« Two independent floating focus groups allow for close focusing distances, and are driven by four 'extreme dynamic' linear motors (two per focus group). We're told by Sony that these linear motors are very efficient at generating linear motion, as they don't require any translation of rotational motion to linear motion, as ring-type and stepper motors do.»
and
« In comparison, the tiny FE 35mm F1.8 optic takes 0.3s to rack from its minimum focus distance to infinity, while the Nikkor 35mm F1.8 S takes around 1s to do so. That makes the 0.5 - 0.6s figure for the 50mm F1.2 GM nothing short of impressive.» ...Show more →
Yes, Sony claims the technology they use is better than competing technology, yawn. Manufacturer claims of superiority should be separated from actual evidence of said superiority. DPR is simply quoting what Sony claims. And the comparison of just two lenses establishes nothing. Of course manufacturers build individual lenses with different speeds. Did Nikon ever say anything about their 35 f/1.8S as being their fastest AF lens? Of course not. What we know is that the FE 35 f/1.8 is faster than the 35 f/1.8s, but this one test tells us nothing about whether stepper motors or linear motors as a category are faster.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, Sony claims the technology they use is better than competing technology, yawn. Manufacturer claims of superiority should be separated from actual evidence of said superiority. DPR is simply quoting what Sony claims. And the comparison of just two lenses establishes nothing. Of course manufacturers build individual lenses with different speeds. Did Nikon ever say anything about their 35 f/1.8S as being their fastest AF lens? Of course not. What we know is that the FE 35 f/1.8 is faster than the 35 f/1.8s, but this one test tells us nothing about whether stepper motors or linear motors as a category are faster....Show more →
The Nikon 35/1.8 Z is larger, heavier and more expensive than the Sony 35/1.8 FE, yet it focuses more slowly. From Dpreview’svreview of the Sony 35/1.8, « At F1.8 it is sharper and has more contrast than the Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA and the Nikon 35mm F1.8 S, almost approaching the benchmark Canon 35mm F1.4L II lens.», link https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-fe-35mm-f1-8-review/3 . The Sony lens not only focuses faster than its Nikon counterpart, it’s optically superior too, according to Dpreview. The Sony 35/1.8 FE is $698 and the Nikon 35/1.8 S is $846.
The Sony 50/1.2 GM is smaller and lighter than the Nikon 50/1.2 S
Do linear (XD) motors have a size advantage, allowing a lens to be constructed smaller than lenses with HSM/USM/SWM motors and stepper motors? In other words, Sony may have an advantage in miniaturization of their lenses through the use of linear motors.
Apr 26, 2021 at 08:19 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
bjornthun wrote:
The Nikon 35/1.8 Z is larger, heavier and more expensive than the Sony 35/1.8 FE, yet it focuses more slowly. From Dpreview’svreview of the Sony 35/1.8, « At F1.8 it is sharper and has more contrast than the Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA and the Nikon 35mm F1.8 S, almost approaching the benchmark Canon 35mm F1.4L II lens.», link https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-fe-35mm-f1-8-review/3 . The Sony lens not only focuses faster than its Nikon counterpart, it’s optically superior too, according to Dpreview. The Sony 35/1.8 FE is $698 and the Nikon 35/1.8 S is $846.
The Sony 50/1.2 GM is smaller and lighter than the Nikon 50/1.2 S
Do linear (XD) motors have a size advantage, allowing a lens to be constructed smaller than lenses with HSM/USM/SWM motors and stepper motors?...Show more →
Who knows if linear motors have a size advantage? Sony just may be more interested in building smaller lenses than Nikon. Nikon clearly didn't build their 50 f/1.2S to be small, and they clearly had a moderate size (around a pound) in mind for all their f/1.8S lenses. The Sigma 85 f/1.4 Art DG DN is an example of a fairly small 85 f/1.4 lens with a stepper motor and the Canon 35 f/1.8RF with 1:2 magnification is quite small at 305g for a lens with that short of an MFD and it too has a stepper motor, so perhaps lenses can be built small with stepper motors as well, but Nikon just hasn't tried to minimize size as much as Sony, Sigma, and Canon.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Who knows if linear motors have a size advantage? Sony just may be more interested in building smaller lenses than Nikon. Nikon clearly didn't build their 50 f/1.2S to be small, and they clearly had a moderate size (around a pound) in mind for all their f/1.8S lenses. The Sigma 85 f/1.4 Art DG DN is an example of a fairly small 85 f/1.4 lens with a stepper motor and the Canon 35 f/1.8RF with 1:2 magnification is quite small at 305g for a lens with that short of an MFD and it too has a stepper motor, so perhaps lenses can be built small with stepper motors as well, but Nikon just hasn't tried to minimize size as much as Sony, Sigma, and Canon....Show more →
Well, we don’t know why Nikon hasn’t tried more to shrink their lenses as much as their competitors have.
I suggest we leave it here and return to discussing the upcoming Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN.
scalanc2 wrote:
Have a look at this.
645 gr and 109mm.
Sony GM is 524 and 96
Bigma is 1090 and 136
Very clear it is quite far from the Bigma.
Those are the specs for the L-Mount version of the lens, per leaks the E-Mount version is 2mm longer and 5 grams lighter. Still a solid middle ground in size between GM and Bigma, and much closer in weight to the GM than the Bigma.
Nokishita reporting rumored planned release date to be May the 14th. The retailing price is actually supposed to be quite competitive at 800 EUR or 960 USD.
If the performance of its brothers Bigma f/1,2 and I-series f/2 is any indication on how a good balance between sharpness and overall rendering can be achieved, I have high hopes for this one. If so it will be a slam dunk and a definitive buy for me.
stjepan wrote:
Nokishita reporting rumored planned release date to be May the 14th. The retailing price is actually supposed to be quite competitive at 800 EUR or 960 USD.
Sigma really did a whole presentation on the 35 DG DN 1.4. I was hoping the event would be to talk about more than 1 lens, and include, say, the long awaiting 70-200 2.8.
Apr 27, 2021 at 07:26 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
We also don't know why Nikon would be using superior technology yet obtain poorer results than Sony.
Anyone knows when the first reviews of the Sigma will hit the wires?
I think we need to understand that performance is more than AF speed and sharpness. If all you care about is AF speed and sharpness the FE 35 f/1.8 would be hard to beat. That lens is very sharp and focusses very fast. If you care about aberrations (especially axial CA) or about the bokeh a lens produces, then you may not like the FE 35 f/1.8. It will be interesting to see what this Sigma 35 f/1.4 does with regard to balance between characteristics. I think the Sigma 35 f/2i is a very balanced lens with very good performance in AF, sharpness, aberration control, and bokeh while it doesn't maximize any of these while leaving poor performance in others (as I believe the FE 35 f/1.8 does). Will the Sigma 35 f/1.4 take the same approach balancing size, AF, sharpness, aberration control, and bokeh? We will have to wait to see.
Ooof, I'm a huge fan of Sigma, I really am, but the samples I'm seeing so far leave far to be desired compared to the GM. Of course this lens is far cheaper than the GM but it's supposed to be an Art lens so I wish they bumped the price a little. MFD performance and CA look really bad and there's some bokeh outlining. The GM seems to be performing better in all these aspects and is smaller to boot. For my usage of the lens anyway I'd rather take the GM but I'll be keeping an eye on this lens to see if it grows on me.
Honestly, looking at early samples and watching a couple videos, I prefer the Sony 1.8. Not impressed with the close focusing distance, the sharpness wide open, and CA issues, even at the price. And that GM-like focus breathing, yikes! I'll stick with the 1.8 and if I want 1.4 I'll just cough up more for the smaller/lighter/sharper GM. Fast wides are fun when shooting close and the 1.8 looks much better. I shoot a lot of video, so the lack of breathing compared to the others is nice as well.
If the 1.8 was built like the 20G with the aperture ring I wouldn't be looking elsewhere. I wish Sony was more consistent with the design of its non-GM lenses.
joychris wrote:
Honestly, looking at early samples and watching a couple videos, I prefer the Sony 1.8. Not impressed with the close focusing distance, the sharpness wide open, and CA issues, even at the price. And that GM-like focus breathing, yikes! I'll stick with the 1.8 and if I want 1.4 I'll just cough up more for the smaller/lighter/sharper GM. Fast wides are fun when shooting close and the 1.8 looks much better. I shoot a lot of video, so the lack of breathing compared to the others is nice as well.
If the 1.8 was built like the 20G with the aperture ring I wouldn't be looking elsewhere. I wish Sony was more consistent with the design of its non-GM lenses.
So far they have, sort of. The 20/1.8 is a G but not GM. The 35/1.8 is non-G and non-GM. If you ask me, there should be fewer labels in the Sony line-up, but that’s probably to be expected with a new mount, that is actually eleven years old by now. I count four lines.
non-G/GM/Zeiss
G
GM
Zeiss
I don’t care about the labels but look at quality and features instead. Much less confusing.
