Edit: This series of images in conjunction with some other sample images on the web as of Oct 15, 2018, is nudging (pushing?) me towards the 1.4/50 Planar.
He aslo reviewed the Samyang 35/1.4 here . His MTF chart for the Batis tops out at ~2800LW/PH at f5.6. His Samyang 35/1.4 MTF chart shows it exceeding 3000LW/PH from f2.8-8. It also shows almost exactly the same result for center/edge for the Batis @f2, as the Samyang @f1.4. Both are excellent wide open at center/edge, but the Samyang is a stop faster, and has higher resolution as it is stopped down.
Edit: This series of images in conjunction with some other sample images on the web as of Oct 15, 2018, is nudging (pushing?) me towards the 1.4/50 Planar.
Thank you! I wasn't able to find them through Zeiss flickr and they didn't load on Batis 40mm page at zeiss.com
pdmphoto wrote:
He aslo reviewed the Samyang 35/1.4 here . His MTF chart for the Batis tops out at ~2800LW/PH at f5.6. His Samyang 35/1.4 MTF chart shows it exceeding 3000LW/PH from f2.8-8. It also shows almost exactly the same result for center/edge for the Batis @f2, as the Samyang @f1.4@@. Both are excellent wide open at center/edge, but the Samyang is a stop faster, and has higher resolution as it is stopped down.
Both lenses outresolve 24MP from f2 and up and peak values are completely bottlenecked by cameras. In order to get meaningful data, it's necessary to use a higher resolution body. And the difference between max score could be due to A7 vs A7 III or different raw processing software versions or smth else. Given that they use 24MP camera to test lenses, I wouldn't count on proper workflow to ensure quality test results either.
Yes, as mentioned, that is pretty a deal breaker to me, and quite unacceptable for a "close-focus" 2018 prime that costs USD 1300. Why Zeiss designed it like that is beyond me.. (if it is to somehow reduce vignetting or something similar, I'd rather have taken the SW correction rather that horrible bokeh "non-balls"...)
The lens is still not announced for Japan market yet but I guess it wll be announced soon since Zeiss are promoting it very actively on their Japan FB page.
darrellc wrote:
FWIW, Lloyd Chambers raving about his sample of the lens on his public blog, says may be best Batis yet.
He does but found this as well:
Autofocus Error in 100% Live View
Update: Zeiss confirms that the lens I am testing does not have production firmware. Accordingly, take this page as examples of what might happen with lenses in general. Further testing will all use manual focus, to concentrate only on optical performance.
...
This page shows only crops comparing what the Sony A7R III + Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF delivers with contrast detect autofocus (CDAF) in magnified Live View at 100%, versus manual focus. In every case, I found that the autofocus result was visibly blurred of a magnitude requiring f/5.6 to f/8 to get back what was lost. This page does NOT evaluate autofocus accuracy in non-magnified Live View.
I reached out to Lloyd to ask about the nonagonal bokeh balls. He confirmed them on his copy and has reached out to Zeiss for their thoughts. In his hands it appears these will show up at 'everything other than infinity':
eyal wrote:
I reached out to Lloyd to ask about the nonagonal bokeh balls. He confirmed them on his copy and has reached out to Zeiss for their thoughts. In his hands it appears these will show up at 'everything other than infinity':
If that's the case and it's intentionally done by design, there is nothing much to do about it. Perhaps this lens could benefit from having 11 blades for slightly rounder specular highlights at close and mid distances.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The published Zeiss MTF hints it performs closer to the Batis 85 while the Batis 135 is in a totally different level...
True.
Though that's still impressive for a 40, maybe as or more impressive *relative to focal length* than the 135? Who knows!
The other interesting thing about the 40 seems to be that, according to the people he talked to, it's optimised incredibly evenly at all distances; barely changes performance from close focus to infinity. That's something that I am starting to think is not true of many lenses: we tend to think there's infinity performance, and MFD performance, and in between it just pretty quickly gets to infinity level and doesn't change. But I'm not at all sure that's true, having found, e.g. (not sure yet so I won't name lenses) that sone are good close and infinity, but not so good at ranges inbetween.
DavidBM wrote:
True.
Though that's still impressive for a 40, maybe as or more impressive *relative to focal length* than the 135? Who knows!
The other interesting thing about the 40 seems to be that, according to the people he talked to, it's optimised incredibly evenly at all distances; barely changes performance from close focus to infinity. That's something that I am starting to think is not true of many lenses: we tend to think there's infinity performance, and MFD performance, and in between it just pretty quickly gets to infinity level and doesn't change. But I'm not at all sure that's true, having found, e.g. (not sure yet so I won't name lenses) that sone are good close and infinity, but not so good at ranges inbetween....Show more →
Yes but it's to be expected since all Batis lenses have a floating elements design. (which is absent from the Loxia line)
