Enri wrote:
As per Lensrentals charts, the Sony 35 is sharpest at center than the Batis 40 both WO.
It's also sharper than the 24 GM and I don't think that most people would be particularly critical of the latter's performance in the centre of the frame.
I've read that there can be in some situations a trade off between some aberrations that may enhance rendering (spherical aberration for example) and resolution. beyond a certain point increased resolution in the centre of the frame may not be always desirable.
tsdevine wrote:
It has gotten such a bad rap [...]
It was all the fault of the initial hype ("30 Days of Batis" and stuff), it set the expectations so high, that the smallest thing was guaranteed to make it fall from a very high pedestal. And there were three of them, AF performance, aperture at MFD, and bokeh. The first two were addressed via firmware update but the initial disappointment wasn't / couldn't be addressed and stayed with us.
KarmaKramer wrote:
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
To my eyes Sony looks better in most of these, Fred, more context in bokeh, better shaping of sink and seems better cross frame too. Some of us might have been hasty on this one, on too few images. First impressions and all that. 2/3 the price too.
Fred Miranda wrote:
One more comparison to Loxia 35/2. This time closer to the subject. (background near is as well)
Dont think there are many Loxia 35 users who use it at f2 except if they are looking for a "vintage" look! It's lovely stopped down though. Except for the infamous L35 "blob" artefact when the sun is in the frame.
Still, if the Sony had nicer sunstars it'd likely replace my L35.
Still want a nice compact manual 10 or 12 straight bladed f2 lens that's better than the L35, CVUltron or ZM1.4/35...the 35 Problem is still with us (even though I got the Sigma 1.2 which is amazing for its use case)
p.48 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
They both look just OK. The Loxia has less CA, but the Sony has more contrast and is sharper. Stopped down I like the look of my Loxia 35 more than the Sony.
p.48 #12 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
First post on the forums! Just got the mine yesterday.
Initial thoughts: While I don't own any GMs to compare it to, I found the build quality to be excellent. The focus ring is larger than the 28mm/55mm and feels smoother (dampened better). Focus is super fast and nearly silent. Perfect for video. Just switching back and forth with the 55, I'd say the 35 is at least twice as fast grabbing focus as the 55. (55 still plenty fast). Biggest surprise is the close focus ability. It provides .24X magnification. Love this! This will most likely become my everyday lens and will replace the 28 and possibly the 55 for my usage.
My opinion of the rendering: Very sharp with dreamy out of focus background and has a little extra 3D-like pop. I really like it. Similar to the 55 in my eyes.
p.48 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
DavidBM wrote:
Dont think there are many Loxia 35 users who use it at f2 except if they are looking for a "vintage" look! It's lovely stopped down though. Except for the infamous L35 "blob" artefact when the sun is in the frame.
Still, if the Sony had nicer sunstars it'd likely replace my L35.
Still want a nice compact manual 10 or 12 straight bladed f2 lens that's better than the L35, CVUltron or ZM1.4/35...the 35 Problem is still with us (even though I got the Sigma 1.2 which is amazing for its use case)
Like you, I still have the Loxia 35/2 Biogon and mainly use it for landscapes at ~f/8 where it renders beautiful colors with very decent resolution/contrast across the field. I agree on the "blob" ghosting and great sunstar rendering.
I do like the very structured (or vintage) look wide open for certain applications like close-ups where it's actually sharp compared to many lenses like the CV 40/1.2 for instance. By f/3.2, rendering, resolution and contrast approaches the new Sony at f/2.
Many photographers like the Loxia 35's look stopped down a bit for its subject 'separation' and high contrast. The FE 35/1.8 does something similar straight from wide open and that's kudos to Sony. However, it's definitely not for everyone's taste and in my view, the images it produces have a very different look compared to something like the Sonnar 35/2. (RX1 series)
I've read many saying the FE 35/1.8 images look similar to the FE 55/1.8's. I disagree.
The former is very high in contrast from wide open while rendering is more structured while the latter is lower in contrast with smoother rendering. They are similar in size not being well corrected for CA though. Another great characteristic of the FE 35/1.8 is the much cleaner specular highlights inner structure (onion ring pattern) compared to the 55/1.8 ZA.
p.48 #14 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Today I tested the FE 35/1.8 vs Loxia 35/2. For landscapes, I usually shoot the Loxia 35 @f/7.1 where it performs best across the field and still retains great contrast. (Depending on the scene some focus stacking is needed at this aperture)
Here are they compared @f/7.1 at infinity distance on a Sony A7R4.
I found them to be similar at center and mid-field whereas the Loxia has a slight edge at the corners. (Both lenses are centered)
There is more purple fringing for the Sony in areas of high contrast. The Loxia seems slightly wider than the Sony.
p.48 #15 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Today I tested the FE 35/1.8 vs Loxia 35/2. For landscapes, I usually shoot the Loxia 35 @f/7.1 where it performs best across the field and still retains great contrast. (Depending on the scene some focus stacking is needed at this aperture)
Here are they compared @f/7.1 at infinity distance on a Sony A7R4.
I found them to be similar at center and mid-field whereas the Loxia has a slight edge at the corners. (Both lenses are centered)
There is more purple fringing for the Sony in areas of high contrast. The Loxia seems slightly wider than the Sony.
Much prefer the Loxia at the extreme edge. Also seems to have more microcontrast in the center and midfield to me and thus I prefer its rendering for landscape to the Sony.
p.48 #16 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Luvwine wrote:
Much prefer the Loxia at the extreme edge. Also seems to have more microcontrast in the center and midfield to me and thus I prefer its rendering for landscape to the Sony.
and the sunstars...
The crops at center do not show moire on the rooftops. This is a perceivable improvement moving from 42MP to 60MP in regards to aliasing.
p.48 #17 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Today I tested the FE 35/1.8 vs Loxia 35/2. For landscapes, I usually shoot the Loxia 35 @f/7.1 where it performs best across the field and still retains great contrast. (Depending on the scene some focus stacking is needed at this aperture)
Here are they compared @f/7.1 at infinity distance on a Sony A7R4.
I found them to be similar at center and mid-field whereas the Loxia has a slight edge at the corners. (Both lenses are centered)
There is more purple fringing for the Sony in areas of high contrast. The Loxia seems slightly wider than the Sony.
Interesting. I'm also seeing better contrast on the Loxia across the field, and resolution better at the edges.
Slightly surprises me. Contrast was always the Loxia strong point stopped down, but I would have expected a new strong design to catch up or exceed (and also to be better in the corners than a symmetrical design like the Lox).
Oh well I'm quite pleased weirdly. I get attached to lenses I've taken lots of nice images with, and it's nice to think that I'm not being irrational in failing to replace the Lox with the Sony... (give that for AF and wide aperture stuff I use something else)
BTW I've been playing with achromats on the Loxia for closer use. Some real improvements for closer and wider use....
p.48 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Some stuff with A7R3, C1 and FE 35/1.8 at f/5.6 (handheld though). The lens now has a C1 profile. If you gents are going the A7R4 route you have to try C1 too, the "Sharpness falloff" correction work nice and my guess is that it is done somehow scientifically in the sense that the gentlemen at Phase One did some measurements on the lens in order to establish the exact gradient.
First pic is the whole scene, no "Sharpness Falloff" and no "Purple Fringing" corrections.
Second pic is a corner detail at 1:1, no "Sharpness Falloff" and no "Purple Fringing" correction.
Third pic is same corner with "Sharpness Falloff" and "Purple Fringing" enabled. The purple along the vertical pillar has disappeared. The Sharpness is overdone as I set the slider to 250 (instead of 100) as to show how much you can go with that.
p.48 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
David, The Loxia 35 of Fred's comparison may be a somehow "exceptionally good" copy. One year ago, Fred said that he had tried 6 copies of the Loxia 35 2.0 before choosing one, also stating: "Most of the Lox 35 copies I've tested didn't perform great at the very corners and needed f/9-10 to be optimum". I guess he has tried much fewer copies of the Sony 35 1.8 (perhaps one or two). Therefore, supposing that "any" Sony 35 1.8 is less sharp in the corners than "any" Loxia 35 2.0 maybe a little bit risky.
p.48 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Enri wrote:
David, The Loxia 35 of Fred's comparison may be a somehow "exceptionally good" copy. One year ago, Fred said that he had tried 6 copies of the Loxia 35 2.0 before choosing one, also stating: "Most of the Lox 35 copies I've tested didn't perform great at the very corners and needed f/9-10 to be optimum". I guess he has tried much fewer copies of the Sony 35 1.8 (perhaps one or two). Therefore, supposing that "any" Sony 35 1.8 is less sharp in the corners than "any" Loxia 35 2.0 maybe a little bit risky.
Another great characteristic of the FE 35/1.8 is the much cleaner specular highlights inner structure (onion ring pattern) compared to the 55/1.8 ZA.
