I love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM.
I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos.
chez wrote: ramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos.
Funny I didn't see one comment mention that as a reason they are buying it?
chez wrote: jhinkey wroteWhat's a stop of light worth to you for increases in size and weight?
I have the 35/2.8 for traveling light and compact. Will likely get the 35/2 Sigma or the 35/1.4GM to really have a different lens from the 35/2.8.Have the 35 2.8 for when I want ultra light. Looking at either Batis 40 or Sigma 2.0 for conditions where light is dim. There is a lens weight which becomes noticable when carrying all day...I think the 35 GM has crossed that threshold so I'll most likely not look at that lens.
To me, increasing ISO is one way to counter the extra stop of light...but there is no way to counter the extra weight.
I'll take the 200 grams with a smile along with the benefits of the 1.4. I mean 200 grams more than the sigma is like an 8oz water bottle. And the difference between the Batis is even less.
nhsonyshooter wrote: chez wroteramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos. Funny I didn't see one comment mention that as a reason they are buying it?
KarmaKramer wrote:
Nobody would actually say it though would they...
nhsonyshooter wrotechez wroteramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos. Funny I didn't see one comment mention that as a reason they are buying it?
Because people here are smart enough to not think that way. But I guess I give people here more credit than you.
Sure they are.....sure they are. Definitely smart....
🙄
nhsonyshooter wrote: KarmaKramer wroteNobody would actually say it though would they...
nhsonyshooter wrotechez wroteramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos. Funny I didn't see one comment mention that as a reason they are buying it?Because people here are smart enough to not think that way.
chez wrote: ramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos.
Ah man, you're right. We should all just sell our expensive FF gear and practice photography on our cellphones instead.
On a more serious note, wouldn't go with the 40 if you plan on using it in bad lighting.
chez wrote: ramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos.
What! The 35GM won’t make my pictures great! Crap, off to cancel preorder...
Oh the familiar motion with every interesting release, especially for the very fast optics. The excitement and skepticism, the justification that ones need or don't need said lens,... But I do love them people that feel the need to put down others cause they think their ways are superior. And what's up with this weight, size and price comparison between a 35/2 and a 35/1.4? They are not in the same class, and you can own both of them for different uses. The differences are rather obvious that it really boils down to if you want f/1.4 or not.
I see this Sony as an unique 35mm solution.
While Sigma 1.2 ART and 35 2.0 a solution for two main uses.
At the end of the history this GM is not AC free, nor vignetting free, nor focus breathing free and comes to a relatively high price.
Instead of trading my 1.2 for this I think it is better for me to add the 2.0 practically at the same cost keeping 1.2 possibility and 2.0 weight and size.
The 35f2 dn is on the heavier side, 35gm is lightest in class, somewhat diminished comparison. The sigma 1.2 , while extremely competent, is simply an inferior lens in most aspects. Same with the ZA. If I owned one, the question is when do I take the loss lol.
The GM causing all sorts of angst.
hiepphotog wrote:
Oh the familiar motion with every interesting release, especially for the very fast optics. The excitement and skepticism, the justification that ones need or don't need said lens,... But I do love them people that feel the need to put down others cause they think their ways are superior. And what's up with this weight, size and price comparison between a 35/2 and a 35/1.4? They are not in the same class, and you can own both of them for different uses. The differences are rather obvious that it really boils down to if you want f/1.4 or not.
scalanc2 wrote:
I see this Sony as an unique 35mm solution.
While Sigma 1.2 ART and 35 2.0 a solution for two main uses.
At the end of the history this GM is not AC free, nor vignetting free, nor focus breathing free and comes to a relatively high price.
Instead of trading my 1.2 for this I think it is better for me to add the 2.0 practically at the same cost keeping 1.2 possibility and 2.0 weight and size.
Yep, I also think that's the strength of the GM.
I also suspect it will be easier to provoke CA in the GM, than in the big Sigma, but still... the thought of having a fast superb 35mm the size of 24GM is too tempting to resist for me .
nhsonyshooter wrote: chez wroteramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos. Funny I didn't see one comment mention that as a reason they are buying it?
nhsonyshooter wrote: chez wrotejhinkey wroteWhat's a stop of light worth to you for increases in size and weight?
I have the 35/2.8 for traveling light and compact. Will likely get the 35/2 Sigma or the 35/1.4GM to really have a different lens from the 35/2.8.Have the 35 2.8 for when I want ultra light. Looking at either Batis 40 or Sigma 2.0 for conditions where light is dim. There is a lens weight which becomes noticable when carrying all day...I think the 35 GM has crossed that threshold so I'll most likely not look at that lens.
To me, increasing ISO is one way to counter the extra stop of light...but there is no way to counter the extra weight.I'll take the 200 grams with a smile along with the benefits of the 1.4. I mean 200 grams more than the sigma is like an 8oz water bottle. And the difference between the Batis is even less.
nhsonyshooter wrote: KarmaKramer wroteNobody would actually say it though would they...
nhsonyshooter wrotechez wroteramesesthe2nd wroteI love reading all the made up reasons in the Sigma and ZA listings. I am moving to telephoto, I am moving to a lighter f/1.8, I have too many lenses in this range, etc...
We all know you are dumping your lens to buy this GM. I also love watching all the members jump onto the latest GM thinking they will finally take great photos. Funny I didn't see one comment mention that as a reason they are buying it?Because people here are smart enough to not think that way. But I guess I give people here more credit than you.
I see enough people by on impulse to know you are wrong about people's smartness.
I find it amazing some folks have the time to chime in and give their opinion on every lens, camera, regardless those gears are of their interest or not.