fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 5 end

Archive 2020 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

DaveFP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

These issues are not that complicated.

If you shoot for remuneration buy the gear that helps you compete in your market.

If you shoot for pleasure then; wait for it...

Buy what brings you pleasure!

Is that an RX1? Buy that. Is it an A7R4 with a Sigma 35? Buy that.

Have a lot of money? Buy both.

Easy-peasy !

Feb 19, 2020 at 10:29 AM

alskouba
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

DaveFP wrote:
These issues are not that complicated.

If you shoot for remuneration buy the gear that helps you compete in your market.

If you shoot for pleasure then; wait for it...

Buy what brings you pleasure!

Is that an RX1? Buy that. Is it an A7R4 with a Sigma 35? Buy that.

Have a lot of money? Buy both.

Easy-peasy !

The more I read about it the more I feel the need to get both 35mm 1.8 and sigma 35mm 1.2
Unfortunately I can't afford both.

And as you might know that type of shooting will always be more about pleasure... Yes you can get a little remuneration out of it but nothing that would justify a $1500 lens.

It's not exactly what I would call marketable images. But that's another subject for perhaps another thread.

The rx1 was great for IQ and size but the battery life and poor AF where a deal breaker for me.
I also tried the leica Q witch was better in may ways but 28mm was not my cup of tea.

But hey in an ideal world I would do just as you say and get everything hehe

Feb 19, 2020 at 01:38 PM

chinoamigo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

Perhaps get the Sony and try it out, if it doesn't work out you can always sell it and then you'd know your only option would be to spring for the $1500 Sigma monster. I actually have the Sigma and I'm probably going to get a 35/1.8 for more casual use. I can always sell it if I find myself not satisfied with the 35/1.8's rendering.

Happy shooting whatever you decide!

Feb 19, 2020 at 01:55 PM

AndrewNYC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

No great photo would be rendered less by this lens, just like no average image would be rendered better.

Feb 19, 2020 at 02:19 PM

JohanEickmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

I guess I have to be the one person who points out that the small differences in bokeh rendering only matter to people who obsess over bokeh rendering.

I haven't seen anything distracting in any of the samples posted here. The backgrounds are blurry enough that the regular human mind ignores it, and the subjects are tack sharp which draw the attention. That's looking at the photos as photos and not as test charts.

It is rather strange how humans are capable of programming their minds to dislike things that would otherwise not cause dislike. It's unfortunately more difficult to de-program those sorts of things to give one perspective and more objectivity to their craft. I think those who can flip their brain between critical tinkerer and average viewer are the most successful at creating compelling imagery.

I once saw a full-resolution image done by one of the world's top landscape photographers (in term of popularity) and was shocked at how sloppy the editing had been done, even though many average people see him as being one of the most talented technicians in the field. Then I realized, the tiny sloppy things that stand out to me are insignificant to the vast majority of others.

Feb 19, 2020 at 02:30 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

JohanEickmeyer wrote:
I guess I have to be the one person who points out that the small differences in bokeh rendering only matter to people who obsess over bokeh rendering.

I haven't seen anything distracting in any of the samples posted here. The backgrounds are blurry enough that the regular human mind ignores it, and the subjects are tack sharp which draw the attention. That's looking at the photos as photos and not as test charts.

It is rather strange how humans are capable of programming their minds to dislike things that would otherwise not cause dislike. It's unfortunately more difficult to de-program...Show more →

I�ve seen plenty of images ruined because of forced bokeh where the whole goal of the image is the bokeh, not the content.

Feb 19, 2020 at 02:38 PM

zeitlos
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

JohanEickmeyer wrote:
I haven't seen anything distracting in any of the samples posted here.

Seriously?

JohanEickmeyer wrote:
The backgrounds are blurry enough that the regular human mind ignores it, and the subjects are tack sharp which draw the attention. That's looking at the photos as photos and not as test charts.

It is rather strange how humans are capable of programming their minds to dislike things that would otherwise not cause dislike.

There are pictures displayed here at this forum where I � normally � never would have paid any attention to the background, but unfortunately, there was no chance to ignore it because the lens' bokeh turned it into the "main attraction" (in a negative sense). If those examples do not cause dislike you do have a different approach since it should be the subject that is in focus of the viewer and not the background that is not adding to the picture's "story".

However, still I think it's a good lens since it is small, really sharp, and if the background isn't that demanding it can produce really lovely bokeh.

Edited on Feb 19, 2020 at 04:18 PM · View previous versions

Feb 19, 2020 at 03:58 PM

GabrielPhoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 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.

Are we talking about the same lens? Cause it sounds like you were talking about a 600mm F4

Feb 19, 2020 at 04:18 PM

GabrielPhoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

JohanEickmeyer wrote:
I guess I have to be the one person who points out that the small differences in bokeh rendering only matter to people who obsess over bokeh rendering.

So just because someone else can see things that do not bother you it means they are "obsessed"? Could it maybe be that other people have different needs than you do

??
I never understood this attitude of if something does not affect me or does not matter to me, then everyone that is affected by it is just obsessed, pixel peeper, etc.

Feb 19, 2020 at 04:31 PM

Bob_S
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · 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...Show more →

It's not heavy, it's heavier than a less heavy 35 and an excuse some people use because they aren't fit or have never shot a lens like a 70-200 which weighs more.

I shoot the 35 1.2 all day without issue, I can also shoot the 105 art hand held too. A 200 f2 is a bit heavy.

Feb 19, 2020 at 04:43 PM

Surfnsun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

I'll say, the bokeh from the 35/1.8 isn't my favorite of all time. But it still produces great images 99% of the time. I guess it because the subject in my photos matter way more to me.

I also don't bother comparing it to 35's that cost twice as much. Nevermind the size/weight differences between it and lenses like Sigma's 35/1.2. Everything in life is about compromise. Photography is no different. Try lenses you're interested in trying. If it works for you, keep it. Don't seek the approval of others on such a subjective topic. Good luck in your decision.

PS I wouldn't trade my 35/1.8 for a 35/1.2. It doesn't meet my criteria for what I want in a 35mm lens.

Feb 19, 2020 at 04:52 PM

JohanEickmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

GabrielPhoto wrote:
So just because someone else can see things that do not bother you it means they are "obsessed"? Could it maybe be that other people have different needs than you do

??
I never understood this attitude of if something does not affect me or does not matter to me, then everyone that is affected by it is just obsessed, pixel peeper, etc.

By all means, I'm not a very good photographer, and my bar for image quality isn't very high. I shoot APS-C and a cell phone, which is terrible for a landscape photographer.

But, there is no doubt that photography is slipping into the depths where audiophiles are found. When gear keeps getting better and better, the effort put into finding the best becomes a bit of an obsession for some. Sure some are also self-aware that their wants are way beyond needs, but that's part of the fun. Tinkering and testing is fun. But, I do think it may pursued others to go along with the flow and become hyper-critical of things that probably didn't bother them until they found out about them.

Besides bokeh rendering, we've also seen where anything less than 60MP is insufficient for landscape photos. Or anything less than 20 FPS is useless for birds in flight. Or how AA filters destroy details and ruin images. Or only fast aperture lenses are suitable for professional work.

In the audiophile world, things have progressed so far beyond the needs that improvements in gear can only be found through machines, not ears.

Feb 19, 2020 at 05:02 PM

realVivek
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

Do you know anyone using this lens (the 35mm Sigma Bazooka) for street snaps?

GabrielPhoto wrote:
Are we talking about the same lens? Cause it sounds like you were talking about a 600mm F4

Feb 19, 2020 at 05:27 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

Bob_S wrote:
It's not heavy, it's heavier than a less heavy 35 and an excuse some people use because they aren't fit or have never shot a lens like a 70-200 which weighs more.

I shoot the 35 1.2 all day without issue, I can also shoot the 105 art hand held too. A 200 f2 is a bit heavy.

I was wondering when this "not fit" BS would arise. I personally could easily carry the 35 1.2 for days...but I choose to carry something smaller and lighter as its more enjoyable when traveling and needing to pack all your gear with you all the time for weeks on end.

Feb 19, 2020 at 06:09 PM

GabrielPhoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

realVivek wrote:
Do you know anyone using this lens (the 35mm Sigma Bazooka) for street snaps?

I use it for all my outdoor shoots and your comment was "studio lens" "bazooka", etc..nothing about street snaps in the quote...is there?

Feb 19, 2020 at 06:54 PM

realVivek
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

A pity that you did not follow the thread and are reading what you want to. Check out the very first post with the samples. They are street snaps.

Feb 19, 2020 at 07:01 PM

GabrielPhoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

JohanEickmeyer wrote:
By all means, I'm not a very good photographer, and my bar for image quality isn't very high. I shoot APS-C and a cell phone, which is terrible for a landscape photographer.

But, there is no doubt that photography is slipping into the depths where audiophiles are found. When gear keeps getting better and better, the effort put into finding the best becomes a bit of an obsession for some. Sure some are also self-aware that their wants are way beyond needs, but that's part of the fun. Tinkering and testing is fun. But, I do think it may pursued...Show more →

By all means, I'm not a very good photographer, and my bar for image quality isn't very high. I shoot APS-C and a cell phone, which is terrible for a landscape photographer.

First I would never dare imply that you or anyone is a bad photographer. I said things that do not bother you. This could vary not only per person but situation. For example, when travelling I rather take my RX10 IV because I know that for what I will be doing with the photos (if not destination job) the RX10 IV will be more than enough.

t, there is no doubt that photography is slipping into the depths where audiophiles are found. When gear keeps getting better and better, the effort put into finding the best becomes a bit of an obsession for some. Sure some are also self-aware that their wants are way beyond needs, but that's part of the fun. Tinkering and testing is fun. But, I do think it may pursued others to go along with the flow and become hyper-critical of things that probably didn't bother them until they found out about them.
The big difference between audiophiles (I was on the audio industry years ago) and the bokeh we are discussing here is that this can easily be seen where many of the issues with audiophiles is that they can only tell the differences as long as they can see the gear that is being compared. This is more specifically happening during magical power cords, cables etc. The moment a blind test is done, their hearing powers go away.
Of course, some people will always take things to extreme when they dont really need it and that goes for pretty much anything out there. But also you have to consider that things that "did not bother them until they find out" could also be part of growth. If someone is really into this craft, the more you learn the more you notice things, small details that you never noticed before and those small details pile up and create a jump elevating your work to a whole new level.

Besides bokeh rendering, we've also seen where anything less than 60MP is insufficient for landscape photos. Or anything less than 20 FPS is useless for birds in flight.
Where exactly have you seen this? Just because some random people make bogus statements like that it suddenly becomes a fact or common accepted knowledge? Far from it.

Or how AA filters destroy details and ruin images. Or only fast aperture lenses are suitable for professional work.
Too much hyperbole here. Destroy details and ruin images? Really, where have you read that exactly?? It clearly affects detail and that is a fact but from there to destroy and ruin images that is way too much and again, I doubt any or at least a good chunk of photographers will make such a statement.

In the audiophile world, things have progressed so far beyond the needs that improvements in gear can only be found through machines, not ears.
Yes indeed and when someone tells me they need to blow up a detail 200, 300 or 300 times to see a pixel difference, I put it in the same realm but we are not talking about that at all. The bokeh we were discussing is clearly visible even on my phone screen. Completely different things.

Regards

Edited on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:21 AM · View previous versions

Feb 19, 2020 at 07:14 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

In many controversial areas, the shades of grey get lost in a bipolar distribution. Here, this:

'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...'

..is very true and Canon were no doubt painfully aware of the bokeh deficiencies of the 1998 35/1.4 when they replaced it with a much-improved new design in 2015. Times, as well as glass and manufacture, had moved on and so had community appreciation of bokeh.

'Bokeh' was not even much of a thing before it was popularised by several people - see links below. It's an elevated awareness new age concept, a new design issue, a new requirement in ways unthinkable just 20 years ago. The design community have always known about it, of course, but not so much the mainstream user community. Which is interesting in light of the exquisite bokeh so many older lenses produce.

So, some want what they consider commercially acceptable bokeh, others fail to see the big deal, the rest fall in-between, or have special requirements (e.g. vintage lenses). Some think more blur = better bokeh, others want 'context bokeh' as part of the story, or to show image depth. Most enthusiasts have a background sense they need to keep up with developments in this aspect because it affects so much else, and design trends ensure this will continue.

https://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissPDF/ZeissWhitePapers/Zeiss-DepthOfField-Bokeh.pdf
https://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh/
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/01/what-is-bokeh.html
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/05/open-mike-new-king-of-bokeh.html

Feb 19, 2020 at 07:20 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

How photographic enthusiasts 'see' images (what might be called image analysis) varies widely. Not a knock on those who don�t see well, but we can't all run like Usain Bolt either. The more refined your seeing, the more you notice things in images. Some see skin tones well, others see greenery well, etc.

If you cannot see something, it does not follow that others also cannot. In fact, Sony users have a great advantage here. Settled lens ranges (like Canon) saw owners use the same lenses for decades, seeing the world only through their lenses. Sony started out with people from all backgrounds: A mount, M mount, Canon/Nikon/Fuji and medium format. It was a crash course in broadly defined lens appreciation, still unfolding today. All powered by the web and better monitors etc.

Once you see well (a learned skill), you�re not out of the woods yet, because you then need to escape the audio analogy introduced above. Your seeing must be 'real world' in its application, and balance its importance with other aspects, like DOF, degree of separation, subject distance, background type, context rendering in bokeh, focal plane performance and more - it's complex.

And this is why reviewers should focus more attention on comparisons of OOF/bokeh - you can see this happen in the 'best practice' work of people like Fred and Dustin Abbott, to name just two. (Most just focus on specs, or handling, cost, opinion etc.)

We've seen the reputations of too many lenses damaged due to isolated setup 'tests' showing poor bokeh - the Batis 85mm is a good example. Each new lens is now subject to great scrutiny regarding its bokeh, but tests must be realistic and comparative with competing lenses.

The design community are moving fast right now, working to improve how the new lenses perform in their bokeh production, along with all else people want. After all, they need to pry you from the older lenses to buy their new creations, and stay in business - especially now the market is not growing.

It's not GAS to want a better tool, if you take it at all seriously, devoting time outlays and money for travel, business etc. The trick is to know when the right ones *for you/your work* are at hand - old or new, well-known or exotic, affordable or costly. You can guarantee it won't be 'the one' for many others.

Feb 19, 2020 at 07:34 PM

frezeiss
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?

Bob_S wrote:
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.

Give it a shot.

Nice images too!

lol, i wouldnt call the Zony 35 sterile, its more like the Sigma 35 thats sharper and more sterile. The Zony is more exotic rendering but more flaws in the same time.

I have both, the Zony is obviously easier to handle, it performs acceptable in the center wide open and by f/2 its very nice.It also balance better on a gimbal if video is your thing. The less saturated pastel colors you get in this lens is nicer vs the in your face colors from Zony 55 or Sony 85 is in my opinion. OTOH, the Sigma performs nicely at f/1.2 and very nice by f/1.4-1.6.

Feb 19, 2020 at 07:41 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end