• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Another medium tele test — summary

Another medium tele test — summary

February 10, 2016 JimK 7 Comments

This is a continuation of a test of the following lenses on the Sony a7RII:

  • Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 Batis.
  •  Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Otus.
  • Leica 90mm f/2 Apo Summicron-M ASPH.
  • AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 G.
  • Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE Macro.

The test starts here.

I’d present the f/5.6 results, but I think you get the general idea. The differences are along the lines of the differences at f/4, but more subtle, and less consequential.

I’ll close the test with a few words about handling and usage, then I’ll give you my take-home.

The two lenses that seem made for handholding on the a7x cameras are the Summicron and the Batis. They don’t stick out that far, they’re not that heavy — though the ‘cron is heavier than it looks — and they’re a pleasure to use on the body. The 85 Nikkor is a big pain to use on the a7x, because it’s a G lens and setting aperture is imprecise at best. The Sony macro works fine in spite of its length. The Otus is too much lens to comfortably hand hold for any length of time.

The lens that’s the hardest to focus is the Summicron, because it’s got that short rangefinder throw and making small focus changes is a fiddly operation. The Otus is a joy to focus, but, tactile pleasure aside, the two focus-by-wire lenses, the Sony and the Batis, are even easier to use to dial in that last little tweak to the focus thanks to the firmware going into a mode where it takes more than a little ring turning to make a modest change in focus.

A shout-out to Leica for including a slip out lens hood. It’s not as effective as the reversible ones, but it’s a lot more convenient, with the added bonus that you’re less likely to drop your lens than handling one with a reversed hood attached.

All five lenses are excellent. The Sony is sharp enough at infinity, which is usually the toughest distance for a macro lens. The Nikon is not so hot wide open, but then again, the only other f/1.4 lens in this test is the Otus, which is in a different league from a pricing, size, and weight perspective. The Summilcron has a beautiful rendering, but to my way of thinking, is not worth the money. The Batis is a lovely lens, especially considering its price.

We photographers are lucky to have tools like these.

The Last Word

← Another medium tele test — f/4 Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 Batis — color fringing →

Comments

  1. Ron says

    February 10, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Er, Summicron, not Summilux. 🙂 (Check all posts back to the f/2 series)

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 10, 2016 at 5:55 pm

      Oh, my. Thanks. I’ll fix it in the morning.

      Jim

      Reply
  2. DL Manning says

    February 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Hi Jim,
    Really enjoy following your blog. A bit off topic… I’m using the Sony 55/1.8 on a A6000. Awaiting shipment of a Loxia 21/2.8 after considering the Batis 25/2. I really like the 55/1.8, except the fly-by-wire manual focus. If the response was linear all would be good but it’s really frustrating to have the throw change depending on the speed one turns the ring.
    I’m curious about the same issue on the Batis series. Is it linear, or do you have a technique for those “final tweaks”?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 11, 2016 at 1:11 pm

      I may be biased, but I really like the way teh Zony 55 and Batis 85 focus-by-wire works when the camera is on a tripod. Sure, it is nowhere near as tactily satisfying as a good helicoid, but I bow to function. Off the tripod, it’s more problematic, but on those lenses I tend to use AF when I’m handholding.

      I suspect that one of the reasons I’m so satisfied is that I suffered through the terrible focus by wire on the early NEX cameras.

      Reply
  3. Mark Raugas says

    February 11, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    I am currently using the Leica 90mm Summicron M pre ASPH on the A7Rii and really enjoy it. Recently my Mamiya body broke and I have been using the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 Sekor D wide open on the Sony while it is in for repair; it is quite pleasant as a portrait lens in that capacity and light compared to the Leica. I was worried shooting wide open with no aperature control but since the FF sensor is only using part of the image circle of the MF lens I am not having any problems.

    Reply
  4. francesco says

    February 20, 2016 at 1:03 am

    Hi Jim,
    Really enjoy following your blog.
    I noticed a strange behavior while comparing the batis center crops. The f 2.0 stop is better (sharpness wise) than the f2.8 and f4.0 stops. I think the Batis at f2.0 is better than the Nikkor by quite a margin, but at f4.0 is the other way around.
    Maybe lightroom is sharpening the Batis at f2.0…or something else is going on, any thoughts?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 20, 2016 at 7:56 am

      I’m using DCRAW now and still seeing something similar, so Lr sharpening is not in the mix. I think what we are seeing is the effect of focus shift with aperture in the Batis. I am currently conducting a test of that.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.