p.91 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
So let’s talk about this as I think folks are expecting miracles from first a wide angle lens and at that kind of distance from subject to start than from subject to background. Just a big distance and even at 1.4 aperture it’s not going to have that bokeh effect. That image would be considered normal
So let’s take that same image if I walked closer to the young lady on the stairs that bokeh would change but so would your framing. Now you can crop a little different but with a wide lens you have to get closer. With a long lens you compress that distance.
So with a wide lens like a 35mm lens you roughly have to be about 10ft maximum away and there background after them hopefully will be pretty far behind them
To keep this simple the longer the lens the better in regards to distance. If using a wide lens the closer you want to be to subject. Those are your rule of thumbs
p.91 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
So let’s talk about this as I think folks are expecting miracles from first a wide angle lens and at that kind of distance from subject to start than from subject to background. Just a big distance and even at 1.4 aperture it’s not going to have that bokeh effect. That image would be considered normal
So let’s take that same image if I walked closer to the young lady on the stairs that bokeh would change but so would your framing. Now you can crop a little different but with a wide lens you have to get closer. With a long lens you compress that distance.
So with a wide lens like a 35mm lens you roughly have to be about 10ft maximum away and there background after them hopefully will be pretty far behind them
To keep this simple the longer the lens the better in regards to distance. If using a wide lens the closer you want to be to subject. Those are your rule of thumbs
Hope that helps...Show more →That is sound advice that could be used for any lens. Thanks!
p.91 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
Yes, we had two of those, before using the Sigma 1.2 and now the GMs.
AF was fast and rendering often pleasing, but at f1.4 too soft for my taste, I shot the ZM at f2 most of the time. Then it was a lottery to get reasonably centered ones and CAs were very strong. I found black & white images with it to look fantastic, however.
For me the GM is fantastic. We shoot against the sun all the time and it shows hardly any flares. It is sharp, has flat field of view, nice rendering (not perfect), is small, light, has fast AF, reasonably low CAs.
I tested now 3 copies (one from Sony when we tested it for them with the A1), and we have two in possession right now (bought one and won one in a Sony competition). All 3 were equally sharp and well centered (I saw differences only when zooming to 200-300% on the A7riv). So Sony seems to have improved copy to copy variation now, too. Other people have other preferences. The Sigma, in my opinion, renders a bit nicer. But I want 100% reliability at weddings and trust the GM more.
I did mean the ZM, not the ZA. I bet you’d like it—it’s extremely sharp with unreal 3-D and micro-contrast, giving files a very distinct rich modern feel. I enjoyed mine, but for people it could be a bit much, and sometimes OOF could be too structured for me. It’s a glorious b/w lens. You might give it a whirl It’s small for a 1.4, but then again, it’s MF and an RF lens.
No I was more referring to his link of a young lady sitting on steps with a crowd above her on steps. More in general about you, distance to subject and background distance
p.91 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Just a in general guide to creating bokeh more effectively with a wide prime. Ignore the lens here but it is a 35mm. The iron horse is on my right about three feet , lets say it is human. That right side is very sharp and lovely lets say. that second horse is about 7 ft away . See how that horse is fading away in the OOF which is exactly the effect that folks are looking for than the background you almost dont know what it is.
Big problem when starting off with a very difficult background like those twigs its very hard to make them a complete blur even at 3 ft your still going to see twigs. So with a 35mm your really almost immediately in trouble , longer lens is so much easier to deal with
Rule of thumb with wides get close than get closer.
Totally try to get the background far far away from subject . The further the better blur
Also make that background simple in structure as best you can. If you can move subject to do that even better and usually you can as your shooting people they move
Now this image is kinda the situation your after subject close background far but a fairly simple background so when the blur or OOF comes in its just a glob of nothing
p.91 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
No I was more referring to his link of a young lady sitting on steps with a crowd above her on steps. More in general about you, distance to subject and background distance
p.91 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Younjulius wrote:
What's your opinion on smoothness of GM among other 35mm lenses?
I honestly don’t think it’s it strong suit.
Sony and others are on this mission and it’s dictated by the buying public (us). You hear a lot on this very forum I want sharp as hell right at 1.4 and that’s a very common comment but with that there going to make their optical design to do that. I know you hear this term modern. Or someone like me will say a lens is sterile and definition of that sharp as hell but really does not render that smoothly and that’s pretty much this lens. It’s sharp and I’d say on the level as Sony’s 135 which is a killer lens. But that lens is long and bokeh is easily to achieve than a wide like this. So you may see a comment on the 135 a laser with a great look. That look is it’s length that can create a nice bokeh
You have to make somewhat of a choice with a wide like this as the design goals are different.
Take me I just grabbed the Sigma 35 F2 and it’s general plus plus is it renders very nicely , but I won’t say it’s a freaking laser like I would for the Sony 135 which I have btw. You kinda can’t get both in one lens. Now back to me I bought the Sigma but I also bought a CV 35 Apo for more landscape work as that’s not really the sigma 35 goal
The goal of this Sony is I wanna be sharp and defined. It won’t IMHO Abe the best rendering type lens. Not sure why they look like they did that as maybe the 35 1.8 might be just fine. I would have thought Sony would go after there 50 1.4 , 85 1.4 and even there 24 1.4 look more.
I’m not sure they went after those renderings here. That’s where testing comes in to play. Now I bailed on the pre order as I just was not seeing that mojo on rendering.
I say that but that don’t mean this lens is bad in anyway just there design direction went more to the sharp as shit side of things
p.91 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
I honestly don’t think it’s it strong suit.
Sony and others are on this mission and it’s dictated by the buying public (us). You hear a lot on this very forum I want sharp as hell right at 1.4 and that’s a very common comment but with that there going to make their optical design to do that. I know you hear this term modern. Or someone like me will say a lens is sterile and definition of that sharp as hell but really does not render that smoothly and that’s pretty much this lens. It’s sharp and I’d say on the level as Sony’s 135 which is a killer lens. But that lens is long and bokeh is easily to achieve than a wide like this. So you may see a comment on the 135 a laser with a great look. That look is it’s length that can create a nice bokeh
You have to make somewhat of a choice with a wide like this as the design goals are different.
Take me I just grabbed the Sigma 35 F2 and it’s general plus plus is it renders very nicely , but I won’t say it’s a freaking laser like I would for the Sony 135 which I have btw. You kinda can’t get both in one lens. Now back to me I bought the Sigma but I also bought a CV 35 Apo for more landscape work as that’s not really the sigma 35 goal
The goal of this Sony is I wanna be sharp and defined. It won’t IMHO Abe the best rendering type lens. Not sure why they look like they did that as maybe the 35 1.8 might be just fine. I would have thought Sony would go after there 50 1.4 , 85 1.4 and even there 24 1.4 look more.
I’m not sure they went after those renderings here. That’s where testing comes in to play. Now I bailed on the pre order as I just was not seeing that mojo on rendering.
I say that but that don’t mean this lens is bad in anyway just there design direction went more to the sharp as shit side of things...Show more →
Nice summation.
You make an excellent point.
These lenses are what the public wants- not necessarily what Sony feels compelled to sell.
Heck, Sony would sell lenses smeared with vaseline if they knew they would be popular.
Guaranteed that even within Sony there are divisions over what constitutes desirable rendering.
In the end the bean counters consult the poll-takers and away we go......
p.91 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
darrellc wrote:
Holger, ZM 35/1.4 and ZA 35/1.4 are different lenses - ZM is a Zeiss manual focus lens for M mount, ZA is the Sony/Zeiss branded FE mount 35/1.4 which I think you are referring to in your response
Oh, my bad, did not look closely, yes, mixed them up!
p.91 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
tzhang4284 wrote:
The reason the Nikon 35mm is perfect is because there aren't any other choices.
I mean, not really? It's a well corrected lens with good cross frame sharpness, soft bokeh, no SA (and therefore no IQ penalty up close WO), with competent sealing, modern AF motors, a good MFD, and a useful moderate max aperture that helps it keep the weight down.
Is it the best lens in any of these categories? I can't think of a single area where it is the exemplar when comparing it to extant Sony options. But its the only lens I can think of that does literally everything right, is under 400g, and is also comfortably under $1k.
tzhang4284 wrote:
The other issue is the lack of consistency in Sony branded lenses - the GM lenses are all very good but large, the G lenses are hit or miss depending on which lenses, the regular Sony lenses are mostly ok.
Is there actually a bad G lens? I think they've all been good, with the 20 G being basically perfect, and the 24/40/50 trio looking pretty good if you can accept the aperture.
p.91 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
JVan_02 wrote:
I mean, not really? It's a well corrected lens with good cross frame sharpness, soft bokeh, no SA (and therefore no IQ penalty up close WO), with competent sealing, modern AF motors, a good MFD, and a useful moderate max aperture that helps it keep the weight down.
Is it the best lens in any of these categories? I can't think of a single area where it is the exemplar when comparing it to extant Sony options. But its the only lens I can think of that does literally everything right, is under 400g, and is also comfortably under $1k. ...Show more →
I'll believe it when I see it ...
p.91 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I decided to cancel my preorder with a non-local local shop and went with B&H given that B&H seems to have a lot more info on when the next batch will become available. Hopefully, I will get mine next week.
:
It’s small for a 1.4, but then again, it’s MF and an RF lens.
...