p.99 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
photosbyjaron wrote:
I think mine has one corner that is softer than the rest unfortunately. The weather was not ideal today, so I'll have to go to the top of the hill when the skies clear and take some shots of the neighborhood to know for certain, but based on just shooting some comparisons today, looks like top right for me is just a bit softer than the rest. Below are 200% crops at f/2.2.
Needless to say, I'm glad I haven't cancelled my other orders yet. My Best Buy order should arrive next Wednesday for comparison.
Everyone is entitled to demand perfection at this price, but at 200% crops I wouldn’t return this unless, like in your case, a better copy is already on its way.
p.99 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I predict it breaking a resolution record at Big Bronco!
At least for a 35mm lens. The Sigma matches it a center but the Sony does better off-axis.
Yea and the Sigma did good but not F2 or even 1.4 good but very respectful. My surprise was at F4 on my infinity test no mid zone dip that I could not see. Big Bronco is a tough wall to break. Looking forward to testing this one
p.99 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea and the Sigma did good but not F2 or even 1.4 good but very respectful. My surprise was at F4 on my infinity test no mid zone dip that I could not see. Big Bronco is a tough wall to break. Looking forward to testing this one
This is when I want my A7rIV in my hand
It's a very hard decision because Sony and Sigma are both great lenses in regards to resolution and rendering. The Voigtlander is unique being almost CA free and I can see how it differentiates for applications like landscapes.
Still I will probably keep the 35/2 DG DN for when Sony releases a A7CR for a compact combination.
p.99 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's a very hard decision because Sony and Sigma are both great lenses in regards to resolution and rendering. The Voigtlander is unique being almost CA free and I can see how it differentiates for applications like landscapes.
Still I will probably keep the 35/2 DG DN for when Sony releases a A7CR for a compact combination.
Ha! That was exactly what I was thinking: I was about to put up the 2/35 for sale, on the basis that the GM trumps it and is not that much bigger, and then thought " but what if there's an A7cr (even 42 MP would do me)?" and didn't....
p.99 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Week 1 GM recap:
I've been test driving the GM against the Bigma and 35i in different use case scenarios. I find the GM, 35i, and bigma all to be more than sufficiently sharp enough, so other considerations come into play.
If you're shooting on the a7c because you're trying to go light, the 35i is the better choice. It's quite a bit smaller than the GM and the difference really stands out. If I'm heading out casually and want to fit a camera into my day, I see the 35i getting the nod over the GM. Shooting experience on the 35i is as close to the rx1rii as I've come since I sold it.
In times when I'm shooting more critically and the quantity/quality of the bokeh and light gathering start to matter, size is not really a consideration and the bigma bokeh and rendering get the nod.
People have different needs and priorities so YMMV, but I view the GM as the jack of all trades, master of none option. Not a terrible place to be and certainly more economical than buying the GM AND the 35i if you don't already own them. I'm set on the 35i as my compact option...but as I shoot the GM more and get a better idea of how it renders, am leaning more and more towards keeping the Bigma.
p.99 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Mystik wrote:
Week 1 GM recap:
I've been test driving the GM against the Bigma and 35i in different use case scenarios. I find the GM, 35i, and bigma all to be more than sufficiently sharp enough, so other considerations come into play.
If you're shooting on the a7c because you're trying to go light, the 35i is the better choice. It's quite a bit smaller than the GM and the difference really stands out. If I'm heading out casually and want to fit a camera into my day, I see the 35i getting the nod over the GM.
In times when I'm shooting more critically and the quantity/quality of the bokeh and light gathering start to matter, size is not really a consideration and the bigma bokeh and rendering get the nod.
People have different needs and priorities so YMMV, but I view the GM as the jack of all trades, master of none option. Not a terrible place to be and certainly more economical than buying the GM AND the 35i if you don't already own them. I'm set on the 35i as my compact option...but as I shoot the GM more and get a better idea of how it renders, am leaning more and more towards keeping the Bigma.
Kind of my thoughts even though I have not shot the GM yet. But more what I’m expecting. 35mm is a important lens for me so for the hot moment I don’t mind having both. Not something I typically do. But I view the Sigma as a day lens
p.99 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Mystik wrote:
Week 1 GM recap:
I've been test driving the GM against the Bigma and 35i in different use case scenarios. I find the GM, 35i, and bigma all to be more than sufficiently sharp enough, so other considerations come into play.
If you're shooting on the a7c because you're trying to go light, the 35i is the better choice. It's quite a bit smaller than the GM and the difference really stands out. If I'm heading out casually and want to fit a camera into my day, I see the 35i getting the nod over the GM. Shooting experience on the 35i is as close to the rx1rii as I've come since I sold it.
In times when I'm shooting more critically and the quantity/quality of the bokeh and light gathering start to matter, size is not really a consideration and the bigma bokeh and rendering get the nod.
People have different needs and priorities so YMMV, but I view the GM as the jack of all trades, master of none option. Not a terrible place to be and certainly more economical than buying the GM AND the 35i if you don't already own them. I'm set on the 35i as my compact option...but as I shoot the GM more and get a better idea of how it renders, am leaning more and more towards keeping the Bigma.
p.99 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's a very hard decision because Sony and Sigma are both great lenses in regards to resolution and rendering. The Voigtlander is unique being almost CA free and I can see how it differentiates for applications like landscapes.
Still I will probably keep the 35/2 DG DN for when Sony releases a A7CR for a compact combination.
p.99 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Mystik wrote:
Week 1 GM recap:
I've been test driving the GM against the Bigma and 35i in different use case scenarios. I find the GM, 35i, and bigma all to be more than sufficiently sharp enough, so other considerations come into play.
If you're shooting on the a7c because you're trying to go light, the 35i is the better choice. It's quite a bit smaller than the GM and the difference really stands out. If I'm heading out casually and want to fit a camera into my day, I see the 35i getting the nod over the GM. Shooting experience on the 35i is as close to the rx1rii as I've come since I sold it.
In times when I'm shooting more critically and the quantity/quality of the bokeh and light gathering start to matter, size is not really a consideration and the bigma bokeh and rendering get the nod.
People have different needs and priorities so YMMV, but I view the GM as the jack of all trades, master of none option. Not a terrible place to be and certainly more economical than buying the GM AND the 35i if you don't already own them. I'm set on the 35i as my compact option...but as I shoot the GM more and get a better idea of how it renders, am leaning more and more towards keeping the Bigma.
I'd say the GM is the master of sharpness ... but yes, I had 35i only for a brief time but I think it was a bit smoother in rendering (that's why I'm eagerly awaiting for Fred's comparison).
I also find the GM a bit Zeiss-like in its output, so contrasty and colorful, while the Bigma is rather on the dreamy (but sharp where it counts) side.
Kinda hard to choose the best option now, since we have so many 35s in e-mount and everyone has their own preference, also depending on the intended usage the best choice changes.
What was the magic number of 35s you are allowed to have (according to Fred) again ?
p.99 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
Your allowed to have 2 out of abundance of caution from your spouse thinking you may have more than that . This must be proven via receipts,closet cleaning and a lie detector test. If you have 3 than your penance is 500 Hail Marys,50 Our Fathers but worse than that the total cost of those 3 lenses must be reimbursed 5x the value to your spouse to buy anything they freaking please. Another words simply put Your Toast Dude. Lol
p.99 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
tbpeur01 wrote:
Everyone is entitled to demand perfection at this price, but at 200% crops I wouldn’t return this unless, like in your case, a better copy is already on its way.
Yeah, I may have unrealistic expectations and could probably be convinced to keep it if the other copies I have on order aren't any more centered. I have two more coming from different places, so I figure I'll keep the most centered of the three and return the others. My Sigma 14-24 isn't 100% centered either but is good enough for all of the apertures I use it at, so I kept it. Since I intend to shoot this a lot at f/1.4, I'd like it to be as centered as possible. At f/5.6, it clears up pretty well, but at 1.4, there's quite a bit of difference - to my eye at least. If I'm being overly unrealistic though, I appreciate the reality check.
p.99 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
photosbyjaron wrote:
Yeah, I may have unrealistic expectations and could probably be convinced to keep it if the other copies I have on order aren't any more centered. I have two more coming from different places, so I figure I'll keep the most centered of the three and return the others. My Sigma 14-24 isn't 100% centered either but is good enough for all of the apertures I use it at, so I kept it. Since I intend to shoot this a lot at f/1.4, I'd like it to be as centered as possible. At f/5.6, it clears up pretty well, but at 1.4, there's quite a bit of difference - to my eye at least. If I'm being overly unrealistic though, I appreciate the reality check....Show more →
It's a bit difficult to judge them at 200% one after the other. Can you put the 4 corners on a screen, screenshot it and post it?
I wouldn't bother with anything but 1.4 if you're comparing them (though the only time you'd likely need equally sharp corners at 1.4 would be astro) as at that aperture you're really testing the corners.
Looking at the two 1.4 images at the end, yes, one is obviously less sharp, though it would help comparing all 4 corners at 100%.
I returned 2 lenses with soft top right corners before settling on the last (which has a very slightly softer top left corner though I can only really see this 200%, which to me is a sign that I'm looking too hard!).
Here are the 3 lenses I've tried, the extreme corners at 100% on a 4k screen then screen captured (so likely at more than 100% on your screen as you're viewing them larger than 1:1):
The sharpness of this lens is spectacular. I am continually blown away by how sharp the corners are (even though I won't be needing the corners this sharp in most images - it is nice to know that the lens that you've spent £1360 on has pretty equal corners). The corners are sharper than the centers of my (sold) ZA 35mm 1.4, I'd say, and likely sharper than the centers of a few other lenses.
Rendering can be a bit busy with some backgrounds at some distances (apparently, according to some images on this forum) but otherwise it's quite smooth and pleasing, whilst having great colours and punchy contrast.
p.99 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
rainio wrote:
It's a bit difficult to judge them at 200% one after the other. Can you put the 4 corners on a screen, screenshot it and post it?
I wouldn't bother with anything but 1.4 if you're comparing them (though the only time you'd likely need equally sharp corners at 1.4 would be astro) as at that aperture you're really testing the corners.
Looking at the two 1.4 images at the end, yes, one is obviously less sharp, though it would help comparing all 4 corners at 100%.
I returned 2 lenses with soft top right corners before settling on the last (which has a very slightly softer top left corner though I can only really see this 200%, which to me is a sign that I'm looking too hard!).
The sharpness of this lens is spectacular. I am continually blown away by how sharp the corners are (even though I won't be needing the corners this sharp in most images - it is nice to know that the lens that you've spent £1360 on has pretty equal corners). The corners are sharper than the centers of my (sold) ZA 35mm 1.4, I'd say, and likely sharper than the centers of a few other lenses.
Rendering can be a bit busy with some backgrounds at some distances (apparently, according to some images on this forum) but otherwise it's quite smooth and pleasing, whilst having great colours and punchy contrast.
Thanks for the suggestion! I've updated the image. So far I love the lens and can't wait to get the other ones that are inbound. If I had never frequented the forum I probably never would have noticed, but once one knows about decentering, can't go back. Agreed that it will rarely matter, but I also agree that when spending $1500 on a lens, one would prefer it to perform as well as it has been proven to be capable of performing.
p.99 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
photosbyjaron wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion! I've updated the image. So far I love the lens and can't wait to get the other ones that are inbound. If I had never frequented the forum I probably never would have noticed, but once one knows about decentering, can't go back. Agreed that it will rarely matter, but I also agree that when spending $1500 on a lens, one would prefer it to perform as well as it has been proven to be capable of performing.
Pretty similar to the first two I had. Good that you have options when the other two arrive.
... but yes, I had 35i only for a brief time but I think it was a bit smoother in rendering (that's why I'm eagerly awaiting for Fred's comparison).
?