GoroMajima wrote:
The 35mm 1.4g renders as lovely as the 58mm 1.4g, not sure why it doesn't get even closely near as much love.
Great shots. I think a lot of folks were hoping for something different when that lens released than what the design targets ended up being. I've read many places that the 35/1.4 targeted rendering and that it was more in family with the 58/1.4. I never looked to get this one since I like to shoot 28/50 or 28/58, but it's still a great lens for folks who like the 35/85 combo or 35's in general.
You won't regret it. I actually find every single 1.4g lens special in its own right, got myself the 85mm 1.4g now and I am really craving for the 24mm 1.4g too.
Agree....the Z lenses are sharp and clean but sometimes too perfect looking. I’m keeping a mixture of old and new for that reason.
GoroMajima wrote:
As I said in the 58mm 1.4g, I went full Haruo Sato and have no regrets ( Sold Z 35 /50 /85mm lenses, they are really really great. But for people photography ,where ultimate detail is not required, the old 1.4g lenses are just unbeatable). Saves me some adjustments in post!
Wide open sharpness is great while having probably the best rendering of all 35mm's I am in heaven.
GoroMajima wrote:
Criminally underrated lens, I find the rendering so much better than the sigma 1.4 art equivalent. I wonder how it compares to the tamron 35mm 1.4
The Tamron 35 f/1.4 is more than a decade newer--and it shows. SIGNIFICANTLY less CA, very sharp, quick, well sealed, and still has some warmth/charm to the OOF areas IMO. The 1.4G is lighter and a bit more compact and I feel that the image that it produces (especially wide open) has a charm to it--but it stops being charming on higher res bodies for some reason.
I tested both side by side. The nikon has slightly smoother background rendering. Sharpness without zooming in looks pretty much the same. For people photogs the nikon remains unbeaten, but I wouldn't mind owning the Tamron.
