thanks, i want to be as prepared as i can be for most situations i'll be disappointed with myself if i'm not happy with the images. i try not too push iso's too high as i normally struggle to recover the image
The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!
- Thread starter woof woof
- Start date
i haven't admitted to buying these bit's yet so yes i need to be sensible with my budgetIf you have the 55mm f1.8 is a 35mm justified?
How about a fast wider lens? I have the 20mm f1.8 but that could be a problem if you want to stick to the budget. Another way to go could be with one of the very small Sony primes to make the smallest possible camera and lens combination for those times you might want the smallest possible camera and lens combination35mm 2.8 or the newer 24mm f2.8 or 40 or 50mm f2.5.
Or you could go the fun route and get the manual TT Artisan 50mm f2 for about £70 for again a very compact combination.
. i will shoot street stuff comfortably from 35mm which is why i asked about that but will also want to include some cityscape/ urban architecture whilst i'm away hence the thinking of a quick wide angle zoom. not too sure if 20mm would be too wide for me to use for street stuff but ideal for the cityscapes
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,712
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
i haven't admitted to buying these bit's yet so yes i need to be sensible with my budget
I'm 35/50 mad so I do see a need for both but not everyone will.
I have the Sony 35mm f2.8 and f1.8 and both serve a purpose, the f2.8 is tiny and the f1.8 has a wider aperture and focuses quite close which does come in useful.
Good luck choosing.
PS.
Oh er... just thought of another to think about, the Sony 28mm f2. I have one, it's quite compact and light and fast to focus.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 799
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- No
I want the Sony 35, but for a trip i just picked up the Samyang 35 f1.8 just so i could give it a test and see if the focal length worked.
Everything was great, there was at times it was too long Streets of York where the 24 would have been the better one....
- Messages
- 799
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- No
Team Sony going to Normandy in May any of you been ?, or have any recommendation on good reading books for locations etc, before i soak up google
Northen France orientated, Staying near Calais in the super cheap Euro Camps ( taking shorts for water slide )
thanks
Northen France orientated, Staying near Calais in the super cheap Euro Camps
( taking shorts for water slide ) thanks
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
The older siggy 35 is okay we used one for a long time before ditching it for the Sony 35 f/1.8 and then ditching that for the Sony 35 f/1.4.
The main downsides with the older Sigma lens is its sheer physical size, it also isn't the quickest lens in terms of a.f and struggles a bit in backlit situations. To be expected really when its just an old DSLR lens with an adaptor attached. They have a newer version now which is a bit smaller and has slightly better a.f but still struggles in backlit situations and isn't as sharp weirdly as the older version.
The Sony 35mm f/1.8 has very fast a.f and is very sharp, it's main downside is that out of focus areas are very messy and it has noticeable C.A. These are often available on Amazon very cheap. We bought another one ourselves just recently as it just seemed like such a bargain at just over £350, even though we already have the 35 G.M.
The Sony 35mm f/1.4 also has super fast a.f and is very sharp, it also has very little C.A. The downside is that it is very expensive and it also has quite warm rendering.
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,712
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmm.
I find the bokeh par for the course for a sharp 35mm with the main issue being complex highly defined backgrounds with high contrast and probably at mid to longer distances, like twigs, foliage etc. In other scenarios the bokeh can IMO be quite nice for a 35mm. 35mm f1.8 is not going to give the bokeh you'd get from either a 35mm f1.4 or a 50mm f1.8.
Some reviewers cover this quite well. Here's a review with examples. I agree with just about everything this guy says.
Review: Sony FE 1.8/35 - versatile but a bit expensive - phillipreeve.net
Review of the Sony FE 35mm F1.8 which covers real world use as well as in-depth technical analysis and contains many full resolution samples.
phillipreeve.net
"The Sony FE 1.8/35 is a very well balanced lens. It is very sharp, for most applications. It has pleasant bokeh at short to medium distances and becomes a bit harsher at longer distances but so does almost any competing 35mm. In general it corrects all aberrations good enough so that you need to push it for them to become distracting. At the same time it handles well thanks to quick AF, ok MF and useful buttons without any quirks. And the 1.8/35 manages all that while being rather small and significantly lighter than most competing E-mount lenses. Therefore I would say that the Sony 1.8/35 will easily keep up with most photographer’s expectations. Only the price seems to be maybe $100 too high at the moment and I hope that we will see it come down a bit with time."
There's a huge Sony 35mm f1.8 thread at Fred Miranda.
I don't find CA to be too much of an issue. Geeks will see it in backlit high contrast situations though.
A Manny review.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,616
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
Everything is opinion.Hmmm.
I find the bokeh par for the course for a sharp 35mm with the main issue being complex highly defined backgrounds with high contrast and probably at mid to longer distances, like twigs, foliage etc. In other scenarios the bokeh can IMO be quite nice for a 35mm. 35mm f1.8 is not going to give the bokeh you'd get from either a 35mm f1.4 or a 50mm f1.8.
Some reviewers cover this quite well. Here's a review with examples. I agree with just about everything this guy says.
Review: Sony FE 1.8/35 - versatile but a bit expensive - phillipreeve.net
Review of the Sony FE 35mm F1.8 which covers real world use as well as in-depth technical analysis and contains many full resolution samples.
"The Sony FE 1.8/35 is a very well balanced lens. It is very sharp, for most applications. It has pleasant bokeh at short to medium distances and becomes a bit harsher at longer distances but so does almost any competing 35mm. In general it corrects all aberrations good enough so that you need to push it for them to become distracting. At the same time it handles well thanks to quick AF, ok MF and useful buttons without any quirks. And the 1.8/35 manages all that while being rather small and significantly lighter than most competing E-mount lenses. Therefore I would say that the Sony 1.8/35 will easily keep up with most photographer’s expectations. Only the price seems to be maybe $100 too high at the moment and I hope that we will see it come down a bit with time."
There's a huge Sony 35mm f1.8 thread at Fred Miranda.
I don't find CA to be too much of an issue. Geeks will see it in backlit high contrast situations though.
A Manny review.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZyysO1_1gI
I have had a lot of 35mm lenses pretty much every option that is available for Sony and Nikon.
The Sony 35mm f/1.8 has the ugliest o.o.f rendering of any 35mm, I have ever used.
I know I am not on my own in that opinion either I know quite a few photographers that have owned this lens and they are all of the same opinion, it’s a decent lens for the money if you can live with the ugly o.o.f areas and the C.A.
To say only geeks will notice the C.A honestly is complete nonsense, it is very apparent with this particular lens.
Maybe it’s because of the way we use equipment makes the difference. I have shot about 100 odd weddings using that lens plus mountains of other stuff, tens of thousands of images while I assume you haven’t used yours anywhere near as much. I also tend to shoot wide open a lot and perhaps you don’t just purely based on the photos you have posted here.
You are also probably more used to ugly rendering as you have mentioned many times about the old adapted lenses you use.
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,712
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh dear oh dear. Triggered?
Bokeh is clearly a matter of opinion. You think the bokeh is poor but I think that needs qualifying as near, mid and far rendering can and clearly do vary with distance and subject and spacial relationships. That should be obvious to you but maybe it isn't but it should be obvious to anyone else. CA is an issue with many lenses and will probably manifest mostly in specific instances and aperture settings, that again should be obvious to you and anyone else.
Anyone interested can read the reviews, look at the many example pictures available (for eg the review linked above and the Fred Miranda thread) and make their own mind up and that will probably be a much more fruitful and enjoyable and informative experience than reading your sweeping generalising hyperbolic rants whenever anyone has a different opinion to you.
- Messages
- 938
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Appreciate the thoughts, especially as you've used them all. Agree the Sigma 35 1.4 is a a big old thing, that's why i'm leaning towards the new DG DN one.
I had read about the Sony 35 1.8 with the slightly messy rendering, think I need to check out some more test shots etc.
35 GM would be the ultimate one but definitely beyond the budget!
- Messages
- 5,306
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The only plus side to the GM is that you'll never need to buy another 35mm lens ever again
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,712
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The only plus side to the GM is that you'll never need to buy another 35mm lens ever again
It's something I keep looking at but TBH it's not the money it's bulk and weight that put me off. Ditto the other wider aperture AF options.
- Messages
- 5,306
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah. I get that. It is bigger and heavier. Not excessively imo but the performance for me is ideal.
So glad I picked it as my Voigtlander 40/1.2 auto focus alternative!
- Messages
- 3,133
- Edit My Images
- No
You're not a people person are you. Maybe you didn't intend it to but that whole post comes across very condescending.
- Messages
- 23,652
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
You could always try topaz denoise, works very well
Also, FF is more forgiving than APS-C for the higher ISO's.
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,712
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I got the apparent condescension but it's the sweeping generalities that are IMO a mistake as I do think it's better to qualify and quantify if at all possible.
For example if anyone were to say any lens renders foliage and branches and other complex detail harshly at longer distances (or whatever) I'd agree but lenses can clearly render differently depending upon the scene and distances and the complexity and the light and the contrast etc., it depends... and CA doesn't affect every picture in every circumstance.
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,712
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Anyway.
As I've lived in interesting times recently I've just been shoving pictures into a folder as I couldn't be bothered sorting them but today I spent the day going through hundreds or maybe thousands sorting, deleting, reediting, and there's just a few to do another day.
I feel fulfilled and satisfied with my day
As I've lived in interesting times recently I've just been shoving pictures into a folder as I couldn't be bothered sorting them but today I spent the day going through hundreds or maybe thousands sorting, deleting, reediting, and there's just a few to do another day.
I feel fulfilled and satisfied with my day
- Messages
- 23,538
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
We each have our own particular take on things, and Tommy has some very forthright and strong opinions. Probably best to just shrug and get on with doing what you enjoy.
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
I really like the G.M lens bit it is a silly price. Personally if it was a choice between the Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Siggy I would probably go with the Sony.
My needs may well be different to yours though. I would go for the Sony for the better a.f performance over the Sigma’s nicer rendering.
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
Re-read it and I don’t agree. Don’t see anything condescending at all.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s the bit where
“I shoot with expensive gear, I know the good stuff.
You play around amongst the cheap out of date design lenses so your taste is crap .
Basically, I know better than you, because.”
Sure, that may be true that you have more expensive gear but taste is more than that. I too have similar lenses as you and honestly for the most part, it’s all BS. Some people love smooth bokeh, some people love busy bokeh. Photographers wants perfectly round bokeh balls, cinematographers want cats eye bokehs. Some anamorphic lens have the pin cushion effect that most people hate but some of the classic movies are shot on these $40,000 lenses that have this pin cushion effect.
For the most part, I don’t think people know what they want, they only follow what others says.
I watched a video last night by Gerald Undone where he asked a bunch of YouTubers what they shoot with. 1 Fuji, 1 Red camera, and most with a Sony A7S3. What stood out was Phillip Bloom shoots most of his video with 35/1.8.
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure if you are confused or just didn't read my post o.o.f areas does not equal bokeh, they are entirely different things. I never mentioned bokeh once. I wouldn't expect any 35mm to be able to produce really nice bokeh.
C.A is an issue I see very little of as I predominantly used G.,M lenses and they are all pretty much corrected within an inch of their lives. I see C.A with every set of images we use the 35mm f/1.8 for. As I said previously what I use my equipment for and what you use yours for are going to be very different. Anything that is shot backlit with the 35 f/1.8 is going to have C.A even if there is only a small amount of backlighting. I pretty much only shoot people and every set will have backlit images.
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
I absolutely did not say that!
Again I never mentioned bokeh once, I mentioned o.o.f areas.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Not in those words but you did say “ugly rendering with old adapted lenses”
As opposed to your beautiful rendered native lenses. Which is more expensive.
You might not have said it, but that’s how it come across and understood. Hence Rob said you are not a people’s person.
- Messages
- 3,616
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 6,704
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- No
I found myself nodding in agreement when I read this. You're either right or I'm just saying that because you suggested it.
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats a pretty big twist of what I said and you are assuming an awful lot there.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, it appears several people here read it the same way I do.
Either all of us are wrong, or your standard of bedside manners on how you get your point across is several notches below what most people considered "friendly".
Again, opinions huh?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
Nothing I have said could be considered as rude as you have been here to be fair.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
You just don't see it, never have, not just today, but it's just your personality. It is very direct, but often, some consider it on the unfriendly side, or rude even. The directness is who you are, which is fine.
Again, just an opinion.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
You have often been accused of exactly the same thing. Not by me, until just there now but have seen others point it out to you on here before.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
I take that, I see it and I am trying to be better.
But rather do the 'Mummy, Kevin stole cookies too" defence....
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
I am not trying to make any defence, I don't need too, your opinion of me doesn't really matter. you tried to twist what I said, for whatever reason.
Perhaps rather than trying to twist what I said to earn brownie points you could concentrate more on trying to be better.
There was no need for you to involve yourself at all.
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
You did indeed.
You said just a few minutes ago
"Not in those words but you did say “ugly rendering with old adapted lenses”
As opposed to your beautiful rendered native lenses. Which is more expensive."
You purposely twisted what I said so that you could earn a few brownie points.
The forum is full of similar posts from you were you have tried to twist people's words, that is why some people on here don't like you very much, which you already know.
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,038
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
As I said, you don't see it.
- Messages
- 6,438
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
All I see is you involving yourself to try and score forum brownie points.
- Messages
- 23,652
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
GAS is afflicting me again, in my search for weight saving for trips I’ve stumbled across the Fuji 16-80mm f4, giving a very useful range of 24-120mm in a package weighing only 440g so I’ve been fancying the X-T5 and this lens for travel. I need serious help, especially considering I’ve never been happy with Fuji’s output