I can't see myself choosing between 35 and 85 unless it was because I could only afford one as they're just so different. If you're looking at an 85 why on earth would you look at a 35?
I was *really* hoping the 35/1.8 would render the bokeh a little nicer (too fussy for me), I'd loved to have swapped my 34/1.4 out for it!
Poop.
looking at the samples on dpreview the bokeh looks rather nice imo.
Oops Bought on 23/10/2018View attachment 253212
I’ll check those out - I was just going by the ones posted here. Are you picking one up?
I have one on pre-order but thinking of cancelling it simply because I prefer the 24GM.
As for the ones here that looked bad, the background was tricky. Not sure any other lens would have done massively better.
More 35mm f1.8 fun...
f1.8 at about MFD...
f1.8, Her again...
f1.8 at about MFD again.
Same thing at f5.
Funnily enough I've noticed vignetting before but I didn't do any vignetting corrections on these. I'm quite happy with this lens but of course if it could be just a bit bigger than the f2.8 I'd love it
Well there is that too and if that's the case you might like lenses of this sort or size. It's really just about the size of some of my film era lenses once they're mounted on an adapter so I suppose being honest it's hardly massive.
You're confusing two different aspects, yes 55mm is closer to 35mm, no one is arguing that point.
They're saying that other than focal length the 35mm and 85mm are a closer match than to the 55mm.
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
I was *really* hoping the 35/1.8 would render the bokeh a little nicer (too fussy for me), I'd loved to have swapped my 34/1.4 out for it!
Poop.
Speaking of Tamron, are they going to produce the ultra wide for Sony FE? At one point there was talk of a 15-28, 28-75 and 75-200 setup.
A lot of love for the 35mm which is nice to see a lot of happy people that were wanting this lens. I personally find I don't tend to use 35mm focal length a lot. Well, at least I don't think I do. I'm going to go back through my shots and check actually. I have the Sony 50mm prime I have used as a walkabout lens and yes, often as a walk about lens it's too narrow, but I think I prefer it to constantly being at 35.
For the amateur stuff I do, when on trips out I almost always find I whack the Tamron 28-75 on just because I need the flexibility to be able to capture anything, and to be honest it does a great job. I'm often at fully wide and fully long so I do wonder if the Sony 24-105 would have been better, but it's slightly more cumbersome, more expensive and lacks f/2.8 which I really like for the time I need it, or want a nice portrait shot at 75mm and cba to get the 85mm out. I really can't fault the Tamron. The only thing I would critique is the slight barrel distortion at the wide end, but one click in lightroom and it's fixed so it's not really an issue.
Speaking of Tamron, are they going to produce the ultra wide for Sony FE? At one point there was talk of a 15-28, 28-75 and 75-200 setup.
Am I right in thinking the A6500 has £300 cashback at present? Amazon now have it for £899 but don’t mention cash back. If it was up for the animal eye AF and had similar AF performance of the A6400 I would potentially be interested. I guess it means a replacement is on its way next week.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Compact-Stabilisation-Autofocus-Touchscreen/dp/B01M2WAE29
Very nice set of shots, liking all of these very much.
“I must give that place a look, must admit I didn’t even know it existed”
George.
TBH when I first set up the camera I set all the pre-sets etc to neutral, since some of the settings can affect the quality of RAW output (even though it shouldn't) but if there were any such settings then I don't think that I'd ever use them. It's not snobbishness, but what I want is the most useful 'digital negative' the camera can create, and anything which messes with that is having a negative impact on the image for me.
Yes the 35 may be closer to the 85 in technical good / bad terms with the 55mm being IMO the better lens but that comparison make no sense to me as 35 and 85 are such different focal lengths and will be used so differently and even very differently that I can't see why it matters which is slightly better or worse. To me the much more obvious lens to compare a 35mm to when considering buying one is a 50mm not an 85 as 35 and 50 could be used for more or less the same genres, street, general walk about, documentary and reportage etc.
You mentioned you thought it odd the review compares the 35mm and 85mm but why should that be odd if they render in a similar fashion? You could take a Batis 40mm and Samyang 35mm f/2.8 and despite them sharing a similar focal length it's very easy to tell them apart, so if you were talking about the Samyang it wouldn't make much sense to say the Batis is close simply because it's in a similar focal length.
I'm not talking about which lens is better or worse and I agree with you that someone considering a 35mm is not going to suddenly grab a 85mm but I don't think anyone besides you has suggested that was a realistic consideration.
I sold the Nikon 16mm fisheye with all my other Nikon gear but it would have been the obvious thing to do :banghead:If the Nikon 16mm f2.8 lens has an aperture ring it could be used via a cheap dumb adapter. There's no AF of course with a dumb adapter.
As above I stupidly sold my Nikon 16mm & I looked at FE28 and as you said it's huge with the adapter plus I have the 35mm f/2.8 which is very near the 28mm in focal lengthnot a lot unfortunately. The only native option is FE28+fisheye adapter which gives 16mm f3.5 fisheye. But this setup is also (unnecessarily) huge.
You can adapt your nikon fisheye if you still have it. I personally used to adapt the Olympus OM 16mm f3.5 fisheye because it was small.
Thanks for the info on the Samyang I'll have a look at some reviews on the lensThere is also a Samyang 12mm fisheye for FE.
No (picture profiles) only affect jpg and your camera on screen preview, in LR you can select it to import using the closest camera profile interpretation you have set though.
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
Or LuminarPS.
You need Photoshop or Lightroom for this.
Or Luminar
I switched from Lightroom as I didn’t like the subscription model and didn’t use it enough to justify the cost. Skylum Luminar does a good job for me and I find it easier to use. Seem to be regular updates (free) and it’s pretty quick on my Six year old mac mini. You can also get it as a plug-in for Lightroom.I've not heard of this so I'll take a look later.
Check to make sure the AF works fine as some users have reported some major issues with itAnd it landed :
First impressions feel (grip is really nice) and EVF is much better than previous model which was terrible.
Hope to get some time over the weekend to test out IQ, Focus etc. I'll report back when I have
Luminar is no different to lightroom their subscription is just hidden. They release a new version every year and if you want get updates you have to buy a new version every year. Also they still haven't properly delivered on their DAM promise which turns out to be a disappointment.
p.s. Not a fan of lightroom subscription model either. I still use the LR6 perpetual license and will do for as long as possible.
The way I do it now is to buy the LR 12 month sub on amazon prime day and Black Friday for £70 or something and it gives me 12 months.
Vesus I used to pay £110 or something at every release.
And I get photoshop for free (I know it’s not)