@pierre-lagarde, those are great photos and I really like the variety. The 26mm is ideal for long days of walking around - it's so small it's almost invisible. Thanks for sharing these!
Looking through all the posted images, I really dislike the close-up images of flowers with a background at infinity. The Bokeh ist too ugly. But the one with the flower in the grass is very nice. I wonder what could be the reason for this difference.
@renegr A mixed bag between the taste of the photographer, and the one of the viewer is probably the best answer :D.
More seriously, I've seen that naked branches in a white sky are generally more harsh for lenses bokeh. Even with the famous Canon 135 F/2, it can be a "rude" choice.
So my choice was probably not the most pleasant for everyone, and of course, the lens is not to be blamed, to my sense.
And to be completely honest, I do prefer the one in the grass too. :D
More seriously, I've seen that naked branches in a white sky are generally more harsh for lenses bokeh. Even with the famous Canon 135 F/2, it can be a "rude" choice.
Could be it is just the subject. Might also be the distance of the background or to the subject. I guess I walk out and try with the 28mm f/2.8 that I have.
And the "rhythm"/density ratio to distance vs the way the lens handle the bokeh. I may have try with some flowers that were at a different distance from the trees too.
Well, I don't know, but would like to know. So, I went into the garden and tried the 28mm at f/2.8. I could not reproduce the effect.
The image is not the sharpest either. Then I tried the 24-70mm at 24mm and at f/4 with some background. This looks a bit worse.
I like to compare lenses to others, as you might have noticed. So, here is an image with a true macro lens.
I may try with that kind of scene too...
On the other hand, you need to have trees like this in the background I think, in order to compare with my own "flower shot" (that kind of trees are probably much better to see sharp than blurred) :
Some more samples in the same place with sun and leaves in the trees.
First at "proxi" distance : (sorry for the disturbing flower on the left)
Second with a more "landscape" feeling :
Looks like the bokeh is way better with a nearer subject...
I was somewhat envious of Sony shooters when I saw that they have the option of a compact FX body (the A7c) plus the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, a classic field of view in a small package. And then Sony released the 24, 40 and 50, and I thought I'd own all of them, if I happened to be a Sony shooter.
I'm happily in the Nikon camp, though, and the 28 and 40mm compacts have served me very well -- and for a lot less money. If the 26 had come out first, I probably would have bought that instead of the 28. But with the 28 in hand, I'll probably wait and see if it goes on sale or if they're priced better on the used market eventually. Or if I get an unexpected windfall one day. It does look appreciably smaller than the muffins, and it could be fun to own for that reason alone.
I got the 40mm recently and am currenly dithering between getting a 26 or the 28 for something slightly wider. It costs a bit more but I am leaning towards the 26 as it offers something different/smaller in size.
I got the 40mm recently and am currenly dithering between getting a 26 or the 28 for something slightly wider. It costs a bit more but I am leaning towards the 26 as it offers something different/smaller in size.
You can't go wrong either way - they're very similar lenses. I like that the 26mm is thin enough to fit into even a small pocket when traveling. It felt almost invisible when I used it in the field. The 28mm has more consistent image quality across the frame, but the differences aren't huge (and both are pretty comparable if you crop to more like a 4:3 aspect ratio). If the price isn't an issue, I think you could basically flip a coin here.
Thanks Spencer. Yeah this is quite important to me. This would be good for days when I want better image quality than my m43 setup and yet still want to travel light.
You can't go wrong either way - they're very similar lenses. I like that the 26mm is thin enough to fit into even a small pocket when traveling. It felt almost invisible when I used it in the field. The 28mm has more consistent image quality across the frame, but the differences aren't huge (and both are pretty comparable if you crop to more like a 4:3 aspect ratio). If the price isn't an issue, I think you could basically flip a coin here.
Looks like the bokeh is way better with a nearer subject...
Yes. That is probably the reason. Focussing further away will put the background into a transition zone with too little blurriness. It becomes disturbing.