I didn't preorder - I simply followed up on local stock. Got the first one available from Robert White, in the UK. Didn't have time to play with it too much - especially eye-af.
But I don't care all that much - the lens is sharp, rendering is ok, AF spot selection seems to be alright. The lens is replacing my Loxia 35 and 50, primarily for location scouting and landscape work, where lightweight is required. While the MF is obviously a downgrade - from mechanical to focus by wire - constant IQ from wide open to closed down apertures and the weather sealing, plus the less complications of 1 vs 2 lenses, make it a no brainer for me. AF is just a bonus.
I see no reason for not buying one, now.
Didn't preorder, just picked a copy from Wex UK. Looks like it was their last one (for now).
Seeing the same issue with Eye AF and zoomed in focus. It becomes more obvious the closer you get to the subject. All other methods of focus are spot on. I guess this will be something that will be resolved via a FW update at some point.
I bought it mainly for its ability to get close up to subject matter and the OOF rendering is very nice, very sharp and the drop from f2 - f/4 the closer you get is gradual and didn't impact massively in low light. You had to get really close for it to drop fully to f/4.
I had a good bit play around with it, comparing to it with the 55 f/1.8 and for the most part, I could capture anything I was getting with the 55 but, of course, not the other way round. The likelihood is the 55 will go up for sale but I will have a bit of testing to do first before that happens. I have noticed there isn't as much LoCA with the Batis 40 compared to the 55 f/1.8.
The 24 1.4 is turning up today (at long last) so that will give me 24, 40 & 85 (also Batis) as a nice low light trio. The 40 will also team up nicely with the 90mm macro for product / studio work.
No need for preorder here in Europe, can see it in stock at various online retailers; for now I'll wait to see if the Eye-AF issue could be solved. If not, hopefully the price will go down a bit..
The 24GM is brilliant. I’m hoping the 40 will be a nice pairing to split the difference to 85. I believe the 40 also will be a better match to the 24 than the 55, it looks to have far better contrast.
I’m just hoping enough people here have one to test any updates from Sony/Zeiss on the eye-af.
Since it seems to partly be related to close focus distances, has anyone noticed a problem with Sony’s macro lenses and eye-af?
IzelPhotograph wrote:
Didn't preorder, just picked a copy from Wex UK. Looks like it was their last one (for now).
Seeing the same issue with Eye AF and zoomed in focus. It becomes more obvious the closer you get to the subject. All other methods of focus are spot on. I guess this will be something that will be resolved via a FW update at some point.
I bought it mainly for its ability to get close up to subject matter and the OOF rendering is very nice, very sharp and the drop from f2 - f/4 the closer you get is gradual and didn't impact massively in low light. You had to get really close for it to drop fully to f/4.
I had a good bit play around with it, comparing to it with the 55 f/1.8 and for the most part, I could capture anything I was getting with the 55 but, of course, not the other way round. The likelihood is the 55 will go up for sale but I will have a bit of testing to do first before that happens. I have noticed there isn't as much LoCA with the Batis 40 compared to the 55 f/1.8.
The 24 1.4 is turning up today (at long last) so that will give me 24, 40 & 85 (also Batis) as a nice low light trio. The 40 will also team up nicely with the 90mm macro for product / studio work....Show more →
I bought a used 55mm here on the board to go with the GM 24mm for now but I would prefer this 40mm instead. I will just wait it out and see what Zeiss does. It seems here at B&H they are still saying Mid November which is now.
So much for my initial enthusiasm for the Batis 40/2. I cancelled my preorder today, maybe one or two days before the lens is due to ship in the USA market 😢. Never mind- more than happy to wait this one out.
In the meantime, I'v e decided to chase the GM 24 F1.4 and crop to 40mm if I want too. Damn Big Bronco test results 🤬😉👍
kroyston wrote:
Since it seems to partly be related to close focus distances, has anyone noticed a problem with Sony’s macro lenses and eye-af?
Nope, works fine with my macro.
Still no answer from Zeiss so mine's going back. In reality I could live with both magnified and Eye AF not working but why should I? It's a really expensive 40mm, working most of the time doesn't seem acceptable.
Simon Barker wrote:
Nope, works fine with my macro.
Still no answer from Zeiss so mine's going back. In reality I could live with both magnified and Eye AF not working but why should I? It's a really expensive 40mm, working most of the time doesn't seem acceptable.
These returns will likely speak much louder than any emails to zeiss
kroyston wrote:
The 24GM is brilliant. I’m hoping the 40 will be a nice pairing to split the difference to 85. I believe the 40 also will be a better match to the 24 than the 55, it looks to have far better contrast.
I’m just hoping enough people here have one to test any updates from Sony/Zeiss on the eye-af.
Since it seems to partly be related to close focus distances, has anyone noticed a problem with Sony’s macro lenses and eye-af?
I though I struck gold initially when using the Eye-AF... looked perfect but the other shots all seemed to front focus... lovely sharp hair/fringe but soft eyes.
Zoomed focus seems to be ok most of the time when the subject is about 75 - 100cm away but as soon as you were within 50cm, it would front focus. As soon as I switch to small flexible spot it worked like a charm. Love the FoV with the 40 and the rendering is very nice. I'll be dropping Zeiss an email querying the issue..... the more the merrier I feel!
I think if you really need the Eye AF then you will be better off waiting a while to see what happens.
Well, charged for B&H pre-order today, should have this in hand tomorrow. Fingers crossed that any issues are addressed by Zeiss, because I've learned to love this focal length thanks to the CV 1.2, but I need AF in some circumstances.
IzelPhotograph wrote:
I though I struck gold initially when using the Eye-AF... looked perfect but the other shots all seemed to front focus... lovely sharp hair/fringe but soft eyes.
Zoomed focus seems to be ok most of the time when the subject is about 75 - 100cm away but as soon as you were within 50cm, it would front focus. As soon as I switch to small flexible spot it worked like a charm. Love the FoV with the 40 and the rendering is very nice. I'll be dropping Zeiss an email querying the issue..... the more the merrier I feel!
I think if you really need the Eye AF then you will be better off waiting a while to see what happens....Show more →
I think a lot of us are waiting that out. I bought a used 55 to get me by and holding on to my Tammy 28-75 for now at least
I snagged a 35/2.8 instead of buying the 2/40 with imperfect Eye AF.I will definitely be back in the market once Zeiss fixes the issue but depending on how long they take and how well the 35 does for my needs, I may wait even longer to pick it up discounted as it seems as though Zeiss Batis lenses are significantly cheaper 6-9 months after release through greentoe.
The Zony 35/2.8 turns an A7x into something as small as a 1970s film SLR, which a Batis series or most other AF lenses can't accomplish. So, a case can be made for keeping both a Batis 40/2 and a Zony 35/2.8. They are much more different than the superficial specs indicate.
GMPhotography wrote:
I think a lot of us are waiting that out. I bought a used 55 to get me by and holding on to my Tammy 28-75 for now at least
I dropped them an email about it. They've come back and confirmed they have received a lot of comments from other photographers and that it is being investigated. They also asked if I could send them some examples.
That said, I needed to take some product shots (trainers) this afternoon and I used the Batis 40 to shoot them... I really enjoyed the freedom of being able to get close up to them and still have excellent depth of field. The minimum focus on the 55 would get in the way at times. So, the 40 will team up with the 90mm for that type of work as well.
