Mystik wrote:
Bokeh quality does not seem to the priority of the optical design of this lens....nor is it the value proposition of this lens. And that's OK. There are very many lenses that cost significantly more than FE35 that have less than great bokeh, but have value propositions elsewhere.
I'd say that its more common that a lens will fail the scrutiny of the typical person here...and more of a rarity that a lens has superlative bokeh. 85GM is one of the few lenses that I think would pass the smell test of people here.
I'm seeing a lot of sample images from this lens, 35mm is my favorite focal length, and my opinion is that the harsh, unsightly boken is not worthy of my dollars. If other people find the lens worth their money because of the light weight, fast AF, etc, then more power to them! Bokeh rendering isn't, and shouldn't, be everyone's top concern. I'm just very underwhelmed by the vast majority of sample images I've seen from a rendering perspective (especially for the price for a nifty-fifty-esque lens) and that's ok, no need to get upset about it
Totally agree.
I am quite underwhelmed by the rendering shown in some of the samples (especially when the subject is far away from the MFD). Some people like the harshness / character, some call it artistic, and other don't care too much about rendering, that's all fine.
The 35/1.8 has many strengths including size, AF, sharpness and MFD (that bee shot by @tbpeur01 btw is awesome!).
keepcoding wrote:
To be honest, the rendering in these examples - although not perfect - is much much better than what I've seen from the 35/1.8 so far.
Of course ... the above are all telephoto lenses!
Are you seriously expecting a 35mm lens to have bokeh comparable to 85mm/135mm/70-200mm lenses
Not seen direct comparison yet.
It seems the two lenses are at the opposite as philosophy.
This is why may be it is justified to own both.
Taking also profit of the two slightly different focal lenghts.
One thing which concerns me is CA.
I’ve not seen too much of that in the pictures I took.
In any case is this something auto corrected or correctable via software once it happens?
keepcoding wrote:
No I don't. But someone pulled those photos out as a comparison for some reason.
I am waiting for a rendering comparison against the Sigma 45/2.8. Maybe that will make it more clear what we mean by harshness of the 35/1.8 ;-)
I didn't post them as a direct comparison. Very hard to do so because the FOV are different and the use cases for each of those lenses is different.
I posted them as examples of expensive lenses that have less than stellar bokeh. The thing is, even if those lenses aren't the best in terms of bokeh, they're still capable of producing pleasing images. Sometimes we don't need to get caught up in the minutiae, particularly for a lens where size is the priority...because very often the only reason we get the shot is because we had the small compact lens that is practical to carry in a given situation.
35ZA is still my go-to for more serious environmental portraiture and I plan to get the Sigma 35 eventually...but seriously, the FE35 1.8 is a competent lens in a compact form factor and that is the value proposition
GMPhotography wrote:
I do like how the Sigma 35 1.2 renders no question. It’s the size that scares me. It’s as big as my 135 Sony which I love but not for a 5 hr shift of constant use. My arthritis can’t do that anymore for that long. It’s not a strength issue but a pain and that’s no fun.
All of this depends on what your doing and what expectations and needs you have. I have two lens kits so it makes these decisions easier. Just not convinced on this 35 1.8.
I have two lens kits too....basically a compact kit for my personal photography, and a bunch of heavy-ass glass for paid portraiture and weddings.
I love the 85GM, 35ZA, and 70-200GM as no holds barred optically strong lenses....but I don't enjoy shooting on those lenses...particularly not when out with the family.
My personal kit right now consists of the Loxia 21, FE35 1.8, 50 1.8, and CV40. I also snagged an FE85 for $249 that hopefully will actually ship lol. Each of those lenses has their fair share of of compromises to make the size needs work, and I'm fine with making those compromises. The alternative is owning nothing but big-ass lenses that are great, but didn't bring with me when I headed out for the day because they are a PITA to carry around and use.
I'm seeing a lot of sample images from this lens, 35mm is my favorite focal length, and my opinion is that the harsh, unsightly boken is not worthy of my dollars. If other people find the lens worth their money because of the light weight, fast AF, etc, then more power to them! Bokeh rendering isn't, and shouldn't, be everyone's top concern. I'm just very underwhelmed by the vast majority of sample images I've seen from a rendering perspective (especially for the price for a nifty-fifty-esque lens) and that's ok, no need to get upset about it
You didn't get it, did you... If you were to refer strictly to the lens (e.g. "I see some very funky bokeh there"), it would had been just fine, it's what all the posters have said, I have myself said it and posted examples, and you would have probably elicited even more examples of "funkiness".
But as soon as you add "not worth the money", it extends the judgment from the lens characteristics to the intellect of those that bought or intend to buy it, and that is not welcome. No wonder that you drew some ire here.
p.45 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
You seem to be the only one consistently taking offense to my post. I said it’s not worth the money to me, but there are other characteristics that might make it worth the money to others. If you had kept reading, you would have noticed that.
Like many examples posted in here, this lens shines in good light with minimal backgrounds, and looks to be an excellent light weight documentary option. What it is not a good fit for is minimal focal distance shooting of foliage, which has been made clear by numerous examples.
vdo1 wrote:
You didn't get it, did you... If you were to refer strictly to the lens (e.g. "I see some very funky bokeh there"), it would had been just fine, it's what all the posters have said, I have myself said it and posted examples, and you would have probably elicited even more examples of "funkiness".
But as soon as you add "not worth the money", it extends the judgment from the lens characteristics to the intellect of those that bought or intend to buy it, and that is not welcome. No wonder that you drew some ire here.
p.45 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
RoamingScott wrote:
You seem to be the only one consistently taking offense to my post.
Then I guess you also didn't get what Mystik's post with the excellent three photos Batis/Sigma/Sony was about, nor what the role of Guy's post about "35mm in general" was?
p.45 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
vdo1 wrote:
Then I guess you also didn't get what Mystik's post with the excellent three photos Batis/Sigma/Sony was about, nor what the role of Guy's post about "35mm in general" was?
I have 2 rules about brick walls: I don't shoot them, and I don't talk to them. Sorry for derailing the thread, please continue on without the unnecessary 35mm ecosystem diversion.
p.45 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Mystik wrote:
I also snagged an FE85 for $249 that hopefully will actually ship lol.
I also ordered during this pricing glitch even though I already have the Samyang 85/1.4. For that price, why not? If it ships, of course...(Best Buy was not having any of it for price matching, I tried.) Hoping it will be good for part of the travel kit.
Currently where I live the 35/1.8 is not even yet in stock in the Sony stores and I am on a wait list. So I am being forced to wait out the Tamron announcement in all likelihood - but if I end up with this Sony 35/1.8 I won't be unhappy at all about it. Despite not being perfect for all applications, it was a joy to shoot with for family and street. Love how sharp, fast and light it is.
And my spouse can pick it up to take pictures of me with kids and not be intimidated, which is key on family trips. As you may already have experienced, photographers are otherwise often invisible in family photo albums!
p.45 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
keepcoding wrote:
No I don't. But someone pulled those photos out as a comparison for some reason.
The reason(s) - as I see them, were:
1. To show that, otherwise largely objected characteristics of bokeh (cat eye, swirls) can be actually used to the photographer's advantage to create compelling photos. [try to mentally change the backgrounds in the three photos between each other, and see how it wouldn't work at all, and what is great bokeh with one subject would be fail with a different one]
2. To show that he is a skilled enough photographer to understand bokeh and use it accordingly and to great effect, so one shouldn't question any further whether his lens choices are informed and based on good judgement or not.
p.45 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
keepcoding wrote:
No I don't. But someone pulled those photos out as a comparison for some reason.
I am waiting for a rendering comparison against the Sigma 45/2.8. Maybe that will make it more clear what we mean by harshness of the 35/1.8 ;-)
The Sigma 45/2.8 is smooth and not harsh as most images are out of focus
I have both the Sigma 45/2.8 and the Sony 35/1.8. I like the in focus images produced by the Sigma so much that I'm keeping the lens and hoping for a firmware fix.
The 35/1.8 will function a lot like the 55/1.8 for me - fast lenses that produce sharp images in a small package. Great for hiking, kids, dogs, street, and events. Both focus silently, lightning fast, and accurately, unlike the Sigmas. Both are capable of producing stunning images.
Like Mystik said earlier, if you want AF and the best IQ, go for one of the Sigma behemoths. The images from the Sigma 35/1.2 have me seriously considering that lens even though I want to stay with smaller lenses.
Exactly Carlo! I’m taking photos of my family with this lens. When I look back in years to come I won’t give a monkeys about the shape of the bokeh balls etc. I happen to find the bokeh just fine for my needs and I’m loving the lens, it’s a joy to shoot with.
If others don’t like it and want ultimate IQ from every lens fair play to you!
