Agree I love my CV 40 but I’m more interested on the AF side as a work lens. I have the 50 1.4 and optically it’s extremely hard to beat , it’s still the AF I’m still having a keep up issue with. I could do the Batis and work AFC until the Eye AF gets fixed. I’m getting inpatient waiting, that’s not a good thing.
I own this lens and I have had good results from it aside from the Eye AF issue. If Zeiss resolved the Eye AF, I will definitely keep my copy as an everyday all purpose lens
I also bought this lens end December at a decent special offer price. I already have the B25/2 and B85/1.8, so got interested in this lens from it's launch.
I really like the B40/2 so far and will just wait to see what Zeiss do about the Eye AF.
Jan 14, 2019 at 07:33 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
GMPhotography wrote:
Agree I love my CV 40 but I’m more interested on the AF side as a work lens. I have the 50 1.4 and optically it’s extremely hard to beat , it’s still the AF I’m still having a keep up issue with. I could do the Batis and work AFC until the Eye AF gets fixed. I’m getting inpatient waiting, that’s not a good thing.
Here is the issue with me: this Batis 40 has five weaknesses none of which are deal breakers for me but together they are enough to give pause about buying it. In order of importance to me they are: 1) the bokeh is higher contrast than I would like an has some clear flaws the worst of which is fairly prominent onion rings in the bokeh; 2) At close focus distances the lens stops down automatically both limiting the shallow depth of field and causing nonagol (i.e., nine side polygons) out of focus highlight even wide open; 3) Eye-AF performs poorly but may be improved with firmware (I honestly don't think it will ever be phenomenal, however); 4) Size is larger than appears to be necessary to keep the Batis form factor; 5) Magnified AF appears to cause errors. The firmware is very unlikely to fix the second issues and definitely won't fix the first and the fourth. So for me the firmware fix isn't really the big issue. I would like the lens to have at least decent Eye-AF, but if it has good non-Eye-AF I could live with the Eye-AF weakness.
What I like very much about this lens is that in time I am likely to get for my wife the GM 24 and the GM 85 and this Batis 40 fits nicely between those two lenses that fit her shooting very well. This lens also makes a very good one lens all around solution that is still relatively small. I would love to see a GM 40 f/1.4 for which they keep the size down like they did for the GM 24, but if they don't make that (and I think it would be a long shot for them to make it), I will probably get this lens. It just goes too well with a four lens kit that includes the GM 24, GM 85, and Batis 135. I could see in the future, however, a GM 24, G 35 f/1.8, ZA 55 f/1.8, and GM 100 f/1.4 (that patents have created a rumor for this week) as a very strong alternative. It would all depend on how well the new GM 100 f/1.4 (if there is one) competes with the GM 85 f/1.4, which would be pretty tough competition.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Here is the issue with me: this Batis 40 has five weaknesses none of which are deal breakers for me but together they are enough to give pause about buying it. In order of importance to me they are: 1) the bokeh is higher contrast than I would like an has some clear flaws the worst of which is fairly prominent onion rings in the bokeh; 2) At close focus distances the lens stops down automatically both limiting the shallow depth of field and causing nonagol (i.e., nine side polygons) out of focus highlight even wide open; 3) Eye-AF performs poorly but may be improved with firmware (I honestly don't think it will ever be phenomenal, however); 4) Size is larger than appears to be necessary to keep the Batis form factor; 5) Magnified AF appears to cause errors. The firmware is very unlikely to fix the second issues and definitely won't fix the first and the fourth. So for me the firmware fix isn't really the big issue. I would like the lens to have at least decent Eye-AF, but if it has good non-Eye-AF I could live with the Eye-AF weakness.
What I like very much about this lens is that in time I am likely to get for my wife the GM 24 and the GM 85 and this Batis 40 fits nicely between those two lenses that fit her shooting very well. This lens also makes a very good one lens all around solution that is still relatively small. I would love to see a GM 40 f/1.4 for which they keep the size down like they did for the GM 24, but if they don't make that (and I think it would be a long shot for them to make it), I will probably get this lens. It just goes too well with a four lens kit that includes the GM 24, GM 85, and Batis 135. I could see in the future, however, a GM 24, G 35 f/1.8, ZA 55 f/1.8, and GM 100 f/1.4 (that patents have created a rumor for this week) as a very strong alternative. It would all depend on how well the new GM 100 f/1.4 (if there is one) competes with the GM 85 f/1.4, which would be pretty tough competition. ...Show more →
Well said Steve for one for me at least it’s a working lens so the more important factor is AF ability as my Sony 50 1.4 did not do great with AF in LA on my last shoot in LA with the runway show. It just could not keep up as well as I hoped. Yes I would love a Sony 35 1.8 no question. Bokeh and onion rings not the biggest deal sine I have my MF kit that is far better at that type of look. I see this more as a reporter type lens along with the GM 24 and Batis 85/135. So it would gap really nice. I’ll wait just in case Sony announces something this week but I’m getting this urge. Bigger problem is I love the dang 50 1.4
I'm new here and I am not a pro photographer but took about 60,000 shots with e-mount cameras starting with NEX-3. I do have very nice lenses to compare Batis 40mm to - Batis 25mm, 85mm,135mm, Sony 55mm, 90mm Macro. Sony zoom 12-24 mm, 24-70mm GM, 70-200G.
Batis 40mm is just as sharp as any of my other lenses and AF is very fast. I love this lens, but I need an education on weaknesses that I don't see.
1. Bokeh - does it really matter for the lens that is not a portrait lens? Besides does anybody really look at a print with magnifying glass to to check for perfect round bokeh?
2. Stopping down at close focus. Does anybody shoot close up or macro at f stop less than 8? If it didn't stop down at f2 DOF would be 2 to 3 mm. What can you shoot with DOF like that?
3. Eye-AF. I don't get this at all. I shot some portraits to test this lens from 5-6 ft out with face focus and they came out very sharp. I didn't try Eye-AF because I'm not about to shove camera in somebody's face (shoot from 1 to 3 ft) to check how it does with shallow DOF. Best fit for this lens is group portrait from about 10 ft out. Even at f2 DOF would be about 2ft at this distance.
4. Size - at 12oz weight it is perfect travel lens and it fits in SONY A7RII case just right.
5. Magnified AF - pardon my ignorance but I never used this feature, don't even know what it is for.
samosh wrote:
I'm new here and I am not a pro photographer but took about 60,000 shots with e-mount cameras starting with NEX-3. I do have very nice lenses to compare Batis 40mm to - Batis 25mm, 85mm,135mm, Sony 55mm, 90mm Macro. Sony zoom 12-24 mm, 24-70mm GM, 70-200G.
Batis 40mm is just as sharp as any of my other lenses and AF is very fast. I love this lens, but I need an education on weaknesses that I don't see.
1. Bokeh - does it really matter for the lens that is not a portrait lens? Besides does anybody really look at a print with magnifying glass to to check for perfect round bokeh?
2. Stopping down at close focus. Does anybody shoot close up or macro at f stop less than 8? If it didn't stop down at f2 DOF would be 2 to 3 mm. What can you shoot with DOF like that?
3. Eye-AF. I don't get this at all. I shot some portraits to test this lens from 5-6 ft out with face focus and they came out very sharp. I didn't try Eye-AF because I'm not about to shove camera in somebody's face (shoot from 1 to 3 ft) to check how it does with shallow DOF. Best fit for this lens is group portrait from about 10 ft out. Even at f2 DOF would be about 2ft at this distance.
4. Size - at 12oz weight it is perfect travel lens and it fits in SONY A7RII case just right.
5. Magnified AF - pardon my ignorance but I never used this feature, don't even know what it is for.
Regarding number 2, yes absolutely. Ever hear of focus stacking? Regarding number 3–not getting one of Sony’s signature features right is a big deal. Some will take pics from closer than you indicate. Many will use this lens for environmental portrait. Most will want to know that the eye is as sharp as possible and missing focus with the Eye AF is a huge deal—maybe not for you, but for many. This lens will not sell well unless and until this is fixed. Regarding number 1, you are on a gear forum. Bokeh is a feature many here value. It is certainly something I look for in a lens. Regarding number 4, the size is larger than it needs to be. Look at the Voigtlander 40/1.2 for comparison.
samosh wrote:
I'm new here and I am not a pro photographer but took about 60,000 shots with e-mount cameras starting with NEX-3. I do have very nice lenses to compare Batis 40mm to - Batis 25mm, 85mm,135mm, Sony 55mm, 90mm Macro. Sony zoom 12-24 mm, 24-70mm GM, 70-200G.
Batis 40mm is just as sharp as any of my other lenses and AF is very fast. I love this lens, but I need an education on weaknesses that I don't see.
1. Bokeh - does it really matter for the lens that is not a portrait lens? Besides does anybody really look at a print with magnifying glass to to check for perfect round bokeh?
2. Stopping down at close focus. Does anybody shoot close up or macro at f stop less than 8? If it didn't stop down at f2 DOF would be 2 to 3 mm. What can you shoot with DOF like that?
3. Eye-AF. I don't get this at all. I shot some portraits to test this lens from 5-6 ft out with face focus and they came out very sharp. I didn't try Eye-AF because I'm not about to shove camera in somebody's face (shoot from 1 to 3 ft) to check how it does with shallow DOF. Best fit for this lens is group portrait from about 10 ft out. Even at f2 DOF would be about 2ft at this distance.
4. Size - at 12oz weight it is perfect travel lens and it fits in SONY A7RII case just right.
5. Magnified AF - pardon my ignorance but I never used this feature, don't even know what it is for.
Well there is a lot of meat around the front element and one questions if it really needed to be there. That one I understand. Also there trying to follow the same design pattern so that may influence its size . I think more of everyone’s questions on that is it just seems big for a F2. Especially when you look at Sony’s 50 1.8, 55 1.8 which are pretty small . On the other hand the 35 and 50 1.4 are larger.
On the Bokeh well some of us don’t like cats eye bokeh or onion rings either. I’m one of them and a 40 can and will be used as a people lens as well as a lens cap type of lens. The lens has some compromises and for some folks they may not care but plenty of others do. Why there still in stock at B&H for over a week now. Which is very rare indeed. So for many this stuff matters. I have a use for it but it’s a limited usage lens and for specific reasons. It will not be a lens cap lens for me.
I’m still thinking of getting it. I need a Fast AF lens here in lower light. For that it seems to fit the bill but I do want Eye AF working as I use that often.
One other note almost all lenses have some sort of compromises and that’s expected. This one seems I think for many a few too many and why the reluctance on it and lets be really honest if the Eye AF was really working well we be seeing more images and less yapping about it. Not to mention some of it’s other compromises
I’m actually being positive on this lens but facts are facts Zeiss blew this one out of the gate. Hopefully they can improve it.
GMPhotography wrote:
One other note almost all lenses have some sort of compromises and that’s expected. This one seems I think for many a few too many and why the reluctance on it and lets be really honest if the Eye AF was really working well we be seeing more images and less yapping about it. Not to mention some of it’s other compromises
I’m actually being positive on this lens but facts are facts Zeiss blew this one out of the gate. Hopefully they can improve it.
Yes they did, but I would wait alittle longer. Just like the 135 I have a feeling the price will go down. These have been in stock now and no signs of selling out. That should tell Zeiss something. With the lack of a 35 1.8 this should have been one of the most popular lenses of 2019.
samosh wrote:
1. Bokeh - does it really matter for the lens that is not a portrait lens? Besides does anybody really look at a print with magnifying glass to to check for perfect round bokeh?
I think it's just a matter of how it fares in comparison to the competition and because of the price it commands, a lot of people seem to expect amazing bokeh and it not to perform like a slower lens at even moderate distances. I don't personally mind the former but I can see why someone making the comparison would.
samosh wrote:
2. Stopping down at close focus. Does anybody shoot close up or macro at f stop less than 8? If it didn't stop down at f2 DOF would be 2 to 3 mm. What can you shoot with DOF like that?
As above.
samosh wrote:
3. Eye-AF. I don't get this at all. I shot some portraits to test this lens from 5-6 ft out with face focus and they came out very sharp. I didn't try Eye-AF because I'm not about to shove camera in somebody's face (shoot from 1 to 3 ft) to check how it does with shallow DOF. Best fit for this lens is group portrait from about 10 ft out. Even at f2 DOF would be about 2ft at this distance.
That's fine as long as you're happy knowing it'll never properly work in other conditions, I don't think many people are happy having that constraint but if it works for how you want to use it then you don't have to worry about it.
samosh wrote:
4. Size - at 12oz weight it is perfect travel lens and it fits in SONY A7RII case just right.
I love the handling on the 40/2 and am very happy in that regard, it balances so well but physically it's bulky when compared to some similar lenses so if you've not handled one that would seem to be an issue. It must be said though that the focusing ring is... not great to use at all.
samosh wrote:
5. Magnified AF - pardon my ignorance but I never used this feature, don't even know what it is for.
It's when you use AF with the viewfinder magnified, it's useful for making sure you have critical focus very quickly and accurately but on this lens it will always front focus.
Which normally wouldn't be so bad but as MF isn't great you don't really want to do that either (the lack of a focus mode switch doesn't help either) and even if DOF is sufficient it can still look a little off because critical focus is always slightly different to what you'd normally get.
"Batis 40mm is just as sharp as any of my other lenses and AF is very fast. I love this lens, but I need an education on weaknesses that I don't see."
If you find the lens meets your needs , why do you care?
As I mentioned I'm not a pro. With responses I got I already learn things I didn't know. I appreciate that people explained to me how this lens does not meet expectations for some specific applications. Thank you all for educational comments.
samosh wrote:
As I mentioned I'm not a pro. With responses I got I already learn things I didn't know. I appreciate that people explained to me how this lens does not meet expectations for some specific applications. Thank you all for educational comments.
Also, blur is only part of bokeh rendering. I've seen noticeable outlining and too much contrast in the OOF area which make rendering slightly harsh at some distances. Onion rings and mechanical vignetting are also present...
Great contrast and color is there like with the Batis 85/1.8 but accurate EyeAF is pretty much mandatory now and Zeiss must fix it fast.
