Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the 35mm f1.4 a solution?

Go to last post
W

wonderlai

Member
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I have two sony a350s.

I carry the two cameras around with a 50mm f1.4, 100mm macro and the kit 18-70mm.

I have saved a bit of money doing some jobs but the kit is really failing me now.
I can notice the huge quality diff.

I was considering the 16-80 but I feel that is just a stop gap.

What I really want is a fast wide prime.
My work is really close up and in dimly lit places.

The 35mm possibly could be mine but it feels like to much to pay for with such a small step.
If sony would only produce a 20mm f1.x i would buy in a heart beat.
I am soo torn I just need something a bit wider, and I don't buy sigma.
 
How about the Tamron 17-50/2.8?
wonderlai said:
I have two sony a350s.
I carry the two cameras around with a 50mm f1.4, 100mm macro and the
kit 18-70mm.

I have saved a bit of money doing some jobs but the kit is really
failing me now.
I can notice the huge quality diff.

I was considering the 16-80 but I feel that is just a stop gap.

What I really want is a fast wide prime.
My work is really close up and in dimly lit places.

The 35mm possibly could be mine but it feels like to much to pay for
with such a small step.
If sony would only produce a 20mm f1.x i would buy in a heart beat.
I am soo torn I just need something a bit wider, and I don't buy sigma.

--
Click to expand...
 
You could consider the 28F2 or 35F2 eventhough they are getting harder and hard to find.

I'm as pleased with the image quality of my 28F2 as with my 35F1.4.
(obviouslly you have to take the missing F1.4 into account)

Jakob
 
I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my A350 and I really like it.

I was disappointed with Sigma previously when my 18-50 2.8 broke very early on (gear stripping) but this lens has had no such problems (so far!).

Its a really great lens for the APS-C sensor size, the only complaint being lack of HSM on the A-mount.

E
 
This lens is very soft wide open, so don't expect high contrast--ultra sharp results at wide apertures. For best resolutin/contrast/sharpness use f:8 or f:11. At f:16 diffraction start to kick in (as with other lenses).This lens doesn't perform better than less bright primes when stepped down. At 35 mm the Zeiss 24-70 mm f:2.8 zoom lens is a better performer.

I have read some tests in magazines that I trust (to name two that I remember; ColorFoto--Germany, FOTO--Sweden) where this lens got very low ratings, mainly by softness and not-so-great results stepped down a bit. Vignetting is also an issue wide open. The 35 mm f:1.4 performs better with my A900 than with my A700. I think the reason is that the A900 files doesn't requre the same amount of enlargement as the APS-C format when making prints. The bokeh is great.

I think this is the strengths and weaknesses og this lens. The softness may work extremely well for portrait/people stuff and some other tasks, but not for low light photojournalism in general or landscape photography.

I prefer to look at my Sony 35 mm f:1.4 lens as a special lens more than an good allround performer. I rather prefer the Zeiss 24-70 mm f:2.8 zoom over the Sony 35 mm f:1.4 lens. Butr when it comes to stuff where softness and bokeh really does the trick, then the 35 mm f:1.4 lens is amazing.
 
I probably never would have bought the 35/1.4G because of the price but the Minolta version fell into my hands and I gave it a try. The lens is awesome and feels very balanced on the A900. I just do not want to lug the heavy CZ 24-70/2.8 around anymore. I have a Sigma 12-24 if I want to go really wide and a Minolta 50/1.4, Sony 100/2.8 macro, and CZ135/1.8 if I need longer.

It is very good at f2.0 and can get really close. The colors and background are special.

I have no problems using it for landscapes, stopped down it is as sharp as anything, but close indoor work is where it shines. I have read the negative reviews, but using the lens makes you never want to part with it.

1/200s f2.2 at 35mm iso800



--
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.
 
Nice shot Dennis. Good example of what the 35 can do, even at wider apertures. It never ceases to amaze me how some claim that it's soft in this area. Your shot seems plenty sharp, and it's one of the reasons this lens, even used, still commands +$900 selling price.
--
From the original Pheanix:
'Shoot first (pictures that is); ask questions later'
Keith (me) - the original pheanix
 
Is this in the works? Is it even rumored? Just wondering how long you'll have to wait ;)
--
From the original Pheanix:
'Shoot first (pictures that is); ask questions later'
Keith (me) - the original pheanix
 
The 35/1.4 G is a fine lens depending on what you do with it. I got it when Circuit City was going out of business for less 50% of its current price. Its a great for food, portraiture and product placement photography.

The bokeh is fantastic.
The minimum focusing distance is fantastic.
The colors are fantastic.

Distortion is an issue when shooting wide open. And sharpness away from the center, wide-open, can be an issue. I do believe this lens requires a little attention when doing general-purpose shooting. By that I mean, one can get seduced by the f1.4 and believe that shooting near that aperture comes without a price. It does not. At f1.4, the center is nice, but the outer edges will not be terribly sharp. For portraiture this is not a problem, and can be a huge benefit, e.g. subject isolation.

Here are some samples. (BTW, I had planned on selling the lens, but the results persuaded me to keep it.)








wonderlai said:
I have two sony a350s.
I carry the two cameras around with a 50mm f1.4, 100mm macro and the
kit 18-70mm.

I have saved a bit of money doing some jobs but the kit is really
failing me now.
I can notice the huge quality diff.

I was considering the 16-80 but I feel that is just a stop gap.

What I really want is a fast wide prime.
My work is really close up and in dimly lit places.

The 35mm possibly could be mine but it feels like to much to pay for
with such a small step.
If sony would only produce a 20mm f1.x i would buy in a heart beat.
I am soo torn I just need something a bit wider, and I don't buy sigma.

--
Click to expand...
--
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: Mostly primes, a few zooms, several Gs, one CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
 
i have not seen any vignetting problem at all wide open on my 35, and that's on FF.

if ur concerned about the 35/1.4, get an f/2 28 or 35. they're half the price.
 
Then your lens is very different from mine. Here is a quick shot in daylight against a white card board with the Sony 35 mm f:1.4 wide open with the FF A900. Shot in RAW and opened with ARC default settings (normal contrast etc). The edges is much darker than the center:

 
These 100 % crops are from two pictures showing the same scene, made with an A900 and the Sony 35 mm f:1.4 lens wide open in dull daylight. The camera was set to Manual (1/500 sec, f:1.4 at ISO 200).

Both examples are photographed with the same settings, and converted from RAW with ARC and exact the same raw converter settings.

The center shot clealy shows the amount of softness, lack of contrast and cromatic abberation (the houses and the mountain). Fine details are also present, but that doesn't help much when softness and lack of contrast is so overhelming.

The extreme corner shot clearly shows the amount of vignetting wide open. It is more than one full stop darker than the center. It also shows lack of detail and contrast.

This lens should be praised for the softness and beautiful bokeh, not for the wide open (lack of) contrast and crispness.

 
The lens does suffer from vignetting when shooting a white card or an otherwise uniform, non-black card. The question is does it suffer from vignetting when you're shooting whatever it is that you shoot. Night photography for example... what's the chance of seeing vignetting during night/dark/low-light photography? Zero.

My point is this - we need to be more mindful of how we use the equipment. Not simply some "objective" measure. For example, why not use a A900 at ISO 3200 and compare it to a D3? Because no one in their right mind would purchase an A900 and use it that way.

Cheers!

Check these...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/magicphotos/3193335343/in/pool-729221@N20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimu/3232623455/sizes/m/in/pool-729221@N20/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/magicphotos/3344171052/in/pool-729221@N20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cstam/2188483455/in/pool-729221@N20
Nordstjernen said:
Then your lens is very different from mine. Here is a quick shot in
daylight against a white card board with the Sony 35 mm f:1.4 wide
open with the FF A900. Shot in RAW and opened with ARC default
settings (normal contrast etc). The edges is much darker than the
center:

Click to expand...
--
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: Mostly primes, a few zooms, several Gs, one CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
 
For night photography I find it best to stop down this lens (and other wide angle lenses) to at least f:4.5 to avoid vignetting. Wide open this lens is best for photographing people and other subjects that stand out against a blurred background. Then vignetting and lack of corner sharpness doesn't matter. But for landscape/cityscape photography this is not THE lens, especially at wide apertures.

Conklution: The Sony 35 mm f:1.4 lens is not a strong performer wide open.

You mentioned comparing the A900 with the Nikon D3. I think lots of examples have been posted that proves the A900 to perform pretty well compared to the D3. With twice as many pixels the pictures can be scaled down compared to the D3 files. Also, the A900 noise is of a kind that is easily handled with post processing. So prints from the A900 should stand up pretty well against prints from the D3 for high ISO/low light photography, I think.

I have been testing the A900 high ISO capabilities, and this camera is doing better than most people think. I am not talking about pixel peeping on a screen, but evaluating large prints from post processed and optimized files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top