Looks to me on the surface about a 400 kelvin difference which is kind of big. Biggest diffrence is the Batis looks to be more flat field at least in the edge and corners but we already know the CV takes stopping down to f5.6 to get really good in the corners. On center the CV looks better to me for sure. The mid field is worse on the Batis and even at 2.8 on the CV looks far better. Interesting results
Many thanks for doing these insightful comparisons, Fred. I will admit I had expected the Batis to perform at least as well as the CV at center and midfield from f2.8, seeing how the Batis is slower and less "ambitious" than the f1.2 CV. I guess, it goes to show that you every lens design is a compromise. Want AF, flat field and close focus ability? Get the Batis. If center and mid-field and the faster aperture matter? CV. And then there is still the behemoth Sigma for the no holds barred crowd .
Fred you just saved me some money. Normally you cost me money
I'll just stick with the CV 40mm. Didn't want to sell it for a 3rd time and regret it then buy it back.
GMPhotography wrote:
Looks to me on the surface about a 400 kelvin difference which is kind of big. Biggest diffrence is the Batis looks to be more flat field at least in the edge and corners but we already know the CV takes stopping down to f5.6 to get really good in the corners. On center the CV looks better to me for sure. The mid field is worse on the Batis and even at 2.8 on the CV looks far better. Interesting results
I don't know if the Batis is flat field yet. The mid-field discrepancy could be field curvature since I focused on center for both lenses. Here is the Batis 40/2 @ f/4 (MTF)
The Batis 40/2 CF loses about 2 stops at close distance and bokeh balls are no longer rounded even when the lens is set to wide open. At infinity, bokeh balls become rounded again.
Here is a comparison showing bokeh balls at close distance (TOP) and infinity (BOTTOM):
Fred Miranda wrote: Extreme edge resolution comparison between Batis 40/2 CF and Voigtlander 40/1.2:
Here the Batis does better at all apertures. At f/5.6, the Voigtlander gets close but the Batis has higher resolution, less vignetting and less lateral CA.
This is a tough one for sure. I have both the CV40 and Batis 40 and each has it’s strengths and weaknesses. I wish we could have them combine their strengths into one great lens but that is the game of photography, compromise.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Voigtlander 40/1.2 is not famous for outstanding extreme edge resolution. However, it's hard to beat this lens at center and mid-field. So, the corners are great at f/5.6 but not superb for the Voigtlander.
The Batis does better at the corners but unfortunately its mid-field is not as good in comparison. This could be mid-field dip or FC...didn't test it yet...
I had been looking forward to the Batis 40 as a virtual mid-size 35mm at f/2. But the unattractive rendering really kills it for me, and the mid-field looks to be a disappointment also so far.
The Sony 35mm 1.4 ZA looks better and better despite its size. One can build quite a nice set of fast, high quality lenses with excellent rendering and colors from the Sony 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4.
And if Sony does as well with the rumored 35/1.8 and 135/1.8 as they have done with the 85/1.8 and 55/1.8, that will be an appealing series also, though unfortunately not with the same quality of beautiful rendering that the 1.4 Sonys are providing.
I like the corners on the Batis, but the bokeh is really not attractive. Don't care for the Voigt either, honestly. Hopefully we see a 40 GM eventually. Too bad.
Thanks for the elaborated testing! Proves what some early adaptors have stated: eye-AF isn't really working, bokeh is rather harsh, bokeh balls not really round since it stops down at close(r) distances. And it's well balanced (I'd say perfectly balanced) on a A7(iii).
What's new to me (since I didn't have the CV40 for comparison and didn't really pay that much attention to it) is that it's cooler than e.g. the CV40.
As you might know I've sent mine back some weeks ago. Not sure if I'll order it again. First the eye-focus must be fixed. And I'm struggling because of the bokeh. Well, it's got character. And I only found it really noticeable (negatively) when the background was a little bit more busy (branches, leaves/foliage etc.). Otherwise it can be really nice (see my portrait way above in this thread).
Maybe they will have to lower the price if people don't buy it in sufficient numbers
Fred, thanks for the tests. I was wondering if this would be my first Batis-lens, but obviously not. For me the boke CA (or axial CA, whatever), harsh boke and bad focus by wire implementation is combo that is too much to tolerate.
As I review these crops further it looks to me that the Batis may still make a nice landscape and travel lens even with the weaker mid zone as compared to the VC 40. At f/5.6 and f/8 the difference in mid zone is not as pronounced as at f/2.8 and f/4. But the difference in the extreme corners at all aperatures is quite dramatic with the Batis results at f/5.6 and f/8 extremely impressive. So for shooting landscapes at f/8 and f/11 the Batis is very usable. I’m also wondering how some 2-4 shot focus stacks would look with the Batis? As I would mainly look to use the Batis as a landscape and travel lens it may still be useful. I would keep the CV 40 as more of a low light and large aperature character lens for more creative shooting.
I've sort of settled on a 15, 21, 28, 40, 65, 110 gapping (for now) for my landscape/macro kit. From purely a landscape shooting perspective, I haven't been able to convince myself that either of these lenses (CV 40/Batis 40) are the way to go. I've started to used my old Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM on my Metabones adapter, and I have to say it seems to be a very competent landscape setup.
Looking at Fred's comparison, my paralysis will continue. I'll probably keep shooting the Canon, even though it's the only AF lens in the kit above. (And I will use it as an AF lens given the focus by wire provided by the Canon lens.)
Not saying that these aren't both great lenses, the CV has many strengths. The Batis seems to be a little out in left field (not saying it wouldn't provide great results, it's just not a slam dunk in any particular use case.)
This lens would be a working lens more than a landscape/ travel lens. I have the CV for that. This mid zone is bothersome to me. Being a people lens just a few too many negatives for my taste. I’ll continue with my 50 1.4 for now and see what develops here on these tests plus I’m not buying until Eye AF is fixed.
Dec 29, 2018 at 09:54 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
The midzone performance is certainly news, but we should wait to see if the same issue show up at closer focus distances which is likely but not certain. As I see it this lens should be a jack of all trades master of none type of lens that does a number of things quite well but likely is the not best at any of them. The close focus ability is an example of that type of performance. It does close up pretty well but has a couple flaws and doesn't perform as well as a dedicated macro. The landscape performance from Fred's sample seems to fit that mold as well. It can be beat by other lenses, but is quite good stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. One use that may not be up to snuff is portraits if the midzone weakness causes problems there (although I could see it being plenty sharp for that purpose where ultimate sharpness is not the goal for me with portraits) and the bokeh is only so/so, and eye AF gets "fixed," but never does all that well either. That said I have seen some nice portraits with the lens as well. I am looking forward to more of Fred's test and hope especially he can tell/show us a bit more about its portrait performance.
Maybe someone can do a test with three objects in it at about 8 feet and the objects are at edge , mid and center and run a aperture series. Im sure a lot of folks might be using this for some type of PR lens like weddings and such.
Agree Steve I think landscape and travel its just fine , no real issues there. I just see this one glaring weakness that causes me to pause. For a wedding shooter for instance they need a minimum of F4 for a group of 3-5 people. Thats a very common shot. Even though I dont shoot weddings my work does follow there patterns of shots. For me AF lens is a work lens.
This would also relate to photojournalism type images as well.
.
