@j4nu @nehemiahphoto you don't see the green rings? Or have I misidentified them as LoCA? They're most prominent in the brightest highlights, but they're still there in varying degrees until we get to what is entirely the forest floor.
tester_V wrote:
You guys understand that the Talking Heads on the tube and elsewhere doing whatever they do for one reason-money.
Abbot probably worth of them, he has a natural ability to look like he cares.
For most i would say your right. But I don't ever get the feeling from Dustin there is an agenda. I honestly believe he gives his opinion. You may or may not agree sometimes but I really do think he says what he thinks and never is pushing something.
JVan_02 wrote:
@j4nu@ @nehemiahphoto you don't see the green rings? Or have I misidentified them as LoCA? They're most prominent in the brightest highlights, but they're still there in varying degrees until we get to what is entirely the forest floor.
Hmmm...can you post a crop and show me an example/exactly what you see? I only see the faintest outlining on the crop I took from Dustin’s photo—but maybe I am missing it entirely.
JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ aight, so I upped the saturation to ridiculous levels on this jpeg and ruined the image completely to make them easier to see
Well, I don't think it's fair to doctor the file like that...I can see tiny trace amounts of fringing on the original posted photo, but really, even by pixel peeping standards, seems like a stretch. Not that the lens doesn't have bokeh fringing, but not even remotely close to field relevant in the Abbott shot IMO.
I am curious though to get my copy. I like some SA for the smoother bokeh personally. (Edit: brainfarted)
@nehemiahphoto is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
See how much gentler the bokeh is when it leaves the sunlit tree branches and gets to the forest floor? ...Show more →
Do you mean distinct bokeh balls? I've never seen those called LoCa bokeh... I thought you were taking about bokeh balls which have colored outlines (bokeh fringing) - which I don't really see here, besides the first pic but I'm not sure if that's not just the flowers color ...
@j4nu I'm saying they are distinct because of LoCA. I couldn't find those distinct tonal shifts in images without LoCA, and as we can see from my first extreme photo manipulation they are present. Even within the monochrome image, we don't see those hard edged shapes in the forest floor.
The other images linked were meant to show that the bokeh outside instances of more frequent LoCA highlighting is much more pleasant.
@j4nu hmm, you jogged my memory there by mentioning the 40. I think the hard edges in strong lighting is a sign of spherical aberration—don't know enough to say whether they're exacerbated by LoCA or if the Samyang simply exhibits even stronger SA than the 40 (say this because I've never seen balls quite that distinct with the 40, though Abbott may have just created the perfect storm).
Observe the spherical aberration image from the lenstip review:
I didn't get to use SY35 much in the end, but I think bokeh balls are generally a bit smoother than on the Batis...
I do like the structured bokeh of Batis too though as it's different compared to most other lenses leaning towards "buttery smooth" .
JVan_02 wrote:
@nehemiahphoto@ is it though? I mean, I never meant to say look at this tiny bit of LoCA because LoCA—I just think it's why the shot I posted has bokeh less smooth than these samples, for example:
etc. Basically, at the right distance from the plain of focus, lots of highlights (only scenario I can think of is sunlight through trees) will have their disruptive effect on the background magnified because the LoCA brings tonal shift with it. It's very clear in this black and white conversion.
See how much gentler the bokeh is when it leaves the sunlit tree branches and gets to the forest floor? ...Show more →
I think the bokeh is smoother in that scenario because you are taking a higher contrast and lower contrast area and comparing them.
From my understanding and experience, under correction of SA leads to smoother bokeh at the expense of resolution.
Over correction results in harsher bokeh with cleaner structural separation and higher contrast of OOF areas and line doubling if severe (which many refer to as Nissen bokeh). But people love sharpness and clarity
In my experience, CA and SA are separate corrections, and longitudinal and lateral are separate from each other.
The FE 35 is overcorrected for SA which leads its harsher bokeh at times, esp off center. Yet, it has poor CA (axial and lateral) correction in high contrast zones as well.
Lenses like the GM 85 have some spherical abrasions but take care of CA very well wide open. I also know, other lenses with ridiculously smooth bokeh have quite a bit of bokeh fringing (the Minolta 85 1.4 ltd has SA WO, and lots of bokeh fringing and its the smoothest 85 I’ve ever shot). There are also other lenses that have a ton of CA but not very smooth bokeh.
My point being, they seem to be independently controlled, and spherical aberrations are generally what makes bokeh smoother and lowers the contrast, blending visual information together. I don’t see CA as being a primary controller for smooth bokeh, though I think it helps generally, not harms in terms of smoothness.
And I don’t see much bokeh CA, which I thought was your original point of the first Abbott photo you posted. From the looks of it, the Sammy 35 has smoother bokeh than the FE 35 with more SA wide open, so we’ll get less clarity, biting contrast and textural information and smoother rendering. It appears to have similar CA, but I’ll wait for my copy to see.
Does anyone have both the Samyang 35mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8? I'm thinking of consolidating my SY 35mm 1.4 and 45mm 1.8 by getting the SY 35mm 1.8. I like the wide open sharpness, quick focusing and size of the 45mm, but sometime I prefer the 35mm FOV when I want something a tad wider for walking around.
Jonathan F wrote:
Does anyone have both the Samyang 35mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8? I'm thinking of consolidating my SY 35mm 1.4 and 45mm 1.8 by getting the SY 35mm 1.8. I like the wide open sharpness, quick focusing and size of the 45mm, but sometime I prefer the 35mm FOV when I want something a tad wider for walking around.
I had both (but not at the same time) and I'd say that 35 renders a bit nicer (sharpness-wise I did not notice too much difference on my 24 MPix), but also fringes more (less corrected). From my limited use, I also think onion rings and cats eyes are a bit less prominent on 35...
Of course this all can be subjective, as I also prefer the 35mm focal length to 45mm .
One thing to note though, I think 35mm 1.4 rendering (creamy) is at least a step above 35mm 1.8 (but at the cost of size/weight and AF)...
@nehemiahphoto was my initial point, but I'm just posting as I think things through. The bokeh ball with the brighter outer ring looks dead on for SA examples I can find anywhere. Think it does lead to smoother bokeh (see forest floor) except in conditions that aggravate it.
j4nu wrote:
I had both (but not at the same time) and I'd say that 35 renders a bit nicer (sharpness-wise I did not notice too much difference on my 24 MPix), but also fringes more (less corrected). From my limited use, I also think onion rings and cats eyes are a bit less prominent on 35...
Of course this all can be subjective, as I also prefer the 35mm focal length to 45mm .
One thing to note though, I think 35mm 1.4 rendering (creamy) is at least a step above 35mm 1.8 (but at the cost of size/weight and AF)...
I really like how the SY 35mm f/1.4 renders, but I feel the 45mm f/1.8 nails focus more consistently and is very easy to carry. If the 35mm f/1.8 is a combination of the two, I think that might be ideal for my needs. Though I don't want to purchase it right away knowing how fast Samyang discounts their lenses after a few months!
Rokinon just posted their Black Friday specials. You can get the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f/1.8 FE w/USB dock 10% off using coupon code TENOFF. Coupon code also applies to other Rokinon/Samyang lenses. Also they won't charge sales tax depending on your state.
...
.