Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

Started 1 month ago | Polls thread
Alantkh Regular Member • Posts: 287
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

thiefofpresence wrote:

For this lens role, I am wondering what people have and are happy with. If you aren't happy with what you have, vote for what you want instead (your "preference").

Personally I think I will be happy with 90% of the AF keeper rate of the presumed Sony native reference performance. Learning that this is not realistic from the 3rd parties would be valuable (if not sad) to learn.

Am particularly interested in the "native" sigma (which for all intents and purposes embeds the MC11 in the lens) versus the "adapted" sigma. If one or the other side wins that, that would be interesting experiences to learn about.

The Samyang/Rokinon experiences (on "both sides") would also be valuable.

Most people are naturally going to vote for whatever it was that they decided to buy. I doubt that anybody will own more than one 35mm prime.

Anyway, in my own case I have a Sony Zeiss f1.4 "Distagon" and I really love that lens despite the bad threads that seem to periodically pop up on it.

In my experience it has very good sharpness and gorgeous (Zeiss T*) contrasty color and rendering with some smooth buttery bokeh.

It's really great for WA portraits I have found - but I love to take it on vacation and use it in low light.

It's a great lens IMHO but a few people claim to have returned several 'totally unacceptable' copies of it (which to me is seems a bit weird and I think that it might just possibly be explained as them having some 'unrealistic expectations' at the micro pixel level).

I've long believed that you can find 'issue' with any lens if you pixel peep deep enough. WA glass is especially susceptible to unrealistic expectations.

I owned all the sigma 35mm, sony 35mm, sigma 40mm....

reason is that they all have some issues.... I am not really satisfied with any of them.

sony has bad loca.

sigma 35mm has bad bokeh.

sigma 40mm is heavy and bad transitional bokeh. Af seems slower in indoor lighting.

sharpness wise the 40mm is much better but all three have acceptable sharpness.

I remember reading a Zeiss publication that specifically mentioned that because a WA lenses tend to capture a lot more of a scene (naturally because it is WA) users often expect far more from it than might be reasonably possible.

(simply because they want to be able to zoom in and see everything in the scene in great detail, this happens far less with long lenses which actually makes a lot of sense to me).

This can lead us users to have some unrealistic expectations.

I try not to pixel peep. My images are meant to be viewed in their entirety.

But the loca issue with zeiss by far is the most obvious without pixel peeping. You can see the fringing even on some web size pics....

honestly all the talk about sharpness, u can’t tell without zooming in 100 percent. But stuff like loca, double lining transitional bokeh, onion ring in the big bokeh are all very onbious without pixel peeping.

with a little sharpening , it is even harder to tell the difference, but bad bokeh, heavy loca is hard to fix post processing.

af accuracy is also Super impt but hard to evaluate objectively... need to use for loooong time. My initial impression is my 40mm sigma seems to struggle more in indoor lighting vs the zeiss. But I did not own them side by side for Long periods of time so it’s hard to say. Could also be handholding issues with the heavier lens, or some compatibility issue with Sony steadyshot. It seems my hit rate dropped indoors esp on moving subjects.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow