Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

Started 3 months ago | Polls
Alantkh Regular Member • Posts: 315
Re: Maybe Samyang AF 1.8/45 is an option

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

I could go for a compact 40/1.8 - I love my pancake Panasonic 20/1.7 on my GX8 & GX9 - but 45mm is just longer than I want. My prime trifecta is 24/35/85.

Isn't there already the Batis 40mm f2?

Yes, that's a possibility. In fact, I was checking it out earlier today. But, it's bigger and costlier than I'd prefer. A Sony 35/1.8 (and a 24/1.8) to match their 85/1.8 would be perfect. The 85/1.8 is my Goldilocks reference in terms of size, weight, performance and cost. A great value, good performance, and easy to carry all day. And, it's got that barrel button.

Been looking at the Batis 25/2, as well. But, given the small cost difference, I'll probably eventually go for Sony's 24/1.4 GM because I'm pretty sure Sony isn't going to cannibalize those sales with a 24/1.8, and because the 24/1.4 is reasonably small & light.

I love my 85mm f1.8 too. It’s one of those lens that I have nothing much to complain about. Sure it has some loca but it really isn’t that huge like the sony 35mm. It does everything pretty well, good sharpness, good af, good bokeh, light.

i have the 135mm gm but I kept the 85mm as I probably won’t get much reselling it and I might miss it later.

aSevenArr
aSevenArr Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

Alantkh wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

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.

I do not have these issues with my Sony Zeiss f1.4 35mm Distagon, it give me gorgeous tack sharp results and lovely smooth bokeh. There is a tiny amount of CA that is easily corrected.

Much like those reported by Ken here: https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14.htm

errr.... plenty of fringing at the samples in ken's review. Example below. This is not even a high contrast subject, it is so much worse with dark on bright transition.

https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14/sample-images/DSC02643.JPG

Actually Ken's review states "this Zeiss lens doesn't use such technology and has a boatload of spherochromatism"

That is actually the Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCA) I was talking about. It is horrendous in Ken's sample as well. Unless your lens is different from almost every other sony 35mm f1.4 I have seen....

https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14/sample-images/DSC02686.JPG

The CA is easily removed in my experience.  Otherwise I love the results that I personally get and I’m mystified by the word ‘horrendous’. What exactly here is horrendous? Can you show me an example that isn’t a small crop of part of an image?

 aSevenArr's gear list:aSevenArr's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R Sony a9 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +13 more
Alantkh Regular Member • Posts: 315
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

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.

I do not have these issues with my Sony Zeiss f1.4 35mm Distagon, it give me gorgeous tack sharp results and lovely smooth bokeh. There is a tiny amount of CA that is easily corrected.

Much like those reported by Ken here: https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14.htm

errr.... plenty of fringing at the samples in ken's review. Example below. This is not even a high contrast subject, it is so much worse with dark on bright transition.

https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14/sample-images/DSC02643.JPG

Actually Ken's review states "this Zeiss lens doesn't use such technology and has a boatload of spherochromatism"

That is actually the Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCA) I was talking about. It is horrendous in Ken's sample as well. Unless your lens is different from almost every other sony 35mm f1.4 I have seen....

https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14/sample-images/DSC02686.JPG

The CA is easily removed in my experience. Otherwise I love the results that I personally get and I’m mystified by the word ‘horrendous’. What exactly here is horrendous? Can you show me an example that isn’t a small crop of part of an image?

err...the jpg link is not a crop. The crop image is show in the review page. It’s that bad that u can see the fringing on web sized jpgs.

tell me how u can easily remove the loca and I will be forever in your debt... I think u got loca and lateral ca mixed up. Lateral ca is removed automatically and never an issue.

At the end of the day, u can see people has different standards for lens. To some, Color fringing is perfectly acceptable but it drives others crazy. Same for sharpness, some need their lens to be perfect shooting a brick wall but I don’t care about sharpness much, as long as the subject is ok sharp, it’s good for me.

Karafuru Regular Member • Posts: 297
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

Alantkh wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

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.

I do not have these issues with my Sony Zeiss f1.4 35mm Distagon, it give me gorgeous tack sharp results and lovely smooth bokeh. There is a tiny amount of CA that is easily corrected.

Much like those reported by Ken here: https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14.htm

errr.... plenty of fringing at the samples in ken's review. Example below. This is not even a high contrast subject, it is so much worse with dark on bright transition.

https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14/sample-images/DSC02643.JPG

Actually Ken's review states "this Zeiss lens doesn't use such technology and has a boatload of spherochromatism"

That is actually the Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCA) I was talking about. It is horrendous in Ken's sample as well. Unless your lens is different from almost every other sony 35mm f1.4 I have seen....

https://kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/35mm-f14/sample-images/DSC02686.JPG

The CA is easily removed in my experience. Otherwise I love the results that I personally get and I’m mystified by the word ‘horrendous’. What exactly here is horrendous? Can you show me an example that isn’t a small crop of part of an image?

err...the jpg link is not a crop. The crop image is show in the review page. It’s that bad that u can see the fringing on web sized jpgs.

tell me how u can easily remove the loca and I will be forever in your debt... I think u got loca and lateral ca mixed up. Lateral ca is removed automatically and never an issue.

At the end of the day, u can see people has different standards for lens. To some, Color fringing is perfectly acceptable but it drives others crazy. Same for sharpness, some need their lens to be perfect shooting a brick wall but I don’t care about sharpness much, as long as the subject is ok sharp, it’s good for me.

Don't you just move the sliders around for fringing? Now if someone can tell me how to fix it's bokeh....

Better, but since it works via edge detection, you can't really remove it from out of focus area's

Thank you Ken Rockwell for these samples...but I still find this bokeh subjectively ugly.

 Karafuru's gear list:Karafuru's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a6500 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +5 more
Alantkh Regular Member • Posts: 315
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences
1

Karafuru wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

err...the jpg link is not a crop. The crop image is show in the review page. It’s that bad that u can see the fringing on web sized jpgs.

tell me how u can easily remove the loca and I will be forever in your debt... I think u got loca and lateral ca mixed up. Lateral ca is removed automatically and never an issue.

At the end of the day, u can see people has different standards for lens. To some, Color fringing is perfectly acceptable but it drives others crazy. Same for sharpness, some need their lens to be perfect shooting a brick wall but I don’t care about sharpness much, as long as the subject is ok sharp, it’s good for me.

Don't you just move the sliders around for fringing? Now if someone can tell me how to fix it's bokeh....

Better, but since it works via edge detection, you can't really remove it from out of focus area's

Thank you Ken Rockwell for these samples...but I still find this bokeh subjectively ugly.

Actually I find the bokeh of the 35mm pretty good. There is onion rings but usually I don't find that distracting when viewed at normal distance, not cropped. It renders the transitional bokeh beautifully which is where many lens like the sigma trips up.

I love the bokeh of the zeiss 35mm but just all the color fringing just drives me nuts... purple where there should not be any or weird greenish fringes, just looks weird.

SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 3,801
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences
1

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.

I happen to own four 35mm primes - though only two of them are native FE lenses (the Sony Zeiss f1.4 and f2.8). The other two are manual focus legacy glass from systems I used to shoot in years gone by, that I happen to still own.

I know several other togs who have more than 1 35, so your doubt on this point is at least questionable... ; )

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.

My copy of the Sony Zeiss Distagon f1.4 is my all time favourite 35mm lens. It at least equals the Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 that was my previous favourite (but of course, the Sony Distagon is AF and a contemporary mount)!

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.

Yes - the rendering has something special. Maybe it's an acquired or particular taste, but it combines a very modern and clean colour and contrast and a ton of detail with a faint hint of 'vintage' character that is quite magical. IMO.

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.

Whatever the reason, it is odd. I happen to have known or encountered a number of togs who got a great copy on their first try (and none who didn't), and the brick-and-mortar store I deal with have sold dozens and say they have never yet had one returned - but online the story seems to be reversed and a few individuals seem to pipe up with their personal stories of woe every time the lens is mentioned. Oh well...

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony a6500 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +31 more
aSevenArr
aSevenArr Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences
1

Alantkh wrote:

Karafuru wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

err...the jpg link is not a crop. The crop image is show in the review page. It’s that bad that u can see the fringing on web sized jpgs.

tell me how u can easily remove the loca and I will be forever in your debt... I think u got loca and lateral ca mixed up. Lateral ca is removed automatically and never an issue.

At the end of the day, u can see people has different standards for lens. To some, Color fringing is perfectly acceptable but it drives others crazy. Same for sharpness, some need their lens to be perfect shooting a brick wall but I don’t care about sharpness much, as long as the subject is ok sharp, it’s good for me.

Don't you just move the sliders around for fringing? Now if someone can tell me how to fix it's bokeh....

Better, but since it works via edge detection, you can't really remove it from out of focus area's

Thank you Ken Rockwell for these samples...but I still find this bokeh subjectively ugly.

Actually I find the bokeh of the 35mm pretty good. There is onion rings but usually I don't find that distracting when viewed at normal distance, not cropped. It renders the transitional bokeh beautifully which is where many lens like the sigma trips up.

I love the bokeh of the zeiss 35mm but just all the color fringing just drives me nuts... purple where there should not be any or weird greenish fringes, just looks weird.

“Bokeh is superb...” according to Ken’s article - and I agree with him. If you read what Ken says it’s not a macro lens and I also don’t use it as one (I have a 90mm G for that).

Anyway... I’m totally worn out defending this lens in endless threads. I love it, simple as that. The results that I can personally get with it are normally fantastic and the rendering that it gives is really quite special.

Check out my gear list and ask yourself why I would pick this as one of only 4 or so lenses to accompany me on every (airline) travel trip. I certainly would NOT use my limited carry-on bag space for a poor quality lens that gives ‘horrendous’ results. Such nonsense.

 aSevenArr's gear list:aSevenArr's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R Sony a9 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +13 more
Alantkh Regular Member • Posts: 315
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

Actually I find the bokeh of the 35mm pretty good. There is onion rings but usually I don't find that distracting when viewed at normal distance, not cropped. It renders the transitional bokeh beautifully which is where many lens like the sigma trips up.

I love the bokeh of the zeiss 35mm but just all the color fringing just drives me nuts... purple where there should not be any or weird greenish fringes, just looks weird.

“Bokeh is superb...” according to Ken’s article - and I agree with him. If you read what Ken says it’s not a macro lens and I also don’t use it as one (I have a 90mm G for that).

Anyway... I’m totally worn out defending this lens in endless threads. I love it, simple as that. The results that I can personally get with it are normally fantastic and the rendering that it gives is really quite special.

Check out my gear list and ask yourself why I would pick this as one of only 4 or so lenses to accompany me on every (airline) travel trip. I certainly would NOT use my limited carry-on bag space for a poor quality lens that gives ‘horrendous’ results. Such nonsense.

I love the zeiss 35mm. Given the current 35mm situation, I think the Zeiss is high up on my list to get but mainly because all other options have their own issues.

It is kind of funny you justifying your argument by looking at your "gear list". If anything, you should ask people to look at your photo stream or something.

This shot below show both why I love and dislike the sony zeiss 35mm. The bokeh rendering is really smooth and without any outlining. My current sigma 40mm f1.4 is not so well behaved at the transitional bokeh. However, the LoCA on this pic is huge but luckily the photo works with a lower saturation so it saved the photo.

sony zeiss 35mm

MrT-Man Senior Member • Posts: 1,486
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

aSevenArr wrote:

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.

Then why are there not lots of complaints about, say, bad copies of the Batis 18, Loxia 21, Sony 24, Batis 25, Loxia 25? Why is it that the 35/1.4 is the one that gets a lot of complaints about sample variation? More so than any other Sony FE lens?

I'll tell you why -- because there's a legitimate problem.

I now have a copy that's essentially perfect. I previously went through four copies that were unambiguously bad. Not pixel-peeping bad, just obviously bad.

I've bought maybe 15 lens models in the last few years, and of all of them, aside for the 35/1.4, I only had to return one copy of a Batis 18 and one copy of an SEL16F28. There are no posts of me anywhere complaining about all the other lenses I own.

I'm glad you got a great copy out of the gate. I'm perplexed why whenever the topic of the 35/1.4 comes up, you seem to make the point that 100% of copies must be good based on your sample size of one copy.

I really like this lens now that I have a perfect copy. It's a great lens. But there's quite a sizeable difference between the sharpness and performance I'm getting from my good copy and what i was getting from my bad copies. I'm talking about the definition of the eyelashes in a portrait, even in the center of the frame, and not crazy zoomed in.

 MrT-Man's gear list:MrT-Man's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 +6 more
Karafuru Regular Member • Posts: 297
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

Actually I find the bokeh of the 35mm pretty good. There is onion rings but usually I don't find that distracting when viewed at normal distance, not cropped. It renders the transitional bokeh beautifully which is where many lens like the sigma trips up.

I love the bokeh of the zeiss 35mm but just all the color fringing just drives me nuts... purple where there should not be any or weird greenish fringes, just looks weird.

“Bokeh is superb...” according to Ken’s article - and I agree with him. If you read what Ken says it’s not a macro lens and I also don’t use it as one (I have a 90mm G for that).

Anyway... I’m totally worn out defending this lens in endless threads. I love it, simple as that. The results that I can personally get with it are normally fantastic and the rendering that it gives is really quite special.

Check out my gear list and ask yourself why I would pick this as one of only 4 or so lenses to accompany me on every (airline) travel trip. I certainly would NOT use my limited carry-on bag space for a poor quality lens that gives ‘horrendous’ results. Such nonsense.

I don't think there is a need to defend the lens. Just provide the information for the individual to decide.

Even when not used as a macro lens, not cropped, and viewed at normal distances, the onion rings can be very strong especially when and where I tend to pull mine out as shown below.

I like the way it flares though as shown below.

Many more are satisfied with this lens but it does not mean we can't objectively call out it's CA/bokeh differences/sharpness/possible QC issues/etc. Heck, I somehow managed to get the unlucky lottery of having 2 badly decentered 85F1.4GM lenses before my 3rd copy being good while I am happy with my first 35F1.4 Sony Zeiss.

 Karafuru's gear list:Karafuru's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a6500 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +5 more
aSevenArr
aSevenArr Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

Alantkh wrote:

aSevenArr wrote:

Alantkh wrote:

Actually I find the bokeh of the 35mm pretty good. There is onion rings but usually I don't find that distracting when viewed at normal distance, not cropped. It renders the transitional bokeh beautifully which is where many lens like the sigma trips up.

I love the bokeh of the zeiss 35mm but just all the color fringing just drives me nuts... purple where there should not be any or weird greenish fringes, just looks weird.

“Bokeh is superb...” according to Ken’s article - and I agree with him. If you read what Ken says it’s not a macro lens and I also don’t use it as one (I have a 90mm G for that).

Anyway... I’m totally worn out defending this lens in endless threads. I love it, simple as that. The results that I can personally get with it are normally fantastic and the rendering that it gives is really quite special.

Check out my gear list and ask yourself why I would pick this as one of only 4 or so lenses to accompany me on every (airline) travel trip. I certainly would NOT use my limited carry-on bag space for a poor quality lens that gives ‘horrendous’ results. Such nonsense.

I love the zeiss 35mm. Given the current 35mm situation, I think the Zeiss is high up on my list to get but mainly because all other options have their own issues.

It is kind of funny you justifying your argument by looking at your "gear list". If anything, you should ask people to look at your photo stream or something.

This shot below show both why I love and dislike the sony zeiss 35mm. The bokeh rendering is really smooth and without any outlining. My current sigma 40mm f1.4 is not so well behaved at the transitional bokeh. However, the LoCA on this pic is huge but luckily the photo works with a lower saturation so it saved the photo.

sony zeiss 35mm

I post a few test images from time to time when I’m not busy. Check the last couple of ‘this week with your camera’ threads to see examples. I no longer add anything to my gallery for many reasons.

This issue is not important enough for me to spend time searching my drives and doing something special here and I doubt that anything that I did would sway anyone’s preconceived notions anyway.

 aSevenArr's gear list:aSevenArr's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R Sony a9 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +13 more
thiefofpresence
OP thiefofpresence Contributing Member • Posts: 697
because: why not
1

aSevenArr wrote:

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.

OP here revealing his summation of the input seen in the very recent dual purchase:

Split the 35mm prime role in two:

Ultra compact for one-camera-one-lens days — stealthy, two stops more forgiving aperture for run and gun AF hit rate consistency

big hunk of glass that when you want that rendering you know why you are lugging it around - probably going to live paired with FE 4/24-105 G for the minimum viable system pack that I love trying to avoid exceeding

Picked up the Lens Station as AF 1.8/45 feels like an inevitability

Tried Batis 2/40 CF and was jaw-dropping impressed with CF rendering. But CAF Tracking was a near-deal killer.

Sigma 1.4/35 Art was better in several ways except - CAF tracking.

I sound like a video dude, but actually it’s just my shooting style. Focus lock, track and the expectation of decoupled shutter firing at will with reliability. The experience is like watching what you hope is an in focus video of a moving subject and taking screen grabs.

For S-&-giggles I mounted Sigma 1.4/40. Excalibur. I need to one day slow down and dedicate an entire phase in photography to shooting that staggeringly sharp inconceivable beast of a lens. Flat line MTF? What?!

[“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...”]

-- hide signature --

https://www.instagram.com/thiefofpresence
Sony A7iii | Zeiss Batis 2/25; Sony FE 1.8/85 | Sony FE 4/24-105 G OSS; Sony FE 4/70-200 G OSS; Sigma 150-600 (+MC-11)

 thiefofpresence's gear list:thiefofpresence's gear list
Sony a7 III Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH Voigtlander 21mm F4 Color Skopar Pancake II Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony FE 70-200 F4 +4 more
addieleman
addieleman Regular Member • Posts: 434
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

thiefofpresence 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.

Meant to include the option:

"Left the f/1.4 family of options because of weight/price/quality and am happier with a smaller max aperture 35mm lens (please indicate in a comments)

That's exactly what I've arrived at: I had the Sony FE 2.8/35, bought the Sony FE 1.4/35 only to sell it again because it was way too big for me, it attracted too much attention on the street and even when I did indoor family shots. My Sony FE 1.4/35 (4th sample I tried)  had a tilted focus plane with which I could live, image quality was good enough for me but I felt it wasn't spectacularly better than that of the FE 2.8/35.

-- hide signature --
 addieleman's gear list:addieleman's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a7 Sony a7R II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 14,580
Re: Your f/1.4 35mm AF Preferences

I have used the EF Sigma with the MB4 and MC-14, and I have the Samyang. Of those three the Sigma + MB4 were the best by far. I stopped using my Samyang for a while because of front focus issues- looks like the latest FW and some tweaking finally fixed it. But I'm swapping it for an FE Sigma. Even when manually focused the Samyang is softer than the Sigma where I need it, and the AF noise is a dealbreaker on video.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads