Which Ultimate all-around lens: Sony 55m f/1.8 or Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2?

Think longer term. Get the 55 now and add a Batis 25 later and you will wind up with two very good and very light primes suitable for travel. The 40 is not wide enough for many situations and the 55 can be used for full or half body portraits - head shots can look great too if you step back a bit and crop.

Best on what you described, I think Batis 40mm would work best for you. The 55mm is kinda tight for single lens combo. You can always add 85mm later

55 is too tight to shoot my 2 year old. Don't forget you can always make the 40mm to be a 60 by going to APSC mode. I have the 55mm and Batis 25. Recently added the 24GM and planning on getting the 28-75 Tamron. The 24GM really shines when it is low light or I need faster shutter to capture my son's movement.

FE55 is my favorite lens because of its size, weight (it's lighter, shorter, and narrower than the Batis by a good margin), and fast AF. I use it for taking pictures of my two little kids all the time. 40mm is a great FL, though, and 55 is sometimes too tight for indoor shots of groups.

As others say, I'd think about what other lenses will round out your kit. I often travel with the ultra-small CV21 and Samyang 35/2.8, plus the FE55. They are all sub-300g lenses, the last two with fast AF, the first with a unique look and no real need for AF given the wider depth of field at that FL. This is a pretty tight 3-lens setup, though – I usually throw the 35 in just because it is so light (90g) and discreet. The 40 perfectly splits a 35 and 55, so you could do 1-lens outings easily. The CV21 (the Voigtlander Color-Skopar, super light and amazing rendering) or 24mm (the GM, super fast and great AF) could go with a 40, and then you could add an 85 for a great 3-lens setup (21/40/85). The 24GM and FE55 together would be a perfect gap, too. Alternatively, if you're chasing kids a lot or doing events with a single camera body, consider the Tamron zoom, then buy the one fast prime you really want for the special look you need (GM24 or 85/1.8 or GM135 even).

If I need longer, it's usually for cityscape or landscape stuff (I don't do portrait headshots much at all), and then I might bring my Olympus OM 100/2.8, which is also sub-300g. 21/55/100, combined weight of less than 800g, is great for me! Thinking of your lenses in pairs or 3s makes choices like this easier.

Can I suggest the Sony Zeiss 50 f/1.4? Gives you a slightly wider field of view than the 55 f/1.8, and a faster aperture.

I find this focal length perfect for shots of family/kids.

I had the 55 as my travel and general purpose lens before the B40 was released. The 55 is small and light and great for many situations but I I sold it once I picked up the B40. The B40 is a much better general FOV imo as it is much more usable for indoors and still works well for outdoors. It is a bit bigger but not that much heavier. I've been really happy with the B40 and sold not only my 55 but also my 50 f1.4.

--
Instagram: @sean.hew

happylearner said:

Hi everyone - I got a pretty tough dilemma here and I'd love to get your input.

I am about to get the A7 III, and I can't make up my mind as of which Prime to get as my single, all-around lens: the Sony 55m f/1.8 or Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2?

My photography types by descending order of priority/occurrence

1. Kids portraits / photography
2. Family portraits /events photography
3. Street photography
4. Landscape photography

Semi-macro is something I want to try out, either with the 40mm or 55mm with macro adapter

Of course, given my #1 priority of kids/family photography, AF and Eye AF performance must be top tier.

I tend to prefer the 40mm due to it's versatility, but I am worried that the wider FoV will required me to be super close to a subject for a shoulder-head portrait (or kids full body), which would result in less natural situation and "staged" looking portraits

On the other end, the 55mm seems to be perfect for this, but I am not sure how limiting it will be for events / street photography given the narrower FoV

Any input, especially from users who experienced both lenses, would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

ps: let's assume they are the same price, since I don't plan on getting more than 1 lens in the near future

Click to expand...

I have the 55 but will be switching it out for a Batis 40 as soon as funds permit. The 55 is great but it doesn’t close focus and it’s a bit too long in doors for me.

The not yet released but leaked by images Samyang 45/1.8 might be a contender.

They are both great lenses. Buy one and walk away happy.

I also have the 55 1.8 but prefer the Tamron 28-75 for indoors. It’s nice to be able to zoom to 28 if it’s tight. Sharp lens

For a single lens solution, the Batis 40.

The Batis 40 is just excellent.

For "normal" focal lengths, both the 55/1.8 and the 35/2.8 ate excellent . The 55/1.8 is the lens that first sucked me into the Sony system.

However, I find the 35 to be a wee bit too wide for normal. Yet not wide enough for landscapes. The 55, I find a bit too narrow, but not narrow enough for portraits.

The 40mm sits right in between and replaces my 35 and 55. It provides enough space for context, yet is narrow enough for some isolation. For a FOV comparison check out this page: https://30daysofbatis.com/blog?offset=1541085715208&reversePaginate=true

For any system, the normal is considered to be the size of the diagonal of the sensor. For FF 36 x 24mm, the diagonal is 43mm. So 40 is just right (reminds me of the Pentax FA 43).

In terms of images quality, the Batis 40 is just excellent. Great rendering and tack sharp wide open.

It also makes for a nice 2 or 3 lens combo. For Travel etc Batis 25/40 will make a nice combo. I have the Loxia 21, Batis 25/40/85/135 and Zony 35/55.

Thanks everyone it's all very helpful inputs!!

My remaining question is: how far of a subject would I have to stand in order to capture a head-shoulder portrait on the 40mm?

Having a hard time finding info on this, and this might help me settle my decision

Go for the 55 1.8. It is an awesome lens. And superb for portraits.

Of these two - I’d recommend that the Batis 40 is a far better ‘all-around lens’.

I love the 55 - but it has known issues with aberrations, contrast loss in strong light, and focus motor reliability. More importantly - 55 focal is tight for many use cases - making it a more specific lens than the 40. Also, the 55 has very poor minimum focus distance while the 40 is close focus.

LarryB2 said:

I also have the 55 1.8 but prefer the Tamron 28-75 for indoors. It’s nice to be able to zoom to 28 if it’s tight. Sharp lens

Click to expand...

Totally agree! Neither lens is optimum for shooting active kids.

Just finished shooting my 3 and 5 yrs old grandsons on their scooters with my Tamron and A7III. Blown away as not only did it enable a vastly wider range of images, but with AF-C, uncanny to watch the little eye-AF squares pop on fast-moving kids.

A fast zoom like the Tamron really eclipses mid-range primes. Real world shooting with primes is slow...and I have a slew of great ones, native and for my TechArt Pro. Even pixel peeping shows the Tamron hold its own against primes like my Leica Summicrons and Summilux.

And for travel and fast shooting, no sack of primes can touch the Tamron.

Larry, wonderful photos. And yes a zoom is more convenient. But there's something about the 55 1.8 that is magical to me. ---Arlene

W3PYF said:

LarryB2 said:

I also have the 55 1.8 but prefer the Tamron 28-75 for indoors. It’s nice to be able to zoom to 28 if it’s tight. Sharp lens

Click to expand...

Totally agree! Neither lens is optimum for shooting active kids.

Just finished shooting my 3 and 5 yrs old grandsons on their scooters with my Tamron and A7III. Blown away as not only did it enable a vastly wider range of images, but with AF-C, uncanny to watch the little eye-AF squares pop on fast-moving kids.

A fast zoom like the Tamron really eclipses mid-range primes. Real world shooting with primes is slow...and I have a slew of great ones, native and for my TechArt Pro. Even pixel peeping shows the Tamron hold its own against primes like my Leica Summicrons and Summilux.

And for travel and fast shooting, no sack of primes can touch the Tamron.

Click to expand...

Simply answering your question and not diversifying to other suggestions it would be the 40mm.

If your portraits were more headshots or outside portraits then I would go the 85mmF1.8 later. For travel 40mm is a compromise as you would need the 16-35 zoom of just get the Tamron as suggested by others.

I have both these lenses and if you are restricted to choosing just one of these two lenses at the moment then the straightforward answer is the Batis 40 CF due to it’s far greater versatility.

Go Batis. The 55mm is too long. Also, it lacks contrast and it is prone to flare.
It is an old-fashioned lens if that's what you like.
I have had the 55mm for a long time, already for the A6000. It just does not cut it with the more modern designs. I used it only this morning. Honestly, I cannot understand what the hype is about. It is dull.

This is my opinion.

--
"If your pictures are not good enough, you need to buy some more stuff from Amazon"
(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon)