I will play:
1) CV 40/1.2 slightly stopped down where specular highlights are no longer rounded
2) Batis 40 (the giveaway is the cool temperature and slight outlining)
3) 50/1.4 ZA (perhaps stop-down to f/1.6 or f/1.8?) - Very sharp image with neutral rendering
4) Rendering is a bit funky and subject a little soft, so perhaps Helios 44M? (I like the look!)
5) Nikon? Creamy rendering. Very pleasant
6) Easy, it's the GM 24 because of the wider perspective
Hard to play because angle of view gives it away: easy to spot the two 58s, one of which is funky and one smooth so that settles those. Of course the 24 is still 35 in crop mode so that settles the last. That gives two shorter ones which are the 40s, and that settles the ZA as the only remaining one.
So the only ones to settle by rendering are the two 40s, and the two 58s, and Fred has done that for us correctly IMHO.
chez wrote:
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.
Never implied that, the opposite... many of us photographers maybe wouldn't justify the price of some pricey lenses, if they could not recognize something specific in each other, maybe those characteristics did not turn on emotions in each other the same way. So I am not surprised if "common" viewers can't recognize value of lenses in images they produce.
I find Sony 50/1.4 to fulfill my emotions, but Zeiss Otus 55, which cost 3 times, does not. But Sigma 50, which costs half, does not either (Leica Cron 50R can make me happy too).
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will play:
1) CV 40/1.2 slightly stopped down where specular highlights are no longer rounded
2) Batis 40 (the giveaway is the cool temperature and slight outlining)
3) 50/1.4 ZA (perhaps stop-down to f/1.6 or f/1.8?) - Very sharp image with neutral rendering
4) Rendering is a bit funky and subject a little soft, so perhaps Helios 44M? (I like the look!)
5) Nikon? Creamy rendering. Very pleasant
6) Easy, it's the GM 24 because of the wider perspective
Well, here is another comparison. Lets see if you guys get this one.
This time just the two 40s. Batis 40 and CV40 both shot handheld at F/2.0 and 1/5000 - ISO 100 on my A7R3. First shot is straight out of camera with cloudy WB, second is processed to taste with identical settings for both lenses except for exposure which is a tad higher on the one of the lenses since there is a bit of a difference in transmission.
The Batis has an inbuilt lens-profile, which the CV does not - it seems. Both lenses have LR-profiles as well, but they are not enabled for any of the images.
Well lens #1 has better edges than lens #2 based on that and my experience with the CV 40 f/1.2, I am guessing lens #2 is the CV 40, which doesn't do well that far out in the frame until stopped down quite a bit more. I was looking for sunstars or OOF highlights which would have given it away, but I couldn't find any.
Another little series, just to test how the 40s render - against my favorite 50-ish (the 58G Nikkor).
The Batis is very cold, and the colours quite muted. I like that, for a lot of things. The CV I also like though, with the technicolours.
Also notice that I don't trust the AF on the Batis. AF-C seems to be more accurate than AF-S, but I have to manually focus to be sure I get critical sharpness. Thats not good. I'm going to check if this is an issue with firmware on my camera or lens - or if its just this lens. Shot some runners today for hours with the B40 and most of the shots were really sharp with AF-C, so that makes little sense when I get back- and frontfocus on objects that are standing still no matter what AF I use.
I did a few more tests for sharpness, both by shooting the horizon at infinity and a silly test chart I taped to my wall. The results were the same as my initial impressions, my copy of this lens seems to be weak in the centre. It seems to be quite strong on the left - I actually think its AS sharp on the extreme left as in the centre. But weak on the right. Every lens I own beats it in the centre. The 24GM and 50ZA beat it handily in the centre at 1.4, and F2 its like night and day. The CV40 lags a little bit behind at 1.2 - of course, but at F2 its sharper and more contrasty. This Batis seems to be very strong on the left though, comparable to my 24GM - which is just awesome at everything. The centre and right side are just very poor though, compared to what I expected looking at samples and MTF-results. I would have thought it should be able to compete with the 50ZA in the centre when both are shot wide open, but its not even close.
I don't really need the lens to be super sharp at the extreme sides of the frame wide open for my shooting, if I shoot landscapes then I'll stop down and this copy of the lens had excellent corners on both sides at f4, but the centre-performance I do care about and this lens seems to be quite poor - to the point where I can actually see it clearly in the viewfinder when focusing manually. If focus is just a smidgeon off, there is kind of a veil over the image when shooting wide open. Stopping down to 2.5 fixes it. Never seen this before. I'm gonna send some samples to Zeiss and see what they say. I'm pretty sure this lens is supposed to perform at lot better than this in the centre wide open, so I'm hoping this is a lemon.
So, after shooting about 2000 images with the lens over the past few days I have decided that I want a Batis 40 in my kit.
Pro:
The lens feels REALLY light. I love my 50ZA, but I'd rather have the Batis 40 on my shoulder when I'm out and about.
40mm is great. I like it better than 35 and 50, feels more natural to me. My CV40 seems to be a tad wider than this Batis, so maybe its actually a real 40? I don't know, I love both my 40s though. The 50 feels to cramped, and the 35 is a bit too wide. I prefer 24 for wide and if I go long, I'd rather go 135. In cropmode 60 is ok in a pinch.
In AF-C shooting moving targets the lens is crazy fast. Faster than my 135 Batis, which is the fastest lens I have tried so far. I shoot a lot of sports, and some of it requires a normal viewpoint. This lens kills at this. Very accurate as well. I shot about 1k pictures of about 100 runners today, and I got a surprising amount of keepers.
Close focus is awesome. I have never owned a macro lens, never had the interest for it. Now I do. Like everyone else is saying: This is a jack of all trades-lens. I could take this and only this and be happy if I'm traveling. I won't of course. My new travel set will be the 24GM (or 18 Batis if I'm going nightscape-shooting) - Batis 40 and Batis 135.
The clean, cold and accurate colours the lens produces is just gold for my work, where stuff needs to look as real as possible. But then, I prefer the Pixel over the iPhone. I don't want to look "warm". To each his own. If I'm shooting for myself then I might reach for the CV40, which makes more of a bang colour-wise.
When you take the hood off it doesn't look very imposing, it actually (to my eyes) fits the A7RIII quite nicely. Not as diminutive as the Zony 35/2.8 or CV40, but still quite discrete - which I also value highly.
Con:
The hood sucks. Way too big and makes the lens look absurdly big. I won't use it much though.
The AF-accuracy when shooting wide open is plain bad, at least for this copy. I find the 50ZA - which isn't exactly my most accurate lens - to be a lot better when shooting stuff that doesn't move. If it moves, and I'm using AF-C - its quite accurate though. This is really strange, and hopefully some firmware-issue or something to do with my copy, which has bad centre-performance in general. I hear some people report issues with AF at around 1 meter, so it could also be this. This is a dealbreaker. If this is something inherent to this lens - I'll get rid of it. Hopefully it isn't.
Centre-performance is just plain weak. But again, I think this is just my copy. So I'll return or get this one fixed and see if another copy will do the trick. If not, I'll have to stick to my CV40 and keep using the 24GM in crop-mode for AF (which is ok, but not optimal).
Some more shots of the unicorn in the woods and some portrait snaps inside with a single bounce flash. Outside I had to tweak exposure a bit to get them similar because of clouds, inside shots are made with the exact same settings - no post processing, no sharpening. All shots at F2 and ISO 100.
I'm not really a lens tester, as my efforts here have proven - and when I actually got the positioning of both subject and lens in relation correct it seems that the Batis is about as sharp in the centre at F2 as my 50ZA, so I'm not gonna complain about sharpness. Rendering and contrast lend themselves more to reportage, travel and events than portraits - and that close focus is just very handy. I haven't decided yet which lenses are staying and which are going, I know I'll keep my CV40, Nikkor 58G and 24GM, since they are MF, unique and a different focal lenght entirely. I'm very reluctant to discard my 50ZA, and I absolutely love the Batis - so maybe I'll just keep them all for now.
Anyways, here are some outside and inside shots. Same order for both sets: Batis 40, CV40, 50ZA, 58G and 24GM
Thanks for these great comparisons. I’m really enjoying seeing these. I’m looking at buying the Batis 40 and 24GM and your examples are just the thing!
Fantastic examples + comparisons... love the variety of the backgrounds as well !
Keep us updated re: if they give you another copy of the Batis / anything changes
CharlesX1337 wrote:
Fantastic examples + comparisons... love the variety of the backgrounds as well !
Keep us updated re: if they give you another copy of the Batis / anything changes
Thanks a lot! I got a reply from Zeiss, and they asked med to supply them with two example photos with distance-measurements, etc. Haven't got around to that yet because I have found that sharpness and AF-accuracy varies a bit depending on distance. After figuring this out, and doing some more controlled tests I found that in many instances this lens is actually as sharp as my VERY sharp 50ZA in the centre, and a lot better in the corners. I'll have to do some more testing before I reply to Zeiss, as it seems it could be my own failings in testing the lens that have given me some shoddy results.
AmbientMike wrote:
Wondering how accurate the exposure is on these lenses, since some are noticeably brighter.
Not that 1/3-1/2 stop off is a big deal, usually.
There is a very distinct difference in transmission between the lenses used. The CV40 lets in about half a stop more light at F2 than the Batis, for instance. Also, I'm not a pro lens tester - but I have tried as best I could to keep the exposures equal.
Here are some shots from a recent hike. These are edited, so perhaps not so useful. I really like the 40mm FL as a one lens-solution for an entire day of walking around, and the CV40 has been my go to-lens there for a year now. I still prefer the CV40-rendering, but this one has AF. It is also sharp, light and has the ability to go really close. I took a lot of people shots during the trip as well, and really liked the results. The subjects are shy however, so I can't share.
tsdevine wrote:
I see the depth in your shots that I see from my Batis. The CV40 is a great lens and I'm tempted to pick one up. But the Batis is no slouch either.
-Tim
Agreed. And autofocus sure is handy when stuff you want to capture moves. For me the CV40 might be the ultimate lens in terms of rendering, size weight, etc. I absolutely love mid-range 1.2-shots of people, and I am getting quite good at MF which is great fun on the A7R III - but if something moves, most of my shots will be blurry to a degree. So I just own both and use the CV when there are no kids or other fast and erratic objects around. I have trained the wife to move slowly and with great consistency around the CV40, and that helps
