Fred Miranda wrote:
From the samples posted here, the 55/1.8 seems to have smoother rendering compared to the FE 35/1.8.
I don't think the 35/1.8's images are dull at all! I see more contrast and deeper colors compared to the 55mm. Yes, they are similar in size and build but imo not in rendering and contrast.
There's nothing dull about the lens. Colors are vibrant and plenty of contrast SOOC.
I'm actually find that the bokeh is pleasant. I suspect that like most lenses, the bokeh can get situationally bad and that a little bit of confirmation bias is happening where people saying the bokeh is bad period. From what I've seen in the samples, its distant OOF highlights in edges that are really well defined that people are disliking... But a lot of lenses behave this way
itai195 wrote:
[...]The images do look punchy, though [...]
Yes, they came quite as a surprise after the earlier bloggers’ reviews.... which makes me wonder what they were really up to (we already know that one of them set sharpness to -5 for the “sample photos”).
Or maybe there’s something that makes it work poorly with the A7R IV? Magnified purple fringing was something expected (more pixel density to render it), but the muted, grayish colors were not?
Mystik wrote:
There's nothing dull about the lens. Colors are vibrant and plenty of contrast SOOC.
I'm actually find that the bokeh is pleasant. I suspect that like most lenses, the bokeh can get situationally bad and that a little bit of confirmation bias is happening where people saying the bokeh is bad period. From what I've seen in the samples, its OOF highlights in that are really well defined that people are disliking.
Mystik wrote:
There's nothing dull about the lens. Colors are vibrant and plenty of contrast SOOC.
I'm actually find that the bokeh is pleasant. I suspect that like most lenses, the bokeh can get situationally bad and that a little bit of confirmation bias is happening where people saying the bokeh is bad period. From what I've seen in the samples, its distant OOF highlights in edges that are really well defined that people are disliking... But a lot of lenses behave this way
On your first image (lovely little lady), it's hard to evaluate the transition zone because it was shot at close distance and the f/1.8 aperture will blur any harshness in the rendering. Once you give yourself some distance to your subject (like 2m), transition zone starts to blend with the background making it more obvious how harsh the 35/1.8 rendering is. This is just my own personal and subjective evaluation based on the samples I've seen so far. I will be testing this lens next week and comparing it to other wide angle lenses.
The CV 40/1.2 is not famous for smooth transition zone either. It's just capable of a lot of blur.
I have the feeling the new FE 35/1.8 will be a polarizing lens just like the FE 28/2. Some will love it for its size, AF, sharpness and high contrast while others will hate it for its rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
On your first image (lovely little lady), it's hard to evaluate the transition zone because it was shot at close distance and the f/1.8 aperture will blur any harshness. Once you give yourself some distance to your subject (like 2m), transition zone starts to blend with the background making it more obvious how harsh the 35/1.8 rendering is. This is just my own personal and subjective evaluation based on the samples I've seen so far. I will be testing this lens next week and comparing it to other wide angle lenses.
The CV 40/1.2 is not famous for smooth transition zone either. It's just capable of a lot of blur.
I have the feeling the new FE 35/1.8 will be a polarizing lens just like the FE 28/2. Some will love it for its size, AF, sharpness and high contrast while others will hate it for its rendering....Show more →
Alternatively we can give credit to the photographer to know how to avoid known lens weaknesses and use them to their best
Got mine in the mail today - after about 50+ shots this is my amateur review and initial reaction. Other than the B&W shot, all are SOOC raw converted to jpeg. Before everyone pounces on the B&W shot's bokeh, the background is a challenging baby swing, play set, and scattered toys. -
- Size is fantastic as expected
- Sharpness meets early reviews, even at 1.8 there is nothing left to be desired imo
- Underrated feature to me is the location of the af/mf switch and how nice the focus ring works in manual.
- Punch colors which doesn't surprise me considering pictures I've seen in earlier reviews
- Bokeh might not be great, but I'm honestly struggling to find the "terrible, harsh, busy" bokeh in these shots, but maybe I could have performed better tests?
My points of reference for all of the above points are the Loxia 21, 35, 50, Sony 35/1.4, Sony 50/1.4, and Sony 85. I bought this lens because I wanted something light, sharp, and contrasty. At the end of the day I will be more likely to grab the a7rii with this attached vs. leaving a heavier combo at home, and that's what it's all about to me.
Fred Miranda wrote:
On your first image (lovely little lady), it's hard to evaluate the transition zone because it was shot at close distance and the f/1.8 aperture will blur any harshness. Once you give yourself some distance to your subject (like 2m), transition zone starts to blend with the background making it more obvious how harsh the 35/1.8 rendering is. This is just my own personal and subjective evaluation based on the samples I've seen so far. I will be testing this lens next week and comparing it to other wide angle lenses.
The CV 40/1.2 is not famous for smooth transition zone either. It's just capable of a lot of blur.
I have the feeling the new FE 35/1.8 will be a polarizing lens just like the FE 28/2. Some will love it for its size, AF, sharpness and high contrast while others will hate it for its rendering....Show more →
Thank you for the kind words Fred.
I think shooting styles come into play a lot too though.
In the case of the CV40, its a lifestyle lens where people are shooting primarily near MFD, and its highly regarded in that aspect, but when you frame loosely, it can situationally get nasty in terms of rendering. So confirmation bias happens where the CV40 is perceived as great because people tend to shoot it in situations that in excels in.
The use case of the FE 35 f1.8 is in most cases very similar to that of the CV 40, where people want a fast aperture wide angle in a small form factor for more intimate use...lifestyle photography type lens where you're limited in terms of working distance so more closely framed photos. From what I've seen so far, the FE 35 seems to perform strongly in the same areas that the CV 40 does, and is weak in the same areas the CV 40 is.
p.34 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Nothing is perfect in this world. Anything is a compromise.
The demonstration is that there in no lens preferred by all.
In the range of 35-45 mm there are at least 20 available FE FF lenses.
There should be a reason for that.
My personal preference is a lens like this.
Sharp, very sharp, light, functional, reasonably priced.....
Then it’s up to me create the “magic” I do not want delegate to some glass.
p.34 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Bokeh with this lens seems very (background) subject dependent. There are some great examples of it's good qualities in this thread but there are also quite a few shots where to me it is nervous to the point of looking like blurred camera shake. Sometimes it is just weird. No offense to the author (it's a great shot) but can anyone here say they like the blurry mess going on top right behind the happy young kid three posts back (BW photo)?
p.34 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I’m with you on that particular shot - wish I had the 35/1.4 to compare against bc there was a ton going on in the background between toys, bars, arches, etc.
p.34 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
The question for me is with a 35mm focal length won’t most people be shooting a bit further back? Too close and we introduce distortion with a wide. So really for the majority of subject isolating shots we might take with a lens like this the transition zone rendering (of the background) will be of paramount importance to getting a pleasing capture.
Fred Miranda wrote:
On your first image (lovely little lady), it's hard to evaluate the transition zone because it was shot at close distance and the f/1.8 aperture will blur any harshness. Once you give yourself some distance to your subject (like 2m), transition zone starts to blend with the background making it more obvious how harsh the 35/1.8 rendering is. This is just my own personal and subjective evaluation based on the samples I've seen so far. I will be testing this lens next week and comparing it to other wide angle lenses.
The CV 40/1.2 is not famous for smooth transition zone either. It's just capable of a lot of blur.
I have the feeling the new FE 35/1.8 will be a polarizing lens just like the FE 28/2. Some will love it for its size, AF, sharpness and high contrast while others will hate it for its rendering....Show more →
p.34 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Guys before trashing this lens some more, please have a look at the much applauded (for bokeh) GM 24. Visit flickr and look at pics featuring different sorts of foliage and branches in the background.
So for more "artsy" shots with pleasing backgrounds, it is the Sigma 35 1.2 or ZA 1.4, but for documentation of family life the 35 1.8 fares very well (for all but the FM crowd, which knows about things such as "harsh rendering" and "busy bokeh") and for higher pixel density bodies (especially the rIV) it is either Sigma or the new Sony 1.8, the ZA does not resolve enough for those sensors. So, I am torn between keeping my 35 ZA and Sammy 85 or letting go of those and getting a 35/85 1.8 Sony combo, which is lightweight and more than good enough (aka excellent) for a lot of shooting scenarios. Too bad I like to take garden and forest shots of my kids quite often, can't cut down those nasty trees in the background "ruining" the shot
Lot of pop in this image! The man really comes right out of the frame. The tree foliage is of course difficult to look at since we are scrutinizing. Foliage can be a torture test for many lenses depending upon the scene, lighting and distance, aperture. So I would want to experiment a bit more with various scenes to know for sure. If it turns out that "edge" bokeh can be harsh with this lens, then compose accordingly. One of the reasons I like to see lens tests/reviews/samples is to judge how I might use the strengths of a particualr lens if I decide to purchase and then work around the weaknesses.
For those of you that can see pop, this lens has plenty! I've seen enough examples already:
