Fred, do you think is justified own both this and Sigma 45?
I know this is a personal opinion but I like the sharpness of this Sony and the smoother bokeh of the new Sigma.
Also regarding CA Sigma seems to be a little better.
I do not want buy both then leave one sistematically at home.
Its so funny. Photographers will take a photo of just about anything with a new lens, to show subject isolation. Who else would take a photo of sneakers like that lol
rji2goleez wrote:
Absolutely! I meant it more about size and weight. Some lenses have gotten quite large and I like the small form factor.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Except that the Loxia 35/2 is softer while rendering is harsher in comparison.
I'm not sure if the Sony would continue to have smoother rendering toward the corners of the frame, your pic is not a good test for that. I see more light fall off in the corners on the Sony.
Interesting, it peaks at f/11. That Batis 40 seems a little stronger at wider apertures, but the Sony is slightly better at f/11 and even more better at f/16. For my landscape shooting, that would be beneficial. Not sure it is enough for me to make the switch though.
rji2goleez wrote:
A couple of quick snaps with this new lens. It definitely needs a Lightroom profile. Otherwise, it reminds me very much of the FE 55/1.8 from these initial snaps. More enjoyment to follow.
I love how small and lightweight it is. It feels like putting a Loxia 35 with AF on the camera.
The light fall-off in the corners of your apartment picture is surprisingly high for f/7.1. It also looks like there is some red/magenta color shift in the corners, most visible in the sky.
tsdevine wrote:
Interesting, it peaks at f/11. That Batis 40 seems a little stronger at wider apertures, but the Sony is slightly better at f/11 and even more better at f/16. For my landscape shooting, that would be beneficial. Not sure it is enough for me to make the switch though.
If you already have the Batis, it’s probably not worth switching, unless there are some other factors involved (i.e. you’re doing lots of closeups and the nonagons are rubbing you the wrong way; you actually prefer 35mm FOV over 40mm etc).
No, there isn't anything that really bothers me with the Batis. I do wish there wasn't such a nose dive in resolution at f/16 (I don't focus stack), but I don't shoot stopped down that far very often.
vdo1 wrote:
If you already have the Batis, it’s probably not worth switching, unless there are some other factors involved (i.e. you’re doing lots of closeups and the nonagons are rubbing you the wrong way; you actually prefer 35mm FOV over 40mm etc).
p.47 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
pdmphoto wrote:
The light fall-off in the corners of your apartment picture is surprisingly high for f/7.1. It also looks like there is some red/magenta color shift in the corners, most visible in the sky.
p.47 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I've edited my previous post because I mistakenly said Sony 35 was tested on Sony A7 III in the Lesnumeriques test. Then I choosed to go to Lensrentals data to check whether it's true that Batis 40 is sharper WO at center than Sony 35 as Lesnumeriques tests show.
p.47 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
tsdevine wrote:
I don’t often shoot wide open. I’m more interested in stopped down performance.
-Tim
There's more to those diagrams than just sharpness. Astigmatism for example. Plus what's not there, like purple fringing, vignetting, aperture shape, flare, ghosting etc. If you consider all factors, the Batis may be the more appropriate lens for your use, even if on one single parameter it does not come the first.
p.47 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Yes, from what I've seen so far, the Batis is more corrected for CA (both types I believe.) As you stop down to f/11 though, many lenses exhibit less of those characteristics anyway.
I'm atypical. I know everyone is generally focused on WO or < f/5.6 performance.
-Tim
vdo1 wrote:
There's more to those diagrams than just sharpness. Astigmatism for example. Plus what's not there, like purple fringing, vignetting, aperture shape, flare, ghosting etc. If you consider all factors, the Batis may be the more appropriate lens for your use, even if on one single parameter it does not come the first.
p.47 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
tsdevine wrote:
Yes, from what I've seen so far, the Batis is more corrected for CA (both types I believe.) As you stop down to f/11 though, many lenses exhibit less of those characteristics anyway.
I'm atypical. I know everyone is generally focused on WO or < f/5.6 performance.
p.47 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Thanks, that's just another reason to stick with the Batis. It has gotten such a bad rap that I keep my eye open for other alternatives, even though it seems to be a solid lens in my usage.
