mark1958 wrote:
Must be along the CA coast near Pescadaro? I know the lighthouse spot.... and clearly know about the microclimates. I live in the Bay Area as well
All very nice images but all with a so, so bokeh.
I think this is the trade off for super sharpness/contrast.
I’m not convinced by this lens as it is to my taste too nervous in general.
For sure it may be ideal for many.
The bokeh will be a strong point for many buyers. Most images it looks very smooth too, an attractive look. If you are happy to say, what don't you like about it?
With high performance lenses, the tone handling is key to it as they are of necessity contrasty. Especially the high end. It's developing into a genre, something new we haven't seen before in ~affordable lenses.
Great lens, no discussion.
We all know the resolution and contrast can in some way be increased in post.
As they can be decreased.
What is hardly possible to do in post are bokeh and rendering.
This is where I see some limitation in the use of this lens compared to Bigma GM 1.2.
Possibly just because one is 1.2.and the other 1.4, I don’t know.
In direct comparison I see this GM very good in general but bokeh is sometimes harsh and not smooth enough. If you correctly study distance of main subject and foreground good results can be achieved but this not always the case for more casual shots.
I’m in process to buy a new 35MM and all these considerations are important to me.
Ideal is Bigma but I cannot accept it’s weight/dimensions.
I live in a country where if you buy a lens you cannot return it and as the cost is quite relevant I do not want replicate the mistake I did on buying other lenses under the pressure of good reviews which systematically changed after 6 months.
Other people may have different opinion.
PS: I do not understand the reason why Sony did a 35 GM 1.4 and a 50 GM 1.2.
To me a more logical move was the opposite. The only rationale I see is commercial.
I also think Bigma has the edge when it comes to smoothing out busy backgrounds, but I also think the difference becomes noticeable only under really demanding conditions (a combination of distance, light, background).
I'm not sure if we're going to see a better solution than the GM, as Dustin Abbott in his latest video shows that sharpness-wise the new Sigma is very close to the GM, but he likes the bokeh of the GM more...
As for why 50GM f1.2, I think it's all about the show of force between the big three (C, N, S). I also think a compact fast 35mm makes more sense, than 50mm, but that's personal .
And some proof the GM can handle difficult scenes focus was 2-3m on the swing I think: DSC04850-e by Jan U, on Flickr
ƒ/1.4 35.0mm 1/1000s ISO100
Trying to judge bokeh or sharpness on massively downsized images here is nearly impossible. The downsizing process itself distorts both of those substantially.
The lens is incredibly sharp and across the frame. More than suitable from demanding tasks, like architecture. Its bokeh is lush and velvety. I have not used the Sigma, but the bokeh of this lens is incredible. Even in harsh conditions, it is lovely. I liken it to pouring water over a scene; it just melts away, but it does so gradually.
The bokeh is not as nice as the 135 GM, Canon 85/1.2L II, or the Canon 200/2L...but those are not wide angle lenses. That said, the 35 GM is likely next in line in my uses, bettering the 50/1.4 ZA in many ways but not in color saturation of the bokeh.
Jim
scalanc2 wrote:
Great lens, no discussion.
We all know the resolution and contrast can in some way be increased in post.
As they can be decreased.
What is hardly possible to do in post are bokeh and rendering.
This is where I see some limitation in the use of this lens compared to Bigma GM 1.2.
Possibly just because one is 1.2.and the other 1.4, I don’t know.
In direct comparison I see this GM very good in general but bokeh is sometimes harsh and not smooth enough. If you correctly study distance of main subject and foreground good results can be achieved but this not always the case for more casual shots.
I’m in process to buy a new 35MM and all these considerations are important to me.
Ideal is Bigma but I cannot accept it’s weight/dimensions.
I live in a country where if you buy a lens you cannot return it and as the cost is quite relevant I do not want replicate the mistake I did on buying other lenses under the pressure of good reviews which systematically changed after 6 months.
Other people may have different opinion.
PS: I do not understand the reason why Sony did a 35 GM 1.4 and a 50 GM 1.2.
To me a more logical move was the opposite. The only rationale I see is commercial....Show more →
Grenache wrote:
Trying to judge bokeh or sharpness on massively downsized images here is nearly impossible. The downsizing process itself distorts both of those substantially.
The lens is incredibly sharp and across the frame. More than suitable from demanding tasks, like architecture. Its bokeh is lush and velvety. I have not used the Sigma, but the bokeh of this lens is incredible. Even in harsh conditions, it is lovely. I liken it to pouring water over a scene; it just melts away, but it does so gradually.
The bokeh is not as nice as the 135 GM, Canon 85/1.2L II, or the Canon 200/2L...but those are not wide angle lenses. That said, the 35 GM is likely next in line in my uses, bettering the 50/1.4 ZA in many ways but not in color saturation of the bokeh.
Jim
...Show more →
For sure for a buyng decision I will try myself.
Non because I’m more competent of others but because I know my main fields of application.
In the mean time I ‘m perplexed looking at some bokeh pictures here.
Don’t you.
Take the Porsche picture, do you really like the bokeh?
Or the one withe swings.
But to be honest a lot of others seems to me pretty nice in regard of bokeh.
.
