p.4 #1 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
j4nu wrote:
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 ...
p.4 #2 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Bob_S wrote:
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*
Such a pansy.... Art requires passion, dedication and sacrifice. Get the Noct!
p.4 #3 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Not hijacking the thread but just received my new Sigma 35mm 1.2. Of course its raining outside. Seems to always rain when I am receiving a new lens. Did take a couple quick indoor photos and test it a little. In my opinion it is fantastic and yes the sharpness and bokeh is fantastic. The weight and size doesnt bother me at all. I just see and feel build quality which is great. "Bazooka" no not at all. Now my 200-600mm, thats a different story.
p.4 #4 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
In Lightroom, 10 seconds of work brushing in some negative clarity will solve most of these bokeh nitpicks in challenging situations. It isn't gonna make huge difference for a lens like the CV 35 classic at f1.4, but any other aperture or lens it's usually more than sufficient.
That leaves the FE35 very compelling with its low weight and fast AF.
p.4 #6 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
For “getting the shot” the 35/1.8 is great. Mid-range bokeh,corner this corner that...who gives a...
If you need shit in focus,and you like 35mm,this one does it. Plus the photos look pretty nice to me. If you love analyzing bokeh and shoot portraits,you should buy the Sigma 105 anyway
p.4 #8 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
sye46 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Of course you can use it as walkaround lens or for weddings (I do). Hey, I can use the 400/2.8GM as a walkaround lens, too, right?
It is sill super bulky, clearly above average in weight for 35mm lenses. Only because I could call it a walkaround lens, that doesn't make it generally so.
p.4 #9 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
This thread seems to follow my thoughts I've been running around in my head lately.
I am pretty torn which lens should I get as my "walkaround" af-lens. Currently I'm using the Nokton 40mm f/1.2 but I'd really like to have an af-alternative and I've been eyeing this FE35/1.8 as well as Samyang 45mm f/1.8 (cheap build quality) or Sigma 45mm f/2.8 (af issues). I've owned FE28/2 and FE35/2.8 and even the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which were all "decent", but I'd rather not buy them again. I've even looked at the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I find the f/1.2 just too heavy for me, just a personal preference. But even the f/1.4 is at the borderline on size/weight for me.
A lot of options, but not a single one I feel I could be 100% happy with. Might have to keep on manual focusing with the Nokton... Or bite the bullet and save for the 24mm GM (and use it on crop mode when needed). At the moment I feel I might try out the Samyang 45mm. I really like the images people keep coming up with it and it doesn't break the bank. I know it's a lot tighter than 35, but that's okay for me. Might get something wider anyways since I'm currently lacking anything wider than 40mm (thinking about Tamron 17-28mm).
p.4 #11 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Tonzah78 wrote:
This thread seems to follow my thoughts I've been running around in my head lately.
I am pretty torn which lens should I get as my "walkaround" af-lens. Currently I'm using the Nokton 40mm f/1.2 but I'd really like to have an af-alternative and I've been eyeing this FE35/1.8 as well as Samyang 45mm f/1.8 (cheap build quality) or Sigma 45mm f/2.8 (af issues). I've owned FE28/2 and FE35/2.8 and even the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which were all "decent", but I'd rather not buy them again. I've even looked at the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I find the f/1.2 just too heavy for me, just a personal preference. But even the f/1.4 is at the borderline on size/weight for me.
A lot of options, but not a single one I feel I could be 100% happy with. Might have to keep on manual focusing with the Nokton... Or bite the bullet and save for the 24mm GM (and use it on crop mode when needed). At the moment I feel I might try out the Samyang 45mm. I really like the images people keep coming up with it and it doesn't break the bank. I know it's a lot tighter than 35, but that's okay for me. Might get something wider anyways since I'm currently lacking anything wider than 40mm (thinking about Tamron 17-28mm)....Show more →
I also use Samyang as my small&light AF lens, but one thing to note are its very pronounced onion rings. It doesn't affect normal shooting that much, but if you have strong light sources in the frame (e.g. LEDs) it can be pretty distracting (well at least to me it is its biggest weakness, cats-eye bokeh balls don't bother me that much).
p.4 #12 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
j4nu wrote:
I also use Samyang as my small&light AF lens, but one thing to note are its very pronounced onion rings. It doesn't affect normal shooting that much, but if you have strong light sources in the frame (e.g. LEDs) it can be pretty distracting (well at least to me it is its biggest weakness, cats-eye bokeh balls don't bother me that much).
Thanks. I owned the Samyang 24mm for couple of days before returning it and buying the CV 21mm f/3.5 instead. It was also horrible against bright light sources (like the sun). That has made me a bit wary of Samyangs. I really wish the Sigma would resolve their af issues with their 45mm f/2.8. I really, really like how it renders and wouldn't even mind the softness closeup wide open (same issue as with Nokton).
p.4 #13 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Bob_S wrote:
Correct. If 'it'll do' is your use case.
Usually these boards are for those seeking the best they can eek out of a camera bodies capabilities.
If we wanted the easiest and lightest a pixel 4 or i11 would be the eye to go. The new 108mp Samsung sounds interesting.
You are pretty condescending ain't you. I think most people make their decisions on gear based on multiple criteria including things like AF, price, weight, image quality etc... No matter what gear you pick, there are always tradeoffs and based on individual needs, these tradeoffs are different for one than another...not better just different.
If you want to chase ultimate image quality and don't care about things like size and weight...that's your criteria...just don't belittle others that might have different criteria than you.
p.4 #14 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
I guess, the OP has to figure out whether he can live with f1.8 or needs/wants something faster. I haven't used my 35 1.8 as much as I'd like (which is not the lens' fault), but other than the CA and the sunstars, I'm very happy with that lens. In many ways, it feels like a wider cousin of the 55 1.8: It shares many of the latter's strengths (sharpness, compact size, good AF) and weaknesses (CA). However, the 35 1.8 has higher contrast than the 55 1.8.
If only the best is good enough, then the Sigma 35 1.2 certainly fits the bill, but like Holger, I don't consider that lens a walk around lens. Given the copy variation issue, the Sony 35 1.4 is difficult to recommend, as nice as good copies are. The Sigma 35 1.4 Art might be an option. It's not a small lens either, but is still 300g lighter than the f1.2 and getting filters won't be as expensive.
p.4 #15 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
chez wrote:
That's just bad photography.
I’ve seen plenty of images ruined because of forced bokeh where the whole goal of the image is the bokeh, not the content.
p.4 #16 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
Agreed that is exactly a scene that many 35mm struggles with. The sigma f1.2 shows it’s strength here. I bet other lens would have worse rendering or loca. The sigma f1.2 is the only 35mm that is without any weakness optically.
p.4 #17 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
chez wrote:
You are pretty condescending ain't you. I think most people make their decisions on gear based on multiple criteria including things like AF, price, weight, image quality etc... No matter what gear you pick, there are always tradeoffs and based on individual needs, these tradeoffs are different for one than another...not better just different.
If you want to chase ultimate image quality and don't care about things like size and weight...that's your criteria...just don't belittle others that might have different criteria than you.
Ya agreed. Just discuss objective stuff like loca, bokeh. Why bother trying to convince people about how heavy is acceptable....
p.4 #19 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Tonzah78 wrote:
This thread seems to follow my thoughts I've been running around in my head lately.
I am pretty torn which lens should I get as my "walkaround" af-lens. Currently I'm using the Nokton 40mm f/1.2 but I'd really like to have an af-alternative and I've been eyeing this FE35/1.8 as well as Samyang 45mm f/1.8 (cheap build quality) or Sigma 45mm f/2.8 (af issues). I've owned FE28/2 and FE35/2.8 and even the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which were all "decent", but I'd rather not buy them again. I've even looked at the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I find the f/1.2 just too heavy for me, just a personal preference. But even the f/1.4 is at the borderline on size/weight for me.
A lot of options, but not a single one I feel I could be 100% happy with. Might have to keep on manual focusing with the Nokton... Or bite the bullet and save for the 24mm GM (and use it on crop mode when needed). At the moment I feel I might try out the Samyang 45mm. I really like the images people keep coming up with it and it doesn't break the bank. I know it's a lot tighter than 35, but that's okay for me. Might get something wider anyways since I'm currently lacking anything wider than 40mm (thinking about Tamron 17-28mm)....Show more →
Youre splitting hairs, as a walk-around lens the Sony 35/1.8 would be just fine, saw a lot of street photographer used it on Instagram, fab pics. Using a 24 mm (although gorgeous) isnt worthwhile, why buy a 42 mp camera to only use it on 18 mp?
It AFs fast, small, even sharper than the Nikon S 35 1.8.. isnt that enough as a "walk around" lens?
p.4 #20 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
chez wrote:
You are pretty condescending ain't you. I think most people make their decisions on gear based on multiple criteria including things like AF, price, weight, image quality etc... No matter what gear you pick, there are always tradeoffs and based on individual needs, these tradeoffs are different for one than another...not better just different.
If you want to chase ultimate image quality and don't care about things like size and weight...that's your criteria...just don't belittle others that might have different criteria than you.
Not really, no more condescending than someone telling me that the gear I use daily for 8+ hours is too heavy to consider.
Telling others I'm condescending for having a view that differs to yours isn't the most polite thing to do either mate. If argue it's worse than any post I've made.
, the funny thing is that 35mm f1.8 continues to be the most debated lens for Sony ecosystem even months after its release 
.
. While manageable (I regularly chase my kids with it), Sigma makes even Sony 50mm f1.4 ZA seem small-ish ... 