p.90 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
j4nu wrote:
So, I guess in the end we all knew the answer to the quest for perfect 35mm: one does not exist.
Nikon 35 1.8 S
In all seriousness, I think Sony having like... 5(? 6?) lenses one step away from perfect in this segment is probably the most pointlessly frustrating thing about being a part of the Sony platform. Pointless, in that you can still take great pics without it and I think Sony is still overall the best platform to be a part of as a hobbyist. Frustrating, in that a lens that really does everything it should for a hobbyist's uses actually exists and not on this platform (and Sony has shown they can do peak hobbyist with the 20 1.8 G).
Well, as someone who can't afford 3-5 35s the GM looks pretty dang good. Maybe not as sublime as the Sigma, but being half the weight would be a great trade off in my eyes. You could feasibly lug this thing around all day, even if it meant cutting down a few options in your EDC kit.
p.90 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
JVan_02 wrote:
Nikon 35 1.8 S
In all seriousness, I think Sony having like... 5(? 6?) lenses one step away from perfect in this segment is probably the most pointlessly frustrating thing about being a part of the Sony platform. Pointless, in that you can still take great pics without it and I think Sony is still overall the best platform to be a part of as a hobbyist. Frustrating, in that a lens that really does everything it should for a hobbyist's uses actually exists and not on this platform (and Sony has shown they can do peak hobbyist with the 20 1.8 G).
Well, as someone who can't afford 3-5 35s the GM looks pretty dang good. Maybe not as sublime as the Sigma, but being half the weight would be a great trade off in my eyes. You could feasibly lug this thing around all day, even if it meant cutting down a few options in your EDC kit. ...Show more →
The price is certainly a drawback for hobbyists.
For me and my wife, making money from it, it is a no brainer. For me it is the best overall 35 I used so far.
I found the Sigma 1.2 great, too, but the GM is more reliable and better in many aspects.
I think people spend too much time chasing for the perfect lens. Improving photographic skills has much more impact than a minimally better lens.
p.90 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
JVan_02 wrote:
Nikon 35 1.8 S
In all seriousness, I think Sony having like... 5(? 6?) lenses one step away from perfect in this segment is probably the most pointlessly frustrating thing about being a part of the Sony platform. Pointless, in that you can still take great pics without it and I think Sony is still overall the best platform to be a part of as a hobbyist. Frustrating, in that a lens that really does everything it should for a hobbyist's uses actually exists and not on this platform (and Sony has shown they can do peak hobbyist with the 20 1.8 G).
Well, as someone who can't afford 3-5 35s the GM looks pretty dang good. Maybe not as sublime as the Sigma, but being half the weight would be a great trade off in my eyes. You could feasibly lug this thing around all day, even if it meant cutting down a few options in your EDC kit. ...Show more →
Is there any Nikonian that does Fred-like rendering tests ? Last time I checked FE35f1.8 scored better then 35f1.8S on dpr AFAIR...
Looks comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2. The reason the Nikon 35mm is perfect is because there aren't any other choices.
The other issue is the lack of consistency in Sony branded lenses - the GM lenses are all very good but large, the G lenses are hit or miss depending on which lenses, the regular Sony lenses are mostly ok.
Looks comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2. The reason the Nikon 35mm is perfect is because there aren't any other choices.
The other issue is the lack of consistency in Sony branded lenses - the GM lenses are all very good but large, the G lenses are hit or miss depending on which lenses, the regular Sony lenses are mostly ok.
p.90 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
The price is certainly a drawback for hobbyists.
For me and my wife, making money from it, it is a no brainer. For me it is the best overall 35 I used so far.
I found the Sigma 1.2 great, too, but the GM is more reliable and better in many aspects.
I think people spend too much time chasing for the perfect lens. Improving photographic skills has much more impact than a minimally better lens.
For me this is only about characteristics of a lens. How it translates to real world usage is a different story.
So we know sharpness-wise, GM is top tier, maybe the sharpest 35mm, maybe tied with the recent CV APO.
And what do we know about smoothness? Should it be compared to FE35f1.8 instead of 35i or the Bigma?
p.90 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
j4nu wrote:
Huh, it's difficult to say without shooting the same scene with both. That's why I think the best comparison is the one I posted, you can download fullsize jpegs and compare every area of the frame then. I find the Bigma to be smoother under such hard conditions.
In the standalone shots, I think the Bigma would also show some busyness, just with less outlining, maybe with more LoCA. So, it would not be perfect, because it was a heavily lit scene with branches, twigs, etc. and 35mm simply does not blur enough in this case.
I'm not such a bokeh aficionado as Fred Miranda or @Nehemiahphoto@@, but I've learned to value smooth rendering here. The GM is of course capable of smooth rendering, but it's less capable of handling challenging scenes. See, below 3 shots with different focus distance. To me, they are all smooth enough. This is again a heavily backlit scene with the setting sun on border of the frame. Fringing is also minimal for such a difficult scene imho.
If you saw Fred's recent 35mm comparison, I'd say that the GM looks closer to an even sharper but less corrected CV 35 APO than to 35i in its output.
EDIT: Fred tested another copy of the APO, which performs better in the corners so I guess we have to wait for a direct comparison @f2....Show more →
I'm not "bokeh aficionado".
I just share my opinion on technical aspects of rendering, especially when writing a review. This stuff is subjective and therefore there is no good or bad, just a personal choice.
One of my favorite lenses is the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton which has one of the busiest rendering available..
p.90 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not "bokeh aficionado".
I just share my opinion on technical aspects of rendering, especially when writing a review. This stuff is subjective and therefore there is no good or bad, just a personal choice.
One of my favorite lenses is the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton which has one of the busiest rendering available..
Yea and I hated it . So no one is wrong
I like bokeh but I just not fond of swirls and onion rings other than that it depends on the image itself
p.90 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
j4nu wrote: Thanks, but these are only test charts, right?
Ah fair, rendering tests vs. sharpness tests! Bryan does do rendering tests in his reviews but I don't think he has that data on the Nikon 35mm unfortunately. I'm sure there are other reviews out there too with what you're looking for but I don't care enough to go look it up further.
p.90 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
My two-bit hobbyist opinion is that Sony has never developed a cohesive strategy for their lens line-up.
Base models that shoot like Gs and Gs that shoot like base models.
Lines of disparate features and form factors.
Even the GM line has two sub-lines ( 24 + 85 ) and (35 +50 + 135).
In early days it was all forgivable because they were just starting out. Eight years later it is a bit off-putting.
IMHO 1.2s and 1.4s should be weighted more for beautiful OOF areas than for sharpness.
Isn't that why we buy and carry fast lenses; to take advantage of those apertures when desired?
Aren't those apertures more for aesthetics rather than narrative or light gathering?
Let the f/2s and 2.8s be the better corrected, sharper lenses. Wonderful for travel and other kinds of documentary endeavours.
Strikes me that Sony decided to make an improved 35/1.8 rather than an improved 35/1.4 ZA.
Somethings upside down when an f/2 Sigma mid-tier renders more sweetly than a f/1.4 Sony GM.
I might come around when more images become available but for the moment I'm thinking that this lens requires very careful consideration of the background. (The less of it the better.)
PS - No offense intended to anyone that owns or likes the lens. It is, of course, all a matter of taste.
PPS - I do like the way that CV 35 Classic renders !
p.90 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
DaveFP wrote:
My two-bit hobbyist opinion is that Sony has never developed a cohesive strategy for their lens line-up.
Base models that shoot like Gs and Gs that shoot like base models.
Lines of disparate features and form factors.
Even the GM line has two sub-lines ( 24 + 85 ) and (35 +50 + 135).
In early days it was all forgivable because they were just starting out. Eight years later it is a bit off-putting.
IMHO 1.2s and 1.4s should be weighted more for beautiful OOF areas than for sharpness.
Isn't that why we buy and carry fast lenses; to take advantage of those apertures when desired?
Aren't those apertures more for aesthetics rather than narrative or light gathering?
Let the f/2s and 2.8s be the better corrected, sharper lenses. Wonderful for travel and other kinds of documentary endeavours.
Strikes me that Sony decided to make an improved 35/1.8 rather than an improved 35/1.4 ZA.
Somethings upside down when an f/2 Sigma mid-tier renders more sweetly than a f/1.4 Sony GM.
I might come around when more images become available but for the moment I'm thinking that this lens requires very careful consideration of the background. (The less of it the better.)
PS - No offense intended to anyone that owns or likes the lens. It is, of course, all a matter of taste.
PPS - I do like the way that CV 35 Classic renders !...Show more →
"IMHO 1.2s and 1.4s should be weighted more for beautiful OOF areas than for sharpness.
Isn't that why we buy and carry fast lenses; to take advantage of those apertures when desired?"
I think that it is difficult to get a consensus about that, since optimally a lens does everything. However, rendering preferences are subjective as are requirements regarding minimum acuity. I, personally, don't want to sacrifice sharpness for a tiny bit better rendering.
I think, too, that it is very difficult to design lenses for different focal length which all have similar rendering characteristics, sharpness, CA performance etc.
p.90 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
j4nu wrote:
Huh, it's difficult to say without shooting the same scene with both. That's why I think the best comparison is the one I posted, you can download fullsize jpegs and compare every area of the frame then. I find the Bigma to be smoother under such hard conditions.
In the standalone shots, I think the Bigma would also show some busyness, just with less outlining, maybe with more LoCA. So, it would not be perfect, because it was a heavily lit scene with branches, twigs, etc. and 35mm simply does not blur enough in this case.
I'm not such a bokeh aficionado as Fred Miranda or @Nehemiahphoto@@, but I've learned to value smooth rendering here. The GM is of course capable of smooth rendering, but it's less capable of handling challenging scenes. See, below 3 shots with different focus distance. To me, they are all smooth enough. This is again a heavily backlit scene with the setting sun on border of the frame. Fringing is also minimal for such a difficult scene imho.
If you saw Fred's recent 35mm comparison, I'd say that the GM looks closer to an even sharper but less corrected CV 35 APO than to 35i in its output.
EDIT: Fred tested another copy of the APO, which performs better in the corners so I guess we have to wait for a direct comparison @f2....Show more →
I am just a neurotic lens tester at times, not an expert though
p.90 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I came across a picture taken by the 35gm on flickr, am I alone in thinking that the background rendering behaves quite like the new G series in that the blur of the foliage is not quite the smoothest there is? I think the term used here is "structured" kind of bokeh.
Not here to stir, I just like to look at images and see what people think.
Have you ever shot that ZM 35/1.4? If so, did you like it?
Yes, we had two of those, before using the Sigma 1.2 and now the GMs.
AF was fast and rendering often pleasing, but at f1.4 too soft for my taste, I shot the ZM at f2 most of the time. Then it was a lottery to get reasonably centered ones and CAs were very strong. I found black & white images with it to look fantastic, however.
For me the GM is fantastic. We shoot against the sun all the time and it shows hardly any flares. It is sharp, has flat field of view, nice rendering (not perfect), is small, light, has fast AF, reasonably low CAs.
I tested now 3 copies (one from Sony when we tested it for them with the A1), and we have two in possession right now (bought one and won one in a Sony competition). All 3 were equally sharp and well centered (I saw differences only when zooming to 200-300% on the A7riv). So Sony seems to have improved copy to copy variation now, too. Other people have other preferences. The Sigma, in my opinion, renders a bit nicer. But I want 100% reliability at weddings and trust the GM more.
p.90 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
sselhtrim wrote:
I came across a picture taken by the 35gm on flickr, am I alone in thinking that the background rendering behaves quite like the new G series in that the blur of the foliage is not quite the smoothest there is? I think the term used here is "structured" kind of bokeh.
Not here to stir, I just like to look at images and see what people think.
So let’s talk about this as I think folks are expecting miracles from first a wide angle lens and at that kind of distance from subject to start than from subject to background. Just a big distance and even at 1.4 aperture it’s not going to have that bokeh effect. That image would be considered normal
So let’s take that same image if I walked closer to the young lady on the stairs that bokeh would change but so would your framing. Now you can crop a little different but with a wide lens you have to get closer. With a long lens you compress that distance.
So with a wide lens like a 35mm lens you roughly have to be about 10ft maximum away and there background after them hopefully will be pretty far behind them
To keep this simple the longer the lens the better in regards to distance. If using a wide lens the closer you want to be to subject. Those are your rule of thumbs
p.90 #20 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Holger wrote:
Yes, we had two of those, before using the Sigma 1.2 and now the GMs.
AF was fast and rendering often pleasing, but at f1.4 too soft for my taste, I shot the ZM at f2 most of the time. Then it was a lottery to get reasonably centered ones and CAs were very strong. I found black & white images with it to look fantastic, however.
For me the GM is fantastic. We shoot against the sun all the time and it shows hardly any flares. It is sharp, has flat field of view, nice rendering (not perfect), is small, light, has fast AF, reasonably low CAs.
I tested now 3 copies (one from Sony when we tested it for them with the A1), and we have two in possession right now (bought one and won one in a Sony competition). All 3 were equally sharp and well centered (I saw differences only when zooming to 200-300% on the A7riv). So Sony seems to have improved copy to copy variation now, too. Other people have other preferences. The Sigma, in my opinion, renders a bit nicer. But I want 100% reliability at weddings and trust the GM more.
Holger, ZM 35/1.4 and ZA 35/1.4 are different lenses - ZM is a Zeiss manual focus lens for M mount, ZA is the Sony/Zeiss branded FE mount 35/1.4 which I think you are referring to in your response
.
