p.5 #1 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Chris_88 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
There's more to it than the half stop of light. That's the point people who are pro 35 f1.2 are making.
The rendering of the two are completely different and in our opinion the Sigma is not only on another level but worth carrying the extra weight for.
p.5 #2 · 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 ...
So would I.
I'd prefer to give up the weight, but I'd only do it if the smaller lens had the sigma draw, not the inferior (imo) character of the Sony.
p.5 #3 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
My takeaway from reading this thread is that Sigma should have made the 35/1.2 even larger and heavier and taken care of the remaining vignetting, distortion and flare resistance weaknesses. Maybe they could have achieved perfection with another half kilo or whatever.
Every Sigma 35/1.2 shot seems lovely... I’d like to see more shots stopped down a bit... if the magical rendering is there at f/1.8, f/2, I’d love to see Sigma deliver a slower, smaller version of the same lens.
I have the 35/1.8 and like it a lot, don’t love it. It is a remarkable improvement over the 35/1.4 and especially the 35/2.8 (for modest increase in size and weight - still quite small). AF is amazingly fast and more importantly, deadly accurate. I preferred many aspects of the Batis 40, but AF was it’s shortcoming - not so with the FE 35/1.8. It is also great in video with AF-C, with almost no focus breathing, smooth transitions, no hunting. It would be great on a gimbal. I think it is cheap for what it delivers. It seems fairly predictable in terms of weaknesses and when they occur.
p.5 #4 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
The funny thing about the sigma f1.2, is that it is Completely different in rendering compared to their 40mm f1.4 which is even heavier.
It’s like they woke up one day and decided to optimise completely different stuff.... I did not have much expectation for the f1.2 having owned the 40mm.
At least the weight in the 35mm art was well spent.
p.5 #5 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
wind30 wrote:
The funny thing about the sigma f1.2, is that it is Completely different in rendering compared to their 40mm f1.4 which is even heavier.
It’s like they woke up one day and decided to optimise completely different stuff.... I did not have much expectation for the f1.2 having owned the 40mm.
At least the weight in the 35mm art was well spent.
Yet I'm still able to hand carry the 40 too lol.
But seriously, Sigma make great stuff, some small and light, some larger and almost completely optimised, all of them reasonably priced.
Imagine this space without them.
What Sigma did with the 1.2 was so perfect, not too big, vignetting is nice imo, easily correctable but I usually leave it in completely.
At 2.8 there's zero CA and crap loads of sharpness. At every wide-ish aperture it's got beautiful rendering and it's fast. All that for a very reasonable price and it's hand holdable by most people who carried DSLR's with 24-70's just 5 years ago.
p.5 #6 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Bob_S wrote:
There's more to it than the half stop of light. That's the point people who are pro 35 f1.2 are making.
The rendering of the two are completely different and in our opinion the Sigma is not only on another level but worth carrying the extra weight for.
I get that. The issue here is what are the OP's preferences and how he feels about the various compromises (cost, weight, size, various performance parameters) involved. We can't answer that for him.
As always, people have different preferences and it would be nice, if we could all accept that, especially when it comes to rendering, which is a highly subjective issue.
p.5 #7 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
frezeiss wrote:
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?
Yeah, I know. I'm nitpicky. And I don't have a 42Mp camera, just a Sony A7III which is more than enough for my uses (even cropped). So yes, I don't think I'll buy that 24GM. I haven't fully discarded the FE35/1.8 as an option. I've seen a lot of nice photos taken with it. And in truth, I wouldn't call it's bokeh "bad". I've seen a lot worse. And the FE35/1.8 gets everything else right. But I just recently started considering the Tamron 17-28 when analyzing my needs. It's a bit wider but I'm a fan of 28mm. Would pair up with my 40mm Nokton really great.
p.5 #8 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Tonzah78 wrote:
Yeah, I know. I'm nitpicky. And I don't have a 42Mp camera, just a Sony A7III which is more than enough for my uses (even cropped). So yes, I don't think I'll buy that 24GM. I haven't fully discarded the FE35/1.8 as an option. I've seen a lot of nice photos taken with it. And in truth, I wouldn't call it's bokeh "bad". I've seen a lot worse. And the FE35/1.8 gets everything else right. But I just recently started considering the Tamron 17-28 when analyzing my needs. It's a bit wider but I'm a fan of 28mm. Would pair up with my 40mm Nokton really great....Show more →
Pairing in Tamron to the Nokton is a nice idea. About the 24 GM, its a stellar lens but difficult to master (for what I do).
p.5 #9 · Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh?
Tonzah78 wrote:
Yeah, I know. I'm nitpicky. And I don't have a 42Mp camera, just a Sony A7III which is more than enough for my uses (even cropped). So yes, I don't think I'll buy that 24GM. I haven't fully discarded the FE35/1.8 as an option. I've seen a lot of nice photos taken with it. And in truth, I wouldn't call it's bokeh "bad". I've seen a lot worse. And the FE35/1.8 gets everything else right. But I just recently started considering the Tamron 17-28 when analyzing my needs. It's a bit wider but I'm a fan of 28mm. Would pair up with my 40mm Nokton really great....Show more →
Pairing in Tamron to the Nokton is a nice idea. About the 24 GM, its a stellar lens but difficult to master (for what I do).
, 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 ...