swldstn wrote:
Not sure i agree. it stops down because of its desire to offer close focus and keep that region of focus sharp. most other lenses can’t focus at all in that CF region. macro lenses don’t do this because they are only f/2.8 and not f/2
If you look at the philipreeve.net measurements of the aperture behavior you will see this is not the case. It is only ever at f/2 when focused beyond 66 meters. It is at f/2.8 at portrait distances.
The Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro focuses much more closely offering a 0.5x magnification, and does not exhibit this behavior.
Jesse Evans wrote:
The Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro focuses much more closely offering a 0.5x magnification, and does not exhibit this behavior.
Hey, don't rub it in! We've been asking for a FE 35/1.8 for ages...being macro at 0.5x would be just fantastic for Sony shooters. Currently, the Batis 40/2 is the closest thing we have for that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hey, don't rub it in! We've been asking for a FE 35/1.8 for ages...being macro at 0.5x would be just fantastic for Sony shooters. Currently, the Batis 40/2 is the closest thing we have for that.
Hey I'm a Sony shooter too! I just want the RF 35mm in E mount 😁
Describing this aperture behaviour as ’cheating’ or something to ‘hide a flaw’ is nothing but an ignorant opinion. It is of course a design choice to bring in the close focus ability *and* superb image quality throughout the entire frame *and* throughout entire focusing range *at the same time*. Not sure if there are many other lenses that can pull this off (at this size). One should also note that there are many other lenses which also close down at close distances (Sony ones too) and many just haven’t heard of it before. You might not like it, or you might prefer other ways, but it isn’t ‘cheating’ or trying to ‘hide a flaw’. Zeiss is just too experienced for that – they do quite a bit more optical design than the usual camera companies like Canon or such. Processor lithography, medical optics, optics for Cern and stuff like that which requires a bit more than the usual consumer products.
Another thing worth pointing out is that measuring the aperture behaviour from the lens oled-display isn’t really an exact way of doing it. The oled-display doesn’t provide exact measurements of the distance (it’s calculated and only theoretical) and it doesn’t count effective focal length, for example. When the lens focuses on different distances its focal length changes, probably even more with the floating focusing unit which the Batis 40 has. Maybe part of it (at the further distances) is just a way of lens keeping the constant f/2 aperture while the effective focal length changes.
The real problem is that many have done their own measurements and presented them as exact knowledge of the aperture behaviour (me included). However, this is just not true, because none of us have the detailed knowledge and most of us haven’t exactly measured anything – we have really just gazed in the lens and tried to estimate how it changes with a bare eye. I hope Zeiss will publish table of exact aperture values and distances (I’ve asked them to add this into technical data document).
Kalainen wrote:
Describing this aperture behaviour as ’cheating’ or something to ‘hide a flaw’ is nothing but an ignorant opinion. It is of course a design choice to bring in the close focus ability *and* superb image quality throughout the entire frame *and* throughout entire focusing range *at the same time*. Not sure if there are many other lenses that can pull this off (at this size).
Sorry to say that but a mindset like this is the key of the problem.
1) The close focus ability has nothing to do with the actual optical quality. Good example: Laowa 2/15
2) It is nice to have that quality but why can't a manufacturer leave it up to the customer to choose between speed, depth of field and image quality? I feel ridiculed in being a photographer if Zeiss really thinks that I can't choose what I actually need.
Kalainen wrote:
The real problem is that many have done their own measurements and presented them as exact knowledge of the aperture behaviour (me included).
We can only document what we experience. This is also as close as you can get to the real world usage.
Always happy to be subject of personal attacks. If one feels the need to defend a brands choices by claiming everyone else is ignorant, that is their perogative. I have seen no evidence that the Zeiss Batis 40mm offers any image quality that is better or worse than equivalently expensive lenses. All I have seen is that some people are happy with the lens in spite of its flaws. For those people I am happy.
For people quoting Zeiss marketing materials as objective truth, I hope you also are happy at the end of the day, and the lens makes you happy.
Thanks for the comments Jannik, I'll have to disagree.
No not really, just kidding, happy to see you commenting. And nice to have your insight here about the Batis 40 too
Few comments for the comments:
Jannik Peters wrote:
1) The close focus ability has nothing to do with the actual optical quality. Good example: Laowa 2/15
I think it does. When the focus distance changes the angle of the rays of light also changes which makes the optical design react in a different way. If the focusing distance would not have any effect on optical performance then every lens could effectively be a macro lens. But because the focusing distance matters optical performance of the optical system, the macro lenses are designed separately. The close focus lens is positioned somewhere between macro and normal lens, it's streched design somewhere between.
Jannik Peters wrote:
2) It is nice to have that quality but why can't a manufacturer leave it up to the customer to choose between speed, depth of field and image quality? I feel ridiculed in being a photographer if Zeiss really thinks that I can't choose what I actually need.
It's a good question and my theory here is that Zeiss emphasizes so much the high image quality that they don't want to put out a product that would have a not-zeiss-standard image quality on some corner. In other words they want to reach that high standard at the close focus region also *and* also offer close focus ability as a part of the lens concept - so they needed to make a compromise in other aspect. A minor compromise in my eyes, thought others might feel differently and they are of course right to do so. But besides that isn't lens design all about choosing compromises, so every lens have their compromises. For example Otus lenses: too big and too expensive, at least from my point of view.
Jannik Peters wrote:
We can only document what we experience. This is also as close as you can get to the real world usage.
I agree, but I would love to base the discussion to *real numbers*. This is why I think zeiss could publish them. And while we know the aperture behavior will change after the coming fw-update, the information shared here is getting old pretty soon - yet, I'm sure the info about the earlier aperture behaviour will circle around even after that and shape people's views about it even if it is not true any more. Zeiss sure could have played this release better, but at least we are finally getting the finalized version of the lens. Calling it beta version like you did is pretty good way of describing the current situation.
Jesse Evans wrote:
Always happy to be subject of personal attacks. If one feels the need to defend a brands choices by claiming everyone else is ignorant, that is their perogative. I have seen no evidence that the Zeiss Batis 40mm offers any image quality that is better or worse than equivalently expensive lenses. All I have seen is that some people are happy with the lens in spite of its flaws. For those people I am happy.
For people quoting Zeiss marketing materials as objective truth, I hope you also are happy at the end of the day, and the lens makes you happy. ...Show more →
Jesse, I didn't meant to attack on you, sorry for the badly chosen words, really. The last thing I want to do is to make someone feel bad here. I'm a Zeiss enthusiast, I don't deny it, and some things might rub me in the wrong way, but more importantly I think people should be treated fair. If you felt bad about my comment I want to apologize. The Batis could be better or worse, but it really doesn't matter compared to respecting people and their opinions. I should have said that I don't think that aperture behavior is there just because the optical design turn out as good as they thought. I believe it was designed to work like that from the beginning, Zeiss does model their lenses to a quite finished stage with their in-house modelling system Oasis.
But more importantly, please accept my apologies. Still friends?
Kalainen wrote:
Jesse, I didn't meant to attack on you, sorry for the badly chosen words, really. The last thing I want to do is to make someone feel bad here. I'm a Zeiss enthusiast, I don't deny it, and some things might rub me in the wrong way, but more importantly I think people should be treated fair. If you felt bad about my comment I want to apologize. The Batis could be better or worse, but it really doesn't matter compared to respecting people and their opinions. I should have said that I don't think that aperture behavior is there just because the optical design turn out as good as they thought. I believe it was designed to work like that from the beginning, Zeiss does model their lenses to a quite finished stage with their in-house modelling system Oasis.
But more importantly, please accept my apologies. Still friends?
swldstn wrote:
macro lenses don’t do this because they are only f/2.8 and not f/2
I don't have a ton of experience with macro lenses, only two, really: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro and EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - both obviously from Canon. I don't recall what happens with the 100 but with the 60, it ABSOLUTELY DOES stop down the max aperture automatically at close distances. I don't know the exact amount off-hand, but I remember that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 stops. I also know that this is NOT an uncommon occurrence in macro lenses.
In fact, I'd wager that there are a number of lenses out there designated as macro and even others which aren't which stop down automatically as they approach the minimum focusing distance. One of these days, I'll check into the Batis 25, 85, and 135 that I have. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see at least one of them which also stops down at closer focusing distances.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
I don't have a ton of experience with macro lenses, only two, really: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro and EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - both obviously from Canon. I don't recall what happens with the 100 but with the 60, it ABSOLUTELY DOES stop down the max aperture automatically at close distances. I don't know the exact amount off-hand, but I remember that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 stops. I also know that this is NOT an uncommon occurrence in macro lenses.
In fact, I'd wager that there are a number of lenses out there designated as macro and even others which aren't which stop down automatically as they approach the minimum focusing distance. One of these days, I'll check into the Batis 25, 85, and 135 that I have. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see at least one of them which also stops down at closer focusing distances....Show more →
You are mistaking the lens stopping down the aperture at close distances with the physics of light and effective focal length that cause macro lenses to lose two stops of light at their minimum focus distance. Macro lenses at 1:1 reproduction ratios tend to lose two stops of light due to their change in back focus length.
If the Batis 40 were actually able to focus in macro distances, with a 1.0 magnification ratio it would lose 4 stops of light with this behavior. 2 stops from changing back focus distance, and 2 stops from closing it's aperture.
very good sharpness across the frame even wide open
low chromatic aberrations
close focusing
weight
weather sealing
fast and silent AF
low distortion
low coma
Average:
vignetting
size
bokeh
flare resistance
OLED display is nice to have but inaccurate
Not good:
unreliable Eye-AF (supposed to be fixed by firmware update)
unreliable AF-C below 1m distance
automatic aperture closing (will be fixed by firmware update until 0.6m)
non-linear manual focusing
sticky focus ring
price
Undefined sun stars
very good sharpness across the frame even wide open
low chromatic aberrations
close focusing
weight
weather sealing
fast and silent AF
low distortion
low coma
Average:
vignetting
size
bokeh
flare resistance
OLED display is nice to have but inaccurate
Not good:
unreliable Eye-AF (supposed to be fixed by firmware update)
unreliable AF-C below 1m distance
automatic aperture closing (will be fixed by firmware update until 0.6m)
non-linear manual focusing
sticky focus ring
price
Undefined sun stars
Another very informed, honest and straight forward review. Great job, Jannik.
Great review from what I have found is a dependable source. You guys at pr and all the awesome Sony lens-reviews can actually be listed as a reason in the pros for going Sony 😊
Since I find I often agree with you on most subjective parameters of lenses I'm going to wait until April to decide on the B40. I really want good AF on this thing for kids and the like, so I am still happy I cancelled my preorder when I saw the nonagons. The 135GM Sony released today is just too heavy for me, so I'll keep the Batis 135 and pair my cv40 with this Batis 40 if the firmware fix nails the AF and shortfocus issues.
It's a good question and my theory here is that Zeiss emphasizes so much the high image quality that they don't want to put out a product that would have a not-zeiss-standard image quality on some corner. In other words they want to reach that high standard at the close focus region also *and* also offer close focus ability as a part of the lens concept - so they needed to make a compromise in other aspect. A minor compromise in my eyes, thought others might feel differently and they are of course right to do so. But besides that isn't lens design all about choosing compromises, so every lens have their compromises. For example Otus lenses: too big and too expensive, at least from my point of view. ...Show more →
This is interesting. My take: you are both right, but in this case, probably because this lens for many buyers is intended to be their go to "normal/35"-lens, the cons of the aperture closing behaviour (nonagons in portraits, less isolation, less light) just outweigh the pros that Zeiss intended by too much. They took it too far. The fact that Zeiss are actually releasing new firmware that fixes this is tantamount to admitting that, in my view. I can see their dilemma here, and had this been a real macro lens I dont think so many potential buyers would have reacted so vehemently. It's not though. This was marketed as the do everything-lens, with a bit of close focus. The eye-af and af-c issues are just really, really wierd. How did the company that made the Otus-line miss that? Really hope they fix it.
