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 ...Show more →
This conclusion is on point IMO. For me the FE 35 is an everyday documentary lens. I've had the 35 ZA for a number of years and absolutely love the rendering of this lens...but you know what? Outside of paid work I never use that lens because its big, hard to carry around, and not a whole lot of fun to shoot on. I've wanted a fast compact 35 for a very long time, and the FE 35 1.8 fits the bill for me. Are there compromises that come with a compact solution? Of course. But if situationally nervous bokeh is the worst thing I have to contend with to have a set-up I can actually reasonably bring with me on a daily basis, then I'd call it a win. FWIW I actually find the FE 35 1.8 rendering to be really smooth...great colors and contrast.
All of that said, I do need a fast 35ish lens with superlative rendering for paid work, because outdoor portraiture and weddings have me dealing with nightmarish backgrounds and lighting. The FE 35ZA has been my workhorse for years, but the Sigma 35 f1.2 rendering has be GASing big time. I'm probably going to sell off the CV40 and FE 35 ZA and snag a Sigma 35 f1.2 for paid work. FE 35 1.8 will be in my daily driver 35.
Mystik wrote:
I've wanted a fast compact 35 for a very long time, and the FE 35 1.8 fits the bill for me. Are there compromises that come with a compact solution? Of course.
The FE 35/1.8's compactness has nothing to do with its harsh rendering. (where transition zone blends with the OOF area)
Depending on how close you get to your subject, this transition zone will be masked by blur making it less distracting.
It looks like Sony optimized the FE 35/1.8 for resolution and contrast while the FE 35/1.4 ZA was optimized for rendering. It's just a design 'priority' where the latter is under-corrected for spherical aberration.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 35/1.8's compactness has nothing to do with its harsh rendering. (where transition zone blends with the OOF area)
.
From a practical perspective it actually does make a difference. A larger aperture (let’s say 1.2) helps making that transition zone shorter and closer to the subject - so you could frame in a way where you can hide it (imagine a head and shoulders portrait where the transition area is right behind the subject’s feet. The area may be ugly but it’s not in the frame at all) . Or you position it on some benign, uniform area (think full length portrait, and you have the subject sitting on a deck or concrete surface or whatever, not in the grass). With slower apertures (compact lens!) that area becomes harder to hide / position as it’s farther in the back of the subject.
I recommend a look at our member’s jefonyx recent photos with the sigma 35/1.2. It’s not just the lens, it’s also his choice of background surfaces and their texture / detail level, and careful placement of the subject. Plus subduing the background through exposure / lighting. f/1.2 is a facilitator for sure but in the end it’s all in the hands of the photographer. I’m sure he can also produce “busy bokeh” photos with that lens if he wants to. Alternatively you can peek at Joshua’s portraits, he doesn’t do 35 that often these days but he does 24 GM. Again look at the background choice, subject placement and light. He doesn’t just plop those pretty ladies in the grass in front of a tree (when he does that he’s using 85 or 105 or 135mm).
P.S. I’m preaching to the choir though. Looking back at Fred’s photos in the Sigma 45/2.8 review thread, he has already used these techniques himself.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 35/1.8's compactness has nothing to do with its harsh rendering. (where transition zone blends with the OOF area)
Depending on how close you get to your subject, this transition zone will be masked by blur making it less distracting.
It looks like Sony optimized the FE 35/1.8 for resolution and contrast while the FE 35/1.4 ZA was optimized for rendering. It's just a design 'priority' where the latter is under-corrected for spherical aberration.
But more corrective elements and an overall larger/more complex lens design would mitigate the trade-off between resolution and OOf rendering wouldn't it?
I look at lenses like the Sigma 35 f1.2 and 85 gm and don't see a trade-off between resolution and bokeh at all... But aside from being faster aperture lenses they're employing much more complex designs too.
A few more SOOC (minor exposure adjustments) wide open and the last one is at f8 just to show off the resolution. I agree the bokeh is busy, but for landscapes and documentary shots of the kids indoors it serves its purpose. I also think the harshness can add to the shot if used in the right situations (first shot for example).
I'm going to try using the 35/1.8 as my fast 35, and use the Sigma 45/2.8 when rendering and bokeh are key. These two lenses seem to compliment each other well.
I'm done with attaching bricks to my A7RIII, unless those bricks are the 85 GM, the 135 GM, or the 100-400 GM.
tbpeur01 wrote:
A few more SOOC (minor exposure adjustments) wide open and the last one is at f8 just to show off the resolution. I agree the bokeh is busy, but for landscapes and documentary shots of the kids indoors it serves its purpose. I also think the harshness can add to the shot if used in the right situations (first shot for example).
I was actually expecting more “double vision” in the 4th photo, this was not bad at all.
p.35 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Mystik wrote:
But more corrective elements and an overall larger/more complex lens design would mitigate the trade-off between resolution and OOf rendering wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. Here are a few examples of small wide angle lenses capable of great resolution and very pleasant rendering at any distance: FE 24/1.4, CV 35/1.7, Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8. So, it's not related to the lens speed nor optical design complexity. It's a matter of spherical aberration correction.
I look at lenses like the Sigma 35 f1.2 and 85 gm and don't see a trade-off between resolution and bokeh at all... But aside from being faster aperture lenses they're employing much more complex designs too.
The Sigma 35/1.2 is not big because it was designed with rendering in mind. It's big because it's a super fast lens that is sharp to the very corners from wide open. (at any distance)
The FE 85/1.4 GM is another example of great balance between resolution, contrast and rendering. One of the reasons so many photographers love it.
p.35 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I'm looking at this lens for a documentary / cultural lens where bokeh harshness is not at the top of my list. If Bokeh is king...look at the Sigma. For me, the size weight of this lens combined with the speed, contrast and colours is what got me interested. Loved to see a side by side test with the Batis 40.
p.35 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
chez wrote:
I'm looking at this lens for a documentary / cultural lens where bokeh harshness is not at the top of my list. If Bokeh is king...look at the Sigma. For me, the size weight of this lens combined with the speed, contrast and colours is what got me interested. Loved to see a side by side test with the Batis 40.
But, chez, we all know that the proper way to shoot 35mm with Sony is using a 24GM in crop mode!!!
p.35 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Just trying to showcase this lens to the best of my ability before my subscription expires . As much as a I like the Loxia sunstars, I must say this one can deliver pretty decent stars as well (f16). I also think the bokeh in the first shot at 1.8 is fine, and there is what appears to be a minor flare hidden in the center. Second and third shots at f2.8 where I think the bokeh also fares well.
p.35 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
With all the comparisons to the venerable Sonnar 35/2, it's interesting that one can actually decide between this lens or a used RX1R at nearly the same price.
p.35 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
flilow06 wrote:
With all the comparisons to the venerable Sonnar 35/2, it's interesting that one can actually decide between this lens or a used RX1R at nearly the same price.
AF on the RX1R is horrible. It's a non starter for many applications.
RX1RII is a capable camera. I enjoyed it but it's a lot of money to tie up into that camera
p.35 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 85/1.4 GM is another example of great balance between resolution, contrast and rendering. One of the reasons so many photographers love it.
Wouldn't be the 35 1.4 ZA be very similar in behaviour? Wide open, it has some reduced contrast (glow), which could be from under-corrected aberrations, but is already quite sharp. From F2, contrast is boosted and from f2.8 it is sharp across the frame on lower pixel density sensors. Given a good copy, it doubles up nicely as a landscape lens stopped down:
I hope that a future 35 1.4 GM will keep this double-sided nature and merely improves on weight & size, build quality (aperture ring/switch is too lose) and removes the onion rings from the bokeh by using more refined asphericals as used in the 24 GM.
But a the time being, I will reconsider carrying around my current 35/85 f1.4 (ZA and Samyang AF) combo and may switch to the Sony F1.8 set. Almost half the weight. Unfortunately, it will be roughly the same money, 35 1.4 ZAs are being traded for less than what the 35 F1.8 costs around here now. Many people seem to make the switch.
p.35 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
It's less rare these days to find a lens with bokeh showing high contrast. OOF is prominent. Very much a new look lens, like the Nikon Z 35/1.8 S counterpart.
Sony's own image gallery indicates they think the bokeh is a big feature - 12 from 15 are f1.8-f2.
p.35 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I have the Sony 28 f2 and just sold my Samyang 35 f/2.8, both were walk-around options that my wife would be comfortable shooting with in terms of size. I like the aperture but images on the 28 rarely excite me. The details end up too muddy for my taste, particularly for landscapes. Frankly I thought the Samyang did a better job overall as an all purpose lens despite the loss of a stop of light and a bit of flaring. I was thinking of replacing both of those with this new 35 f/1.8.
I tried this lens out in the store and it seemed quite nice, light and really sharp. The AF was insanely fast! Not sure I have tested one that is faster yet. But this brief encounter doesn't really push the lens in any challenging ways, and of course doesn't test rendering in normal situations.
Reviews seem mixed, but...if not this one, which around 35mm will be better as an all-around lens? Looking for f/1.8 ideally.
. As much as a I like the Loxia sunstars, I must say this one can deliver pretty decent stars as well (f16). I also think the bokeh in the first shot at 1.8 is fine, and there is what appears to be a minor flare hidden in the center. Second and third shots at f2.8 where I think the bokeh also fares well.
