[JJ_SO]

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 


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.

[Ayoh]

Review

 

http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-batis-a...ns-review/

[Ayoh]

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.verybiglobo.com/wp-content/up...-03600.jpg

[JJ_SO]

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.

[obican]

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

[Brightcolours]

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".

[toni-a]

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.

[Rover]

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?


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.

[JJ_SO]

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.lensrentals.com/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 

[Rover]

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.