Sorry, I don't have a NEX, so I have not used any of these lenses on such a camera.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285776326' post='3367']
coz i am using the lens on NEX5...so which one u recommend me to go for??
my definition for "better" are which one suits NEX 5 more?? i know the image quality for both 35mm are very good...
[/quote]
Eventually all these lenses will be tested.
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285774913' post='3365']
and i found out the C Biogon does have better image quality....so guys u recommend me to go for which lens??
[/quote]
It's mostly a matter of speed, isn't it ?
If you don't require f/2 why pay the bucks for the speed potential ? Slow speed lenses (I'm talking of f/2.8 here) are usually better than faster lenses which are simply much more difficult to design and affected by compromises. Technically the V35/1.2 or V35/1.4 will not be as good as a Z35/2.8 for sure.
However, a 35mm f/2.8 does have a worse shallow depth-of-field potential.
Without having tested the Z35/2.8 I'd say that the Z35/2 is the best compromise in terms of performance and depth-of-field potential on a APS-C camera.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285828513' post='3382']
It's mostly a matter of speed, isn't it ?
If you don't require f/2 why pay the bucks for the speed potential ? Slow speed lenses (I'm talking of f/2.8 here) are usually better than faster lenses which are simply much more difficult to design and affected by compromises. Technically the V35/1.2 or V35/1.4 will not be as good as a Z35/2.8 for sure.
However, a 35mm f/2.8 does have a worse shallow depth-of-field potential.
Without having tested the Z35/2.8 I'd say that the Z35/2 is the best compromise in terms of performance and depth-of-field potential on a APS-C camera.
[/quote]
can you explain about the worse shallow depth-of-field potential?? i am not really understand that...
why dont you review the Z35/2.8??
09-30-2010, 09:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2010, 09:32 AM by mst.)
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285836204' post='3383']
can you explain about the worse shallow depth-of-field potential??[/quote]
A faster lens allows for narrower depth-of-field, so better separation of the main subject from the background. Obviously a slower lens (f/2.8 instead of f/2 or f/1.2) has less potential in this regard.
However, if you prefer to have as much depth of field as possible and stop down anyway, this is not really an issue.
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285836204' post='3383']
why dont you review the Z35/2.8??
[/quote]
Klaus will leave for a holiday soon, the ZM 35/2.8 review on the NEX is scheduled for later this year. Same applies to the V35/1,2 and (hopefully) the new V75/1,8.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1285839132' post='3387']
A faster lens allows for narrower depth-of-field, so better separation of the main subject from the background. Obviously a slower lens (f/2.8 instead of f/2 or f/1.2) has less potential in this regard.
However, if you prefer to have as much depth of field as possible and stop down anyway, this is not really an issue.
Klaus will leave for a holiday soon, the ZM 35/2.8 review on the NEX is scheduled for later this year. Same applies to the V35/1,2 and (hopefully) the new V75/1,8.
-- Markus
[/quote]
but i think Z35/2 and Z35/2.8 both depth of field potential should not very big difference right??
so you think which lens should i go for cause i can only get one lens...
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285842343' post='3388']
but i think Z35/2 and Z35/2.8 both depth of field potential should not very big difference right??
so you think which lens should i go for cause i can only get one lens...
[/quote]
Remember that a 35mm f/2.8 is equivalent to a 53mm f/4 on an APS-C DSLR. This depth-of-field potential is limited here.
Even the 35mm f/2, thus 53mm f/2.8, isn't terribly impressive either but it's be sufficient for basic portraits and such.
So the key question remains what you'd like to do with the lens.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285848636' post='3391']
Remember that a 35mm f/2.8 is equivalent to a 53mm f/4 on an APS-C DSLR. This depth-of-field potential is limited here.
Even the 35mm f/2, thus 53mm f/2.8, isn't terribly impressive either but it's be sufficient for basic portraits and such.
So the key question remains what you'd like to do with the lens.
[/quote]
i like to use it in travel, street and some portrait...is it ok with that??
[quote name='neolam' timestamp='1285854346' post='3393']
i like to use it in travel, street and some portrait...is it ok with that??
[/quote]
In this case I'd go for the Z35mm f/2 if you'd to use the lens for all these purposes.
Or for the Z35/2.8 + Z50/2 if two lenses are an option.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285854820' post='3394']
In this case I'd go for the Z35mm f/2 if you'd to use the lens for all these purposes.
Or for the Z35/2.8 + Z50/2 if two lenses are an option.
[/quote]
why you say so?? cause i thought you will recommend me C Biogon since got more compact sizes and nicer bokeh...
