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.3 #1Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
hanay78 wrote:
after reading your post and that of @swldstn@ i started to wander how would be a hand to hand comparison Fe vs Lox. I tried to look to hand to hand photographs. I comparison like the one you have carried out here. I did not found any. any opinion in how would be the results? this could be interesting as the lox have the reputation of being the slowest horse in Zeiss stables...
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 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.
I found a few tests and comparisons. (FE 35/1.8 vs other lenses)
Extreme corner at f/1.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37?nc=1#14967301
Compared to Loxia 35/2 at f/7.1 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14989961
Compared to Sigma 45/2.8 at f/5.6 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37#14967331
Size compared to Sigma 45/2.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967389
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967587
Rendering compared to Loxia 35/2:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/45#14975518
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14977071
after reading your post and that of @swldstn@ i started to wander how would be a hand to hand comparison Fe vs Lox. I tried to look to hand to hand photographs. I comparison like the one you have carried out here. I did not found any. any opinion in how would be the results? this could be interesting as the lox have the reputation of being the slowest horse in Zeiss stables...
Fred Miranda wrote
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 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.
I found a few tests and comparisons. (FE 35/1.8 vs other lenses)
Extreme corner at f/1.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37?nc=1#14967301
Compared to Loxia 35/2 at f/7.1 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14989961
Compared to Sigma 45/2.8 at f/5.6 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37#14967331
Size compared to Sigma 45/2.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967389
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967587
Rendering compared to Loxia 35/2:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/45#14975518
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14977071
Nov 19, 2019 at 10:14 AM
p.3 #2Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
This is what I was wishing for, back in February before any rumour or hope that this lens would ever be made:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1584461/1#14763752
"A well corrected 35/1.8 with low distortion, CA and outstanding sharpness starting with f/4 or lower."
I got even more than I asked for. It has very low distortion, LoCA is lower than with any other FE non-GM lenses (and lower than some GMs too), and it is sharp right from 1.8. With "close focus" and very fast AF as perks to top it off.
I bought this for (mostly urban) travel, where it is highly unlikely that I would have or mind any foliage in the frame.
I am surprised that anyone would pick an f/1.8 for blur and "bokeh" endeavours and/or review it nearly exclusively with OOF foliage. That's the job of f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, especially with longer FL. The job of an f/1.8 is to be small and sharp and the FE 35 delivers.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1584461/1#14763752
"A well corrected 35/1.8 with low distortion, CA and outstanding sharpness starting with f/4 or lower."
I got even more than I asked for. It has very low distortion, LoCA is lower than with any other FE non-GM lenses (and lower than some GMs too), and it is sharp right from 1.8. With "close focus" and very fast AF as perks to top it off.
I bought this for (mostly urban) travel, where it is highly unlikely that I would have or mind any foliage in the frame.
I am surprised that anyone would pick an f/1.8 for blur and "bokeh" endeavours and/or review it nearly exclusively with OOF foliage. That's the job of f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, especially with longer FL. The job of an f/1.8 is to be small and sharp and the FE 35 delivers.
Nov 19, 2019 at 10:25 AM
p.3 #3Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
My "issue" with using the 24GM as a casual 35 is the size. Youre using it to fill a 35 1.8 need, but are contending with the size of a 24 f1.4...It isn't massive like the Sigma and its small for a f1.4 wide angle, but I dont consider it to be compact when you have lenses like the FE5, loxia, and cv lenses as a point of reference
FE 35 1.8 is legitimately compact, and the difference in shooting and carrying experience vs the 24GM is noticeable.
Here's a size comparison I did between the Loxia 21 (about the same size as the FE 35), 24GM, and FE 35 1.4.
In a few days, I can do a size comparison between the FE 35 1.8, 24GM, and Sigma 35 1.2. Can throw the FE 35 f2.8 in there for fun too!
_DSC1935_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Edited on Nov 19, 2019 at 11:26 AM · View previous versions
FE 35 1.8 is legitimately compact, and the difference in shooting and carrying experience vs the 24GM is noticeable.
Here's a size comparison I did between the Loxia 21 (about the same size as the FE 35), 24GM, and FE 35 1.4.
In a few days, I can do a size comparison between the FE 35 1.8, 24GM, and Sigma 35 1.2. Can throw the FE 35 f2.8 in there for fun too!
_DSC1935_1 by Carlo Alcala, on FlickrEdited on Nov 19, 2019 at 11:26 AM · View previous versions
Nov 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM
p.3 #4Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I have both lenses and would basically agree with Fred's testing. I don't have the A7rIV (I have to rIII's) but if I did then I could probably live with just the 24GM in crop mode but as is I need the FE35 to give me 42mp on the RIII. The 35 is also smaller and lighter and great for Street work
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:08 AM
p.3 #5Rendering 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 →
I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and the Sony 50 f/1.4 as it can really match those lenses in rendering at shared apertures and it gives you a nice small lens. So, with this trio if you need the fast aperture you are going to have to use the big lenses, but if you don't you can take the small little lens and still have beautiful rendering. This approach definitely prioritizes subjective rendering over sharpness and AF capability, but that approach is consistent with my personal priorities. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Zony 55 f/1.8 are definitely sharp and focus fast but for my tastes they both have too much axial CA and too many problems with the bokeh. I see why people like them for their size, sharpness, and quick AF, but neither lens is for me.
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 →
I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and the Sony 50 f/1.4 as it can really match those lenses in rendering at shared apertures and it gives you a nice small lens. So, with this trio if you need the fast aperture you are going to have to use the big lenses, but if you don't you can take the small little lens and still have beautiful rendering. This approach definitely prioritizes subjective rendering over sharpness and AF capability, but that approach is consistent with my personal priorities. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Zony 55 f/1.8 are definitely sharp and focus fast but for my tastes they both have too much axial CA and too many problems with the bokeh. I see why people like them for their size, sharpness, and quick AF, but neither lens is for me.
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:31 AM
p.3 #6Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Steve Spencer 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 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.I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma...Show more →
I find the Sigma 45/2.8's rendering outstanding. It's the closest to the Sonnar 35/2 while being a 45mm lens.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does not work well with AF-C (phase-detect) but it's accurate in AF-S (contrast-detect). It's the only lens I use in AF-S mode only.
Fred Miranda wrote
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 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.
I find the Sigma 45/2.8's rendering outstanding. It's the closest to the Sonnar 35/2 while being a 45mm lens.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does not work well with AF-C (phase-detect) but it's accurate in AF-S (contrast-detect). It's the only lens I use in AF-S mode only.
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:45 AM
p.3 #7Rendering 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 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.I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and the Sony 50 f/1.4 as it can really match those lenses in rendering at shared apertures and it gives you a nice small lens. So, with this trio if you need the fast aperture you are going to have to use the big lenses, but if you don't you can take the small little lens and still have beautiful rendering. This approach definitely prioritizes subjective rendering over sharpness and AF capability, but that approach is consistent with my personal priorities. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Zony 55 f/1.8 are definitely sharp and focus fast but for my tastes they both have too much axial CA and too many problems with the bokeh. I see why people like them for their size, sharpness, and quick AF, but neither lens is for me.I find the Sigma 45/2.8's rendering outstanding. It's the closest to the Sonnar 35/2 while being a 45mm lens.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does...Show more →
Agreed about the Sigma but one other downside is its optical performance at/near MFD.
Steve Spencer wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
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 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.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does...Show more →
Agreed about the Sigma but one other downside is its optical performance at/near MFD.
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM
p.3 #8Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
snapsy 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 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.I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and the Sony 50 f/1.4 as it can really match those lenses in rendering at shared apertures and it gives you a nice small lens. So, with this trio if you need the fast aperture you are going to have to use the big lenses, but if you don't you can take the small little lens and still have beautiful rendering. This approach definitely prioritizes subjective rendering over sharpness and AF capability, but that approach is consistent with my personal priorities. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Zony 55 f/1.8 are definitely sharp and focus fast but for my tastes they both have too much axial CA and too many problems with the bokeh. I see why people like them for their size, sharpness, and quick AF, but neither lens is for me.I find the Sigma 45/2.8's rendering outstanding. It's the closest to the Sonnar 35/2 while being a 45mm lens.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does not work well with AF-C (phase-detect) but it's accurate in AF-S (contrast-detect). It's the only lens I use in AF-S mode only.Agreed about the Sigma but one other downside is its optical performance at/near MFD.
Definitely true, but a close up lens can really help with that issue.
Fred Miranda wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
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 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.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does not work well with AF-C (phase-detect) but it's accurate in AF-S (contrast-detect). It's the only lens I use in AF-S mode only.
Definitely true, but a close up lens can really help with that issue.
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:55 AM
p.3 #9Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
snapsy 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 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.I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and the Sony 50 f/1.4 as it can really match those lenses in rendering at shared apertures and it gives you a nice small lens. So, with this trio if you need the fast aperture you are going to have to use the big lenses, but if you don't you can take the small little lens and still have beautiful rendering. This approach definitely prioritizes subjective rendering over sharpness and AF capability, but that approach is consistent with my personal priorities. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Zony 55 f/1.8 are definitely sharp and focus fast but for my tastes they both have too much axial CA and too many problems with the bokeh. I see why people like them for their size, sharpness, and quick AF, but neither lens is for me.I find the Sigma 45/2.8's rendering outstanding. It's the closest to the Sonnar 35/2 while being a 45mm lens.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does not work well with AF-C (phase-detect) but it's accurate in AF-S (contrast-detect). It's the only lens I use in AF-S mode only.Agreed about the Sigma but one other downside is its optical performance at/near MFD.
Yes, same as CV 40/1.2 due to SA. An achromat close-up lens fixes it tricking the lens into thinking it's at infinity but many find it a cumbersome approach.
Here are some samples at MDF with an achromat:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608234/23#14988872
Fred Miranda wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
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 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.
It's only f/2.8 but the amount of "blur" is similar to the Sonnar as well.
The Sonnar 35/2's AOV is wider than 35mm. I'd say it's 32/33mm.
32 x 1.4 = 45mm
f/2 x 1.4 = 2.8
So, RX1R's Sonnar 35/2 and Sigma 45/2.8 have similar amount of blur and imo the best rendering out there. The Sigma CA correction is also excellent. (Sonnar not so much)
The only downside o the Sigma 45/2.8 is that the spherical aberration (which contributes to the smooth rendering) does not work well with AF-C (phase-detect) but it's accurate in AF-S (contrast-detect). It's the only lens I use in AF-S mode only.
Yes, same as CV 40/1.2 due to SA. An achromat close-up lens fixes it tricking the lens into thinking it's at infinity but many find it a cumbersome approach.
Here are some samples at MDF with an achromat:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608234/23#14988872
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:57 AM
p.3 #10Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Thanks!!!!
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 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.I found a few tests and comparisons. (FE 35/1.8 vs other lenses)
Extreme corner at f/1.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37?nc=1#14967301
Compared to Loxia 35/2 at f/7.1 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14989961
Compared to Sigma 45/2.8 at f/5.6 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37#14967331
Size compared to Sigma 45/2.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967389
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967587
Rendering compared to Loxia 35/2:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/45#14975518
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14977071
Fred Miranda wrote:
hanay78 wrote
after reading your post and that of @swldstn@@ i started to wander how would be a hand to hand comparison Fe vs Lox. I tried to look to hand to hand photographs. I comparison like the one you have carried out here. I did not found any. any opinion in how would be the results? this could be interesting as the lox have the reputation of being the slowest horse in Zeiss stables...Fred Miranda wrote
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 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.
Extreme corner at f/1.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37?nc=1#14967301
Compared to Loxia 35/2 at f/7.1 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14989961
Compared to Sigma 45/2.8 at f/5.6 (Infinity)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/37#14967331
Size compared to Sigma 45/2.8:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967389
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/38#14967587
Rendering compared to Loxia 35/2:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/45#14975518
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14977071
Nov 19, 2019 at 12:03 PM
p.3 #11Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
so, lox 35 is even smaller, right?
Mystik wrote:
My "issue" with using the 24GM as a casual 35 is the size. Youre using it to fill a 35 1.8 need, but are contending with the size of a 24 f1.4...It isn't massive like the Sigma and its small for a f1.4 wide angle, but I dont consider it to be compact when you have lenses like the FE5, loxia, and cv lenses as a point of reference
FE 35 1.8 is legitimately compact, and the difference in shooting and carrying experience vs the 24GM is noticeable.
Here's a size comparison I did between the Loxia 21 (about the same size...Show more →
Mystik wrote:
My "issue" with using the 24GM as a casual 35 is the size. Youre using it to fill a 35 1.8 need, but are contending with the size of a 24 f1.4...It isn't massive like the Sigma and its small for a f1.4 wide angle, but I dont consider it to be compact when you have lenses like the FE5, loxia, and cv lenses as a point of reference
FE 35 1.8 is legitimately compact, and the difference in shooting and carrying experience vs the 24GM is noticeable.
Here's a size comparison I did between the Loxia 21 (about the same size...Show more →
Nov 19, 2019 at 12:05 PM
p.3 #12Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
The problem with a 45mm lens is we are quickly gravitating away from the 35mm FOV. I would personally find 45mm to narrow for the majority of my shooting.
Nov 19, 2019 at 12:08 PM
p.3 #13Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
If the Sigma 35/1.2 was similar in size/weight to the 50/1.4 ZA, it would not discourage many of us from getting it. If I remember correctly it’s almost 350g heavier and much bigger. When I had both, I really appreciated how compact the 50/1.4 was. 
Having said that, it’s a dream lens for wedding/portrait/fashion photographers.
Steve Spencer 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 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.I really think what we have with Sony E mount right now is a 35mm (the Sigma f/1.2 Art) and a 50mm (the Zony 50 f/1.4) that are very big but are plenty sharp and render beautifully and have fairly fast but not super fast AF (the GM 85 f/1.4 is another of these lenses). They are wonderfully lenses, IMO, but what do you do if you don't like the size (as many here don't). To me the lens that I like best is the Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. I think it is a great complement to the Sigma...Show more →
Having said that, it’s a dream lens for wedding/portrait/fashion photographers.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
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 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 19, 2019 at 12:17 PM
p.3 #14Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Thanks Fred.
For my needs of a lightweight sharp and fast 35, FE35 is a dream come true. It has just sorted everything about my kit. Having said that i will buy a 35 GM in an instant if it was max 24 GM size. As for 24 GM i sold it because i hardly ever use that focal length now.
For my needs of a lightweight sharp and fast 35, FE35 is a dream come true. It has just sorted everything about my kit. Having said that i will buy a 35 GM in an instant if it was max 24 GM size. As for 24 GM i sold it because i hardly ever use that focal length now.
Nov 19, 2019 at 12:53 PM
p.3 #15Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
chez wrote:
The problem with a 45mm lens is we are quickly gravitating away from the 35mm FOV. I would personally find 45mm to narrow for the majority of my shooting.
Interesting comments on the 35mm FL:
https://alphauniverse.com/stories/is-this-new-sleeper-the-perfect-prime-lens-for-travel-and-photojournalism/
The problem with a 45mm lens is we are quickly gravitating away from the 35mm FOV. I would personally find 45mm to narrow for the majority of my shooting.
Interesting comments on the 35mm FL:
https://alphauniverse.com/stories/is-this-new-sleeper-the-perfect-prime-lens-for-travel-and-photojournalism/
Nov 19, 2019 at 12:55 PM
p.3 #16Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
abadger wrote:
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.
Yes, that's due to the crop. The FE 24/1.4 GM in APS-C crop mode not only loses resolution (from 60MP to 26MP) but also loses about 1 stop of DR which impacts SNR. That's the grain you see.
It's relevant to point out that the FE 24/1.4 in crop mode focuses much better in low light compared to the FE 35/1.8 where I experience more hunting, especially in AF-C mode.
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.
Yes, that's due to the crop. The FE 24/1.4 GM in APS-C crop mode not only loses resolution (from 60MP to 26MP) but also loses about 1 stop of DR which impacts SNR. That's the grain you see.
It's relevant to point out that the FE 24/1.4 in crop mode focuses much better in low light compared to the FE 35/1.8 where I experience more hunting, especially in AF-C mode.
Nov 19, 2019 at 01:01 PM
p.3 #17Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
I enjoyed reading this Fred because these images -- while not directly related -- has helped me with my recent GAS for the GM 24mm 1.4. I have the Sigma 35mm F1.4 in hand but there is something special I'm seeing and hearing about the 24mm. Seeing this lens in crop mode helps but like someone else said, perhaps seeing the GM 24 vs the Sigma 35 1.2 or 1.4 might be interesting as well.
Nov 19, 2019 at 01:09 PM
p.3 #18Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 24/1.4 GM in APS-C crop mode not only loses resolution (from 60MP to 26MP) but also loses about 1 stop of DR which impacts SNR.
But it gains in eliminating the area outside the APS-C crop, where lenses usually don't perform at their best.
24mm:
https://www.sony.ca/image/a538e609f70b4ac37c3804120fd6b427?fmt=jpeg&wid=800&qlt=85
35mm:
https://www.sony.ca/image/50d2a998e45e87924c8f39ae4e8f4079?fmt=jpeg&wid=800&qlt=85
Beyond sharpness, there's also stuff like bokeh balls - e.g. cat eyes at FF corner tend to be more pronounced than at APS corner. Plus other stuff like astigmatism etc. Except sheer sharpness and noise, the cropped lens is at advantage.
The FE 24/1.4 GM in APS-C crop mode not only loses resolution (from 60MP to 26MP) but also loses about 1 stop of DR which impacts SNR.
But it gains in eliminating the area outside the APS-C crop, where lenses usually don't perform at their best.
24mm:
https://www.sony.ca/image/a538e609f70b4ac37c3804120fd6b427?fmt=jpeg&wid=800&qlt=85
35mm:
https://www.sony.ca/image/50d2a998e45e87924c8f39ae4e8f4079?fmt=jpeg&wid=800&qlt=85
Beyond sharpness, there's also stuff like bokeh balls - e.g. cat eyes at FF corner tend to be more pronounced than at APS corner. Plus other stuff like astigmatism etc. Except sheer sharpness and noise, the cropped lens is at advantage.
Nov 19, 2019 at 01:39 PM
p.3 #19Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
hanay78 wrote:
so, lox 35 is even smaller, right?
FE 35 1.8 is legitimately compact, and the difference in shooting and carrying experience vs the 24GM is noticeable.
Here's a size comparison I did between the Loxia 21 (about the same size as the FE 35), 24GM, and FE 35 1.4.
In a few days, I can do a size comparison between the FE 35 1.8, 24GM, and Sigma 35 1.2. Can throw the FE 35 f2.8 in there for fun too!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48620870312_a187ad3e07_h.jpg_DSC1935_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Here is a quick side by side comparison:
FE 24/1.4 GM >> FE 35/1.8 >> Loxia 35/2 >> CV 40/1.2 >> Sigma 45/2.8
so, lox 35 is even smaller, right?
Mystik wrote
My "issue" with using the 24GM as a casual 35 is the size. Youre using it to fill a 35 1.8 need, but are contending with the size of a 24 f1.4...It isn't massive like the Sigma and its small for a f1.4 wide angle, but I dont consider it to be compact when you have lenses like the FE5, loxia, and cv lenses as a point of referenceFE 35 1.8 is legitimately compact, and the difference in shooting and carrying experience vs the 24GM is noticeable.
Here's a size comparison I did between the Loxia 21 (about the same size as the FE 35), 24GM, and FE 35 1.4.
In a few days, I can do a size comparison between the FE 35 1.8, 24GM, and Sigma 35 1.2. Can throw the FE 35 f2.8 in there for fun too!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48620870312_a187ad3e07_h.jpg_DSC1935_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Here is a quick side by side comparison:
 |
||
 |
||
|
FE 24/1.4 GM >> FE 35/1.8 >> Loxia 35/2 >> CV 40/1.2 >> Sigma 45/2.8
Nov 19, 2019 at 02:59 PM
p.3 #20Rendering comparison: FE 24/1.4 GM (crop mode) vs FE 35/1.8
The Loxia is cute.
Nov 19, 2019 at 03:04 PM