Is there a 35GM little brother?
p.5 #1Is there a 35GM little brother?
Does anybody have compared the Sigma 45C and the Sony 40mm G?
Jul 05, 2026 at 02:19 PM
p.5 #2Is there a 35GM little brother?
I am very torn between the Sigma i35 and Viltrox Evo.
A friend of mine is bringing me an EVO from China. How can I tell if I got a good copy?
A friend of mine is bringing me an EVO from China. How can I tell if I got a good copy?
Jul 06, 2026 at 03:29 PM
p.5 #3Is there a 35GM little brother?
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm G to which it is clearly superior optically speaking, as well as in terms of construction. The weight is ok, but with the sunshade, it's still quite long... Apart from that, I'm excited!
- Sigma 45mm 2.8: beautiful, but we are too close to 50mm. The lack of contrast does bother a little at a short distance, but otherwise, perfect size and weight!
- Viltrox 35 1.8: not yet tested.
That's it... for now.
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm G to which it is clearly superior optically speaking, as well as in terms of construction. The weight is ok, but with the sunshade, it's still quite long... Apart from that, I'm excited!
- Sigma 45mm 2.8: beautiful, but we are too close to 50mm. The lack of contrast does bother a little at a short distance, but otherwise, perfect size and weight!
- Viltrox 35 1.8: not yet tested.
That's it... for now.
Jul 09, 2026 at 02:39 AM
p.5 #4Is there a 35GM little brother?
I have the Viltrox on order. Curious what you will think when you add it to your mix!
Jul 09, 2026 at 04:59 AM
p.5 #5Is there a 35GM little brother?
tuxounet wrote:
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
I bet you can use the Sigma without the hood a majority of the time, just have a UV protection filter on it. Viltrox might win on paper, I just don't want to deal with them until they have proper distribution and warranty facilities in Europe.
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
I bet you can use the Sigma without the hood a majority of the time, just have a UV protection filter on it. Viltrox might win on paper, I just don't want to deal with them until they have proper distribution and warranty facilities in Europe.
Jul 09, 2026 at 08:20 AM
p.5 #6Is there a 35GM little brother?
tuxounet wrote:
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
patotts wrote:
I bet you can use the Sigma without the hood a majority of the time, just have a UV protection filter on it. Viltrox might win on paper, I just don't want to deal with them until they have proper distribution and warranty facilities in Europe.
Any other solution, except a filter, than the oversized and heavy original hood is better.
My favorite is a pair or two of step up/down rings when the original hoods are crazy big.
But, the i35 is not a little brother to the 35GM.
Of the listed lenses it is the 35EVO and perhaps the 40G that qualify optically. Then again, anyone finding the optical performance of the i35 very much better than the 40G performance really isn't looking for a little brother to the 35GM.
Buy a second hand Sigma i35 and try it out in real life, sell if not happy with it.
Jul 09, 2026 at 08:42 AM
p.5 #7Is there a 35GM little brother?
tuxounet wrote:
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
The 35 evo isn’t what I’d call small or light, but definitely a more compact solution than the 35 GM. It’s amazing to me how much weight a lens can shed when no aperture ring is included. It’s for that reason I wish for a Viltrox 35 air. In your case, I would take a look at the Samyang 35.
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
The 35 evo isn’t what I’d call small or light, but definitely a more compact solution than the 35 GM. It’s amazing to me how much weight a lens can shed when no aperture ring is included. It’s for that reason I wish for a Viltrox 35 air. In your case, I would take a look at the Samyang 35.
Jul 09, 2026 at 09:12 AM
p.5 #8Is there a 35GM little brother?
tuxounet wrote:
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
I feel similarly about the lens hood for my Sigma 65mm f/2 i series lens. Despite being an habitual lens hood user for approaching 20 years, my approach with the i65 has been to just not use a lens hood. It's worked find for me so far!
Hello,
Here is a small update of my progress in the search for the 35mm that would meet my needs.
- Sony 35mm 2.8 ZA: abandoned, not convinced.
- Sony 40mm 2.5 G: tested and very good impression as to the appearance, the features. On the other hand, I am disappointed with the optical quality; (far) less good than my other G lenses. Not sure about it…
- Sony 35mm 1.8: not particularly compact, no aperture ring, I am not very mixed to be able to test it.
- Sigma 35mm 2.0: I was able to test it at the same time as the 40mm...Show more →
I feel similarly about the lens hood for my Sigma 65mm f/2 i series lens. Despite being an habitual lens hood user for approaching 20 years, my approach with the i65 has been to just not use a lens hood. It's worked find for me so far!
Jul 11, 2026 at 05:09 AM
p.5 #9Is there a 35GM little brother?
Jonas B wrote:
I imagine this question has already been asked, but my research hasn’t turned up much.
I am looking for a travel companion for my 35 mm GM. I love it, but I’d like a “discreet”/“compact” version. My ideal would be a Loxia 35 mm f/2 with autofocus (so… not a Loxia).
Therefore I am looking for:
- 35 mm focal length
- Form factor similar to a Loxia 35 mm
- Maximum aperture ≤ f/2
- Autofocus
- Aperture ring
- Size is more important than weight
- (the rendering characteristics of a Loxia)
Do you have any suggestions?
I have owned and used the 35GM, the Sigma 35/2 contemporary, some other 35mm lenses and now the 35EVO.
GM vs EVO... there are some differences of course. The GM focuses a tad faster (no relevant difference for normal photography). They are both very sharp and both sometimes render background OOF a bit harsh. With the 35EVO you don't get the sometimes nasty CA from the 35GM.
Viltrox quality control is worse. Buy from places allowing you to easily return the lens if needed.
https://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2022andfw/35EVO_MTF.jpg
Also have a look at the Viltrox 35 EVO image thread.Good bokeh, good for people shots or for still life, never seen any nasty LoCA... all that is possible as we are different persons interesting in different things. Psychology is also powerful so sometimes we have to agree about disagreeing.
Size and weight.
The 35EVO is indeed a bit larger, is it 17mm longer?, than the Sigma. The weight... 355g or 325g (the heavy Sigma hood not included) isn't that much of a difference. Here in Sweden the Sigma is close to twice the price.
LoCA:
When the 35GM was released I tried it and reported back here. I found LoCA (not nasty)...Show more →
Thank you for the reply. And yes, I think there is certainly a substantial subjective element to all of this.
Regarding loCA, I see what you mean in the Lenstip review of the 35GM. I am a little unsure how much to make of it though, noting their comment that loCA isn't a serious problem with the 35GM and that they found a bit of loCA with EVO as well (although not as much). I see that The Digital Picture's reviews of the 35GM and the EVO have both lenses showing notable loCA. The Digital Picture actually lists "relatively strong color fringing at f/1.8" as a con of the EVO, while listing "modest color blur" as a con of the 35GM. Looking at TPD loCA test images, it's not obvious to me the lenses are that much difference for loCA , although the 35GM is at f/1.4 rather than f/1.8.
I tried to look at the image from the DPR field report you mentioned, but the link you posted doesn't seem to work. I get a 404 not found error.
I agree that the weight difference between the i35 and the EVO isn't much in practical terms, although for my own part, a 17mm difference in length is significant to me in the context of looking for a relatively small and light general purpose lenses. The same difference in length probably wouldn't bother me in most other contexts though.
Anyway, I have been looking at more sample images from the EVO, and I have seen more portrait/people shots I have liked - including the shot of your mother - and I think perhaps I was being a bit harsh on it previously. I still think the 35GM and the i35 produce nicer bokeh when the background is difficult, but bokeh is a particularly personal thing.
Without being sure I am correct about this, my feeling is that (as much as I hate loCA) lenses which have some level of loCA tend to produce bokeh which I prefer, and perhaps also gives portraits a little bit more of a look which seems natural or warm somehow (I do not like describing it that way but I cannot find better words for it).
Personally, based on what I have seen so far, I still slightly prefer the 35GM and i35 over the EVO and think the i35 is a little closer to being a mini-GM than the EVO, but I can understand people feeling differently. In the end, I think any of the three lenses we are talking about can produce excellent images in at least many circumstances, and frankly I wouldn't want to bet I could pick images from the three lenses in a blind test (although I'd be interested to have a go!).
tuxounet wrote
Hello,I imagine this question has already been asked, but my research hasn’t turned up much.
I am looking for a travel companion for my 35 mm GM. I love it, but I’d like a “discreet”/“compact” version. My ideal would be a Loxia 35 mm f/2 with autofocus (so… not a Loxia).
Therefore I am looking for:
- 35 mm focal length
- Form factor similar to a Loxia 35 mm
- Maximum aperture ≤ f/2
- Autofocus
- Aperture ring
- Size is more important than weight
- (the rendering characteristics of a Loxia)
Do you have any suggestions?
Jonas B wrote
If you want a lens performing similar to the 35GM the Viltrox 35mm f1.8 ii EVO APO is the only option. It's longer than the Loxia so not perfect following your list. It is however more similar to the GM than other lenses mentioned in this thread.I have owned and used the 35GM, the Sigma 35/2 contemporary, some other 35mm lenses and now the 35EVO.
GM vs EVO... there are some differences of course. The GM focuses a tad faster (no relevant difference for normal photography). They are both very sharp and both sometimes render background OOF a bit harsh. With the 35EVO you don't get the sometimes nasty CA from the 35GM.
Viltrox quality control is worse. Buy from places allowing you to easily return the lens if needed.
https://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2022andfw/35EVO_MTF.jpg
Also have a look at the Viltrox 35 EVO image thread.
JD07 wrote
Interesting. I have a 35GM but I have never even seen a Viltrox 35mm f/1.8 II EVO in real life, and I have only used a Sigma 35mm f/2 Contemporary once very briefly. I have always thought the 35GM produced good bokeh compared with other 35mm lenses, with the exception of 35mm f/1.2 options (and even then I don't think the difference is huge, although I do think it is there), and I have never seen the 35GM produce CA which I would call anything like nasty. Looking around the internet, my take is that the Sigma 35mm f/2 Contemporary is the closest thing available at the moment to a mini-35GM, at least based on image quality and the look and feel of the lens (I don't have the personal experience with relevant lenses to comment on AF). The Viltrox 35mm f/1.8 II EVO seems to have its positive aspects, notably sharpness and CA control, but at the expense of nervous/rough bokeh in some situations and an image which is slightly different somehow from the 35GM or the Sigma (I am finding it hard to describe the difference, but I feel like the Viltrox images are fine for landscapes and still life images but less good for people photos). The Viltrox is also a little larger and heavier than the the Sigma and many of the other 35mm f/2 or f/1.8 options. At least so far, my conclusion has been that, as much as I hate loCA in images, the Viltrox 35mm f/1.8 II EVO is not a mini-35GM and is not the lens for me. I do not have the direct experience with the lenses you do, though. Do you have any example images you are willing to post which show the differences? I do sometimes think about adding a smaller, lighter 35mm to my kit, so I would be keen to see the differences.Size and weight.
The 35EVO is indeed a bit larger, is it 17mm longer?, than the Sigma. The weight... 355g or 325g (the heavy Sigma hood not included) isn't that much of a difference. Here in Sweden the Sigma is close to twice the price.
LoCA:
When the 35GM was released I tried it and reported back here. I found LoCA (not nasty)...Show more →
Thank you for the reply. And yes, I think there is certainly a substantial subjective element to all of this.
Regarding loCA, I see what you mean in the Lenstip review of the 35GM. I am a little unsure how much to make of it though, noting their comment that loCA isn't a serious problem with the 35GM and that they found a bit of loCA with EVO as well (although not as much). I see that The Digital Picture's reviews of the 35GM and the EVO have both lenses showing notable loCA. The Digital Picture actually lists "relatively strong color fringing at f/1.8" as a con of the EVO, while listing "modest color blur" as a con of the 35GM. Looking at TPD loCA test images, it's not obvious to me the lenses are that much difference for loCA , although the 35GM is at f/1.4 rather than f/1.8.
I tried to look at the image from the DPR field report you mentioned, but the link you posted doesn't seem to work. I get a 404 not found error.
I agree that the weight difference between the i35 and the EVO isn't much in practical terms, although for my own part, a 17mm difference in length is significant to me in the context of looking for a relatively small and light general purpose lenses. The same difference in length probably wouldn't bother me in most other contexts though.
Anyway, I have been looking at more sample images from the EVO, and I have seen more portrait/people shots I have liked - including the shot of your mother - and I think perhaps I was being a bit harsh on it previously. I still think the 35GM and the i35 produce nicer bokeh when the background is difficult, but bokeh is a particularly personal thing.
Without being sure I am correct about this, my feeling is that (as much as I hate loCA) lenses which have some level of loCA tend to produce bokeh which I prefer, and perhaps also gives portraits a little bit more of a look which seems natural or warm somehow (I do not like describing it that way but I cannot find better words for it).
Personally, based on what I have seen so far, I still slightly prefer the 35GM and i35 over the EVO and think the i35 is a little closer to being a mini-GM than the EVO, but I can understand people feeling differently. In the end, I think any of the three lenses we are talking about can produce excellent images in at least many circumstances, and frankly I wouldn't want to bet I could pick images from the three lenses in a blind test (although I'd be interested to have a go!).
Jul 11, 2026 at 06:00 AM
p.5 #10Is there a 35GM little brother?
JD07 wrote:
[...]I tried to look at the image from the DPR field report you mentioned, but the link you posted doesn't seem to work. I get a 404 not found error.[...]
DPR has rebuilt their site the other day! What a timing. Anyway, here is some 35GM LoCA and sensor bloom (I guess) for you:
The i35 won't perform better in this extreme situation but I think the 35EVO will. I'll have to check that before saying for certain. I know tree tops against clear sky look good so... a maybe for now.
[...]I tried to look at the image from the DPR field report you mentioned, but the link you posted doesn't seem to work. I get a 404 not found error.[...]
DPR has rebuilt their site the other day! What a timing. Anyway, here is some 35GM LoCA and sensor bloom (I guess) for you:
The i35 won't perform better in this extreme situation but I think the 35EVO will. I'll have to check that before saying for certain. I know tree tops against clear sky look good so... a maybe for now.
Jul 11, 2026 at 08:50 AM
|
p.5 #11Is there a 35GM little brother?
If you're not bothered by CA, or cannot see it at all, then consider yourself fortunate. Of all optical aberrations, I despise CA the most. It gnaws on my soul. 
Otherwise, I would consider the 35 GM a winner.
Otherwise, I would consider the 35 GM a winner.Jul 11, 2026 at 10:06 AM
p.5 #12Is there a 35GM little brother?
@tuxounet et al
I had a chance to try out the Sigma 35/2 contemporary today at a camera store in Paris. Actually the only store I could find in Paris that had an E-mount in stock, even back-ordered at Sigma France.
RAW file straight out of cameras being shared.
The lens surely isn't small or ultra-light, it handles well on a a7V (even looks good).
I'm happy with the results. Plenty sharp wide-open, good micro-contrast. Bokeh isn't really dreamy at f/2 and some cats-eyes on the edges but I can certainly live with the results. The coating seems to lean a bit warmer on these Contemporary models, which suits me fine as I live to photograph family and friends as well. I cannot really fault this lens, I like the output more than the Sony 35/1.8 I used to own. I think this lens becomes very attractive minty used around 400 EUR/USD.
Is it a GM killer. Nope, but you save in size, weight and less than half the price (almost 1/3 if you look at the used market).
These are some simple test shots outside the camera store (IPNL near La Republique)
f/2.0
f/22 - this is hard Parisian sun at 12:30 PM/mid-day
f/2.0
f/2.0
I had a chance to try out the Sigma 35/2 contemporary today at a camera store in Paris. Actually the only store I could find in Paris that had an E-mount in stock, even back-ordered at Sigma France.
RAW file straight out of cameras being shared.
The lens surely isn't small or ultra-light, it handles well on a a7V (even looks good).
I'm happy with the results. Plenty sharp wide-open, good micro-contrast. Bokeh isn't really dreamy at f/2 and some cats-eyes on the edges but I can certainly live with the results. The coating seems to lean a bit warmer on these Contemporary models, which suits me fine as I live to photograph family and friends as well. I cannot really fault this lens, I like the output more than the Sony 35/1.8 I used to own. I think this lens becomes very attractive minty used around 400 EUR/USD.
Is it a GM killer. Nope, but you save in size, weight and less than half the price (almost 1/3 if you look at the used market).
These are some simple test shots outside the camera store (IPNL near La Republique)
f/2.0
f/22 - this is hard Parisian sun at 12:30 PM/mid-day
f/2.0
f/2.0
Jul 11, 2026 at 02:21 PM
p.5 #13Is there a 35GM little brother?
Jonas B wrote:
DPR has rebuilt their site the other day! What a timing. Anyway, here is some 35GM LoCA and sensor bloom (I guess) for you:
https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/6773350576-5536715489.jpg
The i35 won't perform better in this extreme situation but I think the 35EVO will. I'll have to check that before saying for certain. I know tree tops against clear sky look good so... a maybe for now.
Right, well, yes, that is nasty loCA. Very nasty indeed.
I live in a place which is often very bright and sunny, and loCA is often an issue for me. I have sold lenses in the past because I hated the loCA, eg the old Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG (back in the days before the Art series), among others. I have also avoided lenses such as the Sony ZA 55mm f/1.8 largely because I have feared the loCA. However, I have liked my 35GM a lot. Yes, I can see loCA, but only a bit and only in some shots. I have never seen anything like that DPR example from my 35GM. When I get a chance I will have to try taking some shots in the most challenging (for loCA) conditions I can find, to see if I can produce anything that extreme.
It would certainly be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the DPR 35GM shot with the i35 and 35 EVO. If I had to place a bet I think the 35 EVO would have a bit less loCA than the 35GM (although my guess is the 35 EVO would still have some) and the i35 perhaps might even have a little more than the 35GM (although I find it hard to believe it would be much worse!).
JD07 wrote
[...]I tried to look at the image from the DPR field report you mentioned, but the link you posted doesn't seem to work. I get a 404 not found error.[...]https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/6773350576-5536715489.jpg
The i35 won't perform better in this extreme situation but I think the 35EVO will. I'll have to check that before saying for certain. I know tree tops against clear sky look good so... a maybe for now.
Right, well, yes, that is nasty loCA. Very nasty indeed.
I live in a place which is often very bright and sunny, and loCA is often an issue for me. I have sold lenses in the past because I hated the loCA, eg the old Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG (back in the days before the Art series), among others. I have also avoided lenses such as the Sony ZA 55mm f/1.8 largely because I have feared the loCA. However, I have liked my 35GM a lot. Yes, I can see loCA, but only a bit and only in some shots. I have never seen anything like that DPR example from my 35GM. When I get a chance I will have to try taking some shots in the most challenging (for loCA) conditions I can find, to see if I can produce anything that extreme.
It would certainly be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the DPR 35GM shot with the i35 and 35 EVO. If I had to place a bet I think the 35 EVO would have a bit less loCA than the 35GM (although my guess is the 35 EVO would still have some) and the i35 perhaps might even have a little more than the 35GM (although I find it hard to believe it would be much worse!).
Jul 13, 2026 at 07:01 AM
p.5 #14Is there a 35GM little brother?
JD07 wrote:
Right, well, yes, that is nasty loCA. Very nasty indeed.
It feels safe to assume that DPR, Lenstip and I didn't test the same item. So, there is at least something about LoCA in some situations. These sitauations may apply or not to a certain user and the same user may react or not to the phenomena.
I live in a place which is often very bright and sunny, and loCA is often an issue for me. I have sold lenses in the past because I hated the loCA, eg the old Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG (back in the days before the Art series), among others. I have also avoided lenses such as the Sony ZA 55mm f/1.8 largely because I have feared the loCA. However, I have liked my 35GM a lot. Yes, I can see loCA, but only a bit and only in some shots. I have never seen anything like...Show more →
Is it OK to phrase it like this? "The 35GM is very useful and the LoCA is not a major problem for the majority of its users."
It would certainly be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the DPR 35GM shot with the i35 and 35 EVO. If I had to place a bet I think the 35 EVO would have a bit less loCA than the 35GM (although my guess is the 35 EVO would still have some) and the i35 perhaps might even have a little more than the 35GM (although I find it hard to believe it would be much worse!).
I would guess just like that as well
In the end we all make a personal choice. I prefer a somewhat lighter lens with clearly less LoCA at a lower price. Other users may prefer the 30 fps feature, the somewhat faster focusing along with f/1.4 over f/1.8.
Right, well, yes, that is nasty loCA. Very nasty indeed.
It feels safe to assume that DPR, Lenstip and I didn't test the same item. So, there is at least something about LoCA in some situations. These sitauations may apply or not to a certain user and the same user may react or not to the phenomena.
I live in a place which is often very bright and sunny, and loCA is often an issue for me. I have sold lenses in the past because I hated the loCA, eg the old Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG (back in the days before the Art series), among others. I have also avoided lenses such as the Sony ZA 55mm f/1.8 largely because I have feared the loCA. However, I have liked my 35GM a lot. Yes, I can see loCA, but only a bit and only in some shots. I have never seen anything like...Show more →
Is it OK to phrase it like this? "The 35GM is very useful and the LoCA is not a major problem for the majority of its users."
It would certainly be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the DPR 35GM shot with the i35 and 35 EVO. If I had to place a bet I think the 35 EVO would have a bit less loCA than the 35GM (although my guess is the 35 EVO would still have some) and the i35 perhaps might even have a little more than the 35GM (although I find it hard to believe it would be much worse!).
I would guess just like that as well
In the end we all make a personal choice. I prefer a somewhat lighter lens with clearly less LoCA at a lower price. Other users may prefer the 30 fps feature, the somewhat faster focusing along with f/1.4 over f/1.8.
Jul 13, 2026 at 08:43 AM
p.5 #15Is there a 35GM little brother?
Jonas B wrote:
It feels safe to assume that DPR, Lenstip and I didn't test the same item. So, there is at least something about LoCA in some situations. These sitauations may apply or not to a certain user and the same user may react or not to the phenomena.
Is it OK to phrase it like this? "The 35GM is very useful and the LoCA is not a major problem for the majority of its users."
I would guess just like that as well
In the end we all make a personal choice. I prefer a somewhat lighter lens with clearly less LoCA...Show more →
FWIW, yes, I think saying "The 35GM is very useful and the LoCA is not a major problem for the majority of its users" is probably a fair statement ... although I think it's always a bit dangerous to talk about how a majority of users will feel about something! You have convinced me that loCA is potentially more of an issue with the 35GM than I had been allowing, albeit unless and until I start seeing a significant amount of it in my images I guess it remains not a practical problem for me.
I like the idea of a relatively small and lightweight 35mm prime too, although I also value having f/1.4 available that focal length so I have to decide whether small and lightweight or f/1.4 is more important to me (or have two 35mm prime lenses!). So far I have gone with the 35GM, which was the smallest and lightest 35mm f/1.4 with AF which was around at the time - and I like the images it can produce and it has excellent AF including for tracking. I do sometimes wonder about down-sizing though. I have thought that if I down-sized it would be to the i35, but you have convinced me to give the 35 EVO more of a chance before I decide whether it is a potential lens for me.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art II is like for loCA? I haven't looked at the reviews for that lens, but I will have to have a look at them when I get a chance.
JD07 wrote
Right, well, yes, that is nasty loCA. Very nasty indeed.Earlier quote
I live in a place which is often very bright and sunny, and loCA is often an issue for me. I have sold lenses in the past because I hated the loCA, eg the old Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG (back in the days before the Art series), among others. I have also avoided lenses such as the Sony ZA 55mm f/1.8 largely because I have feared the loCA. However, I have liked my 35GM a lot. Yes, I can see loCA, but only a bit and only in some shots. I have never seen anything like that DPR example from my 35GM. When I get a chance I will have to try taking some shots in the most challenging (for loCA) conditions I can find, to see if I can produce anything that extreme.Earlier quote
It would certainly be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the DPR 35GM shot with the i35 and 35 EVO. If I had to place a bet I think the 35 EVO would have a bit less loCA than the 35GM (although my guess is the 35 EVO would still have some) and the i35 perhaps might even have a little more than the 35GM (although I find it hard to believe it would be much worse!).In the end we all make a personal choice. I prefer a somewhat lighter lens with clearly less LoCA...Show more →
FWIW, yes, I think saying "The 35GM is very useful and the LoCA is not a major problem for the majority of its users" is probably a fair statement ... although I think it's always a bit dangerous to talk about how a majority of users will feel about something! You have convinced me that loCA is potentially more of an issue with the 35GM than I had been allowing, albeit unless and until I start seeing a significant amount of it in my images I guess it remains not a practical problem for me.
I like the idea of a relatively small and lightweight 35mm prime too, although I also value having f/1.4 available that focal length so I have to decide whether small and lightweight or f/1.4 is more important to me (or have two 35mm prime lenses!). So far I have gone with the 35GM, which was the smallest and lightest 35mm f/1.4 with AF which was around at the time - and I like the images it can produce and it has excellent AF including for tracking. I do sometimes wonder about down-sizing though. I have thought that if I down-sized it would be to the i35, but you have convinced me to give the 35 EVO more of a chance before I decide whether it is a potential lens for me.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art II is like for loCA? I haven't looked at the reviews for that lens, but I will have to have a look at them when I get a chance.
Jul 14, 2026 at 08:28 PM
p.5 #16Is there a 35GM little brother?
I don't think they ever will, but I really wish Sony would make a "35mm f/2 G", as an upgrade to the 35/1.8 with better optics and such.
Jul 14, 2026 at 10:14 PM
p.5 #17Is there a 35GM little brother?
I own the Sony 35mm GM. I just picked up the Viltrox 35mm evo as I have a friend who came over from China and it was a steal. It’s a nice lens. Certainly more compact than the Gm.
I can’t decide if the AF will annoy me or not. Now I’m on eBay looking at a sigma i35…
I’m saying all of this as I wonder if you all think the GM is worth sticking with or there really is a king of the compact 35mm between sigma and Viltrox?
I can’t decide if the AF will annoy me or not. Now I’m on eBay looking at a sigma i35…
I’m saying all of this as I wonder if you all think the GM is worth sticking with or there really is a king of the compact 35mm between sigma and Viltrox?
Jul 18, 2026 at 01:16 AM
p.5 #18Is there a 35GM little brother?
Hello everyone. Quick update.
I had the chance to borrow an i45 2.8 lens for one week during a tourist stay.
This lens is extraordinary in every way: sharpness, rendering, build quality. The only downsides are: 45mm is too tight compared to 35mm, and the f/2.8 aperture is a bit limiting for evening/night shooting. But this is purely personal preference.
This confirms my choice of going with 35mm, not wider than that.
I had the chance to borrow an i45 2.8 lens for one week during a tourist stay.
This lens is extraordinary in every way: sharpness, rendering, build quality. The only downsides are: 45mm is too tight compared to 35mm, and the f/2.8 aperture is a bit limiting for evening/night shooting. But this is purely personal preference.
This confirms my choice of going with 35mm, not wider than that.
Jul 20, 2026 at 03:36 AM
p.5 #19Is there a 35GM little brother?
darrenhaken wrote:
I own the Sony 35mm GM. I just picked up the Viltrox 35mm evo as I have a friend who came over from China and it was a steal. It’s a nice lens. Certainly more compact than the Gm.
I can’t decide if the AF will annoy me or not. Now I’m on eBay looking at a sigma i35…
I’m saying all of this as I wonder if you all think the GM is worth sticking with or there really is a king of the compact 35mm between sigma and Viltrox?
Please post your thoughts on the 35 EVO compared with the 35GM once you have had a chance to test out the 35 EVO, and also your comparison with i35 if you end up getting your hands on one of those!
I own the Sony 35mm GM. I just picked up the Viltrox 35mm evo as I have a friend who came over from China and it was a steal. It’s a nice lens. Certainly more compact than the Gm.
I can’t decide if the AF will annoy me or not. Now I’m on eBay looking at a sigma i35…
I’m saying all of this as I wonder if you all think the GM is worth sticking with or there really is a king of the compact 35mm between sigma and Viltrox?
Please post your thoughts on the 35 EVO compared with the 35GM once you have had a chance to test out the 35 EVO, and also your comparison with i35 if you end up getting your hands on one of those!
Jul 20, 2026 at 04:11 AM