Tom RC wrote:
50mm has always been an awkward focal length for me. Not wide or long enough. 35mm has been much more useful and in the past found myself using 24-70's a lot around 35mm. I like primes that "dazzle" and "wow" but never found that in a 35mm prime until I picked up the Sigma 35mm 1.2. It's worth every penny and ever ounce.
Still can't decide between Sigma 35 1.2 and 35GM. GM is optically superior, less CA, better contrast, sharpness, however every time I compared them 1.2 vs 1.4. It's not Art is bad, but GM has edge on 60MP. But I prefer Sigma for portrait every time. Their names describe them perfectly, G-Master as most perfect 35mm, Sigma is more artistic rendering lens. Most time size is not matter for me, sometime prefer 35GM "compactness", sometime I like 35 1.2 bulk, because I feel it more steady. I use Peak Design clutch, I think it's a must have for bigger lenses. Art GM
Lukacs wrote:
Still can't decide between Sigma 35 1.2 and 35GM. GM is optically superior, less CA, better contrast, sharpness, however every time I compared them 1.2 vs 1.4. It's not Art is bad, but GM has edge on 60MP. But I prefer Sigma for portrait every time. Their names describe them perfectly, G-Master as most perfect 35mm, Sigma is more artistic rendering lens. Most time size is not matter for me, sometime prefer 35GM "compactness", sometime I like 35 1.2 bulk, because I feel it more steady. I use Peak Design clutch, I think it's a must have for bigger lenses. Art GM
I have a 35GM and it's great but the only reason I have it rather than the Sigma f/1.2 Art is because of the size and weight of the Sigma. The GM may be better in some technical sense (I'm pretty sure I've seen reviews saying it is), but without doubt the Sigma is capable of producing images I prefer. So, your are not alone!
Unless you are a pixel peeper, I don’t think 99 out of 100 people would pick up on ANY issue with a Sigma Art series lens whether viewing a print or on screen and autofocus while being a tad slower than a Sony is still PLENTY PLENTY fast enough. I’m using a handful of Sigma Arts on A7R5’s, viewing on very high quality monitors and see nothing lacking. BUT, I’m not a pixel peeper…..never got into that hobby 🙂
There was a time when I’d NEVER consider a Sigma lens but the Art Series has totally changed my mindset. They are simply stellar! I get the weight issue some have with lenses like the Sigma 35mm 1.2. It is no doubt a big lens for its focal length but a total non issue to me. Maybe that stems from days long past carrying a couple of big Canon’s over my shoulder paired with 24-70’s, 85mm 1.2’s or 70-200’s on all day wedding shoots. I was spoiled for life around 20 years ago the first time I put an 85mm 1.2 on a Canon 1D. The look mesmerized me and I’ve been hooked on the big primes since and never given a second thought to the size or weight of these types of lenses. The "look" has always been worth it to me. The 35mm 1.2 actually seems like a feather compared to the Sigma 105mm 1.4 which is now my all time favorite portrait lens taking the crown over the 85mm 1.2’s and 135mm primes which long reigned supreme in my book.
I’m not advocating Sigma over Sony, not at all. I wish Sony would introduce a 35mm 1.2 and either an 85mm 1.2 or a 105mm 1.4. Until Sony does, the big Sigma 35mm 1.2 and 105mm 1.4 will be in my bag. Simply put, there is a difference in the look from a high quality f1.2 lens that even a very high quality f1.4 lens can’t match. Better bokeh, better lowlight but also something you can’t quite put your finger on but it's THERE. The really good 1.2 lenses just have that “something special” to them. Important to some, not important to others I suppose. I wish I liked 50mm's as I'd snap up the Sony 50mm 1.2 in a heartbeat but I just always feel stuck using 50mm's. I never feel like I'll miss a shot with a 2 camera 2 lens 35mm/85mm or 35mm/105mm setup. Best of luck and I'm sure you will be happy with whatever direction you go!
If you have the 35f1.2 then I presume this is your go to lens for portraits? And the GM for everything else,
If you take away people what does the 35GM give you over the CV40 that you loved? Could the voitglander compliment the Sigma? Different uses?
35mm and 50mm have a different feel, but for portraiture you can move and get closer to the look of each other and why many use 35/85 for portraits,
I have the 35GM 50/1.4GM and 85/1.4siggy for portraiture, I only added the 50 due to the studio being too small for the 85, and don’t like the 35 for close up shots, I now love the 50, and pick it over the 85,
I too had the CV40/1.2 and loved it, but have gone for the 50apo, and will add the 35apo, I repeated the focal lengths as my brain finds it easier to have less focal lengths to switch between,
The voitglander 35/50 are sharper than the 40, have loads of contrast but don’t have the dreamy look of the 40 at 1.2
liggy wrote:
Never tried the Sigma 35 1.2. Is it *that* much better than the 35 GM?
Here’s an out of left field idea as I’ve had way too much coffee this morning. Sell the Sigma and find a nice used Leica Q2.
You get a backup body/lens that weighs less than the Sigma , a nice fast 28ish FOV with decent AF and keep the 35GM.
After that add the 50 1.2 because it is an epic lens.
If had a Sigma 35 f/1.2 and a 35GM and I was swapping one for a Q2, it is the GM which would go. In that scenario, I can see the Q2 doing the GM's job for me much more than I can see it doing the Sigma's job.
JD07 wrote:
If had a Sigma 35 f/1.2 and a 35GM and I was swapping one for a Q2, it is the GM which would go. In that scenario, I can see the Q2 doing the GM's job for me much more than I can see it doing the Sigma's job.
I do use the Q2 and 35GM interchangeably so I get your point. Haven't tried the Sigma so I don't know what it brings to the party.
It had better be pretty amazing to justify the weight/size though.
liggy wrote:
I do use the Q2 and 35GM interchangeably so I get your point. Haven't tried the Sigma so I don't know what it brings to the party.
It had better be pretty amazing to justify the weight/size though.
I agree, and in my opinion it is. The Sigma is certainly big and heavy, which is why I have the GM rather then the Sigma, but if I had a Q2 for when I wanted something relatively small and light, I would find it an easy decision to have the Sigma in preference to the GM. YMMV.
End up deciding between 50 1.2GM and 50 1.4GM. Price difference is 1480 vs 1200 EUR = 280EUR.
I like 50 1.4GM because it cheaper, smaller, and the 50 1.2GM may be better complenent for 35 1.4GM, 35 for versatility, 50 for portrait shootings.
If you appreciate the difference in output between 35GM and 35/1.2DN, you will most likely appreciate the difference between 50GMs (and 50/1.2GM handles still reasonably well on a regular A1/7/9 body IMHO) ...
, a nice fast 28ish FOV with decent AF and keep the 35GM.