Total winner. No-brainer RF lens

Joe - I like this question- and it's good to have a few perspectives.

1. Is there a significantly better 35mm AF FF lens at this size and price point?

Let's set aside for a moment that the notion of a "better" lens doesn't mean "fares better on test charts" and look at mirrorless system 35mm options. In this price range the only peers are Lensbaby, Samyang, Rokinon, etc. So let's focus on main brand options:

• Canon RF 35 1.8. Close focus, Image stabilization.
• Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens - slower, .12x Maximum magnification, $300 more, some serious problems with optics
• Nikon NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S - $846. No close focus. Good performer. Probably most would agree has more attractive blur
• Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART: $899. Faster (but not by much). Not stabilized. No close focus. Busy blur (I owned this)

In SLR lenses, the comparables would be Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED Lens and the Canon EOS 35 f/2 IS - both over $500. I would have doubts that many would view the Canon 35/2 IS as an attractive upgrade from the 35 RF.

2. If not, what 35mm AF FF lens is the first moving up in size and price point that you would consider to have good bokeh, no PF and no significant compromises that would make it undesirable for other reasons?

I like how you wrote this question. In the hierarchy of things that matter in the field - you can ask yourself where PF ranks or "needs to be perfectly free of CAs out of camera" ranks for you and for what you shoot. Once you enter premium-priced lenses, there are always compromises. Even "technically near-perfect" lenses pay a boredom tax over lenses with more character.

To wit - there are a few personal choices that guide this answer - 1. What kind of blur matters to you - and what kind do you like?  2. What will you use this lens for?

Remember - I own that silly Leica Summicron M ASPH, which for many kinds of photography would be considered a complete joke from a technical standpoint. It also makes intensely beautiful images for me. Which point of view is correct?

That said, looking to the Zeiss designs is often a good place to start for attractive blur. The 35L II has a very clean look. The options are more limited that you'd imagine.

3. How much trouble is it to get rid of the PF you note in PP?

Thanks.

Joe