chiron wrote:
interesting, original analysis. You should start a thread on this so that more people can weigh in and more examples from other lenses can be gathered to test the explanation. It could produce a much more useful understanding of bokeh issues that goes beyond labeling some lenses as good and others as bad.
I don’t have the proper lenses for conducting a definitive study. I have freak stuff like 12-24 and 100 STF + slow lenses. I think someone with the Sigma 35/1.2 could do it, find a f/2 - f/2.8 “ugly counterlit foliage” scene and take pics of it from f/1.2 to f/8 at all aperture increments.
What I know is that, given the proper combination of detail and aperture, I can do “wormy background” with the 100 STF too. Which shouldn’t happen if the only criteria for “bokeh greatness” would be the brightness profile of the bokeh discs. Also I’ve never seen anything weird or heard complaints of the 12-24. I will put that on the lens being an f/4 UWA and thus (nearly) always positioning itself in the “bokeh discs much smaller than detail size” case. Same with other slow UWAs. You’ll need a normal zoom of preferably f/2.8 to go beyond that point. Didn’t a Tamron zoom get some bashing for that quite recently? How about it actually isn’t a bad lens, but was just being used wrongly?
vdo1 wrote:
I don’t have the proper lenses for conducting a definitive study. I have freak stuff like 12-24 and 100 STF + slow lenses. I think someone with the Sigma 35/1.2 could do it, find a f/2 - f/2.8 “ugly counterlit foliage” scene and take pics of it from f/1.2 to f/8 at all aperture increments.
What I know is that, given the proper combination of detail and aperture, I can do “wormy background” with the 100 STF too. Which shouldn’t happen if the only criteria for “bokeh greatness” would be the brightness profile of the bokeh discs. Also I’ve never seen anything weird or heard complaints of the 12-24. I will put that on the lens being an f/4 UWA and thus (nearly) always positioning itself in the “bokeh discs much smaller than detail size” case. Same with other slow UWAs. You’ll need a normal zoom of preferably f/2.8 to go beyond that point. Didn’t a Tamron zoom get some bashing for that quite recently? How about it actually isn’t a bad lens, but was just being used wrongly? ...Show more →
I didn't mean that you should provide the images--just the initial question/analysis/hypothesis and an example or two. What would be interesting would be what others have to say about your hypothesis and whether it holds up to examples chosen by multiple people using a variety of lenses.
chiron wrote:
I didn't mean that you should provide the images--just the initial question/analysis/hypothesis and an example or two. What would be interesting would be what others have to say about your hypothesis and whether it holds up to examples chosen by multiple people using a variety of lenses.
Oh, I’m quite tired of arguing around this. I just posted it here and those really interested have already found it and read it and possibly have tested it themselves to see how it applies to their lens and usage case. Please feel free to take it further if you want, I’m done with the bokeh wars.
It’s pretty smooth, i’ll give you that. Big fan of this lens, despite the fact i’ve currently listed it on buy/sell. I do agree in certain foliage situations it’s a bit harsh, but in most i’ve found it’s bokeh unique and not a downside. Pros >>> Cons.
A really nice shot, showing that's it's the person behind the camera, not the lens, that mostly matters .
Still, I think close to MFD the background is generally smooth and nobody questioned FE 35 f/1.8 in that regard (though the glass is a tricky element and it was handled well here).
AGeoJO wrote:
I noticed that the used price of the Batis 40mm on the B&S forum is approximately $775 lately. The price of the Sony FE 35mm f1.8 on GT is approximately $650. If we disregard the price difference between the two and the fact that one is used while the other is brand new, which one would you buy and take as a light-weight 35-40mm lens for travel? BTW, I do have the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DN that while it is a superb performer, the bulk and weight are prohibitive factors for travel.
I am cross posting this on the current Batis 40mm thread to get more input. Thank you!...Show more →
are you open to experimenting with the samyang 45 1.8?
i have the B40 and i love it but i recently bought a samyang 18 and 45 specifically just for travelling. thinking of getting the fe 85 1.8 to complete the small and light set.
realVivek wrote:
Even the legendary Leica M8* was given a design award!
(*famous for its magenta madness and crackable sensor)
Speaking of dogs an Leicas and 35mm.... I wonder how no one is complaining about LoCA and bokeh when it comes to a "Zeiss" 35/2, check the two pictures featuring dogs here:
I'm just loving this lens with the A7RIV. It seems like it's getting better at focusing on moving cats but maybe it's my imagination. I wish I had some additional subjects but the cats are most of what I have to work with, especially in the middle of winter.
Oops, I apologize but I mis read the title. I used the 135 1.8 for these shots. I thought that was the thread title.
):
