- Messages
- 15,909
- Edit My Images
- Yes
O dear. Which should I get rid? View attachment 255671
First and last one. Keep the middle one
O dear. Which should I get rid? View attachment 255671
O dear. Which should I get rid?
First and last one. Keep the middle one
O dear. Which should I get rid? View attachment 255671
Though not sure what they are thinking with the f2.8 primes
It's better than the sigma bokehKeep the Sigma the Samyang is cack and the Sony has ugly oof area's and poor C.A.
Although even with the issues with the Sony I still quite like it for it's quick a.f speed and the lighter weight, although I am keeping my Siggy as well.
It's better than the sigma bokeh
Think that's the CA ruining itI am not talking about bokeh, I haven't narrowed down the root cause yet but the Sony has very ugly o.o.f area's in certain situations, sometimes it seems fine, I think it might be a lighting thing but I have only processed 3 weddings so far using it and am still trying to nail down the root cause so it can be avoided.
Think that's the CA ruining it
Tricky.
The obvious one to keep is the Sammy because of the tiny size that makes the camera almost pocketable. If you find yourself still going for the Sigma for weddings and use the extra stop then keep that - otherwise move it on.
Cant that easily be fixed in post?. is it as bad as the canon 85mm f1.2L?Think that's the CA ruining it
O dear. Which should I get rid? View attachment 255671
Tbh that 1.8 bokeh looked bloody terrible when looking at samples posted here. Sigma isn’t as nervous.It's better than the sigma bokeh
Tbh that 1.8 bokeh looked bloody terrible when looking at samples posted here. Sigma isn’t as nervous.
sigma would be almost equally bad in the scenario posted here. Have a look on dpreviews sample gallery.
Hold on, I thought general opinion was the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art was pretty much brilliant with the only downside being it's heft?
Hold on, I thought general opinion was the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art was pretty much brilliant with the only downside being it's heft?
No the C.A is mainly really bad in back lit situations it’s not that.
Examples?
I need a new bag
I haven't delivered the weddings where I have used the 35 f/1.8 yet, pretty much every review on the lens mentions the C.A though so it should easy enough to be able to find some examples online.
Even with that though as I mentioned above I can live with it just because the lens is light weight and the a.f speed is very good.
I am gonna probably stop using it at weddings though as the C.A can be a pain to remove over several hundred images.
Plus there is the other issue with the ugly oof areas which is an odd one as sometimes it is completely fine.
There shouldn't be any mystery here. The results should be decided by the scene, the background, the distances between them, the distance between the main subject and the camera and of course the aperture and any instances in which it's better or worse shot to shot should be down to combinations of these factors. The pictures I've taken with messy backgrounds like foliage are broadly what I'd expect from a 35mm at f1.8.
Agree, the Bokeh and abberations of the 35 1.8 is brutal. Not sure its worth the money at all.
Well there you go then. There's a change which will affect how the scene is captured and likely how the bokeh and background will look.
The main thing is that it's ok saying this lens is a bit rough depending on the scene but is there another 35mm lens that's significantly better at f1.8?
The modern AF f1.4's may be better, I don't know as the only modern 35mm f1.4 I have is the Voigtlaner classic.
The Sigma f/1.4 is definetly significantly better.
At the end of the day it's all moot anyway, if I was shooting just stuff for myself I would probably still choose the Sony for the lighter weight and it does have an a.f speed advantage over the Sigma as well.
I guess general rule of thumb will be in terms of I.Q Sigma f/1.2 - Sigma f/1.4 - Zeiss f/1.4 (if you can found a good one, a near impossible task) - Sony f/1.8 - Sony f/2.8
I'll post some examples today. Been using it nowAgree, the Bokeh and abberations of the 35 1.8 is brutal. Not sure its worth the money at all.