This topic is in the 2020 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2020Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
p.7 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
ftllens wrote:
I liked the 35 SE a lot but looking for something sharper at closer distance, otherwise it's pretty much perfect.
Cameraquest has two for mint:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtlander-used/
I like mine and put my excellent Distagon on Ebay.
35mm is not a FL I shoot a lot but if they ever make a 35 GM I am sure I will get one but the size of the 35 SE is awfully attractive and it is sharp and renders. Not wild about MF but on wide angle its not that big a deal and its pretty quick to snap it to sharp focus and shoot.
I liked the 35 SE a lot but looking for something sharper at closer distance, otherwise it's pretty much perfect.
Cameraquest has two for mint:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtlander-used/
I like mine and put my excellent Distagon on Ebay.
35mm is not a FL I shoot a lot but if they ever make a 35 GM I am sure I will get one but the size of the 35 SE is awfully attractive and it is sharp and renders. Not wild about MF but on wide angle its not that big a deal and its pretty quick to snap it to sharp focus and shoot.
Jul 21, 2020 at 07:13 PM
p.7 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of...Show more →
Here is an example of the bokeh/transition zone of the FE35/1.8. Focus is on the lone star fruit. Then look at the branch to the far left of it at mid distance. Bokeh is busy. Then look at the star fruit cluster in the background, not much further back. Not too busy, actually quite nice. So when using the lens, one must be aware of where the bokeh is imperfect.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
Okinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
Thonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
Or making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
On the Prowl by Adam Klann, on Flickr
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of...Show more →
Here is an example of the bokeh/transition zone of the FE35/1.8. Focus is on the lone star fruit. Then look at the branch to the far left of it at mid distance. Bokeh is busy. Then look at the star fruit cluster in the background, not much further back. Not too busy, actually quite nice. So when using the lens, one must be aware of where the bokeh is imperfect.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
Okinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on FlickrI find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
Thonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on FlickrOr making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
On the Prowl by Adam Klann, on FlickrJul 21, 2020 at 08:22 PM
p.7 #3Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
Sigma is great but its a studio lens.
Many of these are 2.8.
I was talking about a F2 minimum or ideally F1.4 lens like 24 GM. Sony FE is there yes but it’s not really a great lens rendering wise. Sigma 45/2.8 look in a F2 or F1.4 lens. In any case, where is the ultimate 35 from Sony?
Sony has a single 2.8. The rest are 1.2, 1.4, & 1.8. The FE 35 1.8 is top notch.
What exactly are you looking for in a 35?
Sigma is great but its a studio lens.
Many of these are 2.8.
I was talking about a F2 minimum or ideally F1.4 lens like 24 GM. Sony FE is there yes but it’s not really a great lens rendering wise. Sigma 45/2.8 look in a F2 or F1.4 lens. In any case, where is the ultimate 35 from Sony?
Sony has a single 2.8. The rest are 1.2, 1.4, & 1.8. The FE 35 1.8 is top notch.
What exactly are you looking for in a 35?
Jul 21, 2020 at 08:59 PM
p.7 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I am very familiar with the Sony 35 1.8. It’s an extremely sharp lens that has great MFD and is fast auto focus and other good properties. I have also seen samples where the bokeh can look bad and it has Nissen Bokeh at times. Or just a lot harsher than I would like too at times. Phillip Reeve also mentions it in his review.
I remember on Chad Wadsworth’s site he had a biased review because he’s a Sony ambassador, and when he posted the same photo taken with the RX1 and the FE 35 I did not even have to blow it up looking on my iPhone to know which photo was taken by what lens.
I’m not saying the FE 35 is not a good lens, or that it can’t take quality photos—it absolutely can and does. I just don’t think it’s a top-tier lens, and it’s not really priced to be.
I remember on Chad Wadsworth’s site he had a biased review because he’s a Sony ambassador, and when he posted the same photo taken with the RX1 and the FE 35 I did not even have to blow it up looking on my iPhone to know which photo was taken by what lens.
I’m not saying the FE 35 is not a good lens, or that it can’t take quality photos—it absolutely can and does. I just don’t think it’s a top-tier lens, and it’s not really priced to be.
Jul 21, 2020 at 09:28 PM
p.7 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
abadger wrote:
nehemiahphoto wrote
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that...Show more →
The first and last shot are so, so busy for me. Shame as I'd like to own the lens.
Jul 22, 2020 at 04:57 AM
p.7 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Bob_S wrote:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.Here is an example of the bokeh/transition zone of the FE35/1.8. Focus is on the lone star fruit. Then look at the branch to the far left of it at mid distance. Bokeh is busy. Then look at the star fruit cluster in the background, not much further back. Not too busy, actually quite nice. So when using the lens, one must be aware of where the bokeh is imperfect.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49637347708_40d6977959_b.jpgThonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
Or making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49909304402_35bedae771_b.jpgOn the Prowl by Adam Klann, on FlickrThe first and last shot are so, so busy for me. Shame as I'd like to own the lens.
The last shot is at f4.5. Use a brush with reduced texture an sharpness in LR and background bokeh will look smooth. Super quick and easy fix for the few images not optimal, and you can still profit from the small size of the 35.
It is more important to look at composition, framing, light etc. Who cares about the background if the images are mediocre anyway.
Edited on Jul 22, 2020 at 07:16 AM · View previous versions
abadger wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49637347708_40d6977959_b.jpgThonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
Or making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49909304402_35bedae771_b.jpgOn the Prowl by Adam Klann, on Flickr
The last shot is at f4.5. Use a brush with reduced texture an sharpness in LR and background bokeh will look smooth. Super quick and easy fix for the few images not optimal, and you can still profit from the small size of the 35.
It is more important to look at composition, framing, light etc. Who cares about the background if the images are mediocre anyway.
Edited on Jul 22, 2020 at 07:16 AM · View previous versions
Jul 22, 2020 at 05:28 AM
p.7 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Holger wrote:
Bob_S wrote
abadger wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49637347708_40d6977959_b.jpgThonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
Or making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49909304402_35bedae771_b.jpgOn the Prowl by Adam Klann, on Flickr
It is more important to look at composition, framing, light etc. Who cares about the backgound if the images is mediocre anyway.
With my workflow, processing 2 of every 3 images is out of the question.
Jul 22, 2020 at 05:42 AM
p.7 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Bob_S wrote:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.Here is an example of the bokeh/transition zone of the FE35/1.8. Focus is on the lone star fruit. Then look at the branch to the far left of it at mid distance. Bokeh is busy. Then look at the star fruit cluster in the background, not much further back. Not too busy, actually quite nice. So when using the lens, one must be aware of where the bokeh is imperfect.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49637347708_40d6977959_b.jpgThonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
Or making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49909304402_35bedae771_b.jpgOn the Prowl by Adam Klann, on FlickrThe first and last shot are so, so busy for me. Shame as I'd like to own the lens.
These were intended to be difficult backgrounds on purpose. The point is that you can see a difference in the bokeh between mid distance vs further back and have to work around that with this lens. The nissin bokeh is most apparent at mid distance, but given proper placement of subject to background it usually isn’t distracting. It’s certainly not perfect.
Also Bob, when you’re used to the Sigma, I’m not sure any other lens is going to come close to the IQ at this FL. The FE is going to be the best AF compact choice at this juncture, with flaws. The Sigma for non-compact. And I think the point of this thread is that there is not a happy medium there when there should be. We are all hoping for that at some point. I was just trying to help people see that you can work around some of the flaws if you want the compact lens.
abadger wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that bokeh can be fixed to some degree by placing yourself closer to the subject to increase blur:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49637347708_40d6977959_b.jpgThonglor Streetwalk With FE 35/1.8 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
Or making sure those background items are further behind the subject (this one was stopped down a bit so bokeh not as smooth as it could have been, but still ok):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49909304402_35bedae771_b.jpgOn the Prowl by Adam Klann, on Flickr
These were intended to be difficult backgrounds on purpose. The point is that you can see a difference in the bokeh between mid distance vs further back and have to work around that with this lens. The nissin bokeh is most apparent at mid distance, but given proper placement of subject to background it usually isn’t distracting. It’s certainly not perfect.
Also Bob, when you’re used to the Sigma, I’m not sure any other lens is going to come close to the IQ at this FL. The FE is going to be the best AF compact choice at this juncture, with flaws. The Sigma for non-compact. And I think the point of this thread is that there is not a happy medium there when there should be. We are all hoping for that at some point. I was just trying to help people see that you can work around some of the flaws if you want the compact lens.
Jul 22, 2020 at 05:48 AM
p.7 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
LBJ2 wrote:
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.
I read a lot of other people had the same experience with this lens. Which is why I strongly considered it. I read a lot of reviews of the lens too, that were quite favorable with excellent looking photos from it. I'm not sure why it gets a bad reputation. I ended up going with the Sigma f1.2 because size didn't bother me, and the wide open sharpness is useful to me. My primary use is taking candid pictures of my kids playing around the house, so size isn't an issue.
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.
I read a lot of other people had the same experience with this lens. Which is why I strongly considered it. I read a lot of reviews of the lens too, that were quite favorable with excellent looking photos from it. I'm not sure why it gets a bad reputation. I ended up going with the Sigma f1.2 because size didn't bother me, and the wide open sharpness is useful to me. My primary use is taking candid pictures of my kids playing around the house, so size isn't an issue.
Jul 22, 2020 at 09:34 AM
p.7 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
abadger wrote:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.Here is an example of the bokeh/transition zone of the FE35/1.8. Focus is on the lone star fruit. Then look at the branch to the far left of it at mid distance. Bokeh is busy. Then look at the star fruit cluster in the background, not much further back. Not too busy, actually quite nice. So when using the lens, one must be aware of where the bokeh is imperfect.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that...Show more →
I found that even at mid-distance, rendering was smooth with the 35/1.8 around the center area. The OOF rendering gets busy towards the corners though where the FE 24/1.4 GM does much better.
Rendering comparison between the FE 35/1.8 vs FE 24/1.4 GM in crop mode:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1622548
Rendering comparison to the Zeiss Loxia 35/2:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/45#14975518
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14977071
nehemiahphoto wrote
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
Something GM quality in the styling of the 24 would obviously be preferable, and I hope they release one in the coming years.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49005230202_420a50c7cc_b.jpgOkinawa 2019 by Adam Klann, on Flickr
I find that...Show more →
I found that even at mid-distance, rendering was smooth with the 35/1.8 around the center area. The OOF rendering gets busy towards the corners though where the FE 24/1.4 GM does much better.
Rendering comparison between the FE 35/1.8 vs FE 24/1.4 GM in crop mode:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1622548
Rendering comparison to the Zeiss Loxia 35/2:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/45#14975518
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/47#14977071
Jul 22, 2020 at 10:29 AM
p.7 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Yakkosmurf wrote:
I read a lot of other people had the same experience with this lens. Which is why I strongly considered it. I read a lot of reviews of the lens too, that were quite favorable with excellent looking photos from it. I'm not sure why it gets a bad reputation. I ended up going with the Sigma f1.2 because size didn't bother me, and the wide open sharpness is useful to me. My primary use is taking candid pictures of my kids playing around the house, so size isn't an issue.
This lens has a long sorted history on the forums ( hate to even bring it up again) Seems when first introduced, original copies had a higher than average quality issue and the forums went mad. The fear and panic snowballed into many nervously, haphazardly attempting to test their lens for the first time and rushing to warn others on the forum. As usual the majority that had good copies were quiet about their good copies until somebody did a poll on this forum.
There are some downsides that don't bother me. Onion ring bokeh for example can be pronounced with this lens, but once again how many people choose highlighted Bokeh balls as the subject of their image/composition?
FWIW, I owned one of the original shipments of this lens that I was actually happy with. Not too long ago I dropped that lens OMG scary BTW and Sony replaced with a new lens rather than fix the one I dropped. I was shocked at how much better my new copy is compared to the one I dropped. This lens as I mentioned looks even better with the A7rIV 61MPs IMO.
Anyway, lot to like about the FE Sony/Zeiss 35 1.4 "look"it pops and nice color IMO, just avoid very highlighted Bokeh balls with this lens or be prepared to rub out the too highlighted bokeh balls in post which is something I typically do with any lens regardless. IMO very highlighted bokeh balls even smooth can be very distracting.
For me I really like the FE 35 F1.4 and FE 50 1.4 for my event kit. Both images below are the FE 35 1.4 @ 1.4.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/90/1972390.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/75/1972375.jpg
LBJ2 wrote
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.This lens has a long sorted history on the forums ( hate to even bring it up again) Seems when first introduced, original copies had a higher than average quality issue and the forums went mad. The fear and panic snowballed into many nervously, haphazardly attempting to test their lens for the first time and rushing to warn others on the forum. As usual the majority that had good copies were quiet about their good copies until somebody did a poll on this forum.
There are some downsides that don't bother me. Onion ring bokeh for example can be pronounced with this lens, but once again how many people choose highlighted Bokeh balls as the subject of their image/composition?
FWIW, I owned one of the original shipments of this lens that I was actually happy with. Not too long ago I dropped that lens OMG scary BTW and Sony replaced with a new lens rather than fix the one I dropped. I was shocked at how much better my new copy is compared to the one I dropped. This lens as I mentioned looks even better with the A7rIV 61MPs IMO.
Anyway, lot to like about the FE Sony/Zeiss 35 1.4 "look"it pops and nice color IMO, just avoid very highlighted Bokeh balls with this lens or be prepared to rub out the too highlighted bokeh balls in post which is something I typically do with any lens regardless. IMO very highlighted bokeh balls even smooth can be very distracting.
For me I really like the FE 35 F1.4 and FE 50 1.4 for my event kit. Both images below are the FE 35 1.4 @ 1.4.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/90/1972390.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/75/1972375.jpg
Jul 22, 2020 at 10:36 AM
p.7 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
FWIW, Lensrentals' inventory showed that the 35 1.4 ZA was a worse design on average in terms of resolution than the OG 35 ART lens. Curiously, while a very well built lens if any of the internal seals failed it had no rear gasket.
For end all, be all of 35s, the Sigma ART II is certainly a strong contender with the only weakness being distortion—and for some (myself included), the weight. If Sony comes out with a 35 1.2 @ under ~750g and dual linear motors/linear MF response aaaaaaaaand perhaps an even shorter mfd/better reproduction ratio and comparable optics, I think a lot of people would consider it over the Sigma even at a higher cost. That would be a lot of boxes to check, but I think the closer in weight the Sony gets to the Sigma the less likely people are going to be to pay what will probably be a hefty premium for a lens with similar output.
For end all, be all of 35s, the Sigma ART II is certainly a strong contender with the only weakness being distortion—and for some (myself included), the weight. If Sony comes out with a 35 1.2 @ under ~750g and dual linear motors/linear MF response aaaaaaaaand perhaps an even shorter mfd/better reproduction ratio and comparable optics, I think a lot of people would consider it over the Sigma even at a higher cost. That would be a lot of boxes to check, but I think the closer in weight the Sony gets to the Sigma the less likely people are going to be to pay what will probably be a hefty premium for a lens with similar output.
Jul 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM
p.7 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
LBJ2 wrote:
Yakkosmurf wrote
LBJ2 wrote
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.There are some downsides that don't bother me. Onion ring bokeh for example can be pronounced...Show more →
Is that first image processed with some kind of clarity or sharpening?
It's so crunchy imo.
This is the issue with sample images, the processing changes the rendering, sometimes significantly.
The sooc rendering of the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is so, so much smoother than most of the other options. Yes it's bigger, but it draws silky, always.
The 24GM too, much nicer.
Even the 2/28 FE, very nice.
Jul 23, 2020 at 04:48 AM
p.7 #14Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
My take is that too many people haven't yet spent sufficient time to figure out how to use the 35mm FL to great effect, and subsequently declared 35mm lenses un-awesome.
A visit to the flickr groups would reveal the possibility of absolutely AWESOME photos taken with any of the Sony 35mm lenses, plus a plethora of third party ones.
Of course you'll need some patience with your quest, since the good ones are drowned in a flood of un-awesome casual, "documentary" snapshots - a genre that 35mm tends to serve well too.
A visit to the flickr groups would reveal the possibility of absolutely AWESOME photos taken with any of the Sony 35mm lenses, plus a plethora of third party ones.
Of course you'll need some patience with your quest, since the good ones are drowned in a flood of un-awesome casual, "documentary" snapshots - a genre that 35mm tends to serve well too.
Jul 23, 2020 at 05:55 AM
p.7 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
LBJ2 wrote:
This lens has a long sorted history on the forums ( hate to even bring it up again) Seems when first introduced, original copies had a higher than average quality issue and the forums went mad. The fear and panic snowballed into many nervously, haphazardly attempting to test their lens for the first time and rushing to warn others on the forum. As usual the majority that had good copies were quiet about their good copies until somebody did a poll on this forum.
There was (is?) legitimately a significant problem with copy variance for this lens, as confirmed by LensRentals' testing. Guy found variability as well and I think we can agree that Guy knows how to test lenses. If it was largely a question of improper testing by people in forums, then you'd expect to see a similar volume of complaints with a lot of other lenses, which isn't the case.
I also wouldn't necessarily assume that it's been fixed with newer lenses. I tested five with manufacturing dates ranging from, I believe, 2015-2017, and the newest one I'd tested was a poor copy (and four of those copies were substantially worse than the best of those copies).
And I think there are people who have bad copies and don't realize it. You just said that your second copy was a lot better than your first -- doesn't that imply that you had a bad copy initially? I see a lot of people saying that this lens has nice rendering but poor sharpness, or at least poor sharpness off-center. And I would disagree -- I snagged a stellar copy from Fred, and on a stellar copy, the sharpness is actually quite good. Not quite 50/1.4 or Sigma 35/1.2 level, but good.
The CA and onion ring bokeh are still there, even on a stellar copy. But otherwise, now that I have a good one, I do think it's a great lens. So personally I feel like my needs for a 35 are met with the 35/1.4 and Loxia 35, for now.
This lens has a long sorted history on the forums ( hate to even bring it up again) Seems when first introduced, original copies had a higher than average quality issue and the forums went mad. The fear and panic snowballed into many nervously, haphazardly attempting to test their lens for the first time and rushing to warn others on the forum. As usual the majority that had good copies were quiet about their good copies until somebody did a poll on this forum.
There was (is?) legitimately a significant problem with copy variance for this lens, as confirmed by LensRentals' testing. Guy found variability as well and I think we can agree that Guy knows how to test lenses. If it was largely a question of improper testing by people in forums, then you'd expect to see a similar volume of complaints with a lot of other lenses, which isn't the case.
I also wouldn't necessarily assume that it's been fixed with newer lenses. I tested five with manufacturing dates ranging from, I believe, 2015-2017, and the newest one I'd tested was a poor copy (and four of those copies were substantially worse than the best of those copies).
And I think there are people who have bad copies and don't realize it. You just said that your second copy was a lot better than your first -- doesn't that imply that you had a bad copy initially? I see a lot of people saying that this lens has nice rendering but poor sharpness, or at least poor sharpness off-center. And I would disagree -- I snagged a stellar copy from Fred, and on a stellar copy, the sharpness is actually quite good. Not quite 50/1.4 or Sigma 35/1.2 level, but good.
The CA and onion ring bokeh are still there, even on a stellar copy. But otherwise, now that I have a good one, I do think it's a great lens. So personally I feel like my needs for a 35 are met with the 35/1.4 and Loxia 35, for now.
Jul 23, 2020 at 06:47 AM
p.7 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I think there are a lot of good 35mm lenses, but I still see a need.
I am looking for a lens in the 35-40mm range for travel that is as small and light as possible, perhaps with an open aperture of around f2.
It should be a native lens for Sony FE. It should make beautiful aperture stars and should be perfectly sharp from f2.8 to the corners and above all evenly sharp (field curvature as low as possible). Ideally, it should be a manual lens.
Areas of application would include panoramas: I like to take panoramic shots in the range of 35-40mm instead of using a wide angle, I really like the sharpness and image impression that is created with such pictures.
I own a 35mm f1.2 Sigma, but it is too big and heavy, fantastic for portraits, but I don't think it's great for landscapes. The Loxia renders beautifully and often with strong 3D effect, but I have not found a good copy to date. In addition, I have had too many problems with the Loxia series in the past and the field curvature is too extreme for me.
The new Voigtlander 35 and 40 lenses also render beautifully, but are not evenly sharp enough for me and too bad in the corners for my taste. Subjectively, I don't like the pictures of the Sony 35mm f1.8. The Batis is too difficult to focus manually, has no beautiful sun stars and is a little too big for me.
...
I would like to see a modern Loxia 35mm v2 or a small Sony 35mm GM, comparable to the 24mm, which I initially viewed very critically (on the A7III), but meanwhile love more (on the A7RIII) every day...
I am looking for a lens in the 35-40mm range for travel that is as small and light as possible, perhaps with an open aperture of around f2.
It should be a native lens for Sony FE. It should make beautiful aperture stars and should be perfectly sharp from f2.8 to the corners and above all evenly sharp (field curvature as low as possible). Ideally, it should be a manual lens.
Areas of application would include panoramas: I like to take panoramic shots in the range of 35-40mm instead of using a wide angle, I really like the sharpness and image impression that is created with such pictures.
I own a 35mm f1.2 Sigma, but it is too big and heavy, fantastic for portraits, but I don't think it's great for landscapes. The Loxia renders beautifully and often with strong 3D effect, but I have not found a good copy to date. In addition, I have had too many problems with the Loxia series in the past and the field curvature is too extreme for me.
The new Voigtlander 35 and 40 lenses also render beautifully, but are not evenly sharp enough for me and too bad in the corners for my taste. Subjectively, I don't like the pictures of the Sony 35mm f1.8. The Batis is too difficult to focus manually, has no beautiful sun stars and is a little too big for me.
...
I would like to see a modern Loxia 35mm v2 or a small Sony 35mm GM, comparable to the 24mm, which I initially viewed very critically (on the A7III), but meanwhile love more (on the A7RIII) every day...
Jul 23, 2020 at 07:08 AM
p.7 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
MrTMan wrote:
There was (is?) legitimately a significant problem with copy variance for this lens, as confirmed by LensRentals' testing. Guy found variability as well and I think we can agree that Guy knows how to test lenses. If it was largely a question of improper testing by people in forums, then you'd expect to see a similar volume of complaints with a lot of other lenses, which isn't the case.
I also wouldn't necessarily assume that it's been fixed with newer lenses. I tested five with manufacturing dates ranging from, I believe, 2015-2017, and the newest one I'd tested was a...Show more →
Back than things where bad. Usually it was top right corner was about 2 stops off from left side. I think Roger called it a tilt issue. Today it be nice to know if that actually got corrected. Outside that and onion rings it's a lovely lens
LBJ2 wrote
This lens has a long sorted history on the forums ( hate to even bring it up again) Seems when first introduced, original copies had a higher than average quality issue and the forums went mad. The fear and panic snowballed into many nervously, haphazardly attempting to test their lens for the first time and rushing to warn others on the forum. As usual the majority that had good copies were quiet about their good copies until somebody did a poll on this forum.I also wouldn't necessarily assume that it's been fixed with newer lenses. I tested five with manufacturing dates ranging from, I believe, 2015-2017, and the newest one I'd tested was a...Show more →
Back than things where bad. Usually it was top right corner was about 2 stops off from left side. I think Roger called it a tilt issue. Today it be nice to know if that actually got corrected. Outside that and onion rings it's a lovely lens
Jul 23, 2020 at 09:27 AM
p.7 #18Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
HelBen85 wrote:
I would like to see a modern Loxia 35mm v2 or a small Sony 35mm GM, comparable to the 24mm, which I initially viewed very critically (on the A7III), but meanwhile love more (on the A7RIII) every day...
I'm lucky to have a good copy the Loxia 35, but I've nonetheless hoped for a Loxia 35 v2 with the exact same rendering/color/contrast/sharpness of the Loxia 25 and 85. The 25 and 85 are two my all-time favorite lenses.
I would like to see a modern Loxia 35mm v2 or a small Sony 35mm GM, comparable to the 24mm, which I initially viewed very critically (on the A7III), but meanwhile love more (on the A7RIII) every day...
I'm lucky to have a good copy the Loxia 35, but I've nonetheless hoped for a Loxia 35 v2 with the exact same rendering/color/contrast/sharpness of the Loxia 25 and 85. The 25 and 85 are two my all-time favorite lenses.
Jul 23, 2020 at 09:38 AM
p.7 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I can wait for 35 GM because i can do similar stuff with a 50 also. I have my 55 and also CV50. Hope they see the point.
Jul 23, 2020 at 10:40 AM
p.7 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Bob_S wrote:
LBJ2 wrote
Yakkosmurf wrote
LBJ2 wrote
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.There are some downsides that don't bother me. Onion ring bokeh for example can be pronounced with this lens, but once again how many people choose highlighted Bokeh balls as the subject of their image/composition?
FWIW, I owned one of the original shipments of this lens that I was actually happy with. Not too long ago I dropped that lens OMG scary BTW and Sony replaced with a new lens rather than fix the one I dropped. I was shocked at how much better my new copy is compared to the one I dropped. This lens as I mentioned looks even better with the A7rIV 61MPs IMO.
Anyway, lot to like about the FE Sony/Zeiss 35 1.4 "look"it pops and nice color IMO, just avoid very highlighted Bokeh balls with this lens or be prepared to rub out the too highlighted bokeh balls in post which is something I typically do with any lens regardless. IMO very highlighted bokeh balls even smooth can be very distracting.
For me I really like the FE 35 F1.4 and FE 50 1.4 for my event kit. Both images below are the FE 35 1.4 @ 1.4.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/90/1972390.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/75/1972375.jpg
It's so crunchy imo.
This is the issue with sample images, the processing changes the rendering, sometimes significantly.
The sooc rendering of the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is so, so much smoother than most of the other options. Yes it's bigger, but it draws silky, always.
The 24GM too, much nicer.
Even the 2/28 FE, very nice.
From my experience the Zony has a nicer less rough or clinical rendering than the Sigma 1.2, although the latter is very sharp. Sigma also has that yellow tint.
There’s sharpness and the other is rendering. i prefer rendering than world beater sharpness lens so thats why I love lenses like the Zony 35, Nokton 40 and Leica 35 Summarit.
Jul 23, 2020 at 11:44 AM