Viramati wrote:
I would have to agree with most of the comments that have been made about the images I have posted but on the other hand there is no other 35mm AF E mount lens that is available that is small and light and I really don't want one of the other monsters that's out there. I am after a lens for documentary/event/street work and this really fits the bill and overall I'm so far very happy with it. I would have loved a Sony AF version of my Leica summicron 35/f2 but sadly that will never happen.
Quoting from Chad's review "This is the type of compact prime that I signed up for when the concept of mirrorless was introduced."...Show more →
Have you tried the Samyang 45/1.8? I wonder how it would stack up against this Sony 35/1.8.
The Samyang is not 35mm but it is smaller and half the price. 45mm is also pretty good for event/street photography.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think that all the LoCA talk is a bit exaggerated and I'm guilty of that too.
The FE 35/1.4 ZA seems to have just as much CA but I don't hear much complaint about it. Another two high regarded lenses with very noticeable color fringing are the FE 24/1.4 GM and RX1RII's Sonnar 35/2.
I thought a LOT of people complained about the CA for 35mm f1.4 ZA, me included. To me, LoCA is the fatal flaw that made me give up the lens. Its off the charts.
I don't hear much complaints about the 24mm f1.4GM about CA though. I also have the 24mm f1.4 but I don't think it LoCA is as bad as the 35mm ZA. Sure it is noticeable but there are VERY few WA lens that has zero CA like sigma 40mm f1.4.
The 24mm LoCA is acceptable to me, partly because it is so LIGHT and focuses really well. If it weights 1kg, then I would sell it because of the CA
Tempted to switch from my 35 1.4 ZA and Samyang 85 AF 1.4 to Sonys 35/85 1.8s. I love the 35/85 combination for documenting family life and 1.8 might as well be enough, both for light and DOF on my A7III. The larger lenses sometimes just get in the way of capturing those precious moments with kids and family. I confess that I am/was rating good quality bokeh very high (and thus no Batis 40 for me), but the larger lenses have their own useability issues...
Just done a couple of photos for a flyer at or Buddhist Centre. I'm beginning to really like this lens. Any CA I have come across so far can easily be corrected in LR so pretty much not an issue fo my use
I'm hoping it will make a great landscape lens. I have not seen the greatest IQ under those circumstances on the Dpreview test images. Vignetting and CA are there, as well as a noticeable drop resolution and micro contrast in the corners. Colors don't look great either. It may be that the tiny ZA 35/2.8 does better.
I feel a bit strange about the way so many FMs write about the new Sony 35F18. About a long time people asked for a compact FE35 f2 or f1.8. Then is sony bringing the lens and the most reviewers (people who used the lens in real life) are exited. Chad Wadsworth sees many simularities to the praised RX Sonnar and recommends the new FE35, Dpreview reviews the lens and is very positve about the best compromise of size, weight, class leading sharpness (better then the 35 f1.4ZA at f1.8!) and good bokeh.
But I feel that many who never used the lens complain already about the new lens.
With the GM85, many see the loCAs as part of the great bokeh, with the 35 f1.8 everybody is complaning about them.
Usually you need to use a lens a certain time by yourself to give a fair statement about the rendering.
I hope FM is still a forum of fair discussion about optics (in the same way as Philipp Reeve is known for balanced analyses) and people dont get crazy in their expectations.
Do you have the same impression?
p.28 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Well I agree I have not said a word about it myself . Like to try it my only fear is I hope the rendering is not too clinical but again I don’t read these reviews. I want to shoot these things first
p.28 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Chad is a Sony ambassador. He has no choice but to promote it!
Show me a review from any of the Sony ambassadors that is critical of Sony gear.
dieterson wrote:
I feel a bit strange about the way so many FMs write about the new Sony 35F18. About a long time people asked for a compact FE35 f2 or f1.8. Then is sony bringing the lens and the most reviewers (people who used the lens in real life) are exited. Chad Wadsworth sees many simularities to the praised RX Sonnar and recommends the new FE35, Dpreview reviews the lens and is very positve about the best compromise of size, weight, class leading sharpness (better then the 35 f1.4ZA at f1.8!) and good bokeh.
But I feel that many who never used the lens complain already about the new lens.
With the GM85, many see the loCAs as part of the great bokeh, with the 35 f1.8 everybody is complaning about them.
Usually you need to use a lens a certain time by yourself to give a fair statement about the rendering.
I hope FM is still a forum of fair discussion about optics (in the same way as Philipp Reeve is known for balanced analyses) and people dont get crazy in their expectations.
Do you have the same impression?...Show more →
p.28 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I really can't understand how people can compare this lens to RX1 Sonnar. If this was the kind of rendering that made people drop the big bucks for RX1, I'd suspect mass halucination .
I don't say FE 35mm 1.8 rendering is bad, but if you take a deeper look at the pictures from that review, you can see the differences pretty clearly IMHO (like light reflections, background smoothness, etc.).
On the other hand, if you don't look at the details, you could probably say many 35mm's render the same .
p.28 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
dieterson wrote:
Chad Wadsworth sees many simularities to the praised RX Sonnar
For some of the comparison scenes he provided it's dead easy to tell the two apart. Not all of them, but when the conditions are right (example : as already mentioned in this thread the scene with the UPS truck), it's a piece of cake.
dieterson wrote:
Dpreview reviews the lens and is very positve about the best compromise of size, weight, class leading sharpness (better then the 35 f1.4ZA at f1.8!) and good bokeh.
DPreview is actually one of the few reviews that criticised some aspects of this lens bokeh - although I don't think that they properly put it in context or presented the full extent of its issues. Saying that "Out-of-focus highlights can get slightly hard-edged at image corners" is putting things very mildly. On the conclusion page I don't even need to click on the umbrella shot's vignette to notice the problem - it's basically nearly as bad as your regular cheap double gauss 50mm which would put that lens below average as far as that aspect of bokeh performance is concerned. It's not all bad, as the review mentions onion rings are minimal, which is pretty neat (but it should be mentioned that the Canon 35mm RF achieves the same thing, and IMO it's worth questioning the interest of minimising onion rings if bokeh balls are still ugly for other reasons).
In regards to resolution their own comparison would benefit from a more nuanced opinion than "better than the 35f1.4ZA at f1.8!" - cf. the bright metallic tank on the top of one of the buildings on the top left corner that shows one pretty big difference between the Sony and the other three lenses (also visible on point light sources in the night-time shots, it's the same issue I believe).
Both resolution and bokeh would benefit from being evaluate in more nuances. A lens can be both extremely good and extremely bad in terms of bokeh, for example. The shot from the Sony 35mm 1.4 linked to in DPreview's review is a case in point. Yes, the onion rings are sinfully ugly. Yes, the Ca is atrocious. But it's also quite a lot better corrected for field dependent aberrations than the Sony 35mm 1.8, which I bet would look just as much ugly in these conditions, albeit in a very different way.
dieterson wrote:
Usually you need to use a lens a certain time by yourself to give a fair statement about the rendering.
You absolutely don't in many situations.
As demonstrated by the increasing amount of lens reviews passing judgment on a lens' bokeh... despite failing to deactivate EFCS and presenting samples or even test results with that issue (cf. Optical Limit's review of the Canon 50mm RF).
dieterson wrote:
I hope FM is still a forum of fair discussion about optics
It is. What would be most unfair would be to not criticise this lens rendering. It would be most unfair to the work of the engineers who designed lenses like the recent Sigma 45mm, for example.
I remember when the Nikon 58mm 1.4 G was released. It received a very lukewarm if not downright poor reception and I was the first in line to completely miss the whole point of this lens, and the mediocre quality of most lens reviews as far as bokeh is concerned didn't help.
Now a few years later, starting to climb out of the cave, I'm actively looking for lenses in that same spirit and Paolo Roversi just shot parts of the Pirelli Calendar with it.
And all that criticism will not make it a bad lens, far from it. It shouldn't and IMO doesn't detract from its very positive aspects (size, weight, apparently AF speed it seems, for example), which are also being presently discussed in this thread.
p.28 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
From all the samples I've seen so far, I think I'd much prefer images from the FE 24/1.4 GM in crop mode over the new FE 35/1.8 when "only" comparing rendering. I wish it was true and the FE 35/1.8 rendered like the Sonnar 35/2.
p.28 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Who are you? You are really good, man.
I will shut up given I am not Sony user.
MayaTlab wrote:
For some of the comparison scenes he provided it's dead easy to tell the two apart. Not all of them, but when the conditions are right (example : as already mentioned in this thread the scene with the UPS truck), it's a piece of cake.
DPreview is actually one of the few reviews that criticised some aspects of this lens bokeh - although I don't think that they properly put it in context or presented the full extent of its issues. Saying that "Out-of-focus highlights can get slightly hard-edged at image corners" is putting things very mildly. On the conclusion page I don't even need to click on the umbrella shot's vignette to notice the problem - it's basically nearly as bad as your regular cheap double gauss 50mm which would put that lens below average as far as that aspect of bokeh performance is concerned. It's not all bad, as the review mentions onion rings are minimal, which is pretty neat (but it should be mentioned that the Canon 35mm RF achieves the same thing, and IMO it's worth questioning the interest of minimising onion rings if bokeh balls are still ugly for other reasons).
In regards to resolution their own comparison would benefit from a more nuanced opinion than "better than the 35f1.4ZA at f1.8!" - cf. the bright metallic tank on the top of one of the buildings on the top left corner that shows one pretty big difference between the Sony and the other three lenses (also visible on point light sources in the night-time shots, it's the same issue I believe).
Both resolution and bokeh would benefit from being evaluate in more nuances. A lens can be both extremely good and extremely bad in terms of bokeh, for example. The shot from the Sony 35mm 1.4 linked to in DPreview's review is a case in point. Yes, the onion rings are sinfully ugly. Yes, the Ca is atrocious. But it's also quite a lot better corrected for field dependent aberrations than the Sony 35mm 1.8, which I bet would look just as much ugly in these conditions, albeit in a very different way.
You absolutely don't in many situations.
As demonstrated by the increasing amount of lens reviews passing judgment on a lens' bokeh... despite failing to deactivate EFCS and presenting samples or even test results with that issue (cf. Optical Limit's review of the Canon 50mm RF).
It is. What would be most unfair would be to not criticise this lens rendering. It would be most unfair to the work of the engineers who designed lenses like the recent Sigma 45mm, for example.
I remember when the Nikon 58mm 1.4 G was released. It received a very lukewarm if not downright poor reception and I was the first in line to completely miss the whole point of this lens, and the mediocre quality of most lens reviews as far as bokeh is concerned didn't help.
Now a few years later, starting to climb out of the cave, I'm actively looking for lenses in that same spirit and Paolo Roversi just shot parts of the Pirelli Calendar with it.
And all that criticism will not make it a bad lens, far from it. It shouldn't and IMO doesn't detract from its very positive aspects (size, weight, apparently AF speed it seems, for example), which are also being presently discussed in this thread. ...Show more →
p.28 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
MayaTlab wrote:
For some of the comparison scenes he provided it's dead easy to tell the two apart. Not all of them, but when the conditions are right (example : as already mentioned in this thread the scene with the UPS truck), it's a piece of cake.
DPreview is actually one of the few reviews that criticised some aspects of this lens bokeh - although I don't think that they properly put it in context or presented the full extent of its issues. Saying that "Out-of-focus highlights can get slightly hard-edged at image corners" is putting things very mildly. On the conclusion page I don't even need to click on the umbrella shot's vignette to notice the problem - it's basically nearly as bad as your regular cheap double gauss 50mm which would put that lens below average as far as that aspect of bokeh performance is concerned. It's not all bad, as the review mentions onion rings are minimal, which is pretty neat (but it should be mentioned that the Canon 35mm RF achieves the same thing, and IMO it's worth questioning the interest of minimising onion rings if bokeh balls are still ugly for other reasons).
In regards to resolution their own comparison would benefit from a more nuanced opinion than "better than the 35f1.4ZA at f1.8!" - cf. the bright metallic tank on the top of one of the buildings on the top left corner that shows one pretty big difference between the Sony and the other three lenses (also visible on point light sources in the night-time shots, it's the same issue I believe).
Both resolution and bokeh would benefit from being evaluate in more nuances. A lens can be both extremely good and extremely bad in terms of bokeh, for example. The shot from the Sony 35mm 1.4 linked to in DPreview's review is a case in point. Yes, the onion rings are sinfully ugly. Yes, the Ca is atrocious. But it's also quite a lot better corrected for field dependent aberrations than the Sony 35mm 1.8, which I bet would look just as much ugly in these conditions, albeit in a very different way.
You absolutely don't in many situations.
As demonstrated by the increasing amount of lens reviews passing judgment on a lens' bokeh... despite failing to deactivate EFCS and presenting samples or even test results with that issue (cf. Optical Limit's review of the Canon 50mm RF).
It is. What would be most unfair would be to not criticise this lens rendering. It would be most unfair to the work of the engineers who designed lenses like the recent Sigma 45mm, for example.
I remember when the Nikon 58mm 1.4 G was released. It received a very lukewarm if not downright poor reception and I was the first in line to completely miss the whole point of this lens, and the mediocre quality of most lens reviews as far as bokeh is concerned didn't help.
Now a few years later, starting to climb out of the cave, I'm actively looking for lenses in that same spirit and Paolo Roversi just shot parts of the Pirelli Calendar with it.
And all that criticism will not make it a bad lens, far from it. It shouldn't and IMO doesn't detract from its very positive aspects (size, weight, apparently AF speed it seems, for example), which are also being presently discussed in this thread. ...Show more →
That Nikkor is still based on a double Gauss design, where they split 2 elements into cemented groups. And it pretty much shows. But yes, if you like the 2G look, this is a refined one.
p.28 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I am surprised people are surprised a non-premium lens has some non-premium performance aspects. If you like it, great. But this FE 35 is no RX1 Sonnar.
In 2019 sharpness means much less than it used to. Everyone is making super sharp lenses now—even small manufactures like 7a with their 28 1.4 or 3rd party like Tamron and Samyang.
Which means (to me) sharpness matters less than ever. Rendering, size, price, colors/contrast and ergo matter more in differentiating. Then again, I was never much of a sharpness person, and that’s what’s in vogue. I am sure the emphases of sharpness won’t diminish as manufacture continue to market that and push higher res camera to keep sales up.
.