Fred Miranda wrote:
There is a lot of talk about the FE 35/1.8 LoCA under-correction but in reality it's similar to Sonnar 35/2 (RX1), and even FE 24/1.4 GM which are two of the most praised lenses. I've posted side by side tests comparing the FE 35/1.8's rendering to these two lenses.
I'm afraid that the LoCA talk is perpetrated by the same source that found "onion rings" with this lens. I suggest that next time he does it, he should be challenged to produce RAWs.
What I personally found is that LoCA is of no real concern with this lens. You may sometimes get colored edges in bokeh balls, or some colored droplets of water from a sprinkling fountain, but no way you'll be getting purple noses and/or green hair and halos when doing portraits.
I'm talking about both my own photos/experience and other peoples photos posted here or on flickr. If you find any example that you think may be worth debating, please feel free to post a link.
I really have not tested this lens except to make sure I got a good copy on Big Bronco test which it passed with flying colors its sharp as hell. This is at 1.8 and even the bokeh is not bad at all. Sure I see some crunchy
realVivek wrote:
Also claims that the build quality is the lens’ forte.
As Ken Rockwell has rightLy pointed out, the filter threads are plastic.
One could argue that the material choice actually helps - it eliminates the issue of stuck filters
What I’m not sure here is what is his definition of “competition” - any 35mm lens of any size and weight? Then I’d rather get the Sigma 35/1.2 than his Samyang.
Picked up a copy of the lens on sale over black friday, and though I was excited to try it out, I'm going to sell it on.
It's a nice lens, but the chromatic aberration is atrocious, especially purple fringing at f1.8-2. I am ok with CA, but this lens has the worst I've seen on any of my Sony lenses. To be fair all of my other lenses are GM and Zeiss, but for the price I'm quite disappointed.
GMPhotography wrote:
I really have not tested this lens except to make sure I got a good copy on Big Bronco test which it passed with flying colors its sharp as hell. This is at 1.8 and even the bokeh is not bad at all. Sure I see some crunchy
Eh, my first reaction to this shot from a lens technical perspective (not the quality of the capture or composition, of course) was to note how incredibly busy and unpleasant the bokeh is.
Jman13 wrote:
Eh, my first reaction to this shot from a lens technical perspective (not the quality of the capture or composition, of course) was to note how incredibly busy and unpleasant the bokeh is.
The way I view it is that this is the best 35 in this form factor at the moment for e-mount. You can do better if you lose the portability. If they come out with a GM or whatever that approximates this size, I’ll happily switch. For now it really is a very good option. CA is correctable. Bokeh problems are situational. So if you need to take mid range bokeh shots into backlit trees, maybe grab your Sigma. Otherwise this is pretty decent.
For me it's not that it was a bad lens. It just wasn't good enough to make me take the 24GM off my Riv. I found myself favoring the rendering of the 36mm better. Really hoping for a 40GM still
Enri wrote:
Ronald, of course, cropping change FOV... I didn't think it was the result of downsampling... What benefits (verified) do you get doing this?
I just gives me a slightly more manageable file. Still 10+ MB.
