Which lens is better? (BLIND TEST, HELP ME CHOOSE)

How do you like that Sony?

Now this is weird....I posted on this thread & now I don't see my post anywhere. I had said I thought the first image had a "warmer" color rendition than the 2nd image...

garyrhook wrote: Perception is a funny thing, don't you think?
Upon further examination, I'll retract my initial answer and go with the f/1.2. Very interesting. Apologies for including the 2nd set in the discussion; I see that they were irrelevant to the initial post.

I accept your apology Gary san.

(in this picture Gary is Obama)

Yeh I like the 1.2 too. When you shoot with it it's fun, everything looks kinda dreamy (When shooting at 1.2)

Tristan R wrote: How do you like that Sony?

I like it a lot. I can't believe how good the EVF is. Sony have mastered that art at least. The AF is kinda cool too (when you turn on face detection, it can even detect eyes and focus on them).

Screamin Scott wrote: Now this is weird....I posted on this thread & now I don't see my post anywhere. I had said I thought the first image had a "warmer" color rendition than the 2nd image...

I know, that's kinda weird. I like it though.

Well, I guess I'll be buying the more expensive lens. LOL

(in this picture Gary is Obama)

Ha-ha! I'm pretty sure you're not a little Asian guy, though.

Yeh I like the 1.2 too. When you shoot with it it's fun, everything looks kinda dreamy (When shooting at 1.2)

I'd like to see both lenses at 1.4 or 1.8 taking the same shot.

garyrhook wrote:

(in this picture Gary is Obama)

Ha-ha! I'm pretty sure you're not a little Asian guy, though.

Yeh I like the 1.2 too. When you shoot with it it's fun, everything looks kinda dreamy (When shooting at 1.2)

I'd like to see both lenses at 1.4 or 1.8 taking the same shot.

I'm pretty sure you're not black.



I think I took some shots like that (1.4 etc.), but it's hard to tell which is which because they're shot with an adapter and there's no data transferred.

"B" sharper, better definition

Tuscan Muse wrote: "B" sharper, better definition

Actually if you look at the 100% crops A is as sharp or sharper than B (despite it being shot at 1.2 instead of 1.4).  They were both a little bit off so the eyes are slightly out of focus. The problem I think is most people are not used to seeing a more "classic" wide aperture 35mm shot like this.  More modern lenses like the Sigma 35 1.4 are designed to be as sharp as possible and hopefully the bokeh is OK too (Sigma got this right).  The Voigtlander 35 1.4 on the other hand is designed to give a "classic look" which generally means sacrificing sharpness for bokeh and a "dreamy look".  THOUGH the 35 1.2 is actually sharper and has better bokeh (smoother) The "B" lens (35 1.4) is particularly "classic" and even has the name "classic" in it's offical title (Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4).  

Maybe it's better to show the difference in actual sharpness between the two.

This shot is from the 35 1.2 (100% crop):



This one is from the 35 1.4 (lens B ):

You can pretty clearly see here the "classic" look which makes everything a little like it's in soft focus.  Some people like this look.  It's not about perfection, it's about the "feel" apparently.  BTW that's NOT motion blur. 

For added interest, the adapter I used was a helicoid close focus adapter, which allows you to get a lot closer to focus if you want (kind of like engaging macro mode).  Example (35 1.2):

And I didn't realize 35mm could be that shallow DOF, even at 1.4 

Kelly

KCook wrote: And I didn't realize 35mm could be that shallow DOF, even at 1.4 

Kelly

Yeh this:  http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_vm-e_close-focus-adapter.html

It let's you get amazingly close and at 1.2 or 1.4 the DOF is really shallow.

I got the 35 1.2. Doing great so far 

"....the 35 1,2 is actually sharper and has a better bokeh (smoother)......."

But if so, the 1,2 does not have a better bokeh. It may have a better (smoother) background but for me (and for the most explanations I found in the last years reading about photography) "bokeh" is created by the small light circles built by the lens. Maybe with this link it´s better to understand what is a better bokeh for me
121clicks.com/inspirations/15-beautiful-...of-bokeh-photography

Ulrich Brodde wrote: "....the 35 1,2 is actually sharper and has a better bokeh (smoother)......."

But if so, the 1,2 does not have a better bokeh. It may have a better (smoother) background but for me (and for the most explanations I found in the last years reading about photography) "bokeh" is created by the small light circles built by the lens. Maybe with this link it´s better to understand what is a better bokeh for me
121clicks.com/inspirations/15-beautiful-...of-bokeh-photography

I don't know what you've read but,  bokeh is a Japanese word that means blur or mist.  It refers to the quality of any out of focus area at any aperture (though it's easier to tell at wider apertures) .  It's not just bokeh balls. Though that's part of it. Bokeh is subjective though,  so if what YOU want in Bokeh is to see balls,  then that's cool. 

By the way,  your link says:
Bokeh need not be round or spherical in shape, any blurred out background is also termed as Bokeh.

At least all this is theory.
It´s more important to do photos which are impressive than to discuss how to do them.

Here is the lens on the a7 lends quite a heft to the camera. But I love the look it gives (to the photos). 

Ulrich Brodde wrote: At least all this is theory.
It´s more important to do photos which are impressive than to discuss how to do them.

Sorry, I disagree with these statements. The discussion on how to do these things or to explain how it's done is a large part of why many of us participate on these forums. It's a journey to make "photos that are impressive" for most people. There are very few people that pick up a camera and are able make impressive images starting out. Some are better than others, but it usually takes a bit of time. I understand what you are trying to say, but the discussion part is why we are here.

PS. I think your idea of what desired bokeh is completely wrong but that's O.K. Whatever works for you. It's not just the circles that show up, it's the smoothness of how those circles blend into the background. In fact, perfect bokeh would be seeing no circles, just a smooth blur.