vdo1 wrote:
Dpreview just posted a review of the Nikon one where you can comparatively pixel peep it against Sony 1.8 and 1.4, and a Canon 1.4. Sony 1.4 is the worst of the bunch (soft and with high CA). The Nikon is not the sharpest - that is the Sony 1.8. Unfortunately the Sony 1.8 has high CA too. The most balanced is the Canon.
I guess Sony has to take this CA thing a little bit more seriously. Their non G(M) lenses have copious amounts of LoCA and stuff.
And if you look at the corners and edges at f/5.6 and f/8 the FE 35 f/1.8 does not look very good. Clearly not as sharp as the others in the edges and corners, and if you look at the corrugated roof in the lower mid right the CA does not even go away at f/4 and the Nikon clearly is way way better not even showing CA at f/1.8. The Nikon is far from perfect and especially the bokeh for my tastes is not as good as it should be, but it has very nice CA control and good across the frame sharpness stopped down. My take is neither the Nikon nor the FE 35 f/1.8 look all that good for portraits, but the Nikon could make a nice landscape lens and be pressed into service for portraits if you can avoid problems in the bokeh. The Canon lens is this test is the EF 35 f/1.4L II. I am interested in how the new Canon mirrorless lens performs as well.
There will always be compromises in price, size, rendering, aberration control and resolution/contrast.
For me personally, I like what Sigma did with their new 45/2.8 Contemporary. It's under-corrected for SA and highly corrected for CA. Resolution and contrast won't win any awards but but that's my prefered compromise.
I'd much prefer a Sigma 35/2 Contemporary with the the same 45/2.8 characteristics instead of sharper lenses capable of more blur in exchange for ugly rendering and high color error.
I think Sony has done a good job in this lens, since this and the 55/1.8 are more of an"entry level" lens so compromising colour errors for sharpness make sense. Only a few people at Dpreview and FM that have worries for CA.
What I see in a lens in order of significance is rendering, sharpness, colours and CA/LoCA last. I do agree that the new Sigma 45/2.8 looks great and be tempted if I dont already own a dozen of lenses in the 35-50mm space.
The 55/1.8 was never a Sony "entry level" lens In fact, it is a Zeiss lens made for the Sony system. It was $999 on its introduction in 2014. At that time (and maybe still is) it was the most expensive 50'ish/1.8 AF lens ever made for FF.
Steve Spencer wrote:
And if you look at the corners and edges at f/5.6 and f/8 the FE 35 f/1.8 does not look very good. Clearly not as sharp as the others in the edges and corners, and if you look at the corrugated roof in the lower mid right the CA does not even go away at f/4 and the Nikon clearly is way way better not even showing CA at f/1.8. The Nikon is far from perfect and especially the bokeh for my tastes is not as good as it should be, but it has very nice CA control and good across the frame sharpness stopped down. My take is neither the Nikon nor the FE 35 f/1.8 look all that good for portraits, but the Nikon could make a nice landscape lens and be pressed into service for portraits if you can avoid problems in the bokeh. The Canon lens is this test is the EF 35 f/1.4L II. I am interested in how the new Canon mirrorless lens performs as well....Show more →
My main issues with all the Sony non G/GM lenses are corner sharpness and color issues. The Sony 35/1.8 doesn't look to be any different.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I like what Sigma did with their new 45/2.8 Contemporary. It's under-corrected for SA and highly corrected for CA.
And it looks decently well corrected for field dependent aberrations as well. The Sony's 35 1.8 bokeh suffers not just from CA but also astigmatism (?) as well I believe.
It must be a joke that someone thinks this lens is comparable to the RX1's 35/2 Sonnar. I've used both the RX1 and RX1RII for years and it renders much smoother than this harsh looking FE 35/1.8.
pdmphoto wrote:
The 55/1.8 was never a Sony "entry level" lens In fact, it is a Zeiss lens made for the Sony system. It was $999 on its introduction in 2014. At that time (and maybe still is) it was the most expensive 50'ish/1.8 AF lens ever made for FF.
Its a bit tongue in cheek. I was thinking "entry level" due to the 1.8 aperture vs the Zony 50/1.4.
Yes, it was an expensive entry level 55 mm lens when Sony has no mirroless peers back then, like the Zony 35/2.8
p.24 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
Ah, copy variation.... this is something else that Sony (not dpreview) has to address. If dpreview is most likely to get a dud, then I am also going to most likely get a dud. If it takes to buy and return 5-6 lenses to get a decent one, then I’ll just stay away from that particular model. Asking dpreview to cherry pick from 6 lenses while its readers are going to get the 5 ones left is a little bit disingenuous, isn’t it?
You are free to call me disingenous, if you please. I'm honestly really not into name calling. This isn't the dpreview forum after all. What I was trying to say was that we will never have a true evaluation of any given lens without keeping copy variation in mind. It just helps to get a better overall picture. I get that the average reviewer can't do it, hence Roger's tests are so extremely helpful. I merely dared to point out this fact.
There is no secret that several of the early e-mount lenses have been effected by copy variation, most notably the 35 1.4, but there seems to be comparatively little copy variation in recent releases. In other words, Sony has already addressed this issue. The problem is that 1) seeing all the complaints about QC around here, makes it seem as if this is a Sony exclusive issue, when it's not (early issues with the Nikon 200-500 and 300 PF's image stabilization, the oilspills on D600, the 7D2's AF issues, etc.) and 2) many seem to believe it's easy to increase the % of near perfect copies, when (according to Roger) it's unfortunately not.
p.24 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I saw Chad’s review. There is an update today where he has posted exact same images taken with RX1 Sonnar and the new 35, without saying which is which.
How many of you can figure this. I find them similar to be honest
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
nandadevieast wrote:
I saw Chad’s review. There is an update today where he has posted exact same images taken with RX1 Sonnar and the new 35, without saying which is which.
How many of you can figure this. I find them similar to be honest
You have to keep in mind these are extremely small (maybe 200 X 300 pixel) images. Such downsizing hides many flaws, but I still think I can see differences in a number of images, but not all of them certainly.
p.24 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Steve Spencer wrote:
You have to keep in mind these are extremely small (maybe 200 X 300 pixel) images. Such downsizing hides many flaws, but I still think I can see differences in a number of images, but not all of them certainly.
Not really, if you have Firefox, you can right click on them, select View Image, then zoom.
The Vespa one for example is 2800 × 1867. Once there, you'll notice quite some differences, the most easily to notice being CA.
The only question here is whether you have previous experience with any of the lenses. If you don't, you will still be able to say which is the "better" image, but won't be able to decide whether it's the RX or the FE.
Aug 13, 2019 at 01:35 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
Not really, if you have Firefox, you can right click on them, select View Image, then zoom.
The Vespa one for example is 2800 × 1867. Once there, you'll notice quite some differences, the most easily to notice being CA.
The only question here is whether you have previous experience with any of the lenses. If you don't, you will still be able to say which is the "better" image, but won't be able to decide whether it's the RX or the FE.
I don't have Firefox so I am stuck with the really small images. I would guess that it is a lot easier with images the size you are describing. Even at the small sizes I can see CA differences in a number of images.
p.24 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't have Firefox so I am stuck with the really small images. I would guess that it is a lot easier with images the size you are describing. Even at the small sizes I can see CA differences in a number of images.
You can try to save the images on your local disk (right click - save image - they should be saving at full size) and then inspect them separately. More cumbersome but should work.
Let me embed a pair of them here to see if it can be viewed at high res:
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
You can try to save the images on your local disk (right click - save image - they should be saving at full size) and then inspect them separately. More cumbersome but should work.
Let me embed a pair of them here to see if it can be viewed at high res:
I did figure out how to open them in a new window, but there is some weird editing going on in these shots. Look at the lower left corner of the first two shots. What happened to the trees that were there in the first shot in the second. I thought that might have just been a slightly different angle of view. But then look at the third pair of images. The trees that extend above the roof on the first shot a third of the way to right aren't there in the second shot and there is no way that should have happened.
p.24 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Same aperture for both above?
Most of the his samples were at close distance where the FE will look ok.
Rendering between the two will be more distinctive at mid-distance where the transition zone blends with the OOF background.
p.24 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
The bottom photo taken with the FE is worse bokeh wise—look at the sky crapper in the back right or the USPS truck lettering on the left. The FE photo USPS truck lettering has slight Nissen bokeh—harsher and doubled edged. Looks crappy. My 31 Ltd will do this, and my 35 Lux ASPH had this even worse.
Now look at that sky scrapper and USPS truck on rx1. Looks lovely.
p.24 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Same aperture for both above?
Most of the his samples were at close distance where the FE will look ok.
Rendering between the two will be more distinctive at mid-distance where the transition zone blends with the OOF background.
Not sure but something is off. The turn light on the Vespa seems soo much more OOF in the first pic. Second pic has some double vision and weirdo bokeh balls, if it's true that the FE has the worse bokeh, then that's the one.
In fact, it is a Zeiss lens made for the Sony system. It was $999 on its introduction in 2014. At that time (and maybe still is) it was the most expensive 50'ish/1.8 AF lens ever made for FF.
