ediblestarfish wrote:
Going to take a negative, unpopular view of this lens in my use case, because it's not been all smiles and rainbows--people sell them used in significant numbers for a reason, and mine is below.
I had this lens too, no optical complaints at all, but the IQ advantage over the 55mm f1.8 in my view did not offset the significantly higher mass and volume.
Some of it had to do with carrying around such a lens for snapshots & street photography (overkill), some had to do with the mass (more than my 135mm f2.8). But the biggest part for me was the higher profile of the 50mm f1.4 which makes people around me more on guard, especially the subjects I try to capture on a moment's notice. The type of photos I was getting wasn't as candid, and losing that quality made me realize I didn't gain enough from the 50mm f1.4 to offset that loss. I didn't like the pictures I was getting out of it.
I'll be blunt, the volume of the 50mm f1.4, especially with the hood attached is hard to ignore, and gets way more attention that I'm comfortable with. I prefer to be a bit more stealth, and look more like a clueless tourist than a hobbyist. This aspect isn't really talked about much, whereas I keep seeing praise heaped upon it for the image quality, regardless of how it fits into a real use case outside of stress testing on inanimate objects.
Maybe if I shot in a studio, where a generated persona is what is desired, I'd prefer it more often to keep it. For now, it's been sold for funds to do other things.
Also the gimbal I tested it on hates the high mass the 50mm f1.4, so I haven't found it as good for stabilized video--something that hybrid shooters will want to take note of....Show more →
You've expressed my own view to the letter. Razor sharpness, total absence of CA, and the most beautiful bokeh in recorded history are worthless if you're carrying a blunderbuss that actively hinders your ability to melt into the surroundings disguised as a tourist, thereby getting close enough to capture that elusive, ephemeral but all-important quality: emotion.
Mirror wrote:
I am in the same situation. I ordered the 50mm 1.4 Planar and preordered the 16-35mm 2.8 GM. Also got the 85mm 1.4 GM and the little 35mm 2.8 Sony Zeiss. The question is if it makes really sense to get the 35mm 1.4 Distagon? The zoom and the little Sony cover already 35mm. The 2.8 is optically not thrilling lets say it this way, the pop is simply missing. On the other hand it is so portable and lightweight. I wonder if I should I sell it for the 1.4? On the other hand when shooting full frame with wonderful cameras like the A7RII why making compromises with glass where you are not happy only because of it's size and weight? I could go for a RX100 also then that is even smaller. So anybody who sold the 35mm 2.8 for the 1.4 and regretted it at the end?...Show more →
The question, 35 2.8 and 35 1.4 I have asked myself. My answer was Yes. 2.8 are very small, unobtrusive and good quality. And the 1.4 for moments where size and weight are not important. Only the image quality priority.
Mirror wrote:
I am in the same situation. I ordered the 50mm 1.4 Planar and preordered the 16-35mm 2.8 GM. Also got the 85mm 1.4 GM and the little 35mm 2.8 Sony Zeiss. The question is if it makes really sense to get the 35mm 1.4 Distagon? The zoom and the little Sony cover already 35mm. The 2.8 is optically not thrilling lets say it this way, the pop is simply missing. On the other hand it is so portable and lightweight. I wonder if I should I sell it for the 1.4? On the other hand when shooting full frame with wonderful cameras like the A7RII why making compromises with glass where you are not happy only because of it's size and weight? I could go for a RX100 also then that is even smaller. So anybody who sold the 35mm 2.8 for the 1.4 and regretted it at the end?...Show more →
I had the Sony 35 2.8 and after that the 35 1.4. The 35 2.8 is nice and compact, but it never vowed me.
Yes, the 35 1.4 is big, but I don't find it excessively big or heavy. I still think it's one of the best lenses Sony has produced to date. As Fred mentioned, it's not flawless, but sharp wide open, and very impressive across the frame by f4. I only sold mine because I got annoyed with my copy having one week corner. I still regret selling it, and thinking hard about trying another one. The 35 zm is nice, but I've realized that I prefer the surer native AF of the Sony lens.
I personally think the FE 35 1.4 is the nicest look lens they make and the GM 85 1.4. Hey I would rarely or never bought a lens 5 times to get a good copy. I'm on my 5th and I m having a hard time taking it off the A9. Sure it has some CA but the DNA this lens has is special. But you have to want its look.
GMPhotography wrote:
I personally think the FE 35 1.4 is the nicest look lens they make and the GM 85 1.4. Hey I would never or never bought a lens 5 times to get a good copy. I'm on my 5th and I m having a hard time taking it off the A9. Sure it has some CA but the DNA this lens has is special. But you have to want its look.
I call the FE 35 F1.4 look Poptastic. I don't use the lens often, but when I do I am always surprised all over again when I see that pop. Your recent Red Truck image is a good example.
Oh and yeah I love the FE 50 F1.4 too. Sorry Guy, I think that's another lens you probably should buy again at some point. Can't beat the 1.4 DoF on the FE 50 F1.4
Dumb question but are decentered 35mm 1.4 quite easy to see on the first view? (Mostly the right side is unsharp?) Eventually I do not need to shoot brick walls or do the Gletscherbruch Test.
It's usually the right side out of 4 I had 3 right side. You really don't need to do a Big Bronco wall test line I do you can tell pretty much right away. After 5 now if it's really good at 2.8 keep it. Not going to get much better than that.
Mirror wrote:
Dumb question but are decentered 35mm 1.4 quite easy to see on the first view? (Mostly the right side is unsharp?) Eventually I do not need to shoot brick walls or do the Gletscherbruch Test.
Maybe I'm very lucky or perhaps not so picky but I own a Zony 35 1.4 and is perfect from 1,4, I wouldn't pay for 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8, if so just get the little gem Zony 35 2.8.
I should have said if at 2.8 in the corners is good keep it. On center it's a gem at 1.4
artmaseda wrote:
Maybe I'm very lucky or perhaps not so picky but I own a Zony 35 1.4 and is perfect from 1,4, I wouldn't pay for 1.4 lens to use it at 2.8, if so just get the little gem Zony 35 2.8.
The absence of onion ring pattern in 50/1.4 ZA's inner disks when compared to the 35/1.4 ZA is interesting.
The 35/1.4 has 3 asphericals (one of each is advanced aspherical). The 50/1.4 has 2 aspherical elements (one of each is also AA)
According to Sony's terminology, only GM lenses are designed with "Extreme Aspherical" elements (XA) and none of these lenses have it since they are ZA models. Only XA elements are produced with a new moulding process which we were told, reduce onion rings with a surface precision kept to within 0.01 micron.
Perhaps, the 50/1.4 ZA being a newer lens also uses the new molding tech attributed to GM lenses?
Fred Miranda wrote:
The absence of onion ring pattern in 50/1.4 ZA's inner disks when compared to the 35/1.4 ZA is interesting.
The 35/1.4 has 3 asphericals (one of each is advanced aspherical). The 50/1.4 has 2 aspherical elements (one of each is also AA)
According to Sony's terminology, only GM lenses are designed with "Extreme Aspherical" elements (XA) and none of these lenses have it since they are ZA models. Only XA elements are produced with a new molding process which we were told, reduce onion rings with a surface precision kept to within 0.01 micron.
Perhaps, the 50/1.4 ZA being a newer lens also uses the new molding tech attributed to GM lenses?
Yes I'd wondered this too.
My hunch is that the story about the "lines" - Sony Zeiss, G, GM etc - is marketing fluff designed to place the lens, rather than any serious engineering constraint in the design. If that's right, if the lens is premium, and it needs the latest aspherical moulding tech, it'll get it. No-one is going to say "but that tech is reserved for GM". And I bet Zeiss would be peeved if there was some in house rule which prevented a Zeiss branded lens from being as good as possible. That's not good for the brand they are licensing.
DavidBM wrote:
Yes I'd wondered this too.
My hunch is that the story about the "lines" - Sony Zeiss, G, GM etc - is marketing fluff designed to place the lens, rather than any serious engineering constraint in the design. If that's right, if the lens is premium, and it needs the latest aspherical moulding tech, it'll get it. No-one is going to say "but that tech is reserved for GM". And I bet Zeiss would be peeved if there was some in house rule which prevented a Zeiss branded lens from being as good as possible. That's not good for the brand they are licensing....Show more →
By looking at images from both lenses, I tend to agree with your 'hunch'.
Fred, Guy, just curious, what has led you guys to reaquire the 35 1.4?
I'm still not happy with my 35mm FL situation and have recently started thinking about the Sony 35 1.4 once again.
I like the 35 zm, but I don't trust the TAP enough in situations when, for instance, the light changes instantly. It often works, but not always and I've had a few instances when I had to use different lenses to get the job done.
Honestly Fred talked me back into trying it for the 5th time. I finally got lucky but I always loved the look to it. So the arm twisting was light. Lol
Chris_88 wrote:
Fred, Guy, just curious, what has led you guys to reaquire the 35 1.4?
I'm still not happy with my 35mm FL situation and have recently started thinking about the Sony 35 1.4 once again.
I like the 35 zm, but I don't trust the TAP enough in situations when, for instance, the light changes instantly. It often works, but not always and I've had a few instances when I had to use different lenses to get the job done.
Chris_88 wrote:
Fred, Guy, just curious, what has led you guys to reaquire the 35 1.4?
I'm still not happy with my 35mm FL situation and have recently started thinking about the Sony 35 1.4 once again.
I like the 35 zm, but I don't trust the TAP enough in situations when, for instance, the light changes instantly. It often works, but not always and I've had a few instances when I had to use different lenses to get the job done.
I never had the 35/1.4 ZA before since I the RX1RII took care of my 35mm needs. I was actually discouraged from the copy variation reports.
The 35/1.4 ZM was a real gem but its mid field dip was bothering me a bit when shooting wide open. It was right at the rule of thirds! However, it was never an issue with landscapes + smaller apertures.
The 35/1.4 ZA rendering is the closest thing to the RX1's Sonnar 35/2. I don't mind the weight and the extra blur made me sell my RX1RII for it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Honestly Fred talked me back into trying it for the 5th time. I finally got lucky but I always loved the look to it. So the arm twisting was light. Lol
I know you prefer the 35mm FL and IMO, there is nothing better for the Sony system currently. I thought it was worth the hassle to find a good copy.
Thanks for the insights, Fred and Guy. Still haven't decided what to do, but I may role the dice again. I always thought the 35 1.4 was one of the better Sony lenses as far sunstars and flare resistance go, which is a plus.
