Well I like sarcasm sometimes and sometimes I think it is fun and humorous. But it’s always nice to say at the end of like a small disclaimer. Example Hope you know I’m just joking. I do that a lot so folks don’t look at it as a serious statement . That’s me though and what I do. Not right or wrong just something I add.
So let's blind out for a minute the Eye-AF and aperture issue and focus on the overall optical performance and especially the character of this lens compared to the SZ 50mm Planar 1.4 ZA. The Planar is a little wider than 50mm and therefore I cannot justify to keep both with a difference of approx. 8mm. Having also the 85mm G-Master I really want a lighter solution in the 40/50mm range. Going with a 21/40/85 could be a great combo IMHO. So I really love the pop, contrast and sharpness of the 50mm Planar. Would I loose much of the mojo? Somebody asked me it depends how I would use the glass. I think the Planar shines wide open with people distance shots around 3-4 meters by including the environment. That would be my main usage. If the 40mm CF generates a complete different rendering I would keep the Planar. Maybe somebody had to make the same decision or owns even both candidates.
Personally I wouldn't compare those to lenses. Two things at least are (very) different:
1. Bokeh => the ZA seems to be one of the best, the Batis 40 mm can be (very/rather) harsh when the background is busy.
2. Weight => the Batis is light, the 50mm 1.4 rather heavy. The Batis 40 makes for a really good travel lens in my opinion which can do the job decently in most cases. The 50mm 1.4 (at least to me) seems more like a lens one would use in special situations, mainly portraits.
Steve, even a 50 can make a nose look bigger. 35 is obviously not for headshots or getting too close.
It all depends on the shape/form of the guy. In general i have found that 35 is extremely adult friendly and because kids have small heads, 85/135 does it.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I find that 35 or 40 does tend to make noses look a bit bigger, so not always the most flattering especially close up. Of course that depends on your subject. One of my favorite shots of my son when he was a baby, which I will post below, was with a 35mm. And one of my favorite shots of all time was of my son sleeping on my wife's shoulder just after he was born, (I'll post that one too). Finally, I will post what I feel is my best image of my son last year taken with a 40, this one shows, I think, how this focal length can be used for environmental portraits. A 35 or 40 has proved a very versatile lens for me. It may not be the most flattering portrait lens, but it can produce some nice results and I use that focal length range quite a bit even for portraits....Show more →
Mirror wrote:
So let's blind out for a minute the Eye-AF and aperture issue and focus on the overall optical performance and especially the character of this lens compared to the SZ 50mm Planar 1.4 ZA. The Planar is a little wider than 50mm and therefore I cannot justify to keep both with a difference of approx. 8mm. Having also the 85mm G-Master I really want a lighter solution in the 40/50mm range. Going with a 21/40/85 could be a great combo IMHO. So I really love the pop, contrast and sharpness of the 50mm Planar. Would I loose much of the mojo? Somebody asked me it depends how I would use the glass. I think the Planar shines wide open with people distance shots around 3-4 meters by including the environment. That would be my main usage. If the 40mm CF generates a complete different rendering I would keep the Planar. Maybe somebody had to make the same decision or owns even both candidates....Show more →
I have no experience of your particular lenses you talk about. But 21/40/85 is a great set up IMO
Jan 20, 2019 at 06:42 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nandadevieast wrote:
Steve, even a 50 can make a nose look bigger. 35 is obviously not for headshots or getting too close.
It all depends on the shape/form of the guy. In general i have found that 35 is extremely adult friendly and because kids have small heads, 85/135 does it.
Of course this depends on the subject. If they have a big nose and a small head, you might want to shoot them with a 135mm. If they have a small nose and a big head you might want to shoot them with a 35mm. With regard to adults versus kids in that regard I think you have the choice backwards. The ratio of our head size to our body size is biggest when we are born (babies have huge heads compared to their bodies) and gradually their bodies catch up to the size of their heads at adolescence and doesn't change much after that. Our noses (and ears) grow throughout our whole lives and sadly for someone like me that has a big nose doesn't even stop when we are in our 80s and 90s (My own big nose is bigger now in my 50s than it was in my 30s). Consequently kids as a general rule of human development have big heads and small nose and adults have small heads and big noses. So, if anything as a general rule a 35mm should be better for kids who tend to have big heads and small noses and a 135mm should be better for adults who tend to have smaller heads and bigger noses (and especially for older adults who have the biggest noses on average). Of course this general rule might not apply for any particular subject.
zeitlos wrote:
Personally I wouldn't compare those to lenses. Two things at least are (very) different:
1. Bokeh => the ZA seems to be one of the best, the Batis 40 mm can be (very/rather) harsh when the background is busy.
2. Weight => the Batis is light, the 50mm 1.4 rather heavy. The Batis 40 makes for a really good travel lens in my opinion which can do the job decently in most cases. The 50mm 1.4 (at least to me) seems more like a lens one would use in special situations, mainly portraits.
+1 That is how I feel about these two which is currently why I have both and plan to keep them. Still do want to see the Eye-AF corrected though.
Unfortunate that there's no mention of the Eye AF issue or the other issue (something having to do with magnified focusing). With regards to Eye AF, when the FW updates hit the 3rd gen bodies which can enable the AI focusing, that could create significant problems with missed focus.
I'm glad I held off buying this lens for now. If Zeiss gets their $#!+ together and addresses the Eye AF issue as well, then I'll reconsider.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Weird no Eye-AF fix mentioned...
They should have included a trigger warning with that press release.
Hopefully it just means they're too embarrassed to admit the fault (or consider it a property of the CF system and changing one affects the other) but if they don't fix it in this firmware update what recourse do people have who bought the 40/2 and are outside the return window?
Yes, precisely why I thought it was odd Zeiss didn't acknowledge it. If I remember correctly, they were working on an EyeAF fix. Either they were not able to fix it for whatever reason or EyeAF will fixed 'silently' with this update.
I'm no longer interested. Even if they fix the issue in next FW update, it's too late for me. I'm done. I used the money I saved for B40 to buy Nikon Z 35 1.8S and 50 1.8S and I'm really happy like a kid. Nikon Z will get eye AF in March. They are SHARP, and faster.. I got 2 lenses, instead of only one
I find it very suspect that they aren't acknowledging a well established problem across a number of credible testers and end users.
I also see that Dustin Abbott's review that just got posted on YT says he tested it and no issues with eye AF. He seems credible based on what I've read/watched on his site.
My conspiracy theory:
Zeiss isn't acknowledging the issue as they fixed it in now-shipping stock (why it didn't show up in Dustin Abbott's review and why there was a long gap in availability) and will just deal with it on a lens by lens basis if customers with faulty stock complain. So probably can't be solved in firmware - perhaps a physical issue - and thus expensive to acknowledge and do a full recall.
Someone with the lens should send it in to Zeiss and see what happens when they get their lens back.
Just seems weird they'd acknowledge the one issue (solvable by firmware) and not the other.
I'm not buying until it is out in the field for a while. Hopefully the 35/1.8 GM will be out by then... Someone at Zeiss should get getting hell for blowing this release.
Honestly baffled that this is even an issue. Further baffled by the fact that it isn't being officially acknowledged.
Some thoughts that come to mind when I think about these Batis lenses and why I won't be picking any of them up in the immediate future:
1. Happy I never got the 25/2 (which I was seriously considering for a long time) now that I have the GM 24
2. Happy I never got the 85/1.8 as I now have a FE 85/1.8 that I am thoroughly pleased with
3. Price drop on the 135/2.8 was very significant and occurred in an obscenely short span of time
4. None of them are actually compact for what they are
5. Now that I have seen what Sony can do with wide angle lenses, I cannot justify spending almost as much on a slower lens that isn't noticeably smaller or optically superior (at equivalent apertures) for my uses
6. Zeiss is not exactly building buyer confidence with this 40
7. If the eye-AF issue is in fact fixed on newly shipped copies moving forward, I might consider picking one up when it drops to around 850-900.
In the meantime, I'll continue enjoying the Voigt 40/1.2.
darrellc wrote:
I also see that Dustin Abbott's review that just got posted on YT says he tested it and no issues with eye AF. He seems credible based on what I've read/watched on his site.
He's not the only one who's reported no problem but I would assume it's far more likely down to testing conditions rather than there being some random fixed units floating about.
Best thing to do is just try using AF in magnified view, much easier, accurate and faster to test than Eye AF (in fairness, the issues may not be related but so far they seem to go hand in hand).
