p.71 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
PhilG21 wrote:
Thank you for this test. It matches my first impressions. The Sigma’s barrel distortion is, indeed, quite severe, and it’s even more noticeable when compared to the GM. I also had the feeling it has a little bit more cat’s eye distortion and "Petzval" effect at f/1.4 than the 35 GM. Anyway, distortion correction is quite heavy on the Sigma, and definitely necessary when it comes to portraits. Added to a narrower FOV (and the difference with the 35 GM is clearly noticeable), this correction effectively leads to a ≥ 37 focal length.
One thing I recognized regarding AF speed: Initially I could not believe the reports saying the 35 GM to not focus faster than the 35/1.2. That is true, however (still more than fast enough). I usually use AFC for 99% of things. When accidentally using AF-s and CD AF, I found the GM to focus very fast and sure, much quicker than I was used to from many other lenses. Is that your observation, too?
p.71 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
One thing I recognized regarding AF speed: Initially I could not believe the reports saying the 35 GM to not focus faster than the 35/1.2. That is true, however (still more than fast enough). I usually use AFC for 99% of things. When accidentally using AF-s and CD AF, I found the GM to focus very fast and sure, much quicker than I was used to from many other lenses. Is that your observation, too?
Lately I almost used only AF-S and it performed very well. I also used AF-C for a few portraits with eye-AF priority on (family stuff that I won't post here) and it was fast and accurate. I will try to use more often AF-C... That said, I use an A7R III, so I'll never have ultimate AF performance.
p.71 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
PhilG21 wrote:
Lately I almost used only AF-S and it performed very well. I also used AF-C for a few portraits with eye-AF priority on (family stuff that I won't post here) and it was fast and accurate. I will try to use more often AF-C... That said, I use an A7R III, so I'll never have ultimate AF performance.
My (and not only my experience) is to use AFC only. I wouldn't use AFS at all unless I need to use the 2s timer which reverts to AFS. AFS is just too slow for me in general.
p.71 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
If I don't need the low light ability f/1.4 brings over f/2, is there much reason for me to upgrade to this? The Sigma 35 f/2 is already performing at such a high level. Sharpness, distortion and CA wise the GM isn't going to be a truly noticeable improvement there.
I was thinking that if I sold my 35 f/2 Sigma to buy this, I could instead buy the 55 f/1.8 and have that + the Sigma because of how much extra $$$ I would need to pay to pick up the GM.
As the DoF control of f/1.4 vs. f/2 is not all that much better, maybe I should pick up the 55 f/1.8 as a 'melt the backgrounds away' lens.
p.71 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
If you could live with a 65mm lens vs a 55mm, I think the Sigma 65mm is a better "melt the background away" lens. At least I think you might want to look at it, when it comes to bokeh it's hard to be absolute any recommending one lens over another (and in this case it's even different FLs.)
p.71 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Looking forward to seeing your portraits and further thoughts!
35mm is one my favorite focal lengths for portraits. Personally, I’m totally cool with 35mm for a half body shot, but I feel like I generally have the camera dead on leveled at the chest at that range. Three quarters? Well, that’s my favorite portrait framing for 35mm! 35mm f1.4 on full frame...it’s just a delicious thing. Are you noticing a big difference between the GM and your 1.8 in terms of subject separation? I’m very curious to hear how the AF accuracy compares to your Samyang 85mm as well.
abadger wrote:
From what I’ve seen so far it renders skin quite nicely (more neutral than other lenses that might add warmth), but I literally have only had it for two days and haven’t dug deep into editing yet. It felt to me like there was much less distortion than I would have expected for a 35 at close range. That being said, I still don’t like to take close-ups with 35s in general because even when distortion is controlled, it is still present to some degree. I would use it for emphasis or effect perhaps but not for a traditional portrait unless it was full body.
Even after saying all that I did take some half body shots at close range due to a confined space, and it did quite well. As soon as I have time to edit a few I will share....Show more →
p.71 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
fuzzykeys wrote:
Looking forward to seeing your portraits and further thoughts!
35mm is one my favorite focal lengths for portraits. Personally, I’m totally cool with 35mm for a half body shot, but I feel like I generally have the camera dead on leveled at the chest at that range. Three quarters? Well, that’s my favorite portrait framing for 35mm! 35mm f1.4 on full frame...it’s just a delicious thing. Are you noticing a big difference between the GM and your 1.8 in terms of subject separation? I’m very curious to hear how the AF accuracy compares to your Samyang 85mm as well.
The AF accuracy is significantly better than the Samyang. The only shots I missed with the GM as I later found out were those where I was very close to the subject due to space limitations, and wide open. But really I shouldn’t have been so close for a portrait at this focal length. Still, I am a bit confused why I got the green box and yet it didn’t properly focus on the eye. I will keep note if it occurs again, but I’m assuming it is user error.
With the Samyang I tend to take several identical shots in a row as a defense mechanism, especially when ambient lighting is low, as it can miss focus with some frequency in between shots. I think it pulses to guess focus in AF-C and in the process of pulsing will still allow shutter release, yielding more out of focus shots than I would like. Still, when it nails it, it is great. I didn’t find this issue with the GM at all. It found focus nearly every time. Perhaps there were a few occasions where the subject was perpendicular to the camera and it found the cheek instead of the eye. But at this point it is quite satisfactory.
Subject separation is just so lovely compared to the f/1.8. I would say it is the main differentiator between the two lenses. The rendering is not quite as sterile as the f/1.8, but not quite as dreamy as the Samyang, I’d say it is a nice balance.
Most of my shoot did not suit the 35 focal length but I used it as much as I could just to try it out, will definitely share eventually!
p.71 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
How bad is the focus breathing for video when only shooting static scenes where the person moves just a bit? Can somebody test this or are there any videos showing it?
p.71 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
One thing I recognized regarding AF speed: Initially I could not believe the reports saying the 35 GM to not focus faster than the 35/1.2. That is true, however (still more than fast enough). I usually use AFC for 99% of things. When accidentally using AF-s and CD AF, I found the GM to focus very fast and sure, much quicker than I was used to from many other lenses. Is that your observation, too?
Gosh... Mine is still on preorder. I will test it against my 35 1.4 ZA for AF speed and accuracy when it arrives. The Sony Zeiss had already a silent and reasonably fast AF, but I was expecting to improve my ratio of keepers with the GM. I will frankly be disappointed if it's not the case.
p.71 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Ayoul wrote:
Gosh... Mine is still on preorder. I will test it against my 35 1.4 ZA for AF speed and accuracy when it arrives. The Sony Zeiss had already a silent and reasonably fast AF, but I was expecting to improve my ratio of keepers with the GM. I will frankly be disappointed if it's not the case.
I don't have the Zeiss anymore, but I think the whole focus range was traversed faster on it. But that doesn't mean anything, focus change from A-B should be fast _and_ accurate. Keeper rate for us was very very high with AFC.
He says the Sony is sharper, though the sigma 1.2 has a more "poetic" rendering (due to the wider aperture and slightly less contrast at 1.2?)
I'd say the Sony 1.4 ZA also has a more "poetic" rendering (smoother oof areas) than the GM as the designers decided to sacrifice sharpness for the rendering.
IMHO the sigma looks slightly better than the Sony for environmental portraits at 1.4, though the Sony is excellent also, though the Sony is sharper than the sigma.
I'd guess that after the Sony ZA 1.4, which was criticized for poor sharpness (amongst other things; I thought the sharpness was ok in the centre, though dropped outside the centre zone), Sony went all out for sharpness (it now being the sharpest 35mm), to silence the critics, though with a lens this sharp, the oof areas won't be quite as smooth.
Still, for most people who want a 35mm 1.4 (and can't afford multiple 1.4s) the GM seems to be the best option, as it will serve as an excellent walkabout lens, landscape lens and portrait lens (and if you want to soften the rendering could use a black pro mist filter, for exams).
For those who'd mainly use a 35mm for environmental portraits (though one would think longer lenses would make up 80%+ of portrait images) and they want the smoothest oof, then the sigma may be their choice.
For the pros out there who want the smoothest oof rendering and the versatility of the GM, they'd get both, I guess.
The GM rendering has great contrast and the oof rendering is quite attractive, though the sigma 1.2 has the most "poetic" rendering.
He says the Sony is sharper, though the sigma 1.2 has a more "poetic" rendering (due to the wider aperture and slightly less contrast at 1.2?)
I'd say the Sony 1.4 ZA also has a more "poetic" rendering (smoother oof areas) than the GM as the designers decided to sacrifice sharpness for the rendering.
IMHO the sigma looks slightly better than the Sony for environmental portraits at 1.4, though the Sony is excellent also, though the Sony is sharper than the sigma.
I'd guess that after the Sony ZA 1.4, which was criticized for poor sharpness (amongst other things; I thought the sharpness was ok in the centre, though dropped outside the centre zone), Sony went all out for sharpness (it now being the sharpest 35mm), to silence the critics, though with a lens this sharp, the old areas won't be quite as smooth.
Still, for most people who want a 35mm 1.4 (and can't afford multiple 1.4s) the GM seems to be the best option, as it will serve as an excellent walkabout lens, landscape lens and portrait lens (and if you want to soften the rendering could use a black pro mist filter, for exams).
For those who'd mainly use it for environmental portraits (though one would think longer lenses would make up 80%+ of portrait images) and they want the smoothest oof, then the sigma may be their choice.
For the pros out there who want the smoothest oof rendering and the versatility of the GM, they'd get both, I guess.
The GM rendering has great contrast and the oof rendering is quite attractive, though the sigma 1.3 has the most "poetic" rendering....Show more →
I just used both this week-end. The Sony has indeed a bit more contrast and the Sigma looks smoother. Partly this is due to more CAs at large apertures in the Sigma, partly because the Sony is clearly sharper not only in the center but clearly so towards border and corners.
Decreasing contrast and texture+sharpness in LR to similar levels, the difference isn't huge anymore in my opinion.
We used the Sigma for weddings since introduction and like it. But it has quite a few flaws, too, esp. flare. It is much nicer to use a small and light lens, too. We are selling the Sigma for the Sony.
p.71 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
Decreasing contrast and texture+sharpness in LR to similar levels, the difference isn't huge anymore in my opinion.
.
That's exactly what I was thinking as well. If you think a lens has too much contrast, it can be easily fixed with a couple sliders and saved as a preset.
p.71 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
alphanumeric wrote:
That's exactly what I was thinking as well. If you think a lens has too much contrast, it can be easily fixed with a couple sliders and saved as a preset.
And, more of the time we want images to have more "natural" contrast and to be sharper rather than not. I've used pro mist filters with good effect with sharp lenses to reduce contrast slightly and give more of a "filmic" effect (they're used a lot by videographers who use digital video cameras but want filmic looks).
Better to have a more contrasty, sharper lens that you can tweak in post rather than the opposite, imho.
p.71 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I'm also looking forward to trading my Bigma for the new GM, but I think Sigma is already plenty sharp (I compared it today in the center to ZA 50 and didn't find major differences at f1.4). I'd prefer the focus of the GM to be on something other than beating another sharpness record (vide 135GM which sometimes is just too sharp ) .
The size & weight are enough for me to consider the switch though, but I guess I'm not proficient enough in post-processing to make one lens look like the other so easily (though I admit some things are simple, like the pronounced vignetting at f1.2 often adds to Bigma's magic).
I'm a bit bummed about the AF, as I expected it to be near the top (maybe not 135GM level, but something like 20G). Still, that's a minor complaint as I've found Bigma's AF fast enough .
p.71 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I just wish I had mine already so I can go play with it...no word still from my shop, so I'm assuming the March 12th ship date SAR reported is probably not happening.
p.71 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
rainio wrote:
And, more of the time we want images to have more "natural" contrast and to be sharper rather than not. I've used pro mist filters with good effect with sharp lenses to reduce contrast slightly and give more of a "filmic" effect (they're used a lot by videographers who use digital video cameras but want filmic looks).
Better to have a more contrasty, sharper lens that you can tweak in post rather than the opposite, imho.
Easy to do for the in focus areas....pretty onerous to do in the OOF areas. Bokeh in the samples shared show a lot of dark contrasty lines and strongly defined objects when there is a lot going on in the background. To correct that in post without screwing with your subject involves masking your subject every time.
This matters to me for outdoor environmental portraits and documentary shots where I don't always have control of the background....the wide angle of view from a 35MM lens makes this especially challenging vs something like the 135GM where the narrower FOV will hide a lot.
I still have my pre-order locked in but am on the fence TBH
) .
.