photomadnz wrote:
Wow... Thats heavier then I thought it would be! Especially stopped down...
If it's Lateral CA, it actually gets worse as you stop down. But then to correct for LCA, it's only a click away in Lightroom. PF would be harder to correct.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's lateral CA which does not go away even at f/11.
Thanks for clarifying that.
For others who aren't aware, lateral CA shows purple on one side and teal on the other, while LoCA shows purple on all sides, and as mentioned. Longitudinal is a essentially a blur of different wavelengths and harder to fix, while lateral is a just a misalignment of colors
It’s about $400 less than I thought it’d cost, but still about $100 more than I wanted it to be for an instant “Buy it now, sell it later if necessary.”
Jul 09, 2019 at 04:06 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Wanny wrote:
Photos look great coming from this lens. I really think Sony would sell an insane amount of copies if it was in the 500-600 range
I like some of them, but it sure doesn't look like it will be a lens that landscape shooters are going to fall in love with. Lot's of CA. Not great in the corners even at f/5.6. Portraits shooter may well like it, however. Looks nice and sharp in the centre (and even out quite a ways from centre) and the bokeh is not too bad if you can live with the LoCA and the busy transition zone Fred noted earlier. The close ups looks nice to me too. We will see with more samples, but for landscapes I think the ZA 35 f/2.8 is going to be clearly preferred.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I like some of them, but it sure doesn't look like it will be a lens that landscape shooters are going to fall in love with. Lot's of CA. Not great in the corners even at f/5.6. Portraits shooter may well like it, however. Looks nice and sharp in the centre (and even out quite a ways from centre) and the bokeh is not too bad if you can live with the LoCA and the busy transition zone Fred noted earlier. The close ups looks nice to me too. We will see with more samples, but for landscapes I think the ZA 35 f/2.8 is going to be clearly preferred....Show more →
I was thinking the same (especially about landscapes and the old 35mm/2.8) when looking at dpreview pictures
p.15 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
tuomkok wrote:
I was thinking the same (especially about landscapes and the old 35mm/2.8) when looking at dpreview pictures
At dpreview, most wide-open samples were at closer distance (a bit too close for portraits with a wide angle imo). Most lenses render well at close distance.
At mid-distance however (2-3m and longer), very few wide angle lenses are capable of smooth rendering. The FE 24/1.4 GM is one of them. The FE 28/2 and 35/1.8 not so much.
p.15 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Fingers cross on coma correction. The FE 28, GM 24 and 55 ZA are all very useable for astro wide open. Would love to see the trend continue.
At this size and speed, this 35mm could make a great option for astro, single exposure or panos. And the MF is linear.
I think that by coma you mean "point light source behaviour" as what is called coma isn't always coma.
p.15 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Younjulius wrote:
What does lack of G label mean?
By Sony standards it typically means "consumer grade".... not professional. Doesn't really mean much. If this lens is as good as the 85 1.8 and has weather sealing, it's worth the G name IMO.
p.15 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
C_n_red_again wrote:
That Samyang 35 1.4 I got for $400 a year or so ago is looking like a bargain🤣 and I’d be shocked if the Sony’s image quality is better.
Yeh, but the Samyang lens is nearly 2.5x the weight of the Sony. Depending on what you value, the weight could be a deal breaker. It is for my needs.
