nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.51 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399) | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
A really good question. I don't like most 35mm lenses and all that I really like are manual focus. Three that I like follow a lineage. One of my favorite rendering 35mm lenses of all time, is the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4. It has a lot of weaknesses, however, with a lot of axial CA and the bokeh can be challenging at times, but when it gets it right it is lovely. I also very much like the Zeiss ZE/ZF/ZF.2 35 f/1.4 which is obviously related. It is slightly easier to shoot, with really nice bokeh, but still a lot of axial CA. There is also some funkiness as you get to the edges and corners that I think is probably due to fairly high astigmatism there. Finally, I also really like the Zeiss Milvus 35 f/1.4. It cleans up most of the axial CA and the funkiness in the edges and corners of the ZE/ZF/ZF.2 version and although the bokeh isn't quite as good, it is still really nice, IMO. The progression that Zeiss chose here, however, meant that each time the lens got bigger and bigger. The C/Y 35 f/1.4 is already bigger than I would like to use and the Milvus is just huge. I ended up getting rid of the of the Milvus because it was just way too big.
For smaller size I am planning to get the CV 35 f/1.2 III. I think I will like its rendering from all I have seen. It is not ideal either with quite a bit of axial CA and bokeh that is a little busy at times, but I think I can be quite happy with it. I have never had an RX1 or RX1r. I love what I have seen from that camera, and I like very much the compromises they made when designing that lens for that camera. It is probably the best rendering 35mm, but I would mention one other lens that I had and really liked for rendering, the Leica R 35 f/2. It has terrible corners and quite a bit of CA (both lateral and axial), but also lovely bokeh and for portraits I very much liked the rendering.
So, I guess I didn't answer your question. What rendering of these I like do I like best? Probably the RX1/RX1r, but I have never shot that. Of the ones I have shot probably the Milvus 35 f/1.4 but it is huge. I know you really like the Pentax 31 f/1.8 Limited, which I didn't include. It would be right up there with the others from all I have seen, but it is a lens I have always wanted to try but never have. I think this 35 GM could be right up there with the Pentax 31 Limited, but probably with a bit better CA correction and a bit worse rendering and not much bigger in size. For ease of use I would probably pick the 35 GM over even the very nice 31 Limited.
PS: I didn't notice the any format in your original post. If I can include a bigger format, then my clear favorite for this field of view would be the Fuji GF 45 f/2.8 for the Fuji GFX system, which is about a 35 f/2 equivalent in FF 35mm. It comes close to my ideal. It is reasonably sharp, but not incredibly so. It has fairly low CA but didn't try to totally eliminate CA. It used a more moderate aperture to keep the size down (it is just under 500g), and it has a lovely rendering including very nice bokeh. Some Fuji MF people complain they wish it were faster, but I find it to be a wonderful lens....Show more →
Yes, 35mm land is very difficult, and often it seems the winner are not the "best" lenses, but remain by the faults of other options. It always seems to be a balancing act, and one more difficult than other classes. I am less sensitive to CA of both types than most on here, but probably pickier on color and rendering--and I do need some character/singularity, which I do not equate with some uncorrected CA or harsher transitions.
For the record, I do love the Pentax, but I use it as the best compromise between rendering, IQ, price and size. I enjoy the CY 35/1.4, Pentax 31 and RX1 best. With the adapter, the Pentax is the largest size I find I will actually use. It's identical to the GM 24, though heavier. My favorite 35mm ever is the CY 35 1.4 MMJ, but it excels only in specific areas and context (MFD, environmental portrait, WO signature, with 15 feet at f1.4-8) to my mind, but areas I often shoot. Having owned 4 copies, and still always being temped, I just can't handle the size + adapter. Sits on the shelf then I sell.
I do love the RX1 too, though the peak isn't as high as the CY 35/1.4 or the Pentax for people and environmental work as they both have a little more je ne sais quoi ultimately. Sometimes that ultimate smoothness and consistently biting colors/colors make for more staid and modern aesthetic on the RX1.
I largely have the same impressions as you with most the 35mm's you mentioned, though I never tried the Milvus 35 on account of size. I have been intrigued by the GFX 45--sometimes it seems the transitions can get a bit busy? Is that right or am I am I looking at over processed files? I haven't studied it hard.
We will see on this GM 35. I was hoping to sell my Pentax and consolidate my 35mm's into the GM 35, but after Galer's and some others I have seen, it really seems that Sony tried to go for hellacious sharpness and not a rendering lens. I realize part of it is heavy processing by Galer, but to me it looks more like a Canon RF lens from his gallery pushing a bit cooler colors, higher contrast, extreme sharpness and no real SA gentleness. I'll wait, but I feel like I might just keep a couple of my current options and pick up the Sigma 35i instead for an AF option.
I just sold my CV 35/1.2III. You may like it better. F1.2 is fun, and the size and ergo are great, but I didn't find much magic in the images. It's a very good option though, just can't crack the top 3 for me. I also like the MS-Optics 35/1.4 and Pre-ASPH 35 Lux, but those lenses do some really wild stuff and produce images unlike just about anything. But they are lousy general 35mm's in my opinion, despite how lovely the images can be.
|
