First one out... 35 ART, POP.
I bow to your superior knowledge about every lens.
I decided to comment in the first place because each image looked odd (to me) in different ways. I've seen many very nice images from Raymond in this thread and others over the years, but wasn't sure whether I was imagining what I was seeing, so I asked. I had no idea what the set up was with regards to lens, and maybe also an adapter, only that it would most probably be taken with a Sony camera in this thread. If it was the Zeiss lens I linked to earlier I am very surprised for a lens so expensive, and I do not find the artefacts attractive, and indeed slightly distracting.
Raymond has said it would not be his first choice of lens, but hopefully he is happy enough with what he has had to 'settle' with.
Thank you . You said you'd be extremely unhappy, I was just wondering what you were comparing against. As said, I can definitely see the ugliness around the building which I'd hope was a case of quick PP.
No 35mm lens has amazing bokeh. Its a WIDE angle lol
There is trade offs in all optical designs, higher sharpness has an impact on Bokeh etc.
I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
I'm comparing them to similar shallow depth of field pics I've seen over the years. Obviously not that particular combo, because I didn't know what that was, and haven't known exactly what the camera/lenses of other images I've seen in the past, but to me the oof areas in those pics was enough out of the ordinary for me to comment. If Raymond had said it was a 40 year old Cosina or whatever lens then I wouldn't have been too surprised, that it is a very expensive modern lens surprised me. If you feel they are what is to be expected for the most part though, then again, I bow to your superior knowledge. When I factored in the cost of the lens, then that was when I would have been really unhappy.
This leads me to think that that lens may be more name than performance when it comes to the price. But what do I know, I don't own it and never will.
Now this is how I expect the oof areas to be. For me nothing jumps out as being wrong or unusual, and so you can just enjoy the image.
I thought it may be, but nevertheless it doesn't have any of the things I was seeing in the other pics. I know they are different scenes, especially compared to the pic of the dog, but nothing in the background jars with me in the last pic.
Apparently canon is better and has good bokeh.
I bet the AF is better and it's better weather sealed (never thought I'd ever say that about Sony gear!).
Nah it's a overall better lens than sigma. Even the samyang is somewhat better than sigma only it's AF isn't reliable sometimes.
My Zeiss 35 is coming on Thursday
Here's to hoping it's a decent copy
It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
We all know when things, anything, gets to a certain point it’s all great and there is no twice as good for twice the price.
You’d think some £2000 headphones is 10x as good as £200 ones?
After a certain point it’s all about the micro details and what you prefer.
Sure, if you like a decentred, purple halo, only truly sharp from f2 lottery lens that's twice the price.
It's not like it's soft at f1.4 and like I mentioned previously if you are shooting f1.4 rendering wins over critical sharpness.
Well I am playing the lottery again. Let see how it goes. This time it's from LCE, the chaps even tested it for me so hopefully it's good.
Sigma has equal amount of CA apparently
As Raymond pointed it out its law of diminishing returns which is especially true in photography.
SZ as it stands now is the cheaper option for me. I can sell it back at no loss, sigma will definitely incur a loss since I'll have to buy it new.
If I could get e-mount sigma used I'd definitely buy it.
Have they had enough already
It definitely doesn't from a quick test yesterday, will do some thorough testing over the weekend. That's like saying an old vintage lens renders better because it's softer.
Old vintage lenses sometimes do render nicely and so do some older non-vintage lenses like canon 85mm/1.2L. but that's not because they are soft lol.
No my first Zeiss was great. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse. A wedding dress shop owner wanting it to shoot models wearing their wedding dress. I even told them it'd cheaper to buy sigma or samyang but they wanted the Zeiss.
I bought another because I found one in LCE and they agreed to give me a nice little discount to match the price I paid for it previously. Also they tested the lens for me on a tripod which was nice.
I did intend to get sigma but I don't want to pay full new price for it. Rather keep the Zeiss till I find a used one at a good price.
Sounds like samyang have ironed out their AF further in 24mm f2.8. it's seems nearly silent and reliable. They seem to be iteratively fixing their AF with every new lens. Here's hoping we'll see a small 85mm f1.4 like the canon EF version with good AF.
But that doesn't mean it renders better. Nicely is not better in all cases, it renders slightly smoother OOF but as has already been proven by Raymond and my own tests it's not appealing in all situations because of other optical issues. Regarding the Samyang, within 5 minutes I preferred the Sigma but I'll run some more tests.
Good luck with the new lens.
I purposefully didn't say better. It's subjective.
I like the Zeiss. I have nothing against sigma. I had it in a-mount and preferred it to Sony (thier a-mount 35mm/1.4 G sucks also )
Thanks man. Was some tough conditions in the blazing mid day sun.
You are mis-quoting me.
Overall better lens is not same as saying better rendering.
Overall includes AF, build, size, ergonomics, video usage etc.
Didn't spot any great advantage for the Sony in terms of af, build, size or ergonomics. They're both pretty similar there. Don't use video to comment.
friend of mine has ordered a used zeiss 35mm 1.4 and was wondering how he should test for the famous "issue"
can you advise?
Quick way, shoot a brick wall wide open and fill the frame, then turn the camera upside down and shoot again. Take into lightroom the soft side will move from left to right or vice versa when reviewing the images.
or just buy the samyang version and be done with it
Sony is definitely better weather sealed (or rather sigma isn't at all). The AF was smoother and faster than my a-mount version and I don't suspect the DSLR lens will do better on mirrorless.
FE35 is slightly smaller but slightly fatter. So about equal as you say.
Zeiss also has aperture ring and for video AF is once again better with Zeiss with option of clickless aperture.
But of course YMMV and not really be bothered by these
thanks for that, ive passed it onto him
The Zeiss has better video AF and in my opinion no other advantage. Hope youre enjoying the cameras Deci !
he can do the quick test twist suggested.
for more information my post from 50 pages ago
Okay, so a few things..... youre comparing the DSLR version to the mirrorless version, they are NOT the same. So you should really try one.
1) The Sigma FE ARTs have a weather seal on the mount.
2) The AF has changed from the DSLR lenses, its MUCH smoother and quietly swoops, acts like a mirrorless lens during stills.
3) FE35 is 72mm vs 67mm filter of the ART.
4) Does anyone actually use the manual aperture on an AF lens?
They haven't changed the AF motors and I'd be very surprised if it's as good as FE35
1) - sure but not rest of the lens. Sony is missing on mount (for some insane reason)
2) what about video?
3) sure, I prefer 67mm because it matches my other lens
4) - yes
It's a DSLR lens hacked to work for mirrorless. There is no getting away from that.