It seems like a fine lens, but personally, I don't think I like the rendering enough to switch from my Sony 35/1.4 or Loxia 35. I was hoping that it'd be more similar to the RX1, but I guess that wasn't a realistic expectation.
I’m a little disappointed in what I see. I was hoping for a good pair to the 135, which has a color palate all its own. So the 135 is still the odd man out. I also don’t see this displacing my beloved 55, so I really don’t have a place for it.
_manny_ wrote:
I wonder if the photos are correctly labelled? Shouldn't f/2 be giving round bokeh balls?
Looks like copy variance. Some lenses don't have a fully circular aperture wide open. The aperture blades do not fully contract.
I've seen some RX1RII cameras, a Loxia 25 and Loxia lenses behaving like that.
MrTMan wrote:
It seems like a fine lens, but personally, I don't think I like the rendering enough to switch from my Sony 35/1.4 or Loxia 35. I was hoping that it'd be more similar to the RX1, but I guess that wasn't a realistic expectation.
Anyway, I'm planning to pre-order one when they become available for pre-orders in Japan. Expensive ~2 months ahead with CV 21/3.5, GM 24/1.4, CV 110/2.5 (hopefully in November or so...), and Batis 40/2. Will be trading in a few lenses to balance it out.
Anyway, I'm planning to pre-order one when they become available for pre-orders in Japan. Expensive ~2 months ahead with CV 21/3.5, GM 24/1.4, CV 110/2.5 (hopefully in November or so...), and Batis 40/2. Will be trading in a few lenses to balance it out.
I don't think that it'll be the last Batis, but we won't see another lens for a couple years. I can envision something like 105mm f2.0 APO-Sonnar or 100mm f2.0 Marko-Planar with 1:1
Those samples are just awful for me, a Sonnar 35/2 in 40mm it is definitely not.
How can't you have rounded bokeh balls even wide open? That's ridiculous...
Zeiss is getting totally out of their mind, first this 40 that almost noone wanted vs a decent compact 35/2 and then they do "a likely decent compact 35/2"and stuck it to an ugly camera that almost noone will buy.. Mind numbing for me...
P.S. well, on the positive side, 1.300 Euro spared for me
It's clear from their lens pictures that aperture blades don't open fully. It doesn't mean all lenses will be like that. Just typical sample variation and unfortunately it happens with different manufacturers more often than we would like. If that's very important to you, return and get a different copy because that is considered "within specs" even by Zeiss.
Unfortunately, you can't expect really low variation from such inexpensive lenses. Higher level of quality control will quickly push the price to 5k USD like Otus or even higher. Just look at strickly manufactured Cinema lenses, for example, ARRI master primes at 25k a piece. Or supertelephoto lenses like 400/2.8
I'm also afraid that with recently increased IQ standards for all FF lenses it's inevitable that manufacturers will use more complex designs. Have a look at new Sigma 40/1.4 that weighs 1200g.
Performance wise this 40/2 is very close to 85/1.8 batis which in my book is exceptional, and it even beats 85mm in resolution uniformity (albeit very very slightly) and in level of correction of loCA which is exceptional for a fast wide angle lens. I didn't expect less with 7 out 9 elements being either ED or aspherical or both.
Batis lenses have excessive diameter, and I obviously don't like it. But they are compact and lightweight. I think the smallest we could possibly expect is Nikon 35/1.8 S, but it's just a bit narrower and still as long and heavy.
Speaking of 35/2 on ZX1 or RX1, I don't think will ever see anything like that for MILC. The closest was FE 35/2.8 but its performance isn't really close. The market tells manufacturers that more people want better performance instead or cheap and small lenses. Just look how popular are Sigma Art monsters. Only Nikon and Zeiss are currently making smaller, slower and high IQ primes for mirrorless.
P.S. What's wrong with Batis 25? It's one of the best WA lenses I've ever had, with only Loxia 21 and maybe Loxia 25 being better. All 3 are definitely better than 24/1.4 GM at least in resolution uniformity and field curvature according to the available samples from 24 GM. That's the difference in optical compromises for f1.4 and f2/f2.8 primes build to the same standard.
maratus wrote:
It's clear from their lens pictures that aperture blades don't open fully. It doesn't mean all lenses will be like that. Just typical sample variation and it happens with all manufacturers.
That may well be, but how likely is it that a company like Zeiss would use a lens with obvious defects like this for sample images of what is possibly their most important Batis-lens to date? Priced at 1300 euros, no less.
I am really, really hoping that these sample images that show this horrible nonagonal-bokeh are non-typical, because this was certainly a "must have" lens for me - before I saw those images. If you can't get even close to rounded bokeh-balls at F2 though, I'm sticking with the CV40 and my Zony 50/1.4.
norwegiandude wrote:
That may well be, but how likely is it that a company like Zeiss would use a lens with obvious defects like this for sample images of what is possibly their most important Batis-lens to date? Priced at 1300 euros, no less.
I am really, really hoping that these sample images that show this horrible nonagonal-bokeh are non-typical, because this was certainly a "must have" lens for me - before I saw those images. If you can't get even close to rounded bokeh-balls at F2 though, I'm sticking with the CV40 and my Zony 50/1.4.
If Zeiss themselves don't consider it defective then it's likely. I'm a bit surprised that so much attention is given to subtle shapes of bokeh balls from point light sources. It's quickly going from photography to obsessive measurbating. And what do you do with cat-eyes that present in almost all lenses? Or onion rings? Or cut-off circles from mirror box like on 85/1.2L? But to each his own I guess...
Well guess it is higly subjective, but angular bokeh "balls" (which balls are of course no more) is one of the worst thing it can happen to a nicely OOF backgroud to my eyes, much worse than onion rings for example (but it is, indeed subjective).
And no, at 1.300 Euro for a "simple" 40mm lens, it is not cheap by any means, so a very decent QC is a must IMHO (and I'm still not convinced it's really due some kind of defect, guess it's really the lens that is like that). I have a ton of even cheap vintage fast glass, none of which has even shown that behavior wide open..
And no, 1300 EUR or USD for a lens is mass production category and will never get you perfect quality control. It doesn't mean that a lens like that isn't expensive for a final buyer because everything is relative but I already gave examples
