This topic is in the 2021 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2021Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
p.40 #1Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
tedgoudie wrote:
I'm not saying I have preorders at two online retailers to see which one ships first, but I'm not saying I don't either.
Only 2?
Hodie wrote
We're all bunch of enablers here.Only 2?
Jan 15, 2021 at 07:53 PM
p.40 #2Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
Jan 15, 2021 at 07:54 PM
p.40 #3Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
chez wrote:
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
Not a good time to list anything in the 24 -35 range either
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
Not a good time to list anything in the 24 -35 range either
Jan 15, 2021 at 08:57 PM
p.40 #4Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
It’s amazing how quick the GM24 price dropped on eBay! I got mine for £1200 brand new but they were consistently £1250 new on eBay. I’m now seeing them below £1000 since this lens was officially announced. I was going to sell my 24 (pre order placed for this 35) but I’ll just hold onto it just now until things settle out
Jan 16, 2021 at 03:07 AM
p.40 #5Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
chez wrote:
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
I'm in that group, but it all comes down to personal preferences. I've seen at least a couple of people stating here that the GM is still too big for a walkaround lens, while the Sigma is tangibly smaller and lighter... It also has more of a smooth look, rather than clinically sharp, wide open (or at least that's the impression I got).
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
I'm in that group, but it all comes down to personal preferences. I've seen at least a couple of people stating here that the GM is still too big for a walkaround lens, while the Sigma is tangibly smaller and lighter... It also has more of a smooth look, rather than clinically sharp, wide open (or at least that's the impression I got).
Jan 16, 2021 at 04:50 AM
p.40 #6Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
j4nu wrote:
I'm in that group, but it all comes down to personal preferences. I've seen at least a couple of people stating here that the GM is still too big for a walkaround lens, while the Sigma is tangibly smaller and lighter... It also has more of a smooth look, rather than clinically sharp, wide open (or at least that's the impression I got).
...more of a smooth look than the GM? I sure didn't get that impression looking at the images. Even before the GM was announced there was nothing special to me about the Sigma to even consider buying it. And I've been looking for "that" 35mm AF lens for ever. The extra 200grams more for the 1.4 is well worth it to me. The Sigma is smaller for sure but not by alot, your talking about an inch. And for that inch you get a focus hold button, better magnification/closer focus ability (you have to stop down the Sigma to get good results), faster/reliable AF, better flare control, and 11 blades. All that said I can see the attraction for the Sigma if your looking for a smaller more budget friendly lens it's by no means a bad lens. The good thing is after the GM lens is released there should be a 35mm finally for everyone
chez wrote
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top....more of a smooth look than the GM? I sure didn't get that impression looking at the images. Even before the GM was announced there was nothing special to me about the Sigma to even consider buying it. And I've been looking for "that" 35mm AF lens for ever. The extra 200grams more for the 1.4 is well worth it to me. The Sigma is smaller for sure but not by alot, your talking about an inch. And for that inch you get a focus hold button, better magnification/closer focus ability (you have to stop down the Sigma to get good results), faster/reliable AF, better flare control, and 11 blades. All that said I can see the attraction for the Sigma if your looking for a smaller more budget friendly lens it's by no means a bad lens. The good thing is after the GM lens is released there should be a 35mm finally for everyone
Jan 16, 2021 at 06:18 AM
p.40 #7Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I reveived my copy of the sigma 35/2 one day before the GM announcement; ordered in mid-december. A “new lens love” never turned cold that quick for me... The GM is not that much heavier (~100g) than the Sigma and does most things better incl. being one stop faster. So wy not go with the GM then. The only remaining question for me is regarding the sunstar of the GM; on the images I have seen so far it is not very defined...
chez wrote:
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
Jan 16, 2021 at 06:19 AM
p.40 #8Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Sigma 35 f2: d70x65mm, 325g, $639
Sony 35 1.4 GM: d76x96mm, 524g, $1398
Sony is 48% longer, 60% heavier, and more than 2x price. I think the differences are pretty obvious.
Sony 35 1.4 GM: d76x96mm, 524g, $1398
Sony is 48% longer, 60% heavier, and more than 2x price. I think the differences are pretty obvious.
Jan 16, 2021 at 07:11 AM
p.40 #9Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
chez wrote:
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
I'm definitely someone who switched camps. I was debating between the size advantage for the Sigma and the construction advantage for the GM. I don't have the funds to preorder right now (and for a while) but I don't plan on buying too many lenses... maybe a telephoto and/or macro at some point but I think I'm mostly set, so the difference in price didn't bother me too much.
What tipped the scales for me was the focus breathing. Sure, the GM puts out a nicer image but the Sigma is excellent—I could say the same perhaps about light gathering vs size. But when I saw the GM actually has telescopic focus breathing... well, it was a bit of a 'eureka' moment. Not that I know every lens ever, but I can't think of a single optic that has this property, let alone in such a significant amount. Portraits will be slightly more flattering as the image compresses and more significantly you get a much better reproduction ratio. In fact, at 25cm (the lens can focus 2cm closer manually), you get a reproduction ratio of 0.26x—better than the 35mm 1.8 FE at 22cm and just 0.04x off the 40CF.
Now, not gonna lie, I would rather have this exact performance packaged under a G label at 1.8 like my 20 to save a bit of size (and 2/3 of a stop isn't a huge loss considering you use the weight savings more than the light gathering—even in Sweden) buuuuuut it's just like Sony just straight up made a better 40 CF in my view. Slight preferences for Zeiss contrast & colors vs Sony's smoother bokeh & colors (which look to be better than typical Sony glass, but I have doubts they'll be as nice as what Zeiss puts out) aside it doesn't burden the AF system with uncorrected SA near the focus plane, it doesn't close down to 2.5 at portrait distances, and from my experience with the 20 G the dual motors are better. Heck, even though it's heavier and longer it takes up less room in a pack due to the much thinner barrel.
Lots of people have dream lenses that will never get made—but I think this is the closest anyone is ever going to come to making mine.
Poor Sigma 35 f2, it was the talk of the town last week...now not even a peep. How quickly one drops from the top.
I'm definitely someone who switched camps. I was debating between the size advantage for the Sigma and the construction advantage for the GM. I don't have the funds to preorder right now (and for a while) but I don't plan on buying too many lenses... maybe a telephoto and/or macro at some point but I think I'm mostly set, so the difference in price didn't bother me too much.
What tipped the scales for me was the focus breathing. Sure, the GM puts out a nicer image but the Sigma is excellent—I could say the same perhaps about light gathering vs size. But when I saw the GM actually has telescopic focus breathing... well, it was a bit of a 'eureka' moment. Not that I know every lens ever, but I can't think of a single optic that has this property, let alone in such a significant amount. Portraits will be slightly more flattering as the image compresses and more significantly you get a much better reproduction ratio. In fact, at 25cm (the lens can focus 2cm closer manually), you get a reproduction ratio of 0.26x—better than the 35mm 1.8 FE at 22cm and just 0.04x off the 40CF.
Now, not gonna lie, I would rather have this exact performance packaged under a G label at 1.8 like my 20 to save a bit of size (and 2/3 of a stop isn't a huge loss considering you use the weight savings more than the light gathering—even in Sweden) buuuuuut it's just like Sony just straight up made a better 40 CF in my view. Slight preferences for Zeiss contrast & colors vs Sony's smoother bokeh & colors (which look to be better than typical Sony glass, but I have doubts they'll be as nice as what Zeiss puts out) aside it doesn't burden the AF system with uncorrected SA near the focus plane, it doesn't close down to 2.5 at portrait distances, and from my experience with the 20 G the dual motors are better. Heck, even though it's heavier and longer it takes up less room in a pack due to the much thinner barrel.
Lots of people have dream lenses that will never get made—but I think this is the closest anyone is ever going to come to making mine.
Jan 16, 2021 at 07:12 AM
p.40 #10Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
1bwana1 wrote:
I'm still on the original A7. I guess it's going to perform okay on there?
Plus...... My main lens is the CV40/1.2 - How do we think the blur/rendering is going to compare? I do mainly shoot woodlands/nature with some outdoor environmental portraits.
If I get this, it has to replace the 40/1.2.
I have been thinking of a cheaper AF 35mm but I don't see the point in having a 35/1.8AF & the 40/1.2 MF.I face the same decision. I think the main benefit would be AF. But, on your A7 I am not sure that this will be such an important thing. The a7 AF is not that strong compared to the latest generations.
On my a7III and a9 I would get the benefit of the AF and I still can't bring myself to make the trade. The CV lenses make MF such an enjoyable experience for me.
Well, good face detect AF is better (when needed) than no AF I guess.....
Our dog doesn't move too quickly. My kids are teenagers, they hardly move at all.....! I don't need tracking real time eye AF at 15fps. I just need accurate AF on fairly static subjects.
I do get where you are coming from though re: the CV experience.
LeeRatters wrote
Maybe slightly silly questions so soon......I'm still on the original A7. I guess it's going to perform okay on there?
Plus...... My main lens is the CV40/1.2 - How do we think the blur/rendering is going to compare? I do mainly shoot woodlands/nature with some outdoor environmental portraits.
If I get this, it has to replace the 40/1.2.
I have been thinking of a cheaper AF 35mm but I don't see the point in having a 35/1.8AF & the 40/1.2 MF.
On my a7III and a9 I would get the benefit of the AF and I still can't bring myself to make the trade. The CV lenses make MF such an enjoyable experience for me.
Well, good face detect AF is better (when needed) than no AF I guess.....
Our dog doesn't move too quickly. My kids are teenagers, they hardly move at all.....! I don't need tracking real time eye AF at 15fps. I just need accurate AF on fairly static subjects.
I do get where you are coming from though re: the CV experience.
Jan 16, 2021 at 07:25 AM
p.40 #11Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
grahamgibson wrote:
I'm still on the original A7. I guess it's going to perform okay on there?
Plus...... My main lens is the CV40/1.2 - How do we think the blur/rendering is going to compare? I do mainly shoot woodlands/nature with some outdoor environmental portraits.
If I get this, it has to replace the 40/1.2.
I have been thinking of a cheaper AF 35mm but I don't see the point in having a 35/1.8AF & the 40/1.2 MF.I think a number of us CV40 owners will be asking ourselves the same thing. Hopefully someone will post a comparison between these lenses soon. The CV40 will still have an advantage for blur, but I know I stop my lens down to f1.4 as much as I'm shooting wide open because it adds quite a bit of sharpness and contrast.
I agree about adding one of the 35/1.8 or f2 flavors, and never pulled the trigger on owning one alongside the CV. The Sigma 45 has been getting enough love on here that I'd be curious if I saw...Show more →
I'm well past the f/1.2 stage now. I can't recall the last time I shot at that aperture. I'm mainly f/2 - 7.1 for what I shoot. Maybe f/1.6 or so for portraits.
I very often shoot woodlands & landscapes so MF is my preference there. But there are times when I want to grab some shots of the other half, teenage kids, dog whilst out & MF doesn't cut it, I miss focus, takes too long , etc which is what pushes me into an AF 35mm. At the same time, I wouldn't want to take an AF 35mm & the MF 40mm out on the same day/walk/trip.
I've pre-ordered the GM anyway. The first lens I've ever pre-ordered!
Maybe I'll keep the CV40 for when I go out on my own. I think it'll depend on the MF experience of the GM.
LeeRatters wrote
Maybe slightly silly questions so soon......I'm still on the original A7. I guess it's going to perform okay on there?
Plus...... My main lens is the CV40/1.2 - How do we think the blur/rendering is going to compare? I do mainly shoot woodlands/nature with some outdoor environmental portraits.
If I get this, it has to replace the 40/1.2.
I have been thinking of a cheaper AF 35mm but I don't see the point in having a 35/1.8AF & the 40/1.2 MF.
I agree about adding one of the 35/1.8 or f2 flavors, and never pulled the trigger on owning one alongside the CV. The Sigma 45 has been getting enough love on here that I'd be curious if I saw...Show more →
I'm well past the f/1.2 stage now. I can't recall the last time I shot at that aperture. I'm mainly f/2 - 7.1 for what I shoot. Maybe f/1.6 or so for portraits.
I very often shoot woodlands & landscapes so MF is my preference there. But there are times when I want to grab some shots of the other half, teenage kids, dog whilst out & MF doesn't cut it, I miss focus, takes too long , etc which is what pushes me into an AF 35mm. At the same time, I wouldn't want to take an AF 35mm & the MF 40mm out on the same day/walk/trip.
I've pre-ordered the GM anyway. The first lens I've ever pre-ordered!
Maybe I'll keep the CV40 for when I go out on my own. I think it'll depend on the MF experience of the GM.
Jan 16, 2021 at 07:34 AM
p.40 #12Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
vdo1 wrote:
Not to say that the sharpness at mid frame is okish at best.
All in all, a fine lens, but definitely not the ultimate 50mm we could expect from a GM lens like the 135 or this 35mm. We definitely know now that sony is capable of making a light lens without these flaws.I'm not sure that we could describe the 135mm as "light". It's not that much different than the Sigma 35/1.2. Guess that it takes some substantial glass to make such lenses.
I have not described the 135mm as "light". Regarding the weight, I have compared the 50 to the actual 35mm and 24mm.
The 24 is twice as light as the 28mm sigma which is in the same league regarding the optical qualities (not like the 24 sigma, which is ok, but not much)
The 35 is again twice as light as the 35 1.2 sigma which again shares the same optical performances (not like the 35 1.4 Sigma which again is ok but not much)
The planar is closer to the sigma in terms of weight, optical performance and size. And we could now expect more from a 1500 euros 50mm sony compared to the 700 euros from sigma.
I was refering to the 135GM not for its size, which is "normal" for a 135mm 1.8 (and I don't see the point to compare the 35mm sigma to it, other than for saying that the latter is HUGE :-) ), but for its AF which is known to be really fast, and at least much faster than the planar.
hesb wrote
Well the planar 50mm is a fine lens... But its AF performance is not on the same league than the 135 and 35gm, the rendering is ok but not as smooth as the sigma or the voigtlander nokton, the weight is ok, but not as light as these 24 and 35 GMNot to say that the sharpness at mid frame is okish at best.
All in all, a fine lens, but definitely not the ultimate 50mm we could expect from a GM lens like the 135 or this 35mm. We definitely know now that sony is capable of making a light lens without these flaws.
I have not described the 135mm as "light". Regarding the weight, I have compared the 50 to the actual 35mm and 24mm.
The 24 is twice as light as the 28mm sigma which is in the same league regarding the optical qualities (not like the 24 sigma, which is ok, but not much)
The 35 is again twice as light as the 35 1.2 sigma which again shares the same optical performances (not like the 35 1.4 Sigma which again is ok but not much)
The planar is closer to the sigma in terms of weight, optical performance and size. And we could now expect more from a 1500 euros 50mm sony compared to the 700 euros from sigma.
I was refering to the 135GM not for its size, which is "normal" for a 135mm 1.8 (and I don't see the point to compare the 35mm sigma to it, other than for saying that the latter is HUGE :-) ), but for its AF which is known to be really fast, and at least much faster than the planar.
Jan 16, 2021 at 07:53 AM
p.40 #13Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
j4nu wrote:
My quick, casual scan of reviews doesn't suggest much (maybe focus breathing, that's crazy multi-mm focus breathing on the GM... maybe it is a 40mm + lens up close?)The discussion in this thread points to "on axis" CA (purple fringing), like Fred called it, which I also have a feeling will behave similar to 24GM so not too well in demanding conditions (e.g. branches against heavy backlit sky).
This was and still is I guess my main gripe about 24GM, when I took it to the forest with harsh winter sun and trees/branches covering the whole top of the frame, the results were pretty disappointing (but then I'm not sure which lens would do significantly better, maybe the bigger Sigma 24).The bigger DSLR Sigma 24 is even worse. PF appears more readily. Though the GM 24 does have some, not all contrasty situations will induce it. I just take it as a big compromise for this size. Look at the Nikon 50/1.2 S to see the potential size and weight compromise on a mirrorless platform if you want a better color corrected optics for this kind of aperture.
I sold my GM 24 not because of the PF, but mainly the slower than expected AF speed (only DDSSM) and I don't really like that focal length.Yeah, I'm not aware of any fast 24-ish lens that does significantly better in that regard (PF). It's just that it came as a huge surprise to me as no reviews really mentioned it...
I also agree that AF on 24GM is not perfect, closed down below f6.3 I mostly have to switch to AF-S. Otherwise, I often get pulsing and innacurate focus. Speed-wise, I never really feel it's too slow though...
The Sigma 28mm has better correction, but, it's a 28 and not a 24, and it is twice as heavy. As mentionned earlier, having a perfect lens needs some extra weight: nikon 50mm 1.2 Z or sigma 40mm...
hiepphotog wrote
j4nu wrote
darrellc wrote
More out of curiosity than real consideration given it weighs 29.372 lbs and is taller than my camera backpack, but now that the Sigma 35 1.2 is plummeting / will plummet in value and like new copies can be found on B&S already below $1K, well below new GM + tax pricing, is there any respect in which the Sigma seems to outperform the GM at common apertures (from f/1.4, I know you get f/1.2 with Sigma...) based on early reviews?My quick, casual scan of reviews doesn't suggest much (maybe focus breathing, that's crazy multi-mm focus breathing on the GM... maybe it is a 40mm + lens up close?)
This was and still is I guess my main gripe about 24GM, when I took it to the forest with harsh winter sun and trees/branches covering the whole top of the frame, the results were pretty disappointing (but then I'm not sure which lens would do significantly better, maybe the bigger Sigma 24).
I sold my GM 24 not because of the PF, but mainly the slower than expected AF speed (only DDSSM) and I don't really like that focal length.
I also agree that AF on 24GM is not perfect, closed down below f6.3 I mostly have to switch to AF-S. Otherwise, I often get pulsing and innacurate focus. Speed-wise, I never really feel it's too slow though...
The Sigma 28mm has better correction, but, it's a 28 and not a 24, and it is twice as heavy. As mentionned earlier, having a perfect lens needs some extra weight: nikon 50mm 1.2 Z or sigma 40mm...
Jan 16, 2021 at 08:03 AM
p.40 #14Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Compared to Sigma 35/2: Two different audiences. Sigma is for those who prefer compact size and lightweight over absolute IQ. It is arguably the best compact 35. Its build quality and design are certainly a notch above Sony and Samyang compact offerings. Finally, it is half the price of GM. GM is smaller than other fast 35s, but it is still a big lens. Sure you can argue that it is just 200 grams more or just and inch or two longer, but as soon as you hold one of the f/1.8 or f/2.8 offerings, GM will start to feel like a tank. So if you have your heart really set on the GM as a walk around lens, don't make a mistake of touching one of the smaller 35s.
Compared to Fast 35s: ZA was weak to begin with. Sigma is too big and too heavy. Sony didn't really have much competition in this group. Sigma is an incredible lens and I don't think Sony will beat it in rendering, but Sony will be better in some aspects and overall close enough for neither of them to be a clear winner in IQ. Some people will prefer Sigma; most people will prefer Sony.
Price: 24 GM was selling for under $1,100 brand new on EDU pricing just this past holiday season. I think B&H had it for $1,018 for a while. Why EDU pricing matters to the used prices on this forum? Because there are members who constantly funnel EDU priced lenses on B&S forum for a small profit. Pretty much guaranteed to have this between $1,100 and $1,200 used/edu pricing by the end of this year, unless you all send your stimulus cheques to Sony and give them a reason to keep it at its full retail price for a while.
35mm is my most used focal length. I absolutely love the IQ and rendering of Sigma 35/1.2. It is by far the best lens I have ever used. It is so good that I don't mind the weight and size much. For me the decision will come down to the GM image thread on this forum. If it is anything like Sigma, I will swap Sigma with the GM. Otherwise, I am pretty happy with the Sigma despite its hefty weight and size.
Compared to Fast 35s: ZA was weak to begin with. Sigma is too big and too heavy. Sony didn't really have much competition in this group. Sigma is an incredible lens and I don't think Sony will beat it in rendering, but Sony will be better in some aspects and overall close enough for neither of them to be a clear winner in IQ. Some people will prefer Sigma; most people will prefer Sony.
Price: 24 GM was selling for under $1,100 brand new on EDU pricing just this past holiday season. I think B&H had it for $1,018 for a while. Why EDU pricing matters to the used prices on this forum? Because there are members who constantly funnel EDU priced lenses on B&S forum for a small profit. Pretty much guaranteed to have this between $1,100 and $1,200 used/edu pricing by the end of this year, unless you all send your stimulus cheques to Sony and give them a reason to keep it at its full retail price for a while.
35mm is my most used focal length. I absolutely love the IQ and rendering of Sigma 35/1.2. It is by far the best lens I have ever used. It is so good that I don't mind the weight and size much. For me the decision will come down to the GM image thread on this forum. If it is anything like Sigma, I will swap Sigma with the GM. Otherwise, I am pretty happy with the Sigma despite its hefty weight and size.
Jan 16, 2021 at 08:24 AM
p.40 #15Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Lukacs wrote:
Sigma 35 f2: d70x65mm, 325g, $639
Sony 35 1.4 GM: d76x96mm, 524g, $1398
Sony is 48% longer, 60% heavier, and more than 2x price. I think the differences are pretty obvious.
48% so dramatic, same as 1inch
Sigma 35 f2: d70x65mm, 325g, $639
Sony 35 1.4 GM: d76x96mm, 524g, $1398
Sony is 48% longer, 60% heavier, and more than 2x price. I think the differences are pretty obvious.
48% so dramatic, same as 1inch
Jan 16, 2021 at 08:39 AM
p.40 #16Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Compared to Sigma 35/2: Two different audiences. Sigma is for those who prefer compact size and lightweight over absolute IQ. It is arguably the best compact 35. Its build quality and design are certainly a notch above Sony and Samyang compact offerings. Finally, it is half the price of GM. GM is smaller than other fast 35s, but it is still a big lens. Sure you can argue that it is just 200 grams more or just and inch or two longer, but as soon as you hold one of the f/1.8 or f/2.8 offerings, GM will start to feel...Show more →
I can see the Sigma 35/2.0 maintaining a strong appeal in competition with the Sony 35/1.4 GM. The Sony's strengths seem very clear. Against these, the Sigma brings a lens that would feel notably smaller in use and that apparently offers strong rendering and autofocus. And it is priced like the Sony 35/1.8. I think it will appeal to many buyers. Dustin Abbot has a good review of it. Main optical weakness is vignetting.
Compared to Sigma 35/2: Two different audiences. Sigma is for those who prefer compact size and lightweight over absolute IQ. It is arguably the best compact 35. Its build quality and design are certainly a notch above Sony and Samyang compact offerings. Finally, it is half the price of GM. GM is smaller than other fast 35s, but it is still a big lens. Sure you can argue that it is just 200 grams more or just and inch or two longer, but as soon as you hold one of the f/1.8 or f/2.8 offerings, GM will start to feel...Show more →
I can see the Sigma 35/2.0 maintaining a strong appeal in competition with the Sony 35/1.4 GM. The Sony's strengths seem very clear. Against these, the Sigma brings a lens that would feel notably smaller in use and that apparently offers strong rendering and autofocus. And it is priced like the Sony 35/1.8. I think it will appeal to many buyers. Dustin Abbot has a good review of it. Main optical weakness is vignetting.
Jan 16, 2021 at 09:25 AM
p.40 #17Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I know manual focus, etc, but otherwise where does the Loxia 35 2 fall into this discussion? I already own one and am wondering about selling it and buying the new 35 1.4 if there is a good reason. I already own the 24 1.4 GM.
Jan 16, 2021 at 10:07 AM
p.40 #18Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Neurad1 wrote:
I know manual focus, etc, but otherwise where does the Loxia 35 2 fall into this discussion? I already own one and am wondering about selling it and buying the new 35 1.4 if there is a good reason. I already own the 24 1.4 GM.
Well if you plan to use the GM at the same aperture than the loxia, i.e. 5.6 or so... the loxia will have a better contrast, better sunstars, better colors...
Definitely not the same use... for portraits the loxia is a crap, for low light, the loxia is a crap, where the GM will probably be the ultimate lens with the sigma.
For lanscape on a tripod, well... I would keep the loxia
I know manual focus, etc, but otherwise where does the Loxia 35 2 fall into this discussion? I already own one and am wondering about selling it and buying the new 35 1.4 if there is a good reason. I already own the 24 1.4 GM.
Well if you plan to use the GM at the same aperture than the loxia, i.e. 5.6 or so... the loxia will have a better contrast, better sunstars, better colors...
Definitely not the same use... for portraits the loxia is a crap, for low light, the loxia is a crap, where the GM will probably be the ultimate lens with the sigma.
For lanscape on a tripod, well... I would keep the loxia
Jan 16, 2021 at 10:40 AM
p.40 #19Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Curious to see a comparison between the Sigma 1.2 and the new G.
If on par weight is not a concern to me.
Resolution, bokeh and rendering are.
If on par weight is not a concern to me.
Resolution, bokeh and rendering are.
Jan 16, 2021 at 11:28 AM
p.40 #20Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
scalanc2 wrote:
Curious to see a comparison between the Sigma 1.2 and the new G.
If on par weight is not a concern to me.
Resolution, bokeh and rendering are.
cameralabs did a comparison between the two.
GM is sharper, faster, lighter, with much less distorsion
Renderings are close, and cannot see a preference. just a bit different.
Curious to see a comparison between the Sigma 1.2 and the new G.
If on par weight is not a concern to me.
Resolution, bokeh and rendering are.
cameralabs did a comparison between the two.
GM is sharper, faster, lighter, with much less distorsion
Renderings are close, and cannot see a preference. just a bit different.
Jan 16, 2021 at 01:52 PM