Still trying to decide between the two or if I need both .. like having AF with a good MF focus ring i.e. the sigma vs the better IQ from the CV for landscapes, etc . don't shoot any action... both similar in weight/size which meets my A7C kit criteria .. recently sold a great copy of the CV 65/2 because it was 22 ounces
very happy with using DMF with the 35i and love the bokeh. guess I'll be re-reading the CV 35 thread again today ! I have owned CVs and love the handling and IQ.
offtraildog wrote:
Still trying to decide between the two or if I need both .. like having AF with a good MF focus ring i.e. the sigma vs the better IQ from the CV for landscapes, etc . don't shoot any action... both similar in weight/size which meets my A7C kit criteria .. recently sold a great copy of the CV 65/2 because it was 22 ounces
very happy with using DMF with the 35i and love the bokeh. guess I'll be re-reading the CV 35 thread again today ! I have owned CVs and love the handling and IQ.
Yes, somebody named a rumor with similar findings. I haven't checked that as I'm one of those more than satisfied with the glimpses of rumors you get over here.
Lenstip... yes, I mentioned earlier I wish they had elaborated a little on their findings. Their little piece didn't tell us much else but the fact they found something they aren't used to.
Lenstip describes how they test "image quality" as they used to call it, and sometimes still do.
They test at four different distances, all but one closer than I do and the longest distance is just a bit further away than I use to be.
In short I find their resolution tests bordering to meaningless and that for several reasons. They don't measure the border value at the border, they average several results from different test charts and shooting distances and they also averages sagittal and tangential values... Oh well. They find new record setting lenses though and they seem to have fun doing their thing.
Lol, yes, maybe I am the first. I have no taker yet though. Maybe I'm asking too much money or I'm at the wrong place. Not sure.
Well, for now the SY35 is the reasonable choice. I really would like to switch to the Sigma - as soon as I can find a good copy that is. Like you I wonder if they exist and I may have to lower me expectations. At the same time I read about how people have tested their lenses and found them perfect or satisfying. maybe there is hope....Show more →
I actually think lenstip has one of the better test methodologies out there, behind Roger maybe but ahead of most other photo sites. You can see they are more scientists/engineers than photographers and they even admit it in their faq (which is pretty funny to be honest, what they say about dpr). It kinda also throws me off a bit, as sometimes I think their reviews are too technical (but that's their point, they make it clear in faq at least ).
Anyways, I did find the part about how they measure resolution and indeed it seems only 1/4 tests is a bit past 1m, so all their tests are pretty up close. I think this matches a bit your results, as most people test further away and the Sigma IQ might be more susceptible to focus distance (e.g. field curvature).
Jonas B wrote:
Your experience from the Sy35 matches mine, more or less. One thing is that I don't mind the plastic and what that can be sensed as "cheap build". I see a cheap lens as something that can be replaced if dropped or drenched. If it then actually is good and works fine for taking decent images, has low weight and so on - then it is the perfect lens for traveling for example.
I have the 35GM up for sale locally, no takers yet, I may have to lower the price. We'll see.
I'll sell it mainly because of haptics. it also is big and heavy (to me) but that I can manage. I'm a sucker for fast primes and remembering how fun i had with the canon 35/1.4 L on the 5d classic I couldn't resist the 35GM.
But in real use the lens is made for AF and camera control. The aperture ring is sometimes hard to find, it has a too long throw (and who decided there must be one click for a third of a stop?). The focusing ring is the opposite. It's nervous and reacts for any touch no matter how small. The throw might be linear but way to sensitive (as I tried to demonstrate here) and I don't have high hopes for Sony to fix this.
It is as they decided to prioritize the look of the lens over functionality. Sadly several other new Sony lenses are like that as well. try to handle the lens with gloves on...
The Sigma is far better.
Too sharp... no. I like it sharp as it is possible to handle in post if needed. A little too much CA sometimes but I could live with the RX1 LoCA for many years even if I didn't like it. The busy transition zone is a real problem with the 35GM. It doesn't affect every image of course, far from it, but I don't like it. The Sigma is, again, better.
I'm returning the GM to BH for pretty much the same reason you are. Not that the GM is a bad lens....far from it....I just find from a rendering, bokeh perspective, the Bigma is my preference. From a size and shooting experience perspective, the 35i is a much more enjoyable lens and the rendering and IQ delivers to boot.
That said, if sharpness across the frame is the priority, the GM makes a compelling proposition.
I don't know. I have been shooting a few days now with the GM. Using my R4, A9 and A7C. Fantastic lens and there are a few things I like better than the 35i. A couple things I don't like compared to the 35i. However nothing that makes me think Wow that just blows the 35i away. Nothing that makes me think its well worth the 700.00 difference in price. I was just out shooting close ups, landscapes and other things with the 35i and I have to tell you. That little lens does a great job! I find the rendering great, the bokeh looks good and it is plenty sharp enough. For me anyway. I was out shooting some pink dogwood blooms close up and to be honest I like the bokeh better on the 35i at F2 than the same shots using the GM at 1.4 or F2. I will give myself a few more days trying the GM but so far I am just not getting that wow factor. The GM may be going back. I may try the Sigma 35mm F1.2 or the new 1.4 DG DN or might just be happy using the 35i. Like I said it does great in my opinion. Now the 105mm 1.4 I just bought that's a different story. That big boy isn't going anywhere. Talk about Wow!
I feel opinion re the GM bokeh will harden into the' great for close focus but sketchy at certain distances', with contrasty highlights at times. I feel it lacks dimensionality (image depth). It's light for what it is, but nowhere near as user-friendly as either the Sigma or the CV 35/2.
And this is its strength as well as weakness, all down to user preference because what it does it does realy well, and the same will apply to the forthcoming 50/1.2. It's Sony's Canon and Sigma fast lens competitor if you will, it has a bright and quite distinct look, made to please a different user group and for pro usage.
Then when you work through what is best for you, there will always be the large money wrapped up in it plus the weight it will never shed to compete with the lighter/smaller class which also have outstanding image qualities - this is what's new today, 300-350g lenses that are affordable and small. Many will want the more versatile lenses that are easier to buy and to live with, more reliable across more fields.
One topic that doesn't get discussed much in all of the various discussions of the new 35s hitting the market:
How they do at closest focusing distance. The Sony 35mm f1.8 doesn't get much love around here but it's the best 35mm I've used for sharpness and closest focusing distance. Adds a lot of versatility and potential for intimacy.
Sold my 35ZA in anticipation of the 35GM, got a 35 F2 DG DN to keep that FL (my most used) covered in the meantime. In addition, sold my A7III and got the A7c (Kit in silver). Really, really like that combination. Eye lashes of my kids are tack sharp at any distances (unlike the 45 F2.8 DG DN), but the rendering is still very pleasing, and stopped down it is very sharp across the frame (landscape use) and its sunstar is very well defined and I prefer the 18 pointed stars to the 22 pointed stars of the GM lenses. My 35GM is still on pre-order, but I am seriously considering cancelling it. 35mm is most used by myself for documenting family life and the occasional landscape shot. The small size and the small front element of the sigma make it a very good lens for social settings. I will wait for Fred's rendering comparison with the 35GM and then decide if I really need/want that 35GM. In my use case, its only benefit would be the additional stop of light in indoor situations. But in most cases, f2 with the excellent low light perfomance of that A7c sensor is just fine.
Im about to test mine soon here again along with the GM and I may sell this Sigma but I want to compare first. Not that I need money but feeling guilty I bought my wife a pretty expensive car last night and I need to fix mine, I hit the garage wall hard and cant open a door, plus my dealer is in big need of used cars. Anyway if someone is in no hurry this is a good copy and has been tested on Big Bronco. Ill will list it later on the board.
Jonas B wrote:
I hope it works! I know I would like a good copy!
my 2nd copy is better than the first one, still not perfect but good enough.
I did a quick and totally unscientific resolution test to see if there is a significant resolution dip as you have seen with your copies. The following are 100% crops (A7III) at F2 from the left edge, left APS-C border, center, right APS-C border and right edge (distance to target was just under 1 meter). Looks good to me...
keepcoding wrote:
my 2nd copy is better than the first one, still not perfect but good enough.
(...). Looks good to me...
Hey, that's great! Looks good to me as well. You showed something here I never thought I would see. But then again - you do know this test is faulty and impossible without a professional setup in a studio and so on, right? ;-)
(A side note: I see your USAF test charts are scaled. It doesn't matter in this case as what we are looking for is an even level of resolution power across the image, you just can't calculate lp/mm from the setup.)
It's interesting to see that the APS-C edge is a tad better than the FF edge. That's what we usually see but not the same as I got (and not the same Lenstip got but their resolution presentations are so flawed anyway). So, it seems as we have to do with bad quality control here and not an error affection their whole production. I like that as I'm still intended to find a good copy.
Do you mind giving me the serial number of your new copy (not the last figures)?
Jonas B wrote:
Hey, that's great! Looks good to me as well. You showed something here I never thought I would see. But then again - you do know this test is faulty and impossible without a professional setup in a studio and so on, right? ;-)
(A side note: I see your USAF test charts are scaled. It doesn't matter in this case as what we are looking for is an even level of resolution power across the image, you just can't calculate lp/mm from the setup.)
It's interesting to see that the APS-C edge is a tad better than the FF edge. That's what we usually see but not the same as I got (and not the same Lenstip got but their resolution presentations are so flawed anyway). So, it seems as we have to do with bad quality control here and not an error affection their whole production. I like that as I'm still intended to find a good copy.
Do you mind giving me the serial number of your new copy (not the last figures)? ...Show more →
yes, I just needed a target with some contrast, not meant to be used to calculate lpmm
serial number: 5545xxxx
keepcoding wrote:
yes, I just needed a target with some contrast, not meant to be used to calculate lpmm
serial number: 5545xxxx
One of the good things with the old USAF charts is that you immediately can se the sagittal and tangential resolution meaning you don't have to look for more or less odd stuff around you to get a good target. here it served you well.
The serial number is way higher than mine! Now I'll go chase a good 35i and I have some hopes about getting the 35GM sold. Maybe.
Thanks again!
Definitely 35I with A7C. Although, I prefer small lenses on my A7III too. Really conflicted with the new 35s here. I think GM is the best compromise of weight, size and IQ, but I feel like I will be looking for a smaller, more compact, lens for everyday use if I pick up GM as my main lens and If i pick up 35I as my main lens, I will be missing the magical rendering of the Bigma.
With the same money of 35 GM you can buy both, the 35DN and 35I.
The latest pictures published on DP Review on Sony A7RIV are explanatory of this DN lens qualities.
To me this one will be more than enough and possibly the saved money will go to 65I.
For sure before purchase I will test by myself.
I will also wait for Fred's test as he is very skilled on testing and not biased.
I have owned CVs and love the handling and IQ. 
).
