Zeiss Batis 18mm

[JimmyD]

Kai of DigitalRev posted a review of the new Batis 18mm f/2.8 lens two days before my copy arrived, saying the lens is "insanely sharp" and calling this lens "the" wide angle lens you should get for the Sony A7 series.  Having shot with everything out there--including the excellent Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/4--he is flat out right, at least for AF (I have the Loxia 21 f/2.8 and love it, although no more than the Batis).  The Batis is unbelievably sharp and does a fantastic job of isolating your subject at f/2.8 if you are close enough.  Really nice color, contrast and Zeiss "pop" for a super wide.  Bravo!

[GhostWalker]

Interesting, Jimmy, and good to know.

 

I presently have the Batis 25mm f2.0 and love it, both for its compactness and its amazing image quality. I also have the Zony 16-35mm f4.0 and as a result I'm still on the fence about getting the Batis 18mm, simply because I'm not sure I need another lens in that range (I'm more leaning towards the rectilinear 10mm from Voigtlander atm) - but I have to say that the 18mm is tempting!

[dcisive]

I recently gave up on the idea of a Batis 18 as they weren't available and the 16-35 was. Kinda glad I went that route as it's a lot more flexible for a scenario where you need the ability to use a slightly wider focal length, but then perhaps end up needing the 35mm (which on my copy is NO compromise as others have reported in their tests). About the ONLY other lens I'm seriously thinking of adding is indeed the Batis 25mm f2.0. A perhaps ideal walk around and even indoor average shooter.

[JimmyD]

I have the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f/4 (great lens) and both the 18mm and 25mm Batis'. Even with the wide views of the Batis lenses they are both capable of producing unique images shooting wide open at close subjects that you simply can't make with the slower 16-35 zoom. And, while the zoom is certainly sharp, both Batis lenses are a tad sharper, with the 18mm being truly amazing for its focal length.

[pic-pop]

I just received my Batis 18mm lens and am amazed at the sharpness. I also have the Batis 85 which is great as well. I am thinking about the Batis 25mm but am not sure. I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 which is a great little walk around lens. If I go for the 25 Batis it may be overkill in this range. Would be interested in your thoughts.

[Guest]

So just because one guy says insanely sharp we have to assume it is?

I mean the Batis is 18mm 2.8  = €1200 and even has autofocus
The loxia is 21mm 2.8  = €1500 and is full manual
Both are Zeiss lenses and it would be crazy if they make their own product useless?

I mean if the batis 18mm is insanely sharp? What advantage would the Loxia have except the 3mm difference in Focal Range

Or do we need the define the Loxia is "Super Ultimate Insanely Double Beautiful Extreme Sharp"?

Just wondering.

[JimmyD]

firebladex,

 

We should never assume anything just because one guy says its so.  That's why I tested the Batis 18mm myself.  And in this case, the one guy was right so I bought the lens.  But don't take anyone's word for it--go shoot it yourself and you can decide.

 

In terms of the difference between the Batis 18mm and the Loxia 21mm (beyond the obvious focal length difference you note), the Loxia is manual focus--an entirely different shooting experience which many people prefer.  More importantly from a differentiation perspective, the Loxia is about 1/3 the size of the Batis.  So no need to get super ultimate insanely double worried that the two lenses will be confused.

[Guest all8]

People who say these things ...

 

insanely sharp

unbelievably sharp

amazing image quality

tad sharper

amazed at the sharpness

 

​... should stop and think .... Now if you will excuse me, I need to go "oil my beard".

[Golem]

Re: Price differential.

 

It possible and even quite likely that it costs MORE to 

manufacture a fine MF-only barrel and an AF version. 

  

Obviously there are other concerns, like size, optical

configuration, anticipated production volume, etc, but

just cuz AF is seen by most users as an upgrade does

not mean that AF is a newer MORE costly technology.

We've seen plenty of examples of newer LESS costly

technology ... and this could fit that pattern.

[Guest]

hmm my bad. I did expect AF would be more expensive feature of a lens than a MF lens. Its just seems abit weird to me to imagine a company making a more expensive lens that performs same as the (slightly) cheaper brother while it lacks AF. But now i understand it little bit better.

Although still disliking the exaggeration of words like amazing insane sharp :-)

[AndyWear]

Interesting, Jimmy, and good to know.

 

I presently have the Batis 25mm f2.0 and love it, both for its compactness and its amazing image quality. I also have the Zony 16-35mm f4.0 and as a result I'm still on the fence about getting the Batis 18mm, simply because I'm not sure I need another lens in that range (I'm more leaning towards the rectilinear 10mm from Voigtlander atm) - but I have to say that the 18mm is tempting!

I'm in the same  boat as you. I love the 16-35 f4, so it makes it hard for me to want the prime 18 or 25 when its only f2 and f2.8.  The 16-35 has very little distortion too.  I do a lot of real estate shots and require straight lines, and i rarely have to fix the lines because they're already really straight.  If I got it, it would be for something super wide so I can use it for astrophotography.  Who knows.   

[Mr_A7s]

Batis offers great iq, size, weight and money.

 

However, I'm going to wait for 1635gm f2.8 )

[AndyWear]

I want the 16-35 2.8 too.  Main reason I'm super hesitant for the Batis 18 2.8.

I'm at the point where I think every lens released now is sharp enough for me and that some distortion is wanted!  

[Barry C]

After 3 months wait, mine arrived yesterday.  Unfortunately, like so many other lenses I've bought this year, it was a bad one.  VERY soft on the right side.  I'm at a loss as to why these companies seem to have no real quality control anymore.  Back in the 90s when I was a working pro, I never had these kinds of problems buying lenses.

 

I'll send it back to B&H and order one more, but if that one is bad, then that will be the end of this lens for me.  I went through 4 28mm Sony FE 2.8s until I finally got a good one.  Just kind of wears you out after awhile   Happy to report that the 70-300 was good first time around.