abadger wrote:
Very interesting. I had always heard of the nonagon bokeh with that lens, which actually doesn’t bother me too much. It’s great that they are (have already?) addressing it. I was also wary of the Batis 40 due to some AF issue as I recall. I wonder if that has been addressed through software updates?
In any case, thank you as always for the interesting background information.
Zeiss has indeed addressed the AF issues with the firmwire-update, which also changes aperture behaviour of the lens at close distances. For more about nonagons with the new firmwire, see here: https://30daysofbatis.com/blog?offset=1554752460834
As for the new Sony 35/1.8, I would like to add that it surely looks sharp and has a great contrast. However, the CA is pretty high, which probably is why Sony doesn't include it in their premium lineup. In fact, if the Batis 40 would show as much CA I would considered to be broken and would send it back for factory repair - other one being premium and the other one not kind of explains the price difference as well. That being said, not everybody has to go for premium and the Sony 35/1.8 is a fine lens loads of potential for great pictures. Great pictures do not require great lenses, but good lenses do make photography fun - and let's not kid ourselves here, sometimes great lenses (with FF and MF) also bring something to the table that often cannot be reproduced with lesser systems.
sderiis wrote:
As an aside, should I be posting the image in full resolution? They come off looking not as sharp for some reason when I post in a more limited size. I think you're better off clicking on the image and then scrolling through the album to get a better feel for the overall look of the pictures.
If this is about flickr, we are all aware of the effect, you can post them at the smaller size, we know how to interpret them.
Kalainen wrote:
Zeiss has indeed addressed the AF issues with the firmwire-update, which also changes aperture behaviour of the lens at close distances. For more about nonagons with the new firmwire, see here: https://30daysofbatis.com/blog?offset=1554752460834
As for the new Sony 35/1.8, I would like to add that it surely looks sharp and has a great contrast. However, the CA is pretty high, which probably is why Sony doesn't include it in their premium lineup. In fact, if the Batis 40 would show as much CA I would considered to be broken and would send it back for factory repair - other one being premium and the other one not kind of explains the price difference as well. That being said, not everybody has to go for premium and the Sony 35/1.8 is a fine lens loads of potential for great pictures. Great pictures do not require great lenses, but good lenses do make photography fun - and let's not kid ourselves here, sometimes great lenses (with FF and MF) also bring something to the table that often cannot be reproduced with lesser systems.
I actually went and looked this up re: Batis 40/2, and while they have fixed some of the issues with AF, it is still not fully functional. Especially for close shots with eye-AF, which is a large part of what I shoot:
"Already the first test revealed that the Batis still showed front-focusing behavior in a significant portion of the test shots. During testing it seemed that at distances, where the aperture is about to close by one increment (i.e. ~.65m: 2.0–>2.2 | ~.5m: 2.2–>2.5 | ~.35m: 2.5–>2.8), front-focusing occured reliably."
"After the firmware update the Batis 2/40 still stops down automatically but only to f/2.8 and only from a distance of 0.65m. AF is now reliable at distances above 0.65m or with the aperture closed to at least 2.8. AF is still unreliable when the 2/40 is used wide open at closer distances which is a typical setting for tighter portraits. For a lens in this price range, this is simply unacceptable in my opinion."
abadger wrote:
I actually went and looked this up re: Batis 40/2, and while they have fixed some of the issues with AF, it is still not fully functional. Especially for close shots with eye-AF, which is a large part of what I shoot:
"Already the first test revealed that the Batis still showed front-focusing behavior in a significant portion of the test shots. During testing it seemed that at distances, where the aperture is about to close by one increment (i.e. ~.65m: 2.0–>2.2 | ~.5m: 2.2–>2.5 | ~.35m: 2.5–>2.8), front-focusing occured reliably."
"After the firmware update the Batis 2/40 still stops down automatically but only to f/2.8 and only from a distance of 0.65m. AF is now reliable at distances above 0.65m or with the aperture closed to at least 2.8. AF is still unreliable when the 2/40 is used wide open at closer distances which is a typical setting for tighter portraits. For a lens in this price range, this is simply unacceptable in my opinion."
Did I miss anything more recent? ...Show more →
I saw Jannik's report about month ago and attemped to test it with a static object. I tested my lens with the A7 and A7III - and I could not reproduce it. See more here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4419599
Many other users have also reported that their copy works as it should. I have no reason to doubt Jannik's report, I just cannot reproduce it myself. Ever since the A7III was announced there has been random reports saying Eye-AF not working with different lenses (regardless of the brand). Crossing my fingers here with my A7III...
Kalainen wrote:
I saw Jannik's report about month ago and attemped to test it with a static object. I tested my lens with the A7 and A7III - and I could not reproduce it. See more here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4419599
Many other users have also reported that their copy works as it should. I have no reason to doubt Jannik's report, I just cannot reproduce it myself. Ever since the A7III was announced there has been random reports saying Eye-AF not working with different lenses (regardless of the brand). Crossing my fingers here with my A7III...
I've already sunk my money into the 35/1.8, so I'll probably just wait it out to see if there is any update on the issue before going a different direction. Especially because I do quite like the 35/1.8 despite it not being perfect. I had such trouble with the Samyang AF 85/1.4 at first with AF-C and front focusing (fixed for the most part with firmware) that this report about the Batis just scared me a bit. Plus where I am, you just can't return things for whatever reason and it has to be deemed serious enough to have to claim warranty instead. I'd have to wait to be back in the USA for a trip to buy and potentially return if there were an issue. Or, rent, I suppose.
Appreciate your testing and feedback, it looks like the Batis 40/2 would work for most people. Those that can should probably try out both lenses first before making prejudgments it seems. The 35/1.8 AF for me locks on extremely well for family shots, produces crisp images, has nice color. I'll have to post process the CA if it is noticeable and work on scenarios where the background bokeh is too busy to try to get the best shot, but on the whole this has been a very minor issue for me.
No lens is perfect but I am finding this 35 to be the reportage/documentary/street lens I have been waiting for ever since I first bought an A7. It is small, lightfast focussing, sharp across the frame wide open etc etc.
tonychen wrote:
Any onion rings in the first pic? Using my phone now and cannot peek at the details.
As for onion rings, I see none whatsoever. This lens does a great job in that respect. Although I have noticed some bokeh balls that are 'doubled?' As in, two bokeh balls on top of one another and very slightly separated. Can anyone explain this concept to me? Sometimes it is there, sometimes not.
abadger wrote:
As for onion rings, I see none whatsoever. This lens does a great job in that respect. Although I have noticed some bokeh balls that are 'doubled?' As in, two bokeh balls on top of one another and very slightly separated. Can anyone explain this concept to me? Sometimes it is there, sometimes not.
Most likely you have two specular reflections / light sources very close to each other.
vdo1 wrote:
Most likely you have two specular reflections / light sources very close to each other.
I know what you are saying, but I’m not sure that is it. I am struggling to explain what I mean by this and I can’t seem to find a great example I can share of my own, though I know I have seen it from a single light source. Take a look at p.2 #19 (keyboard) from this thread. Some of the bokeh balls look to be experiencing various stages of mitosis, for lack of a better term. Almost like there is a ghosted image on top of the original, just a hair off. Wondering what explains this phenomenon.
I recall seeing an image from my test shots where there was a single halogen spot light above my son’s head, and yet two bokeh balls appeared from the one light source like a solar eclipse mirroring each other. Not sure if there is a certain scenario where this is more likely to occur, or if there is any possibility of a (clear) lens filter having a ghosting effect?
I can certainly test it out for myself at some point but was curious if this is a known phenomenon for lenses in general. Also if this is too off topic I can move it to another thread. Appreciate your input.
abadger wrote:
I know what you are saying, but I’m not sure that is it. I am struggling to explain what I mean by this and I can’t seem to find a great example I can share of my own, though I know I have seen it from a single light source. Take a look at p.2 #19 (keyboard) from this thread. Some of the bokeh balls look to be experiencing various stages of mitosis, for lack of a better term. Almost like there is a ghosted image on top of the original, just a hair off. Wondering what explains this phenomenon.
I recall seeing an image from my test shots where there was a single halogen spot light above my son’s head, and yet two bokeh balls appeared from the one light source like a solar eclipse mirroring each other. Not sure if there is a certain scenario where this is more likely to occur, or if there is any possibility of a (clear) lens filter having a ghosting effect?
I can certainly test it out for myself at some point but was curious if this is a known phenomenon for lenses in general. Also if this is too off topic I can move it to another thread. Appreciate your input....Show more →
I'll need to test that, but I also had so many false alarms about ghosting with filters, that now I don't really pay much attention. Last one was with pics in a restaurant with nice chandeliers, when I got home and inspected the photos, I saw something that looked like "ghost" chandeliers, and I blamed myself for not removing the UV filter. Upon revisiting the place I realized that they were reflections on a pane of glass that I didn't notice during the first visit.
Anyone do any portrait work with it? I was torn between saving money and getting this vs. the Sigma 35/1.2, opted for the Sigma. Hoping for validation and no heartburn.
beardedspoooon wrote:
Anyone do any portrait work with it? I was torn between saving money and getting this vs. the Sigma 35/1.2, opted for the Sigma. Hoping for validation and no heartburn.
The Sigma is a lovely lens. Very very nice bokeh, IMO, and lots of it, and very little CA. Very nice sharpness even at its wide aperture, and very nice AF. It is huge of course, but you knew that before you bought it and if you can put it with the size it is a great lens especially for portraits.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Sigma is a lovely lens. Very very nice bokeh, IMO, and lots of it, and very little CA. Very nice sharpness even at its wide aperture, and very nice AF. It is huge of course, but you knew that before you bought it and if you can put it with the size it is a great lens especially for portraits.
I may end up getting the 35/1.8 anyway. I need a travel option, and debating between the 35 and the Tamron 17-28. Once I recover from the splurge of course.
