35mm 1.8 OSS Test

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 6,948Gear list
Like?
Re: 35mm 1.8 OSS Test
In reply to halbraun, Jan 19, 2013

halbraun wrote:

OK.. someone help me out here.. first post, Matt Durr's evaluation of the 35mm 1.8.. great lens, some problems focusing on moving subjects, but overall evaluated as a great "walk around lens" (paraphrasing) and the people cheer...

Then this test.. "that's horrible" (again paraphrasing) and the people boo.. hiss...

Ok.. Can it be both? Are the manufacturing techniques so uncontrolled that you can get such a wide variance?

Is the truth in the middle? It's a good lens that is a little expensive? Or it is a sucky lens that is ridiculously expensive? Or it is a great lens that is actually pretty cheap?

I mean.. the 35 1.8 for $400 or the Sigma 30 2.8 for $100.. if they are that close, I can do a lot with $300!

Any help would be appreciated.. I have to make a call re. the Sony or the Sigma

Cheers...

FYI.. this shot was taken today (pretty cloudy) with the 35, hand held in the cold.. I was about 2 meters away from the Rockster... aperture priority at 1.8, auto focus, auto everything else.. and while I am not much of a peeper.. it looks pretty sharp to me..

I am within the 30 days to return the Sony and keep the Sigma 30 2.8 I bought in the B and H deal with the 19mm.. but have to make up my mind by Sunday.. and the Sigma wont be here until late Tuesday..

Nice shot of the dog.

The E24 softens below f/2.2, the E50 does not (see my other reply in this thread).

Obviously, the E35 also softens below f/2.2.

The E35 (and the E24) are quite useable wide open - we are not talking about subject rendering, we are talking about subject DETAIL rendering, typically under low light conditions. I am sure that the faster shutter, lower ISO and OSS make the details more sharp than the lens makes them unsharp.

If sharpness is required, at f/2.8 this lens is already as sharp (if not sharper) than the Sigma 30mm lens.

I still question the test results, I also do see softening (and CA), but to a lesser degree than Lee's shots suggest - his rendering is simply awful.

I placed my detailed crops for you to compare in my other reply.

Fwiw, I do not see this lens as 'bad', but I do see Lee's test shot as 'worse than expected'. Some softening at f/1.8 is normal, Lee's shot has excessive softening.

I don't think that this takes away from Matt's comments, or from the general response to this lens.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow