Flavourdynamic wrote:
I'd like to ask about the AF speed of this lens. It's been praised in most reviews I've read, but it seemed not that fast on my A7III when I tried it.
It's pretty fast but not on the level of the fastest GMs (e.g. 135GM). It's very responsive and quick when tracking, but traversing the whole focus range is clearly noticeable...
j4nu wrote:
It's pretty fast but not on the level of the fastest GMs (e.g. 135GM). It's very responsive and quick when tracking, but traversing the whole focus range is clearly noticeable...
Thanks! What body do you use?
I own the Sony 24-105G, 85/1.8, 20G and 40G, and while I didn't do any comparisons to these lenses, it would not have surprised me if the 35GM was slower than each of these.
Flavourdynamic wrote:
Thanks! What body do you use?
I own the Sony 24-105G, 85/1.8, 20G and 40G, and while I didn't do any comparisons to these lenses, it would not have surprised me if the 35GM was slower than each of these.
The One Alpha body .
Of these lenses I only used 85/1.8 and I think I'd agree it was a touch faster (it's been a while since I used it though and on a different body then).
Past a certain threshold it's hard to say for me which lens focuses faster, if both are fast enough... I think the only case where I notice 35GM's AF is when going from close to far distance (and vice versa), so generally it's fast enough for my typical usage (family stuff, etc.) for me not to notice it working...
j4nu wrote:
The One Alpha body .
Of these lenses I only used 85/1.8 and I think I'd agree it was a touch faster (it's been a while since I used it though and on a different body then).
Past a certain threshold it's hard to say for me which lens focuses faster, if both are fast enough... I think the only case where I notice 35GM's AF is when going from close to far distance (and vice versa), so generally it's fast enough for my typical usage (family stuff, etc.) for me not to notice it working...
Agreed -- the lenses I mentioned in most situations give the impression of acquiring focus when I push the button. With the 35GM there was enough time for me to recognize that it was taking some time -- how many ms that was, I can't say (200? 300? 500?), but I was also used to the 40G which is the fastest I have seen so probably it's not really an issue. I can definitely imagine it being a bit slower on a 7M3 than an A1 though.
Hi. Does this render better than the 35mm F2 on the Sony RX1? I had to let it go because of the high percentage of misfocus, but I still miss it. I have the 24mm F1.4 GM, but I'm not that satisfied yet. Should I get this? I have tried 28mm F2, 35mm F2.8, 55mm F1.8, Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and I have not felt that any of these were able to surpass the rendering of the RX1, even the 24mm F1.4GM still felt not as good. I'm using an A7 III by the way.
Rahvin wrote:
Hi. Does this render better than the 35mm F2 on the Sony RX1? I had to let it go because of the high percentage of misfocus, but I still miss it. I have the 24mm F1.4 GM, but I'm not that satisfied yet. Should I get this? I have tried 28mm F2, 35mm F2.8, 55mm F1.8, Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and I have not felt that any of these were able to surpass the rendering of the RX1, even the 24mm F1.4GM still felt not as good. I'm using an A7 III by the way.
Also, does it focus as fast as the 24GM? Thanks....Show more →
Since nobody responded, let me try.
I think 35GM is faster to focus than 24GM in general.
I have never shot RX1, but from what I've seen I don't think 35GM is that similar. The GM is sharper, more contrasty, better corrected - so more neutral rendering I guess (than dreamy smooth). Sigma 35 f2 is generally considered closer to RX1 around here. Having said that, I like the pictures that come out of 35GM rendering-wise. It's ridiculously sharp (I could trade some of that I guess), while still being at least good in rendering domain IMHO.
Edit: The best 35mm I tried when it comes to rendering is Sigma f1.2 (still I think it renders differently than RX1) .
Thanks for your reply. I checked the Sigma 35mm F2... It seems i like the rendering of this lens better than the 35GM. I feel the rendering is closer to RX1, but it feels like the colors of the RX1 is better. Anyway, will try that one out. Thank you very much.
Much to the surprise of Past Me, I found myself receiving a copy of this lens in the mail today. Some initial thoughts: Build quality seems excellent (my first GM). It's a very dense lens, which gives a good impression. Autofocus seems more snappy than my first impression earlier in the thread; I think subconsciously comparing it to the 40G I was using at the time was a bit unfair.
Central sharpness at 1.4 is crazy, sharp enough to give false-colour aliasing on my (admittedly modest) 24 MP sensor.
100% crop, centre:
Slightly less sharp in the corners, but for f/1.4 it's still very good I think.
Centering test:
(Done with manual exposure (including WB), manual focus on axis, no ibis and electronic shutter. Results repeatable.)
Thoughts on the centering of this copy? I am, as always, torn.
A non-stringent (different days, focal lengths, perspectives and subjects) LoCA comparison between 40/2.5 G wide open (left) and 35GM at 2.5 (right). 100% crops.
Despite slight differences in conditions I think it's clear that the GM does better. Wide open the GM looks similar to the 40G on the left there, but with better rendering overall (in particular less bokeh fringing)
Flavourdynamic wrote:
Much to the surprise of Past Me, I found myself receiving a copy of this lens in the mail today. Some initial thoughts: Build quality seems excellent (my first GM). It's a very dense lens, which gives a good impression. Autofocus seems more snappy than my first impression earlier in the thread; I think subconsciously comparing it to the 40G I was using at the time was a bit unfair.
Central sharpness at 1.4 is crazy, sharp enough to give false-colour aliasing on my (admittedly modest) 24 MP sensor.
Slightly less sharp in the corners, but for f/1.4 it's still very good I think.
Centering test:
(Done with manual exposure (including WB), manual focus on axis, no ibis and electronic shutter. Results repeatable.)
https://i.imgur.com/MalB52m.png">
Thoughts on the centering of this copy? I am, as always, torn. ...Show more →
Looks very good to me, maybe the top right corner is a tiny bit weaker. Still, I think there's more chance to get a worse one than a better one if exchanged...
j4nu wrote:
Looks very good to me, maybe the top right corner is a tiny bit weaker. Still, I think there's more chance to get a worse one than a better one if exchanged...
Indeed, top right is weaker in all my tests. I will never see this difference in real-world shots, I'm sure, but I am also a tiny bit concerned that the difference might be more pronounced on a higher-res sensor (this is an A7III which I don't expect to be my last ever camera).
It could be a bit snappier to autofocus sometimes, but I suspect that's mostly my A7III starting to show its "age" a bit. It was mostly fast!
It focuses really close which lets you get some pretty effective pseudo-macro, where the f/1.4 DOF is a razor. Manual focus feels great, by far the best I've experienced on any electronic system. Focus ring is as smooth as on my 20G and 24-105G but with more damping.
It's sharp enough at 1.4 that I just shot there by default unless I need a broader DOF.
CA is quite well-corrected, I would say. It's visible in the usual situations, branches against an overexposed sky etc, but definitely palatable. Less than I was expecting from reviews. Certain other lenses (looking at you, 85/1.8) sometimes surprise me by managing to exhibit CA in shots I wasn't expecting it, which always annoys me, but this lens does not seem to be in that camp.
Rendering ranges from beautiful to somewhat harsh, as has been shown previously in the thread. I far from a bokeh cork sniffer, and am happy to trade sharpness and (spherical) aberration correction for occasional background structure.
Indeed, every lens is a bag of optical compromises, and I find myself happily aligned with the compromises the designers chose: rendering in certain situations and focus breathing in exchange for a super sharp (wide open and close up), well-corrected, compact instrument.
Here are some images from today, typically cropped and edited to taste.
The first one is on a tripod (25sec), the 2 others are handheld.
Some CA at f/1.4 on the last one. There is no profile yet in DxO PL4, I don't know if this can be easily corrected.
Fboss wrote:
Some CA at f/1.4 on the last one. There is no profile yet in DxO PL4, I don't know if this can be easily corrected.
Yep, should be one or a few clicks in lightroom. It's LoCA so it won't be corrigible using a profile.
The sharpness of this lens continues to wow me. I took a landscape test shot at f/1.4 and 7.1 and I honestly had a hard time telling them apart at 100% at the frame edges. Like, sure, it's a 24 MP sensor but still, isn't that nuts?
This is right at the frame edge, it looked very similar everywhere apart from where DoF effects mattered.
.
.
https://i.imgur.com/MalB52m.png">
