I've been waiting for this lens for quite a while. I'm planning to replace my 35 1.4 with this, since I need more portability for my travels. Despite the Eye-AF issues, perhaps I'm gonna take a gamble and buy this lens as I live in Indonesia and the lens will not be available until mid-December so hopefully it will come from a different production batch and will not encounter such issues. Fingers crossed.
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
Same issue on my A9 with latest FW
Nov 07, 2018 at 05:27 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
killermac wrote:
Same issue on my A9 with latest FW
Is that your experience or have you seen it reported somewhere? If it is your experience can you say a bit more. Do you primarily use the A9 and have used it extensively or did you just try it out? What types of light did you test it under? Did you try it at different focal distances? I ask this because the behavior that is described sound like and interaction between the lens and the camera. The lens doesn't always misfocus, but does often enough to be bothersome. So, it seems to me that a fair bit of testing under lots of different conditions with lots of different cameras is going to be needed to sort it out. So, I would love to hear about more extensive testing with an A9. If you have done that great. If not I would love to see a link to where they report the same issue with the A9.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Is that your experience or have you seen it reported somewhere? If it is your experience can you say a bit more. Do you primarily use the A9 and have used it extensively or did you just try it out? What types of light did you test it under? Did you try it at different focal distances? I ask this because the behavior that is described sound like and interaction between the lens and the camera. The lens doesn't always misfocus, but does often enough to be bothersome. So, it seems to me that a fair bit of testing under lots of different conditions with lots of different cameras is going to be needed to sort it out. So, I would love to hear about more extensive testing with an A9. If you have done that great. If not I would love to see a link to where they report the same issue with the A9....Show more →
Hi Steve,
I only have tested this not very sophisticated but I used the combination with A9 in the same way then my A7r III.
Lighting was different. Very dim light, normal daylight and Studio light. But the eyeAf issue is primarily relevant in closer distances < 1,5 meters were DOF is thinner.
I‘m not sure what more testing I should do as the lens do have severe issues with Eye-Af as only used with normal AF points work flawlessly. But if I press the Eye-AF Button it misfocusses a lot more then with other lenses.
Nov 07, 2018 at 08:33 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I only have tested this not very sophisticated but I used the combination with A9 in the same way then my A7r III.
Lighting was different. Very dim light, normal daylight and Studio light. But the eyeAf issue is primarily relevant in closer distances < 1,5 meters were DOF is thinner.
I‘m not sure what more testing I should do as the lens do have severe issues with Eye-Af as only used with normal AF points work flawlessly. But if I press the Eye-AF Button it misfocusses a lot more then with other lenses.
So, do you find the Eye-AF with AF-C to work pretty well at distances longer than 1.5M? Do you find that it works at shorter distance if you stop down? If the answer to both of those questions are yes, that would tend to suggest to me that it is a precision issue. The lens can do well when you don't ask it to be too precise, but stumbles a bit when greater precision is required. If that is the case then, I might expect the A9 to do better than the A7r III because the A9 does have more precise AF which could offset some of the limitations of the lens.
On the other hand if the lens primarily struggles under low light or when stopped down, and perhaps when focussing closely then that would suggest the lens might be struggling when there isn't enough light. This would at least let us know when the lens is likely to function better and worse. The A9 might help here too, but its advantage is low light isn't as obvious to me as its advantage in precision so I would expect it to help less.
So, that is why I am asking. I also realize that you only have one lens and not all lenses may be behaving the same way, so we should keep that in mind as we try to sort things out as well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
So, do you find the Eye-AF with AF-C to work pretty well at distances longer than 1.5M? Do you find that it works at shorter distance if you stop down? If the answer to both of those questions are yes, that would tend to suggest to me that it is a precision issue. The lens can do well when you don't ask it to be too precise, but stumbles a bit when greater precision is required. If that is the case then, I might expect the A9 to do better than the A7r III because the A9 does have more precise AF which could offset some of the limitations of the lens.
On the other hand if the lens primarily struggles under low light or when stopped down, and perhaps when focussing closely then that would suggest the lens might be struggling when there isn't enough light. This would at least let us know when the lens is likely to function better and worse. The A9 might help here too, but its advantage is low light isn't as obvious to me as its advantage in precision so I would expect it to help less.
So, that is why I am asking. I also realize that you only have one lens and not all lenses may be behaving the same way, so we should keep that in mind as we try to sort things out as well....Show more →
If DOF is great enough, it is more likely that the shot is in focus. But it is not reliable with the Batis to use EyeAF at all. Normal AF modes are perfect and not an issue. As the lens is optimised also for close focus the lens must be accurate enough what it proofs with normal AF modes but not with Eye-AF. And this alone is the issue. Independently what light sources and how much light is available.
And other lenses hit focus 100% accurately when used exactly the same way? Same fstop, same focusing distance, same light, same subject, same everything?
I'm asking because this issue, Eye-AF misfocusing with thin DOF and at close focusing distances, was reported many times already regardless of the lens used.
Steve Spencer wrote:
So, do you find the Eye-AF with AF-C to work pretty well at distances longer than 1.5M? Do you find that it works at shorter distance if you stop down?
With enough distance or stopping down, added DOF will cover up for any focusing mistakes.
GMPhotography wrote:
so it works fine in AFC with any of the focus zones just Eye AF is the issue. If thats the case i may buy it anyway. I get a 60 day return window.
That is the case. But for portraits I do not want to move the AF point around. So dealbreaker for me.
coudet wrote:
And other lenses hit focus 100% accurately when used exactly the same way? Same fstop, same focusing distance, same light, same subject, same everything?
I'm asking because this issue, Eye-AF misfocusing with thin DOF and at close focusing distances, was reported many times already regardless of the lens used.
My 55mm Sony/ZEISS has far better hit rates with eye AF
killermac wrote:
That is the case. But for portraits I do not want to move the AF point around. So dealbreaker for me.
Totally understand . For me it’s like stage awards , so it’s a few people and can use zone pretty much. Once this is out in heavy doses the complaints are going to have to give Zeiss a cause for firmware update. I’m still debating as I may just buy the 55 and keep my Tamron 28-75 and see how the 55 works out.
coudet wrote:
And other lenses hit focus 100% accurately when used exactly the same way? Same fstop, same focusing distance, same light, same subject, same everything?
I'm asking because this issue, Eye-AF misfocusing with thin DOF and at close focusing distances, was reported many times already regardless of the lens used.
It's not a problem with accuracy, the lens has excellent accuracy when used normally but every shot I take using Eye AF results in front focus. It's extremely consistent.
As I've said repeatedly, it's not happening with other lenses in the same conditions.
Jochenb wrote:
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.
crappy crap!!! I was assumimg that quality control of the Loxia lens line was very good and sample variation very low, but what some of you guys are writing here about bad centered Loxia's 21mm (my next on the list) is making me worry.
And the Eye-AF issue of the Batis 40mm (also a candidate for me) doesn't help either, including the bad way Zeiss are managing it.
I'm getting the lens blues...
Nov 07, 2018 at 10:44 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Simon Barker wrote:
It's not a problem with accuracy, the lens has excellent accuracy when used normally but every shot I take using Eye AF results in front focus. It's extremely consistent.
As I've said repeatedly, it's not happening with other lenses in the same conditions.
Sorry to be pedantic, but accuracy is whether it focusses where it is supposed to focus. Precision is whether it focusses in the same place every time. You really need to have both and part of what I am asking is which is the problem. Your comments seem to suggest it is accuracy. It has a lot of precision and focusses at the same place every time, but it is inaccurate and that same place is not the right place. Killermac's comments, especially when he reports it correctly focusses some of the time, but not consistently enough suggests a problem not with accuracy but with precision. It doesn't focus consistently in the same place. So, I am a bit confused if you have the same problem or not. If the problem is precision the Sony A9 should help as it samples a lot more times per second and should have better precision that the A7 III series cameras. If it is accuracy, however, then I am not sure what is causing it but there is a lot better hope it can be fixed with a firmware upgrade.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Sorry to be pedantic, but accuracy is whether it focusses where it is supposed to focus. Precision is whether it focusses in the same place every time. You really need to have both and part of what I am asking is which is the problem. Your comments seem to suggest it is accuracy. It has a lot of precision and focusses at the same place every time, but it is inaccurate and that same place is not the right place. Killermac's comments, especially when he reports it correctly focusses some of the time, but not consistently enough suggests a problem not with accuracy but with precision. It doesn't focus consistently in the same place. So, I am a bit confused if you have the same problem or not. If the problem is precision the Sony A9 should help as it samples a lot more times per second and should have better precision that the A7 III series cameras. If it is accuracy, however, then I am not sure what is causing it but there is a lot better hope it can be fixed with a firmware upgrade....Show more →
Using your phrasing then, it's not accurate but it is precise. When using Eye AF or AF with magnified view it always consistently front focuses by roughly the same amount, I never had instances where it correctly landed focus in those modes.
For example, the last time I tried Eye AF on a live subject each shot had their nose in focus but their eyes were out (at f/2 with a distance of 2 feet or so). The last time I tested its behaviour I just used a portrait on my monitor (again f/2 probably 1 foot away), focusing with AF-S single point was fine but Eye AF or magnified view AF would result in front focusing with the pixels not being as sharply defined (I made an animated gif on DPR if you want to see).
I haven't received any further responses from Zeiss, I'm hoping that's a sign it's going up the totem pole but it would be a shame if they take too long confirming what's going on.
Maximilian wrote:
crappy crap!!! I was assumimg that quality control of the Loxia lens line was very good and sample variation very low, but what some of you guys are writing here about bad centered Loxia's 21mm (my next on the list) is making me worry.
And the Eye-AF issue of the Batis 40mm (also a candidate for me) doesn't help either, including the bad way Zeiss are managing it.
I'm getting the lens blues...
I thought the problem with Loxia 21 decentering was at the time the lens was released, and has since been mostly resolved I got mine shortly after it was released and it is very well centered.
killermac wrote:
That is the case. But for portraits I do not want to move the AF point around. So dealbreaker for me.
Just out of curiosity, the lens has 3 focusing distance settings right? Full, 0.4m - infinity and 0.24 - 0.5m. At which focus distance setting does the Eye-AF issue occur? Could perhaps the Eye-AF function somehow related to this feature?
Nov 07, 2018 at 04:41 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Simon Barker wrote:
Using your phrasing then, it's not accurate but it is precise. When using Eye AF or AF with magnified view it always consistently front focuses by roughly the same amount, I never had instances where it correctly landed focus in those modes.
For example, the last time I tried Eye AF on a live subject each shot had their nose in focus but their eyes were out (at f/2 with a distance of 2 feet or so). The last time I tested its behaviour I just used a portrait on my monitor (again f/2 probably 1 foot away), focusing with AF-S single point was fine but Eye AF or magnified view AF would result in front focusing with the pixels not being as sharply defined (I made an animated gif on DPR if you want to see).
I haven't received any further responses from Zeiss, I'm hoping that's a sign it's going up the totem pole but it would be a shame if they take too long confirming what's going on....Show more →
Ok, thanks for the update. By the way as I understand it you can't use eye AF with a picture or and image on a monitor as I believe the algorithm for the eye AF uses 3D information to get the eye AF right. I am still waiting to see if killermac reports the same behaviour as you are seeing. He seems to be reporting precision problems not accuracy problems, so I am suspecting you aren't seeing the same things, but I would love to see him chime in.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, thanks for the update. By the way as I understand it you can't use eye AF with a picture or and image on a monitor as I believe the algorithm for the eye AF uses 3D information to get the eye AF right. I am still waiting to see if killermac reports the same behaviour as you are seeing. He seems to be reporting precision problems not accuracy problems, so I am suspecting you aren't seeing the same things, but I would love to see him chime in.
Maybe that's true in theory, but in practice I've found eye AF to work well enough on pictures or monitors that if it consistently front focussed on a monitor I'd worry...
I got mine shortly after it was released and it is very well centered.