darrellc
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Had the Batis 40 pre and post firmware and two copies of it. Have Sigma 45 now.
Batis 40, if you get a good copy (my first copy couldn’t AF accurately, Zeiss confirmed and replaced under warranty) and update to latest firmware is pretty good in terms of AF.
I tested it fairly extensively against my FE 35/1.8 for my primary use cases - shooting my kids at 0.75-2m and for video of same and ended up switching to the FE 35/1.8.
I found the FE 35/1.8 was smoother and more confident (less hunting) in focus transitions for video and had much less focus breathing (almost none compared the quite evident breathing on the Batis). But the Batis wasn’t bad relative to many lenses, just noticeably worse than the FE 35/1.8.
For stills, I tested eye AF in AF-C and shot a bunch with both lenses. I’d say the FE 35/1.8 nailed eye autofocus on average 9/10 shots and the Batis 40 nailed it maybe 7.5/10 shots. No difference in AF-S and no difference beyond the 3-5 feet or so distance i was testing for head and upper torso portraits. Note that the FE 35/1.8 is the best native AF lens I’ve ever had (haven’t had the GM 135 but most of the rest) so the Batis is pretty good. If I shot only stills I’d have kept the Batis. That being said, I do like the confidence I get with the FE 35/1.8 in stills and esp. in video.
The Batis is a better lens than the FE 35/1.8 for stills in terms of IQ, especially wide open (Batis pretty sharp edge to edge even at f/2). Much better color correction with the Batis, no coma, etc. And build quality seems much, much better than the FE 35/1.8. I don’t have much confidence in the weather sealing of the FE 35/1.8. I’ve never had problems with Batis lenses in bad weather and Zeiss is fairly transparent about the testing they do for dust and moisture and seems robust (you can find articles on Batis testing by Zeiss). Bokeh can be wonky on both lenses, I can invoke horrible bokeh on both. I’d say that the FE 35/1.8 may have preferable bokeh at short to medium distances, but both break down with complex backgrounds like foliage.
In any case, I use this focal length for video a lot so I decided to let go of the Batis and use the FE 35/1.8. Not sure if it was the right decision, but looks like you can buy a used Batis 40 for cheap.
Sigma 45 is totally different. AF-C accuracy no where near Batis or FE 35/1.8, and you have to stop down to f/4 near MFD (it reminds me of the X100 lens in terms of how you manage sharpness at closer distances). AF accuracy also drops in low light compared to the other lenses. But a gorgeous look and super sharp stopped down. I found the FE 35 and Batis 40 were both quite punchy contrasty, so pleasing much of the time across a lot of subjects, but I do prefer the smoother, more “organic” look of the Sigma (reminds me of the GM look vs. the traditional Zeiss look).
|
