juicer wrote:
I'm sure it's a sharp lens. But with the stop sign bokeh, bulky shape, fly by wire mf, Batis blurry sunstars... $1400 is way too much for all those trade offs. Sharp is nice, but since sharpness is a given in most lenses, it's the last thing I look at.
Agree if it’s you most single lens in a focal length than you want it all. I have a whole MF kit for that. On this lens don’t go by my comments because it’s a money making lens to do PR crap. So it will pay itself almost immediately but if your looking for color, rendering and look than grab the CV 40. For me I have 2 25 2 85 and a CV 50 plus others so I can run out with my ART kit or run out and go do a gig.
But if your after one 40 is wait see real test results from folks here and than decide. If I was not a Pro and looking at 1400 than I would have question marks .
I like the sample images I've seen so for. I think color rendition are really nice, contrast is good and it seems well corrected for CA. It had that "modern" Batis look, which is different from Loxia lenses, but still great. I hope B&H adds it to its EDU special catalog soon.
I like the sample images I've seen so for. I think color rendition are really nice, contrast is good and it seems well corrected for CA. It had that "modern" Batis look, which is different from Loxia lenses, but still great. I hope B&H adds it to its EDU special catalog soon.
norwegiandude wrote:
The Batis 40 is exiting. I was hoping it would be a CV 40 with autofocus that starts at f2. The sample images I have seen so far shows it is probably not. But I have faith in Zeiss, and I really think this lens will be better than what we have seen so far.
I think they will have very distinctive characters.
Without even trying the Batis, I'm sure it will perform way better at close distances compared to the Voigtlander 40/1.2. Like other Batis lenses, it has a floating group that ensures great performance at MFD and infinity.
The B40's transition zone looks noticeably smoother compared to the Voigt's. At f/2 for both lenses, I have a feeling I will prefer the Batis rendering but will compare them side-by-side. The CV 40/1.2 really shines at "f/1.2" at mid-distance and that's something the new Batis won't be able to match.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The CV 40/1.2 really shines at "f/1.2" at mid-distance and that's something the new Batis won't be able to match.
I agree, and that 1.2-look is probably why I’ll keep the voigtlander. I don’t really mind the close focus-performance or the frinigng on the CV - I guess its an aspect of character that I enjoy. Also: creating images with a fully manual lens of this difficulty somehow gives me a feeling of accomplishment. I guess that doesnt matter to other people looking at the pictures, but I’m the one spending the money 😀
Fred Miranda wrote:
Anyways, I requested one for review and will test it against many other lenses I own including the cv 40/1.2.
I hope the new lens sucks
For those who might get annoyed with the extended discussion, pix are from 4:05 to about 4:20 or so. I watched at 1080p and set it to 0.25x speed (sound off).
Bokeh looked really nice as did rendering. Even the close focus shot came out nice and I could spot a 'stop sign' bokeh ball against the building but it didn't bother me as much as I thought.
Can't decide if it's the medium (1080p video on web) but the closeups of eyes didn't have that 'pop' and sharpness that I would have expected.
Still can't make up my mind how much more this lens offers than my current Canon 35/2 IS on an MC-11...
Fred Miranda wrote:
From the samples posted so far, who is loving the 40/2 Batis rendering?
Nope. Even chiron’s imaginative postmodernist defence failed to convince me that those “angular bokeh stop-signs”, as ecarlino so accurately described them, enhance rather than detract from the image.
[Corrected: I wrongly attributed sentences from chiron's post to Fred.]
genji wrote:
Nope. Even Fred’s imaginative postmodernist defence failed to convince me that those “angular bokeh stop-signs”, as ecarlino so accurately described them, enhance rather than detract from the image.
IMO, the Batis 40 renders like the 85mm so at least it's consistent. I have commented that the OOF area is high in contrast and not very smooth at mid-distance but don't recall posting an "imaginative postmodernist defense" for it...(Your words ) Could you refresh my memory?
Regarding the non-circular specular highlights: At first, I thought this could be caused by aperture mechanism variation as I've seen this effect wide-open in other lenses but after many other samples emerged, this phenomenon seems to only show up by design at close-up distance.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
I sent a message to Zeiss via their website asking to understand what's causing this phenomenon and will copy and paste any reply that I receive.
Someone got back to me quickly asking for example images, I sent some (via link) and haven't heard back from them, despite emailing them 3 times. They've gone completely silent.
eyal wrote:
For those who might get annoyed with the extended discussion, pix are from 4:05 to about 4:20 or so. I watched at 1080p and set it to 0.25x speed (sound off).
genji wrote:
I was referring to these sentences in your post:
Putting the camera and lens in the image, as you describe it, is an example of a meta-reference: an aesthetic strategy that deliberately draws attention to how the image was produced, in this case by referring to an artifact produced by this particular lens. Such meta-references are a characteristic of postmodernist art practice.
My observation wasn't meant to be interpreted negatively. Rather I was pleasantly surprised to read your post because it argues for photographing in a way that subverts the conventional goal of transparently reproducing the world we see around us. Even so, meta-references can be difficult to do well and, to my eye, the bokeh stop-signs in the image of the car door lock represent an unconvincing example of putting the camera and lens in the image....Show more →
genji,
I think you are quoting the wrong guy...Please post a link where I wrote that.
For the record, I am not a fan of the polygons when shooting wide open. If that's how Zeiss designed this, it's a negative to me.
Fred Miranda wrote:
genji,
I think you are quoting the wrong guy...Please post a link where I wrote that.
For the record, I am not a fan of the polygons when shooting wide open. If that's how Zeiss designed this, it's a negative to me.
Please accept my apologies, Fred. I've added corrections and deleted the post in question. I think I'd best refrain from discussion about the Batis 40.
genji wrote:
Please accept my apologies, Fred. I've added corrections and deleted the post in question. I think I'd best refrain from discussion about the Batis 40.
No worries Genji, I just wanted to clarify that was not my quote.
