I see what you're getting at ;-), but it's more like it has a cheap lens type look to it when the light is not great. Like with the FE 28-70 and the FE 50/1.8 ... Those cheaper Sony lenses both perform quite well in perfect light, like almost all lenses do, so depending on the work you do, maybe in a studio with flashes, those lenses can be your bread and butter ... or not. But then there are lenses that just produce really good image quality even if the light is not fantastic. And here's where it gets tough to explain the difference, because there's a good portion of subjectivity involved here.
Let me give you an example. Unfortunately it's a flawed example because it's two different focal lengths, shot on two different days in different light, and focus is not completely perfect in one of them, and yet is does show the difference I'm talking about, and in case you think the best focus and the most light is in my favorite of the two, it's not. That's why I use it anyway as an example. My favourite is not favoured here.
Here's two shots of the same object from walks through the same park on two different days. It's during exercise so it's quite quickly done, but I did in fact shoot the 35/2.8 first and then the 85/1.8 later because I wasn't too impressed with the 35, and suspected what my experiment later confirmed, so I brought the 85 another day to just quickly check. And as you can see in the last image I managed to compose them pretty much alike. Again, a flawed way to compare lenses, but I think you'll see what I'm aiming at.
Do you see how the 35 is kinda "grainy" or "rough" compared to the smoother image out of the 85? I rather like the color separation through the 35 (not exemplified here ... well, maybe a bit in the last image), I think it maintains it's sharpness quite far into the corners ... but I'm not enjoying the image nearly as much. I am also fully aware of the difference in DOF for example, but I'm talking about rendering. The 85 image is not entirely in focus unfortunately, and yet I get a much better sense of being drawn into the image, because it's "quieter". It's not "busy". It's not flat like the 35 image is to me, even though there's more dynamic stuff going on. And while you can't make that distinction based on just one image comparison, I'm seeing it difference in many other situations. And even in situations where the images are more directly comparable, it's the same thing. The FE 85/1.8 is not a "perfect" lens, but in terms of rendering it's in the big league with many other lenses. Of lenses I have that I consider being in the big league is my Canon 70-200/2.8L and Sigma 50/1.4 Art. The FE 85 hangs with them fine in this regard. It may not be perfect, but it is a gem, performing well above it's price. The 35 isn't bad ... it's just not particularly good either. It's "precise" where the 85, and other lenses like it, is more "tactile".
Do you see what I see?
The Canon 50/1.8 II, 50/1.4 USM for example have their own problems, that I'll conveniently ignore here, but they render quite nicely in this regard. In this particular area they don't have that cheap-ish feel to them. That's why they're a good next step up from the kit lenses. The resulting images lend themselves nicely to retouching and further work in post, but with this 35 + the FE 50 and the FE 28-70 I'm experiencing that I kind of am changing the structure and texture of the image when I start to retouch, and that sparks a sense of never really feeling you're finished with it. However, what the 35 has over the other two is that it has an even performance across the frame, and that's a big plus in that regard. The other two change resolution and rendering towards the edges at lower f-stops. It's hard to explain with my vocabulary, and that's why this post is so long. I hope I'm not boring you with it.
Anyways, my hope for the new 45/1.8 is that it renders just somewhere between the 35 and the 85, that it's even across the frame like the 35 and that it'll focus as well. Then I'll be all over it.
Right-click the images for the size I grabbed them in. (100% crops.)
Samyang 35/2.8:
![[Image: 35.png]](http://www.snakerock.dk/35.png)
Sony FE 85/1.8:
![[Image: 85.png]](http://www.snakerock.dk/85.png)
Both shots as they were framed:
![[Image: Both.png]](http://www.snakerock.dk/Both.png)
Let me give you an example. Unfortunately it's a flawed example because it's two different focal lengths, shot on two different days in different light, and focus is not completely perfect in one of them, and yet is does show the difference I'm talking about, and in case you think the best focus and the most light is in my favorite of the two, it's not. That's why I use it anyway as an example. My favourite is not favoured here.
Here's two shots of the same object from walks through the same park on two different days. It's during exercise so it's quite quickly done, but I did in fact shoot the 35/2.8 first and then the 85/1.8 later because I wasn't too impressed with the 35, and suspected what my experiment later confirmed, so I brought the 85 another day to just quickly check. And as you can see in the last image I managed to compose them pretty much alike. Again, a flawed way to compare lenses, but I think you'll see what I'm aiming at.
Do you see how the 35 is kinda "grainy" or "rough" compared to the smoother image out of the 85? I rather like the color separation through the 35 (not exemplified here ... well, maybe a bit in the last image), I think it maintains it's sharpness quite far into the corners ... but I'm not enjoying the image nearly as much. I am also fully aware of the difference in DOF for example, but I'm talking about rendering. The 85 image is not entirely in focus unfortunately, and yet I get a much better sense of being drawn into the image, because it's "quieter". It's not "busy". It's not flat like the 35 image is to me, even though there's more dynamic stuff going on. And while you can't make that distinction based on just one image comparison, I'm seeing it difference in many other situations. And even in situations where the images are more directly comparable, it's the same thing. The FE 85/1.8 is not a "perfect" lens, but in terms of rendering it's in the big league with many other lenses. Of lenses I have that I consider being in the big league is my Canon 70-200/2.8L and Sigma 50/1.4 Art. The FE 85 hangs with them fine in this regard. It may not be perfect, but it is a gem, performing well above it's price. The 35 isn't bad ... it's just not particularly good either. It's "precise" where the 85, and other lenses like it, is more "tactile".
Do you see what I see?
The Canon 50/1.8 II, 50/1.4 USM for example have their own problems, that I'll conveniently ignore here, but they render quite nicely in this regard. In this particular area they don't have that cheap-ish feel to them. That's why they're a good next step up from the kit lenses. The resulting images lend themselves nicely to retouching and further work in post, but with this 35 + the FE 50 and the FE 28-70 I'm experiencing that I kind of am changing the structure and texture of the image when I start to retouch, and that sparks a sense of never really feeling you're finished with it. However, what the 35 has over the other two is that it has an even performance across the frame, and that's a big plus in that regard. The other two change resolution and rendering towards the edges at lower f-stops. It's hard to explain with my vocabulary, and that's why this post is so long. I hope I'm not boring you with it.
Anyways, my hope for the new 45/1.8 is that it renders just somewhere between the 35 and the 85, that it's even across the frame like the 35 and that it'll focus as well. Then I'll be all over it.
Right-click the images for the size I grabbed them in. (100% crops.)
Samyang 35/2.8:
Sony FE 85/1.8:
Both shots as they were framed:
![[Image: Torben%20Lysholm%20Fotografi%20-%20Signa...skygge.png]](http://www.snakerock.dk/Torben%20Lysholm%20Fotografi%20-%20Signatur%20-%20Sort%20m%20hvid%20skygge.png){kind=small}