I'm really puzzled by this lens. I have seen pictures that really look amazing to me. On the other hand, as soon as the background gets busy/complicated, the 35's bokeh seems to be the worst I have ever seen. It reminds me a bit of my former Pentax FA43 2.0
If you knew how to handle it its results were fantastic. But it could also destroy pictures with more than busy bokeh. But still, it wasn't as bad as with the FE35.
I'm still looking for a 35mm lens, at the moment, my compromise is the Samyang 45 1.8
The Sony seems sexy with regard to its size/weight/max aperture. But the bokeh can be really hideous in some situations which bothers me.
zeitlos wrote:
I'm really puzzled by this lens. I have seen pictures that really look amazing to me. On the other hand, as soon as the background gets busy/complicated, the 35's bokeh seems to be the worst I have ever seen. It reminds me a bit of my former Pentax FA43 2.0
If you knew how to handle it its results were fantastic. But it could also destroy pictures with more than busy bokeh. But still, it wasn't as bad as with the FE35.
I'm still looking for a 35mm lens, at the moment, my compromise is the Samyang 45 1.8
The Sony seems sexy with regard to its size/weight/max aperture. But the bokeh can be really hideous in some situations which bothers me. ...Show more →
It's a bipolar lens
Actually, to some extent, I believe all of them are. I think it has something to do with the size of the bright details in the OOF area, as compared with the size of the (imaginary) bokeh discs that would be produced by specular sources located at the same distance.
There's some critical point where they are comparable/similar in size - and that's where you get the weird stuff. Here's an example with the 50mm APO:
compare the details size (the bright "holes" between the tree branches) with the size of a bokeh balls that would be produced by a specular source located within the branches.
For the 35mm you can find lots of examples, as some reviewer's sites went out of their way to excite exactly that rendering mode. (IIRC one of them had 6 out of 10 sample photos all of "foliage against the sky" at the wrong aperture/distance/focus point combination).
All you have to do is to avoid that exact aperture. Now, with something like the Sigma f/1.2, you have some leeway in both directions, you can avoid the critical aperture by opening it wider (with more blur) or closing it more. With f/1.8 (and f/2 in the Lanthar case, or f/1.9 for the Pentax Ltd), most of the times you can go only one way (closing it more). It's something to do with the natural dimensions of the objects and of their details (like in tree branches and the "holes" between foliage/branches), the distance to them, the focus point distance, and the FL of the lens. In the typical "portrait in front of some trees" scenario, with a 35-ish lens the trees will excite that ugly rendering mode exactly around f/2 and you have no escape other than closing down the aperture.
This might also explain the "transition zone" thing that @Fred Miranda@ always likes to explore. Where the "bokeh discs" are comparable in size with the grass blades details, you'll have the ugliest rendering. Closer or farther it's all nice and dandy.
zeitlos wrote:
I'm really puzzled by this lens. I have seen pictures that really look amazing to me. On the other hand, as soon as the background gets busy/complicated, the 35's bokeh seems to be the worst I have ever seen. It reminds me a bit of my former Pentax FA43 2.0
If you knew how to handle it its results were fantastic. But it could also destroy pictures with more than busy bokeh. But still, it wasn't as bad as with the FE35.
I'm still looking for a 35mm lens, at the moment, my compromise is the Samyang 45 1.8
The Sony seems sexy with regard to its size/weight/max aperture. But the bokeh can be really hideous in some situations which bothers me. ...Show more →
Nothing to be puzzled by really.
Almost every lens is compromised to some degree.
Want a small, fast, AFing, (relatively) inexpensive 35mm lens?
You have one.
Wanting it to be perfect at all apertures and distances and in every lighting condition is not reasonable.
Zeiss, Sigma, Canon, and Leica all make "more perfect" 35s but be prepared to spend more, carry more, and in some cases give up auto-focus.
Yes, but the bokeh of the 35mm Sony is extremely ugly in certain conditions. I have never seen such a busy/ugly bokeh before. Just study the pictures in this thread. Even small/cheap lenses aren't that bad. On the other hand, if the background fits, the 35mm Sony is really very nice in terms of it's bokeh. I understand that it's always a compromise. But why on earth these two extremes?
zeitlos wrote:
Yes, but the bokeh of the 35mm Sony is extremely ugly in certain conditions. I have never seen such a busy/ugly bokeh before. Just study the pictures in this thread. Even small/cheap lenses aren't that bad. On the other hand, if the background fits, the 35mm Sony is really very nice in terms of it's bokeh. I understand that it's always a compromise. But why on earth these two extremes?
Some of those shots might have been put up for illustrative purposes.
I just spent an entire weekend shooting the 35 in the Pennsylvania countryside and I didn't get a single image with "bad bokeh".
I did find the CA that I was promised but then again I was looking for it.
All in all it is a great lens for someone desiring something akin to the RX1 experience.
I can live with the idea that I might want to delete an image on occasion due to a disappointing rendering.
How about we go back to posting images taken with the lens, instead of arguing with those who don't like the bokeh? Because some of us aren't stuck on that... Listening to the same thing over and over gets old. Done venting.
Soooooo, I went out for a walk with my family as the sun was going down just now. Handheld with the 35/1.8.
Surfnsun wrote:
How about we go back to posting images taken with the lens, instead of arguing with those who don't like the bokeh? Because some of us aren't stuck on that... Listening to the same thing over and over gets old. Done venting.
Soooooo, I went out for a walk with my family as the sun was going down just now. Handheld with the 35/1.8.
Nice images; looks like fun.
Perhaps the lens's forte is as a "throw it over your shoulder" 35 for a light-weight ramble.
Whatever.
It works better than the 28/2 and the 35/2.8 in many regards.
vdo1 wrote:
He actually got the Batis 40 and waxed lyrical about it some time ago. Funny how he didn’t seem to have any issues with the bokeh on that one.
It's rather sad how uninformed you are to put it nicely. You think you are funny, but in fact you are lying – in many ways – which is rather uncommon here in this forum. All well documented.
1. I was the one who criticized its focus (and got criticized for doing so).
2. I was the one who emphasized its harsh bokeh in certain situation (even though it's not that bad in my opinion in comparison to the FE35 1.4)
3. I sold it a long time ago.
So everything you just stated was wrong. Probably you don't mind.
I know that bullies are even ruling countries at the moment. So why not find them here. As long as you feel comfortable with your lies keep doing what you do/enjoy best.
It may sound old-fashioned, but get your facts right before smearing other people in public.
zeitlos wrote:
It's rather sad how uninformed you are to put it nicely. You think you are funny, but in fact you are lying – in many ways – which is rather uncommon here in this forum. All well documented.
1. I was the one who criticized its focus (and got criticized for doing so).
2. I was the one who emphasized its harsh bokeh in certain situation (even though it's not that bad in my opinion in comparison to the FE35 1.4)
3. I sold it a long time ago.
So everything you just stated was wrong. Probably you don't mind.
I know that bullies are even ruling countries at the moment. So why not find them here. As long as you feel comfortable with your lies keep doing what you do/enjoy best.
It may sound old-fashioned, but get your facts right before smearing other people in public.
"Just bokehwise some people where sometimes puzzled since it can be a bit harsh, depending on the subject. However, personally, I liked it. It has character."
So my statement stands. According to your own posts, you did get that lens and you didn't have issue with the bokeh either.
"Just bokehwise some people where sometimes puzzled since it can be a bit harsh, depending on the subject. However, personally, I liked it. It has character."
So my statement stands. According to your own posts, you did get that lens and you didn't have issue with the bokeh either.
Thanks for proving me right. It's very unfortunate that you keep on misleading. What you just stated proves what I said. It can be harsh. I even uploaded pictures where you can see it at that time. Still I like it since it has character. I wrote the same today. It can be harsh but not comparable (in my view) to the FE35 1.8.
"Thanks for your feedback on the pictures! Basically, I came to the same conclusion. I think and say the same, you just can express it more elaborately. The Batis 40 reminds me a bit of my former Pentax FA43 1.9 Limited. It could produce lovely, lovely shots, but you had to be careful with the background, since the bokeh could be busy then as well. But otherwise, it was great. "
If you took the time to read and understand everything I wrote you will always read the same thing. And it differs from what you are making up here. I'm sure that people couldn't care less about our dispute here, but I don't like it when people tell obvious lies about other people - no matter if it's me or someone else. Unfortunately I was right. You feel fine about it.
Anyway, back on topic for those who want to see or discuss pictures from the FE35 1.8.
Edit: By the way. You won't stop me from stating my thoughts on either lens. I was then attacked by some (few) people for speaking out about the dysfunctional AF of my Batis 40mm in the same way you try to discredit me ("trolling") because here in this thread I dared to criticize the Sony's bokeh.
It's great to read different point of views about a lens' performance and characteristics. Let's not get too personal and try to keep this thread civil. Thank you!
ˇHe says it has a nice bokeh and good CA! (and he's a thorough and serious reviewer):
Pros:
Beautiful build. Small but premium
Weather sealing
Excellent autofocus. Quiet and accurate
Nice looking bokeh
Excellent center sharpness
Good color rendition
Good flare and CA control
Very useful MFD and magnification
Cons:
Price on the higher side
Corner performance isn’t exceptional
Some coma (particularly at wide apertures)
