Fair enough, but they are asking for over $1,000 for a relatively big, heavy, and not really all that fast prime lens. It's not unreasonable to expect it perform well and take advantage of the primary features of the platform. Would be different if this were a budget lens, maybe.
davidnumrich wrote:
Fair enough, but they are asking for over $1,000 for a relatively big, heavy, and not really all that fast prime lens. It's not unreasonable to expect it perform well and take advantage of the primary features of the platform. Would be different if this were a budget lens, maybe.
I've never owned the Sony 35 ?..but from what I read, there are more lemons with the lens than good copies...and I don't believe Sony addressed the quality control of this lens.
Like I said, let's wait to see how Zeiss reacts...hopefully not like Sony.
davidnumrich wrote:
Fair enough, but they are asking for over $1,000 for a relatively big, heavy, and not really all that fast prime lens. It's not unreasonable to expect it perform well and take advantage of the primary features of the platform. Would be different if this were a budget lens, maybe.
Well I agree the release of this lens with less than adequate eye af is a poor showing, the lens price is fair and reasonable given the prices of today’s top lenses. The lens is also very well balanced on the A7x cameras and it is actually light in weight compared to many other similar lenses on the market.
Mistakes can happen. I am curious to see their solution! It would speak volumes to me to see them admit and correct these issues.
chez wrote:
Every manufacture can screw up...it's how they handle the screwup that is important. Let's give Zeiss time to address the AF issue and then make judgement on them.
I'm awaiting to see how Zeiss acts before deciding on the Batis 40 or the Voigtlander 40 1.2 M with tap.
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, for landscapes, I'd say the Batis performs really well across the field at f/4-5.6. It's a very versatile lens as high IQ is maintained at all distances.
Aside from the slight onion ring and outlining on specular highlights, Zeiss needs to fix the EyeAF performance and f/4 aperture at close distances.
Here is an Eye AF comparison between the Batis 40 vs FE 55. Best of three for each and all results similar to below:
When I read this than I say from a purely technical sense, what’s the point. The Sony is one stop faster on optimum quality. Now for landscape may not matter much but I beg to differ in a lot of fluid situations and other types of shooting that one stop advantage actually counts. Now let me be clear I’m not a fan of the 55 anyway, never was. Sharp is one thing but other factors count too.
Okay so let me be the ass in the room. Give Zeiss a chance, when does a client in any business give you a chance when you obviously screwed up. This is nuts this was not tested before these even started full production for EYe AF, it’s one of Sony’s most important selling points not to mention its use case for us end users. So what is it, arrogance, quality control, stupidity, or let’s crank it out the door and let us figure it out. Sorry folks not giving them a chance they don’t deserve it. It’s like missing 4 and 5 gear in your car. That be the first thing I would check . I don’t know this really is not good and too push out a firmware fix after the fact and still not out to end users it really makes you wonder WTF happened to the company that help start my career over 40 years ago. One of the most revered lens designers for decades. Not only in photography but all optics world wide. As a industry advocate which I always cared about the industry at large as it has supported my personal career it really makes me wonder what direction they are going or who is the guy in charge. Poor ergo design on the Loxia’s and I love there optics. Batis is not pretty either. If I was on the board of directors I would vote for some head count changes. Hey I love Zeiss too so don’t get me wrong but there direction lately has me wondering.
Just sayin. Let me ask a simple question when did a Sony lens at less cost beat Zeiss, in years past I would answer never, can’t say that anymore.
My opinion, you don’t have to read it or like it. But it is food for thought
Not sure I would classify this as a mistake. Did not one engineer walk outside with a co worker and try EyE AF. Really
Mistakes can be made but as an owner I have yet to see Zeiss make an official public, in the press, announcement acknowledging the issue. I believe Tamron did go public when they had their issue with the 28-75mm f/2.8 lens
Zeiss should also take action to contact owners that have bothered to register their copy and notify them of the issue. I will give them time but so far the appear to be moving very slowly with very little transparency.
So I will give them three months and then request that I be able to return to them as a defective product under the warranty. Don't know any other approach to take.
Guy...what about all the bad copies of the Sony 35 out there...and not a word from them. Give Sony a pass but nail Zeiss? What about the numerous bad copies of the Voigtlander 15. And not a word from Voigtlander.
Surely both Sony and Voigtlander know they have a couple of lemons...yet nothing indicating they are trying to correct things.
At least Zeiss owned up to the problem and are fixing it. Msybe Sony and Voigtlander should take notice.
GMPhotography wrote:
When I read this than I say from a purely technical sense, what’s the point. The Sony is one stop faster on optimum quality. Now for landscape may not matter much but I beg to differ in a lot of fluid situations and other types of shooting that one stop advantage actually counts. Now let me be clear I’m not a fan of the 55 anyway, never was. Sharp is one thing but other factors count too.
Okay so let me be the ass in the room. Give Zeiss a chance, when does a client in any business give you a chance when you obviously screwed up. This is nuts this was not tested before these even started full production for EYe AF, it’s one of Sony’s most important selling points not to mention its use case for us end users. So what is it, arrogance, quality control, stupidity, or let’s crank it out the door and let us figure it out. Sorry folks not giving them a chance they don’t deserve it. It’s like missing 4 and 5 gear in your car. That be the first thing I would check . I don’t know this really is not good and too push out a firmware fix after the fact and still not out to end users it really makes you wonder WTF happened to the company that help start my career over 40 years ago. One of the most revered lens designers for decades. Not only in photography but all optics world wide. As a industry advocate which I always cared about the industry at large as it has supported my personal career it really makes me wonder what direction they are going or who is the guy in charge. Poor ergo design on the Loxia’s and I love there optics. Batis is not pretty either. If I was on the board of directors I would vote for some head count changes. Hey I love Zeiss too so don’t get me wrong but there direction lately has me wondering.
Just sayin. Let me ask a simple question when did a Sony lens at less cost beat Zeiss, in years past I would answer never, can’t say that anymore.
My opinion, you don’t have to read it or like it. But it is food for thought
Not sure I would classify this as a mistake. Did not one engineer walk outside with a co worker and try EyE AF. Really
Fred’s one test on Eye AF is clearly not good....Show more →
Maybe Zeiss has been distracted with trying to figure out how to save face with the ZX1 Honestly I'll take a CV lens any day over these modern Zeiss lenses. Never been a fan of the Batis designs from the beginning, bloated and gimmicky. Loxia had the 21/25mm, the rest are good but nothing special. Zeiss should be praying CV never makes AF lenses.
chez wrote:
Guy...what about all the bad copies of the Sony 35 out there...and not a word from them. Give Sony a pass but nail Zeiss? What about the numerous bad copies of the Voigtlander 15. And not a word from Voigtlander.
Surely both Sony and Voigtlander know they have a couple of lemons...yet nothing indicating they are trying to correct things.
At least Zeiss owned up to the problem and are fixing it. Msybe Sony and Voigtlander should take notice.
Hey I’ve been screaming about that Sony 35 1.4 FE for a few years. I went through 5 of them. Cost me a lot of money and time. Never buy that lens again. They got no love from me on that one.
On the Sony 35 though it was not a major fault in a sense . Not that I’ll defend it but we are talking about a major feature in the Batis and they have the 18,25,85,135 that all work great with Eye AF. What happened here.
The CV they apparently fixed as that smearin has seemed to go away. It’s not about admitting the issue. It’s about testing it before it hits the streets. Sure mistakes are made no question but a whole line at the time of first production. Your A7R you have how many threads and posts did we indure over the vibration issue, they got killed on it. Chez I don’t relax on any of these OEMs. I’m the first to bitch about it. I owned everything you just mentioned
It’s just extremely strange they have 4 other similar design lenses and they have several issues here, stopping down on minimum focus issue , Eye AF and AFC too I think. I’m honestly scratching my head. Than it can’t beat a Sony 55.
Honestly how many folks think this is there best lens in Batis. I love my 135 which I think is the best and the 18,25,85 are good lenses too, but this one seems to be the worst. Does it not, that a serious question. What do you folks think. Most of us have one or two Batis lenses are they not better than this showing.
swldstn wrote:
Mistakes can be made but as an owner I have yet to see Zeiss make an official public, in the press, announcement acknowledging the issue. I believe Tamron did go public when they had their issue with the 28-75mm f/2.8 lens
Zeiss should also take action to contact owners that have bothered to register their copy and notify them of the issue. I will give them time but so far the appear to be moving very slowly with very little transparency.
So I will give them three months and then request that I be able to return to them as a defective product under the warranty. Don't know any other approach to take.
Tamron did go public pretty much right away. I applaud that
Seriously I was very interested in buying this lens , no question about it. I’m kinda pissed to be honest. Liked to see it hit more check marks. I never expect perfect, but not sure about this one.
chez wrote:
Guy...what about all the bad copies of the Sony 35 out there...and not a word from them. Give Sony a pass but nail Zeiss? What about the numerous bad copies of the Voigtlander 15. And not a word from Voigtlander.
Surely both Sony and Voigtlander know they have a couple of lemons...yet nothing indicating they are trying to correct things.
At least Zeiss owned up to the problem and are fixing it. Msybe Sony and Voigtlander should take notice.
To be fair chez, Sony has at times issued recalls/offered free repairs when needed, for instance, in case of a batch of 50 1.4's or a few 24-105's that required a firmware update.
As for the 35 1.4, based on Roger's testing and a survey among board users here variance looks high, yes, but we have no clue how many people out there have actually noticed potential issues and returned theirs. My guess is that number is considerably lower than the number of complaints on FM might lead you to believe.
davidnumrich wrote:
I certainly was not aware of issues with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. I bought one back in March and it's been my most used lens ever since.
usually the issue is the right side of the frame is soft compared to the left, both up and down on it. You can test for it
davidnumrich wrote:
I certainly was not aware of issues with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. I bought one back in March and it's been my most used lens ever since.
Hurry, get yourself a lottery ticket before your good luck runs out.
davidnumrich wrote:
I certainly was not aware of issues with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. I bought one back in March and it's been my most used lens ever since.
It seems to be out of the ordinary but my copy was also perfectly centered. I had more trouble with the 55/1.8 ZA than with the 35/1.4 ZA.
GMPhotography wrote:
Honestly how many folks think this is there best lens in Batis. I love my 135 which I think is the best and the 18,25,85 are good lenses too, but this one seems to be the worst. Does it not, that a serious question. What do you folks think. Most of us have one or two Batis lenses are they not better than this showing.
I have both the 25 and 85 and both are stellar. Have no idea about the 40 as I have not tried it out. I'm awaiting the fix before evaluation.
I test my lenses under the condition I use them and if they perform for me, then they are a winner. If you go by what is on the net...you just would not own a single lens as most have issues. Maybe it because I don't pixel peep my images...their final destination is coffee table books and large prints. I've yet to have a single person over 40 years complain about the lack of sharpness in a corner or the quality of the bokeh balls, whether that was just acquaintances looking at coffee table books or prints in my home, or actual,customers that purchase the prints.
To me...that is what counts the most...happy customers.
chez wrote:
I have both the 25 and 85 and both are stellar. Have no idea about the 40 as I have not tried it out. I'm awaiting the fix before evaluation.
I test my lenses under the condition I use them and if they perform for me, then they are a winner. If you go by what is on the net...you just would not own a single lens as most have issues. Maybe it because I don't pixel peep my images...their final destination is coffee table books and large prints. I've yet to have a single person over 40 years complain about the lack of sharpness in a corner or the quality of the bokeh balls, whether that was just acquaintances looking at coffee table books or prints in my home, or actual,customers that purchase the prints.
To me...that is what counts the most...happy customers.
I dont have any problems with the Batis lenses so not sure where you got that but I do think out of all of them the 135 is the best. I currently have the 85 and 135.
Chez seriously I think you have a real hangup about people testing there lenses and making a real determination about them. Of course it matters in real world , no one said it does not. I get paid a lot of money too shoot. BUT i test to make sure where a lens is at with regards to where my fall off points are , how the bokeh looks , if it has onion rings or not as i can avoid them. All this data is good to know before i hit the field on a client gig. I want to know where my corners are , the mid field points on people shots. All this packs my brain with the info I need to know so there is no surprises when i come back from the field. Testing is just to get the data and to make sure i got a good copy. Ive been burned on copy variance and if its bad it goes back. Im about to shoot 20k images in the next days, once that ballroom is ready for the show Ill be up there to test this rented GM 70-200 2.8 and the A7III to make sure its all working. Otherwise its a 20k loss to me. Im going to make sure before i shoot one dang frame. Im sorry folks need to test this stuff out. My work can wind up as small as a web image to billboards.
When testing Sony's 35/1.4, does the soft side/corner never get sharp, even when you focus on that corner, or does the soft spot simply get sharp at the unacceptable expense if the rest of the frame? Thx
Usually the right upper and lower corner will not match the upper and lower left corner until about F4 than DOF is covering it up. What the one determination is a lens element is tilted in production so if you focus on corner it will throw out the rest of the image. Really no fix unless you stop down , but even than its not the full resolution of that corner. Many times this may not matter depending on the shot. Im more disturbed by the fact I pay 1500 for the lens and its not right out of the box. How am i supposed to justify a resale to someone. Im too freaking honest to sell something like that.
Returned my copy due to eye focus failure. Was hoping to use it as part of my 67mm AF lens trio (24mm GM and Batis 135). After paid full $2000 for Batis 135mm, I was hoping they have learned their lessons. Now I will not buy any Zeiss at the release. I still prefer Zeiss color as showed in Fred’ comparison shots on previous page. In the mean time, just quited Zeiss Historica to recover the $800 I was over charged on the 135mm Batis
Honestly I'll take a CV lens any day over these modern Zeiss lenses. Never been a fan of the Batis designs from the beginning, bloated and gimmicky. Loxia had the 21/25mm, the rest are good but nothing special. Zeiss should be praying CV never makes AF lenses. 