I cancelled my preorder last week, even before reading the response from Zeiss. I think I made a right decision, no regret.
Thanks for reporting the issues.
Well these last few pages have been disappointing. I was really considering this Batis, but if it doesn't play nice with eye-AF it is a not an option. Eye-AF has completely changed how I shoot people, in such a positive way, there is just no way I'm buying a new lens that can't take advantage of it. This is especially surprising as the 135/2.8 works flawlessly with eye-AF.
I’m very surprised that Zeiss did not acknowledge this issue. Zeiss needs to take a lesson from Tamron and their handling of the autofocus issue with the 28-75/2.8; Tamrons accepting responsibility and their clear plan to address the issue caused me to keep the lens and not return it. The Tamron zoom debacle could have cut Tamron so deeply during this initial creation of brand credibility in the prosumer Sony market. However, they handled it perfectly and the lens is still intermittently sold-out at many large online retailers.
Anyway, very disappointed with Zeiss.
@GMPhotography: I saw you lens advice thread, what ya think?: will y’all just wait on the Sigma Art 40/1.4? My decisions are, as I just sold my 55/1.8: either, wait and go with the sigma 40, purchase a Sony 50/1.4, or rebuy the 55/1.8 (which is thus far my biggest transactional regret with camera gear). I use the 24 GM, Tammy, and 85 GM now (aside from a TAP on various M lenses), but I need a normal length shallow depth of field for indoor family candids.
This is a tough one. The Sony 50 1.4 is the best lens of the bunch as far as rendering and look. It’s very sharp but not clinical sharp. The few issues are cost, size and weight. It also won’t be as fast with AF as your 55. The Sigma 40 1.4 is essentially the same price and it’s even bigger and heavier. For a 82mm threaded filter for me is a no go. I don’t mind some weight and bilk but this seems way to much to deal with. My issue with the 55 is I just never loved the thing as it’s kind of clinical in look and has some bad LoCa but it’s a decent price with good size and weight.
Here is the bigger problem if you have the Sony 24mm than the 85 in either one of the good three than where Is the middle lens bewtween them. 24 to 55 is a big gap and 55 to 85 is too little a gap. The best is either a 35,40
One option and not the greatest because it’s slow is the Sony 35 2.8 . The Rokinon 35 1.4 but I found the AF not very accurate and ugly colors. Some may debate this but I need AF that works all the time.
Some options Tamron 45 1.8 in canon mount with a Metabones. This is a good lens or there 35 is also good. They are sharp but not the best rendering but they will get the job done. Bottom line this Batis 40 is and was the answer here. Now with what’s going on here I’m disappointed on what I’m reading. I agree if EYE AF sucks it’s not worth 20 bucks to any of us. That’s the best feature of our AF machines.
I’m in heavy debate on what I want. Now for me it’s a PR lens and I get paid to shoot this thing so it’s not my love of the life lens either. As a hobbyist and maybe a very heavy user and wants great images at any cost than get the Sony 50 1.4 as it really is the best 50 I ever used. It’s 1500 dollars and that’s painful but it’s a gorgeous lens.
Myself I got the GM 24, Batis 85 and 135 and currently have the Tamron 28-75 and a great copy of one. If you don’t need faster than 2.8 and you don’t mind zooms it would pair nicely with a 24/85 combo than this is a great option. Honestly I could just keep mine and wait it out till someone finally steps up to the plate with a outstanding 35mm in a F1.8 or F2 that matches the 24
WTF is Sony on this. We’ve been begging for too long.
Honestly I’ve been around this so long I actually not sure I have the most solid answer here and I’m not afraid to admit it either. But if you want the best can handle the size and weight and you want to spend money. The Sony 50 is hard to beat
Guy, the 1.4/50 has 46-47mm effective focal length. It is the shortest 50mm that I have ever used. Maybe this will help you.
On the other hand, I think that the Batis 40 could be an awesome match for the 24 and one of the 1.8/85 (or B135). All three or four lenses would be close in handling, have the same filter size and weight. I am still hesitating because I didn't see images that convinced me to pull the trigger. I hope to get a review sample from Zeiss, but they told me that they don't have capacities any time soon.
Thanks Jannik. Did not know about the 50 being wider was wondering about that. It might be a nice lens for me since I don’t have the GM 85 but the Batis 85 and it could give me more of a look in the bag. Being a 46mm does help. I loved that lens when I had it.
I’m still hoping this 40 is the answer but I’m losing faith here. On the Batis yes love to have the Sony at 67mm along with my 85/135 at 67mm. So this fits nicely. I’m very concerned more on the EYE AF than the weird bokeh. My only option is to buy it and return it for the 50 if it sucks. I’m a VIP at Adorama so I get 60 days on returns.
Newtographer504 wrote:
I’m very surprised that Zeiss did not acknowledge this issue.
[…]
Anyway, very disappointed with Zeiss.
So am I! Yesterday afternoon, I replied to the statement from ZEISS saying that I will return my copy. I told the guy from Zeiss that there are reports on the internet about the eye-af issue, since he had denied that there can be a problem.
I have to give them credit for replying fast again. Yesterday evening at 9:30 pm I got an answer again. But the content of it is very disappointing. The same employee told me that he has never heard of anyone having problems with the eye-af with this particular lens.
This is really nasty since I do have a copy of an answer from ZEISS (by the same employee!!!) where he replies to a complaint from another early adopter about the not properly working eye-af. This was before I started the exchange about the same issue.
As I said, I really thought ZEISS is about quality and also costumer support, but they seem not to care at all. Very disappointing experience, both in terms of product quality and after sales "support".
zeitlos wrote:
So am I! Yesterday afternoon, I replied to the statement from ZEISS saying that I will return my copy. I told the guy from Zeiss that there are reports on the internet about the eye-af issue, since he had denied that there can be a problem.
I have to give them credit for replying fast again. Yesterday evening at 9:30 pm I got an answer again. But the content of it is very disappointing. The same employee told me that he has never heard of anyone having problems with the eye-af with this particular lens.
This is really nasty since I do have a copy of an answer from ZEISS (by the same employee!!!) where he replies to a complaint from another early adopter about the not properly working eye-af. This was before I started the exchange about the same issue.
As I said, I really thought ZEISS is about quality and also costumer support, but they seem not to care at all. Very disappointing experience, both in terms of product quality and after sales "support".
zeitlos wrote:
So am I! Yesterday afternoon, I replied to the statement from ZEISS saying that I will return my copy. I told the guy from Zeiss that there are reports on the internet about the eye-af issue, since he had denied that there can be a problem.
I have to give them credit for replying fast again. Yesterday evening at 9:30 pm I got an answer again. But the content of it is very disappointing. The same employee told me that he has never heard of anyone having problems with the eye-af with this particular lens.
This is really nasty since I do have a copy of an answer from ZEISS (by the same employee!!!) where he replies to a complaint from another early adopter about the not properly working eye-af. This was before I started the exchange about the same issue.
As I said, I really thought ZEISS is about quality and also costumer support, but they seem not to care at all. Very disappointing experience, both in terms of product quality and after sales "support". ...Show more →
I had the same issue with the Loxia 21.. I was one of the first users and reported about decentering.. Their preliminary answer was that I should be happy to have a lens like this and stop complaining. There are obviously a few quite arrogant employees around, but also a few very nice and helpful. I just reminded the good contact and always write him when I have issues.
Same experience here with Zeiss, to my surprise at that time.
They always told me there were no issues with the lenses (2x 21mm Loxia) and that the decentering tests (like the "Gletscherbruch test") are downright flawed. They also "never" received complaints about decentered lenses.
I tried showing them proof of the decentering in many ways, but they always refused to actually confirm anything.
VERY disappointing.
I returned both 21 Loxia's, the third one was fine. I also had to return 2 decentered copies of the 85 Loxia and decided to give up.
GMPhotography wrote:
This is a tough one. The Sony 50 1.4 is the best lens of the bunch as far as rendering and look. It’s very sharp but not clinical sharp. The few issues are cost, size and weight. It also won’t be as fast with AF as your 55. The Sigma 40 1.4 is essentially the same price and it’s even bigger and heavier. For a 82mm threaded filter for me is a no go. I don’t mind some weight and bilk but this seems way to much to deal with. My issue with the 55 is I just never loved the thing as it’s kind of clinical in look and has some bad LoCa but it’s a decent price with good size and weight.
Here is the bigger problem if you have the Sony 24mm than the 85 in either one of the good three than where Is the middle lens bewtween them. 24 to 55 is a big gap and 55 to 85 is too little a gap. The best is either a 35,40
One option and not the greatest because it’s slow is the Sony 35 2.8 . The Rokinon 35 1.4 but I found the AF not very accurate and ugly colors. Some may debate this but I need AF that works all the time.
Some options Tamron 45 1.8 in canon mount with a Metabones. This is a good lens or there 35 is also good. They are sharp but not the best rendering but they will get the job done. Bottom line this Batis 40 is and was the answer here. Now with what’s going on here I’m disappointed on what I’m reading. I agree if EYE AF sucks it’s not worth 20 bucks to any of us. That’s the best feature of our AF machines.
I’m in heavy debate on what I want. Now for me it’s a PR lens and I get paid to shoot this thing so it’s not my love of the life lens either. As a hobbyist and maybe a very heavy user and wants great images at any cost than get the Sony 50 1.4 as it really is the best 50 I ever used. It’s 1500 dollars and that’s painful but it’s a gorgeous lens.
Myself I got the GM 24, Batis 85 and 135 and currently have the Tamron 28-75 and a great copy of one. If you don’t need faster than 2.8 and you don’t mind zooms it would pair nicely with a 24/85 combo than this is a great option. Honestly I could just keep mine and wait it out till someone finally steps up to the plate with a outstanding 35mm in a F1.8 or F2 that matches the 24
WTF is Sony on this. We’ve been begging for too long.
Honestly I’ve been around this so long I actually not sure I have the most solid answer here and I’m not afraid to admit it either. But if you want the best can handle the size and weight and you want to spend money. The Sony 50 is hard to beat...Show more →
Great answer, thanks for the response and advice. I, like you, have been using a pretty damn sharp Tammy to go between the 24 and 85. But i too want something fast in the middle and it looks like Ill have to go for the Sony 50/1.4 (and will have to pass on the 40/2 and giant Sigma 40). Interesting suggestion abt the 45/1.8, I’ll have to check it out. Thanks again. Maybe tho the Batis eye-AF issue will make it up the corporate flag pole and we’ll have a response soon enough. I’m sure when a couple popular vloggers get on this, it’ll garner a Zeiss reaction.
SAR gets eyes that FM threads don't, so I sent a message to them a couple of hours ago to see if they'd post it up which will hopefully elevate the awareness of the issue.
GMPhotography wrote:
This is a tough one. The Sony 50 1.4 is the best lens of the bunch as far as rendering and look. It’s very sharp but not clinical sharp. The few issues are cost, size and weight. It also won’t be as fast with AF as your 55. The Sigma 40 1.4 is essentially the same price and it’s even bigger and heavier. For a 82mm threaded filter for me is a no go. I don’t mind some weight and bilk but this seems way to much to deal with. My issue with the 55 is I just never loved the thing as it’s kind of clinical in look and has some bad LoCa but it’s a decent price with good size and weight.
Here is the bigger problem if you have the Sony 24mm than the 85 in either one of the good three than where Is the middle lens bewtween them. 24 to 55 is a big gap and 55 to 85 is too little a gap. The best is either a 35,40...Show more →
Guy, I think you should make another attempt at getting a good 35/1.4. I know you went through like five copies before giving up. I did the same, and then lucked out when I managed to score an excellent copy from Fred.
The process of trying to get a good copy was a huge hassle, but the end result was worth it. The rendering seems much nicer to me than the Batis 40, and it's a noticeably lighter lens than the 50/1.4. It's got onion rings and some CA, but those are my only real complaints. Center sharpness is great on a good copy, and adequate off center.
I'm not convinced we'll necessarily see a 35/1.4 GM for the next while (but who knows). Speaking to a couple of local stores, and to someone at Sony, I'm under the impression that the average lens buyer doesn't test lenses the way we do and isn't as picky about the 35/1.4's current shortcomings.
GMPhotography wrote:
I think very few people test lenses like we do. I mean very few and you know how I feel about some of these reviewer folks.
Why I don’t bother going outside this forum much. It’s sooooo frustrating to read them.
Yep. Jim Kasson, Phillip Reeve and his colleagues, Sean Reid (subscription), and the collective wisdom of FredMiranda.com members are the only sources of information I now trust.
Anybody check for the eye AF issue with other cameras? I wonder specifically if it works fine with the A9, partly because my wife has an A9 and this lens would be used on that so that is what matters in my case and partly because I wonder if the better AF with more sampling might help the lens perform better.
