Which 85mm lens?

Both the Loxia and Batis are Sonnar designs so the rendering is similar. The difference really is the Batis has 9 curved aperture blades which give a nicer bokeh at wide apertures. The Loxia has 10 straight aperture blades which gives nicer sunstars. I think it's slightly better at smaller apertures at capturing detail and micro-contrast. So if you want maximum resolving of detail, the Loxia is a touch better. But the difference is going to take some careful examination to pick up.

So my rule-of-thumb of the Batis for portraits (or cats!) and the Loxia for landscape works for me. I also got the Batis 2nd hand so the cost was very tolerable compared to the Sony GM alternative .



Edited by Wētāpunga - 26 January 2022 at 01:25

Wētāpunga wrote: Both the Loxia and Batis are Sonnar designs so the rendering is similar. The difference really is the Batis has 9 curved aperture blades which give a nicer bokeh at wide apertures. The Loxia has 10 straight aperture blades which gives nicer sunstars. I think it's slightly better at smaller apertures at capturing detail and micro-contrast. So if you want maximum resolving of detail, the Loxia is a touch better. But the difference is going to take some careful examination to pick up. So my rule-of-thumb of the Batis for portraits (or cats!) and the Loxia for landscape works for me. I also got the Batis 2nd hand so the cost was very tolerable compared to the Sony GM alternative .

I took a look at a Loxia 85mm yesterday afternoon and it did feel nice, I snatched a few test shots too and the images are certainly very nice, the colours were warmer than the GM from what I could tell. I likes the old school feel to it apart from the accidental movement of the aperture ring when attaching or taking off the lens and the way the lens hood is very easy to dislodge. MF was no problem.
I think I may try to hire a couple of lenses for a side by side comparison soon so that I can be sure.
So far the Loxia 85, the Sony 85

So far I'm getting some recomendations for and against the Sony 85mm 1.8, the various Zeiss lenses are looking promising and a mention of the so far too new to know much about Sigma 90mm 2.8.

No-one has suggested the Sony 85mm 1.4GM (unless I've missed something) and I can guess why as it seems to obviously aimed at the portrait market. I have seen some landscape pictures taken with it and also the Sigma equivalent but from what I can see the quality at f8 isn't much different to the Sony 85mm 1.8 so the extra bulk and cost seems unnecessary. Perhaps you may think I'm wrong?

I quite like the new Sigma 90mm 2.8, has anyone shooting on an A7R IV used it? Any comments?

Wētāpunga wrote: Frankly wrote: I took a look at a Loxia 85mm yesterday afternoon and it did feel nice, I snatched a few test shots too and the images are certainly very nice, the colours were warmer than the GM from what I could tell. I likes the old school feel to it apart from the accidental movement of the aperture ring when attaching or taking off the lens and the way the lens hood is very easy to dislodge. MF was no problem... I'm not sure the colours are warmer, I think its more that the optics and coating seem to capture just a bit more of the actual colours and tones. It is I think, optically one of the best lenses you can get in the E-mount. I quickly got used to the aperture ring and haven't had a hood dislodge in the field yet. I actually found one seascape with rather heavy surf easier with it. The narrow barrel diameter and the long protective hood, shielded the front element from seaspray. But yeah, it isn't the cheapest option and you do give up any autofocus option. Fwiw when I do want to produce anything intended to be a large print, I almost always grab one of my Loxia lenses.

I think that the 85mm Loxia is the way forward for me, so thanks for your input!
There may well come a time when I suppliment it with other Loxia lenses, time will tell.
On the subject of Loxia lenses, I notice that you also have the Loxia 35mm f2. I have heard criticism of this lens with some saying that it is the weakest Loxia IQ wise. I think from what I've seen that it turns out a decent picture. Any thoughts?

The thing about the Loxia 35/2 being the weakest of the set, is that you're starting with a very high bar. You're comparing it to all the other Loxia lenses .

The positive is is still has all the Zeiss rendering and resolving power of the other Loxias. Where it is weakest is in the f2 to f4 range, where the corners are softer, and there's more coma. As that's not the apertures I photograph landscapes or seascapes with, it's not a something that bothers me.

If photographing wide-open does matter to you, then there are better options than the Loxia 35/2. If you are typically shooting at f5.6 or smaller apertures, all you'll really ntocie is that lovely Zeiss rendering

One of the strengths of going 'all in' on the Loxias is they all share the same 52mm filter thread. I have a comprehensive set of high quality (=$$$) ND, circular polariser and night filters all in 52mm size. If I replaced the 35/2 with a different 35mm lens, I'd probably need to buy more filters just for it. So I have even less reason to replace it.

Wētāpunga wrote: The thing about the Loxia 35/2 being the weakest of the set, is that you're starting with a very high bar. You're comparing it to all the other Loxia lenses . The positive is is still has all the Zeiss rendering and resolving power of the other Loxias. Where it is weakest is in the f2 to f4 range, where the corners are softer, and there's more coma. As that's not the apertures I photograph landscapes or seascapes with, it's not a something that bothers me. If photographing wide-open does matter to you, then there are better options than the Loxia 35/2. If you are typically shooting at f5.6 or smaller apertures, all you'll really ntocie is that lovely Zeiss rendering One of the strengths of going 'all in' on the Loxias is they all share the same 52mm filter thread. I have a comprehensive set of high quality (=$$$) ND, circular polariser and night filters all in 52mm size. If I replaced the 35/2 with a different 35mm lens, I'd probably need to buy more filters just for it. So I have even less reason to replace it.

Thanks for that. I don't think I'd be shooting wide open with a Loxia 35mm unless I change my landscape style ... which is pretty unlikely. I suppose I could shoot them all at f2 and focus stack if I felt like being a masochist ... but no, I think f5.6 or 8 will be just fine for me.

I think the 35/2 review on Phillipreeve.net (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-zeiss-loxia-35mm-2-0/) in the end, has the a final comment that sums up my view.

"Despite some of the technical shortcomings I have bought this lens myself now. In retrospective the photos I have taken with this lens have something about them I really like, I think it is best described as a very punchy micro contrast. Take into account most of my photos are taken stopped down, this was indeed the best (small) 35mm lens for my needs."

Often it's not about buying the "best" lens you can find, but the lens that best suits your particular photography needs (and budget!). And the Loxias have a lot of other selling points for me- the small size makes them great for hiking with and the manual focusing experience is exceptionally good.