In comparing the center sharpness test of the Batis v. the 50 Zony I see two things that hurt the Batis and make the comparison look worse than it should:
1- The Batis photo is underexposed which gives the impression of lower contrast. Take a look at the gray/white backgrounds of the two lenses and that tells the tale.
2- The focus point is set closer on the Batis photo. How much closer I can't tell but take a look at the upper gold trim ring which is sharper on the Batis. Then look at the lower white lens mounting spot on the 50 Zony photo and it is sharper, at 1.4 that should not be happening.
Thank you for your hard work on this post. Please consider amending your earlier comments on the Batis center sharpness for those who do get this far in the thread to read your changed conclusion.
goodbokeh wrote:
In comparing the center sharpness test of the Batis v. the 50 Zony I see two things that hurt the Batis and make the comparison look worse than it should:
1- The Batis photo is underexposed which gives the impression of lower contrast. Take a look at the gray/white backgrounds of the two lenses and that tells the tale.
2- The focus point is set closer on the Batis photo. How much closer I can't tell but take a look at the upper gold trim ring which is sharper on the Batis. Then look at the lower white lens mounting spot on the 50 Zony photo and it is sharper, at 1.4 that should not be happening....Show more →
Thanks for the input. You are of course correct! I have made an edit to the pictures of lenses, which was the very first sharpness test I did. I don't know what went wrong with that test, I actually manually focused the lenses on the same spot three times to get an equal result. I must have made some sort of mistake though, since I have since found that my copy of the Batis is indeed quite sharp in the centre, at least compared to the lenses I have tested it against (Batis 135, Zony 50ZA, CV40 and 24GM).
The comparison shots I made of the test chart (a bit later in page two) seems to be a much better indicator for close to medium-range sharpness. They also match what I am actually seing when I use the Batis and my other lenses.
I'll post an infinity comparison with the CV40 shortly.
Here's another set. Tried matching the white balance and exposure for the shots so they look as similar as possible. Nothing else has been done except default LR sharpening and conversion to JPG.
(1) the CV is clearly better in the center
(2) the Batis is clearly better in the extreme left/right
I wonder how much of this is due to lens (model) idiosyncracies with the geometry "bubble of sharpness"? For e.g., with the Zeiss ZE it is good to pull back focus a little from the center focus point to allow the "bubble" to capture the corners. Though maybe at f/2 it makes no difference? Would be interested in comparison at f/8
(1) the CV is clearly better in the center
(2) the Batis is clearly better in the extreme left/right
I wonder how much of this is due to lens (model) idiosyncracies with the geometry "bubble of sharpness"? For e.g., with the Zeiss ZE it is good to pull back focus a little from the center focus point to allow the "bubble" to capture the corners. Though maybe at f/2 it makes no difference? Would be interested in comparison at f/8
I'll agree with you on the second point, thats pretty easy to spot and the CV40 sure wasn't made for edge to edge sharpness in the 1.2-4 range. The Batis should and does thrash it. I'm no expert, but to my eyes I'd say they are pretty much the same in the centre though. Perhaps I see some more detail in the big tree in the foreground and the right-most white fence on the Batis shot, but other than that I'd say they are even. For all intents and purposes and for anything but 100% they look exactly the same to me in the centre. Which is an impressive feat for the CV40 I'd say. The lenses were both manually focused on the white house to the right, so for the centre-shots I'd say focusing should have yielded maximum results in the centre. I'm damn impressed by the uniformity of the Batis though, it is pretty sharp and contrasty right out to the edges at F2 - as far as I can tell.
And since you asked, it just so happens that I did shoot these two lenses at F4 and F8 as well. Here are the F8-crops:
norwegiandude wrote:
I'll agree with you on the second point, thats pretty easy to spot and the CV40 sure wasn't made for edge to edge sharpness in the 1.2-4 range. The Batis should and does thrash it. I'm no expert, but to my eyes I'd say they are pretty much the same in the centre though. Perhaps I see some more detail in the big tree in the foreground and the right-most white fence on the Batis shot, but other than that I'd say they are even. For all intents and purposes and for anything but 100% they look exactly the same to me in the centre. Which is an impressive feat for the CV40 I'd say. The lenses were both manually focused on the white house to the right, so for the centre-shots I'd say focusing should have yielded maximum results in the centre. I'm damn impressed by the uniformity of the Batis though, it is pretty sharp and contrasty right out to the edges at F2 - as far as I can tell.
And since you asked, it just so happens that I did shoot these two lenses at F4 and F8 as well. Here are the F8-crops:
... ...Show more →
You are right --- it was the tree in the foreground that caught my attention and was the primary factor separating the CV over the Batis.
As for the f/4 and f/8 shots ... wow! quelle différence!
The Batis clearly stands out as the winner here from center to extreme, close in foreground all the way to the back. The detail and contrast advantage are apparent even in the full views and are unmistakable in the 100% crops.
jeetsukumaran wrote:
You are right --- it was the tree in the foreground that caught my attention and was the primary factor separating the CV over the Batis.
As for the f/4 and f/8 shots ... wow! quelle différence!
The Batis clearly stands out as the winner here from center to extreme, close in foreground all the way to the back. The detail and contrast advantage are apparent even in the full views and are unmistakable in the 100% crops.
It can't be faulted for sharpness, no. Just tested the AF outside in failing light to test eye and face-AF after upgrading to 3.01. I got 26 sharp shots out of 28 AFC wide f2 iso 1000 and 1/400 of my wife hustling about the porch doing gardening. I was quite happy to see that.
Many thanks for all those nice images, the Batis seems to be quite nice. Too bad that you do not have the 35/1.4ZA in your comparison, would really like to have a closer look at their bokeh rendering. I am considering condensing my 35mm 1.4 ZA and 55mm 1.8 ZA into the 40 mm Batis. I find the 55mm too narrow when I am out and about with my kids, 40mm could be perfect. Really liked the FOV when using the 28mm F2 on APSC bodies. But the bokeh rendering and AF issues still shy me away. The 35mm F1.4 has some of the best wide-angle bokeh I have ever seen... (a7III, 35 mm f1.4 ZA @ 1.4)
Many thanks for all those nice images, the Batis seems to be quite nice. Too bad that you do not have the 35/1.4ZA in your comparison, would really like to have a closer look at their bokeh rendering. I am considering condensing my 35mm 1.4 ZA and 55mm 1.8 ZA into the 40 mm Batis. I find the 55mm too narrow when I am out and about with my kids, 40mm could be perfect. Really liked the FOV when using the 28mm F2 on APSC bodies. But the bokeh rendering and AF issues still shy me away. The 35mm F1.4 has some of the best wide-angle bokeh I have ever seen... (a7III, 35 mm f1.4 ZA @ 1.4)
Great 35ZA-review! I really love the rendering from the 35/1.4 as well. In many aspects similar to the 50ZA which I own and love. I never really noticed any of the issues people on this forum have reported with the lens I tried out. I did however find it to be too heavy for my tastes. The 50ZA is the only brick I'll allow in my bag, and I'm trying to find something that will replace it - but haven't found anything yet. As opposed to the Batis, I guess these are two very different lenses. 1.4 vs 2.0, with all that entails. The 35ZA has better OOF-rendering, bokeh and subject separation, because its 1.4 and generally has a more smooth and artistic/pleasant rendering. I'd guess the Batis has faster and more reliable AF (after the fix and 3.01) and is sharper both centrally and in the edges. What I do know is that the Batis is half the weight, which is the reason I'm going with the Batis. If I didn't care about weight, I'd probably own the 35ZA as well, since rendering > sharpness for me, and the 35ZA seems to be sharp enough.
Yes, the weight is the only downside of the 35 f1.4. If it was the size and weight of the 24GM, we would not be having this discussion The other problem is that it can be quite intimidating due to the large front element, which does not work well with the social situations I'd like to use it for.
Many thanks for the Bokeh/Foliage shots/crops, it is clearly a little less smooth than my 35. But as you say, one has to compromise that with size, weight and the intimidation factor. For me, a temporary workaround could be using the 24GM on a crop body, which would almost be like the Batis, though a bit wider and (presumably) with smoother bokeh. But then, using two different bodies in parallel has its own usability issues...
Flaxx74 wrote:
Yes, the weight is the only downside of the 35 f1.4. If it was the size and weight of the 24GM, we would not be having this discussion The other problem is that it can be quite intimidating due to the large front element, which does not work well with the social situations I'd like to use it for.
Many thanks for the Bokeh/Foliage shots/crops, it is clearly a little less smooth than my 35. But as you say, one has to compromise that with size, weight and the intimidation factor. For me, a temporary workaround could be using the 24GM on a crop body, which would almost be like the Batis, though a bit wider and (presumably) with smoother bokeh. But then, using two different bodies in parallel has its own usability issues... ...Show more →
I used the 24GM in cropmode for a while before I got the 40, and it's great both in terms of rendering and weight/size/handling. Problem is that you don't really get the same point of view that you would with a "real" 35 or 40. Things don't look quite the same. The example images earlier in this thread show what I'm talking about. And when I'm shooting 40 I prefer the look of the images I get from the Batis or CV40 to the GM in cropmode.
I have now have made a bokeh series with foliage in the background and varying distances to the object in front and added that to my 35f1.4ZA review on my webpage. This image is from the middle distance, about ~1-1.5 m away:
The other problem is that it can be quite intimidating due to the large front element, which does not work well with the social situations I'd like to use it for. 