Shot at f2.8 with the A900
More here ... http://www.jorgetorralba.com/p718757455
Best viewed with an Imac24
too rich for me..... looks like oversaturated canon colors..... of course everyone has their own opinion....
My photoblog: http://josefskye.tumblr.com
Friend me on Facebook: Josef Tornick
It doesn't look like oversaturated Canon color to me. It looks like perfect Sony color which I like to describe as film-like (film being chrome in this case )
Nice photos Jorge
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
It looks oversaturated Leica to me. and too warm to be Canon. minolta glass tends to have more muted saturation and contrast than that.
These do not look like traditional Minolta colors, which I was hoping the A900 would replicate to some degree. I did not like the colors from an A100, which seemed highly Sony Cybershot of the old.
Years ago, I've seen some (to me) gorgeous warm and saturated colors from pictures taken with the pairing of 35mm 1.4G and KM 5D/7D jpeg's. I still long for those colors.
There are a multitude of jpeg settings in the A900, and most of us haven't really scratched the surface of what the A900 can do in that regard.
Between the bad MTF's on photodo site and the horrendous CA and corner resolution results on photozone site I have a hard time believing this lens is that good. Does this lens have a lot of CA?
Is the bad corner performance due to having a large amount of field curvature?
the 35/1.4 is unmatched for colour & bokeh. it's also unmatched for sharpness : price value.
(both wide open)
Wait, is price in the numerator or denominator? Colour and bokeh is one thing, but I'd say the LAST thing the 35/1.4 will win is any sort of "sharpness per dollar spent" contest. For $1300, most people expect more, and that's the biggest gripe. They want a CZ version that will be ubersharp wide open.
I have no problem shooting mine wide open, but then, I'm not a sharpness freak.
In any case, I find the 35/1.4 to look similar to the 100/2 in terms of bokeh. The 100/2 is also sharper wide open.
So, given that the 100/2 can be found for $600-700, I'd say it would win the sharpness-value award.
(Disclaimer: I haven't used either on FF).
it's unmatched in a bad way.
Jim, thanks for the insight. So, do you like it or not?
I would say the 35 1.4 renders beautiful bokeh and color. But it would not be unmatched. It's great for wide angle portraits and wide angle close ups but it is not a very sharp lens compared to others good lenses it is probably equal.
I think the 35mm f/1.4G was a lens where the sheer "rendering" of the image was targeted by Minolta designers than pure sharpness. They left the "sharpness" related tasks to the 2nd tier Minolta 35mm f/2.
I had a 35mm f/1.4 briefly but sold it. I regret having sold it.
A900 with a few lenses, flashes etc.