photosbyjaron wrote:
All three lenses appear to be phenomenal with minor trade-offs here or there. The Sigma 1.2 trades off size and weight. The GM trades off price. The Sigma 1.4 seems to sacrifice overall sharpness for better bokeh and split the other trade-offs down the middle. At this point, the consumer can't lose with any of them (or the other cheaper options like the Sigma f/2 or Samyang f/1.8 for that matter). Either way, I'll be delighted to stay with the GM if I can find a nicely centered copy. Based on Fred's tests showing the GM flirting with 35 APO level resolution, it seems to perfectly fill the role I want of sharp resolution for landscape, small size for general purpose, and accurate AF for portraits. And when I don't want bitingly sharp, contrasty images, I can always throw on a diffusion filter. Also, I may have been more tempted to get the Sigma and apply the savings towards another lens if I had room in my bag for another lens, but my bag literally cannot fit another lens in it without ditching something else, and I love my current bag too much to find a different one. ...Show more →
Well, I had one on pre-order at Adorama forever, in the mean time B&H had one in stock (I shoot L-Mount) So, It'll be here Thursday.
I love the 35mm FL and currently have the 35/1.4ZM and the Canon 35LmkII. I haven't shot the GM but besides the "harsh' bokeh....Looks amazing. We don't have a lot to choose from on L-mount besides the other Sigma 35's and the $5K Summicron SL which is f2.
So, looking forward to shooting this.
I know this is mostly for Sony users, but here's my .02$ from the L mount version
Holy cow, from what I've been reading I expected my 35 1.4 DN that I just got today to be pretty good, was hoping for decent, I figured the CA would be terrible and the close up focus wouldn't be as sharp as my other lenses. Some of the reviews for this lens just got me worried I guess.
What I got was an amazing 35mm lens that is VERY sharp wide open, close up or mid range. The CA didn't "catch my eye" I almost forgot to look for it because it looks "normal" I guess...For a fast prime...Not bad at all, in fact, pretty good, so i don't know what everyone was looking at and frankly don't care now
The bokeh is BEAUTIFUL and the contrast gives it cool 3d effect and rich Artistic look. Definitely not the sterile bokeh from the past. Build is amazing, AF is lightning fast, focus is DEAD on...It feels perfect on my SL2s, not heavy at all, definitely doesn't feel big (but I've been adapting Canon L primes and using my Noct. so....)
Perhaps this lens is from a new batch (I missed the 1st batch I think) I'm glad I sold my 35 Summicron SL and WOW...did I find an AF replacement for my 35/1.4ZM This is my 1st day with the lens and haven't converted them yet but will post some when I do.
Who knows, maybe Leica will come out with a 35/1.4 from Japan and sell it for $2995
A couple from last night, all at 1.4 on my SL2-s
These are all just examples I'm getting as I snap wide open. I'm no science major and have no business doing side by sides and tests like Fred and everyone else does. But I was surprised. My Lightroom has no profile for this lens yet so they're just converted as i would convert any other of my pics.
Okay, jokes aside - those indeed look very good .
The thing is though, that 35mm is a lot more crowded in E-mount...
Matt Kerby wrote:
A couple from last night, all at 1.4 on my SL2-s
These are all just examples I'm getting as I snap wide open. I'm no science major and have no business doing side by sides and tests like Fred and everyone else does. But I was surprised. My Lightroom has no profile for this lens yet so they're just converted as i would convert any other of my pics.
Matt Kerby wrote:
A couple from last night, all at 1.4 on my SL2-s
These are all just examples I'm getting as I snap wide open. I'm no science major and have no business doing side by sides and tests like Fred and everyone else does. But I was surprised. My Lightroom has no profile for this lens yet so they're just converted as i would convert any other of my pics.
I prefer the Sigma's rendering compared to the 35/1.4 GM. Great samples! The Sony is capable of capturing higher frequency detail wide open but they are both sharp lenses.
Please post more samples! Anyone else have this lens?
Matt Kerby wrote:
A couple from last night, all at 1.4 on my SL2-s
These are all just examples I'm getting as I snap wide open. I'm no science major and have no business doing side by sides and tests like Fred and everyone else does. But I was surprised. My Lightroom has no profile for this lens yet so they're just converted as i would convert any other of my pics.
vdo1 wrote:
Stop the agony, the Laowa 35/0.95 has the most renders.
Yeah, the new 35mm bokeh king. I need to put my Bigma to rest now .
Getting back to the new Sigma, I wish someone would post more shots at various distances to really evaluate its rendering. I thought it's "smoother" than the GM, but Dustin in his review states otherwise...
I'm amazed more people don't have this lens! I'm guessing it must be because the 35GM has become this instant rockstar lens and everyone wants it - which is cool, it's fantastic to have a lens like that out there. But it's soooo expensive in Europe/UK, having a really nice option like this for literally half the price is also fantastic for us.
For the same price as the 35GM, I've been able to order:
- Sigma 35mm DG DN 1.4
- Sony 50mm 2.5 G
- Samyang 85mm AF 1.4
This gives me a nice range of well respected primes for different uses. If you have the money no problem or really need that extra oomph, I can totally see why most are going for the GM. Feel bad for Sigma, if the GM hadn't of appeared this lens would probably have been the rockstar
So presently Sigma have sold at least two 35/1,4 DN (I kid, but it sometimes seems that way on forums)
It'll be interesting to hear what you think of it newdom. The above samples look lovely. It's the same where I'm at, the GM is twice the price and a shorter warranty. (Sigma warranty is a little bit nicer than Tamron's extended warranty as well because tied to the lens which is good for resale)
newdom wrote:
I'm amazed more people don't have this lens! I'm guessing it must be because the 35GM has become this instant rockstar lens and everyone wants it - which is cool, it's fantastic to have a lens like that out there. But it's soooo expensive in Europe/UK, having a really nice option like this for literally half the price is also fantastic for us.
For the same price as the 35GM, I've been able to order:
- Sigma 35mm DG DN 1.4
- Sony 50mm 2.5 G
- Samyang 85mm AF 1.4
This gives me a nice range of well respected primes for different uses. If you have the money no problem or really need that extra oomph, I can totally see why most are going for the GM. Feel bad for Sigma, if the GM hadn't of appeared this lens would probably have been the rockstar ...Show more →
Well, maybe a few things:
FM Members tend to be on the wealthier side. There are some exceptions, but this tends to be a rule.
FM Members tend to be from the US, which would make wealth less of an issue.
Size I think is the big X-factor of the GM. While it's more expensive everywhere, for less size you can get: more reliable image quality (less fiddling with SA up close), better reproduction ratio, and a much better AF system. If the Sigma were cheaper, slightly less technically proficient, and also slightly smaller it might find some users who typically avoid bigger, more performant lenses in favor of a more physically manageable kit. Not the case here.
I agree that Sigma was unfortunate on the Sony system with the release of the 35 GM—but honestly I feel like they missed their best chance for sales with the 35i. I'm aware that lens is something of a favorite on these boards so I'm not speaking largely to the audience here, but the 35-40 range on the Sony system is missing a f2-1.8 "no optical compromise" (sometimes with profile correction) AF lens that we have in almost every other focal length in the ultra-wide to telephoto range.
20 1.8 G
24 1.8 Samyang (good copies) | 24i 2 Sigma
55 1.8 ZA (CA correction)
65i 2 Sigma
85 1.8 Batis
135 2.8 Batis (long enough that this is functionally the same as f2)
With the seemingly endless variety of options for 35-40mm available for the E-mount, if you want the cutting edge of optical performance you have only two options: the 35 APO-Lanthar which is MF only, or the 35 GM which is bigger and more expensive than some people are willing to consider. Seeing as the 35 1.8 FE is famous for harsh rendering and the 35 1.8 Samyang basically went the same route that Sigma did (albeit with more copy variation), I feel Sigma really could have carved a niche out for themselves with a 35mm more in line with what they put out in their 24 & 65mm f2 lenses. I realize for most this statement is egregiously nit-picky, but I feel there's a reason the 24i gets compared to the 24 GM and the 65i gets compared to the 65 APO-Lanthar while the 35i is more commonly spoken of in terms that puts it half a step or so behind.
It makes me wonder if we're going to see 28, 40, and 105mm i-series entries that reprise their DSLR performances.
FM Members tend to be on the wealthier side. There are some exceptions, but this tends to be a rule.
FM Members tend to be from the US, which would make wealth less of an issue.
Size I think is the big X-factor of the GM. While it's more expensive everywhere, for less size you can get: more reliable image quality (less fiddling with SA up close), better reproduction ratio, and a much better AF system. If the Sigma were cheaper, slightly less technically proficient, and also slightly smaller it might find some users who typically avoid bigger, more performant lenses in favor of a more physically manageable kit. Not the case here.
I agree that Sigma was unfortunate on the Sony system with the release of the 35 GM—but honestly I feel like they missed their best chance for sales with the 35i. I'm aware that lens is something of a favorite on these boards so I'm not speaking largely to the audience here, but the 35-40 range on the Sony system is missing a f2-1.8 "no optical compromise" (sometimes with profile correction) AF lens that we have in almost every other focal length in the ultra-wide to telephoto range.
20 1.8 G
24 1.8 Samyang (good copies) | 24i 2 Sigma
55 1.8 ZA (CA correction)
65i 2 Sigma
85 1.8 Batis
135 2.8 Batis (long enough that this is functionally the same as f2)
With the seemingly endless variety of options for 35-40mm available for the E-mount, if you want the cutting edge of optical performance you have only two options: the 35 APO-Lanthar which is MF only, or the 35 GM which is bigger and more expensive than some people are willing to consider. Seeing as the 35 1.8 FE is famous for harsh rendering and the 35 1.8 Samyang basically went the same route that Sigma did (albeit with more copy variation), I feel Sigma really could have carved a niche out for themselves with a 35mm more in line with what they put out in their 24 & 65mm f2 lenses. I realize for most this statement is egregiously nit-picky, but I feel there's a reason the 24i gets compared to the 24 GM and the 65i gets compared to the 65 APO-Lanthar while the 35i is more commonly spoken of in terms that puts it half a step or so behind.
It makes me wonder if we're going to see 28, 40, and 105mm i-series entries that reprise their DSLR performances.
I'm not sure I follow, what is exactly wrong with 35i (and SY35f1.8 I presume) ?
It's a lens that prioritizes rendering, but gives up a bit of sharpness up close by doing so.
Both 35APO and 35GM can be bested on the rendering front and that I guess is the price for their "cutting edge optical performance"...
j4nu wrote:
I'm not sure I follow, what is exactly wrong with 35i (and SY35f1.8 I presume) ?
It's a lens that prioritizes rendering, but gives up a bit of sharpness up close by doing so.
Both 35APO and 35GM can be bested on the rendering front and that I guess is the price for their "cutting edge optical performance"...
My only issue with the lenses is the RSA. As you pointed out, Samyang already did that with their 35, so I don't see a reason for Sigma to double up. Furthermore, not only is the GM able to somewhat replicate the softness at f2 with greater resolution—but having to close down to avoid RSA at distances under ~1m is actually an obstacle to indoor shooting, particularly during winter months where things aren't as well lit. For a lens with as versatile a focal length as 35mm, for me at least, this is a detriment.
As I said, there are many fans of the 35i, particularly on this board. Just my 2 cents.
JVan_02 wrote: Not really, or at least on the part of the GM.
My only issue with the lenses is the RSA. As you pointed out, Samyang already did that with their 35, so I don't see a reason for Sigma to double up. Furthermore, not only is the GM able to somewhat replicate the softness at f2 with greater resolution—but having to close down to avoid RSA at distances under ~1m is actually an obstacle to indoor shooting, particularly during winter months where things aren't as well lit. For a lens with as versatile a focal length as 35mm, for me at least, this is a detriment.
As I said, there are many fans of the 35i, particularly on this board. Just my 2 cents. ...Show more →
Ah, yes when it comes to close-up performance both the Samyang and the Sigma suffer a bit...
I also saw that test, where surprisingly the GM is on similar level as 35i when it comes to rendering and since I don't find the GM too big/heavy, I found little reason to stay with the Sigma.
Edit: 65i is similar though, not as sharp as the APO but with nicer rendering (at least from the samples posted here).
This is my 1st day with the lens and haven't converted them yet but will post some when I do.
