IzelPhotograph wrote:
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. ...Show more →
That's what bugged me about the 55mm as well. The min focus distance is twice the Batis 40, so I always have to stand up for food shots. I'm hoping the Eye AF get fixed, but it's not really a deal breaker for me.
Nov 15, 2018 at 01:46 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Here is my personal take. For me the eye AF is a total non-issue because if as it appears it is only an issue at close distances I am not going to be using eye AF for those types of shots. If I am focussing on a person that close I am simply going to use manual focus and it is super easy, for me anyway, to use MF for that situation because the subject's eye takes up so much of the frame. The problems with AF during magnification if it were possible is even less of an issue for me. I would never use AF during magnification as I go into magnification in order to use MF and for no other reason. So, I am still slightly bugged by the nonagonal out of focus highlights wide open and focussing closely they don't bother me all that much and at f/2 I see them in any fast lens. It would have been a bonus to have completely round highlights at f/2 with this lens, but I can live with the less than perfect shapes. Heck I lived with the ninja star out of focus highlights with one of my CY 50 f/1.4 lenses and that obviously is a much more noticeable pattern in the out of focus highlights. What bothers me the most about the lens is that it only has average bokeh. I was hoping it would be better than that, but I am not surprised as it is a modern all around lens and they typically have bokeh a lot like this lens. So, for me the AF drama is a tempest in a teapot, the nonagonal bokeh is a minor annoyance the bokeh although not surprising is a bit disappointing. None of that much changes my desire to get the lens as an interesting all arounder. It won't be a priority for me to get it, however.
I believe there was an answer from a user of the lens a while back that EyeAF failed at all distances (including full body portraits).
There was one user (killermac) who reported trouble with EyeAF at all distances, but his problems seem to me to be unique and were not reported as systematic front focus. Instead he reported a lack of precision in AF at all distances. Everyone else seems to be reporting a very similar lack in accuracy leading to front focus only on close up shots. Given those reports it seems to me that killermac might well have had a bad copy of the lens that was defective in a different way than what everyone else has reported.
My copy had problems at all distances. No matter if it was full body, upper body, just the head. Don't really now why you say it's only when shooting close. I mean, depends on what you call close of course.
Nov 15, 2018 at 04:05 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
zeitlos wrote:
My copy had problems at all distances. No matter if it was full body, upper body, just the head. Don't really now why you say it's only when shooting close. I mean, depends on what you call close of course.
If you go through the thread a number of people report that the problem with EyeAF is just up close and it is always front focus. That seemed to be the specific problem for most people. You and killermac describe a much more variable problem (and even killermac describes it as mostly a close in problem) and I suspect that is a different issue and because it was a much more severe problem I suspect those were the typical bad copies that are there for any lens. That is my reading of the situation. Of course none of us know for sure.
My guess is that the eye auto focus will get resolved in firmware and the nonagonal out of focus highlights will remain a feature of the lens. Does not bother me either.
Steve Spencer wrote:
There was one user (killermac) who reported trouble with EyeAF at all distances, but his problems seem to me to be unique and were not reported as systematic front focus. Instead he reported a lack of precision in AF at all distances. Everyone else seems to be reporting a very similar lack in accuracy leading to front focus only on close up shots. Given those reports it seems to me that killermac might well have had a bad copy of the lens that was defective in a different way than what everyone else has reported.
I find it far more likely you're just seeing the DOF being great enough to mask the front focusing issue at greater distances.
Nov 15, 2018 at 04:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Simon Barker wrote:
I find it far more likely you're just seeing the DOF being great enough to mask the front focusing issue at greater distances.
My take would be if the greater DOF covers the problem there isn't a problem, so it isn't surprising that the problem occurs primarily at close distances. Greater accuracy and precision are required of course for good AF at close distances. The lens is able to handle that greater accuracy and precision for regular AF, but for EyeAF there is also the matter of the algorithm and how well it can recognize the eye. That appears to be the problem we are seeing and that too is a greater challenge at closer distances. In any event it seems that people are reporting problems with out of focus shots primarily for close distances and for me and my use that wouldn't be a problem because at those distances the eyes are big and easy to get in focus with manual focus. So for me this would not be an issue.
Steve Spencer wrote:
My take would be if the greater DOF covers the problem there isn't a problem, so it isn't surprising that the problem occurs primarily at close distances. Greater accuracy and precision are required of course for good AF at close distances. The lens is able to handle that greater accuracy and precision for regular AF, but for EyeAF there is also the matter of the algorithm and how well it can recognize the eye. That appears to be the problem we are seeing and that too is a greater challenge at closer distances. In any event it seems that people are reporting problems with out of focus shots primarily for close distances and for me and my use that wouldn't be a problem because at those distances the eyes are big and easy to get in focus with manual focus. So for me this would not be an issue....Show more →
Why focus on just Eye AF? We know it's also an issue with magnified view too so however the lens is communicating with the camera seems more likely the fault.
Eye AF isn't really important to me but I do like to occasionally use magnified view with AF when AF is struggling (more of an issue for other lenses) but I've had times where the AF misses the target and gets a nearby subject which is close enough but you can't easily tell at 100%, being able to magnify the view and use AF would then make sure I quickly get focus where I wanted it but you can't do that with the Batis because of its fault.
All of this is minor and can be worked around but I don't need to make more work for myself and would much rather tell the tools how I want to work than the reverse. I otherwise really like the lens, I'm very reluctant to return it, if Zeiss could just let us know what's going on I could cancel the return but it's just been complete silence from them.
Simon Barker wrote:
Why focus on just Eye AF? We know it's also an issue with magnified view too so however the lens is communicating with the camera seems more likely the fault.
Eye AF isn't really important to me but I do like to occasionally use magnified view with AF when AF is struggling (more of an issue for other lenses) but I've had times where the AF misses the target and gets a nearby subject which is close enough but you can't easily tell at 100%, being able to magnify the view and use AF would then make sure I quickly get focus where I wanted it but you can't do that with the Batis because of its fault.
All of this is minor and can be worked around but I don't need to make more work for myself and would much rather tell the tools how I want to work than the reverse. I otherwise really like the lens, I'm very reluctant to return it, if Zeiss could just let us know what's going on I could cancel the return but it's just been complete silence from them....Show more →
For me as I wrote above, I see no reason to go into magnified view unless I am doing manual focus, and if I am in magnified view I find manual focus very easy. That is how I work so it is even less of an issue to me than EyeAF. I don't know how you deduce that it is how the lens is communicating with the camera that is likely at fault. Figuring out AF anomalies is painstaking and a very difficult process. I don't know if you were into photography when the Canon 1D MKIII came out, but that camera and its AF problems took months to sort out. All we know right now is that there are 2 types of AF in which people generally have problems, EyeAF and AF in magnified view. I suspect why those modes have a problem will take quite awhile to sort out. We also know that similar but not as severe problems have been seen previously with other lenses.This at least raises the possibility that it isn't strictly the lens or the camera that is the problem, but how they work together. If that is the case it will be even harder to sort out. What matters to me, and I am not talking for anyone else, is that in both the situations where the AF works problematically I wouldn't be using AF I would be using manual focus and it would be easy in those situations to do so for me. I do think Zeiss and Sony will be able to sort this out, but I don't expect it to be easy, so I don't expect it to be fast. I hope I am wrong about that, however.
I feel like we are starting to make excuses for a faulty lens, be it you use a feature set or not it’s just not ready for prime time. Let’s face it your spending 1300 dollars for the HOPE that Zeiss finds a simple firmware answer. What happens if it turns out to be a mechanical issue. Than you may have to deal with a recall. Maybe nervous nellie talk but I’m not comfortable to see anyone buying this just yet.
Steve Spencer wrote:
For me as I wrote above, I see no reason to go into magnified view unless I am doing manual focus, and if I am in magnified view I find manual focus very easy. That is how I work so it is even less of an issue to me than EyeAF.
Yes but I don't want to be forced to use MF in situations I should happily be able to use AF, switching on the fly isn't really convenient (a AF/MF switch would have been handy) so I'd have to access the menu or set a key and like I said earlier I'd rather not waste time needlessly or change how I work to accommodate a faulty device.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't know how you deduce that it is how the lens is communicating with the camera that is likely at fault. Figuring out AF anomalies is painstaking and a very difficult process.
Probably the same way you've deduced this issue only occurs at certain distances and there's issues with the Eye AF algorithm.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't know if you were into photography when the Canon 1D MKIII came out, but that camera and its AF problems took months to sort out. All we know right now is that there are 2 types of AF in which people generally have problems, EyeAF and AF in magnified view. I suspect why those modes have a problem will take quite awhile to sort out.
I agree it could take a long time to resolve, it's even possible they'll do nothing depending on the nature of the fault but I don't see what value there is in comparing it to whatever issues the 1DIII had, that fault had nothing to do with this one besides they both impact AF and this is happening with a specific lens, not the body.
Steve Spencer wrote:
We also know that similar but not as severe problems have been seen previously with other lenses.This at least raises the possibility that it isn't strictly the lens or the camera that is the problem, but how they work together.
Well yes anything's possible but this also sounds like a good way to excuse a faulty lens, I think we've reached the point where it's OK to call a spade a spade. I say that because this doesn't happen with my other lenses in similar conditions so I have a hard time accepting the camera is responsible or at least in a meaningful way that absolves the lens from being the thing that needs to be corrected.
We know for sure there is a fault that occurs consistently with this lens and unless you can consistently repeat that behaviour with other lenses then the camera being responsible would seem to be an assumption with little evidence to support it. We could go back and forth on this point and not achieve very much but I'm just not convinced that random reports of AF issues mean you can conclude there's a very good chance it's the camera.
My assumption is this will only be resolved when Zeiss provides a fix but I don't really care who's to blame, I really just want it fixed or at least some reassurances that we'll be properly supported as to date I have not been. I know it's slightly OT but I'm annoyed that I'm going to return the lens which will work out as a cost to the shop I bought from despite them not being at fault and being pretty helpful at every stage.
Steve Spencer wrote:
If that is the case it will be even harder to sort out. What matters to me, and I am not talking for anyone else, is that in both the situations where the AF works problematically I wouldn't be using AF I would be using manual focus and it would be easy in those situations to do so for me. I do think Zeiss and Sony will be able to sort this out, but I don't expect it to be easy, so I don't expect it to be fast. I hope I am wrong about that, however.
Yup, it's an easy choice for anyone who doesn't need Eye AF or AF with magnified view as you can buy the lens without any drawbacks (assuming these issues don't point to a more serious fault we haven't noticed yet), my problem is simply I really do like the lens and want to keep using it (for example, I happily enough tolerate the shoddy AF on the 90mm because of its other benefits) but I'm getting tired of having to make compromises where there shouldn't be any and in the long run if I ever had to sell it I doubt known faults are going to help the resale value.
Nov 15, 2018 at 09:20 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Simon Barker wrote:
Yes but I don't want to be forced to use MF in situations I should happily be able to use AF, switching on the fly isn't really convenient (a AF/MF switch would have been handy) so I'd have to access the menu or set a key and like I said earlier I'd rather not waste time needlessly or change how I work to accommodate a faulty device.
Probably the same way you've deduced this issue only occurs at certain distances and there's issues with the Eye AF algorithm.
I agree it could take a long time to resolve, it's even possible they'll do nothing depending on the nature of the fault but I don't see what value there is in comparing it to whatever issues the 1DIII had, that fault had nothing to do with this one besides they both impact AF and this is happening with a specific lens, not the body.
Well yes anything's possible but this also sounds like a good way to excuse a faulty lens, I think we've reached the point where it's OK to call a spade a spade. I say that because this doesn't happen with my other lenses in similar conditions so I have a hard time accepting the camera is responsible or at least in a meaningful way that absolves the lens from being the thing that needs to be corrected.
We know for sure there is a fault that occurs consistently with this lens and unless you can consistently repeat that behaviour with other lenses then the camera being responsible would seem to be an assumption with little evidence to support it. We could go back and forth on this point and not achieve very much but I'm just not convinced that random reports of AF issues mean you can conclude there's a very good chance it's the camera.
My assumption is this will only be resolved when Zeiss provides a fix but I don't really care who's to blame, I really just want it fixed or at least some reassurances that we'll be properly supported as to date I have not been. I know it's slightly OT but I'm annoyed that I'm going to return the lens which will work out as a cost to the shop I bought from despite them not being at fault and being pretty helpful at every stage.
Yup, it's an easy choice for anyone who doesn't need Eye AF or AF with magnified view as you can buy the lens without any drawbacks (assuming these issues don't point to a more serious fault we haven't noticed yet), my problem is simply I really do like the lens and want to keep using it (for example, I happily enough tolerate the shoddy AF on the 90mm) but I'm getting tired of having to make compromises where there shouldn't be any and in the long run if I ever had to sell it I doubt known faults are going to help the resale value....Show more →
Simon you don't need to be so contentious. I never said anything about your experience and your uses. I only talked about my uses and my needs. I am not excusing the lens. I am simply pointing out for me the faults that people have discussed don't matter and I explained why they don't matter to me. And unlike you neither did I deduce anything about what is causing the AF problems, rather I have pointed out that sorting out AF problems are difficult and often take time and I pointed out some, and just some, of the complexities to make that point. Clearly, you are not very open to someone having a different take on what the problems mean to them, but I think I have the right to my own point of view. For me the flaws that have been discussed just aren't issues that would affect how I would use the lens. So they don't bother me and I am sorry that in some way offends you.
Nov 15, 2018 at 09:32 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
GMPhotography wrote:
I feel like we are starting to make excuses for a faulty lens, be it you use a feature set or not it’s just not ready for prime time. Let’s face it your spending 1300 dollars for the HOPE that Zeiss finds a simple firmware answer. What happens if it turns out to be a mechanical issue. Than you may have to deal with a recall. Maybe nervous nellie talk but I’m not comfortable to see anyone buying this just yet.
Guy, you know I respect your point of view, but with respect I am not making excuses and I don't think that is a fair characterization of what I have said. Of course what matters to me in considering a feature set is whether I would use it. If I don't use a feature, then of course it doesn't matter to me. I have no idea about whether the problems can be fixed with firmware or will require a recall, but I do believe they will be addressed in time even if that takes several months. So, I would be comfortable buying it even if I have other priorities at the moment.
Really wasn’t talking directly about what you said but just more a hell it should not even be on the streets kind of comment until it’s fixed. I just don’t want folks to think this is normal to buy a product that has a fault built in it. I could say the same about the Sony FE 35 given all the problems I’ve had but that’s more copy variance than what we are seeing here. Reading that thread and the lens is getting glorified and no one even is bringing up the copy variance and worse the dang onion ring bokeh. Is that fair to the guy that may want to buy it. I don’t think it is , as it’s our duty as members to really give a heads up. At least I feel my role is to do that as I’m trying to help.
I got a totally different opinion from reading early adopters experiences in this and also international (German) forums. They basically all said the same. But if people like to think that eye-AF is basically working, well, go ahead, buy it.
