Kalainen wrote:
Take a look at the new blog post, it deals with this issue: https://30daysofbatis.com
-Toni
Thank you very much for posting it, very nice shots and quite informative, nice to read that at least until 1m the lens stays at F2.
Looking at the shots, it's quite apparent that the nonagonal bokeh can be or not be an issue, really depending on the background and the focussed subject. To me, at least in the feather shot and in the last one, it's definitely veering on the bothersome side, but of course everyone's mileage can vary in that department.
The lens appears for sure to be quite contrasty and "Zeissy" looking, which of course should be a bonus for all Zeiss fans
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Thanks for testing and describing the aperture behavior at different focusing distances in your new blog post and also for getting some feedback from Zeiss on this topic (indicating that they are preparing something to explain it)! It helps to clarify the actual behavior. It's good that this seems to affect only close distance shooting <1m. Still not totally happy with this behavior for close-up use, but at least other use cases are unaffected.
I'm still waiting for the lens to be announced for Japan market with price and release date. Will decide about buying when I see the Japan price. I'm tempted to get it but I already have many other lenses in the 35-40mm area. Main use case would be for walk-around and travel, as a relatively light AF option. My FE 35/1.4 is very good but it's a little bit heavy for these uses, and for MF I'm very happy with my CV 35/1.4 and 40/1.2. I also have the 24-105/4 that can cover some of the same ground for travel use. I used to have FE 35/2.8 but I sold it as I much preferred the rendering on the FE 35/1.4 (especially bokeh).The special close focus feature on the Batis could have been a bonus but I think it's watered down by the aperture behavior at close focus distances. Anyway, the lens could still be quite nice for any other type of shooting.
I'll keep checking your blog for the rest of the 30 days too for getting more insights into the lens ...Show more →
"Still not totally happy with this behavior for close-up use, but at least other use cases are unaffected." "The special close focus feature on the Batis could have been a bonus but I think it's watered down by the aperture behavior at close focus distances"
My thoughts exactly. Also happy to hear Zeiss heard customer displeasure and am more than curious how they will address the question.
I’m still on the fence. I would love to get it to replace my Tammy 28-75 since having the Sony 24 and a Batis 40 could solve my zoom issue because I could use crop mode as a focal change but still not sure about this 40. I think it’s out in about 45 days so more time to figure this all out.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Thanks for testing and describing the aperture behavior at different focusing distances in your new blog post and also for getting some feedback from Zeiss on this topic (indicating that they are preparing something to explain it)! It helps to clarify the actual behavior. It's good that this seems to affect only close distance shooting <1m. Still not totally happy with this behavior for close-up use, but at least other use cases are unaffected.
I'm still waiting for the lens to be announced for Japan market with price and release date. Will decide about buying when I see the Japan price. I'm tempted to get it but I already have many other lenses in the 35-40mm area. Main use case would be for walk-around and travel, as a relatively light AF option. My FE 35/1.4 is very good but it's a little bit heavy for these uses, and for MF I'm very happy with my CV 35/1.4 and 40/1.2. I also have the 24-105/4 that can cover some of the same ground for travel use. I used to have FE 35/2.8 but I sold it as I much preferred the rendering on the FE 35/1.4 (especially bokeh).The special close focus feature on the Batis could have been a bonus but I think it's watered down by the aperture behavior at close focus distances. Anyway, the lens could still be quite nice for any other type of shooting.
I'll keep checking your blog for the rest of the 30 days too for getting more insights into the lens ...Show more →
Hei Juha and thanks for the comment. The FE 35/1.4 is definitely nice and will introduce more bokeh than 2/40. However, the FE35/1.4 is also quite heavy and big for everyday use (tested it myself). Now, the Batis 2/40 is also quite big, but at least it's very light weigth lens (361 gr). Regarding the Close Focus, I see that to be able to focus pretty close opens up more photographic opportunities and the aperture behaviour doesn't really affect too much in it (for me). When focusing close you get blurry backgrounds even with the smartphone with tiny lenses, having the CF feature in premium prime lens is handy because one doesn't need to change the lens and can explore almost macro range shots anywhere without changing a lens. I thought that it would be redundant for me (I don't do that kind of shooting so much), but I'm seriously warming up to it and it's fun to explore new domains.
Tirpitz666 wrote:
Thank you very much for posting it, very nice shots and quite informative, nice to read that at least until 1m the lens stays at F2.
Looking at the shots, it's quite apparent that the nonagonal bokeh can be or not be an issue, really depending on the background and the focussed subject. To me, at least in the feather shot and in the last one, it's definitely veering on the bothersome side, but of course everyone's mileage can vary in that department.
The lens appears for sure to be quite contrasty and "Zeissy" looking, which of course should be a bonus for all Zeiss fans ...Show more →
Thanks for the kind words regarding pictures. The nonagonal bokeh thing is on the fence for some, I can understand it. But I guess this is just the way it is with this lens. I dont see it as a problem, but then again, others might have very different shooting conditions where they expect different things from the lens. A dedicated macro lens will of course perform differently, better magnification ratio and background blur as well.
Kalainen wrote:
Hei Juha and thanks for the comment. The FE 35/1.4 is definitely nice and will introduce more bokeh than 2/40. However, the FE35/1.4 is also quite heavy and big for everyday use (tested it myself). Now, the Batis 2/40 is also quite big, but at least it's very light weigth lens (361 gr). Regarding the Close Focus, I see that to be able to focus pretty close opens up more photographic opportunities and the aperture behaviour doesn't really affect too much in it (for me). When focusing close you get blurry backgrounds even with the smartphone with tiny lenses, having the CF feature in premium prime lens is handy because one doesn't need to change the lens and can explore almost macro range shots anywhere without changing a lens. I thought that it would be redundant for me (I don't do that kind of shooting so much), but I'm seriously warming up to it and it's fun to explore new domains.
Moi Toni
Yeah, the light weight of the Batis is one of the main attraction points. I'd like the lens to be physically smaller but weight is more important than size. For me personally wide apertures are usually important for close-up shooting as I find the bokeh rendering to be key to nice photos in those use cases, such as close ups of flowers, any small objects, food & drink etc. and there's usually a big difference in overall aesthetics of bokeh rendering between different apertures. I tend to like my flower shots best wide open or very close (say f1.2 to f2), and food & drink shots at f2 or f2.8 or so. I would hardly ever prefer to use f4 in these shooting situations.
My other native 35mm and 40mm lenses already close fairly close (typically to 30cm for 35mm lenses and 35cm for native 40mm lenses) so the ability to focus to 0.24mm with the Batis makes less difference to me than bokeh rendering abilities at close range. Even the recent zoom lenses like Tamron 28-75 and Sony G 24-105/4 can focus close enough but I only like the bokeh rendering at the longer end of 24-105 at f4 where there's more subject isolation. With this Batis 40/2 I would have preferred if they would have kept the aperture open all the way even if it allowed close focusing to e.g. usual 35cm range instead of 24cm.
Anyway, I'm still seriously considering it because 40mm is perhaps my very favorite FL for walk-around use and it would be nice to have a light AF lens for this in addition to all the other options. I did buy all the other 4 Batis lenses earlier too but I ended up replacing most of them later with Sony GM lenses. I still keep the 135/2.8 which is probably the best of the Batis lenses optically.
killermac wrote:
Hi to all who are having the 40mm already. Do the front element look also like this on your Batis ?https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pk093tbusfu31ys/AAADXaOTLoHV_W5eujdqBEiva?dl=0
Yes, if you mean that the front element is almost straight (a bit concave actually) and very close to pupil/hole/whatever the right word for this might be. I don't see anything extraordinary in that picture.
Many thanks Toni. What is your experience with Eye-AF? Is it as consistent as with Sony lenses? I think that it hits the Eye-Ball not as secure then with my other lenses. Or is the AF motor not as fast. What’s your opinion on that?
killermac wrote:
Many thanks Toni. What is your experience with Eye-AF? Is it as consistent as with Sony lenses? I think that it hits the Eye-Ball not as secure then with my other lenses. Or is the AF motor not as fast. What’s your opinion on that?
Unfortunately I'm using the old Vanilla A7 so I cannot comment on Eye-AF. With the A7 focus speed seems pretty much same as with other lenses. If you haven't tried focus limiter, you could try that on and see it if makes any difference. Put it to 'infinity - 0.4m' and it should focus quicker than in 'full' mode, theres also 0.5 - 0.24m for close focus work.
I have compared it to my trusty 55mm Sony/Zeiss and the Eye-AF is more consistent. Normally I have the Cam on Auto-ISO with Min. Shutter Speed on "faster". But 1/160th is in dim lit conditions not enough to avoid motion blur and this could cause this issue. On Auto-ISO with min. 1/500th will improve a little bit but then it gets noisy. Also when I try to focus on the face of my wife it often sticks to her glasses where the 55mm hits the Eye-ball. If this is due to the less compression? I will see.
I tested as well some Bokeh balls with LED lights in the background from the 55mm vs the Batis and I could confirm that the 55mm is bigger and round whereas the Batis smaller and not round. But is not as distracting as I thought as the Bokeh from the 55mm is not perfect either (cat-eye balls). But I have experiences onion rings and a sharp edge of the Bokeh balls. So the Bokeh over all is not as pleasing as e.g. from my 85mm GM :-)
A very quick handling of the Batis and I like what I've seen.
Much lighter than the Sony 50mm f/1.4, faster AF, quieter and it seems technically excellent, much easier to live with (a manual switch would have been nice, especially with the close focus) although of course if you want the larger aperture there's no contest.
Even so, as long as I like how it renders the 40mm will be a keeper.
killermac wrote:
I have compared it to my trusty 55mm Sony/Zeiss and the Eye-AF is more consistent. Normally I have the Cam on Auto-ISO with Min. Shutter Speed on "faster". But 1/160th is in dim lit conditions not enough to avoid motion blur and this could cause this issue. On Auto-ISO with min. 1/500th will improve a little bit but then it gets noisy. Also when I try to focus on the face of my wife it often sticks to her glasses where the 55mm hits the Eye-ball. If this is due to the less compression? I will see.
I tested as well some Bokeh balls with LED lights in the background from the 55mm vs the Batis and I could confirm that the 55mm is bigger and round whereas the Batis smaller and not round. But is not as distracting as I thought as the Bokeh from the 55mm is not perfect either (cat-eye balls). But I have experiences onion rings and a sharp edge of the Bokeh balls. So the Bokeh over all is not as pleasing as e.g. from my 85mm GM :-) ...Show more →
Do you have the Batis 40 as well?
Would you mind sharing some of these portraits here?
killermac wrote:
I have compared it to my trusty 55mm Sony/Zeiss and the Eye-AF is more consistent. Normally I have the Cam on Auto-ISO with Min. Shutter Speed on "faster". But 1/160th is in dim lit conditions not enough to avoid motion blur and this could cause this issue. On Auto-ISO with min. 1/500th will improve a little bit but then it gets noisy. Also when I try to focus on the face of my wife it often sticks to her glasses where the 55mm hits the Eye-ball. If this is due to the less compression? I will see.
I tested as well some Bokeh balls with LED lights in the background from the 55mm vs the Batis and I could confirm that the 55mm is bigger and round whereas the Batis smaller and not round. But is not as distracting as I thought as the Bokeh from the 55mm is not perfect either (cat-eye balls). But I have experiences onion rings and a sharp edge of the Bokeh balls. So the Bokeh over all is not as pleasing as e.g. from my 85mm GM :-) ...Show more →
from what do you like to have examples?
If you want them from the Bokeh balls, then those are not really greatly made :-)
I don't want to be blamed for such noob pictures.
No one cares really about the content at this point. Its more about subject distance , aperture and background distance where we can get a feel for what the bokeh and bokeh balls are doing. So please post away
