zeitlos wrote:
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.
Nobody is saying the EyeAF is working without issues, that is a straw man, but the reports here at least as I have have gone back and reread them is that almost everyone is talking about EyeAF causing problems close up. That of course is not saying that EyeAF is basically working. The reports also are mostly quite specific that it isn't lack of precision in the AF, but rather lack of accuracy. The EyeAF causes quite consistent front focus by the same amount. What all that means for what the exact problem is and how easy it is to fix, I do not know, but it seems to me that the thread here has at least helped by providing a pretty clear description of when problems occur and the nature of those problems. That is useful for some like me in determining whether the problems would affect my use of the lens, but I think it could potentially be useful even to Zeiss as they try to sort out the problems.
The only thing the will "help" Zeiss solve the issue is if people stop pre-ordering it and return the faulty exemplaries en masse, this is the language that usually big corporates understand very well: sales (or lack thereof).
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but to me it's quite apparent that jumping now on this lens would be quite a gamble, because we do not know if that Eye-AF/Magnified AF issue will be really fixable via FW update or not (and having a lens recalled for mechanical revision would not be pleasant at all IMHO).
I can understand there could be people for which those two utilisation scenarios are not important, but I guess that for most users they are, and when you are paying good money for an AF lens (here in Europe is 1.300 Euro, for a 40mm F2..) you expect it to work basically flawlessly with the AF, no t having to resort to MF to compensate the lens' limitations, especially if it comes from a very reputable firm like Zeiss. My two cents
Well I got my tracking number from B&H last night. Should arrive on Tuesday.
There seems to be a lot of angst lately here and from a lot of people that have not actually used the lens.
Of course the ones who have used it are not reporting a perfect 'picture'.
I'll find out myself whether or not the lens works for me. Although I've used manual focus lenses for many decades, I want the AF to work well on this one.
I think your using the the wrong term here with angst as we all would like to buy one. It’s more about concern that there is 1 a actual fix 2 is it a firmware fix 3 or worse a mechanical recall. And 4 at this time it’s a risk. 5 a lens should function especially a Batis lens where 4 other Batis lenses are not only superb but function as they should. 6 well it’s real money. It’s kind of like buying a car where you know 5th gear is not working as it should. Question is do you buy it anyway or wait to see a solution. It’s your money do what you please but some of us look more at this as a industry thing and not a individual one for our needs. My opinion it should not be shipping. One other point if it is a firmware fix how will it be done. There have been zero firmware updates from Zeiss on Batis glass. How will they perform this task. The only way is to go through Sony’s protocol of firmware updates. It has to go through the body to update the lens.
Hell do you honestly think any of us want all this. Hell no, I want to buy it today as I need it. I bought something else to hold me and can’t sell my Tammy until this is ready.
Seriously we wish you the best, there is no angst here. I’ve been in this for decades and I want it to work
Count me in as one who planned to buy at release as this is my fav focal length but will now wait due to uncertainty. I have many ways to get to or near 40/2, so no need for haste. I will wait for more real world data. Zeiss is probably doing the same with crossed fingers - must be expensive to do rework of a lens in the wild.
Kudos to you who buy, test and raise the stakes for Zeiss if there is a problem!
C-137 wrote:
There seems to be a lot of angst lately here and from a lot of people that have not actually used the lens.
.
I don't think that people are afraid (funny that you use the German word "Angst" ), they know what they will get if they order. So if you don't need a reliable Eye-AF (mine had a hit rate somewhere in between 30-50%), AF-S is really very good.
However, what I don't understand. There are people who say they don't need a working eye-AF. But well, the day might come where you want to sell it. If there's no firmware update fixing this issue (which I cannot really believe), lots of potential buyers won't buy it exactly for this failure. Personally I will buy again but only if this issue is fixed.
I deleted most of the pictures I took using this lens, but a few are left. Maybe they help you to get an idea.
I wouldn't say 5th gear isn't working as that is something significant, fundamental that would stop you from using the car at all. More like one of the frequencies on the radio ain't working. It's bad for those who listen to stations on that frequency but, overall the car still works even though its missing that feature. There are work arounds / options.
I've been using it now for 2 days for product shots and the issues have never crossed my mind because the lens works perfectly for that use. Eye AF only represents about 2-5% of shots I take. I'm more likely to pick up either the 85 f/1.8 or 24-105 for the few times I need Eye AF. But, for Climbing, Running or Walking shots in the mountains etc, I use Continuous with Lock-on AF Flexi Spot and this works without issue.
For anyone who does use/rely on eye AF a lot and expect to use it with the 40mm, then wait... not worth buying it until the issue is resolved.
If you find yourself using zoom focus with AF a lot, again, leave it for now until it's all sorted. I tend to use zoom with manual focus and this works perfectly well.
While these issues are real and will affect some, there'll also be many that it doesn't effect at all. The image quality of the lens is extremely good. I bought this along with the 24mm f/1.4 and expected I'd enjoy using that way more than the 40 but, I've found myself using the Batis a lot more than the 24 and the 24 is an amazing lens. Basically, we're being spoilt for choice!
zeitlos wrote:
If you talk to me. Doesn't the link work with you? If not I have to check out what's wrong.
Sorry - missed your post. Was asking Izelphotography for his pix but thanks for posting yours!
I see what you mean about the EyeAF hit rate (even with your wife opening up her eyes in that one shot). I do like the rendering of the lens otherwise...
eyal wrote:
Are you able to share your photos with the 40?
Slim pickings trying to find real-world images taken with the lens..
To be honest, most I can't (client stuff) but I did grab a quick shot as I was being dragged along by the dog last night I just uploaded it to my site so you can see it... it'll have a watermark plastered across it but you'll get an idea. I don't normally post much as a lot of what I do is licensed under exclusive deals don't allow me copies floating around for anyone to pick up. This hasn't had much done to it, no sharpening etc.
Thank you @Zeitlos for the link to the samples of poor hit rate with Eye-AF. Looks like a big fail.
I had expected shipment in early Dec and was hoping the AF issue would clarify before then. It has.
Now that the lens is on it's way early, I will evaluate it. If it is defective it goes back. I want the AF to work properly.
It is real money. I've sold off most of my older lenses to simplify my kit down to a few high quality lenses that I would use most frequently. This forum has been fantastic to help evaluate candidates due to Guy's and Fred's reviews plus many others relating their experiences or posting samples. Gratitude!
These are why threads like this are important as we learn from members what they are seeing and what is happening. Some have gone forth with there orders and some have canceled. One thing for sure Zeiss knows about it from our members and that’s the bonus. Let’s hope it all works out.
I know sometimes I get negative and I get a bad feeling. I’m going to express that when it happens even though it may sound bad the end goal is to inform and that attitude is a huge plus from our members and for others. I would not be here if not for the members here. It’s a family
GMPhotography wrote:
These are why threads like this are important as we learn from members what they are seeing and what is happening. Some have gone forth with there orders and some have canceled. One thing for sure Zeiss knows about it from our members and that’s the bonus. Let’s hope it all works out.
I know sometimes I get negative and I get a bad feeling. I’m going to express that when it happens even though it may sound bad the end goal is to inform and that attitude is a huge plus from our members and for others. I would not be here if not for the members here. It’s a family...Show more →
+1. It's very important that people know of the problems. I knew about them because of this forum and I was able to decide to go ahead based on what was reported here. If had needed this lens for work and Eye AF was critical, I would have been annoyed to receive this lens in it's current state. As you say, it's important these findings are discussed so people can make informed decisions.
Nov 16, 2018 at 03:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
zeitlos wrote:
I don't think that people are afraid (funny that you use the German word "Angst" ), they know what they will get if they order. So if you don't need a reliable Eye-AF (mine had a hit rate somewhere in between 30-50%), AF-S is really very good.
However, what I don't understand. There are people who say they don't need a working eye-AF. But well, the day might come where you want to sell it. If there's no firmware update fixing this issue (which I cannot really believe), lots of potential buyers won't buy it exactly for this failure. Personally I will buy again but only if this issue is fixed.
Thanks for posting your pictures. I don't want to be critical, but these example shots I think illustrate that when you use EyeAF you have to use a bit of common sense. Did you not notice that your daughter is wearing a shirt with three dogs on it that are portrayed with prominent eyes. Several of the shots picked out the eyes on her shirt rather than her own eyes. Similarly, the happy birthday sign is an oval that is pretty much eye shaped. A number of the shots (six by my count) picked out this oval rather than the subject's eye. There is also the puzzle box in two pictures that has dragons again with prominent eyes, and again the EyeAF picked out the eyes of the dragon on the box for both of these shots. Common sense should tell you if there are a lot of eyes in the shot that could be picked up that are not the eyes you want to focus on, then you probably shouldn't be using EyeAF. Let me add too more comments and again please take these knowing we have all shot similarly to how you have shot here at times, but when shooting kids I strive to keep the shutter speed above 1/100 or higher. Kids move and especially when you don't want them to and almost all of these have a shutter speed between 1/40 and 1/80 the shooting a child. Almost all of these have at least a bit of motion blur. Finally, when presenting for the web it is best not to us Adobe RGB color space as many browser can't handle it. The colours will look off to such a browser. You are better off with SRGB. Again I appreciate you sharing your pictures, but unfortunately I see the majority of these pictures (primarily because of the eyes on your daughters shirt and other eyes or eye like ovals in the shots) as situations when it does not make sense to use EyeAF.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for posting your pictures. I don't want to be critical, but these example shots I think illustrate that when you use EyeAF you have to use a bit of common sense. Did you not notice that your daughter is wearing a shirt with three dogs on it that are portrayed with prominent eyes. Several of the shots picked out the eyes on her shirt rather than her own eyes. Similarly, the happy birthday sign is an oval that is pretty much eye shaped. A number of the shots (six by my count) picked out this oval rather than the subject's eye. There is also the puzzle box in two pictures that has dragons again with prominent eyes, and again the EyeAF picked out the eyes of the dragon on the box for both of these shots. Common sense should tell you if there are a lot of eyes in the shot that could be picked up that are not the eyes you want to focus on, then you probably shouldn't be using EyeAF. Let me add too more comments and again please take these knowing we have all shot similarly to how you have shot here at times, but when shooting kids I strive to keep the shutter speed above 1/100 or higher. Kids move and especially when you don't want them to and almost all of these have a shutter speed between 1/40 and 1/80 the shooting a child. Almost all of these have at least a bit of motion blur. Finally, when presenting for the web it is best not to us Adobe RGB color space as many browser can't handle it. The colours will look off to such a browser. You are better off with SRGB. Again I appreciate you sharing your pictures, but unfortunately I see the majority of these pictures (primarily because of the eyes on your daughters shirt and other eyes or eye like ovals in the shots) as situations when it does not make sense to use EyeAF....Show more →
You would be better off getting a copy of the lens and seeing the fault for yourself than trying to argue that shooting a child is not an appropriate use of Eye AF.
I also appreciate your comment. I really do. However, I'm not sure whether your comment was meant satirical in parts or not.
I don't really know where to start. But still, okay, let me ask you a simple question: fokus indicators were always (sometimes jumping form eyes to eyebrows) sticking to the eyes of the model. Of course. So just for me to understand: You say that even if the camera confirms it's there, it's "miles" away and somewhere else in the frame If true it would make things even worse.
Btw. believe me, my wife doesn't wear Disney shirts, still it was 50% off. That's why I did this next testing with the kid.
I don't see any common sense in what you wrote. I would, if you told me that even though the camera indicates that focus is on the eyes of the model it's somewhere off. Please give me a technical proof for your claim and I believe in what you said. I'm not talking about front focus but about the camera focussing on other parts of the picture even though it continuously confirms that it's log in on the eye of the model.
), they know what they will get if they order. So if you don't need a reliable Eye-AF (mine had a hit rate somewhere in between 30-50%), AF-S is really very good.
I just uploaded it to my site so you can see it... it'll have a watermark plastered across it but you'll get an idea. I don't normally post much as a lot of what I do is licensed under exclusive deals don't allow me copies floating around for anyone to pick up. This hasn't had much done to it, no sharpening etc.
If true it would make things even worse.