers are releasing 135mm lenses at the same time, WHY? Too hard to differentiate at other focal lengths, lets make a 135 and all just coming around the same time.
MAJOR PROBLEM: It STILL is a limited focal length, MAIN USE IS PORTRAIT WORK. Lets see, at 135mm and used for portraits does it really take advantage of new high resolution sensors? NO? When shooting at 135mm your subject is almost always already going to fill the frame so major crops are NOT involved, standard outputs will not show any major difference between a 20MP FF sensor and a 50MP FF sensor. Next, will you want to show all that resolution on a portrait shot (skin imperfections, etc.) NO!
Finally the perfect 135 has been around nearly forever, the Canon 135MM F/2L. And for what, half the price of the Zeiss and 75% of the Sigma Art? GOOD LUCK with that sale on the new 135's. SUCKERS get in line.
First - no. Over a year ago I gave in detail the issue I had with Sony support in Sydney Australia and said I wouldnt use it for my professional stills. I have still used it for video and I also now live in USA outside of Aus support area. I also have used and love Zeiss glass for years.
In any case - I can review anything for my viewers.
Second - what a pointless statement - nobody wanted...??
Yes of course you can review anything you want! And I actually enjoy and appreciate the majority of them. I apologize, did not want to insult you but the last video of watched of yours was the one when you had issues with Sony. My comments are not meant to be about you, but about this lens.
The statement nobody wanted is absolutely NOT pointless, look at the sales of all manufacturer's lenses, the 135mm focal length is one of the least purchased over the last decade. DigitalRev had a review on the Canon 135mm stating that it was a great lens, but was actually almost too sharp for portrait work and that the 135mm focal length was rarely used anymore. I personally have NEVER seen anyone (besides myself) using a 135 prime in public. Most shooters today are shooting both video and stills and the 135 is not versatile enough. And more to the point, almost ALL of those purchasing a Sony E-mount camera are doing so for that very reason, to have both great stills and video. If anything they are looking for wide, versatile, fast lenses (say what, a VERY expensive, long prime lens with a slow f/2.8 aperture, one of the main reasons to have a prime is to have it faster than a zoom!!)
And Sonyrumors.co announced this lens with "the new announced high price Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 lens (Adorama & B&H Photo Video) seems not welcome for most Sony mirrorless shooters."
IMO, it is a pointless lens that doesn't stand out. f/2.8 @ $2k? no thx.
looks super flat. not the greatest iq.
Zeiss must be really desperate if they're following Sigma/Tamron trail to get bloggers in the game
+hernan cortes thanks.... I've used Zeiss for years
Say it with me,… Alpha 7R! it is not an “A 7R” but a lowercase “alpha” 7R. “Sony α7R”.
Not so long ago on a video of yours you was winging about Sony taking to long when you sent your camera away to have some work done on it and they did not clean your censer ,and here you r reviewing Sony lens just wish people would make there mind up and stop taking shit
??? I stood my mind, made my position clear repeatedly. Doesn't mean I won't look at new gear for my audience.
Matt Granger You're response is 100% valid. It must be awful reading hastily considered comments like this.