Steve Spencer wrote:
[...] 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.
The tree eater!!!! wasn't this supposed to happen with stars only?
Aug 13, 2019 at 02:22 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
On his first sample, the images are just not aligned and there is a slight rotation between shots. The Sonnar 35/2 is also wider in FOV compared to the new FE.
It does look odd that the tree foliage is not there for both images but it's due to the slight different FOV, alignment and rotation.
Am I the only one who likes his images? I see that the bokeh is a bit busier on the FE shots, but he's comparing it to the best 35mm option that is on the Sony system. I'm keeping my pre-order (and I have an RX1R II).
Sky crapper, . It's a UPS truck...
I agree with Fred ^^^. I do not think that the missing trees are due to edit. I think that the different positions and angles and focal lengths account for the phantom trees.
smpetty wrote:
Am I the only one who likes his images? I see that the bokeh is a bit busier on the FE shots, but he's comparing it to the best 35mm option that is on the Sony system. I'm keeping my pre-order (and I have an RX1R II).
Sky crapper, . It's a UPS truck...
Chad is a great photographer and I love his images. (Check out the samples from his CV 40/1.2 review when you have a chance)
I think he meant that both lenses are capable of similar sharpness and "blur". To me the main difference is the smoothness in the transition zone. The FE seems to have stronger SA correction and that affects rendering. (it's a bit harsh and higher in contrast, especially at mid-distance).
Aug 13, 2019 at 02:31 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
On his first sample, the images are just not aligned and there is a slight rotation between shots. The Sonnar 35/2 is also wider in FOV compared to the new FE.
It does look odd that the tree foliage is not there for both images but it's due to the slight different FOV, alignment and rotation.
As I said I think that is possible for the first pair of images, but I don't see how that is possible for the third pair of images. The trees are very distant and stick above the roof quite a bit in one shot and are just gone in the other. Doesn't make sense to me.
Looking at the stronger sources of light, like the reflections in the fish scales or people left of the scooter or the leaves in the left-centre background, makes it pretty clear which is which IMHO. Batis 40 does the same with those distinct "light circles".
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 for bokeh rendition, and at close distance, one is a little bit better and typical shooting distance, seems to be a wash.
bad bokeh will show up in small images, bigger images amplify it more. There is no mistaking a Helios lens, and just recently, phillip reeve had a comparison on the Sigma 35 f1.2 vs 35 1.4 vs 40 1.4, and it was plain as day, I could see it on my phone.
p.25 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
j4nu wrote:
Looking at the stronger sources of light, like the reflections in the fish scales or people left of the scooter or the leaves in the left-centre background, makes it pretty clear which is which IMHO. Batis 40 does the same with those distinct "light circles".
So finally the Batis 40 has a strong competitor...
p.25 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Chad is a great photographer and I love his images. (Check out the samples from his CV 40/1.2 review when you have a chance)
I think he meant that both lenses are capable of similar sharpness and "blur". To me the main difference is the smoothness in the transition zone. The FE seems to have stronger SA correction and that affects rendering. (it's a bit harsh and higher in contrast, especially at mid-distance).
So how would the Sigma 45mm compare here.... We definitely need some more pics in the Sigma review thread
p.25 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I said I think that is possible for the first pair of images, but I don't see how that is possible for the third pair of images. The trees are very distant and stick above the roof quite a bit in one shot and are just gone in the other. Doesn't make sense to me.
I think it's more of the same on the third sample as well. The main culprit is the different FOV between them. (The Sonnar 35 is wider)
There is also some rotation and alignment issues between shots.
The new FE 35/1.8 seems slightly sharper and higher in contrast compared to RX1RII samples but I don't know which aperture were used and don't have access to 1:1 crops nor full size files.
I really appreciate that Chad posted some many comparison samples.
Difference is FOV, alignment and rotation is tricking the eyes...(Images from Chad Wadsworth's review)
p.25 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
So how would the Sigma 45mm compare here.... We definitely need some more pics in the Sigma review thread
I know! I started testing the CV 75/1.5 Nokton and neglected the Sigma 45/2.8.
Aug 13, 2019 at 03:07 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think it's more of the same on the third sample as well. The main culprit is the different FOV between them. (The Sonnar 35 is wider)
There is also some rotation and alignment issues between shots.
The new FE 35/1.8 seems slightly sharper and higher in contrast compared to RX1RII samples but I don't know which aperture were used and don't have access to 1:1 crops nor full size files.
I really appreciate that Chad posted some many comparison samples.
Now I see it. These shots show quite clearly how the field of view is more different between these lenses than I would have expected, but I have never shot with the RX1. It is a substantially wider lens and on that third pair he must have taken a step forward to compensate and equalizes the parts of the image closer to the camera and that means you loose sight of those trees having a very different perspective on what is further away from the camera.
p.25 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Now I see it. These shots show quite clearly how the field of view is more different between these lenses than I would have expected, but I have never shot with the RX1. It is a substantially wider lens and on that third pair he must have taken a step forward to compensate and equalizes the parts of the image closer to the camera and that means you loose sight of those trees having a very different perspective on what is further away from the camera.
Yes, it's the same with the RX1R II vs FE 35/2.8. The latter has noticeable narrower FOV. The Sonnar 35/2 is closer to 32mm than 35mm.
p.25 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
It’s still too early to make serious judgements, but I sure wish they would have made a 35/2 with some special glass. I don’t know about the photographer population in general, but Sony could have sold a ton of 35mm lenses to FM members who wanted a sonnar 35 equivalent. The chanting has been loud and boisterous for years. Sony had a soft pitch and instead of hitting an easy home run chose to bunt. Well...maybe it’s not too early for serious judgment. 🙂
p.25 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's the same with the RX1R II vs FE 35/2.8. The latter has noticeable narrower FOV. The Sonnar 35/2 is closer to 32mm than 35mm.
Interestingly, the Pentax 31 Ltd is slightly narrower than listed, and extremely similar to the wider than listed RX1. Enjoying both 28 and 35mm, I found these two lenses to be my absolute favorite FL. The difference is slight but very noticeable and I wish more manufactures would cater to this. Reminds me of the way 40mm is in vogue and splits the more traditional FL’s of 35 and 50.
. It's a UPS truck...
