p.33 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Flaxx74 wrote:
in julia trotti's video, the silver a7c and the 35 GM made up for a very handsome combination. almost the same weight as my a6400 & 24 1.4 GM.
Imo this one is definitely too big for the tiny grip of the a7C. The 24 GM was pushing it already, for me.
p.33 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
RoamingScott wrote:
I don't see the issue with posting EFCS bokeh shots...many people will shoot that way and shows a "worst case" scenario.
I'm only okay with reviewers showing gimped bokeh if they share a side by side comparison. If EFCS bokeh is all they show in a given scenario, then that's unacceptable to me as the lens is capable of, and designed to perform, better than that. Not to mention that the amount EFCS will mess up your shots varies based on which camera you're shooting with, and for the most part standard bokeh will not.
p.33 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Kalainen wrote: Can someone explain me why we saw the massive amount of CA in on first dpreview examples, but now it seems everybody agrees that there is none or very little? I hear people saying 'Adobe profile' but nobody seems to explain further why and how Adobe profile is related to this.
For example:
A. Is the massive amount of CA present in raw-files and then it gets corrected once you tick the 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' from the Lens Correction tab? If so, I still think the new GM is not so well corrected since, for example with the Batis 2/40 CF, I never remove the chromatic aberrations in LR and I rarely if ever see them at all.
B. The Adobe Profile is somehow 'broken' and it exaggerates the CA of the new GM.
C. CA corrections are baked in the raw-files already in the camera (for all modern lenses) and for some reasons (how does Adobe profile relate to this) Dpreview gallery shows the unbaked results.
First of all, the amount of CA is not massive in the dpreview samples (don't forget that they used the 60MP A7rIV). It is there and noticable for sure, but you should've seen the initial samples of the Sony 35mm F1.8...
The Batis is no better in terms of CA than this new 35mm GM, check e.g. the lenstip review of both lenses. So my assumption is that the samples of dpreview show the worst case (which seems to be when an object with contrasting edges is just around the plane of focus).
Another thing that I noticed over time is that LoCA is more noticeable in certain lighting conditions than in others. I assume this has to do with the lens correction and the wavelength of the light (you can't correct a lens for all wavelengths of the visible spectrum).
p.33 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
DavidBM wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with the raw conversion.
It's just that later samples and tests don't show as much CA. And some reliable unbaked carefully done ones too.
No-one yet knows how to explain the difference. I'd love to know. Two possibilities are that what we saw in the DPR is a flukily extreme case, with a perfect storm of backlight, distance, location in frame etc that is very rare, or even that their sample was off. But these are pure speculations. I look forward to seeing more samples and tests, and might even get a review copy myself I'm so intrigued....Show more →
Over the recent years there has been some changes in LR regarding corrections of chromatic aberrations. I remember that at some point LR had a text in the Lens Correction tab which said something like 'the chromatic aberrations has been automatically corrected to a file' (even if you had bypassed them in camera) and the 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' was unticked. So, some sort of automatical corrections had already taken place before we could see the real aberrations. Some people tested the lenses with electricity cut off for seeing the real image performance. This was the way it was, if I remember correctly..
Now, I'm thinking if the Dpreview samples show the lens performance without automatic corrections which happens 'behind the scenes' (ie. they have some sort of different way to do raw conversions than using the latest LR). Having this sort of 'behind the scenes' automatic corrections of chromatic aberrations also makes sense for the lens manufacturers because they don't have to show how much the lens performance is depended on computational approaches (personally I have nothing against them as long as wise compromises are taken with them; just another tool in designers toolbox).
p.33 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Dpreview samples have this text associated with them:
"Edit in Adobe Camera Raw using the Camera Standard profile. Edits limited to exposure parameters. Sharpening set to 25%. Profile corrections left off."
So I guess the JPEGs must have been produced that way.
p.33 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
keepcoding wrote:
First of all, the amount of CA is not massive in the dpreview samples (don't forget that they used the 60MP A7rIV). It is there and noticable for sure, but you should've seen the initial samples of the Sony 35mm F1.8...
The Batis is no better in terms of CA than this new 35mm GM, check e.g. the lenstip review of both lenses. So my assumption is that the samples of dpreview show the worst case (which seems to be when an object with contrasting edges is just around the plane of focus).
Another thing that I noticed over time is that LoCA is more noticeable in certain lighting conditions than in others. I assume this has to do with the lens correction and the wavelength of the light (you can't correct a lens for all wavelengths of the visible spectrum)....Show more →
I think for LoCA you really need a high contrast edge and a lot dependent on how much light is coming in from the bright side I guess. Some reviewers like Gerald err review LoCA looking at a low contrast edge and then conclude it is free of LoCA which I find really stupid. So people looking his review also come to the same wrong conclusions.
I have the same issue with the 24mm GM as some reviews just say it has low LoCA which after years of using it, I don't agree at all.
If you shoot snow scenes, snow on tree branches is a LoCA nightmare... that is when some of my keepers from the 24mm gm is degraded by LoCA. You end up with color fringed trees which looks really weird in mid winter...
p.33 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Kalainen wrote:
Over the recent years there has been some changes in LR regarding corrections of chromatic aberrations. I remember that at some point LR had a text in the Lens Correction tab which said something like 'the chromatic aberrations has been automatically corrected to a file' (even if you had bypassed them in camera) and the 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' was unticked. So, some sort of automatical corrections had already taken place before we could see the real aberrations. Some people tested the lenses with electricity cut off for seeing the real image performance. This was the way it was, if I remember correctly..
Now, I'm thinking if the Dpreview samples show the lens performance without automatic corrections which happens 'behind the scenes' (ie. they have some sort of different way to do raw conversions than using the latest LR). Having this sort of 'behind the scenes' automatic corrections of chromatic aberrations also makes sense for the lens manufacturers because they don't have to show how much the lens performance is depended on computational approaches (personally I have nothing against them as long as wise compromises are taken with them; just another tool in designers toolbox).
...Show more →
These are corrections of lateral chromatic aberrations. The issue here is longitudinal chromatic aberrations. LR has never automatically corrected them, for the good reason that it Is a lossy process, (unlike lateral correction) and really needs user involvement with a fringing tool tool to balance artefacts and correction. Maybe one day there will be AI based LoCA correction.
p.33 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
this lengthy review (in German) shows at 19:00 how well the new GM is controlling longitudinal CAs (against the old 35 1.4 ZA, which does not well in comparison):
p.33 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Kalainen wrote:
Over the recent years there has been some changes in LR regarding corrections of chromatic aberrations. I remember that at some point LR had a text in the Lens Correction tab which said something like 'the chromatic aberrations has been automatically corrected to a file' (even if you had bypassed them in camera) and the 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' was unticked. So, some sort of automatical corrections had already taken place before we could see the real aberrations. Some people tested the lenses with electricity cut off for seeing the real image performance. This was the way it was, if I remember correctly..
Now, I'm thinking if the Dpreview samples show the lens performance without automatic corrections which happens 'behind the scenes' (ie. they have some sort of different way to do raw conversions than using the latest LR). Having this sort of 'behind the scenes' automatic corrections of chromatic aberrations also makes sense for the lens manufacturers because they don't have to show how much the lens performance is depended on computational approaches (personally I have nothing against them as long as wise compromises are taken with them; just another tool in designers toolbox).
p.33 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
This must be the nicest AF 35/1.4 I've ever seen, a lens I've been wanting ever since I got into the A7 series back in 2013.
The EU price difference (compared to the 24GM) bothers me a bit, but it'll still be a must-have lens.
p.33 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Just used the Adorama link and ordered it. I've been so looking forward to this GM lens for years! Now that 16mm, 28mm, 50mm to round out the line
Exactly how I feel about it (though the present 50mm is a very fine lens). This 35 GM is the lens that I have wanted to have. Last week I sold a mint copy of my Canon EF 35mm 1.4 to free up funds (and space) for this one.
