p.48 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
LBJ2 wrote:
You wrote: " I just want to applaud good engineering here for a whole package offered: price, size, AF and optics. A pretty significant statement IMO. "
Curious to see how both compare Sony GM 35 vs Leica SL 35. Already size is evident and then there is that DxOMark measurement comparing one of my current personal favorite 35's for Sony FE, the Sony Zeiss FE 35 F1.4 vs The One Leica SL 35/2 APO:
Haha, I don't dare to buy AF leica glasses. If there is no L mount alliance, there is no L camera for me but this is just me.
It is not small and also happen to be super expensive It scores pretty low in my book for Overall package. Its glasses performance maybe the best of best. DXOmark is not fair test for 35cron though, it was tested on S1R, the sensor stack is very different. This lens has to be used on SL2.
p.48 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
That the Zony 1,4/35mm ZA on the A7R II is allegedly sharper in absolute terms than the Leica SL 2/35mm on the S1R really says everything one needs to know about the trustworthiness of DXO lens tests.
p.48 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
zhangyue wrote:
Haha, I don't dare to buy AF leica glasses. If there is no L mount alliance, there is no L camera for me but this is just me.
It is not small and also happen to be super expensive It scores pretty low in my book for Overall package. Its glasses performance maybe the best of best. DXOmark is not fair test for 35cron though, it was tested on S1R, the sensor stack is very different. This lens has to be used on SL2.
I agree, to be fair, the 35 SL should be tested on a Leica SL sensor like the SL2.
p.48 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Dave Sanders wrote:
I think they're a bit of a double edged sword on people. On one hand, they can reduce hotspots and help you with a warmer, more even look. On the other hand, going too far can take away the sparkle and life from skin and leave something flat and a bit lifeless. I, like you, am a bit wary of polarizers and people but in the (slide) film days I definitely found times when they were beneficial. I think one has to be careful and pay careful attention as they rotate it. I really haven't done much portrait shooting with a polarizer in the digital era.
Hmmm...maybe I should drag someone out and do a series of shots with increasing/decreasing polarization and see what I like. During a Vancouver winter with covid restrictions, there is neither sun nor willing models......Show more →
p.48 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I can’t remember ever using a CPL for people in regards to hot spots. Typically I’m using lights anyway so I’ll move them. Or I’ll just move subject otherwise. I think it may affect someone’s eyes too much and make them look flat
p.48 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
(1) The great advantage of 'actual lens' MTF charting is that *only the lens* is tested. It's long-established, rigorous and very accurate. It's why Lensrentals went to a great deal of trouble and expense to set their MTF device up. MTF is as close to unchallengeable as any measure we use, which is why it has been the industry standard for lens performance ever since Carl Zeiss's staff painstakingly hand-plotted results in the 1950s. Lens contrast (what MTF measures) was universally adopted as the gold standard, and Zeiss established and 'settled the science', and even make the measuring devices.
(2) A very different measure is 'computed MTF' (as used by Sony-Canon-Nikon). It's close to fake science, good only as a general guide for other features like curvature, fall off, aperture differences, etc. Even then, it only is effective for same-brand lenses tested with the same 'methodology' - and these vary widely by maker.
(3) A third approach is that used by DxO. DxO's methodology in this instance beclowns them in the eyes of informed users of optical statistics. Just to clarify. It's why their results often conflict with the findings of users.
The 35/2 SL is the strongest reliable lens MTF I've ever seen. It's the best SL lens. In the opinion of design chief Peter Karbe, it's 'the best lens ever made'. Any 35mm even close, will be terrific.
p.48 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
philip_pj wrote:
....
The 35/2 SL is the strongest reliable lens MTF I've ever seen. It's the best SL lens. In the opinion of design chief Peter Karbe, it's 'the best lens ever made'. Any 35mm even close, will be terrific....
And yet it has little appeal even among the Leica shooters. If this lens was out 10 years ago, I imagine a lot more people would be excited about it. Nowadays, most modern optics give you sharp and clean enough pictures that the performance gain from the SL 35/2 seems to be for the collectors, test chart shooters, etc. IMHO, Karbe and Leica have lost their way in making these SL lenses when their f/2 is about as big as an f/1.4 lens. I say there is a reason why the Leica R ceased to exist while their M system has survived till this time. Going bigger and heavier to achieve the ultimate IQ apparently appeals to a smaller group of people. The L alliance really saved the L-mount future though.
p.48 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
hiepphotog wrote:
And yet it has little appeal even among the Leica shooters. If this lens was out 10 years ago, I imagine a lot more people would be excited about it. Nowadays, most modern optics give you sharp and clean enough pictures that the performance gain from the SL 35/2 seems to be for the collectors, test chart shooters, etc. IMHO, Karbe and Leica have lost their way in making these SL lenses when their f/2 is about as big as an f/1.4 lens. I say there is a reason why the Leica R ceased to exist while their M system has survived till this time. Going bigger and heavier to achieve the ultimate IQ apparently appeals to a smaller group of people. The L alliance really saved the L-mount future though.
I would agree with you at least from output images POV. It will be really difficult differentiate lens like 35cron SL and Sigma 35mm 1.2 or this GM at given aperture. Unless we have perfect gear and shooting condition and print huge at WO aperture check extreme corner. AF speed difference will be most likely noticeable though and for certain images, the difference is just you can or can't get the image at all.
However, in this hobby, there is no need for a sane justification for things you like. I would be really happy to give it a try someday, it is the one and only AF Leica L lens I want give it a try. just there is a lots of good stuff out there and looks like more and more are coming. I personally can be happy to settle any brand at this time if forced. However, I still prefer use different gears that many may feel unreasonable. The lucky thing is we don't really need justify to the same standard as long as you are happy as users.
R failed mainly due to lack of AF though. The most of R lens don't have much advantage in IQ department anyway even at their time. Those few nice ones are gems that I will never sell, half collector value, half classic rendering value including manual focusing.
p.48 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I finally sold my ZA 35mm 1.4 lens. This was a bear to sell. But, it's done and I can move on. I wish all the luck in the world to the others trying to sell the lens, too.
To be clear, though, I LOVED that lens and think it gets a bad rap. I think the issues were real, but let's be honest, every negative thing gets amplified on the internet and drowns the positives. For a first generation lens on Sony FF mirrorless, I think it's a fine lens that still has its uses today.
The retail price is ridiculous, but that's probably a contractual thing between Sony and Zeiss. I doubt anyone has bought that lens new in the last couple years anyway.
p.48 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
philip_pj wrote:
(3) A third approach is that used by DxO. DxO's methodology in this instance beclowns them in the eyes of informed users of optical statistics. Just to clarify. It's why their results often conflict with the findings of users.
ic.
Beclowns? I find that their reviews are right on the money for the lenses I've owned, particularly regarding all-important sharpness.
What I'm not pleased with is that DxO has fallen far behind in lens reviews and came out with a terrible article last year on best Sony lenses without updates on all of their newer, better glass. They are focused on cell reviews these days.
p.48 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
TheDeadTexan wrote:
Edit:
Just checked B&H and they're still not offering the EDU discount on the 24GM even after all this time, so there's no way they'll discount this one when it launches.
The 24 is available with EDU discount. I did buy at another authorized NYC dealer. The 35 will have the discount, too, I'm certain. May need a bit of patience.
p.48 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
onthebeam wrote:
Beclowns? I find that their reviews are right on the money for the lenses I've owned, particularly regarding all-important sharpness.
What I'm not pleased with is that DxO has fallen far behind in lens reviews and came out with a terrible article last year on best Sony lenses without updates on all of their newer, better glass. They are focused on cell reviews these days.
I fully agree : DXOMark lens database hasn't been updated since quite some time at least as far as Sony FE mount is concerned (lack of recent lenses from all manufacturers even with their R2 body and no more recent R body, not just Sony). DXO has been (is ?) in financial troubles recently so, maybe they've decided to prioritize their software at the expense of keeping the DXOMark lens database up-to-date...
p.48 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
nicephore wrote:
I fully agree : DXOMark lens database hasn't been updated since quite some time at least as far as Sony FE mount is concerned (lack of recent lenses from all manufacturers even with their R2 body and no more recent R body, not just Sony). DXO has been (is ?) in financial troubles recently so, maybe they've decided to prioritize their software at the expense of keeping the DXOMark lens database up-to-date...
I use their RAW software and love it. I get richer files with less effort than Capture One with DxO but downside is it is MUCH slower processing. So not good for production / batch work.
Seems like the T-stop of the GM is just a touch darker than the ZA. Not sure if there's enough there to draw any conclusions on bokeh/rendering, other than the lack of onion rings.
It scores pretty low in my book for Overall package. Its glasses performance maybe the best of best. DXOmark is not fair test for 35cron though, it was tested on S1R, the sensor stack is very different. This lens has to be used on SL2. 
