Teo Rey wrote:
Would anyone be able to make RAW files available with nice examples of bokeh transition zones? I want to see what I can do with the files in post as some people are saying the bokeh is not as nice as the Sigma 35 f1.2.
I might be willing, but I would need some more specifics. Most of us posting on this thread from the lens have not been shooting formal portraits or weddings or such. There are indeed several who do not have the lens who are eager to complain about the bokeh but no one who owns the lens seems to have that concern.
I have never shot the Sigma or the Voigt, and bokeh is something of a subjective thing, in terms of what people look for.
What sort of shot are you interested in? Portrait with a person a particular distance away and then background some other distance away? Natural setting? I do not usually shoot people and certainly don't use a studio for anything, but I am willing to try to help, if you give some additional information.
What I can say for certain is that it is not a bokeh monster like the 50GM. However, I can say without reservation, that it has better, smoother bokeh than any of the following lenses:
Sony 35/1.4 ZA
Leica M 35/2 ASPH
Voigtlander 35/1.7 ASPH
Zeiss ZM 35/1.4
Canon 35/1.4L II (SLR version)
SLR Magic 35/1.2
Grenache wrote:
I might be willing, but I would need some more specifics. Most of us posting on this thread from the lens have not been shooting formal portraits or weddings or such. There are indeed several who do not have the lens who are eager to complain about the bokeh but no one who owns the lens seems to have that concern.
I have never shot the Sigma or the Voigt, and bokeh is something of a subjective thing, in terms of what people look for.
What sort of shot are you interested in? Portrait with a person a particular distance away and then background some other distance away? Natural setting? I do not usually shoot people and certainly don't use a studio for anything, but I am willing to try to help, if you give some additional information.
What I can say for certain is that it is not a bokeh monster like the 50GM. However, I can say without reservation, that it has better, smoother bokeh than any of the following lenses:
Sony 35/1.4 ZA
Leica M 35/2 ASPH
Voigtlander 35/1.7 ASPH
Zeiss ZM 35/1.4
Canon 35/1.4L II (SLR version)
SLR Magic 35/1.2
Yeah I understand, if you are able to get shots of a subject from hips up and also full body shots, that would be the most helpful to me as those are the ones I shoot the most often
That's good to know that you prefer its rendering over the 35 1.4 ZA and the Voigtlander f1.7! I've seen quite a few images from both lenses and I know they're held in high regard in terms of rendering so to hear that the GM is better is promising for sure.
The ZA is tougher. I had a great ZA. No complaints about it. However, the GM is noticeably sharper and smoother in bokeh. The GM loses saturation in the out of focus areas, compared to the ZA. This can help accentuate subjects but is a matter of taste. The GM has essentially no CA or fringing, but my copy of the ZA never had fringing either.
The GM is most different from the ZA in portrait range, where the bokeh is smoother/more blurred. I got more 3D from the ZA, I think, but neither as much as the ZE/ZF Zeiss 35/1.4.
Alas, there is no truly perfect 35 for every occasion.
Teo Rey wrote:
Yeah I understand, if you are able to get shots of a subject from hips up and also full body shots, that would be the most helpful to me as those are the ones I shoot the most often
That's good to know that you prefer its rendering over the 35 1.4 ZA and the Voigtlander f1.7! I've seen quite a few images from both lenses and I know they're held in high regard in terms of rendering so to hear that the GM is better is promising for sure.
Grenache wrote:
There are indeed several who do not have the lens who are eager to complain about the bokeh but no one who owns the lens seems to have that concern.
Why do you have to own this lens to see that bokeh is busy and distracting in a lot of cases and more importantly why is so hard to believe that another lens with max f/1.2 aperture could produce better bokeh than this GM?
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Why do you have to own this lens to see that bokeh is busy and distracting in a lot of cases and more importantly why is so hard to believe that another lens with max f/1.2 aperture could produce better bokeh than this GM?
Nearly any lens can blur a background far from the focal plane. To know what to expect from the blur, one has to know what the scenario was like. Almost none of the images posted in this thread have distant backgrounds.
I have no frame of reference for the Voigt or Sigma and said that plainly.
Well, nu mud in that lake...
I've also had some fun by using the lens wide open in situations where it usually isn't possible to get a sharp image that way. There is seldom any point in it though - but fun.
One thing in your image I notice is sharpening halos between sky and trees. Maybe some oversharpening over all as well (but after having seen the halos I get biased).
Maybe you can get an image "sharp enough" by holding back a little?
Jonas B wrote:
Well, nu mud in that lake...
I've also had some fun by using the lens wide open in situations where it usually isn't possible to get a sharp image that way. There is seldom any point in it though - but fun.
One thing in your image I notice is sharpening halos between sky and trees. Maybe some oversharpening over all as well (but after having seen the halos I get biased).
Maybe you can get an image "sharp enough" by holding back a little?
Well...either you have better eyes than I do (which is likely ) or you zoomed into the image. I can't see any halos on either my iPad or my 5000K iMac unless I zoom in. I usually post 1500-1800 pixel images that aren't meant to be zoomed, just viewed as an image.
This site compresses images when uploaded, so unless I do a smart sharpen in photoshop, the images always look "muddy."
I agree that too much sharpening is worse than not enough.
I also don't see those halos, to me it's the matter of a detailed image shrinked to forum's acceptable resolution ...
mudlake wrote:
Well...either you have better eyes than I do (which is likely ) or you zoomed into the image. I can't see any halos on either my iPad or my 5000K iMac unless I zoom in. I usually post 1500-1800 pixel images that aren't meant to be zoomed, just viewed as an image.
This site compresses images when uploaded, so unless I do a smart sharpen in photoshop, the images always look "muddy."
I agree that too much sharpening is worse than not enough.
...
