All only based on my subjective impression. In other words, I have not tried to do any analytical comparison. I really like both lenses and intend to keep them around. saaketham wrote:
How would you rate the following 2 of the z 35 f/1.8 and z 50 f/1.2?
- background blur
They are both good in my view, however, you can’t defeat physics. 50/1.2’s bokeh is larger, and superb. It is only fair to say superior to 35/1.8. However, l really like 35/1.8s bokeh rendering too. 35/1.8 has surprised me repeatedly with the background isolation. Some people mentioned bokeh is nervous on 35. I have not felt that myself so far.
- sharpness wide open
Thanks
Rationally, 35/1.8s should appear sharper wide open. However, it tends to be 50/1.2s images that give me the impression of sharpness wide open more often. 50/1.2 is phenomenal. It is as if the lens has deeper depth of field, but it is not. I wonder if it is in the characteristics of focal transition that gives such impression. It is clean, but I don’t feel it is sterile. It is like a very good spring water, not a distilled water.
Haven't posted here in a while. Been in a bit of a slump with my photography for most of this year, not sure why. But I'm feeling some twinges of interest again. Yay!
Luftwalk wrote:
Had some fun in the snow today. At one point she got a snowflake in her ear, hence the funny position.
Lens used was a: AF-S 300mm/2.8 II
