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 →
The problem with a GM 1.4/40 being small is that Sigma, curse them, have made what seems to be an essentially optically perfect but for me uselessly large 1,4/50.
40mm seems to be in the focal length range where Sony won’t be able to make huge size savings keeping quality fixed, even if they can do a bit.
So the have a choice: make a Sigma beater at approximately the same size and weight and have everyone complain, or make a significantly smaller lens which reviewers will say is bested by a cheaper third party. Neither is commercially palatable, though I and I suspect you would orefer the second compromise.
Sony now has a very appealing sequence of f/1.4 lenses: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm--and possibly to be followed by a 100mm. The existing 1.4 lenses are notable for especially beautiful rendering, color, bokeh, depth, and separation. They also tend to be fairly large, heavy, and expensive (though the 24mm is neither large nor heavy).
Sony also has the beginnings of a series of 1.8 lenses: the 55mm, the 85mm, and the much-reported 135mm. The two existing lenses are noted for relative compactness, resolution, and moderate price. Sony could easily add a 35mm f/1.8 (rather than a 40mm) to this series, making it rather complete. That might deep-six the Batis 40mm. Sony could even add a 28mm f/1.8, though they already have the 28mm f/2.
I only wish the rendering were better on the 1.8 lenses.
If you want autofocus, do you take with you traveling and elsewhere lenses that are smallish and light with modest rendering? Or lenses that are somewhat large and heavy (though not Sigma-class aircraft carriers) and that have gorgeous image qualities?
Unfortunately Sony will most likely look on the existing glass and there is the 35mm 1.4, 35mm 2.8 and the RX-1 that needs to be protected in some way. I am most disappointed that Sony QC is not handling the Decentering issue on the 1.4. My recent copy manufactured July 2018 was somewhat unsharp on the right side...
Jan 15, 2019 at 04:30 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
DavidBM wrote:
The problem with a GM 1.4/40 being small is that Sigma, curse them, have made what seems to be an essentially optically perfect but for me uselessly large 1,4/50.
40mm seems to be in the focal length range where Sony won’t be able to make huge size savings keeping quality fixed, even if they can do a bit.
So the have a choice: make a Sigma beater at approximately the same size and weight and have everyone complain, or make a significantly smaller lens which reviewers will say is bested by a cheaper third party. Neither is commercially palatable, though I and I suspect you would orefer the second compromise.
Yes, I would make the second compromise and if it has better bokeh and is a GM, which likely would have better bokeh, it might even highlight what I see as the strength of the GM line and maybe just maybe move people off of the idea that sharpness is the primary characteristic of a lens. Historically, 40s have been small lenses. In my view, Sigma went way off the deep end in making such an enormous 40mm lens. There is just no balancing of characteristics in that lens. Optical perfection without any consideration of size of aesthetics of the image to me is just no way to design a lens. I think you may be right, however, that it may not now be commercially viable to make the lens that really should be made.
Agree totally about the recommended retail price - too high, especially if more than the B25 and B85. The standard price needs to drop by 15% to 20%. I managed to buy with 16% off normal retail which put the price right in between those other two lenses. Maybe that particular retailer was preempting what is to follow?
Mirror wrote:
Unfortunately Sony will most likely look on the existing glass and there is the 35mm 1.4, 35mm 2.8 and the RX-1 that needs to be protected in some way. I am most disappointed that Sony QC is not handling the Decentering issue on the 1.4. My recent copy manufactured July 2018 was somewhat unsharp on the right side...
That's quite disappointing to hear, I really hoped that Sony had finally put its s**t together regarding the Distagon 35 manufacturing, but apparently seems not to be the case..
My copy looks reasonably sharp all over, and I love the rendering so much that for me it's definitely a keeper, but I can understand who is still on the fence, considering even its steep asking price (but putting things into perspective, the Batis 40 costs basically the same and is one stop slower).
It's just wrong on a few levels for the Sony 35/1.4 to be as expensive as it is and be that inconsistent quality wise. I mean,you might not get a sharp one? What year is it?
Tirpitz666 wrote:
That's quite disappointing to hear, I really hoped that Sony had finally put its s**t together regarding the Distagon 35 manufacturing, but apparently seems not to be the case..
My copy looks reasonably sharp all over, and I love the rendering so much that for me it's definitely a keeper, but I can understand who is still on the fence, considering even its steep asking price (but putting things into perspective, the Batis 40 costs basically the same and is one stop slower).
Tirpitz666 wrote:
That's quite disappointing to hear, I really hoped that Sony had finally put its s**t together regarding the Distagon 35 manufacturing, but apparently seems not to be the case..
My copy looks reasonably sharp all over, and I love the rendering so much that for me it's definitely a keeper, but I can understand who is still on the fence, considering even its steep asking price (but putting things into perspective, the Batis 40 costs basically the same and is one stop slower).
One thing Roger Circala has said (sorry no link) is that a lens with poor variability in his experience never gets better.
One probable reason: the variability is the result of the entire manufacturing design, which is done as the lens is designed. If you resign the manufacturing process, you may as well redesign the lens...
One thing Roger Circala has said (sorry no link) is that a lens with poor variability in his experience never gets better.
One probable reason: the variability is the result of the entire manufacturing design, which is done as the lens is designed. If you resign the manufacturing process, you may as well redesign the lens...
Yes, lens design and manufacturing design go hand in hand. A complex lens design can lead to complex manufacturing design which can lead to variability.
One thing Roger Circala has said (sorry no link) is that a lens with poor variability in his experience never gets better.
One probable reason: the variability is the result of the entire manufacturing design, which is done as the lens is designed. If you resign the manufacturing process, you may as well redesign the lens...
Totally agree with Roger as I went through 5 of them and was consistently the same issue. Right side was soft. To me it was either a combination of design and production or either one. They need a 40 1.2 or 1.4 GM just like the 24. I’d buy it sight unseen
Conversely, making something that isn't perfect but affordable to hobbyists and budget conscious people always wins when you consider units sold. I think the 28 F2 is a great balance of cost, performance, and size--professionals might criticize it, but hobbyists will be much more likely to buy it, and there are more hobbyists than pros out there. Furthermore, no one will compare the Sigma to the Sony; each has its own value.
On a similar note, I think Sony is benefitting from Canon's odd showing for the EOS R. I think the release of three enormous and expensive lenses is not going to help Canon move product. Even though Sony doesn't make enough affordable options (in my opinion), but they do have a kit lens and four primes that fit within a budget. No one expected it, but Sony is the 'affordable' option for FF mirrorless.
chiron wrote:
I only wish the rendering were better on the 1.8 lenses.
If you want autofocus, do you take with you traveling and elsewhere lenses that are smallish and light with modest rendering? Or lenses that are somewhat large and heavy (though not Sigma-class aircraft carriers) and that have gorgeous image qualities?
First, I like the rendering the cheap Sony 50/1.8 delivers. Maybe I misunderstand the concept of „rendering“. The only thing I‘m struggling with is the autofocus in certain situations.
As to your question. I am mainly doing travel photography and after having done it for a decade now I would finally go for the first option — small and decent. Maybe except for one „specialist“ e.g. perfect portrait lens.
That’s also why I sold the really good 24-105 f4 for the decent 24-70 f4. No regrets so far.
Would love for Sony to enter the 40mm market to compete against Voigtlander, Sigma, and Zeiss. Do you think they can capitalize on everyone else's weaknesses? How does their partnership with Zeiss work here?
If they aren't gonna give us a 35/2 or 35/1.8 lens to keep the RX1R dream alive, maybe they can make a 40/1.4 GM for us.
GMPhotography wrote:
Totally agree with Roger as I went through 5 of them and was consistently the same issue. Right side was soft. To me it was either a combination of design and production or either one. They need a 40 1.2 or 1.4 GM just like the 24. I’d buy it sight unseen
Today it was announced that the A9, A7III, and other Sony mirrorless cameras will be receiving eye-AF features added via firmware updates. It seems like Zeiss was waiting for finalization from Sony before making further tweaks on their Batis 2/40 issues. I hope the AF problems are completely resolved soon, but the aperture issues must still be addressed.
akashyap wrote:
Would love for Sony to enter the 40mm market to compete against Voigtlander, Sigma, and Zeiss. Do you think they can capitalize on everyone else's weaknesses? How does their partnership with Zeiss work here?
If they aren't gonna give us a 35/2 or 35/1.8 lens to keep the RX1R dream alive, maybe they can make a 40/1.4 GM for us.
I'd rather have Sony concentrate on areas that are lacking lenses rather than ones that have multiple choices. Sony...how about a nice compact 200 2.8? Or maybe a stellar compact 300 f4.
I made a bid via Greentoe for the Batis 40mm. I got a response for $50 below list price. It appears that retailers have not felt the impact o the negative publicity. I bid $899.
I'm sure they have experienced soft sales. Have they "taken stock" of those soft sales is an entirely different question. Probably some time threshold for that to happen. Maybe 9 months or a year.
I'd like to pay $900 for a fixed Batis 40, but I won't pay anything for one with the current crop of problems. I suspect one day I will be able to buy a heavily discounted B40, or I will buy something better and comparable in focal length.
Justin Stone wrote:
I'm sure they have experienced soft sales. Have they "taken stock" of those soft sales is an entirely different question. Probably some time threshold for that to happen. Maybe 9 months or a year.
I'd like to pay $900 for a fixed Batis 40, but I won't pay anything for one with the current crop of problems. I suspect one day I will be able to buy a heavily discounted B40, or I will buy something better and comparable in focal length.
Even assuming that a firmware update fixes the problems with Eye AF and Magnified AF, some of the flaws that Steve Spencer lists in his post on the previous page--namely onion ring bokeh, automatic stop down at close focus distances, and nonagonal bokeh highlights--appear to be inherent in the lens design. The best outcome for prospective buyers who find the Batis 40 appealing for a range of valid reasons (and for whom the remaining flaws are either inconsequential or irrelevant) would be that its reputation has been so irreparably harmed by the shambolic introduction that Zeiss will be forced to significantly reduce the price in order to shift inventory. Hopefully those buyers won’t have to wait 9 months to a year for the price to drop to a reasonable $899.
Lillo wrote:
Is it normal that I've bought this lens in the first days of January and I didn't notice the Eye-AF issue?
Yes
I don't often shoot human eye-AF, so I might well have missed that flaw had I bought the B40. The upcoming addition of animal eye-AF, if it actually happens, would change my eye-AF shooting patterns in a big way. After the specs of the a6400 were released, things like animal eye-AF and a good native 35mm f/1.8 seem further away...
