Neurad1 wrote:
Sorry. Thanks. So is there good fast prime between 25 and 55? I don't use my Loxia 35 much because I just don't love the rendering....Actually prefer to shoot my RX1 if I'm going to be using that focal length.
If you want a lens that matches your RX1, I think you are going to be out of luck. That is a very special lens and no doubt is advantaged by being a fixed lens that can be placed at an optimized distance from the sensor. If you can tolerate a bigger size I think the rendering of the ZA 35 f/1.4 might be more to your liking but it isn't perfect either as the onion rings in the bokeh can be quite noticeable at times. If you can live without AF, I think the CV 40 f/1.2 is a nice option as well and is quite well behaved but again not perfect at f/2. It also has the very fast f/1.2 with lots of quirks and is excellent stopped down to f/5.6. On balance it has been my choice. If you want to use it close up I recommend getting an achromat close up filter which greatly improves its performance there. If f/2.8 is fast enough the ZA 35 f/2.8 is a very competent and wonderfully small lens that people tend to forget as well. Don't expect great bokeh with it, however. I think 35ish mm lenses have always been a challenge and most have their flaws one way or another. The RX1 is a revelation in that it is so nice in so many ways and the few flaws it has are relatively mild. In my view it wets people's appetite for a near perfect 35mm, but it is a bit of a tease because what is accomplished with that lens as a fixed lens isn't really possible with an interchangeable lens.
I can't say that I love the rendering on the Batis 40mm, but that may be my quirk rather than the lens. The Batis 40's rendering seems to be neutral and just a bit flat, with no interest added to the lighting or the emergence of the principal foreground subject. A bit like the very well-regarded Canon 35mm 1.4L ii. But the neutrality may be a virtue if the lens is to be used as a great and sharp utility lens that fits many different applications--that imaging style seems well-suited to the 40mm focal length, which sits between two major focal length choices and thus covers a lot of ground. Maybe one should think of the Batis 40mm as a utility infielder (for those who know baseball).
I have today tested foreground Bokeh balls with roughly 1m distance. One of the pictures is more then 1 Meter away from the Camera. The others are 0,9 - 1m away.
This looks like a killer lens, but it's not going to replace my 40/1.2
I've tried the Batis lenses repeatedly at B&H, and I just can't stand the feel of them. Hate the rubber focus ring and the appearance, to be honest. I wish they'd just make it smaller and more traditional feeling, with an actual grip.
avuroski wrote:
This looks like a killer lens, but it's not going to replace my 40/1.2
I've tried the Batis lenses repeatedly at B&H, and I just can't stand the feel of them. Hate the rubber focus ring and the appearance, to be honest. I wish they'd just make it smaller and more traditional feeling, with an actual grip.
I agree about the look and feel of the Batis line. But the Batis 18 and the Batis 135 are strong bookends for the rest of my AF kit and would be hard to beat, even with better looks and ergonomics.
Also love the CV40 and have found most of the Batis 40 images to look somewhat flat. I don't usually care about bokeh balls, I think that a lot of people obsess about them, but the nonagonal bokeh balls seen on some of the Batis 40 images are very distracting and artificial looking to me.
I've been using this lovely lens for a couple of days but I'm unsure doubt the AF performance when Eye-AF is being used. Eyes tend to be out of focus quite frequently, Eye-AF seems to be nervous and in quite some cases I notice a front af.
Is it just my lens? How are your experiences concerning this issue?
zeitlos wrote:
Is it just my lens? How are your experiences concerning this issue?
I already asked killermac but didn't receive a response, could you try shooting in AF-S and see if it front focuses? My copy is definitely suffering from it although it's only slightly out and it's very obvious when the viewfinder is magnified but of course mirrorless doesn't let you micro adjust so there's no way to fix it...
I've contacted Zeiss support and will see what they say.
So just took three shots using AF-S and moving focus manually to the eyes. Two shots were absolutely sharp, one is lightly off, but this might be because shutter time was just 1/40, so too long.
Maybe it's just a problem when using AF-C? But this is bad since I really want to use eye af...
To my knowledge EYE-AF works in AF-S also. The fact that the green eye square disappears after aquiring focus, highlighting the face instead afterwards, is actually rather a usability fubar, i think.
Why would you think otherwise?
There might just be a different balancing of PDAF/CDAF involved. That‘s why a test is worth a try.
Best regards
zeitlos wrote:
Of course, I'll try. But when using it on AF-S there won't be EYE-AF anymore.
Would you be so kind and tell us what Zeiss says about it?
You are (partly?) right. It still works, but I'd say just for the initial/first measurement. So you only see it once. If the af keeps on working in af-s, it's no af-s anymore but af-c.
So the question is, why should it keep on working in af-s mode?
Of course only for an initial/first measurement. Otherwise it wouldn‘t be AF-S (single shot autofocus)
How would you ever rely on it in focus-recompose shooting, if it were to readjust afterwards?
Maybe we are not talking about the same thing : )
zeitlos wrote:
You are (partly?) right. It still works, but I'd say just for the initial/first measurement. So you only see it once. If the af keeps on working in af-s, it's no af-s anymore but af-c.
So the question is, why should it keep on working in af-s mode?
Alright, I surrender. Eye-af doesn't work with this lens. I got more than 50% pictures which aren't sharp where they should be. Otherwise the focus seems to be good, but with eye-af chances are high that you will suffer from front focus. The question is, if it's only my copy but well, some people have also voiced their concerns here in this thread, so I fear that it's not just me.
This is really unfortunate. I sold my really good copy of the 55/1.8 for this one. But as I said, can't use it. Not sure whether Zeiss will fix this issue? Maybe better send it back to the retailer.
zeitlos wrote:
This is really unfortunate. I sold my really good copy of the 55/1.8 for this one. But as I said, can't use it. Not sure whether Zeiss will fix this issue? Maybe better send it back to the retailer.
When I first saw mention of missed focus with eye AF it reminded me of the early reports of using the Tamron 28-75mm but I've done some more testing and found when just using the lens it nails focus fine but if I magnify the viewfinder then it consistently front focuses.
So I suspect it's a firmware issue as it only appears to be happening when eye af or magnified viewfinder are in use, that's not based on a lot of evidence though, I'll wrangle a victim tomorrow and test out how well eye works but I suspect I will see the same front focusing.
Simon Barker wrote:
When I first saw mention of missed focus with eye AF it reminded me of the early reports of using the Tamron 28-75mm but I've done some more testing and found when just using the lens it nails focus fine but if I magnify the viewfinder then it consistently front focuses.
So I suspect it's a firmware issue as it only appears to be happening when eye af or magnified viewfinder are in use, that's not based on a lot of evidence though, I'll wrangle a victim tomorrow and test out how well eye works but I suspect I will see the same front focusing....Show more →
Lloyd mentioned the latter issue - focus in magnified view (he called it live view). Said he had to switch to manual focus and then the lens shone.
Zeiss needs to address this concern raised by him and now here. My main interest in this lens is to have native AF including EyeAF. Otherwise I can save $1300 and continue using a Canon 35/2...
