p.3 #2 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
frezeiss wrote:
That would be me
My (heavy) street kit includes the 24 GM, Sigma 35 (or Zony 35) and Sigma 135
My (heavy) street kit used to be 16-35 f4L 35L 50L 100L plus a flash and a second body.
I was ready for everything haha. But I got so tired of carrying all that!
I always ended up using the 35L all day and sometimes the 16-35L for landscape
Now It's Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 and Zony 55mm 1.8. I can do pretty much every thing with that...But I miss that 35mm FL!!
Never got myself a good 24mm... It always felt not wide enough for landscape and to wide for portrait. I know a lot of people love that focal length and it's tempting, especially when there are lens like the 24gm... but im a 35mm guy...
A 35mm can be a 24mm and a 50mm... at least to me
As for the wide angle since depth of field is not enough to isolate the subject(unless i am fairly close) I tend to like it nice and sharp. Most of the time ill try to incorporate motion blur from a random pedestrian to give the landscape a little punch.
p.3 #3 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Back to the OP. I don’t think the Bokeh is “that bad,” it’s just not an all time great lens like the RX1 or Sigma 35/1.2. And I don’t think Sony would tell you a $750 fast moderate wide is suppose to compete like that. The Bokeh is generally good for a 35 and pretty typical in the way it’s not.
For me, it’s very easy to see spot the FE 35/1.8 on Wadsworth’s RX1 vs. FE 35 1.8 direct comparison photos, even on an iPhone without enlarging. Or to see the rougher 35 1.8 Bokeh on some photos.
I shoot an RX1r2, CY 35 1.4, CV 35/2 Ultron and 31 Ltd limited. That’s a range of Bokeh rendering. I see rougher Bokeh, smoother transitions, more fringing, different colors, etc. on them all. I legitimately enjoy them all. Some are better technically, others subjectively. But most importantly,I just go by if I like the photos produced.
Do you like the FE 35 1.8 images? That’s all that matters.
Feb 19, 2020 at 11:16 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #4 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Even 1/3 stop makes a difference in the oof bg. So if you are shooting a lot at or near 1.4, you won't be able to get things oof as much using 1.8.
p.3 #5 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
chez wrote:
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.
As I said, I understand that some may not be use to the weight/size, or, as I said, unfit to carry that kind of kit.
For instance, my father is 70 now and was a career photographer and cinematographer who helped pioneer Steadicam and in the last 2-3 years switched to his phone for stills and video.
He's just simply unfit to carry a kilo of camera around his neck/on his shoulder for any length of time.
I'm not taking a stab at anyone for being less of a man for choosing lighter weight hear or anything like that.
Having said that, the Sigma 1.2/35 isn't heavy, as I also said it's lighter than many lenses used regularly such as the aforementioned and ever popular 70-200.
I'm not superman and I can carry three cameras with a 70-200, a 35 f1.2 and a 12-24 for 8 hours during, for instance, a wedding or corporate event. Carrying only one camera and a 35 even if it is a 1.2 is nothing.
My mum used to take photos of me in the 70's with a heavier, much clunkier kit.
I would like to carry the 1.8 instead, but it's boring (imo), there's no point leaving home with it (again, imo).
p.3 #6 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Bob_S wrote:
As I said, I understand that some may not be use to the weight/size, or, as I said, unfit to carry that kind of kit.
For instance, my father is 70 now and was a career photographer and cinematographer who helped pioneer Steadicam and in the last 2-3 years switched to his phone for stills and video.
He's just simply unfit to carry a kilo of camera around his neck/on his shoulder for any length of time.
I'm not taking a stab at anyone for being less of a man for choosing lighter weight hear or anything like that.
Having said that, the Sigma 1.2/35 isn't heavy, as I also said it's lighter than many lenses used regularly such as the aforementioned and ever popular 70-200.
I'm not superman and I can carry three cameras with a 70-200, a 35 f1.2 and a 12-24 for 8 hours during, for instance, a wedding or corporate event. Carrying only one camera and a 35 even if it is a 1.2 is nothing.
My mum used to take photos of me in the 70's with a heavier, much clunkier kit.
I would like to carry the 1.8 instead, but it's boring (imo), there's no point leaving home with it (again, imo)....Show more →
Come on man. Everybody is different, so you should know by now, that your POV is subjective and not the general view.
It might be your opinion and you have all the right to have it, but that doesn't make it that of all others.
Carrying 3 cameras for 8h with the lenses you mention is a heavy load imo, and being in a large network of wedding photographers I never heard anybody dismissing that, _all_ want to reduce weight and consider a 70-200 heavy.
The 35/1.2 Art is not a light weight lens and you feel the toll after a full wedding day in my experience (says someone who is extremely fit, who works out daily and was competing in martial arts on a national level).
p.3 #7 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Holger wrote:
Come on man. Everybody is different, so you should know by now, that your POV is subjective and not the general view.
It might be your opinion and you have all the right to have it, but that doesn't make it that of all others.
Carrying 3 cameras for 8h with the lenses you mention is a heavy load imo, and being in a large network of wedding photographers I never heard anybody dismissing that, _all_ want to reduce weight and consider a 70-200 heavy.
The 35/1.2 Art is not a light weight lens and you feel the toll after a full wedding day in my experience (says someone who is extremely fit, who works out daily and was competing in martial arts on a national level)....Show more →
But it seems like the “general view” is that the Sigma “35mm Bazooka” is getting a pretty bad reputation for not being able to be used as a walk around or even for wedding photography. It is subjective and everyone is different but if people can complain about the weight and size like most people do (and most likely never even owned the lens), why is it wrong for people to comment that it IS a lens that can be used as a walk around or a full day of wedding photography.
When I was researching this lens all I found was “great IQ but keep away because it’s huge and heavy”. It’s refreshing to hear that there are people out there that don’t mind the weight for the best IQ possible.
p.3 #8 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Put it this way, the Sigma is 700g heavier than the 1.8 and 300g heavier than the 1.4 (Sony).
If you'd rather shoot an inferior (I'm sure everybody agrees on this) drawing optic to save 300-700g, go for it and be happy.
700g is less than the difference between a Nikon D5 and an A9, I measured it. Professionals carry D5's around all day.
I understand hiking with it (1.2) for landscape use, it's not even close to the best option, but for general/street use or for weddings, for all the things where better rendering and the benefit of a half stop transforms inmages it's totally worth it.
I feel the dislike for the Sigma 1.2 is completely overblown, calling it a bazooka is laughable when people carry, for another example, a 4/24-105 which is only 300g lighter, or a 24-70GM which is only 150g less, or a 70-200 which is 300g more.
I don't care what you use, but for the OP, the Sigma imo is going to give you the 35L look and character with all the benefits of modern lens design, fast, accurate autofocus etc.
A 35L is almost 800g, a 5D is 800g
An A9+ Sigma 1.2 is the same weight as your 5D + 35L combo give or take 50g.
p.3 #9 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
alskouba wrote:
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?
Sony 35 1.8 is not really that bad but not really that great either. I owned it for couple of days and returned it. It's super sharp from 1.8, have decent but nothing special bokeh. Rendering was not something i liked so i let it go. Your Canon 35 1.4 v1 might not be super sharp from 1.4 but it sure produces better looking images.
There is nothing stopping you to buy Sony 35 1.8 and return it if you don't like it IMO you better be served with Zeiss 35 1.4 but make sure store has good return policy as this lens tends to suffer from product variation. You gotta be lucky to get the right copy.
p.3 #10 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Bob_S wrote:
If you'd rather shoot an inferior (I'm sure everybody agrees on this) drawing optic to save 300-700g, go for it and be happy.
Have you considered the Nikon Z Noct, I have it on good authority from the Nikon forum that if you’re using anything else but this lens, your photography will be inferior?
p.3 #11 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Unfortunately, it is a manual focus only variety. Anyone worth their mitt should only use one that can focus on its own.
vdo1 wrote:
Have you considered the Nikon Z Noct, I have it on good authority from the Nikon forum that if you’re using anything else but this lens, your photography will be inferior?
p.3 #15 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Back to the OP. I don’t think the Bokeh is “that bad,” it’s just not an all time great lens like the RX1 or Sigma 35/1.2. And I don’t think Sony would tell you a $750 fast moderate wide is suppose to compete like that. The Bokeh is generally good for a 35 and pretty typical in the way it’s not.
For me, it’s very easy to see spot the FE 35/1.8 on Wadsworth’s RX1 vs. FE 35 1.8 direct comparison photos, even on an iPhone without enlarging. Or to see the rougher 35 1.8 Bokeh on some photos.
I shoot an RX1r2, CY 35 1.4, CV 35/2 Ultron and 31 Ltd limited. That’s a range of Bokeh rendering. I see rougher Bokeh, smoother transitions, more fringing, different colors, etc. on them all. I legitimately enjoy them all. Some are better technically, others subjectively. But most importantly,I just go by if I like the photos produced.
Do you like the FE 35 1.8 images? That’s all that matters....Show more →
I looked at the same comparison between rx1 and fe 35 1.8 and could also tell the difference in most cases. But you can also see that the bokeh of the 1.8 gets distracting only in certain situation. Mostly when the background as a lot of details in it or is close to the subject.
Do I like the images I see from the 1.8?
Yes but I havent seen anything impressive yet...
p.3 #16 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
alskouba wrote:
My (heavy) street kit used to be 16-35 f4L 35L 50L 100L plus a flash and a second body.
I was ready for everything haha. But I got so tired of carrying all that!
I always ended up using the 35L all day and sometimes the 16-35L for landscape
Now It's Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 and Zony 55mm 1.8. I can do pretty much every thing with that...But I miss that 35mm FL!!
Never got myself a good 24mm... It always felt not wide enough for landscape and to wide for portrait. I know a lot of people love that focal length and it's tempting, especially when there are lens like the 24gm... but im a 35mm guy...
A 35mm can be a 24mm and a 50mm... at least to me
As for the wide angle since depth of field is not enough to isolate the subject(unless i am fairly close) I tend to like it nice and sharp. Most of the time ill try to incorporate motion blur from a random pedestrian to give the landscape a little punch....Show more →
I did get the GM 24 for that more in your face street shots, still learning but I got samples at my Instagram if you're interested (and also the Zony 35/1.4). For the best compromise 35 mm I feel its the Sony Zeiss 1.4. I’m fully aware it wont win any pixel peeping pissing contest but it renders wonderfully. Rent if you can!
Anyways, Looks like we shoot the same street and documentary stuff.. with a bit of landscape.
p.3 #17 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
alskouba wrote:
I looked at the same comparison between rx1 and fe 35 1.8 and could also tell the difference in most cases. But you can also see that the bokeh of the 1.8 gets distracting only in certain situation. Mostly when the background as a lot of details in it or is close to the subject.
Do I like the images I see from the 1.8?
Yes but I havent seen anything impressive yet...
p.3 #18 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
frezeiss wrote:
I did get the GM 24 for that more in your face street shots, still learning but I got samples at my Instagram if you're interested (and also the Zony 35/1.4). For the best compromise 35 mm I feel its the Sony Zeiss 1.4. I’m fully aware it wont win any pixel peeping pissing contest but it renders wonderfully. Rent if you can!
Anyways, Looks like we shoot the same street and documentary stuff.. with a bit of landscape.
I just went threw your instagram and I gotta say i love your work! We definitely have a lot in common.
Ill go in my local camera store and try them all out.
p.3 #19 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
vdo1 wrote:
Have you considered the Nikon Z Noct, I have it on good authority from the Nikon forum that if you’re using anything else but this lens, your photography will be inferior?
No, I've heard it's a rocket and too heavy to even consider, any lens that weighs more than a bottle of wine isn't worth carrying around *sarcastic groan sounds*
p.3 #20 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
The sad thing is this thread starts to remind me of dpr forums , the funny thing is that 35mm f1.8 continues to be the most debated lens for Sony ecosystem even months after its release .
From my side I can say that I'd probably trade my Sigma in a heartbeat if Sony released 35mm with GM 24mm size and rendering . While manageable (I regularly chase my kids with it), Sigma makes even Sony 50mm f1.4 ZA seem small-ish ...
IMO you better be served with Zeiss 35 1.4 but make sure store has good return policy as this lens tends to suffer from product variation. You gotta be lucky to get the right copy. 
, the funny thing is that 35mm f1.8 continues to be the most debated lens for Sony ecosystem even months after its release