This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
p.2 #1Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I ended up buying again the Sigma 35 1.4, this time in FE mount. Too cumbersome the 1.2 and couldn’t like the output of the Sony 35 1.8. Got it for a steal and I am happy.
Nov 19, 2019 at 05:24 AM
p.2 #2Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
This morning I did a quick 'rendering' comparison between the Sony FE 24/1.4 GM in crop mode (~35/2) vs the FE 35/1.8 @f/2. (I can't see any difference in rendering for the 35/1.8 @f/1.8 vs f/2)
I wanted to visualize rendering differences between the two lenses when their image size is normalized and their FL + aperture are equivalent.
My expectation was that the GM in crop mode would yield smoother rendering but be slightly lower in contrast compared to the FE 35/1.8. I also thought that LoCA was pretty similar between these two lenses.
The results confirmed a few things for...Show more →
Thanks for the comparison!
Wow, the difference in bokeh is striking. Even when looking at the downsized images, it is obvious that the 35/1.8 has a much harsher out-of-focus area.
It is time for a 35 or 40mm GM lens.
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 06:37 AM · View previous versions
This morning I did a quick 'rendering' comparison between the Sony FE 24/1.4 GM in crop mode (~35/2) vs the FE 35/1.8 @f/2. (I can't see any difference in rendering for the 35/1.8 @f/1.8 vs f/2)
I wanted to visualize rendering differences between the two lenses when their image size is normalized and their FL + aperture are equivalent.
My expectation was that the GM in crop mode would yield smoother rendering but be slightly lower in contrast compared to the FE 35/1.8. I also thought that LoCA was pretty similar between these two lenses.
The results confirmed a few things for...Show more →
Thanks for the comparison!
Wow, the difference in bokeh is striking. Even when looking at the downsized images, it is obvious that the 35/1.8 has a much harsher out-of-focus area.
It is time for a 35 or 40mm GM lens.
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 06:37 AM · View previous versions
Nov 19, 2019 at 06:33 AM
p.2 #3Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
abadger wrote:
I have to say that I see so many critiques of the 35/1.8 due to backlit scenes through treetop foliage and then people count it out as an option. That seems to be its achilles heel, along with coma in the corners for night shots. But realistically I only occasionally come across this problem with the lens.
A majority of the time I am seeing this sort of bokeh, even through backlit foliage, so I think it has to be sort of just the right conditions for it to look extra harsh:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005228967_6ece8f35bd_h.jpg
(Apologies, no 24/1.4 shots for comparison!)
You see this sort of still quite nice bokeh because you are close to the subject. As soon as the distance grows and the depth of field increases, the bokeh gets very nervous and distracting in almost all images that I've seen from the 35/1.8.
I have to say that I see so many critiques of the 35/1.8 due to backlit scenes through treetop foliage and then people count it out as an option. That seems to be its achilles heel, along with coma in the corners for night shots. But realistically I only occasionally come across this problem with the lens.
A majority of the time I am seeing this sort of bokeh, even through backlit foliage, so I think it has to be sort of just the right conditions for it to look extra harsh:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005228967_6ece8f35bd_h.jpg
(Apologies, no 24/1.4 shots for comparison!)
You see this sort of still quite nice bokeh because you are close to the subject. As soon as the distance grows and the depth of field increases, the bokeh gets very nervous and distracting in almost all images that I've seen from the 35/1.8.
Nov 19, 2019 at 06:35 AM
p.2 #4Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I have seen a lot of nice images with the 35/1.8 but yeah, the OOF areas can be distracting.
Can this "nervousness" be reduced with a brush?
(-texture, - sharpness, - contrasts, etc.)
Can this "nervousness" be reduced with a brush?
(-texture, - sharpness, - contrasts, etc.)
Nov 19, 2019 at 06:39 AM
p.2 #5Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
swldstn wrote:
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
At 50mm the 50/1.4 ZA is my lens of choice. Use it a lot when not traveling. Just wish it were smaller and lighter.
Agree in the 35-45 range but have gotten used to the Batis. Have the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 as well so I am in the same boat with 4 lens here. Really need to find a way to pair it down. Have not considered the Sigma 35/1.2, again because of size and weight.
For a 35, the Sigma 35 1.2 is incredible. It's big and heavy, though. I only have two lenses that I'm using now - the Sigma 35 1.2 and the Sony FE 50 1.4 ZA.
Fred, how about a comparison of the Sigma 35 1.2 in crop mode vs the FE 50 1.4 ZA? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to do it as well as you do.
Fred Miranda wrote
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
Agree in the 35-45 range but have gotten used to the Batis. Have the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 as well so I am in the same boat with 4 lens here. Really need to find a way to pair it down. Have not considered the Sigma 35/1.2, again because of size and weight.
For a 35, the Sigma 35 1.2 is incredible. It's big and heavy, though. I only have two lenses that I'm using now - the Sigma 35 1.2 and the Sony FE 50 1.4 ZA.
Fred, how about a comparison of the Sigma 35 1.2 in crop mode vs the FE 50 1.4 ZA? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to do it as well as you do.
Nov 19, 2019 at 08:08 AM
p.2 #6Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
One of Fred's comparison crops but with gaussian blur applied to the 35mm (rightmost crop) - for those who don't mind some PP to smooth out the 35mm's rough rendering:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-GC2wCZM/1/70a5ec4f/O/i-GC2wCZM.jpg
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 09:37 AM · View previous versions
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-GC2wCZM/1/70a5ec4f/O/i-GC2wCZM.jpg
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 09:37 AM · View previous versions
Nov 19, 2019 at 08:18 AM
p.2 #7Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Thought someone might be interested in watching this: https://youtu.be/cckS19lMh-Y
Nov 19, 2019 at 08:33 AM
p.2 #8Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
keepcoding wrote:
A majority of the time I am seeing this sort of bokeh, even through backlit foliage, so I think it has to be sort of just the right conditions for it to look extra harsh:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005228967_6ece8f35bd_h.jpg
(Apologies, no 24/1.4 shots for comparison!)You see this sort of still quite nice bokeh because you are close to the subject. As soon as the distance grows and the depth of field increases, the bokeh gets very nervous and distracting in almost all images that I've seen from the 35/1.8.
It must just be my choices of shots lining up well with the lens’s strengths (or I am just missing the flaws). I certainly have seen some shots with terrible bokeh but haven’t been able to replicate it to that extent. At least not to the point where it is distracting without pixel peeping. Could be also I am using the a7iii, not as many pixels to peep at!
What causes nervousness in bokeh actually? I also own the Tamron 28-75, for example, and do notice the bokeh being busy there too at times (also a ‘compact’ design for what it is). It looks to me like it is resolving lines more clearly and creating contrast in areas where you would normally expect blur. But why? And are there examples on any system where this has been solved for in a compact lens design? Or is it just something that is a compromise of having a compact lens at this focal length? And if solved for, I assume it is making compromises somewhere else as a balance?
abadger wrote
I have to say that I see so many critiques of the 35/1.8 due to backlit scenes through treetop foliage and then people count it out as an option. That seems to be its achilles heel, along with coma in the corners for night shots. But realistically I only occasionally come across this problem with the lens.A majority of the time I am seeing this sort of bokeh, even through backlit foliage, so I think it has to be sort of just the right conditions for it to look extra harsh:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005228967_6ece8f35bd_h.jpg
(Apologies, no 24/1.4 shots for comparison!)
It must just be my choices of shots lining up well with the lens’s strengths (or I am just missing the flaws). I certainly have seen some shots with terrible bokeh but haven’t been able to replicate it to that extent. At least not to the point where it is distracting without pixel peeping. Could be also I am using the a7iii, not as many pixels to peep at!
What causes nervousness in bokeh actually? I also own the Tamron 28-75, for example, and do notice the bokeh being busy there too at times (also a ‘compact’ design for what it is). It looks to me like it is resolving lines more clearly and creating contrast in areas where you would normally expect blur. But why? And are there examples on any system where this has been solved for in a compact lens design? Or is it just something that is a compromise of having a compact lens at this focal length? And if solved for, I assume it is making compromises somewhere else as a balance?
Nov 19, 2019 at 08:39 AM
p.2 #9Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
This is why I own both the FE35 f1.8 and Sigma 35 f1.2. I've previously owned the Rx1rII, CV40, FE 35 f2.8, 24GM, and FE 35 f1.4ZA because 35mm is crucial to both my personal and paid photography and I've always been in the hunt for that goldilocks lens that does it all.
My conclusion after all of these years is that such a lens doesn't exist at this point. Physics are what they are.
With regards to owning both the FE 35 1.8 and Sigma 35 f1.2...they are both 35mm lenses, but they compliment each other perfectly. Obviously we all understand the size difference between the two lenses, but from a rendering perspective the area that separates the two is very specific IMO....its in the harsh rendering of hard OOF highlights in the corners of the frame of the FE 35.
The thing is that in real world use, it's an issue that is most materially specific to outdoor portraiture where you have sunlight hitting foliage in the background. Since my paid work involves a lot of outdoor portraiture, the difference in rendering between the Sigma and the Sony are a pretty big deal.
That said, for my personal photography (documenting the family and what-not) it's a non-issue and the size of the FE35 1.8 make it a much more practical lens. None of the rendering characteristics matter at all if the lens doesn't fit (literally) into the intended use case and the lens is never used.
Lastly, unless Sony wants to give us a 35 f1.8 GM, then I still think that the 24GM in crop mode on the a7rIV is probably the best middle ground. It isn't as compact as the FE 35...the FE55 has always been my benchmark for truly compact lenses, and the 24GM is noticeably larger. But the bokeh and rendering is pleasing and it isn't nearly as large as the Sigma. I'm headed to Disney World on Saturday, and have a 24GM loaner en route!
My conclusion after all of these years is that such a lens doesn't exist at this point. Physics are what they are.
With regards to owning both the FE 35 1.8 and Sigma 35 f1.2...they are both 35mm lenses, but they compliment each other perfectly. Obviously we all understand the size difference between the two lenses, but from a rendering perspective the area that separates the two is very specific IMO....its in the harsh rendering of hard OOF highlights in the corners of the frame of the FE 35.
The thing is that in real world use, it's an issue that is most materially specific to outdoor portraiture where you have sunlight hitting foliage in the background. Since my paid work involves a lot of outdoor portraiture, the difference in rendering between the Sigma and the Sony are a pretty big deal.
That said, for my personal photography (documenting the family and what-not) it's a non-issue and the size of the FE35 1.8 make it a much more practical lens. None of the rendering characteristics matter at all if the lens doesn't fit (literally) into the intended use case and the lens is never used.
Lastly, unless Sony wants to give us a 35 f1.8 GM, then I still think that the 24GM in crop mode on the a7rIV is probably the best middle ground. It isn't as compact as the FE 35...the FE55 has always been my benchmark for truly compact lenses, and the 24GM is noticeably larger. But the bokeh and rendering is pleasing and it isn't nearly as large as the Sigma. I'm headed to Disney World on Saturday, and have a 24GM loaner en route!
Nov 19, 2019 at 08:45 AM
p.2 #10Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
anyone have a comparison with the 35 f2.8 vs 35 f1.8? I've been living in bliss, always thought the bokeh quality was good, just not a lot of bokeh? Not planning to sell the 2.8 ever, but interested in knowing the truth about the lens and whether I've been living in ignorance and bliss.
Nov 19, 2019 at 08:59 AM
p.2 #11Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
After several years of this 35mm issue with getting the proper 35mm for all use. Its a waste of time looking for it as it dont exist. My theory buy whatever works thats making me money, the 35 1.8 is a work lens end of story. Bad bokeh won't show up as the work is mostly indoors with no bushes to be distracting. I have both the 24 and 35 plus a 12 to 24 so im really set. I have a Loxia 50 right now and a perfect one that Ill sell for the CV 50 F2 and a Leica 75mm M 1.5. I may get something wider in CV or Loxia like a 21mm . Im teetering on retirement so I kinda dont give a damn . 
I still have a few clients that i won't stop shooting for but as a lot of you are getting started im getting out Well over 40 years is a freaking long time at this gig.
I still have a few clients that i won't stop shooting for but as a lot of you are getting started im getting out Well over 40 years is a freaking long time at this gig.
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:04 AM
p.2 #12Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
after reading your post and that of @swldstn i started to wander how would be a hand to hand comparison Fe vs Lox. I tried to look to hand to hand photographs. I comparison like the one you have carried out here. I did not found any. any opinion in how would be the results? this could be interesting as the lox have the reputation of being the slowest horse in Zeiss stables...
Fred Miranda wrote:
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.What I like about the Sony 35/1.8 is that it's so compact, contrasty and does not suffer from a mid-field dip in resolution which is rare for this focal length. However, the 35/1.8's rendering does not really impresses me, except when shooting at close range where blur masks its rendering issues.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
swldstn wrote
Well I have the 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 ZA, and recently picked up the 35/1.8 as well. It just kept tempting me to be put into my travel kit. I also have the Batis 40/2.0 that I really like in that kit so we will see if I will keep it long term.After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had...Show more →
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:27 AM
p.2 #13Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I have both and am pleased with both. They serve my needs of street snaps. No complaints. Not even with sample variations.
(FWIW, I also have RX1 and RX1R II and a Zeiss ZM 35/1.4)
Charlie N wrote:
anyone have a comparison with the 35 f2.8 vs 35 f1.8? I've been living in bliss, always thought the bokeh quality was good, just not a lot of bokeh? Not planning to sell the 2.8 ever, but interested in knowing the truth about the lens and whether I've been living in ignorance and bliss.
(FWIW, I also have RX1 and RX1R II and a Zeiss ZM 35/1.4)
Charlie N wrote:
anyone have a comparison with the 35 f2.8 vs 35 f1.8? I've been living in bliss, always thought the bokeh quality was good, just not a lot of bokeh? Not planning to sell the 2.8 ever, but interested in knowing the truth about the lens and whether I've been living in ignorance and bliss.
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:32 AM
p.2 #14Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
The 35 2.8 does it for me. I've looked at the 35 1.8 but for how I use 35mm, I just didn't see the value of changing lenses. The 35 2.8 is amazingly light and compact. Really ideal for travel.
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:39 AM
p.2 #15Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
hanay78 wrote:
after reading your post and that of @swldstn@ i started to wander how would be a hand to hand comparison Fe vs Lox. I tried to look to hand to hand photographs. I comparison like the one you have carried out here. I did not found any. any opinion in how would be the results? this could be interesting as the lox have the reputation of being the slowest horse in Zeiss stables...
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.What I like about the Sony 35/1.8 is that it's so compact, contrasty and does not suffer from a mid-field dip in resolution which is rare for this focal length. However, the 35/1.8's rendering does not really impresses me, except when shooting at close range where blur masks its rendering issues.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had to choose between strong mid-field or strong extreme corners, I'd much prefer lenses with strong center and mid-zone (think rules of thirds).
To be honest, I'm not completely satisfied with E-mount lenses at the 35-50mm range...
At 35mm, I am a big fan of the new Sigma 35/1.2 for its outstanding resolution and rendering but do not own it because of its size and weight. My Loxia 35/2 is mainly a landscape lens and it's only used stopped down to f/7.1 or smaller...
Both Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and Sigma 35/1.4 Art are weaker at mid-field when shooting wide open and now with the A7R IV, the discrepancy between center and mid-field is even more noticeable.
At 40-45mm, there are many options but I didn't warm up to the Batis 40/2 (mid-field dip + harsh rendering at mid-distance), Samyang 45/1.8 (build + harsh rendering), Sigma 45/2.8 (Love the SA rendering but AF-C is iffy). The best compromise for me is still the CV 40/1.2 which has very strong center + 'ok' mid-field at f/2 but does not perform well at close distance.
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
I've posted some comparisons on the FE 35/1.8 official thread. The Sony is much stronger wide open at center and mid-field.
It also has smoother rendering compared to the Loxia 35/2 (if you can believe it).
The Loxia has slight less CA but more spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism wide open. At infinity distance, the Loxia 35/2 loses to the FE 35/1.8 at all apertures but starting at f/5.6, it gets stronger and actually looks slightly better than the FE.
after reading your post and that of @swldstn@ i started to wander how would be a hand to hand comparison Fe vs Lox. I tried to look to hand to hand photographs. I comparison like the one you have carried out here. I did not found any. any opinion in how would be the results? this could be interesting as the lox have the reputation of being the slowest horse in Zeiss stables...
Fred Miranda wrote
swldstn wrote
Well I have the 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 ZA, and recently picked up the 35/1.8 as well. It just kept tempting me to be put into my travel kit. I also have the Batis 40/2.0 that I really like in that kit so we will see if I will keep it long term.After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had to choose between strong mid-field or strong extreme corners, I'd much prefer lenses with strong center and mid-zone (think rules of thirds).
To be honest, I'm not completely satisfied with E-mount lenses at the 35-50mm range...
At 35mm, I am a big fan of the new Sigma 35/1.2 for its outstanding resolution and rendering but do not own it because of its size and weight. My Loxia 35/2 is mainly a landscape lens and it's only used stopped down to f/7.1 or smaller...
Both Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and Sigma 35/1.4 Art are weaker at mid-field when shooting wide open and now with the A7R IV, the discrepancy between center and mid-field is even more noticeable.
At 40-45mm, there are many options but I didn't warm up to the Batis 40/2 (mid-field dip + harsh rendering at mid-distance), Samyang 45/1.8 (build + harsh rendering), Sigma 45/2.8 (Love the SA rendering but AF-C is iffy). The best compromise for me is still the CV 40/1.2 which has very strong center + 'ok' mid-field at f/2 but does not perform well at close distance.
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
I've posted some comparisons on the FE 35/1.8 official thread. The Sony is much stronger wide open at center and mid-field.
It also has smoother rendering compared to the Loxia 35/2 (if you can believe it
).The Loxia has slight less CA but more spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism wide open. At infinity distance, the Loxia 35/2 loses to the FE 35/1.8 at all apertures but starting at f/5.6, it gets stronger and actually looks slightly better than the FE.
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:43 AM
p.2 #16Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I did a test against the CV 40 1.2 here at least Big Bronco. This 35 is very sharp
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1616382/0
Seriously you can whin all you want about the bokeh but finding a pretty much distortion free extremely sharp to the corners even wide open, nice color and contrast this lens is hard to beat. For most hobbyists a perfect lens. If your heart is on a bokeh 35mm king than this is not it. Lens designers choice here its not going to please some folks. Question is if you have the 24 1.4 do you really need the bokeh out of the 35mm. One thing of note when these tests comparisons are done its against another lens not on its own which your never going to do outside a test. Your final decision to buy should be viewing the lens on its own merit. I love these comparisons but its only part of the story
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 10:08 AM · View previous versions
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1616382/0
Seriously you can whin all you want about the bokeh but finding a pretty much distortion free extremely sharp to the corners even wide open, nice color and contrast this lens is hard to beat. For most hobbyists a perfect lens. If your heart is on a bokeh 35mm king than this is not it. Lens designers choice here its not going to please some folks. Question is if you have the 24 1.4 do you really need the bokeh out of the 35mm. One thing of note when these tests comparisons are done its against another lens not on its own which your never going to do outside a test. Your final decision to buy should be viewing the lens on its own merit. I love these comparisons but its only part of the story
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 10:08 AM · View previous versions
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:54 AM
p.2 #17Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I agree 100% with Chez's comment that the 35mm f2.8 is ideal for travel, and I use it as an excellent all around 35mm.
If I want smooth bokeh, I use the 24 f1.4GM in ASP-C mode, on an A7RIII or A7RIV. I prefer to use it on the A7RIV, but for a portrait the A7RIII is a more than adequate file, IMHO.
Also, my 24-105mm f4 is really excellent at 35mm stopped down to f5.6 or smaller, and I also use it a lot for landscapes.
I loved the Sigma 35mm f1.2 when I rented it and it's possible that I may eventually buy one, but it's too large and heavy for me to carry with me much.
35mm is my favorite focal length, and I feel like I am plenty well-covered with the above.
I also use the 21mm Loxia and crop it to about 32/33mm for landscapes on the A7RIV when I want sunstars.
Others have said there's no perfect 35mm in Sony. There's no perfect lens for any system of any focal length.
chez wrote:
The 35 2.8 does it for me. I've looked at the 35 1.8 but for how I use 35mm, I just didn't see the value of changing lenses. The 35 2.8 is amazingly light and compact. Really ideal for travel.
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 10:06 AM · View previous versions
If I want smooth bokeh, I use the 24 f1.4GM in ASP-C mode, on an A7RIII or A7RIV. I prefer to use it on the A7RIV, but for a portrait the A7RIII is a more than adequate file, IMHO.
Also, my 24-105mm f4 is really excellent at 35mm stopped down to f5.6 or smaller, and I also use it a lot for landscapes.
I loved the Sigma 35mm f1.2 when I rented it and it's possible that I may eventually buy one, but it's too large and heavy for me to carry with me much.
35mm is my favorite focal length, and I feel like I am plenty well-covered with the above.
I also use the 21mm Loxia and crop it to about 32/33mm for landscapes on the A7RIV when I want sunstars.
Others have said there's no perfect 35mm in Sony. There's no perfect lens for any system of any focal length.
chez wrote:
The 35 2.8 does it for me. I've looked at the 35 1.8 but for how I use 35mm, I just didn't see the value of changing lenses. The 35 2.8 is amazingly light and compact. Really ideal for travel.
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 10:06 AM · View previous versions
Nov 19, 2019 at 09:56 AM
p.2 #18Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
After some days shooting with my 24 GM in crop mode (A7 RIV) I ended up with
"This will be my new 35mm " .
and I preordered the new Voigtländer 50/2 APO Lanthar.
"This will be my new 50 mm ".
Christmas may come
"This will be my new 35mm " .
and I preordered the new Voigtländer 50/2 APO Lanthar.
"This will be my new 50 mm ".
Christmas may come
Nov 19, 2019 at 10:06 AM
p.2 #19Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
sch8mid wrote:
After some days shooting with my 24 GM in crop mode (A7 RIV) I ended up with
"This will be my new 35mm " .
and I preordered the new Voigtländer 50/2 APO Lanthar.
"This will be my new 50 mm ".
Christmas may come
Yes a lot of folks will do this and if you don't need the resolution its not a bad option at all. Just remember though I can do the same with the 35 1.8 in crop mode for a 52mm which is going to be very nice also.
After some days shooting with my 24 GM in crop mode (A7 RIV) I ended up with
"This will be my new 35mm " .
and I preordered the new Voigtländer 50/2 APO Lanthar.
"This will be my new 50 mm ".
Christmas may come
Yes a lot of folks will do this and if you don't need the resolution its not a bad option at all. Just remember though I can do the same with the 35 1.8 in crop mode for a 52mm which is going to be very nice also.
Nov 19, 2019 at 10:10 AM
p.2 #20Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
chez wrote:
The 35 2.8 does it for me. I've looked at the 35 1.8 but for how I use 35mm, I just didn't see the value of changing lenses. The 35 2.8 is amazingly light and compact. Really ideal for travel.
the 2.8, I dont plan on getting rid of, it's been too useful however I did consider the 1.8 or 1.2 in addition. Neither are ideal but would be nice. I sorta want a wider and fast as well like the 24GM, but not sure if it's for me. 28 is typically as wide as I want to go when photography humans, and that would be my main purpose of said lens.
The 35 2.8 does it for me. I've looked at the 35 1.8 but for how I use 35mm, I just didn't see the value of changing lenses. The 35 2.8 is amazingly light and compact. Really ideal for travel.
the 2.8, I dont plan on getting rid of, it's been too useful however I did consider the 1.8 or 1.2 in addition. Neither are ideal but would be nice. I sorta want a wider and fast as well like the 24GM, but not sure if it's for me. 28 is typically as wide as I want to go when photography humans, and that would be my main purpose of said lens.
Nov 19, 2019 at 10:13 AM