After contacting Zeiss again with a new inquiry, and expressing substantial frustration with being ignored multiple times, I received the following reply...
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately, your last emails were blocked by our SPAM filter system. So we could not answer your last request.
Yes, the Batis 2/40 CF closes the aperture moderately in the closer range between 5m and 0.24m to improve the performance. So you can see the shape of the iris in out-of-focus highlights when the lens is focused to closer distances, even if f/2 is pre-selected.
We take the feedback from our valued customers very seriously. In the last days, we got the feedback from a few photographers who already use the brand new Batis 2/40 that the eye-AF function of some Sony E-mount camera bodies will not always lead to a perfectly focused image result. At the moment, we are intensively evaluating the issue to reproduce this reported effect under certain conditions in practical use. If you can provide a few sample images that show this effect, please support us in the evaluation in which situations (lighting conditions, camera model, camera settings…) this might appear.
Please understand that it might take some time to evaluate if the reported issues are related to the conditions, to individual combinations of camera, lens and menu settings, to individual copies of the Batis 2/40 CF, or in general to the lenses of this type.
You may rest assured that we do our best to evaluate and solve any kind of issues that might appear in combination with our photo lenses.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
Yes, the Batis 2/40 CF closes the aperture moderately in the closer range between 5m and 0.24m to improve the performance. So you can see the shape of the iris in out-of-focus highlights when the lens is focused to closer distances, even if f/2 is pre-selected.
Seems to be a little typo there (5m, probably meant 0.5m), because the aperture stays full open at 5m distance. In fact, closing in starts moderately about 1m and closes about one stop at 0.5m. Based on my test with the lens.
But the most important thing, thanks for letting us know that they are on it!
GMPhotography wrote:
No question it’s the lens and not the bodies as there 85,135 are deadly on EYE AF even there 25 is really good. They may have in the case trying to get close focus is go beyond the limits in some way
Only Zeiss has that answer but I would not be putting blame on Sony’s bodies as there new 24 is outstanding with Eye Af.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the criteria involved when the issue is apparent won't necessarily be the same for those lenses.
The 24 and 25 will have a greater DoF and the 85 and 135 won't focus at all at the distance giving the problems. As many other threads have pointed out, the 55mm f1.8 appears to suffer similarly.
I have now formed the opinion that it a flaw in the Eye AF algorithm when using lenses of a particular focal length from a certain distance. In the normal course of events, if you wanted such a shot using Eye AF you would be standing further away with an 85mm but, of course, not everyone will own such a lens. I have raised this possibility with Sony Pro Support though, so hopefully between them and Zeiss an solution will emerge.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Can you clarify whether your problems with the lens were that it always AF (with eye AF) to the same spot that was the wrong spot, or if the misfocus was hit and miss so that sometimes you were in focus, sometimes front focus and other times back focus?
Hi Steve,
unfortunately my Batis is back at the Dealer. But the Eye-AF problem was hit and miss. Sometimes in, more often out of focus.
captivatingphotography wrote:
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the criteria involved when the issue is apparent won't necessarily be the same for those lenses.
The 24 and 25 will have a greater DoF and the 85 and 135 won't focus at all at the distance giving the problems. As many other threads have pointed out, the 55mm f1.8 appears to suffer similarly.
I have now formed the opinion that it a flaw in the Eye AF algorithm when using lenses of a particular focal length from a certain distance. In the normal course of events, if you wanted such a shot using Eye AF you would be standing further away with an 85mm but, of course, not everyone will own such a lens. I have raised this possibility with Sony Pro Support though, so hopefully between them and Zeiss an solution will emerge.
I assume EyeAF on the Batis 40 was failing at full or half portrait distance shots rather than super close ups. I was recently testing out the Sony 35/1.4 vs the Canon 35/2 IS + MC-11 with my 11 year old daughter sitting on her bed and used EyeAF which was very consistent with the Canon and okay with the Sony but that lens seemed 'softer' in all focus modes.
It's possible, but it may be that 35mm is just beyond the point of the issue.
The only way to tell for sure is to carry out a very specific series of tests, in good light, from precise distances with many lenses. Unfortunately, for most of us, it's finding the time and a willing volunteer!
I'm hoping that Sony and Zeiss may yet discover the root of any problem, be honest with their customers, and come up with an answer. The responses I've had from Sony Pro Support seems to suggest that might at least be possible, confirming that both companies are looking into it as a matter of urgency.
Nov 09, 2018 at 07:09 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
unfortunately my Batis is back at the Dealer. But the Eye-AF problem was hit and miss. Sometimes in, more often out of focus.
Regards,
Bernhard
Interesting Bernhard, that does not sound like the same problem that Simon had. His problem seems to be about accuracy (the lens focussed to the same spot every time, but it was the wrong spot), whereas yours seems to be about precision (it doesn't focus to the same spot every time). That may suggest that different lenses have different problems. Your lens is likely to benefit from shooting it on the A9 which has greater precision than the A7 third generation cameras. His would be unlikely to benefit from that change.
Nov 09, 2018 at 07:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
zeitlos wrote:
My copy was suffering form the same problem: less than 50% of the portraits were sharp when using eye-af.
Just out of curiosity, what type of portraits were they: head, head and shoulders, full body, etc.?
Obviously, that would give an idea of the distance involved. The more information, the more quickly anomalies can be nailed down and shown to Sony and Zeiss (whoever is at fault!).
captivatingphotography wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what type of portraits were they: head, head and shoulders, full body, etc.?
Obviously, that would give an idea of the distance involved. The more information, the more quickly anomalies can be nailed down and shown to Sony and Zeiss (whoever is at fault!).
Just had a look again: head, head and shoulder, full body.
zeitlos wrote:
Just had a look again: head, head and shoulder, full body.
You had unsharp photos at all those lengths using eye-af? Yikes. Really looking closely at this because I want a 40 with AF. Hope they are able to fix this.
