Tirpitz666 wrote:
If ever, no one knows if it's actually fixable, especially via FW update..
It's highly likely that AF and Eye AF is implemented in software/firmware and not hard wired into the lens' electronics. I can't imagine a scenario where it's cost effective to be able to handle the different cameras, sensors and focusing systems that offer eye AF, all implemented in the lens' physical circuitry.
In other words, a FW update could very likely fix it.
Whether Zeiss bothers or not is another issue. But any company with a reputation similar to Zeiss would be silly not to fix such an issue, knowing full well camera geeks are the most likely end consumers for this lens, will research and almost certainly find numerous recommendations against the lens due to the Eye AF issue. That reflects not only on the lens, but on the reputation of the company itself.
As I've described it previously. You can see that the af won't hit perfectly, since the eye-af box is mostly on the eyes but not at the center. Having a front focus as I (and virtually all other early adapters) had it is a logical conclusion then. So don't know the lens shows such a behavior (my Batis 85 works perfectly under the exact same conditions). So should be a software issue. I hope.
Nov 19, 2018 at 10:06 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
zeitlos wrote:
As I've described it previously. You can see that the af won't hit perfectly, since the eye-af box is mostly on the eyes but not at the center. Having a front focus as I (and virtually all other early adapters) had it is a logical conclusion then. So don't know the lens shows such a behavior (my Batis 85 works perfectly under the exact same conditions). So should be a software issue. I hope.
We can't know if it is an AF issue or a mechanical issue until Zeiss can sort out the problem. It could very well be a software issue, but it could also be a few different mechanical issues. For example, the problem might well be with the close focus mechanism and the way the floating element was used in the lens. That would require a recall or more like a replacement of existing lenses. If Zeiss determines this is the problem, then expect supply to dry up. I might also be caused by a simply problem with the registration distance of the lens. If the lens tends to have a short registration distance, this can throw off the distance that the lens thinks it is focussing at, and a short registration distance could cause front focussing. That would take a recall as well, but I wouldn't expect an introduction of a new lens just probably a swap of the lens mount with care to make sure the lens registration distance is right. So, it could be anything from a minor software issue to a major rehaul of the lens. We won't know until Zeiss can determine what the problem actually is.
Yes, could be everything. But it's not just a problem when you are close (of course depending on how one defines close). And as I said the eye-af is very rarely focusing on the center of the eye, often closer to the eyebrow or widely jumping. To me that at least sounds more like a problem with the software since distance seems to be more or less irrelevant. But I've never constructed/programmed a lens, so it's just guessing based on personal experience while using the lens for over a week in different situations.
Nov 19, 2018 at 10:58 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
zeitlos wrote:
Yes, could be everything. But it's not just a problem when you are close (of course depending on how one defines close). And as I said the eye-af is very rarely focusing on the center of the eye, often closer to the eyebrow or widely jumping. To me that at least sounds more like a problem with the software since distance seems to be more or less irrelevant. But I've never constructed/programmed a lens, so it's just guessing based on personal experience while using the lens for over a week in different situations.
Everyone else in this thread has expressed the problem is mostly seen at close distances. As we have discussed previously from your examples your lens seems to have a very different problem than others have reported. In at least eight of your samples the lens is clearly focussing on an eye shaped object nowhere near the target's eye but closer to the camera than the subject. EyeAF was actually operating as it should be in these shots picking out the eye shaped object closest to the camera, but according to your reports the focus box wasn't indicating where the lens was actually focussing. That is very odd behavior and to me suggests an unusual defect with your particular lens.
EyeAF was actually operating as it should be in these shots picking out the eye shaped object closest to the camera, but according to your reports the focus box wasn't indicating where the lens was actually focussing. That is very odd behavior and to me suggests an unusual defect with your particular lens.
It really seems to me as if you really want to believe in your conclusion, no matter what people who have actually used the lens tell you. This is kind of strange. And repetitive. And also doesn't help to find the mistake or pattern. Don't you think it's better to let people who have actually used the lens in different situation report its behavior than constructing theories which are not backed up by the pictures (in one picture you referred to the focus was on the one part of the sofa...) You keep on neglecting facts. As I said, it's kind of odd and doesn't help.
There are multiple reports that say the same. The lens is not focusing at the eyeballs, rather at the eyebrows (have been reporting this issue for a couple of days now...) lashes, to be seen e.g. here: https://www.dslr-forum.de/showpost.php?p=15293060&postcount=144
Edit: Btw. This user even emphasizes that distances further away than 1m are problematic. So again, it's a waste of time to discuss Sony af-systems that prefer Disney characters in pictures.
So I would suggest that we end this kind of debate here. There won't be any progress. And leave space for new reports/experiences from users who might have bought the lens in the meantime.
Nov 19, 2018 at 12:46 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
zeitlos wrote:
It really seems to me as if you really want to believe in your conclusion, no matter what people who have actually used the lens tell you. This is kind of strange. And repetitive. And also doesn't help to find the mistake or pattern. Don't you think it's better to let people who have actually used the lens in different situation report its behavior than constructing theories which are not backed up by the pictures (in one picture you referred to the focus was on the one part of the sofa...) You keep on neglecting facts. As I said, it's kind of odd and doesn't help.
There are multiple reports that say the same. The lens is not focusing at the eyeballs, rather at the eyebrows (have been reporting this issue for a couple of days now...) lashes, to be seen e.g. here: https://www.dslr-forum.de/showpost.php?p=15293060&postcount=144
Edit: Btw. This user even emphasizes that distances further away than 1m are problematic. So again, it's a waste of time to discuss Sony af-systems that prefer Disney characters in pictures.
So I would suggest that we end this kind of debate here. There won't be any progress. And leave space for new reports/experiences from users who might have bought the lens in the meantime. ...Show more →
Well it seems to me you are being quite defensive. I am just noting what I see in the pictures. Sony's EyeAF system is designed to pick out the eye shaped object closest to the camera. You have two shots of your daughter carrying a box with characters with big eyes on the box in front of her. If you examine the pictures it is clear that the focus plane goes through those eyes that are on the box. In both those shots it is also clear the EyeAF did exactly what would be expected if it was operating properly. That isn't theory. That is looking at the actual pictures and seeing what occurred. In a similar way, the six pictures in which there was the oval happy birthday sign, the EyeAF focussed on that oval happy birthday sign which your daughter was holding in front of her. Again the EyeAF was doing exactly what one would expect it to do in those six instances, it was focussing on the eye shaped object that was closest to the camera. Again this isn't a theory it is what you can see by actually examining the pictures. Now if the camera indicated that it was focussing on your daughters eye or eye brow in any of these shots, the the problem is not with the EyeAF in these shots it is with the indicator of where the focus was occurring and that is a very different problem than anyone else has been reporting. I have yet to see any one say, the focus just wasn't in the part of the picture that the indicator said it would be. But with your pictures we can see quite clearly where the focus plane occurs and in each of the eight pictures I described above the focus plane went right through an eye shaped object that was in front of your daughter. That I think you should note as you evaluate your lens, and if you want to dismiss my analysis of the pictures you have every right to do so, but others may find my analysis helpful and I will call them the way my eyes see them and that goes for your pictures as well.
And to be super clear I don't have any theory about what is going on with the lens. That should be clear from my post above in this page as I offered several possible interpretation. Instead, I have just tried to analyze your pictures and tried to listen to everyone who has reported problems. That you think I have a theory tells me you aren't listening to what I am saying and that instead you are dismissing it defensively.
That you think I have a theory tells me you aren't listening to what I am saying and that instead you are dismissing it defensively.
Never since I'm participating on an internet forum have I met someone who was so ignorant of what someone tells him.
Everything you were telling people here for a couple of pages was wrong. Obviously.
Thanks "j4nu" for ending this really unpleasant experience. Just downloaded the software. Well, it shows exactly what I've been telling you and what a guy, who hasn't even used the lens for a single second was dismissing all the time.
The problem is exactly where I located it. Well, it's not surprising to me since I took the pictures (and many more) and saw how the af would behave. Instead of listening and elaborating it in discussions with other members of the forum here and find out something that might help I wasted my time reading fiction and repeating myself again and again.
Just took some screenshot of the software and where the focus was.
So again, this demonstrates where the problem is. And of course the camera wasn't focusing on the comic characters or something else in the picture as I've stated multiple times. But well, this is an internetforum where people talk and teach about things neither own nor know.
As I said, this was a very unpleasant experience. Both taking the pictures and even more the following discussion.
But maybe now it’s possible to discuss reality again. I still hope Zeiss can solve the issue. Lovely lens otherwise.
zeitlos wrote:
Never since I'm participating on an internet forum have I met someone who was so ignorant of what someone tells him.
Everything you were telling people here for a couple of pages was wrong. Obviously.
Thanks "j4nu" for ending this really unpleasant experience. Just downloaded the software. Well, it shows exactly what I've been telling you and what a guy, who hasn't even used the lens for a single second was dismissing all the time.
The problem is exactly where I located it. Well, it's not surprising to me since I took the pictures (and many more) and saw how the af would behave. Instead of listening and elaborating it in discussions with other members of the forum here and find out something that might help I wasted my time reading fiction and repeating myself again and again.
Just took some screenshot of the software and where the focus was.
So again, this demonstrates where the problem is. And of course the camera wasn't focusing on the comic characters or something else in the picture as I've stated multiple times. But well, this is an internetforum where people talk and teach about things neither own nor know.
As I said, this was a very unpleasant experience. Both taking the pictures and even more the following discussion.
Perhaps it is a language issue, but those pictures do not contradict what I was describing but actually totally confirm it. What the pictures confirm is where the focus indicator was located and it was as you described. If you want to see where the focus plane was, however, you have to look at the pictures and see where the sharpness to unsharpness plane is located. The focus indicator is not anyway where you would expect it to be given where the focus plane is actually located in your pictures. As I have described the focus plane in at least eight of you pictures is goes through an eye shaped object that is closer to the camera than your daughter, yet the focus indicator is suggesting it is focussing on her eye. That is a very odd pattern that can very much be seen in the photos.
Oh, and you are new to the forum and let me just saying calling people ignorant is not what we do here. I said I have been on this forum for eight years. In looking back it is actually 12. I have proved through many years and posts that I am not ignorant and for somebody to come on one thread and throw such language around it really isn't acceptable and does betray an underlying defensiveness to call other people names.
And this pre-order threads have never been just for people who have ordered and have the lens but rather for people considering it and it has always been acceptable for people to comment if they are considering buying the lens and it has always especially been acceptable for people to comment on what they see in other people's picture, so you don't get to call me ignorant or police my posting. If you have an issue there is a report button and take it up with Fred. I am trying to be helpful to you and to others considering the lens and as I said I will call them as I see them, so stop the personal attacks.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well it seems to me you are being quite defensive.
No you keep making the same assumptions and not listening, you've claimed this problem only occurs at certain distances without actually having tried it and ignoring those who have, you claim it was focusing on the printed characters, despite it obviously not being the case, verified by both the photographer and now the software showing the focus point.
Even if you were right in this one instance how do you explain every other time it's happened to people with plain shirts on? What exactly would it take for you to finally accept there's an issue?
If you want to contribute anything beyond assumptions at this point you'll probably need to grab a copy of the lens for yourself.
Simon Barker wrote:
No you keep making the same assumptions and not listening, you've claimed this problem only occurs at certain distances without actually having tried it and ignoring those who have, you claim it was focusing on the printed characters, despite it obviously not being the case, verified by both the photographer and now the software showing the focus point.
Even if you were right in this one instance how do you explain every other time it's happened to people with plain shirts on? What exactly would it take for you to finally accept there's an issue?
If you want to contribute anything beyond assumptions at this point you'll probably need to grab a copy of the lens for yourself....Show more →
No Simon,
I have not made that assumption I have correctly reported that the majority of people on this thread have made that report. I made no such assumption. You and zeitlos and several other has joined FM and have almost exclusively commented on this thread. It is clear you want to raise alarm about the lens to gain Zeiss' attention. That is fine, but anything that appears to question that agenda for the thread is severely criticized by these new folks on FM. That is not ok. Other people can have other interests and pose other questions and that is something you will just have to deal with.
And Simon if you would have read what I have wrote, I have never said there wasn't an issue. In fact, I assume there is one, but I want to understand it more deeply and know the parameters of how it operates. I am not sure that Zeiss will fix it and if they don't I want to understand if it will be an issue for my shooting. I don't think it will be, but I want to know that for sure.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have not made that assumption I have correctly reported that the majority of people on this thread have made that report. I made no such assumption.
I'm not seeing what point you're getting at here, you've reported what the majority of people on this thread have reported, what are you talking about?
Steve Spencer wrote:
You and zeitlos and several other has joined FM and have almost exclusively commented on this thread. It is clear you want to raise alarm about the lens to gain Zeiss' attention.
No that's completely wrong. I started posting in here because I was interested in the lens and this is one of the few places actively discussing it, I wasn't even aware of the issue at first. As I explained in one of my first posts I made the connection when problems with Eye AF were mentioned and my own experience of focus problems in magnified view.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That is fine, but anything that appears to question that agenda for the thread is severely criticized by these new folks on FM. That is not ok. Other people can have other interests and pose other questions and that is something you will just have to deal with.
That's a very poor arguing tactic, you accuse us of having an agenda and then try to turn this into an us and them argument, your points aren't improved because you've been on the forum for a while. That I joined before you doesn't make my points any better or worse either.
You don't seem to be posting other questions, you keep repeating that the camera must have been focused on the printed characters on the shirt despite all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I've misunderstood your point but if so please explain it, I don't see what relevance it has as when using this lens with Eye AF it front focuses and misses the intended target despite the camera confirming it (and as I keep having to remind you even on subjects without anything on their shirt) so who cares where it actually front focuses to? On most of my live subjects it would land on the nose, I could have come to the conclusion this lens somehow turns Eye AF into Nose AF but the more logical explanation is it's front focusing as it does exactly the same thing with 2D subjects.
Steve Spencer wrote:
And Simon if you would have read what I have wrote, I have never said there wasn't an issue. In fact, I assume there is one, but I want to understand it more deeply and know the parameters of how it operates. I am not sure that Zeiss will fix it and if they don't I want to understand if it will be an issue for my shooting. I don't think it will be, but I want to know that for sure.
As I've said two times previously, if you want to understand it further please please please just get a copy of the lens rather than looking at one picture and coming to the wrong conclusions and refusing to acknowledge otherwise.
As a reminder my personal view is if you do not care about Eye AF or AF in magnified view you can happily buy the lens as I thought it was otherwise excellent (I prefer it over the 50/1.4) but if those features matter to you then this lens is the wrong choice. When dealing with companies I've always said that it's a mistake to complain about problems, problems always occur but it's how you deal with them that matters and so far Zeiss's response has been very disappointing as they've done nothing and given me little choice but to send it back.
Nov 19, 2018 at 06:20 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Simon Barker wrote:
I'm not seeing what point you're getting at here, you've reported what the majority of people on this thread have reported, what are you talking about?
No that's completely wrong. I started posting in here because I was interested in the lens and this is one of the few places actively discussing it, I wasn't even aware of the issue at first. As I explained in one of my first posts I made the connection when problems with Eye AF were mentioned and my own experience of focus problems in magnified view.
That's a very poor arguing tactic, you accuse us of having an agenda and then try to turn this into an us and them argument, your points aren't improved because you've been on the forum for a while. That I joined before you doesn't make my points any better or worse either.
You don't seem to be posting other questions, you keep repeating that the camera must have been focused on the printed characters on the shirt despite all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I've misunderstood your point but if so please explain it, I don't see what relevance it has as when using this lens with Eye AF it front focuses and misses the intended target despite the camera confirming it (and as I keep having to remind you even on subjects without anything on their shirt) so who cares where it actually front focuses to? On most of my live subjects it would land on the nose, I could have come to the conclusion this lens somehow turns Eye AF into Nose AF but the more logical explanation is it's front focusing as it does exactly the same thing with 2D subjects.
As I've said two times previously, if you want to understand it further please please please just get a copy of the lens rather than looking at one picture and coming to the wrong conclusions and refusing to acknowledge otherwise.
As a reminder my personal view is if you do not care about Eye AF or AF in magnified view you can happily buy the lens as I thought it was otherwise excellent (I prefer it over the 50/1.4) but if those features matter to you then this lens is the wrong choice. When dealing with companies I've always said that it's a mistake to complain about problems, problems always occur but it's how you deal with them that matters and so far Zeiss's response has been very disappointing as they've done nothing and given me little choice but to send it back....Show more →
Simon, it is true that the majority of posts that both you and zeitlos have made have been on this thread. That is a fact. It is also true that the majority of people who have complained about the EyeAF of the lens have complained primarily about its focus close up. I think that statement is clear.
And Simon please pay attention to what I am saying. I am not saying that the lens appears to be focussing on the printed characters. What I am saying is the the focal plain on at least eight of the shots is exactly on an eye shaped object that is closer to the camera than the subject. That is a fact. What you and zeitlos don’t seem to get is that I am describing the focus plane as it appears in the picture. That is a factual argument. It is not a theory. It is a description of what I see in the picture. I am also noting that is different from what the camera is indicating where the focus is located.
As far as buying a lens goes, I rarely do that until it has been out for awhile. This lens will not be an exception to that general rule. That does not mean I don’t get to discuss the lens on this thread.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Simon, it is true that the majority of posts that both you and zeitlos have made have been on this thread. That is a fact.
No one said otherwise, what difference does it make that we've posted a lot in here? I don't complain that you've posted more despite not having even handled the lens.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is also true that the majority of people who have complained about the EyeAF of the lens have complained primarily about it focus close up. I think that statement is clear.
That is because once you move a fair distance away depth of field hides the issue, as I've already pointed out to you.
Steve Spencer wrote:
And Simon please pay attention to what I am saying. I am not saying that the lens appears to be focussing on the printed characters. What I am saying is the the focal plain on at least eight of the shots is exactly on an eye shaped object that is closer to the camera than the subject. That is a fact.
OK yes I read that and agree that's where the plane of focus is but I ask you again what does that actually matter? It missed the intended focus target, it confirmed the intended focus target so what conclusion do you draw from the plane of focus always ending up in front of the intended target on every single photo taken with Eye AF?
Steve Spencer wrote:
What you and zeitlos don’t seem to get is that I am describing the focus plane as it appears in the picture. That is a factual argument. It is not a theory. It is a description of what I see in the picture. I am also noting that is different from what the camera is indicating where the focus is located.
That argument is akin to seeing a squirrel in the background and assuming that somehow it must be the presence of squirrels causing Eye AF to miss the intended target, the focus plane is on the shirt because it front focused on the actual target.
As I asked you earlier repeatedly what does this one instance matter when we see the exact same thing occurring in different scenarios? Even if you were right this one time what about every other?
Steve Spencer wrote:
As far as buying a lens goes, I rarely do that until it has been out for awhile. This lens will not be an exception to that general rule. That does not mean I don’t get to discuss the lens on this thread.
I am not asking you to stop discussing it, I am simply pointing out your ignorance of using the lens doesn't trump the experience of others using it and if I'm doing something wrong simply tell me what to try, nothing would please me more than being proved wrong on this issue. I'll happily test the lens however you want (Tuesday is my last day with it unless Zeiss bothers to respond) if it can help diagnose the issue, just say what you need.
We keep telling you it front focuses in all these different situations, you keep telling us we're not listening and focusing on one set of pictures with a child's shirt for some reason, I don't see what point you're trying to make at this stage.
