Chris_88 wrote:
I remember the Sony 35 2.8 being sharp, but I didn't remember it being that impressive across the frame, Fred.
This copy competes well even with the Sigma 35/1.2 starting at f/5.6. If you want I can post some crops. The issue with the Sony 35/2.8 ZA is that it varies too much from copy to copy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is off-topic but just for those curious.
FE 35/2.8 ZA vs Sigma 35/1.2 Art (both at f/5.6)
The Sigma does better but the Sony put up a good fight. Keep in mind lighting is different since these images were captures on different days.
Wow!
To my eye, at f/5.6, the 35/2.8 is clearly sharper and more contrasty in the center and mid-zone. The Sigma 35/1.2 is sharper in the extreme corners, but just barely.
I have a hole in my MF lineup at 35mm. I was going to fill that hole with the Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE. After seeing these comparisons, and with fond memories of my own experiences with the ZA, I’m going to get the 35/2.8 ZA and pretend that it’s MF. It will keep up with the Voigtlander MF lenses in my MF kit for shooting landscapes, and it will double as a fantastic travel/horseback/hiking/street AF lens. I’ll keep my CV 40/1.2 as a “character” lens.
To my eye, at f/5.6, the 35/2.8 is clearly sharper and more contrasty in the center and mid-zone. The Sigma 35/1.2 is sharper in the extreme corners, but just barely.
I have a hole in my MF lineup at 35mm. I was going to fill that hole with the Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE. After seeing these comparisons, and with fond memories of my own experiences with the ZA, I’m going to get the 35/2.8 ZA and pretend that it’s MF. It will keep up with the Voigtlander MF lenses in my MF kit for shooting landscapes, and it will double as a fantastic travel/horseback/hiking/street AF lens. I’ll keep my CV 40/1.2 as a “character” lens. ...Show more →
The Sigma is the best 35mm lens we have but which one would you take on a hike?
Will the Sigma provide much more resolution at smaller apertures? I will continue bringing my 35/2.8 ZA for landscapes until we have a 35/2 APO.
The 35 2.8 is a brilliant lens, I regret selling my copy to KEH when I bought an RX1. I thought it didn’t make much sense having both, but now having an a7r4 instead of an a7r I really see the value of how much a body can impact a lens. The RX1 is nice but the AF-C is useless
trogdon wrote:
The 35 2.8 is a brilliant lens, I regret selling my copy to KEH when I bought an RX1. I thought it didn’t make much sense having both, but now having an a7r4 instead of an a7r I really see the value of how much a body can impact a lens. The RX1 is nice but the AF-C is useless
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sigma is the best 35mm lens we have but which one would you take on a hike?
Will the Sigma provide much more resolution at smaller apertures? I will continue bringing my 35/2.8 ZA for landscapes until we have a 35/2 APO.
Me too!
I’m usually very proud of never buying lenses back. I sell only when I’m sure I don’t want the lens in the long run.
So until recently, apart from some nostalgic repurchases of film era lenses I haven’t had for thirty years, I’ve never repurchased something I’ve sold.
But there’s an exception. I did repurchase the ZA 2,8/35 recently for multi-day hiking!
Whatever you think of it, the Sigma 35/1.2 is an urban use lens. Hundreds of images in the dedicated image thread show this clearly. People (sensibly) use it for kids, fashion, cars, extreme bokeh. Average distance from the lounge room or car is about 100 metres.
Marc Alhadeff gave an 'outstanding' (#1 rank) to the Tamron 35/2.8 but only a 'good' to the Sony 35/2.8 (#4). For what it's worth, maybe not so much for assessing landscape image quality, people really liked the little Sony 35/2.8 on release.
You have mentioned using the 24 GM on a r7IV in crop mode. Not that I relish 28mp images its plenty.
I am seriously thinking about selling my 35 SE now and just using my 35 ZA, 16-35 GM or 24 GM instead.
I am for getting rid of as many lenses as I can since I own 19 if it does not impact my ability to do things and 35mm is not a FL I have taken seriously.
Here are two quickies not very good samples but you get the point of a 24 at 1.4 then APS-C mode so 35mm which is still says 1.4 but I realize DOF is different than a true 35mm but I am not where that matters?
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sigma is the best 35mm lens we have but which one would you take on a hike?
Will the Sigma provide much more resolution at smaller apertures? I will continue bringing my 35/2.8 ZA for landscapes until we have a 35/2 APO.
I do not know the protocol or if is ok acceptable or not to mention this in the regular forum but I just put mine in the FS board on FM. If it is not let me know and I will delete this post.
trstahly wrote:
You have mentioned using the 24 GM on a r7IV in crop mode. Not that I relish 28mp images its plenty.
I am seriously thinking about selling my 35 SE now and just using my 35 ZA, 16-35 GM or 24 GM instead.
I am for getting rid of as many lenses as I can since I own 19 if it does not impact my ability to do things and 35mm is not a FL I have taken seriously.
Here are two quickies not very good samples but you get the point of a 24 at 1.4 then APS-C mode so 35mm which is still says 1.4 but I realize DOF is different than a true 35mm but I am not where that matters? ...Show more →
I think the 24/1.4GM in crop mode is outstanding. On the A7R4, it's like having both fast 24mm and 35mm lenses with very pleasant rendering in one. Using the crop mode increases noise and reduces resolution but Sony sensors are so good that the penalty is not very noticeable. The high sharpness and nice rendering from the 24/1.4GM is still there at 35mm in crop.
However, the 35/2.8ZA is unique in other ways being high IQ and super compact. I've tried the Tamron 35/2.8 a few times and although my copies were not optimal, I could see how good this lens performs at infinity. I'd say corners are even stronger compared to my Sony ZA. I decided to stick with the Sony mostly because of the size differences and faster AF. I'd say IQ was great for both lenses.
letchhausen wrote:
I would be interested to hear about focus shift and focusing issues. Those sorts of things I read which kept me from buying the 40mm. But yes, a comparison between the 35 and 40 in that regard. I have the 65mm Apo Lanther and am looking at the 110mm for telephoto and would like some thing wider.
Doesn't occur with manual aperture lenses. Only with auto-aperture.
trstahly wrote:
You have mentioned using the 24 GM on a r7IV in crop mode. Not that I relish 28mp images its plenty.
I am seriously thinking about selling my 35 SE now and just using my 35 ZA, 16-35 GM or 24 GM instead.
I am for getting rid of as many lenses as I can since I own 19 if it does not impact my ability to do things and 35mm is not a FL I have taken seriously.
Here are two quickies not very good samples but you get the point of a 24 at 1.4 then APS-C mode so 35mm which is still says 1.4 but I realize DOF is different than a true 35mm but I am not where that matters? ...Show more →
That's the conclusion I came to as well. I was convinced I could keep a 2-3 lens setup this time around with sony, next time I know I wake up and there's 9 on my shelf lol
I sold off a few again, and I think the 24 GM is the best option atm for versatility (including AF) when coupled with the R4 like mentioned.
I think the major difference between choosing Tamron or the ZA for your 2.8 compact is the AF-C performance vs absolute IQ. If you do landscape or still stuff, Tamron better. If people, moving life involved, the small hit in IQ is worth the AF, speed, and better one-handed performance lol
Testing the Sammy 35 1.4 now, but I think the SE 1.2 even WO was better overall (especially rendering) minus AF. I'll probably try the Tamron SP, then realize I'll just go back to the 35 2.8 ZA for the form factor/balance. I've been trying to convince myself just to use the Tamron 28-200 as my AF coverage slower option, and while it's pretty compact, it's no pancake.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the 24/1.4GM in crop mode is outstanding. On the A7R4, it's like having both fast 24mm and 35mm lenses with very pleasant rendering in one. Using the crop mode increases noise and reduces resolution but Sony sensors are so good that the penalty is not very noticeable. The high sharpness and nice rendering from the 24/1.4GM is still there at 35mm in crop.
However, the 35/2.8ZA is unique in other ways being high IQ and super compact. I've tried the Tamron 35/2.8 a few times and although my copies were not optimal, I could see how good this lens performs at infinity. I'd say corners are even stronger compared to my Sony ZA. I decided to stick with the Sony mostly because of the size differences and faster AF. I'd say IQ was great for both lenses. ...Show more →
Fred, I recently decided to order/try a Samyang FE 35mm f2.8 (I’ve previously owned two Zony 35/2.8 lenses), I bought it expecting to send it back after disappointment, but I was so impressed with it I kept it. Their firmware updates (latest v0.5) has fixed a lot of the reported issues, I can’t fault it.
jaybr wrote:
Fred, I recently decided to order/try a Samyang FE 35mm f2.8 (I’ve previously owned two Zony 35/2.8 lenses), I bought it expecting to send it back after disappointment, but I was so impressed with it I kept it. Their firmware updates (latest v0.5) has fixed a lot of the reported issues, I can’t fault it.
Have you tested one recently?
J
I’ve tried two of the Samyang 2.8/35s. It’s even lighter than the Zony, amazingly. But one had much a softer right side, and the other was diagonally tilted. I decided I don’t have ether time and energy to play the Samyang lottery any more. It’s a pity. The good areas were good, though with a bit less contrast than ZA, and an good one would be a very light hiking lens.
DavidBM wrote:
I’ve tried two of the Samyang 2.8/35s. It’s even lighter than the Zonty, amazingly. But one had much a softer right side, and the other was diagonally tilted. I decided I don’t hav ether time and energy to play the Samyang lottery any more. It’s a pity. The good areas were good, though with a bit less contrast than ZA, and an even one would be a very light hiking lens.
Lol, I’ve played that lottery with all brands (also recently with the Tamron 28-200mm, the third was a keeper).
I definitely got lucky with the Samyang, I certainly wasn’t expecting a good copy 😉
J
I agree with RVH23, that you really need to look at the Tamron 35mm f2.8 if you are looking for a landscape 35mm. While not as small as the Samyang or the Sony 2.8, it is very light and from my memory much better than the Sony f2.8 which I haven't owned for years.
I would love to see the Tamron tested against the favorites in this 35mm class.
Chris_88 wrote:
Thanks for updating this review, Fred. My SE arrived the other day. Work, corona, the rainy season have prevented me from using this on any photo shooting trips, but my initial infinity tests came back with results similar to yours: For my copy too across the frame sharpness get optimal by f5.6. I don't have my Loxia with me anymore, but I think this performance is clearly better than my Loxia's, which needed f8 or f9 for the corners to sharpen up.
Not only the 35/1.2 SE performs better at infinity, its rendering is also much smoother than the Loxia's.
