abadger wrote:
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.
The contention is about bokeh only. If you’re looking for a small “walk-around” lens with good AF, the 35/1.8 has only few competitors: Sony 28/2, 35/2.8, 55/1.8 (anything else is manual focus or has issues with AF or is too big/heavy). From what I’ve seen so far, the 35/1.8 is an arguably better choice than the first two. Between it and the 55, it will be a matter of focal length preference.
The guys trashing it are comparing it with the recent Sigma 35/1.2. Which is definitely nice but not as a walkaround lens. Or with the Sonnar 35/2, which is nice too, but is permanently glued to its own camera (RX1) so it’s not something one could use on an A7.
vdo1, I appreciate the response. It would seem the clear preference for me is the 35/1.8 due to the focal length. But as a buyer I also don’t want to walk into an expensive disappointment. Perhaps it will be, compared to something like the Sigma. But in reality, I carry the heavy lenses around much less often, so this type of lens should get quite a bit more “mileage per dollar” assuming it holds up visually.
In my brief encounter it was very pleasing to use as were the resulting photos. So I would hope it will be an improvement overall over the 28/2. I just hope it is not another 28/2, that certainly wouldn’t be worth the much higher cost. The MTF charts suggest I shouldn’t worry, but of course I do. Plus all of this rendering discussion.
The last set of images posted look very encouraging. Leaning towards making this one a “buy.” Thanks to everyone providing updates thoughts and opinions!
Just wanted to say I appreciate the "real world" samples from everyone so far. Outside of the torture test foliage shots I think it doesn't look as bad as I originally feared as far as rendering goes.
I think I'm back leaning towards "buy", not sure if I'll ditch the 28 f/2 or 55 f/1.8, I've gotten accustomed to both of those even if the spacing is pretty tight.
abadger wrote:
vdo1, I appreciate the response. It would seem the clear preference for me is the 35/1.8 due to the focal length. But as a buyer I also don’t want to walk into an expensive disappointment. Perhaps it will be, compared to something like the Sigma. But in reality, I carry the heavy lenses around much less often, so this type of lens should get quite a bit more “mileage per dollar” assuming it holds up visually.
In my brief encounter it was very pleasing to use as were the resulting photos. So I would hope it will be an improvement overall over the 28/2. I just hope it is not another 28/2, that certainly wouldn’t be worth the much higher cost. The MTF charts suggest I shouldn’t worry, but of course I do. Plus all of this rendering discussion.
The last set of images posted look very encouraging. Leaning towards making this one a “buy.” Thanks to everyone providing updates thoughts and opinions!...Show more →
Maybe you can wait one month or so before deciding. By then there will be more photos posted here and in other threads. The lens just became available here during the past week, so it’s too early to see much of it. There is something weird going on with this one - the “pro” reviewers have nearly all posted muddy, crappy, unsharp photos - while the actual users here are having the opposite experience. Either the former reviewed some prototypes only, or there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Why would anyone set camera sharpness to -5 when trying to showcase the qualities of a lens?? Mind boggling... maybe there’s something else more expensive coming from Sony (a GM?) and they don’t want to steal the thunder of that one.
formula4speed wrote:
Just wanted to say I appreciate the "real world" samples from everyone so far. Outside of the torture test foliage shots I think it doesn't look as bad as I originally feared as far as rendering goes.
I think I'm back leaning towards "buy", not sure if I'll ditch the 28 f/2 or 55 f/1.8, I've gotten accustomed to both of those even if the spacing is pretty tight.
I actually think that it renders very nicely for what it is. Of course it can't be compared to a f1.2 or 1.4 lens wide open
vdo1 wrote:
The last one is a sweet proof that foliage won’t inherently look messy.
I agree. I think nearly any 35mm lens will tend to show busy bokeh at certain distances that is just the way optics work. Of course some will be slightly better but for a 1.8 non GM lens I think it is surprisingly good
vdo1 wrote:
Maybe you can wait one month or so before deciding. By then there will be more photos posted here and in other threads. The lens just became available here during the past week, so it’s too early to see much of it. There is something weird going on with this one - the “pro” reviewers have nearly all posted muddy, crappy, unsharp photos - while the actual users here are having the opposite experience. Either the former reviewed some prototypes only, or there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Why would anyone set camera sharpness to -5 when trying to showcase the qualities of a lens?? Mind boggling... maybe there’s something else more expensive coming from Sony (a GM?) and they don’t want to steal the thunder of that one....Show more →
I am finding the lens to be surprisingly sharp across the frame wide open with some slight fall off towards the corners. Like the *5/1.8 personally I think they have made a real winner
The 55 is also amazing as a walk around lens but for me just a bit too close to the 85mm focal length that I already have. But if this one is like the 55 in a 35mm focal length, I will be pleased to depart with my hard earned money.
And waiting a month? Perfectly logical. But, that assumes I can exercise the proper restraint. Let’s see if I can get through the week first.
p.36 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
Maybe you can wait one month or so before deciding. By then there will be more photos posted here and in other threads. The lens just became available here during the past week, so it’s too early to see much of it. There is something weird going on with this one - the “pro” reviewers have nearly all posted muddy, crappy, unsharp photos - while the actual users here are having the opposite experience. Either the former reviewed some prototypes only, or there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Why would anyone set camera sharpness to -5 when trying to showcase the qualities of a lens?? Mind boggling... maybe there’s something else more expensive coming from Sony (a GM?) and they don’t want to steal the thunder of that one....Show more →
I need to just try it myself. Too many varied opinions going on and my red flag went up. After I get the IV next week when I get back from vacation. I'm just going to get this. It's a work lens for me so it should be fine at least till the next best thing comes.
p.36 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
The contention is about bokeh only. If you’re looking for a small “walk-around” lens with good AF, the 35/1.8 has only few competitors: Sony 28/2, 35/2.8, 55/1.8 (anything else is manual focus or has issues with AF or is too big/heavy). From what I’ve seen so far, the 35/1.8 is an arguably better choice than the first two. Between it and the 55, it will be a matter of focal length preference.
The guys trashing it are comparing it with the recent Sigma 35/1.2. Which is definitely nice but not as a walkaround lens. Or with the Sonnar 35/2, which is nice too, but is permanently glued to its own camera (RX1) so it’s not something one could use on an A7....Show more →
You forgot the Samyang 45/1.8. AF is just as good as the one of e.g. the 28/2.
p.36 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
The guys trashing it are comparing it with the recent Sigma 35/1.2.
I have not seen much comparison between the FE 35/1.8 and Sigma 35/1.2. These lenses could not be more different even though they share the same focal length. I'm sure they were not designed for the same clientele.
Learning about potential shortcomings of a lens is not trashing it. So far, posters on this thread have been fair to the FE 35/1.8 pointing out positive and negative aspects of the lens.
p.36 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I'm just guessing... but looking at DxO's testing from a while back, worst offender seemed to be bad CA outside the center. Could be that Sony is using Software corrections and getting the dialed in prior to final launch. So end users are seeing a decent lens and early testers are seen an uncorrected lens... There was an article not to long ago, forget where, that talked about applying warps to different RGB channels to clean up CA.
vdo1 wrote:
Maybe you can wait one month or so before deciding. By then there will be more photos posted here and in other threads. The lens just became available here during the past week, so it’s too early to see much of it. There is something weird going on with this one - the “pro” reviewers have nearly all posted muddy, crappy, unsharp photos - while the actual users here are having the opposite experience. Either the former reviewed some prototypes only, or there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Why would anyone set camera sharpness to -5 when trying to showcase the qualities of a lens?? Mind boggling... maybe there’s something else more expensive coming from Sony (a GM?) and they don’t want to steal the thunder of that one....Show more →
p.36 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I think 35 will make a great pair with 55, more so than 35/85. Many people had paired 28/55 when things started out but 35 is a better lens than 28. Also 55 is more everyday than 85 and can go to 82mm on crop mode.
Its a great pair and can replace a lens like Tamron 28-75 easily.
abadger wrote:
The 55 is also amazing as a walk around lens but for me just a bit too close to the 85mm focal length that I already have. But if this one is like the 55 in a 35mm focal length, I will be pleased to depart with my hard earned money.
And waiting a month? Perfectly logical. But, that assumes I can exercise the proper restraint. Let’s see if I can get through the week first.
p.36 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
This was exactly my feeling. Just got it delivered and did some quick test shots and will try to do more tomorrow. Having read Fred and your reviews for more than a year now (and often followed your advice), I think you might like it for its sharpness, fast speed and contrast. The bokeh is pretty much like Viramati already pointed out, not buttery as hoped by many, but certainly not bad at all. It is very light, feels like the 85 1.8. If I want to do serious landscape shootings I will turn to the Voigtländers or the 16-35 GM, - same as for Portrait work, the 85 GM will be the one. But for everything else, this 35 1.8., as the 24 GM was not an option. A keeper for me.
GMPhotography wrote:
I need to just try it myself. Too many varied opinions going on and my red flag went up. After I get the IV next week when I get back from vacation. I'm just going to get this. It's a work lens for me so it should be fine at least till the next best thing comes.
p.36 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
With how portable and easy to use this is, hard drive space is going to fill up fast...all wide open, and I actually really enjoy the bokeh for this series. I purchased this lens after this thread was 30 pages long, so I'm not one who is trying to justify my purchase - instead I want people to see 1.8 in different scenarios so they are better equipped to make their own choice. Each shot had minor exposure/color adjustments using the automatic features in Capture One.
p.36 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have not seen much comparison between the FE 35/1.8 and Sigma 35/1.2. These lenses could not be more different even though they share the same focal length. I'm sure they were not designed for the same clientele.
Learning about potential shortcomings of a lens is not trashing it. So far, posters on this thread have been fair to the FE 35/1.8 pointing out positive and negative aspects of the lens.
I should get my copy of Thursday.
You are right, in the sense that there's no formal head to head comparison done anywhere. However the threads are contemporary, and nearly everyone reading this one is also reading the Sigma one. On a subconscious level, the Sigma is the new reference for 35mm "goodness". And there are some stunning images in that thread, at least just because it's the first time we see an E-mount 35/1.2 in action, and, not to be brushed off, by pro photographers with pretty models and selected locations showing their best.
With that reference in mind, the photos in the 35/1.8 thread look kind of "meh", at least just because they're mostly of the "snapshot" or "test/sample" type. So let's try to re-frame the conversation, maybe around the lens class it belongs to (Sony 28/35/55 and the Sammy 45/1.8 that was just reminded to me).
You beat me at getting it. I was planning to get it tomorrow, but someone was faster and just bought the one at the Vistek location close to me. The gentleman who just bought it from Mississauga Vistek please confess.
p.36 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
tbpeur01 wrote:
With how portable and easy to use this is, hard drive space is going to fill up fast...all wide open, and I actually really enjoy the bokeh for this series. I purchased this lens after this thread was 30 pages long, so I'm not one who is trying to justify my purchase - instead I want people to see 1.8 in different scenarios so they are better equipped to make their own choice. Each shot had minor exposure/color adjustments using the automatic features in Capture One.
Hey these look great! Nice isolation, sharpness looks very good. Looks like you got a good copy😉 transition is pleasing too👍
Karl😎
p.36 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Karl Witt wrote:
Hey these look great! Nice isolation, sharpness looks very good. Looks like you got a good copy😉 transition is pleasing too👍
Karl😎
Agreed - what a couple days has taught me is that some scenarios I'll reach for the Loxia or Sony 50/1.4, but in most situations this is going to give me more than enough. The contrast is what I didn't fully expect - the images pop.
p.36 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Stevvi wrote:
This was exactly my feeling. Just got it delivered and did some quick test shots and will try to do more tomorrow. Having read Fred and your reviews for more than a year now (and often followed your advice), I think you might like it for its sharpness, fast speed and contrast. The bokeh is pretty much like Viramati already pointed out, not buttery as hoped by many, but certainly not bad at all. It is very light, feels like the 85 1.8. If I want to do serious landscape shootings I will turn to the Voigtländers or the 16-35 GM, - same as for Portrait work, the 85 GM will be the one. But for everything else, this 35 1.8., as the 24 GM was not an option. A keeper for me.
