This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
p.1 #1Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
This morning I did a quick 'rendering' comparison between the Sony FE 24/1.4 GM in crop mode (~35/2) vs the FE 35/1.8 @f/2. (I can't see any difference in rendering for the 35/1.8 @f/1.8 vs f/2)
I wanted to visualize rendering differences between the two lenses when their image size is normalized and their FL + aperture are equivalent.
My expectation was that the GM in crop mode would yield smoother rendering but be slightly lower in contrast compared to the FE 35/1.8. I also thought that LoCA was pretty similar between these two lenses.
The results confirmed a few things for me:
PS: Ignore exposure and composition. My goal was to show simple and more complex background elements while focusing at the exact same spot.
Samples 1
FE 35/1.8 (TOP) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (BOTTOM)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
I wanted to visualize rendering differences between the two lenses when their image size is normalized and their FL + aperture are equivalent.
My expectation was that the GM in crop mode would yield smoother rendering but be slightly lower in contrast compared to the FE 35/1.8. I also thought that LoCA was pretty similar between these two lenses.
The results confirmed a few things for me:
- The FE 35/1.8 has slight higher contrast and of course higher resolution compared to the GM in crop mode. On my A7R IV, the FE 24/1.4 GM produces 26MP images in crop mode. I suspect the GM has a bit more RSA which contributes to the slightly lower contrast and smoother rendering.
- The FE 24/1.4 GM smoother rendering is more obvious away from the center area. (FE 35/1.8 has higher coma, vignetting, FC)
- The FE 24/1.4 GM actually has slightly higher LoCA, although both lenses have similar CA correction.
- There is not much rendering difference in web resized images, except when looking away from the center area.
- The FE 35/1.8 lens is more compact and light in comparison.
PS: Ignore exposure and composition. My goal was to show simple and more complex background elements while focusing at the exact same spot.
Samples 1
 |
||
 |
||
|
FE 35/1.8 (TOP) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (BOTTOM)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:13 PM
p.1 #2Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Sample 2
FE 35/1.8 (TOP) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (BOTTOM)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
|
||
 |
||
|
FE 35/1.8 (TOP) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (BOTTOM)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:19 PM
p.1 #3Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Sample 3
FE 35/1.8 (BOTTOM) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (TOP)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
|
||
 |
||
|
FE 35/1.8 (BOTTOM) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (TOP)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:25 PM
p.1 #4Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I am having a sudden urge for the 24GM 
I must resist, what I really want is a mythical 20mm f1.4 AF
I must resist, what I really want is a mythical 20mm f1.4 AF
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:31 PM
p.1 #5Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Sample 4
FE 35/1.8 (BOTTOM) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (TOP)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
|
||
 |
||
|
FE 35/1.8 (BOTTOM) | 24/1.4GM ~35/2 (TOP)
Focused area
OOF rendering around center area
OOF rendering towards the corner
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:33 PM
p.1 #6Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I have both and I have yet to do this test. I kinda need them both so I was not trying to eliminate one. Maybe why I have not. The 24 renders nicer I know that
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:38 PM
p.1 #7Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Two great lenses! Sure the 35 isn't perfect. It still produces great prints. I've got some on my wall. Lovin' my 35/1.8. Thanks for sharing Fred.
Edited on Nov 20, 2019 at 10:48 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Nov 20, 2019 at 10:48 AM · View previous versions
Nov 18, 2019 at 03:46 PM
p.1 #8Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
There is something special in the way 24 GM renders, that unique smoothness (even considering its high-ish LoCa) ...
I wonder how it fares against Sigma 35 F1.2, but I think even then it can hold its own
.
I wonder how it fares against Sigma 35 F1.2, but I think even then it can hold its own
.Nov 18, 2019 at 04:03 PM
p.1 #9Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
The 24gm renders lovely. But the 35, i just can't get over its nervous OoF Areas
Nov 18, 2019 at 04:25 PM
p.1 #10Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
benCKS wrote:
The 24gm renders lovely. But the 35, i just can't get over its nervous OoF Areas
Yes but it’s not on every image made. To me it seems more at mid distance between subject and background. Some actually look pretty good. It’s kinda weird I’ve seen some really nice images without it andsomereallyobvious
The 24gm renders lovely. But the 35, i just can't get over its nervous OoF Areas
Yes but it’s not on every image made. To me it seems more at mid distance between subject and background. Some actually look pretty good. It’s kinda weird I’ve seen some really nice images without it andsomereallyobvious
Nov 18, 2019 at 04:35 PM
p.1 #11Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Thanks for these comparisons, Fred! One more proof of just how good the mighty 24GM is in crop mode. It’s my favorite 35mm!🙂. The 24 matched with the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 makes a great two lens combination.
Nov 18, 2019 at 05:31 PM
p.1 #12Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
benCKS wrote:
The 24gm renders lovely. But the 35, i just can't get over its nervous OoF Areas
The FE 35/1.8's rendering is unpleasant at the edges but not bad at center even at mid-distance. Similar to Sony FE 28/2.
Here is a crop from "Sample 1" showing the very edge of the frame where coma, vignetting, outlining and FC yields the worse rendering imo.
FE 24/1.4 in crop mode (~35/2 equiv.) vs FE 35/1.8 @f/2
The 24gm renders lovely. But the 35, i just can't get over its nervous OoF Areas
The FE 35/1.8's rendering is unpleasant at the edges but not bad at center even at mid-distance. Similar to Sony FE 28/2.
Here is a crop from "Sample 1" showing the very edge of the frame where coma, vignetting, outlining and FC yields the worse rendering imo.
 |
||
 |
||
|
FE 24/1.4 in crop mode (~35/2 equiv.) vs FE 35/1.8 @f/2
Nov 18, 2019 at 06:41 PM
p.1 #13Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Excellent comparison Fred!
I have been tempted to buy the 35mm f1.8. Mainly for the compact size. Even though I already own a decent Zony 35mm f1.4.
Your tests samples have confirmed what I was already seeing on sites like flickr. The 35mm f1.8 is prone to nervous backgrounds. Of course many factors go into that. I’ve seen some excellent shots with the lens. Where the out of focus areas are very smooth. But I have also seen many shots where the background isn’t the very pleasant.
What I really would like to see is a 35mm GM! 😀
Thanks for taking the time to post this comparison.
I have been tempted to buy the 35mm f1.8. Mainly for the compact size. Even though I already own a decent Zony 35mm f1.4.
Your tests samples have confirmed what I was already seeing on sites like flickr. The 35mm f1.8 is prone to nervous backgrounds. Of course many factors go into that. I’ve seen some excellent shots with the lens. Where the out of focus areas are very smooth. But I have also seen many shots where the background isn’t the very pleasant.
What I really would like to see is a 35mm GM! 😀
Thanks for taking the time to post this comparison.
Nov 18, 2019 at 06:57 PM
p.1 #14Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Well I have the 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 ZA, and recently picked up the 35/1.8 as well. It just kept tempting me to be put into my travel kit. I also have the Batis 40/2.0 that I really like in that kit so we will see if I will keep it long term.
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.
Nov 18, 2019 at 08:42 PM
p.1 #15Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 35/1.8's rendering is unpleasant at the edges but not bad at center even at mid-distance. Similar to Sony FE 28/2.
Here is a crop from "Sample 1" showing the very edge of the frame where coma, vignetting, outlining and FC yields the worse rendering imo.
In that comparison the 24/1.4 looks brilliant.
benCKS wrote
The 24gm renders lovely. But the 35, i just can't get over its nervous OoF AreasHere is a crop from "Sample 1" showing the very edge of the frame where coma, vignetting, outlining and FC yields the worse rendering imo.
In that comparison the 24/1.4 looks brilliant.
Nov 18, 2019 at 08:44 PM
p.1 #16Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Interesting comparison. I don't know if it is because of crop mode but the 24 looks to have some grainy features to it at center in several of the shots, vs. the 35 looking smooth (if we are pixel peeping here). I imagine it is due to crop. Wondering if it would look the same on the 35 using the 24mp of the A7III/A9. The 24/1.4 is lovely otherwise, if lacking a little contrast comparatively. But certainly worthy of the GM stamp.
I have to say that I see so many critiques of the 35/1.8 due to backlit scenes through treetop foliage and then people count it out as an option. That seems to be its achilles heel, along with coma in the corners for night shots. But realistically I only occasionally come across this problem with the lens.
A majority of the time I am seeing this sort of bokeh, even through backlit foliage, so I think it has to be sort of just the right conditions for it to look extra harsh:
(Apologies, no 24/1.4 shots for comparison!)
I have to say that I see so many critiques of the 35/1.8 due to backlit scenes through treetop foliage and then people count it out as an option. That seems to be its achilles heel, along with coma in the corners for night shots. But realistically I only occasionally come across this problem with the lens.
A majority of the time I am seeing this sort of bokeh, even through backlit foliage, so I think it has to be sort of just the right conditions for it to look extra harsh:
(Apologies, no 24/1.4 shots for comparison!)
Nov 18, 2019 at 09:04 PM
p.1 #17Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
swldstn wrote:
Well I have the 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 ZA, and recently picked up the 35/1.8 as well. It just kept tempting me to be put into my travel kit. I also have the Batis 40/2.0 that I really like in that kit so we will see if I will keep it long term.
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing...Show more →
What I like about the Sony 35/1.8 is that it's so compact, contrasty and does not suffer from a mid-field dip in resolution which is rare for this focal length. However, the 35/1.8's rendering does not really impresses me, except when shooting at close range where blur masks its rendering issues.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had to choose between strong mid-field or strong extreme corners, I'd much prefer lenses with strong center and mid-zone (think rules of thirds).
To be honest, I'm not completely satisfied with E-mount lenses at the 35-50mm range...
At 35mm, I am a big fan of the new Sigma 35/1.2 for its outstanding resolution and rendering but do not own it because of its size and weight. My Loxia 35/2 is mainly a landscape lens and it's only used stopped down to f/7.1 or smaller...
Both Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and Sigma 35/1.4 Art are weaker at mid-field when shooting wide open and now with the A7R IV, the discrepancy between center and mid-field is even more noticeable.
At 40-45mm, there are many options but I didn't warm up to the Batis 40/2 (mid-field dip + harsh rendering at mid-distance), Samyang 45/1.8 (build + harsh rendering), Sigma 45/2.8 (Love the SA rendering but AF-C is iffy). The best compromise for me is still the CV 40/1.2 which has very strong center + 'ok' mid-field at f/2 but does not perform well at close distance.
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
Well I have the 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 ZA, and recently picked up the 35/1.8 as well. It just kept tempting me to be put into my travel kit. I also have the Batis 40/2.0 that I really like in that kit so we will see if I will keep it long term.
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing...Show more →
What I like about the Sony 35/1.8 is that it's so compact, contrasty and does not suffer from a mid-field dip in resolution which is rare for this focal length. However, the 35/1.8's rendering does not really impresses me, except when shooting at close range where blur masks its rendering issues.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had to choose between strong mid-field or strong extreme corners, I'd much prefer lenses with strong center and mid-zone (think rules of thirds).
To be honest, I'm not completely satisfied with E-mount lenses at the 35-50mm range...
At 35mm, I am a big fan of the new Sigma 35/1.2 for its outstanding resolution and rendering but do not own it because of its size and weight. My Loxia 35/2 is mainly a landscape lens and it's only used stopped down to f/7.1 or smaller...
Both Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and Sigma 35/1.4 Art are weaker at mid-field when shooting wide open and now with the A7R IV, the discrepancy between center and mid-field is even more noticeable.
At 40-45mm, there are many options but I didn't warm up to the Batis 40/2 (mid-field dip + harsh rendering at mid-distance), Samyang 45/1.8 (build + harsh rendering), Sigma 45/2.8 (Love the SA rendering but AF-C is iffy). The best compromise for me is still the CV 40/1.2 which has very strong center + 'ok' mid-field at f/2 but does not perform well at close distance.
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
Nov 18, 2019 at 09:43 PM
p.1 #18Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
We've been saying until than for a long time. 
Nov 18, 2019 at 11:08 PM
p.1 #19Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.What I like about the Sony 35/1.8 is that it's so compact, contrasty and does not suffer from a mid-field dip in resolution which is rare for this focal length. However, the 35/1.8's rendering does not really impresses me, except when shooting at close range where blur masks its rendering issues.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had...Show more →
For me the quest for a 35mm ended with my beautiful 35mm 1.2 Art for sure.
And so did my quest for the 85mm (which ended with my Eye of Sauron 105mm Art).
I don't really have a quest for a perfect 50mm which is why I just own the lowly 50mm 1.8 for emergencies.
swldstn wrote
Well I have the 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 ZA, and recently picked up the 35/1.8 as well. It just kept tempting me to be put into my travel kit. I also have the Batis 40/2.0 that I really like in that kit so we will see if I will keep it long term.After getting used to the 40mm the Batis still appears to solve the problem of a mid range walk around prime between the 35 and 50/55 focal length. But that is a simple focal length comparison. Now need to do a real image quality comparison. Fred, thank your sharing yours.
Only the new Sigma 35/1.2 and RX1 Sonnar 35/2 perform great at mid-field when shooting wide open. (They are actually great throughout the entire image field). On top of that, they have outstanding rendering at any distance. (I think the Sonnar is still better rendering-wise though). If I had...Show more →
For me the quest for a 35mm ended with my beautiful 35mm 1.2 Art for sure.
And so did my quest for the 85mm (which ended with my Eye of Sauron 105mm Art).
I don't really have a quest for a perfect 50mm which is why I just own the lowly 50mm 1.8 for emergencies.
Nov 18, 2019 at 11:28 PM
p.1 #20Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
At 50mm the 50/1.4 ZA is my lens of choice. Use it a lot when not traveling. Just wish it were smaller and lighter.
Agree in the 35-45 range but have gotten used to the Batis. Have the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 as well so I am in the same boat with 4 lens here. Really need to find a way to pair it down. Have not considered the Sigma 35/1.2, again because of size and weight.
At 50mm, I've tried many lenses and currently only own the FE 50/1.4 ZA. Love its contrast and color rendering but dislike its mid-zone dip when shooting wide-open. Center resolution is world class though. Don't know of any other 50mm with stronger center resolution.
So...
I am hoping for a 35-40mm with similar rendering/resolution characteristics as the FE 24/1.4 GM. When that happens, I'll have at least 4 lenses on the chopping block.
At 50mm the 50/1.4 ZA is my lens of choice. Use it a lot when not traveling. Just wish it were smaller and lighter.
Agree in the 35-45 range but have gotten used to the Batis. Have the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 as well so I am in the same boat with 4 lens here. Really need to find a way to pair it down. Have not considered the Sigma 35/1.2, again because of size and weight.
Nov 19, 2019 at 04:05 AM