Mystik wrote:
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.
The young lady is stealing the whole show, congratulations to the parents!
Now to the lenses - the focal distance difference is noticeable, the first photos look more like “girl playing in the garden” while the last ones more like “portrait of girl playing”. I didn’t expect that much between 35 and 40.
Bokeh. The brighter bokeh balls of the FA make the yellow tree more “painterly”/“impressionistic”, like there are colored globes hanging from it, for me it’s more interesting. The ZA renders it more blandly. The green tree is about the same, and since it’s peripheral to the frame, doesn’t attract attention. Grass is similar, slightly smoother and less contrasty with the ZA.
LoCA - I’m not sure but it seems there’s a little bit more color in the white window frame with the ZA, which would mean more LoCA.
CV - well the FL is responsible for most of the difference I think. Cat eye bokeh too but not in a bad way.
vdo1 wrote:
The young lady is stealing the whole show, congratulations to the parents!
Now to the lenses - the focal distance difference is noticeable, the first photos look more like “girl playing in the garden” while the last ones more like “portrait of girl playing”. I didn’t expect that much between 35 and 40.
Bokeh. The brighter bokeh balls of the FA make the yellow tree more “painterly”/“impressionistic”, like there are colored globes hanging from it, for me it’s more interesting. The ZA renders it more blandly. The green tree is about the same, and since it’s peripheral to the frame, doesn’t attract attention. Grass is similar, slightly smoother and less contrasty with the ZA.
LoCA - I’m not sure but it seems there’s a little bit more color in the white window frame with the ZA, which would mean more LoCA.
CV - well the FL is responsible for most of the difference I think. Cat eye bokeh too but not in a bad way.
A couple things I should point out....I still don't have the profiles for the FE 35 1.8, so the images are not corrected....but I didn't apply profiles for the CV40 or FE35ZA either. Also, these are not SOOC. I'm more interested in how images look when I run them through post than SOOC, because the final result is all that matters. They do have the same settings applied though.
The outcomes was pretty interesting to me...I was fully expecting the 35ZA to trounce the FE 35 in terms of rendering, as there's a lot going on in the background in terms of foliage and lighting, and the 35ZA is tried and true for environmental portraits for me....but at least in this example, they're on equal footing.
It's really interesting how different the 40mm FOV is from 35mm....particularly because from working distance perspective, they don't feel all that different, whereas I often have issues with 50mm in tighter spaces. I was on the verge of selling the CV40 until now and started getting Sigma 35 1.2 GAS....but I can definitely see the rationale in owning both the CV40 and FE 35, and the CV40 rendering wide open is up there with the Sigma 35 1.2
A couple things I should point out....I still don't have the profiles for the FE 35 1.8, so the images are not corrected....but I didn't apply profiles for the CV40 or FE35ZA either. Also, these are not SOOC. I'm more interested in how images look when I run them through post than SOOC, because the final result is all that matters. They do have the same settings applied though.
The outcomes was pretty interesting to me...I was fully expecting the 35ZA to trounce the FE 35 in terms of rendering, as there's a lot going on in the background in terms of foliage and lighting, and the 35ZA is tried and true for environmental portraits for me....but at least in this example, they're on equal footing.
It's really interesting how different the 40mm FOV is from 35mm....particularly because from working distance perspective, they don't feel all that different, whereas I often have issues with 50mm in tighter spaces. I was on the verge of selling the CV40 until now and started getting Sigma 35 1.2 GAS....but I can definitely see the rationale in owning both the CV40 and FE 35, and the CV40 rendering wide open is up there with the Sigma 35 1.2
Good call on not selling the 40. It’s pretty special and the focal length is VERY versatile. The only thing that would prompt me to sell my CV 40 would be a Sony 40/1.4 GM.
Mystik wrote:
The outcomes was pretty interesting to me...I was fully expecting the 35ZA to trounce the FE 35 in terms of rendering, as there's a lot going on in the background in terms of foliage and lighting, and the 35ZA is tried and true for environmental portraits for me....but at least in this example, they're on equal footing.
I think that past the APSC circle the difference isn't difficult to notice even in thumbnails. Converted in B&W to eliminate CA as a variable :
I'm not sure but I believe that the f1.8 has more field curvature / astigmatism and this could be why it produces bokeh balls with an increasingly hard edge in one axis moving towards the corners. I'm fairly certain that, CA aside (and it's got lots of it so putting it aside may not be a good idea) this is what most people dislike about its bokeh.
An other illustration of the aspects that some people may not like about the 35 1.8 FE's bokeh. I've taken two shots from Sony Alpha Blog's flickr stream, one from the 35 f1.8 FE and the other from the Sigma 45 2.8 (the polar opposite of the 35 1.8 in many respects), showing the same subject. The Sony's combination of CA, what I believe is astigmatism, and less well fine tuned spherical aberration compared to the Sigma 45, can at times be a recipe for disaster :
In some situations it won't be noticeable (the more defocused objects are, the less they're influenced by aberrations). In others it will ruin the picture (particularly ones that rely on the transition region past the APSC circle). There's nothing inherently wrong with that performance, most wide angle lenses used to be like that. But in recent years we've seen major progresses in that regard (the 35 1.4 ZE is an early example of this new breed of wide angle lenses with fairly low FC / astigmatism - not that it doesn't have a number of issues with its bokeh, but for other reasons). Neither the new 35mm 1.8 from Canon nor Sony are participating much to that progress if at all.
We've been living with such issue for decades so I don't think that it will prevent the production of good photographs though .
MayaTlab wrote:
I think that past the APSC circle the difference isn't difficult to notice even in thumbnails. Converted in B&W to eliminate CA as a variable :
I'm not sure but I believe that the f1.8 has more field curvature / astigmatism and this could be why it produces bokeh balls with an increasingly hard edge in one axis moving towards the corners. I'm fairly certain that, CA aside (and it's got lots of it so putting it aside may not be a good idea) this is what most people dislike about its bokeh.
An other illustration of the aspects that some people may not like about the 35 1.8 FE's bokeh. I've taken two shots from Sony Alpha Blog's flickr stream, one from the 35 f1.8 FE and the other from the Sigma 45 2.8 (the polar opposite of the 35 1.8 in many respects), showing the same subject. The Sony's combination of CA, what I believe is astigmatism, and less well fine tuned spherical aberration compared to the Sigma 45, can at times be a recipe for disaster :
In some situations it won't be noticeable (the more defocused objects are, the less they're influenced by aberrations). In others it will ruin the picture (particularly ones that rely on the transition region past the APSC circle). There's nothing inherently wrong with that performance, most wide angle lenses used to be like that. But in recent years we've seen major progresses in that regard (the 35 1.4 ZE is an early example of this new breed of wide angle lenses with fairly low FC / astigmatism - not that it doesn't have a number of issues with its bokeh, but for other reasons). Neither the new 35mm 1.8 from Canon nor Sony are participating much to that progress if at all.
We've been living with such issue for decades so I don't think that it will prevent the production of good photographs though . ...Show more →
Totally agree with your findings.
In many situations the harsh bokeh won't be notices as demonstrated by the many sample shots in this thread (mostly close-ups with high level of background blur). However, for street and event photography I fear the harsh bokeh will be more apparent.
I am using the lens largely for street and family photography so far. If you’d like to investigate a particular scenario I am happy to attempt to find a setting and report back with samples. Though I only have it for another day or so before I have to return.
MayaTlab wrote:
I think that past the APSC circle the difference isn't difficult to notice even in thumbnails. Converted in B&W to eliminate CA as a variable :
I'm not sure but I believe that the f1.8 has more field curvature / astigmatism and this could be why it produces bokeh balls with an increasingly hard edge in one axis moving towards the corners. I'm fairly certain that, CA aside (and it's got lots of it so putting it aside may not be a good idea) this is what most people dislike about its bokeh.
An other illustration of the aspects that some people may not like about the 35 1.8 FE's bokeh. I've taken two shots from Sony Alpha Blog's flickr stream, one from the 35 f1.8 FE and the other from the Sigma 45 2.8 (the polar opposite of the 35 1.8 in many respects), showing the same subject. The Sony's combination of CA, what I believe is astigmatism, and less well fine tuned spherical aberration compared to the Sigma 45, can at times be a recipe for disaster :
In some situations it won't be noticeable (the more defocused objects are, the less they're influenced by aberrations). In others it will ruin the picture (particularly ones that rely on the transition region past the APSC circle). There's nothing inherently wrong with that performance, most wide angle lenses used to be like that. But in recent years we've seen major progresses in that regard (the 35 1.4 ZE is an early example of this new breed of wide angle lenses with fairly low FC / astigmatism - not that it doesn't have a number of issues with its bokeh, but for other reasons). Neither the new 35mm 1.8 from Canon nor Sony are participating much to that progress if at all.
We've been living with such issue for decades so I don't think that it will prevent the production of good photographs though . ...Show more →
And then there’s the elephant in the room, the Sigma 40/1.4. It’s the living proof that if, at these focal lengths, you want all three qualities of being sharp, fast and with well corrected aberrations, it won’t be small and light. Anyone here using that lens for walk around / tourism? Yeah I thought so
abadger wrote:
I am using the lens largely for street and family photography so far. If you’d like to investigate a particular scenario I am happy to attempt to find a setting and report back with samples. Though I only have it for another day or so before I have to return.
p.41 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
And then there’s the elephant in the room, the Sigma 40/1.4. It’s the living proof that if, at these focal lengths, if you want all three qualities of being sharp, fast and with well corrected aberrations, it won’t be small and light. Anyone here using that lens for walk around / tourism? Yeah I thought so
I agree. I'm not sure that there is a reasonably priced AF 35mm out there that's as compact and fast as the Sony but with better FC / astigmatism correction. Is there one ?
While not quite as excellent as some of the best wide angles in that regard (Sony 24, Sigma 40), the Nikon is a good deal better than the Sony in terms of FC / astigmatism I believe... but IMO significantly bigger (the Sony looks so cute squeezed between its two direct competitors) :
p.41 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
MayaTlab wrote:
I agree. I'm not sure that there is a reasonably priced AF 35mm out there that's as compact and fast as the Sony but with better FC / astigmatism correction. Is there one ?
While not quite as excellent as some of the best wide angles in that regard (Sony 24, Sigma 40), the Nikon is a good deal better than the Sony in terms of FC / astigmatism I believe... but IMO significantly bigger (the Sony looks so cute squeezed between its two direct competitors) :
From the comparative test on dpreview, the Nikon appears to have less CA than Sony, but also lower perceived contrast / sharpness. However as pointed out by someone else here, it might have been an issue of exact focusing on the same point.
p.41 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Not an extremely fair comparison given the Sony was shot on the a7R III and the Zeiss was shot on an a7 III. I guess we can compare slopes of the lines, but not the scale.
p.41 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
tsdevine wrote:
Not an extremely fair comparison given the Sony was shot on the a7R III and the Zeiss was shot on an a7 III. I guess we can compare slopes of the lines, but not the scale.
-Tim
Ok let's try with the GM 135, the latest reference in e-mount lens sharpness. Tested on A7RIII too:
. 
