Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yeah - but what performance!Who knows. Image quality wise I still rank the 35 Distagon above the 28. I think DXO does as well despite the sharpness. Goes to show the 28 is great for the price. The 35 is that exponential cost for that extra 5-10% of performance.
I have the Loxia 35/50, FE 35/1.4 and FE 28/2. The FE 28 is a very nice lens, but I would not compare it to the FE 35/1.4 in terms of "overall" IQ. Sharpness evaluation is an excellent comparison starting point, but the "feel" of the FE 35/1.4 is very unique.Who knows. Image quality wise I still rank the 35 Distagon above the 28. I think DXO does as well despite the sharpness. Goes to show the 28 is great for the price. The 35 is that exponential cost for that extra 5-10% of performance.
Hi Guy,Charles maybe one of the few that have both the Loxia 35 and the new 1.4. You have any thoughts between them.
I actually did more research on this and one can pretty nicely draw the relative perceptual megapixels from dxomark Sharpness --> Profiles that shows "Acutance profile use case..." Looks to me the perceptual megapixel score on "main page" only seems to come from the peak center sharpness from the sharpest aperture of the lens. When analyzed this way I could pretty easily see the difference between APO, Makro Planar 100 and why FE 55 scores quite much better than the Makro Planar, it just has higher peak sharpness on center on its sharpest aperture.The problem with their sharpness score comes from the fact that it is also a combined score (different apertures, different position in the frames and for zooms different focal length). What is exactly a score of 23 or 29 mpix ? They don't disclose exactly how this is calculate. So depending on how they combine the results they could advantage a lens over another. This us why I prefer to look at the field maps. Often, looking at the fieldmap, i don't understand how they rate one lens above the other. For instance, they gave the 28mm F2 a better score for sharpness, but it has soft corners at a lot of apertures. If I remember, you have to stop down to F8 if you want a little uniformity on the whole frame.
Yes, there are some surprising results at times; could be due to samples variations ?
I don't see that happening anytime soon to be honest. I'd expect a long portrait lens and/or a UWA prime before an AF 35/2 came.I hope a Sony (not Zony) 35/2 will materialize soon.
Soooo I'd say not to mount it on your camera... Ever.Starting to not like this thread. This may cost me money. I even saw one used already