p.1 #1 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I am coming from Canon and the 35L v1 was my bread and butter for years.
I have been looking for a 35mm that would satisfied my needs. I have seen conflicting reviews regarding the fe 35mm 1.8.
And from many exemple I have seen the bokeh from mid distance seems to be quite nervous and somehow distracting.
So I went and looked at some previous images made with my trusted 35L v1 and realized the bokeh is not that great either in similar situation...
But it was plenty enough to make a living out of those pictures...
Here are some exemple.
most of them taken at f2
The reason for f2?
1- Back then autofocus was not reliable enough to shoot unpredictable stuff at 1.4
2-depth of would of been to thin to get the whole face in focus
3-The 35L v1 was not really sharp at 1.4 and was lacking a little bit of micro contrast.
Would you consider the fe 35mm 1.8 to be better as good or worse that the 35L v1 in terms of bokeh and general IQ?
p.1 #2 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I think the 1.8/35 is better in every way than the Mk1 1.4/35. Sharpness, bokeh, LoCA...except it’s doesn’t have the (not very sharp) f1.4 setting. We have started to get very precious about lens quality!
I used to have the Sony Zeiss 1,4/35 which people love to hate (partly because of variation)
I’ve since replaced it with the much better (though bigger) Sigma.
But I really liked it - in part because it was soooo much better than what I was used to, which was the Canon Mk1.
That of course is not to complain about the Canon Mk 1; it was a great lens in its day and has been used to make many famous images. But fast wides is an area where the most recent lenses are massively improved over even slightly older ones...
p.1 #5 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I always take one-off samples or claims that a certain lens has "busy" bokeh with a grain of salt. Most lenses have busy looking bokeh in certain situations, it's usually the conditions more than the lens that result in busy bokeh in a shot - unless we're talking about a really poor lens, and few modern designs are.
p.1 #6 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
EarthQuake wrote:
I always take one-off samples or claims that a certain lens has "busy" bokeh with a grain of salt. Most lenses have busy looking bokeh in certain situations, it's usually the conditions more than the lens that result in busy bokeh in a shot - unless we're talking about a really poor lens, and few modern designs are.
Usually wide angle lenses' rendering can be busy at mid-distance because the focus transition zone will be more apparent in the background. Of course, this depends on the background as well.
If one shoots at closer distance, that 'nervousness' will blend with blur making the transition zone less distracting and I think the 35/1.8 fits well in this scenario.
It's rare for a 35mm lens to behave well at mid-distance and unfortunately the 35/1.8 is not one of them. I found most of the weirdness on its rendering happening off-axis though (away from center) and rendering is only really distracting towards the OOF corners.
On the other hand, AF performance and accuracy is amazing on this lens and it's plenty sharp to my eyes.
The Canon 35/1.4L's rendering is actually similar but it is much softer wider open. I hated the onion pattern on the Canon and it's much less pronounced on the Sony.
p.1 #8 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Yep, back in the 35L (MK I) days we were not talking about bokeh so much. Micro AF slop, etc. made critical focus at F1.4 problematic. I shot an entire season with my 5D MK I and 35L out of register since the 5D had no micro AF adjustment.
Now my 35L, adapted to my A9, is really sharp wide open-it’s the nifty 50s that have low contrast F1.4 results. Can’t bare to sell my 35L even though I own the superb Sigma 35mm F1.2 and their even sharper, at the corners, 40mm F1.4.
p.1 #9 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
EarthQuake wrote:
I always take one-off samples or claims that a certain lens has "busy" bokeh with a grain of salt. Most lenses have busy looking bokeh in certain situations, it's usually the conditions more than the lens that result in busy bokeh in a shot - unless we're talking about a really poor lens, and few modern designs are.
Exactly. The Sigma 105mm F1.4 is regarded as having one of the smoothest bokeh out there but if I force it on a out of focus crowd of varying colors, shapes and sizes under a glistening sun, I can still get a nervous background.
p.1 #10 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I had the 35L and loved it.
I agree with the mumblings about the Sony 35 1.8 & 1.4, they're both average lenses, both sterile, both with problematic rendering most of the time.
This is all solved by embracing the Sigma 35 1.2, it's is gorgeous at any aperture, any focus distance, any scene, in video, at night, specialty highlights etc.
p.1 #11 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I beg to differ, the Sigma’s bokeh is not fundamentally different in character, the difference is mostly quantitative. Which is definitely helpful, but it doesn’t solve all challenges. Like the famous “counterlit foliage”.
Here’s a photo picked out from the Sigma flickr pool, it matches perfectly Fred’s description in this thread of the Sony’s 1.8 “faults”, except with a little more blur and less DOF. If I were to post it without EXIF, one would not immediately guess “Sigma 35/1.2”.
Now you can check the whole Sigma pool and see what all those “smooth bokeh” images there have in common: clean backgrounds with large objects / features and uniform / diffuse light. Under such circumstances, the 1.8 works very well too (with less blur though due to max aperture differences).
p.1 #12 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
The Sigma bazooka is more a studio lens transported in aluminum cases in trolleys to locations. The results could be impressive though not exactly airline friendly.
p.1 #13 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I would get the Sony 35mm F1.4 ZA, can be had quite cheap and when it is a good copy it is excellent value on a low-res (II/III, non r) body. Been back and forth about selling mine and getting either 35/1.8 or Batis 40/2, but I want that 1.4 at my most used FL (otherwise could go to Fuji) and it is not that heavy, albeit a bit intimidating due to the large front element. Have settled to keep mine until that 35 1.4 GM comes around. Onion rings are not as distracting as the hard outlining is that both BATIS and the FE1.8 have under challenging circumstances (e.g. backlit foliage).
p.1 #14 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I was thinking about the 35mm 1.8 but now am considering the Sigma 35mm 1.2 or buying again a Batis 40mm f2. The Batis was great when I had one. The Sigma might just be too much for a carry around lens and I am worried the 35mm 1.8 Sony might disappoint especially after owning the Batis.
p.1 #15 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
realVivek wrote:
The Sigma bazooka is more a studio lens transported in aluminum cases in trolleys to locations. The results could be impressive though not exactly airline friendly.
Nor lugging around the streets like the OP's images show.
p.1 #16 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Thanks for the samples.
You can tell it's a great little lens but not up to par with modern
I owned a rx1 and loved it but battery life and terrible autofocus where a deal breaker.
I also owned the Leica Q witch was amazing and with much better autofocus but 28mm was not my cup of tea.
The exemple I shared are all situation where bokeh was somewhat distracting. In defence of the 35L in most situation it would be really good.
p.1 #17 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
At the time I was carrying a 30 lbs bag full of gear.
Even if most of the time I would only use the 35L I would always convince myself to bring the full arsenal... My poor back still hurts just to think about it haha
It's the main reason I switched to Sony. I was tired of carrying all that gear, and it got me more and more lazy to just bring a camera with me.
The sigma 35mm 1.2 definitely seems appealing. Being able to bring with you a lens that is capable of magazine quality and potentially a medium format look to your image sounds amazing!
But then again if the gear is so damn heavy that it stay's home I am back to my first problem...
p.1 #18 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
alskouba wrote:
At the time I was carrying a 30 lbs bag full of gear.
Even if most of the time I would only use the 35L I would always convince myself to bring the full arsenal... My poor back still hurts just to think about it haha
It's the main reason I switched to Sony. I was tired of carrying all that gear, and it got me more and more lazy to just bring a camera with me.
The sigma 35mm 1.2 definitely seems appealing. Being able to bring with you a lens that is capable of magazine quality and potentially a medium format look to your image sounds amazing!
But then again if the gear is so damn heavy that it stay's home I am back to my first problem... ...Show more →
The Sigma 35 1.2 is heavy, but once you see the results you may not mind carrying it.
Feb 19, 2020 at 10:06 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
vdo1 wrote:
I beg to differ, the Sigma’s bokeh is not fundamentally different in character, the difference is mostly quantitative. Which is definitely helpful, but it doesn’t solve all challenges. Like the famous “counterlit foliage”.
Here’s a photo picked out from the Sigma flickr pool, it matches perfectly Fred’s description in this thread of the Sony’s 1.8 “faults”, except with a little more blur and less DOF. If I were to post it without EXIF, one would not immediately guess “Sigma 35/1.2”.
Now you can check the whole Sigma pool and see what all those “smooth bokeh” images there have in common: clean backgrounds with large objects / features and uniform / diffuse light. Under such circumstances, the 1.8 works very well too (with less blur though due to max aperture differences).
I actually find the bokeh to be pretty good in that situation--a really tough situation. If you want to compare these two lenses, then I think you need to do side by side comparisons. I don't think the Sony FE 35 f/1.8 would do nearly as well as the Sigma would in this situation and I don't think the differences would simply be quantity of bokeh but quality as well, but we will never know because we don't have a side by side comparison.
