Having just recently received my GM, I think I will definitely be sticking with it based on the specs from the Sigma. Although the monetary savings sound nice, I would only want something more compact than the GM, not something larger. Having used an adapted 35mm 1.4 Art for a while, every little bit in size savings counts.
Surprised by the size/weight, especially after the 85 and 24-70. This is larger than the ancient DSLR version of the lens, and close to the size of that lens with the E-mount adapter. It also makes the 14/24/35 GM's look more impressive from an engineering standpoint. Sony really worked some magic with that trio.
joychris wrote:
Surprised by the size/weight, especially after the 85 and 24-70. This is larger than the ancient DSLR version of the lens, and close to the size of that lens with the E-mount adapter. It also makes the 14/24/35 GM's look more impressive from an engineering standpoint. Sony really worked some magic with that trio.
Cheers
Chris
The lens is not larger than the DSLR version. This lens is 75mm in diameter, 111.5mm long and weighs 640g. The Canon EF version of the the old 35 f/1.4 Art DG is 77mm in diameter, 94mm long and weighs 665g. The only dimension that is less on the DSLR version is the length and that is because the registration distance is much longer on a DSLR (about 26mm longer in this case). If you add that extra registration distance--like when you add an adapter--the DSLR version is fatter, longer, and much heavier. Even without the adapter the DSLR version is fatter and heavier. The much better comparison to this lens is the E-mount version of the DSLR lens--the 35 f/1.4 DG. It is 2mm fatter, 8.5mm longer, and 115g heavier.
So, really there is no question this new DG DN is smaller than the old DSLR version. Is it small by enough to matter to you? That is a personal question that only you can answer?
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that this new Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG DN is almost exactly half-way in between the old DSLR version for E-mount and the Sony 35 f/1.4 GM. This new lens is 2mm skinnier, 8.5mm shorter, and 115g lighter than the DSLR version and it is 1mm fatter, 15.5mm longer, and 116g heavier than the Sony GM.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The lens is not larger than the DSLR version. This lens is 75mm in diameter, 111.5mm long and weighs 640g. The Canon EF version of the the old 35 f/1.4 Art DG is 77mm in diameter, 94mm long and weighs 665g. The only dimension that is less on the DSLR version is the length and that is because the registration distance is much longer on a DSLR (about 26mm longer in this case). If you add that extra registration distance--like when you add an adapter--the DSLR version is fatter, longer, and much heavier. Even without the adapter the DSLR version is fatter and heavier. The much better comparison to this lens is the E-mount version of the DSLR lens--the 35 f/1.4 DG. It is 2mm fatter, 8.5mm longer, and 115g heavier.
So, really there is no question this new DG DN is smaller than the old DSLR version. Is it small by enough to matter to you? That is a personal question that only you can answer?
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that this new Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG DN is almost exactly half-way in between the old DSLR version for E-mount and the Sony 35 f/1.4 GM. This new lens is 2mm skinnier, 8.5mm shorter, and 115g lighter than the DSLR version and it is 1mm fatter, 15.5mm longer, and 116g heavier than the Sony GM....Show more →
Unless my calculations are off, by volume it is larger than the DSLR version, a 15g weight difference is a push. And being longer it takes more space in the bag. It would be appealing to me if it were closer to the DSLR lens, not the clunky version with the goofy adapter. YMMV.
trogdon wrote:
Having just recently received my GM, I think I will definitely be sticking with it based on the specs from the Sigma. Although the monetary savings sound nice, I would only want something more compact than the GM, not something larger. Having used an adapted 35mm 1.4 Art for a while, every little bit in size savings counts.
The GM is definitely a superb lens. I did a comparison to the 35/2 DG DN for resolution and rendering and the former is noticeably better while the latter is actually more pleasant at f/2. (Especially off-axis)
That's great news becauseI really like how the Sigma 35/2 DG DN renders so the Sony gives me a all-in-one.
The GM is bigger but we can't complain about its size since it's the smallest 35mm f/1.4 lens with high IQ and AF I've seen.
I will definitely do a shoot out: Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN vs Sigma 35/2 DG DN vs Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM.
I've been collecting a lot of 35mm lenses lately. Tamron needs to release a 35mm f/1.4 E lenses now!!
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 35/1.4 GM's length is only 96mm vs 111.5mm and it weighs 524g vs 640g.
So, the Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN is 116g heavier and 15.5mm longer.
The Sony focuses closer at 25cm vs 30cm and has max magnification of 0.26x vs 0.18x.
But the Sigma has an extra element (15 vs 14) and costs $900 vs $1,400 ($500 cheaper!)
100g & 20mm is nothing to some people, especially those that carry 200 f2's, 70-200's, 300mm's etc.
If the lens draws nicely and focuses well (and is $500 cheaper), the insignificant (to many) dimensions won't matter.
It's also probably built better, none of my Sigma's have had any issues and are all built in Japan to probably (in my opinion) the highest quality standard.
Apr 21, 2021 at 09:43 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
joychris wrote:
Unless my calculations are off, by volume it is larger than the DSLR version, a 15g weight difference is a push. And being longer it takes more space in the bag. It would be appealing to me if it were closer to the DSLR lens, not the clunky version with the goofy adapter. YMMV.
Cheers
Chris
The DSLR lens is just shorter because the registration distance is longer for DSLRs. It will actually be longer on the DSLR from the back of the camera to the front of the lens. It will be smaller in the bag, but not if you consider you have to put that DSLR in the bag as well. That is obviously true if you keep the lens mounted as the whole package will be longer, but it is equally true even if you don't leave the lens mounted.
I've been looking for a 35mm since I sold the Loxia, and I was thinking about getting the new release Voigtlander APO-LANTHER F2. It looks like better to wait and see how the Sigma 1.4 preforms and save few hundred bucks.
Bob_S wrote:
100g & 20mm is nothing to some people, especially those that carry 200 f2's, 70-200's, 300mm's etc.
I agree Rob. Many shooters don't even mind the bigger Sigma 35/1.2. However there are those who value compactness and differences in mm and grams count. I see many FM members preferring the Sigma 35/2 DG DN vs Sony 35/1.4 GM just for the size difference alone. It's also a consideration how a lens balances. The Sigma 35/1.2 is front heavy while the GM is well balanced. The new Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN may sit in between them. (Similar to Sony 35/1.4 ZA and Samyang 35/1.4 E)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The GM is definitely a superb lens. I did a comparison to the 35/2 DG DN for resolution and rendering and the former is noticeably better while the latter is actually more pleasant at f/2. (Especially off-axis)
That's great news becauseI really like how the Sigma 35/2 DG DN renders so the Sony gives me a all-in-one.
The GM is bigger but we can't complain about its size since it's the smallest 35mm f/1.4 lens with high IQ and AF I've seen.
I will definitely do a shoot out: Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN vs Sigma 35/2 DG DN vs Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM.
I've been collecting a lot of 35mm lenses lately. Tamron needs to release a 35mm f/1.4 E lenses now!! ...Show more →
Rendering wise, you found the 35i more pleasant at f2? At mid, near or far distance?
Comparing dimensions, the one thing that did stick out to me is that the 35 1.4 DG DN is both slightly longer and slightly heavier than the 85 1.4 DG DN. I guess they really worked some magic they can't seem to replicate on that 85.
TarHoya wrote:
Comparing dimensions, the one thing that did stick out to me is that the 35 1.4 DG DN is both slightly longer and slightly heavier than the 85 1.4 DG DN. I guess they really worked some magic they can't seem to replicate on that 85.
Or they decided that the 35 shouldn't have the distortion the 85 has. I say this without knowing how distortion is corrected for in lens design.
hesb wrote:
I was about to ask the same, but the former and the latter, I think refers to resolution and rendering, not the lenses. Am I wrong?
Not sure how it was meant, that’s why I asked! I thought he meant the Sigma is better for rendering at f2, but then the Sony seems to be the better all-in-one so GM rendering is better than the 35i at f2?
