Opticallimits

Awesomeness ... reloaded ...

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1033-sony85f18

So this really is as sharp as Batis... Interesting. Certainly comes with a very attractive price tag too. Thanks for the review.

So why would someone spend 2x on the batis ?

Nice lens. This one has been tempting me for a while. Hard to justify, as I already have the Sony 90 macro. Like the weight of the 85mm more, but need the close up sharpness.

Indeed. Practically same resolution, less distortion and vignetting. As much as Batis is a nice lens, this one looks great one. Smaller, cheaper, better. What is not to like?

Honestly, I am somewhat baffled why there is no classic 24 mm lens their in lineup yet.

A 4,75 star lens for $600 and from Sony to boot... We live in strange and exciting times.

     Great little lens, sensible size and price and looks tack sharp!

 

    .....There has been so much fuss about the G masters, Sononians have become blinded to anything that isn't $2,000 a pop!

 

  85mm seems to be the overall sweet spot focal length for sharp lenses wide open.....doing better than the 50mm standard focal........... even my old AF 85mm F1.8D does a decent job.

 

         Very nice!

Not at all, I think the users there are as keen to save some cash as those in any other system... except probably Leica.

 

Now, it only remains to be seen what the 85/1.4 GM is like for performance... it'd be great fun if it turns out to be worse than the Sony 85/1.8. (not so fun for those who had bought the 1.4, 'fkorz)

 

Honestly I'd be only considering the Batis over the Sony if I had been using an IBIS-less Sony E camera... which incidentally I am.

As mentioned, the Zeiss is sharper in close focus scenarios. Whether this is relevant to you ... well ...

Thanks for the review! A couple of proof-reading stuff (sorry, Rover ):

1. Under Chromatic Aberrations title: "The Zeiss lens produces a low amount of lateral CA" -- this is not about Zeiss, right?

2. Under Bokeh: "The circular shape remains intact at f/2.8. An edgy aperture shape starts to kick in at f/2.8." I guess the bold should read "f/2.2"?

3. The main page title should be bold -- isn't that a new review?

 

As for the review itself: you proved once again what was circulating around for some time: an unusually (for Sony) affordable stellar lens. Glad I bought it