Jump to content

90mm macro vs. Batis 85, G-Master 85 for portraits


Recommended Posts

One of the selling points for the 90mm f/2.8 Macro G lens is that it can be used for both macro and portraits. Indeed, DXO labs says that the 90/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tested. But ... what I want to know is, how does it compare to either of these 85's when it comes to portraits?

 

Obviously, the Macro does not go down to f/1.4, but I never went below f/2.0 when I was shooting Canon and owned the 85/1.2L because the shallow DOF made it almost impossible to use at f/1.2. So, I am more interested in seeing how the 85's perform at f/2 - f/2.8. 

 

Does anyone own both the Batis and the 90mm macro? I want to know if I should buy both the Macro and the Batis or whether I would be happy with the Macro alone. I will be buying the Macro anyway, because I need a Macro lens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Kelly

I think you have answered your own question!

 

As you will be buying the 90mm then simply see if the portraits it produces satisfy you. If it gives you shots that you love for their sharpness and the way they are rendered, then any other purchase would be an utter waste.

If, however, you genuinely feel (honesty to yourself is the real key!) that the pictures are lacking, perhaps the backdrop is a bit fussy, then it would be silly not to at least try the others if you have the means to buy one or other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to spend little money and have very performing IQ you can also go for the Co,tax G 90mmf2.8

Razor-sharp lens even corner to corner at f2.8

Just one thing, certainly to use manual at f2.8, don't find the AF of the adapter 100% accurate at this aperture...

 

See http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/3852-sony-please-imitate-the-contax-g-lenses/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if a sharp 90/F2,8 is usefull when you already have a supersharp 90/F2,8 ...

I would opt for a 135mm for a more shallow depht of field and would skip the Batis. Or the 70-200F2,8 if you like big lenses and have a lot of money :-)

 

Btw. I really like my 90mm, F2,8 is OK for me, but it should not be less. But it's big and I often put my Minolta 85/F2 in my bag, just to have something small and usefull with me. Ah and ther is my Walimex 85/F1,4, but to be honest I don't use it that often since I have the Sony macro.

 

Much fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, but if there is one thing I know from years of photography - it's that sharpness isn't everything. My Canon 100/2.8L IS Macro lens is incredibly sharp, yet the pictures looked clinical and had no character. It had something to do with the "matter of fact" way it was presented. The 85/1.2L was a much more flattering lens, even if it wasn't as sharp. There was a certain beauty in the way it softly transitions to out of focus areas. 

 

I guess my question is whether the FE 90/2.8 Macro is similar to the Canon in its clinical approach to image making. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the 85mm 1.8 baits lens.  I have also rented the 90mm several time while waiting for my lens to arrive.   

 

I think both lens have there place.    I personally order the baits because it was a little smaller and lighter.  I was also planning to more portrait shoots then shooting macro.  The look of the images are completely different.   Both lens are sharp, but you will be waiting about 2-6 months for 85mm.  

 

What type of photography are you going to use the lens for?

 

I have some older pics uploaded on flicker you can view.    Sorry  I don't have any portraits uploaded to flicker.  

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gem_iceman/albums/72157656729219132

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for that link!! This is what I see: 

 

Batis at f/1.8 - superior bokeh to the other lenses. There is some vignetting but this doesn't bother me (easy to remove). 

 

Batis at f/2.8 is very similar to 90 Macro at f/2.8. Surprisingly the Macro holds its own even though it is shot wide open and the Batis is one stop down. The Batis has a slight advantage for bokeh, the 90 Macro looks a little more busy. 

 

My conclusion from that link: unless I need to shoot at f/1.8, the 90 Macro is nearly indistinguishable from the Batis from f/2.8 and up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a manual option that incorporates best of the two.. Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm F/2. Despite it`s name, it`s primary use is portrait lens, with good macro ability. You get virtually the same aperture as with Batis, even shallower DOF because of longer FL, and very good 1:2 macro ability. 

Sharp as hell wide open. Milvus Zeiss 100mm f/2 is absolutely the same lens, with different weather resistant casing. Bokeh, in my opinion, better than both Batis and FE90. Scroll down to the bottom of the page i linked, small sized images, but enough to see the rendering.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/604

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can offer that I had owned the FE 90 Macro f/2.8 and really did love everything about it. I captured a lot of macros and did also use it in my studio with electronic flash for dazzlingly sharp portraits.  Having said that, when an opportunity came up to acquire the FE 70-200 f/4 I swapped with someone on FM forums.  I'm not unhappy, as I have a more flexible lens (albeit slower) that can handle portraiture, sports, landscapes and theater (yes, easily at 800 ISO) and I'm no limited to a single focal length.  This all works for me, but I do miss the FE 90 and may pick one up in the future for macro work.  The 90 is way sharper than the 70-200 which is listed near the top at DxOMark.  Sorry, but I can't compare with Canon or other lenses which I haven't owned.  Hope this helps....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the Sony 90 macro and sold it when the Batis became available. Big mistake. To my eyes, the Sony was slightly sharper and the Batis is a dog at focusing in low light. It is supposed to be a portrait lens but focusing using the modeling lights on my flash units is a chore. The lens hunts too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I can offer that I had owned the FE 90 Macro f/2.8 and really did love everything about it. I captured a lot of macros and did also use it in my studio with electronic flash for dazzlingly sharp portraits.  Having said that, when an opportunity came up to acquire the FE 70-200 f/4 I swapped with someone on FM forums.  I'm not unhappy, as I have a more flexible lens (albeit slower) that can handle portraiture, sports, landscapes and theater (yes, easily at 800 ISO) and I'm no limited to a single focal length.  This all works for me, but I do miss the FE 90 and may pick one up in the future for macro work.  The 90 is way sharper than the 70-200 which is listed near the top at DxOMark.  Sorry, but I can't compare with Canon or other lenses which I haven't owned.  Hope this helps....

fiveform, since you have or had both can I ask you was the 90 visibly sharper ( I presume) compared to the 70-200 at 90mm?  I am wondering, and I am only talking about centre sharpness, if a  similar crop of a object out of a 90mm image and a 70-200 image would compare for sharpness detail? for example if  across a street and at 200mm f4  I took a image of a post box plus what ever else fitted in the image and the the same postbox with the 90mm at f4

 

if I cropped both images to the post box only would they be equally sharp? ok resolution sizes would be different as would native print sizes but just for visual sharpness what would happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both the 90 2.8 macro and the Batis 85 1.8.  I also owned the Canon 100 2.8 L.  I have no test result images to offer, but based on taking a lot of real world images with all three lenses here is my experience:

 

The 90 2.8 is the sharpest; sharper than the Canon 100 2.8 (but at the same time not as "clinical" rendering as the Canon), with nice bokeh to boot.  So if the choice is between the Sony 90 2.8 and Canon 100 2.8 L macros, the Sony is the clear winner in my book.

 

But the Batis 85 1.8 is very sharp also, also with nice bokeh (which of course can be very subjective; some might like the bokeh of the Batis better than the 90 macro, and others vice versa).

 

Both the 90 macro and the Batis 85 are very, very good lenses and each has its place.  If you do a lot of macro work I think this should guide you to your answer.  For a more general purpose lens with an emphasis on portraits, I'd pick the Batis (which is a fantastic landscape lens as well).  If you do mostly portraits, I'd consider saving up for the 85 1.4 GM lens.  DXO has just given it a fantastic review, saying it has Otus level image quality.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks gman. I will use the 90/2.8 Macro for macro photography. I also need a lens for portrait, and was wondering how well the 90/2.8 Macro compares to the Batis or 85/1.4 G Master for portraits. 

 

 

I had the FE 90mm 2.8 Macro, it is sharp but the portrait ability of a F2.8 is not as great as the Batis 85mm F1.8.. You will pick the Batis anytime if you choose between the two, it has more creamy bokeh which is ideal for portrait.. I sold this because I like 1:1 or more macro. 

Here are the lens that I use to cover from extreme macro to 400mm Telephoto.

 

Canon 65mm F2.8 1-5x macro (Extrreme to 1:1 macro)

35mm Canon USM F2 for wide angle landscape/walkaround use.. but I seldom use this focal length since I am not into lasndscape..

85mm Zeiss Batis (street photography and closer headshots/portrait)

200mm Canon F2/L IS USM - This is my primary lens paired with A7R2, no one can beat the sharpness and bokeh. I add 2x TC to achieve 400mm F4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having shot with both 90mm Macro and the Batis 85, I love both lenses.

Batis 85 is the best value for the money for portrait style in native emount IMHO.  90mm f2.8 has amazing IQ across the board but Batis focuses faster and allows the extra stop.  The 90mm f2.8 only serves me well when i need to shoot small products for catalog.  Batis provided enough details even for closest head shots at wide open.  At the end, if I don't need to shoot macro, i would just keep the Batis for portraits- smaller, faster focusing, extra stop, just as sharp.  I'm using A7ii, probably can't tell the difference.

 

I haven't tried the 85GM and don't have a need for f1.4 yet; some reviews are stating Batis is sharper at f1.8 in comparison but GM is excellent for a f1.4 lens; Same image quality for f2.8.

 

Since you do need to shoot macro, the 90mm F2.8 is an excellent choice (also for portrait).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have owned all three lenses, have sold the Batis and am now selling the 90mm macro.  They are indeed all very good lenses.  But if the questions is which is better for portraits the 85 GM is the clear winner.  It is sharp in the center straight from 1.4 and the bokeh rom the other two does not compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I made a comparison between the 85mm Batis and the 90MM Sony on my website. I've got comparison photos of the sharpness of each.  Take a look and let me know if you'd like me to add any more comparisons, as I still have both lenses in my possession.  http://www.crumphoto.com/blog

 

Thanks!

There might be something wrong with your test, crum. The picture of the 90mm at f2.8 in the comparision with the 70-200 is way sharper than the one you used to compare with the Batis at f2.8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For portraits, the 85 GM is the best of the 3. It is a phenomenal lens, and it is optimized for portraits, including wide open. It has gorgeous colours, a very creamy bokeh, and rapid transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. The lowish micro-contrast means it does not unkindly underline facial features the way a stronger micro-contrast would (read: Zeiss Batis). Wide open it loses just a bit of ultimate sharpness, which is not a problem for portrait, some even prefer it that way. And it also performs remarkably well for all other forms of photography that I tried with it, short of sports/birding. I find one weakness: when I shoot with very shallow DOF, and there is a structured background close to the foreground, the rapid transition away from in-focus can make the BG look a bit "unnaturally blurry". But that is defintely not a situation I run into often. And of course, i should mention that it is a large, heavy and expensive baby...

Compared to it, the Batis is a good, solid all-rounder. But its bokeh can be a bit busy/rocky/harsh; its strong micro-contrast (typical Zeiss) can be unkind to colours and portrait. Overall its rendering lacks the sweetness and charm I like for portrait lenses.

The Sony 90 G macro is a totally different lens to the Batis, almost opposite in a way. Low to very low micro-contrast and fabulous colours, tremendous detail. It does not appear super-sharp in the sense that it is not in-your-face sharp the way, say Zeiss macro lenses are. But zoom in and everything is really really sharp and clean. Overall, this mild and painterly presentation is great for dreamy, poetic, romantic shots, if f:2.8 is fast enough for your portraits. And of course, it does very well indeed for close ups, but also for other types of photography, like cityscape or landscape.

Another membre indicated that this lens was reviewed on DearSusan, as is the 85GM (I wrote that review).

Overall, though there are differences and preferences, these are 3 high-quality lenses. You can't go wrong with any one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

sorry but i have to agree with philber

 

everybody is talking about sharpness but for portray this is a very big problem, sharpness  has much to do with contrast and micro contrast

 

as portrait lens i would not go for the FE 90 and not for the Batis and also not for the contax 90mm 2.8

 

wonderful lenses for landscape, architecture and product shots but not for portrait

 

they all are to sharp!

 

to much contrast and to much compression .....skin tones are to harsh and skin looks flat

 

i think best portrait lens is the sony 85mm GM 

 

i use a Leica Summicron 90mm for portrait

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...