Fred Miranda wrote: Mystik wrote:
I've wanted a fast compact 35 for a very long time, and the FE 35 1.8 fits the bill for me. Are there compromises that come with a compact solution? Of course.
The FE 35/1.8's compactness has nothing to do with its harsh rendering. (where transition zone blends with the OOF area)
.
From a practical perspective it actually does make a difference. A larger aperture (let’s say 1.2) helps making that transition zone shorter and closer to the subject - so you could frame in a way where you can hide it (imagine a head and shoulders portrait where the transition area is right behind the subject’s feet. The area may be ugly but it’s not in the frame at all) . Or you position it on some benign, uniform area (think full length portrait, and you have the subject sitting on a deck or concrete surface or whatever, not in the grass). With slower apertures (compact lens!) that area becomes harder to hide / position as it’s farther in the back of the subject.
I recommend a look at our member’s jefonyx recent photos with the sigma 35/1.2. It’s not just the lens, it’s also his choice of background surfaces and their texture / detail level, and careful placement of the subject. Plus subduing the background through exposure / lighting. f/1.2 is a facilitator for sure but in the end it’s all in the hands of the photographer. I’m sure he can also produce “busy bokeh” photos with that lens if he wants to. Alternatively you can peek at Joshua’s portraits, he doesn’t do 35 that often these days but he does 24 GM. Again look at the background choice, subject placement and light. He doesn’t just plop those pretty ladies in the grass in front of a tree (when he does that he’s using 85 or 105 or 135mm).
Fred Miranda wrote: Mystik wrote:
I've wanted a fast compact 35 for a very long time, and the FE 35 1.8 fits the bill for me. Are there compromises that come with a compact solution? Of course.
The FE 35/1.8's compactness has nothing to do with its harsh rendering. (where transition zone blends with the OOF area)
.
From a practical perspective it actually does make a difference. A larger aperture (let’s say 1.2) helps making that transition zone shorter and closer to the subject - so you could frame in a way where you can hide it (imagine a head and shoulders portrait where the transition area is right behind the subject’s feet. The area may be ugly but it’s not in the frame at all) . Or you position it on some benign, uniform area (think full length portrait, and you have the subject sitting on a deck or concrete surface or whatever, not in the grass). With slower apertures (compact lens!) that area becomes harder to hide / position as it’s farther in the back of the subject.
I recommend a look at our member’s jefonyx recent photos with the sigma 35/1.2. It’s not just the lens, it’s also his choice of background surfaces and their texture / detail level, and careful placement of the subject. f/1.2 is a facilitator for sure but in the end it’s all in the hands of the photographer. Alternatively you can peek at Joshua’s portraits, he doesn’t do 35 that often these days but he does 24 GM. Again look at the background choice, subject placement and light. He doesn’t just plop those pretty ladies in the grass in front of a tree (when he does that he’s using 85 or 105 or 135mm).
Sep 01, 2019 at 02:36 PM
Previous versions of vdo1's message #14964991 « Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748) »
