I'm testing out the Batis 40 at the moment. I have more lenses in the 40-58-range than I'm likely to use enough so I'm probably going to have to get rid of at least one. Great excuse for some testing.
For the first test I wanted to see how they handled a portrait semi-close indoors. I often shoot people indoors at this range for work. So I inspired by the 100STF bear-test that was posted here earlier I took some "portraits" of my daughters horse-toy and upped the distance incrementally for the longer lenses to try and keep things equal. I failed, but I'm not pretending this is a scientific comparison - so yeah. I shot all the lenses at f2 on the A7R3. The Batis 40 was shot at about 80 cm, which with firmware 2 means it was actually wide open.
All images were taken at the same shutter speed and ISO, and equal WB (4350+25).
The lenses used were the GM24 (crop mode), Helios 44M, FE 50/1.4, Nikkor 58/1.4G, CV40 and the Batis 40.
I'll post some 100% landscape at infinity-comparisons for sharpness and contrast and and bokeh-comparisons later. Windy conditions with dust in the air made outdoor-shooting less than desirable today, but I'll try my luck tomorrow.
Can anyone see which is which here based on web-sized (1920px) images without actually looking at the file names?
I don't think it is too hard to tell them apart. There are lots of clues, different angle of view, different bokeh, different amount of aberrations. I think they are:
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think it is too hard to tell them apart. There are lots of clues, different angle of view, different bokeh, different amount of aberrations. I think they are:
Interesting! By focal length 1 & 2 seem to be the 40s; #3 seems to the 50; 4 & 5 seem to be the 58s; and #6 seems to be widest so the 36. By bokeh, #5 is the most diffuse so should be the Nikon G 58, and #1 has non round highlight so ought to be the Batis 40 (as it is I believe the only lens that stopped down automatically close up even when set wide open). From there I just used a process of elimination. I now realize that #2 should have been the CV 40 (as it is the other 40) and #6 should have been the GM 24 f/1.4 as it is widest. It seems, however, that #44 has to be the other 58 and therefore the Helios, and #3 has to the one 50, so I am not sure where I messed up beyond the inversion of the CV 40 and GM 24 f/1.4.
Edit: oops now I see it. The lenses were all stopped down to f/2--I should have read more carefully so #1 is the CV 40, #2 is the Batis 40, and #6 is the GM 24 f/1.4 in crop mode. At least I got the 50ish lenses right.
Have no idea which is which, but I'd definitely keep the lens that produces #3 and scrap the one that did #4. #6 looks good too but it must be a rather different FL, so I'll guess 24mm here.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Interesting! By focal length 1 & 2 seem to be the 40s; #3 seems to the 50; 4 & 5 seem to be the 58s; and #6 seems to be widest so the 36. By bokeh, #5 is the most diffuse so should be the Nikon G 58, and #1 has non round highlight so ought to be the Batis 40 (as it is I believe the only lens that stopped down automatically close up even when set wide open). From there I just used a process of elimination. I now realize that #2 should have been the CV 40 (as it is the other 40) and #6 should have been the GM 24 f/1.4 as it is widest. It seems, however, that #44 has to be the other 58 and therefore the Helios, and #3 has to the one 50, so I am not sure where I messed up beyond the inversion of the CV 40 and GM 24 f/1.4.
Edit: oops now I see it. The lenses were all stopped down to f/2--I should have read more carefully so #1 is the CV 40, #2 is the Batis 40, and #6 is the GM 24 f/1.4 in crop mode. At least I got the 50ish lenses right....Show more →
Thats just plain impressive that is. Spot on. I'd never have been able to eyeball that. The Helios and 24GM are pretty easy to spot, but telling the B40 and CV40 apart would have been hardt I think. I was actually surprised at how cold the Batis is. I knew it would be more clinical than the CV40, which has super-awesome technicolour-colours (one of the reasons I love it), but the difference was quite stark.
Now this is cause for concern. Hope I did something wrong, or else I'd say my copy of the Batis 40 has some serious issues. It seems to be sharper in the edges of the frame than in the centre. I redid the test image three times, and manually focused it on the last round to make sure focus was spot on in the centre. Or maybe the FE 50 is just that good. I'm definitely not happy with the centre-performance of this Batis 40 though.
Edit: I believe I actually did do something wrong here, better sharpness comparisons can be found on page two of this thread.
Left extreme looks identical for both lenses to my eyes. But the centre-performance of the Batis certainly looks wonky.
EDIT: I don't know what went wrong here, or how - since I redid these tests three times, but something must have. Extensive tests after this have shown that my copy of the Batis 40 is not as bad as these images may indicate. I'd say the centre-performance at F2 has some variation depending on distance, though. Certainly all of my actual use of this lens in the field has shown excellent results for sharpness, so I'm writing this off as an abberation.
I think the vignetting plus much more lighter center makes Voigt shots recognizable by a long margin,even when not excessively strong as in such a comparison.
It's also evident that 97% of viewers would not distinguish each other lens characteristics, but then they maybe does not distinguish a good from an excellent photo either...
fadeslayer wrote:
I think the vignetting plus much more lighter center makes Voigt shots recognizable by a long margin,even when not excessively strong as in such a comparison.
It's also evident that 97% of viewers would not distinguish each other lens characteristics, but then they maybe does not distinguish a good from an excellent photo either...
A good versus an excellent photo has so little to do with the gear and so much to do with the emotion in the photo, the light, the composition, the subject etc... Let's not imply a great photo can only be made with the top notch gear.
norwegiandude wrote:
Thats just plain impressive that is. Spot on. I'd never have been able to eyeball that. The Helios and 24GM are pretty easy to spot, but telling the B40 and CV40 apart would have been hardt I think. I was actually surprised at how cold the Batis is. I knew it would be more clinical than the CV40, which has super-awesome technicolour-colours (one of the reasons I love it), but the difference was quite stark.
