“I need to stop it down too far at 1m, not very practical.”
If you have to stop it down to f4 for 90% of the shots it's not as useful if the light isn't there. With the 45mm or even the 50mm I don't need to stop down so much.
I dunno, it's a bit of a faff having multiple of these small compact lenses. I'm actually quite liking the 50mm f1.8. It doesn't have as much of that 3d look the zeiss55 has, but it has some for a different look, still good, haven't taken a lot with it.
It sounds like you should read a comprehensive description of how F stops affect depth the field, and also how your distance from the subject affect depth the field.
Just switching a 35 for a 55 is going to produce a different picture (more in the frame). If you wanted more in the frame, you could’ve just moved back with your 55 and achieved less focus fall off (and likely less distortion!) - as you desired.
Anyway, it’s worth reading how DOF works, instead of just collecting lenses that you don’t need.
I find the Sonnar 55/1.8 (early adopter here) perfect for my A6700. I brought it to a shoot the other day because I was testing my new Godox V100S and it30 Pro S. No, I didn't buy these for off camera stuff, just on camera. One great thing about this lens is I don't need a riser for the it30Pro S---there's no shadow (without the lens hood). I love the bokeh of this lens and if I wanted more I can easily go with the excellent lens blur filter via Photoshop.
I really like the 55mm because of how it treats the subject.It always look more lighten.
I care more about the main subject then the quality of the blur. Yogifi wrote:
Well, appreciate the link but that's certainly dampened my excitement for the 50mm f1.8 arriving in 30 mins xD
The 55mm renders people so much nicer than the 45mm f1.8, which looks flat like the 50mm f1.8 there. Even from the garbage can comparison in the first one. I think the 45mmf1.8 is worse than the 50mmf1.8 in that regard. And the vignetting on this 45 is massive, and the body of the 45mm looks so bad with that bright red ring.
The reviewer's comments on the bokeh:
I was interested in the MF Sonnar 1.5 for the rendering but I was ignoring the background and remember doing so as it had hints of being kind of untamed too.
Maybe the answer has to be to just stop that 55 down and hold still. The autofocus is fantastic, it's light and the people look very good. Or maybe the Batis 40mm f2... Will see how much I like 40mm, have that cheap new 40mm from ttartisan coming.
Anyway, let's see. I ordered a 1/8 diffusion filter to try for the first time with both the 45mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8 that's coming with the lens any minute now.
Thank you for the link, Nifty Fifty.
On the plus side, think I levelled-up my colour editing resources significantly after having to look at the output from the Samyung, which really doesn't gel well with Adobe Color. ...Show more →
Nifty Fifty wrote:
May I ask what your post has to do with the thread topic? I couldn't see the slightest connection. Neither to the original post nor to any other post.
I did address the OP's concern which was the background blur. I had no problem with it as a matter of fact I like it. As I said if I wanted more background blur/bokeh I can easily use the lens blur filter tool of Photoshop. But again to each their own.
jojib wrote:
I did address the OP's concern which was the background blur. I had no problem with it as a matter of fact I like it. As I said if I wanted more background blur/bokeh I can easily use the lens blur filter tool of Photoshop. But again to each their own.
The OP didn't have a problem with the bokeh being too weak. He found the drop-off in sharpness too abrupt, which is why he asked for alternatives with a more gradual drop-off at the same distance and aperture.
Because when it comes to my photography I follow my GOAT investor idol Warren Buffett----'I rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong.' I just shoot what I see fit. If I like a lot of blur I shoot wide open or use longer lenses. Since you are into the transition zone, maybe you can post some photos of it?
Aug 11, 2025 at 11:14 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Nifty Fifty wrote:
But why do you then post a photo that doesn't have a transition zone at all?
Three of his photos clearly have a transition zone. The one in which she is holding her foot above her head, and the two swimsuit pictures. The grass in the first one and the sand in the latter two clearly show a transition zone. I generally find it helpful when people are discussing a lens to actually post pictures from that lens. I am a bit puzzled why two of you are jumping on jojib. I see his post an relevant and I appreciate the examples.
I really struggle with this being an issue. A 55mm lens is going to be a touch tight. But it certainly isn't razor thin dof. Unless you are very tight. Here is a picture I took wide open testing out the c-af on my old a7II. While the dof is certainly thin, the falloff isn't atrociously abrupt. If you want deeper dof with more gradual falloff of the bokeh, the real solution is going to be:
A. Go wider with the same aperture
B. Use the same lens but stop it down
Steve Spencer wrote:
Three of his photos clearly have a transition zone.
I quoted the post I was referring to. It answered the question about the transition zone and posted an image that didn't show one.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The one in which she is holding her foot above her head, and the two swimsuit pictures. The grass in the first one and the sand in the latter two clearly show a transition zone. I generally find it helpful when people are discussing a lens to actually post pictures from that lens.
But the OP has exactly this lens and knows how it produces images. He doesn't want to take portrait or full-body shots outdoors, but rather his cat indoors from a distance of 1 meter, without having to stop down any further than f/2.8. He wanted to know which lenses have a smoother transition zone under this condition, as he had this experience with the Voigtländer.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am a bit puzzled why two of you are jumping on jojib. I see his post an relevant and I appreciate the examples.
I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just don't see any connection between the question and the answer.
Yogifi wrote:
If you have to stop it down to f4 for 90% of the shots it's not as useful if the light isn't there. With the 45mm or even the 50mm I don't need to stop down so much.
By the way, if you shoot with 2.8 35mm on APS (crop mode) instead of 4.0 55mm on FF, you'll get the same depth of field with a lens that's 1 f-stop faster.
;-)
Aug 11, 2025 at 12:17 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Nifty Fifty wrote:
By the way, if you shoot with 2.8 35mm on APS (crop mode) instead of 4.0 55mm on FF, you'll get the same depth of field with a lens that's 1 f-stop faster.
;-)
A lens that is one stop faster, but using a sensor (or a portion of the sensor if you crop) that has about one stop less dynamic range and color depth. To equalize the images you really should shoot the APS-C (or the shot cropped to APS-C) at one stop lower ISO and then the images will look very much the same and you will be using the same shutter speed.
TheEmrys wrote:
I really struggle with this being an issue. A 55mm lens is going to be a touch tight. But it certainly isn't razor thin dof. Unless you are very tight. Here is a picture I took wide open testing out the c-af on my old a7II. While the dof is certainly thin, the falloff isn't atrociously abrupt. If you want deeper dof with more gradual falloff of the bokeh, the real solution is going to be:
A. Go wider with the same aperture
B. Use the same lens but stop it down
