There's the Batis 40...it's like splitting the difference (between the 35 1.4's you mention and the 45 2.8) 3 ways (size, speed, focal length, color aberration.) Well....maybe only 3 out of those 4.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you hate longitudinal CA, the FE 35/1.8 and pretty much all 35mm lenses on the market won't make you happy. The Sigma 35/1.2 and Canon 35/1.4L II will do better than the others but they are very big lenses.
The only compact alternative I can think of is the Sigma 45 which is well corrected for color aberration...but it's 45mm and f/2.8 which you don't want.
tsdevine wrote:
There's the Batis 40...it's like splitting the difference (between the 35 1.4's you mention and the 45 2.8) 3 ways (size, speed, focal length, color aberration.) Well....maybe only 3 out of those 4.
-Tim
That's true Tim. I forgot about the Batis 40/2 which has better CA correction as well.
So far, what I really like about the FE 35/1.8 is the high resolution/contrast even at close distance. Focus speed/accuracy is also a big plus and something the Sigma 45 lacks, especially in AF-C mode.
Yes I thought so as well, but the GM (mine) is better than the CV 21 3.5 as well, I was not too surprised. I could choose the lens out of three in the shop as I heard about copy variation. Now as Fred started to review, I believe we will see more precise comparisons - compared to what I did. Enri wrote:
Stevvi: in the castle scene comparison did you take several photos with each lens using fresh AF for each capture, and then select the best one from each lens? It's surprising / unexpected that the sharpness of the zoom is better, more so given that 35 mm is its worst LF.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's true Tim. I forgot about the Batis 40/2 which has better CA correction as well.
So far, what I really like about the FE 35/1.8 is the high resolution/contrast even at close distance. Focus speed/accuracy is also a big plus and something the Sigma 45 lacks, especially in AF-C mode.
Fred, have you gotten around to look at the bokeh at or close to MFD on the 35 1.8 yet? That has been one of the main criticisms against the Batis 40 and I was wondering how the 35 1.8 fared in that regard.
Fred, from what you've said, could it be said that the Sony is sharper than Sigma through the whole frame up to about f/4.0 - 5.6 and from there the Sigma takes the lead, although the Sony keeps being more micro-contrasted?
p.40 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I have had this lens for just a couple of hours. And yes, there is some CA as people have shown. Exporting to jpeg from the camera to phone/tablet *does* fix some CA, but certainly did not fix all of it. But aside from pixel peeping, it has thus far not been anything that distracts from the overall photo.
That being said...I was very, very pleased with this as a walk around lens. Feels very similar to sporting the 55/1.8 but with a wider AOV. Similar weight too. Very sharp. Very fast AF with excellent eye-AF lock (daytime, mind you). The bokeh is fine - not the most buttery ever but pleasing and not busy to the point of distracting for me.
Some images SOOC, jpeg. I haven't edited in the slightest (If I do later I will edit this post to note the edits). Just to give you an idea of what to expect:
p.40 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I picked mine up yesterday at my local camera store, got it for 650,00 €. I like buying things local ;-)
I wonder, how much decentering is still acceptable. Unfortunately they only had the one copy, so I could not compare. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste and perfection.
With this lens I tend to say, it's not perfect, but OK. I will never again look at it this critically and I will mostly use it for family pictures. When I use it professionally I can always stop down to get more sharpness.
Here's a test of the extreme corners wide open. What do you think?
p.40 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
What do you think guys of a combo Sony 35 1.8 + Sigma 45 2.8 (complemented by Tamron 17-28 and Samyang 85 1.4). Too close one to each other?
As good or better than Tamron 17-28 + CV 40 1.2 + Samyang 85 1.4? As good or better than Tamron 17-28 + Tamron 28-75 + Samyang 85 1.4?
p.40 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
abadger wrote:
I have had this lens for just a couple of hours. And yes, there is some CA as people have shown. Exporting to jpeg from the camera to phone/tablet *does* fix some CA, but certainly did not fix all of it. But aside from pixel peeping, it has thus far not been anything that distracts from the overall photo.
That being said...I was very, very pleased with this as a walk around lens. Feels very similar to sporting the 55/1.8 but with a wider AOV. Similar weight too. Very sharp. Very fast AF with excellent eye-AF lock (daytime, mind you). The bokeh is fine - not the most buttery ever but pleasing and not busy to the point of distracting for me.
Some images SOOC, jpeg. I haven't edited in the slightest (If I do later I will edit this post to note the edits). Just to give you an idea of what to expect:
p.40 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
photosoph wrote:
I picked mine up yesterday at my local camera store, got it for 650,00 €. I like buying things local ;-)
I wonder, how much decentering is still acceptable. Unfortunately they only had the one copy, so I could not compare. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste and perfection.
With this lens I tend to say, it's not perfect, but OK. I will never again look at it this critically and I will mostly use it for family pictures. When I use it professionally I can always stop down to get more sharpness.
Here's a test of the extreme corners wide open. What do you think?
It's all up to you. If you don't fully like what you see, return it. Otherwise you will never really enjoy it, the thought that it is somehow "imperfect" or "tainted" will bug you forever. You cannot "unsee" what you did, it will stay with you.
That's why I don't do this kind of tests unless I can detect something being off with my regular photos. If I can't see it in the photos, then I don't want to know. As a result I sleep very well at night, not knowing that the upper right corner is ever so slightly different than the left one
p.40 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Enri wrote:
What do you think guys of a combo Sony 35 1.8 + Sigma 45 2.8 (complemented by Tamron 17-28 and Samyang 85 1.4). Too close one to each other?
As good or better than Tamron 17-28 + CV 40 1.2 + Samyang 85 1.4? As good or better than Tamron 17-28 + Tamron 28-75 + Samyang 85 1.4?
For myself, I feel like a 1.5-2x gap in focal length feels right between primes, so 35 and 45 are a bit close. Maybe if you're choosing the 35 for people/AF required and 45 for landscapes? Not a super compelling reason to me to have both in your lineup. I have 17-28 + 40/1.2 + 85 and I feel it covers a lot of scenarios, but you could certainly go with 35 or 45 instead of 40.
p.40 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
It's all up to you. If you don't fully like what you see, return it. Otherwise you will never really enjoy it, the thought that it is somehow "imperfect" or "tainted" will bug you forever. You cannot "unsee" what you did, it will stay with you.
That's why I don't do this kind of tests unless I can detect something being off with my regular photos. If I can't see it in the photos, then I don't want to know. As a result I sleep very well at night, not knowing that the upper right corner is ever so slightly different than the left one
Agree even though I test hard it's more about do I have a good copy and also the rendering and such. If all good than it's over go shoot. Bottom line I've been burned with bad copies and I don't want to get stuck with a bad lens and certainly don't want to sell to a member a bad copy
p.40 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
More "test shots". This one was intended for LoCA and bokeh. My finding with bokeh is that the lens produces very bright bokeh balls, which can be distracting when in large number (see previous "foliage against the sky" and flower shots). However, the lens shows restraint with producing "double vision". The FE 50/1.8 for example will produce 2 copies of every single linear detail in the background. The effect is not prominent with the 35.
Also, wide-open sharpness at MFD is very good for a general usage, non-macro lens.
p.40 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I’ve settled on the Tam 17-28 plus FE55 as a 2 lens walk around kit. I have and really like the Samyang 85 but it’s too big for me for on the go stuff. I got rid of me FE85/1.8 when I got the Samy, but am thinking of picking it up again with the new 35/1.8 as a three lens kit. I have the Tam 28-75 too but really don’t love the images I get with it. While the rendering of the two zooms is similar, w the wide zoom out of focus areas are harder to get except at mfd, so bokeh isn’t as big of a factor. I can accept wobbly bokeh at 28 but it’s a lot harder at 75.
Enri wrote:
What do you think guys of a combo Sony 35 1.8 + Sigma 45 2.8 (complemented by Tamron 17-28 and Samyang 85 1.4). Too close one to each other?
As good or better than Tamron 17-28 + CV 40 1.2 + Samyang 85 1.4? As good or better than Tamron 17-28 + Tamron 28-75 + Samyang 85 1.4?
p.40 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Real world use case 35MM-ish rendering tests for my own sanity.
@f1.8, the lenses are closer in terms of rendering than I expected. It's funny how biased our perceptions of glass can be. Both 35's get kinda nervous in the corners of the OOF areas. All 3 lenses have their own issues with bokeh balls.....but this is true of most lenses that are not the 85GM.
Overall I think all 3 lenses render nicely. CV40 is the winner in my eyes and its mostly due to FOV difference.
