I'm building myself up to this lens I have the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 classic, 35mm 2.8 Samyang and I now have the Tamron 35mm 2.8 on it's way. I do like the STF look I see on this lens.
I sold the 50mm 1.8 FE (Not a bad lens for the price) holding out for something slightly better in the OOF area. Plus, a bit wider than 50mm can come in handy for walk around type usage.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I'm building myself up to this lens I have the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 classic, 35mm 2.8 Samyang and I now have the Tamron 35mm 2.8 on it's way. I do like the STF look I see on this lens.
I sold the 50mm 1.8 FE (Not a bad lens for the price) holding out for something slightly better in the OOF area. Plus, a bit wider than 50mm can come in handy for walk around type usage.
How do you feel about the the Voigt 40//1.4 on Sony? That lens has always tempted me but I've never pulled the trigger. It's OOF rendering of highlights can be quite harsh but when there isn't such a problematic background, it looks like it renders very nicely.
EDIT: Forgot, as a 45/2.8 owner who waffled and researched and looked at samples and and and...just go for it if you think you'd like it. It's awesome, you will like it. Gorgeous rendering when and where you want it, sharp corner to corner and edge to edge stopped down at infinity. It's an amazing 'dual threat' lens. Even the shortcoming, the glowy soft business wide open and at or near minimum focus distance, it's gone by f/4.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone figure out a way to make the 45/2.8 DG DN compatible with the new magnetic front cap?
(same cap size as the 24/3.5 DG DN)
I use the hood, so mag lens cap is problematic. I'd like a mag hood cap though.
Dave Sanders wrote:
How do you feel about the the Voigt 40//1.4 on Sony? That lens has always tempted me but I've never pulled the trigger. It's OOF rendering of highlights can be quite harsh but when there isn't such a problematic background, it looks like it renders very nicely.
EDIT: Forgot, as a 45/2.8 owner who waffled and researched and looked at samples and and and...just go for it if you think you'd like it. It's awesome, you will like it. Gorgeous rendering when and where you want it, sharp corner to corner and edge to edge stopped down at infinity. It's an amazing 'dual threat' lens. Even the shortcoming, the glowy soft business wide open and at or near minimum focus distance, it's gone by f/4. ...Show more →
I like it quite a bit actually. It's soft wide open outside the MFD but that really hasn't been an issue for me. What's weird is the bokeh is quite busy wide open but then gets surprisingly calm at F2 and down. I love the size and I've been shooting it far more than I thought I would. At portrait distances it's still far better than any of my older film lenses and it's the MC version as well so flare resistance is really good.
I bought it as someone had commented on here that they had both the classic and the 40mm 1.2 FE at the same time. They said they didn't see too much difference and decided to stick with the 40mm 1.4 classic. I think I can see why. It's got a nice rendering and it indeed is small and at least in my experience, has been fun to shoot.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I like it quite a bit actually. It's soft wide open outside the MFD but that really hasn't been an issue for me. What's weird is the bokeh is quite busy wide open but then gets surprisingly calm at F2 and down. I love the size and I've been shooting it far more than I thought I would. At portrait distances it's still far better than any of my older film lenses and it's the MC version as well so flare resistance is really good.
I bought it as someone had commented on here that they had both the classic and the 40mm 1.2 FE at the same time. They said they didn't see too much difference and decided to stick with the 40mm 1.4 classic. I think I can see why. It's got a nice rendering and it indeed is small and at least in my experience, has been fun to shoot.
Please remind me what's the trick to nail focus consistently with this lens? Should I just shoot in AFS mode? As much as I love this lens, it makes eye AF on A7III feel like a downgrade from my DSLR from 2012.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Please remind me what's the trick to nail focus consistently with this lens? Should I just shoot in AFS mode? As much as I love this lens, it makes eye AF on A7III feel like a downgrade from my DSLR from 2012.
AF on this lens is the weakest link imo. AF-C doesn't work well honestly, neither does Eye AF. I would use AF-S and spot.
My experience on an A7RIV is that single shot eye autofocus is reasonable, especially if you stop down to f3.5 vs. f2.8. If you stop down to f4 it is yet more accurate. Not perfect, but definitely good enough at f3.5 so that 80% plus are in focus.
Im considering selling 32 2.8 and 55 1.8 to get sigma 45 2.8
- 35 and 55 FLs too close to build a kit around (have CV21 3.5 to pair with)
- 55 1.8 ok for family portrait/group of 3, but its too tight for casual walk / weekends
- 35 2.8 is a bit too wide for family portrait
Pros
- Aperture ring
- Rendering, IQ, weight/size vs 55
Cons
- AFC so so --> Im having a toddler in few months, is that a deal breaker ?
Im used of quick AFC with my 35 and 55, even on my old A7II.
1. Owner/user of 55 who switched to 45C, any regrets ? 2. AFC ok for toddler?
thanks for you help
Mar 02, 2021 at 02:45 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I've never owned the 55, so I can't comment there. I do own the 45 Sigma and a have a toddler, though.
The 45 AF has been covered extensively, but I'll reiterate the finer points. It's designed to accentuate Sperical Aberration (SA) which doesn't play well with Phase Detect Autofocus (PDAF). Since Sony only uses PDAF in AF-C mode, it struggles there. However - using a Sony in AF-S mode, which uses Contrast Detect Auto Focus (CDAF) it does much, MUCH better. Knowing this upfront will help manage your expectations and avoid some frustration.
In AF-S, it does VERY well in decent light (outdoors, bright indoor settings) and you'll have no trouble getting action shots of a toddler there. Indoors and in post-twilight dim lighting, it starts becoming an issue if you are shooting moving subjects. For those times, it helps to switch to manual focus - the focus-by-wire is extremely well-implemented - or to lock focus, or pre-focus on a static subject, then wait for the little spaz to come into the frame.
I personally love the lens, and recently picked up the 24/3.5 to complement it. The tradeoffs are real, but it is definitely worth it for me. It's small, sexy, light and has probably the most gorgeous rendering I've ever seen in a modern lens.
isohw wrote:
Im considering selling 32 2.8 and 55 1.8 to get sigma 45 2.8
- 35 and 55 FLs too close to build a kit around (have CV21 3.5 to pair with)
- 55 1.8 ok for family portrait/group of 3, but its too tight for casual walk / weekends
- 35 2.8 is a bit too wide for family portrait
Pros
- Aperture ring
- Rendering, IQ, weight/size vs 55
Cons
- AFC so so --> Im having a toddler in few months, is that a deal breaker ?
Im used of quick AFC with my 35 and 55, even on my old A7II.
1. Owner/user of 55 who switched to 45C, any regrets ? 2. AFC ok for toddler?
imagesfromobjects wrote:
I've never owned the 55, so I can't comment there. I do own the 45 Sigma and a have a toddler, though.
The 45 AF has been covered extensively, but I'll reiterate the finer points. It's designed to accentuate Sperical Aberration (SA) which doesn't play well with Phase Detect Autofocus (PDAF). Since Sony only uses PDAF in AF-C mode, it struggles there. However - using a Sony in AF-S mode, which uses Contrast Detect Auto Focus (CDAF) it does much, MUCH better. Knowing this upfront will help manage your expectations and avoid some frustration.
In AF-S, it does VERY well in decent light (outdoors, bright indoor settings) and you'll have no trouble getting action shots of a toddler there. Indoors and in post-twilight dim lighting, it starts becoming an issue if you are shooting moving subjects. For those times, it helps to switch to manual focus - the focus-by-wire is extremely well-implemented - or to lock focus, or pre-focus on a static subject, then wait for the little spaz to come into the frame.
I personally love the lens, and recently picked up the 24/3.5 to complement it. The tradeoffs are real, but it is definitely worth it for me. It's small, sexy, light and has probably the most gorgeous rendering I've ever seen in a modern lens.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
I've never owned the 55, so I can't comment there. I do own the 45 Sigma and a have a toddler, though.
The 45 AF has been covered extensively, but I'll reiterate the finer points. It's designed to accentuate Sperical Aberration (SA) which doesn't play well with Phase Detect Autofocus (PDAF). Since Sony only uses PDAF in AF-C mode, it struggles there. However - using a Sony in AF-S mode, which uses Contrast Detect Auto Focus (CDAF) it does much, MUCH better. Knowing this upfront will help manage your expectations and avoid some frustration.
In AF-S, it does VERY well in decent light (outdoors, bright indoor settings) and you'll have no trouble getting action shots of a toddler there. Indoors and in post-twilight dim lighting, it starts becoming an issue if you are shooting moving subjects. For those times, it helps to switch to manual focus - the focus-by-wire is extremely well-implemented - or to lock focus, or pre-focus on a static subject, then wait for the little spaz to come into the frame.
I personally love the lens, and recently picked up the 24/3.5 to complement it. The tradeoffs are real, but it is definitely worth it for me. It's small, sexy, light and has probably the most gorgeous rendering I've ever seen in a modern lens.
I can confirm. I was seriously considering selling this lens as my hit rate with this was less than 50% and I couldn't rely on it, but based on @lifeandmylens tip I tried AFS with spot metering this weekend and most of my shots were in focus and useable. Basically, this lens is amazing, if you are okay to shoot it like you are back in DSLR days and can live without the eye-AF feature. The IQ and rendering will be totally worth it, if you are okay with this limitation.
To the guy having a toddler in few months, don't dump 35/55 for 45. You will regret it. I don't know how well eye-AF work on A7II, but on A7III 35 and 55 nail focus like 100% of the time, just point and shoot. With 45, you will be spraying and praying.
Mar 02, 2021 at 08:37 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Ahhh, it's been a while since I've been on a Sony - using a Sigma fp these days - is eye-AF only available in AF-C? The fp does it in AF-S and I can vouch for it working pretty well. ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I can confirm. I was seriously considering selling this lens as my hit rate with this was less than 50% and I couldn't rely on it, but based on @lifeandmylens@ tip I tried AFS with spot metering this weekend and most of my shots were in focus and useable. Basically, this lens is amazing, if you are okay to shoot it like you are back in DSLR days and can live without the eye-AF feature. The IQ and rendering will be totally worth it, if you are okay with this limitation.
To the guy having a toddler in few months, don't dump 35/55 for 45. You will regret it. I don't know how well eye-AF work on A7II, but on A7III 35 and 55 nail focus like 100% of the time, just point and shoot. With 45, you will be spraying and praying.
I have the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 classic, 35mm 2.8 Samyang and I now have the Tamron 35mm 2.8 on it's way. I do like the STF look I see on this lens.