This topic is in the 2021 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2021Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
p.58 #1Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgThe lens is fairly small, very sharp while still retaining smooth bokeh and has superfast AF.
So I really can't see how this is a deal breaker. Which 35/1.4 does much better in such a difficult lighting situation?I think my sigma f1.2 don't have so much purple fringing.
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back
I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble.
I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens todaySoooo you see one image on the internet and you draw a conclusion from that? Glad I have never done that. I would have missed out on a ton of great glass.
I might still buy it later but not at day1. Reason is there seems to be plenty of stocks and I only really shoot during vacations... I bought the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn last year to replace my sony 85mm f1.8 partly because it looks better on all fronts. But I have not really shot much with it...
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?Wrong person to ask I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me...Show more →
... so u expect to fix all your pic in post? 35mm f1.8 is lighter you know. It is also a sony. I mean you must have some standards for IQ whereby a lens is no go. I do like testing lens and I have gone through many 35mm. But usually the new lens must have something "better" to motivate me.
That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar but that purple fringing....
i have used like 7 35mm over the years and honesly all of them make nice pictures and I have keepers from all of them
Edited on Feb 05, 2021 at 07:12 AM · View previous versions
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
Jochenb wrote
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
So I really can't see how this is a deal breaker. Which 35/1.4 does much better in such a difficult lighting situation?
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back
I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble. I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens today
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?
I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me...Show more →... so u expect to fix all your pic in post? 35mm f1.8 is lighter you know. It is also a sony. I mean you must have some standards for IQ whereby a lens is no go. I do like testing lens and I have gone through many 35mm. But usually the new lens must have something "better" to motivate me.
That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar but that purple fringing....
i have used like 7 35mm over the years and honesly all of them make nice pictures and I have keepers from all of them
Edited on Feb 05, 2021 at 07:12 AM · View previous versions
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:02 AM
p.58 #2Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
wind30 wrote:
So I really can't see how this is a deal breaker. Which 35/1.4 does much better in such a difficult lighting situation?I think my sigma f1.2 don't have so much purple fringing.
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble.
I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens todaySoooo you see one image on the internet and you draw a conclusion from that? Glad I have never done that. I would have missed out on a ton of great glass.I might still buy it later but not at day1. Reason is there seems to be plenty of stocks and I only really shoot during vacations... I bought the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn last year to replace my sony 85mm f1.8 partly because it looks better on all fronts. But I have not really shot much with it...
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?Wrong person to ask I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.... so u expect to fix all your pic in post? 35mm f1.8 is lighter you know. It is also a sony. I mean you must have some standards for IQ whereby a lens is no go. I do like testing lens and I have gone through many 35mm. But usually the new lens must have something "better" to motivate me.
That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar...Show more →
Regarding Purple Fringing:
One of the shots of the 35 (with a lot of water inside) showed fringing. This, however is often an artifact from the GPU rendering in ightroom. I saw several posts in this regards where LR shows fringing when looking at your monitor without zooming, but zooming in shows that no fringing is there at all, it is not seen in the final jpgs or prints, too.
So one needs to be careful.
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
Jochenb wrote
The lens is fairly small, very sharp while still retaining smooth bokeh and has superfast AF.So I really can't see how this is a deal breaker. Which 35/1.4 does much better in such a difficult lighting situation?
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back
I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble. I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens today
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?
I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar...Show more →
Regarding Purple Fringing:
One of the shots of the 35 (with a lot of water inside) showed fringing. This, however is often an artifact from the GPU rendering in ightroom. I saw several posts in this regards where LR shows fringing when looking at your monitor without zooming, but zooming in shows that no fringing is there at all, it is not seen in the final jpgs or prints, too.
So one needs to be careful.
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:09 AM
p.58 #3Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble.
I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens todaySoooo you see one image on the internet and you draw a conclusion from that? Glad I have never done that. I would have missed out on a ton of great glass.I might still buy it later but not at day1. Reason is there seems to be plenty of stocks and I only really shoot during vacations... I bought the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn last year to replace my sony 85mm f1.8 partly because it looks better on all fronts. But I have not really shot much with it...
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?Wrong person to ask I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.... so u expect to fix all your pic in post? 35mm f1.8 is lighter you know. It is also a sony. I mean you must have some standards for IQ whereby a lens is no go. I do like testing lens and I have gone through many 35mm. But usually the new lens must have something "better" to motivate me.
That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar but that purple fringing....Regarding Purple Fringing:
One of the shots of the 35 (with a lot of water inside) showed fringing. This, however is often an artifact from the GPU rendering in ightroom. I saw several posts in this regards where LR shows fringing when looking at your monitor without zooming, but zooming in shows that no fringing is there at all, it is not seen in the final jpgs or prints, too.
So one needs to be careful.
The dpreview pic is a jpg. And viewed from my browser.
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
I think my sigma f1.2 don't have so much purple fringing.Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back
I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble. I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens today
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?
I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar but that purple fringing....
One of the shots of the 35 (with a lot of water inside) showed fringing. This, however is often an artifact from the GPU rendering in ightroom. I saw several posts in this regards where LR shows fringing when looking at your monitor without zooming, but zooming in shows that no fringing is there at all, it is not seen in the final jpgs or prints, too.
So one needs to be careful.
The dpreview pic is a jpg. And viewed from my browser.
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:15 AM
p.58 #4Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
wind30 wrote:
I might still buy it later but not at day1. Reason is there seems to be plenty of stocks and I only really shoot during vacations... I bought the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn last year to replace my sony 85mm f1.8 partly because it looks better on all fronts. But I have not really shot much with it...
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?Wrong person to ask I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.... so u expect to fix all your pic in post? 35mm f1.8 is lighter you know. It is also a sony. I mean you must have some standards for IQ whereby a lens is no go. I do like testing lens and I have gone through many 35mm. But usually the new lens must have something "better" to motivate me.
That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar but that purple fringing....Regarding Purple Fringing:
One of the shots of the 35 (with a lot of water inside) showed fringing. This, however is often an artifact from the GPU rendering in ightroom. I saw several posts in this regards where LR shows fringing when looking at your monitor without zooming, but zooming in shows that no fringing is there at all, it is not seen in the final jpgs or prints, too.
So one needs to be careful.The dpreview pic is a jpg. And viewed from my browser.
Interesting. The German Review I linked to above, shows this phenomenon in his video, too. Most reviews explicitly mention the low CAs. I will get a free loan from Sony in a couple of weeks and can test it, but have no chance to do it quickly.
Edit: Downloaded the Raw and on my MacbookPro there is clearly much less purple fringing than what DPreview shows, without profile or CA correction turned on. Zooming in an you hardly see anything, and that in a torture case scenario.
Holger wrote
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
Soooo you see one image on the internet and you draw a conclusion from that? Glad I have never done that. I would have missed out on a ton of great glass.I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?
I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar but that purple fringing....
One of the shots of the 35 (with a lot of water inside) showed fringing. This, however is often an artifact from the GPU rendering in ightroom. I saw several posts in this regards where LR shows fringing when looking at your monitor without zooming, but zooming in shows that no fringing is there at all, it is not seen in the final jpgs or prints, too.
So one needs to be careful.
Interesting. The German Review I linked to above, shows this phenomenon in his video, too. Most reviews explicitly mention the low CAs. I will get a free loan from Sony in a couple of weeks and can test it, but have no chance to do it quickly.
Edit: Downloaded the Raw and on my MacbookPro there is clearly much less purple fringing than what DPreview shows, without profile or CA correction turned on. Zooming in an you hardly see anything, and that in a torture case scenario.
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:42 AM
p.58 #5Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
wind30 wrote:
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Based on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Based on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
Feb 05, 2021 at 08:21 AM
p.58 #6Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Yep that purple water is definitely an artifact of whatever jpeg preview was generated for that file. I opened up the RAW in LR, and even with all lens corrections turned off and the crappy Adobe Color profile I had to zoom to 300% to really see the fringing. At 1600% it was clear that it was about 2-3 pixels in width along the contrasty edges.
Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the moderate edges.
The edges of the building structure against the blown highlights, which are even more challenging, were clearly purple/magenta across up to 3 pixels or less in width without the basic profile correction. Once the profile was on, the clearly noticeable color never exceeded 2 pixels with some minor color in the 3rd pixel.
Id say the performance is not discernibly different from my Sigma 1.2 under identical processing conditions.
I'd post crops but I think that isn't in line with DPreview terms.
Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the moderate edges.
The edges of the building structure against the blown highlights, which are even more challenging, were clearly purple/magenta across up to 3 pixels or less in width without the basic profile correction. Once the profile was on, the clearly noticeable color never exceeded 2 pixels with some minor color in the 3rd pixel.
Id say the performance is not discernibly different from my Sigma 1.2 under identical processing conditions.
I'd post crops but I think that isn't in line with DPreview terms.
Feb 05, 2021 at 08:48 AM
p.58 #7Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Ayoul wrote:
A review by DPR :
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-fe-35mm-f1-4-gm-field-review
I'm slightly disappointed by their findings about the AF. What they test is only the speed between MFD and infinity, but their results shows that it's slightly slower than the ZA. Even more surprising, they find that the Sigma 1.2 is even slightly faster than the ZA.
However, MFD to infinity doesn't tell the whole story about AF. I have a preorder on the GM, I will compare it with the ZA as soon as I put my hands on it.
Otherwise, optically speaking, they are just bothered by some loca visible up to f/2. It matches what...Show more →
It's DPR, I wouldn't worry about it dude.
A review by DPR :
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-fe-35mm-f1-4-gm-field-review
I'm slightly disappointed by their findings about the AF. What they test is only the speed between MFD and infinity, but their results shows that it's slightly slower than the ZA. Even more surprising, they find that the Sigma 1.2 is even slightly faster than the ZA.
However, MFD to infinity doesn't tell the whole story about AF. I have a preorder on the GM, I will compare it with the ZA as soon as I put my hands on it.
Otherwise, optically speaking, they are just bothered by some loca visible up to f/2. It matches what...Show more →
It's DPR, I wouldn't worry about it dude.
Feb 05, 2021 at 11:36 AM
p.58 #8Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
FYI, Adorama has changed the manufacturer ship date from 2/15 to 2/22. I called to see if they can tell me where in line I am for the pre-order and the person said due to the demand, he was unable to get that information to me.
Feb 05, 2021 at 12:32 PM
p.58 #9Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
wind30 wrote:
So I really can't see how this is a deal breaker. Which 35/1.4 does much better in such a difficult lighting situation?I think my sigma f1.2 don't have so much purple fringing.
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble.
I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens todaySoooo you see one image on the internet and you draw a conclusion from that? Glad I have never done that. I would have missed out on a ton of great glass.I might still buy it later but not at day1. Reason is there seems to be plenty of stocks and I only really shoot during vacations... I bought the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn last year to replace my sony 85mm f1.8 partly because it looks better on all fronts. But I have not really shot much with it...
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?Wrong person to ask I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.... so u expect to fix all your pic in post? 35mm f1.8 is lighter you know. It is also a sony. I mean you must have some standards for IQ whereby a lens is no go. I do like testing lens and I have gone through many 35mm. But usually the new lens must have something "better" to motivate me.
That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar...Show more →
I'm not sure what using 7 35mm lenses over the years has anything to do with the conversation?. No need to repeat the obvious here "NatDeroxL7 " did an excellent job explaining what your seeing. It's Kinda obvious anyway based on the sky. But when people look hard enough and really want to find something they will. Enjoy your Sigma. It really is a nice lens
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
nhsonyshooter wrote
wind30 wrote
Jochenb wrote
The lens is fairly small, very sharp while still retaining smooth bokeh and has superfast AF.So I really can't see how this is a deal breaker. Which 35/1.4 does much better in such a difficult lighting situation?
Anyway the Lens is in stock and my local shop asked me to collect. There seems to be quite a lot of stock as he said he had 10 pieces and is selling at his usual discount off list price. Usually for Day 0 lens, he sells them at list price as stock is very limited.
I decided not to buy it because of the purple fringing. It is above my threshold and after shooting many many shots with my sigma, I don't think it is that bad. I would have noticed such fringing easily without pixel peeping. It is so obvious even on web sized prints. I literally drove out to the shop and then turned back
I think selling away the other lens is too much of a hassle. I suspect I will sell away the gm after comparison so why go all the trouble. I can tolerate color fringing if they are not visible on web sized prints. I already have the sigma f1.2 which is good in all aspects except weight.
I am in Singapore so I expect Asia pacific countries is getting their lens today
I am really brand neutral. I have the 24mm gm and 135mm gm, sigma 14-24mm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4.
I have went through like 35mm f1.4art, 35mm f1.4 ZA, 40mm f1.4 sigma, and finally settled on the 35mm f1.2 which is really good.
For the the only reason to get the 35mm gm is the weight... but on the assumption its IQ is not much worse.
You think that level of purple fringing is acceptable? or you think dpreview has a lemon? or what?
I'm not a fan of DPR. I don't rely on Internet images no matter who posts them really. If it's a focal length/lens I really am interested in I will always buy it and test it out myself. That said my testing is alot different than most here on FM. I take a lens and just go shoot, that's it. I don't get into test charts, diagonal upside down images, 400% pixel peeping, etc... Nothing wrong with those things if that what floats your boat. Just not my thing. If an image looks good to me on my screen and in print that's all that matters to me. Almost anything can be fixed today with software if needed anyway. What I can't fix with software is the size and weight of my equipment. Which is why I moved to Sony in the first place.That pic Dpreview posted is actually not a test chart, neither it is pixel peeping. Like I said, my threshold for IQ is anything that gets on my nerves with web sized prints. That is a pretty easy bar...Show more →
I'm not sure what using 7 35mm lenses over the years has anything to do with the conversation?. No need to repeat the obvious here "NatDeroxL7 " did an excellent job explaining what your seeing. It's Kinda obvious anyway based on the sky. But when people look hard enough and really want to find something they will. Enjoy your Sigma. It really is a nice lens
Feb 05, 2021 at 04:06 PM
p.58 #10Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
NatDeroxL7 wrote:
Yep that purple water is definitely an artifact of whatever jpeg preview was generated for that file. I opened up the RAW in LR, and even with all lens corrections turned off and the crappy Adobe Color profile I had to zoom to 300% to really see the fringing. At 1600% it was clear that it was about 2-3 pixels in width along the contrasty edges.
Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the...Show more →
ok I downloaded the raw and saw the same thing but ACR says that it has applied the built in CA correction and there is no way to turn it off. There is a message that says CA correction is applied even if you uncheck the remove CA box.
Honestly, I doubt you can generate such an artifact through jpeg processing and it is likely that ACR/lightroom has automatically corrected it which is acceptable for me actually.
Maybe I will get the lens later today to test.
Yep that purple water is definitely an artifact of whatever jpeg preview was generated for that file. I opened up the RAW in LR, and even with all lens corrections turned off and the crappy Adobe Color profile I had to zoom to 300% to really see the fringing. At 1600% it was clear that it was about 2-3 pixels in width along the contrasty edges.
Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the...Show more →
ok I downloaded the raw and saw the same thing but ACR says that it has applied the built in CA correction and there is no way to turn it off. There is a message that says CA correction is applied even if you uncheck the remove CA box.
Honestly, I doubt you can generate such an artifact through jpeg processing and it is likely that ACR/lightroom has automatically corrected it which is acceptable for me actually.
Maybe I will get the lens later today to test.
Feb 05, 2021 at 05:14 PM
p.58 #11Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
wind30 wrote:
Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the moderate edges.
The edges of the building structure against the blown highlights, which are even more challenging, were clearly purple/magenta across up to 3 pixels or less in width without the basic profile correction. Once the profile was on, the clearly noticeable color never exceeded 2 pixels with some minor color in the 3rd pixel.
Id say the performance is not discernibly different from my Sigma 1.2 under identical processing conditions.
I'd post crops but I think that isn't in line with DPreview terms.ok I downloaded the raw and saw the same thing but ACR says that it has applied the built in CA correction and there is no way to turn it off. There is a message that says CA correction is applied even if you uncheck the remove CA box.
Honestly, I doubt you can generate such an artifact through jpeg processing and it is likely that ACR/lightroom has automatically corrected it which is acceptable for me actually.
Maybe I will get the lens later today to test.
Your local store has the lens already? I would be all over that. Mine will be in after LNY....
NatDeroxL7 wrote
Yep that purple water is definitely an artifact of whatever jpeg preview was generated for that file. I opened up the RAW in LR, and even with all lens corrections turned off and the crappy Adobe Color profile I had to zoom to 300% to really see the fringing. At 1600% it was clear that it was about 2-3 pixels in width along the contrasty edges.Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the moderate edges.
The edges of the building structure against the blown highlights, which are even more challenging, were clearly purple/magenta across up to 3 pixels or less in width without the basic profile correction. Once the profile was on, the clearly noticeable color never exceeded 2 pixels with some minor color in the 3rd pixel.
Id say the performance is not discernibly different from my Sigma 1.2 under identical processing conditions.
I'd post crops but I think that isn't in line with DPreview terms.
Honestly, I doubt you can generate such an artifact through jpeg processing and it is likely that ACR/lightroom has automatically corrected it which is acceptable for me actually.
Maybe I will get the lens later today to test.
Your local store has the lens already? I would be all over that. Mine will be in after LNY....
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:49 PM
p.58 #12Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
hiepphotog wrote:
Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the moderate edges.
The edges of the building structure against the blown highlights, which are even more challenging, were clearly purple/magenta across up to 3 pixels or less in width without the basic profile correction. Once the profile was on, the clearly noticeable color never exceeded 2 pixels with some minor color in the 3rd pixel.
Id say the performance is not discernibly different from my Sigma 1.2 under identical processing conditions.
I'd post crops but I think that isn't in line with DPreview terms.ok I downloaded the raw and saw the same thing but ACR says that it has applied the built in CA correction and there is no way to turn it off. There is a message that says CA correction is applied even if you uncheck the remove CA box.
Honestly, I doubt you can generate such an artifact through jpeg processing and it is likely that ACR/lightroom has automatically corrected it which is acceptable for me actually.
Maybe I will get the lens later today to test.Your local store has the lens already? I would be all over that. Mine will be in after LNY....
yup and there seems to be plenty stocks in my local store so that is good news for everyone.
wind30 wrote
NatDeroxL7 wrote
Yep that purple water is definitely an artifact of whatever jpeg preview was generated for that file. I opened up the RAW in LR, and even with all lens corrections turned off and the crappy Adobe Color profile I had to zoom to 300% to really see the fringing. At 1600% it was clear that it was about 2-3 pixels in width along the contrasty edges.Once I turned on the standard profile for correction and looked at 1600% it reduced the saturation noticeably and reduced the perceived width to 1-2 pixels on the worse edges, eliminated it completely in the moderate edges.
The edges of the building structure against the blown highlights, which are even more challenging, were clearly purple/magenta across up to 3 pixels or less in width without the basic profile correction. Once the profile was on, the clearly noticeable color never exceeded 2 pixels with some minor color in the 3rd pixel.
Id say the performance is not discernibly different from my Sigma 1.2 under identical processing conditions.
I'd post crops but I think that isn't in line with DPreview terms.
Honestly, I doubt you can generate such an artifact through jpeg processing and it is likely that ACR/lightroom has automatically corrected it which is acceptable for me actually.
Maybe I will get the lens later today to test.
yup and there seems to be plenty stocks in my local store so that is good news for everyone.
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:57 PM
p.58 #13Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Ive been reading many overseas reviews about the AF performance. I dont think theres too much to worry about! Translate yet another one here https://www.fotonerd.it/sony-fe-35mm-f1-4-gm-recensione/
Feb 06, 2021 at 01:39 AM
p.58 #14Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Mystik wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgBased on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really...Show more →
These gentlemen have a water image that is SOOC and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really...Show more →
These gentlemen have a water image that is SOOC and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
Feb 06, 2021 at 07:20 AM
p.58 #15Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Mystik wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgBased on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really...Show more →
These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really...Show more →
These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
Feb 06, 2021 at 07:20 AM
p.58 #16Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
vdo1 wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgBased on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
This review and dpreview both show dust in the lens when pinpoint source lighting is used for bokeh analysis. Shouldn’t these be stellar copies for reviewers? Returns and exchanges are not easy where I am, so it makes me nervous.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
Mystik wrote
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
This review and dpreview both show dust in the lens when pinpoint source lighting is used for bokeh analysis. Shouldn’t these be stellar copies for reviewers? Returns and exchanges are not easy where I am, so it makes me nervous.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
Feb 07, 2021 at 07:08 PM
p.58 #17Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
abadger wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgBased on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.This review and dpreview both show dust in the lens when pinpoint source lighting is used for bokeh analysis. Shouldn’t these be stellar copies for reviewers? Returns and exchanges are not easy where I am, so it makes me nervous.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
bring a strong flashlight to the shop to check. I imagine your local shops would let you test shot the lens at the store. A quick shot at f/11 of the sky would reveal any dust bunny.
vdo1 wrote
Mystik wrote
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
bring a strong flashlight to the shop to check. I imagine your local shops would let you test shot the lens at the store. A quick shot at f/11 of the sky would reveal any dust bunny.
Feb 07, 2021 at 07:44 PM
p.58 #18Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
hiepphotog wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgBased on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.This review and dpreview both show dust in the lens when pinpoint source lighting is used for bokeh analysis. Shouldn’t these be stellar copies for reviewers? Returns and exchanges are not easy where I am, so it makes me nervous.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.bring a strong flashlight to the shop to check. I imagine your local shops would let you test shot the lens at the store. A quick shot at f/11 of the sky would reveal any dust bunny.
Good advice, though I'm really only seeing it show up in the bokeh balls here. I know some smaller dust can be elusive even at higher F stops and yet still show up as spots in bokeh when shooting Christmas lights and such. Like I will need to bring some 'fairy lights' with me...
Also here, basically once you open the seal of the box, it's yours. Returns (exchanges) would have to be for a manufacturing defect, and I'm not sure whether or not dust qualifies. High stakes.
abadger wrote
vdo1 wrote
Mystik wrote
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
Good advice, though I'm really only seeing it show up in the bokeh balls here. I know some smaller dust can be elusive even at higher F stops and yet still show up as spots in bokeh when shooting Christmas lights and such. Like I will need to bring some 'fairy lights' with me...
Also here, basically once you open the seal of the box, it's yours. Returns (exchanges) would have to be for a manufacturing defect, and I'm not sure whether or not dust qualifies. High stakes.
Feb 07, 2021 at 07:53 PM
p.58 #19Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
abadger wrote:
I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpgBased on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.This review and dpreview both show dust in the lens when pinpoint source lighting is used for bokeh analysis. Shouldn’t these be stellar copies for reviewers? Returns and exchanges are not easy where I am, so it makes me nervous.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.bring a strong flashlight to the shop to check. I imagine your local shops would let you test shot the lens at the store. A quick shot at f/11 of the sky would reveal any dust bunny.Good advice, though I'm really only seeing it show up in the bokeh balls here. I know some smaller dust can be elusive even at higher F stops and yet still show up as spots in bokeh when shooting Christmas lights and such. Like I will need to bring some 'fairy lights' with me...
Also here, basically once you open the seal of the box, it's yours. Returns (exchanges) would have to be for a manufacturing defect, and I'm not sure whether or not dust qualifies. High stakes.
Hmm interesting. I just moved to Vietnam and I have to go through this same process. Hopefully it will be easier here.
hiepphotog wrote
abadger wrote
vdo1 wrote
Mystik wrote
wind30 wrote
I thought the purple fringing on the water reflection was HORRIBLE. I could spot it on my laptop screen without zooming in, not full screen even.I think that is a deal breaker for me. It is really bad... I mean purple water?
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6773350576/5536715489.jpg
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
Also here, basically once you open the seal of the box, it's yours. Returns (exchanges) would have to be for a manufacturing defect, and I'm not sure whether or not dust qualifies. High stakes.
Hmm interesting. I just moved to Vietnam and I have to go through this same process. Hopefully it will be easier here.
Feb 07, 2021 at 08:06 PM
p.58 #20Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
hiepphotog wrote:
Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.These gentlemen have an image with water and wet asphalt that is SOOC jpeg and taken in less demanding lighting conditions:
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.This review and dpreview both show dust in the lens when pinpoint source lighting is used for bokeh analysis. Shouldn’t these be stellar copies for reviewers? Returns and exchanges are not easy where I am, so it makes me nervous.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.bring a strong flashlight to the shop to check. I imagine your local shops would let you test shot the lens at the store. A quick shot at f/11 of the sky would reveal any dust bunny.Good advice, though I'm really only seeing it show up in the bokeh balls here. I know some smaller dust can be elusive even at higher F stops and yet still show up as spots in bokeh when shooting Christmas lights and such. Like I will need to bring some 'fairy lights' with me...
Also here, basically once you open the seal of the box, it's yours. Returns (exchanges) would have to be for a manufacturing defect, and I'm not sure whether or not dust qualifies. High stakes.Hmm interesting. I just moved to Vietnam and I have to go through this same process. Hopefully it will be easier here.
Hopefully easier for you, yes. I am not sure about Vietnam but here, even when you are allowed to return something simple at a department store for example with a policy in place for it, they look at you like you like you have done something criminal/suspicious and the process is quite involved (even if you received it as a gift!). A real shock when I first arrived.
abadger wrote
hiepphotog wrote
abadger wrote
vdo1 wrote
Mystik wrote
Based on how flat the contrast is given that they are basically shooting in the sun, it looks like the shadows were lifted quite a bit. High dynamic range is great, but when you start extracting detail out of the deep shadows, you tend to uncover optical flaws that you wouldn't necessarily see in a less aggressively pushed photo. Even in the age of post processing, better lenses can produce files that have less to correct, but no lens is completely immune to things like CA if start pushing sliders hard.Anytime you pull the shadows aggressively like that, you really need to be ready to clean up some residual CA, flare, and color casts you otherwise wouldn't see.
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/focales-fixes/sony-fe-35-mm-f1-4-gm-p60653/test.html
Their sample also looks very dirty with dust and globs of dirt.
I’m expecting CA to be good but not perfect based upon what I’ve read so far. And I have high expectations for everything else.
Also here, basically once you open the seal of the box, it's yours. Returns (exchanges) would have to be for a manufacturing defect, and I'm not sure whether or not dust qualifies. High stakes.
Hopefully easier for you, yes. I am not sure about Vietnam but here, even when you are allowed to return something simple at a department store for example with a policy in place for it, they look at you like you like you have done something criminal/suspicious and the process is quite involved (even if you received it as a gift!). A real shock when I first arrived.
Feb 07, 2021 at 08:11 PM