@j4nu ready to devour more samples! If it's not too much a bother, try some low light AF of your kiddos? Don't share images if you don't want, just curious if this lens would be significantly better than my 40 in bad lighting.
I'll try to take some walkaround shots tomorrow, but there's barely any sun here now and it was mostly raining today so I don't have high hopes...
That right there is a good looking pair. Can't wait to see some more real-world shots with the 35. It feels like going outside in the rain would be the perfect place to test weather sealing...
I was worried about onion rings and that's something I could actually test right away, so here it goes (vs f1.2 big brother[sister?], not identical framing but I tried at least ) :
@JVan_02@ - sure, I'll have to verify that anyway.
@keepcoding@ - indeed, I was also surprised how much bigger it is...
@Dave Sanders@ - haha, I don't know if I feel that adventurous .
One thing I found is that I have this strange colored spot that moves with focus change from one bokeh ball to another. Initiallly I thought it's a dust speck, but it's colored and I can't blow it off so maybe something inside the lens (or my sensor). StrangeSpeck by Jan U, on Flickr
@j4nu thanks again! And I saw from your flickr that we have the same body, so these results will be really useful. Mind including some exposure triangle info in your assessment?
@JVan_02 - I'll be testing mostly wide open as I'm intersted if the near-MFD slight glow affects AF operation... So far, AF(-C) is accurate in bad light, but I mostly shot > 0.5m .
This weird spot bothers me, I think it's some kind of glass imperfection (with scene such as the above I can even see it when reviewing the pictures on the camera screen):
@j4nu thanks for the info. Lemme know how AF works as you get in different ranges. Also interested in the effect of glow close up: how much it affects AF, how much it affects images, and when it seems to start.
With the 40, you can get glow at a little bit further than 0.6m if you have the right lighting (low light + LED lighting). Just not worth it to shoot wider than 2.5 at most times... but then there goes the AF (and the ISO... had 6400 in the middle of the DAY two days ago ).
chez wrote:
If I hid when it snowed, I'd be hibernating from November until April.
Haha I wish it snowed around here (like it should during winter) ...
It's the greyness that gets me, it's another winter in the recent years that is not cold, not snowy and there's barely any sun as the sky is heavily overcast. Not a fun time for taking pictures.
They don't seem to like it and I don't like the review . I think they are mistaken about weather sealing and their paragraph about CA leaves me wondering what kind of CA is corrected well in the end. Also, it seems they don't see much difference compared to the Sony (slightly smoother bokeh, similar CA correction, Sony is sharper), which makes me question the whole review as I'd expect the differences to be quite visible...
The other downside of such dull light is that it makes it easy (albeit boring) for the lens, so hard to show how it copes with busy background, strong reflections, CA, etc...
My first impression is that there is some IQ degradation (center holds up better than the rest of the frame) close up, maybe up to 0.5m even but I need to shoot more. AF also seems to struggle a bit against strong backlight (e.g. a window when indoors) but it's rather accurate, silent and quick besides that.
) :
). 
