Steve Spencer wrote: hiepphotog wrotenhsonyshooter wroteDavidBM wroteKalainen wroteFirst examples are always first examples and people tend to observe them more obsessed (and compare them to their usually high expectations). Still I have to say I'm a bit surprised about the rather strong CA (wide open) and LoCA even stopped down to f/2. To me, this doesn't seem too different from the ZA version, though the onions are surely gone. The rendering looks smooth, though technically it doesn't look too too different from the ZA (let alone Otus-like performance). I think one of the main pro's is that it is pretty compact for a f/1.4 lens and it aligns with the rest of the GM family.
I'm pretty sure first impressions will settle for more comprehensive understanding when we get more samples and discussion advances.Yeah it’s early days yet but I have some suspicion that marketing told engineering “people loved the 24GM for its size...make it that size” and engineering said “you do know this is a 35? Made to the same standard it could be up to 50% longer” and marketing said “what evs”
Having said that, for some people a sharp AF 1,4/35 which is that size may be worth the trade off of very high LoCA by modern standards.What makes you assume all "engineering" people want to make a large lens? I would think the opposite is true. If I'm a lens designer there is no satisfaction in making something large like everyone else. I mean really how hard is it to make a perfect lens when size is not taken into account. People here said it would not be smaller than the Zeiss for example. If I'm an engineer that is what drives me, not marketing. Common sense just tells us smaller "if possible" is more useful. 35mm 1.2 Sigma can produce beautiful images but it never even crossed my mind to buy it because it's way to big. What good is a great optic if you don't want to carry it? Obviously that answer is different for everyone. But I suspect most that moved to the mirrorless world would prefer the smaller lens.If you read what Nikon people are saying about their Z lenses (a lot are bigger than the equivalent Sony), they seem to be happy that Nikon chose to make sharp and well corrected optics with size/weight are secondary.That is for the f/2.8 zooms. Note Nikon made a big compromise for almost all their initial primes in making them f/1.8 which kept them small. Nikon users are applauding that decision as well.
In fact, I think that applies for the 1.8 primes as well. They are very well corrected, but not so small for 1.8 lenses.
hiepphotog wrote: nhsonyshooter wroteDavidBM wroteKalainen wroteFirst examples are always first examples and people tend to observe them more obsessed (and compare them to their usually high expectations). Still I have to say I'm a bit surprised about the rather strong CA (wide open) and LoCA even stopped down to f/2. To me, this doesn't seem too different from the ZA version, though the onions are surely gone. The rendering looks smooth, though technically it doesn't look too too different from the ZA (let alone Otus-like performance). I think one of the main pro's is that it is pretty compact for a f/1.4 lens and it aligns with the rest of the GM family.
I'm pretty sure first impressions will settle for more comprehensive understanding when we get more samples and discussion advances.Yeah it’s early days yet but I have some suspicion that marketing told engineering “people loved the 24GM for its size...make it that size” and engineering said “you do know this is a 35? Made to the same standard it could be up to 50% longer” and marketing said “what evs”
Having said that, for some people a sharp AF 1,4/35 which is that size may be worth the trade off of very high LoCA by modern standards.What makes you assume all "engineering" people want to make a large lens? I would think the opposite is true. If I'm a lens designer there is no satisfaction in making something large like everyone else. I mean really how hard is it to make a perfect lens when size is not taken into account. People here said it would not be smaller than the Zeiss for example. If I'm an engineer that is what drives me, not marketing. Common sense just tells us smaller "if possible" is more useful. 35mm 1.2 Sigma can produce beautiful images but it never even crossed my mind to buy it because it's way to big. What good is a great optic if you don't want to carry it? Obviously that answer is different for everyone. But I suspect most that moved to the mirrorless world would prefer the smaller lens.If you read what Nikon people are saying about their Z lenses (a lot are bigger than the equivalent Sony), they seem to be happy that Nikon chose to make sharp and well corrected optics with size/weight are secondary.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to pre-order this one. GM 28 might not happen at all. At least this looks like a decent alternative . Now make a small GM 50 SONY!
Holger wrote: ftllens wroteIt has the sharpness of the Sigma Art, the bokeh of the Tamron SP, and the CA of the ZA. lol
That flare resistance dough.
Looks pretty much perfect for the size.Looks nice, however, I only see size + weight as advantages over the Sigma f1.2 so far, which is likely cheaper, too. The Sigma is already equipped with fast AF and survived quite a beating over time we use it, so wrt sealing it should be fine, too. I have to admit, I expected a bit better CA-control.
I'm mainly looking at how it'll perform/pair with the A7Siii for compact low-key video work. I think for stills the Sigma 1.2 will be better for those looking for CA correction and separation (and value).
I have the Sigma 40 1.4 EF mount for absolute reference, and I had the Tamron 35 1.5 SP that I really enjoyed as well. I had two copies of the Sig 35 1.2 and both were stellar on my R4.
In any case another high particular combination tool is always welcome.
This is the best proof that Sony needs to add an "auto" EFCS option, when even people who do these tests professionally sometimes forget about manually changing the setting (I think I read Dustin Abbott's comment about it too not that long time ago)...
Back to the main topic, this is the lens of the year for me already. I don't think I'll even mention other stuff I was waiting for from Sony anymore. 35mm is my favorite focal length (it's nice to switch it up from time to time, but I enjoy general shooting with 35mm the most) and this is exactly the lens I was thinking about every time I was mounting 24GM, which to me is the perfect (size & weight) match for A7(non-c) camera, but wished it was (focal length-wise) longer .
I just hope distortion is not too bad (I guess I can take Sigma 85 dg dn level distortion), given the compactness, and no other major flaws appear.
"The performance in the frame centre should be called simply brilliant – you get results close to the new resolution record, set by the Sigma 2.8/105 Macro. Already at the maximum relative aperture the MTFs are simply sensational, exceeding 66 lpmm. Let's remind here the fact that the Sonnar 2.8/35 couldn't reach such a level even on stopping down! When you stop down the Sony 1.4/35 incredible things happen. Already by f/2.8 the lens is breaking record values, set by the Voigtlanders, by reaching 78.9 lpmm. That result is even improved by f/4.0 where the lens is able to reach 79.7 ±1.1 lpmm – so, within the margin of error, the same level as the latest resolution record of the Sigma."
US price is good, euro price isn’t as always. I’m waiting to see what the UK price is, I fear the worst through
zz wrote: Holger wroteI like the size and weight, but for 1700 Euros I will pass.It doesn't even compete with the Sigma here on price, lol. They priced it far above the 24GM too.
They blundered here I think.