Over the past several years, I've acquired 4 of the 5 Batis lenses. Only the 135 is missing. They all have the Zeiss "look," or "pop," which I really like. The 40 lives on the front of my camera as the default for grab-n-go shooting when I don't know the subject beforehand. The 25 is next favorite. These I use more than my Sony brand lenses, which are also fantastic. The difference is that with those, while optically excellent, they don't have special character. It's like having a gourmet meal made by Cook Sony who can very precisely follow a known-good recipe vs the same meal made by Chef Zeiss who knows how to improvise by feel.
Ah, the 135. I knew I was forgetting one. I absolutely agree about Sony lenses. I've been using the 40mm f/2.5 G lately and it's a good and fine do-all lens and I like the interface and size a lot, but when I get the images back, it's almost clinical in how it handles subjects. I can't find any faults in it so far, but it feels sort of like a person who is an absolute expert at something, but almost if not totally bored by the the doing of it. The Zeiss lenses I have always feel like an expert that still loves the thing they are doing, if that makes any sense.
quick question: Can you MF focus the lens to hyperfocal distance ( via the LCD display on the lens) switch the camera off and on and retain the same focal point (without having to refocus) ?
IIRC, that depends on your camera settings. On my A7 IV, the answer is no because when it powers back on it reverts to autofocus even if I specifically selected manual focus before turning it off.
Lots of possible reasons. I edit for my screen (which is my only choice, since I don't have other screens) and my screen settings are different than others. For instance, I was showing some colleagues some photos at work and my work monitor displayed them with WAY different colors and contrast than my home monitor, which was frustrating. Also, UA-cam videos are 4K but these were all shot on 33 megapixels, so there's compression just to downsample to 4K. Then the 4K videos are compressed and optimized for streaming, which further compresses them. And it could also be that my editing style, which does involve a bumping up the shadow detail and dialing back the highlights a lot, looks a lot like HDR.
Great montage! I can't help but ask if the images are SOOC or edited. If they are the former, I could understand owning the lens for the 'Zeiss Look' alone. TYVM for the vid!
Good question. There is some editing. In general, I'll edit raw and here are the things I'll do: 1- Clone out sensor dust 2- Adjust the highlight, shadow, white, dark, and sharpness sliders some That's pretty much it. I rarely adjust saturation and vibrance, almost never touch the curves, and also rarely crop at all. When I do crop, it's usually not much. I try to shoot to use the entire image area and don't think that cropping a full-frame image to APS-C provides accurate information about what a lens can do. The same is true for any of my film review videos -- I try to do the framing correctly in the camera. So basically, I try my best to provide results which are easily achievable by any photographer in terms of editing, indicative of actual lens performance, and fair to the lens itself.
TBH these are not great pix, though they're probably not meant to be seen as that. However, I think your post production is pulling too much detail out of them and some of the early ones have got to the point where they look a little cartoony. Not a great look to me but then everyone's mileage is different.
So, ignoring the intentional, unprofessional rudeness in your comment, you're saying you have a different image aesthetic than I do. Cool. That's a good way to say that. As for processing, I do not do much to my raw files -- contrast balancing to eliminate raw file flatness and recover highlight and shadow detail. The photos I share in these are minimally processed -- no fancy color swoops or lighting flares added. These videos are designed to show what a lens can do and what images it can create on its own so that when people want to manipulate their photos they have an idea of the baseline image quality they're going to work with. 99% of the photos on my channel are not even cropped.
If you don't like being shot at don't stick your head over the parapet. This wasn't unprofessional or rude. It was a statement of my feelings. They're not great shots, and as I said, they were probably never shown as being that. And that's fine. And if they're pretty untouched as you appear to claim it would really put me off the lens. But I doubt they are....@@DavidHancock
Well you can't have been in a professional photographic or filming environment otherwise you'd understand it was neither of those things. I'd suggest you're too lily livered to survive in a professional environment. That is the end of what I have to say. Thanks...@@DavidHancock
Most of the city photos are from Bilbao, Spain. Some are from Denver, Colorado. Most of the outdoor photos are from around Colorado with some, like the photos of the horses, from the Basque region of Spain.
The Zeiss Batis Distagon 25mm 2.0 T* is good, as long you do not compare it to Sony 24mm 1.4 GM ! Zeiss really needs to make improved versions of the Batis and Loxia Lenses !!!
@@DavidHancock The Sony 24mm 1.4 GM is the best performing 24mm you can get, but I do wish for a more compact and more light weight 24mm, fx aperture 2.0 or 2.8, it should have at least the same optical performance as the Sony, I hope Voigtländer will make a 24mm Apo-Lanthar Lens.
I have both, i really can`t choose between them. The zeiss has that artistic imperfection what you call character. The sony 24 GM is just a precision instrument. I use the sony a night with wide open aperture. The zeiss in daytime for it`s classic zeiss look. Pure objective the sony beats the zeiss on all fronts exept one, artistic impression.
Yeah… Runbber grip is a no no. I’ve bought one Signa macro used with that finish and it is disgusting. Such a poor choice of material for an object that will be used as a tool. I bet they picked it so it would look matte. Like matte car paint that can’t resist bird poop…🐦 Form did not follow function.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Over the past several years, I've acquired 4 of the 5 Batis lenses. Only the 135 is missing. They all have the Zeiss "look," or "pop," which I really like. The 40 lives on the front of my camera as the default for grab-n-go shooting when I don't know the subject beforehand. The 25 is next favorite. These I use more than my Sony brand lenses, which are also fantastic. The difference is that with those, while optically excellent, they don't have special character. It's like having a gourmet meal made by Cook Sony who can very precisely follow a known-good recipe vs the same meal made by Chef Zeiss who knows how to improvise by feel.
Ah, the 135. I knew I was forgetting one. I absolutely agree about Sony lenses. I've been using the 40mm f/2.5 G lately and it's a good and fine do-all lens and I like the interface and size a lot, but when I get the images back, it's almost clinical in how it handles subjects. I can't find any faults in it so far, but it feels sort of like a person who is an absolute expert at something, but almost if not totally bored by the the doing of it. The Zeiss lenses I have always feel like an expert that still loves the thing they are doing, if that makes any sense.
@@DavidHancock The Zeiss Batis Apo Sonnar 135mm 1.8 * are the best of the bunch.
Phenomenal review. Ty.
Thank you!
Your photos always blow me away, put mine on my old Nex 6 and enjoyed it very much. Sony colors are always a challenge but the lens is amazing.
Thank you!
quick question: Can you MF focus the lens to hyperfocal distance ( via the LCD display on the lens) switch the camera off and on and retain the same focal point (without having to refocus) ?
IIRC, that depends on your camera settings. On my A7 IV, the answer is no because when it powers back on it reverts to autofocus even if I specifically selected manual focus before turning it off.
how come most of the pictures look like HDR
Lots of possible reasons. I edit for my screen (which is my only choice, since I don't have other screens) and my screen settings are different than others. For instance, I was showing some colleagues some photos at work and my work monitor displayed them with WAY different colors and contrast than my home monitor, which was frustrating. Also, UA-cam videos are 4K but these were all shot on 33 megapixels, so there's compression just to downsample to 4K. Then the 4K videos are compressed and optimized for streaming, which further compresses them. And it could also be that my editing style, which does involve a bumping up the shadow detail and dialing back the highlights a lot, looks a lot like HDR.
Great montage! I can't help but ask if the images are SOOC or edited. If they are the former, I could understand owning the lens for the 'Zeiss Look' alone. TYVM for the vid!
Good question. There is some editing. In general, I'll edit raw and here are the things I'll do:
1- Clone out sensor dust
2- Adjust the highlight, shadow, white, dark, and sharpness sliders some
That's pretty much it. I rarely adjust saturation and vibrance, almost never touch the curves, and also rarely crop at all. When I do crop, it's usually not much. I try to shoot to use the entire image area and don't think that cropping a full-frame image to APS-C provides accurate information about what a lens can do. The same is true for any of my film review videos -- I try to do the framing correctly in the camera.
So basically, I try my best to provide results which are easily achievable by any photographer in terms of editing, indicative of actual lens performance, and fair to the lens itself.
TBH these are not great pix, though they're probably not meant to be seen as that. However, I think your post production is pulling too much detail out of them and some of the early ones have got to the point where they look a little cartoony. Not a great look to me but then everyone's mileage is different.
So, ignoring the intentional, unprofessional rudeness in your comment, you're saying you have a different image aesthetic than I do. Cool. That's a good way to say that.
As for processing, I do not do much to my raw files -- contrast balancing to eliminate raw file flatness and recover highlight and shadow detail. The photos I share in these are minimally processed -- no fancy color swoops or lighting flares added. These videos are designed to show what a lens can do and what images it can create on its own so that when people want to manipulate their photos they have an idea of the baseline image quality they're going to work with. 99% of the photos on my channel are not even cropped.
If you don't like being shot at don't stick your head over the parapet. This wasn't unprofessional or rude. It was a statement of my feelings. They're not great shots, and as I said, they were probably never shown as being that. And that's fine. And if they're pretty untouched as you appear to claim it would really put me off the lens. But I doubt they are....@@DavidHancock
Your wording was both unprofessional and rude. The fact that you're not even willing to stand up and take credit for it is a disservice to us both.
Well you can't have been in a professional photographic or filming environment otherwise you'd understand it was neither of those things. I'd suggest you're too lily livered to survive in a professional environment. That is the end of what I have to say. Thanks...@@DavidHancock
@@MikeKleinsteuber Thank you for your feedback.
Oh thats a nice lens!!
Yeah. Zeiss hit a homerun with this one.
If you be kind enough to tell me where did you take these pictures, and which city? from about 16:12 onward.
Most of the city photos are from Bilbao, Spain. Some are from Denver, Colorado. Most of the outdoor photos are from around Colorado with some, like the photos of the horses, from the Basque region of Spain.
The Zeiss Batis Distagon 25mm 2.0 T* is good, as long you do not compare it to Sony 24mm 1.4 GM ! Zeiss really needs to make improved versions of the Batis and Loxia Lenses !!!
That Sony 24mm is on my want-to-try list for sure.
@@DavidHancock The Sony 24mm 1.4 GM is the best performing 24mm you can get, but I do wish for a more compact and more light weight 24mm, fx aperture 2.0 or 2.8, it should have at least the same optical performance as the Sony, I hope Voigtländer will make a 24mm Apo-Lanthar Lens.
I have both, i really can`t choose between them. The zeiss has that artistic imperfection what you call character.
The sony 24 GM is just a precision instrument.
I use the sony a night with wide open aperture. The zeiss in daytime for it`s classic zeiss look.
Pure objective the sony beats the zeiss on all fronts exept one, artistic impression.
Is this lens worth $340?
Easily. New they're around three times that.
Yeah… Runbber grip is a no no. I’ve bought one Signa macro used with that finish and it is disgusting. Such a poor choice of material for an object that will be used as a tool. I bet they picked it so it would look matte. Like matte car paint that can’t resist bird poop…🐦 Form did not follow function.
Concur. I don't like how little bits of dust stick to it, too. I'd much rather have had a plastic grip with a milled texture instead.
this lens has a personnality
It's incredible. Makes me want to buy the rest of the Batis lenses to try them. :D
Indeed, it`s just nice to look at.
Still i don`t use em in the dark, they`re just not good enough.
SHOWING EDITED photos 🤦♂️
Instead of Straight out of the Camera look of the lens, this a review.
@@wendysburgers4326 All photographers edit their photos and always have. I just do a lot less editing than most.