Carsten, thank you. This lens has the best WO resolution of all 50ish 1.4 or faster I have tried (CV, Canon FD Asph, Rokkor 58, Hexanon 57, Pentax 50 and Sigma 50, etc.). What is more appealing is the minimal haze (SA) at WO. CA control at WO is quite good, but certainly with extremely high contrast scene, I can still see tons of PFs (I don't know of any fast 50ish that wouldn't have this). Center is sharpest at f/4, while corner to corner sharpness (mostly because of FC) on APS-C would need f/8, much sharper than the Sigma (not saying much since the Sigma is quite weak when stopping down).
I got it from a collector so everything is mint condition. Mechanically, both the focus ring and the aperture ring are smooth and well-dampened.
Ah yes, I remember those shots now. I wanted to comment at the time but probably got distracted. The boke is sometimes wonderful, but at other times it is very swirly, as if there is significant mechanical vignetting or something. Under what circumstances do you see this?
The busy bokeh, I think, has more to do with how much SA is corrected than mech. vignetting. The Contax 35/1.4 has a similar behavior as well. From what I have seen, this one is quite similar to the Hexanon 60mm 1.2 (sharp WO with swirly bokeh at time). It might also have the painterly look bokeh that I have yet encountered. This is a good review of the Hexanon:
Nice as always Z :-)
hiepphotog: Really nice portrait :-)
is no secret to my pp on my flower pictures :-) use splittonnig when I edit my images to get the colors I want .. and sometimes also use Color Efex with to enhance details etc.
I would say that the spacing with the 25/2 would be better. 28 and 35 are not so different. I have not tried the 25/2, but it is meant to be very good, if you can put up with some dirty corners until stopped down. I own the 28/2 and love it, but it is a bit special, requiring avoiding certain types of subjects. It also has dirty corners, field curvature and heavy vignetting, but if you like the 35/2, I guess the vignetting doesn't bother you.
Xtobolic wrote:
I see people that have the 21, 35/2 and also a 28.
I'm thinking about this lens but I'm asking myself, and now you, if the 25/2 is a better choice. (IQ and FL wise).
I already got the 21 and 35/2.
thx!
Eventhough I agree with Carsten in principle, I personally would find it difficult to squeeze something between the 21 and the 35. The line up would be unnecessarily too crowded. I have solved this problem by opting for a 18/25/35 line up, with consistent spacing. But if I had the 21/35, I would personally leave it at that.
