wayne seltzer wrote:
Definitely a different price and performance point from the new ZE 35/1.4 and even the old C/Y 35/1.4. Don\'t try the new ZE 35/1.4 or ~$1800 might fly out of your account!
Two things I see in some of the Samy 35/1.4 shots that I thoght you guys could either confirm or deny:
1) Sometimes colored objects which are in defocused background seem to get rendered more saturated and slightly more brighter than what looks normal. It is similar to what I have seen in some Sigma 50/1.4 shots. I have also seen this in some Nikon 200/2 VR shots.
2) To me there seems to be a slight undercorrected SA design look to the wide open shots that I see with this lens. Not as much as the new ZE 35/1.4 but still there seems to be some. I was wondering if you have read the Zeiss paper on bokeh and could use their example test of focusing on a say a printed letter \"X\" and slightly rotate the focus ring and notice how the letter \"X\" gets rendered in the bokeh. This is on test to see if the lens design is undercorrected for SA.
TIA
This is VERY interesting to me Wayne. I was (as probably many others) looking for a 1.4 35mm and I am keen to know the differences to eg Zeiss (in C/Y version that would have been an alternative to me). Or the L for that matter (there the AF is the obvious one). After (soon) three days with the lens I am very happy with the performance.
So for 1) I wonder, what is \"natural\". In my case I usually give images vibrance in ACR as it pleases me more with than without. Never more saturation though, to me THAT quickly gets unnatural with almost any lens in my world. Too much? I would not pay 1000€+ to get something I easily can REDUCE, in particular a characteristics that I normally INCREASE. (no shouting intended, just easier than some italics-tag... :-)
For 2) I am not sure what you mean. SA? Do you mean that this \"cheapo\" does better here. And if so, why get the Zeiss?
Bokeh rendering - IMHO - is something some fast Sigmas does better (or if you like, more natural) than some of the really great Zeisses - from which you and other posts VERY nice shots from. Often jaw dropping stuff, but the bokeh is seldom part of the jaw-dropping factor to me. Sigma examples are 50/1.4 and 30/1.4. I\'ve had both but not anymore. I like it smooth and soft. As eg. the Samyang 85/1.4 (which I\'ve never had, just browsed a lot of HQ images).
For the record, I am sure I would be VERY happy with the L as I would be with the ZE35/1.4. It will be very interesting to see the (very likely) forthcoming comparisons.
Here\'s another snap from today, as always F/1.4, I love it :-)
wayne seltzer wrote:
Definitely a different price and performance point from the new ZE 35/1.4 and even the old C/Y 35/1.4. Don\'t try the new ZE 35/1.4 or ~$1800 might fly out of your account!
Two things I see in some of the Samy 35/1.4 shots that I thoght you guys could either confirm or deny:
1) Sometimes colored objects which are in defocused background seem to get rendered more saturated and slightly more brighter than what looks normal. It is similar to what I have seen in some Sigma 50/1.4 shots. I have also seen this in some Nikon 200/2 VR shots.
2) To me there seems to be a slight undercorrected SA design look to the wide open shots that I see with this lens. Not as much as the new ZE 35/1.4 but still there seems to be some. I was wondering if you have read the Zeiss paper on bokeh and could use their example test of focusing on a say a printed letter \"X\" and slightly rotate the focus ring and notice how the letter \"X\" gets rendered in the bokeh. This is on test to see if the lens design is undercorrected for SA.
TIA
This is VERY interesting to me Wayne. I was (as probably many others) looking for a 1.4 35mm and I am keen to know the differences to eg Zeiss (in C/Y version that would have been an alternative to me). Or the L for that matter (there the AF is the obvious one). After (soon) three days with the lens I am very happy with the performance.
So for 1) I wonder, what is \"natural\". In my case I usually give images vibrance in ACR as it pleases me more with than without. Never more saturation though, to me THAT quickly gets unnatural with almost any lens in my world. Too much? I would not pay 1000€+ to get something I easily can REDUCE, in particular a characteristics that I normally INCREASE. (no shouting intended, just easier than some italics-tag... :-)
For 2) I am not sure what you mean. SA? Do you mean that this \"cheapo\" does better here. And if so, why get the Zeiss?
Bokeh rendering - IMHO - is something some fast Sigmas does better (or if you like, more natural) than some of the really great Zeisses - from which you and other posts VERY nice shots from. Often jaw dropping stuff, but the bokeh is seldom part of that to me. Sigma examples are 50/1.4 and 30/1.4. I\'ve had both but not anymore. I like it smooth and soft. As eg. the Samyang 85/1.4 (which I\'ve never had, just browsed a lot of HQ images).
For the record, I am sure I would be VERY happy with the L as I would be with the ZE35/1.4. It will be very interesting to see the (very likely) forthcoming comparisons.
Here\'s another snap from today, as always F/1.4, I love it :-)
