Amateur Photographer's measurements aren't MTF charts like the ones described in the article above.
I don't know what they are. Most websites use a methodology that produces a single "sharpness" number at various points across a test chart (is that Imatest ?) but to be frank I've absolutely never understood them or found them relevant in any way. I find MTF charts easier to understand actually.
vdo1 wrote:
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.
Moar complicated . A lens can both be "more sharp" or "less sharp" than another one depending on what you're looking at. As an example :
Sometimes a sharper lens may not be ideal for actual photographs (that's particularly the case when it comes to the relationship between spherical aberration, resolution and bokeh).
I also think that DPR's copy of the Nikon 35 S may (emphasis on "may") be misaligned for several reasons too long to explain. If so that's Nikon's fault so their loss anyway.
p.42 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Thanks for posting this link (now if only the good people on the dpreview forums ever managed to have a longer thread without the omnipresent name calling ).
That comparison was informative. The Batis seems to have slightly higher contrast. Also, the CA performance is really night and day. Looking at the highest balcony on the neighboring apartment building, I get the impression that the CA is still there at f5.6 with the 35 1.8, while the Batis doesn't show a lot, if any.
However, if you look at the eighth comparison series (close up of that small light tower), you clearly see the issues the Batis still has with bokeh wide open near MFD. I usually don't care about bokeh all that much, but that looks pretty fugly even to my less than critical eyes (the Sony isn't perfect, but better).
As always, pick your poison, ladies and gentlemen .
p.42 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Took a few shots in the evening for fun. I found that face detection and eye-AF weren't that accurate, though that is not much different from other FE lenses I have used in these conditions. Otherwise it seems to have performed well.
p.42 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
abadger wrote:
Took a few shots in the evening for fun. I found that face detection and eye-AF weren't that accurate, though that is not much different from other FE lenses I have used in these conditions. Otherwise it seems to have performed well.
Great photos. I have to confess that I went to flickr and I saw the cute cat pic there too
The lens has a certain clarity in its rendering that suggests me to describe its performance there as “effortless”. It just works without having to struggle with it, neither when taking the pic, nor in post.
p.42 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Ha, I didn’t want successive posts to have a cat in them for whatever reason. But it just so happened there are a lot of cats in this city. Animal eye-AF was not on for that one but it was good enough.
There are plenty of pictures where little to no post is required. Of course, plenty are misses as well but I chalk those up to user error or timing. This lens seems to do a great job overall with spontaneous shooting. I might wait for October to see what Tamron has up its sleeve, but if it’s not extremely compelling I am very likely to pick up this lens. The positives definitely outweigh the negatives for me, given the portability.
I think that significant deformation of point light sources in the corners was to be expected given the samples already available. The Canon 35 RF is similar in that regard.
But in fairness it's quite obvious that uber-IQ was never the priority with this lens and that keeping the size and weight down while having a very fast AF rather was. And why not ? They're very valid concerns to have when designing a lens.
It's only very recently that we've had much better wide angles in that regard and I believe that I could count on one hand amputated of two and maybe even three fingers the 35mm lenses that do much better below the $1000 mark (and yes the Nikon Z is one these new breeds of wide angles, so think twice before mocking its weight, size or cost please).
keepcoding wrote:
By F8, there is still some strange coloring going on, what looks like tangential astigmatism (corner crop):
Could it it simply be a reflection / flare ?
keepcoding wrote:
Also quite interesting: bokeh crops
Given the persistent vignetting I was kinda expecting to see something funky going on here. My guess is that something may be undersized for packaging reasons in an unusual fashion in a way that blocks some rays even when significantly closed down. Reminds me a bit of bokeh balls being cut by the mirror box or excessive filter stacking in front of the lens.
But in fairness that's only in the corners. If you're at f5.6, there's a chance that vignetting will only impact peripheral illumination in your shot and not bokeh. So one of the few instances of vignetting that can actually be corrected in post if you don't mind the noise.
keepcoding wrote:
Past the APS-C frame the highlights become kind of translucent in a funny way.
I believe, but I'm not sure, that the hard edge in the sagittal orientation is caused by the same aberrations that are responsible for the wings in the plane of focus, ie astigmatism and / or field curvature. The "translucency" impression may come from the fact that light is unevenly spread across the bokeh ball, with a good chunk of it going to the hard edge in the sagittal orientation, less of it in the centre.
One thing that frankly pisses me off and that I don't understand is to read reviews making a molehill out of onion rings and minimising the impact of astigmatism / field curvature on bokeh, despite the latter being far more detrimental to a larger range of situations and way easier to notice even in small thumbnails. Sometimes I feel really sorry for the lens engineers who work hard and see their lenses subjected to an utterly idiotic sniff test.
Talking about Onion rings, I lead myself to believe that they would be as low as the 24 GM but at least with Cameralabs' copy it's actually no better than the Nikon Z (there could be some sample variation here).
p.42 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
MayaTlab wrote:
I think that significant deformation of point light sources in the corners was to be expected given the samples already available. The Canon 35 RF is similar in that regard.
But in fairness it's quite obvious that uber-IQ was never the priority with this lens and that keeping the size and weight down while having a very fast AF rather was. And why not ? They're very valid concerns to have when designing a lens.
It's only very recently that we've had much better wide angles in that regard and I believe that I could count on one hand amputated of two and maybe even three fingers the 35mm lenses that do much better below the $1000 mark (and yes the Nikon Z is one these new breeds of wide angles, so think twice before mocking its weight, size or cost please). ...Show more →
I am aware that a compact prime lens is always a compromize and I'm not trying to bash this lens. But we need to keep in mind that we are talking about a 750$ lens here, so not cheap at all.
I am impressed by the sharpness at F1.8 accross the frame, but honestly I don't need that. I would have preferred great bokeh and low CA instead of that kind of sharpness. If I want sharp corners, I don't mind to stop down to F5.6...
MayaTlab wrote:
Could it it simply be a reflection / flare ?
Hm, that's actually possible and more likely than astigmatism.
p.42 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
keepcoding wrote:
I am aware that a compact prime lens is always a compromize and I'm not trying to bash this lens. But we need to keep in mind that we are talking about a 750$ lens here, so not cheap at all.
I am impressed by the sharpness at F1.8 accross the frame, but honestly I don't need that. I would have preferred great bokeh and low CA instead of that kind of sharpness. If I want sharp corners, I don't mind to stop down to F5.6...
Hm, that's actually possible and more likely than astigmatism.
It would be a $500 lens if it weren't for tarrifs.
. A lens can both be "more sharp" or "less sharp" than another one depending on what you're looking at. As an example : 
