vdo1 wrote:
I'll need to test that, but I also had so many false alarms about ghosting with filters, that now I don't really pay much attention. Last one was with pics in a restaurant with nice chandeliers, when I got home and inspected the photos, I saw something that looked like "ghost" chandeliers, and I blamed myself for not removing the UV filter. Upon revisiting the place I realized that they were reflections on a pane of glass that I didn't notice during the first visit.
It doesn’t bother me so much, more of a curiosity. I just notice it happens with other lenses I have, though those also have filters on them by default. If I come across it again maybe I will start up a separate discussion.
beardedspoooon wrote:
I may end up getting the 35/1.8 anyway. I need a travel option, and debating between the 35 and the Tamron 17-28. Once I recover from the splurge of course.
The Sigma 35/1.2 is clearly the better lens in terms of IQ, but is definitely not a travel lens. You are buying these two lenses for two different purposes and could probably make use of both in different scenarios.
As for the Tamron 17-28 or the 35/1.8, I think that comes down to preference for focal length. For me personally 28 just wider than I prefer most of the time and it would annoy me to not have the 35 focal length. But during travel there are also times I would feel 35 is not wide enough for certain scenes. So in short, I am eventually looking to pick up the Tamron as well. Maybe if I had the R4 I could just crop the Tamron and be fine with that. But not with my A73. And I am pretty sure I would miss the faster aperture.
I have the Tamron and sony and my choice would be the Tamron because you can always crop an image. Sure you can stitch with the 35 but it's way too much to do. If money is not too tight then get the samyang 35 f/2.8 or 45mm f/1.8 to go along with the Tamron and save for the 35.
beardedspoooon wrote:
I may end up getting the 35/1.8 anyway. I need a travel option, and debating between the 35 and the Tamron 17-28. Once I recover from the splurge of course.
A few more photos to address the myth that if you have foliage in the frame, the FE 35mm will do something terrible with it. These are all with Capture 1 with default settings, no vignetting or purple fringing corrections. They only get better if you apply those, however let's see the "worst case" instead.
vdo1 wrote:
A few more photos to address the myth that if you have foliage in the frame, the FE 35mm will do something terrible with it. These are all with Capture 1 with default settings, no vignetting or purple fringing corrections. They only get better if you apply those, however let's see the "worst case" instead.
Having used this lens somewhat extensively given the short time it has been out, i'm slowly arriving at the conclusion this perception is overblown. Although I definitely agree the distracting bokeh with foliage is a thing in certain situations, it does not appear in the majority of situations - I think your examples illustrate this, and I particularly LIKE the bokeh in the shot prior with the spiny weed. I suspect this lens will only grow in popularity over time once people see how many boxes it does check.
fplstudio wrote:
mmm.....the bokeh of this lens reminds me of the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 at medium distance and possibly worse as here it is nervous also at close distance
Didn't buy it for the "bokeh", bought it for the size
fplstudio wrote:
mmm.....the bokeh of this lens reminds me of the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 at medium distance and possibly worse as here it is nervous also at close distance
Yeah at the transition zone it has some weirdness at times. But most of the time it’s fine and a majority of the time images look really quite good. A consequence of the compact form factor. If there was a better option at this size/weight/aperture, I’m sure it would be quite popular. As it is, I’m quite satisfied despite this flaw.
vdo1 wrote:
A few more photos to address the myth that if you have foliage in the frame, the FE 35mm will do something terrible with it. These are all with Capture 1 with default settings, no vignetting or purple fringing corrections. They only get better if you apply those, however let's see the "worst case" instead.
abadger wrote:
The Sigma 35/1.2 is clearly the better lens in terms of IQ, but is definitely not a travel lens. You are buying these two lenses for two different purposes and could probably make use of both in different scenarios.
As for the Tamron 17-28 or the 35/1.8, I think that comes down to preference for focal length. For me personally 28 just wider than I prefer most of the time and it would annoy me to not have the 35 focal length. But during travel there are also times I would feel 35 is not wide enough for certain scenes. So in short, I am eventually looking to pick up the Tamron as well. Maybe if I had the R4 I could just crop the Tamron and be fine with that. But not with my A73. And I am pretty sure I would miss the faster aperture. ...Show more →
I doubt there’s a photo that would change based on being taken by either lens. A great photo isn’t going to be downgraded to only “good” via one lens or the other. Nor is a completely average photo going to be made great.
