With Viltrox being on sale right now, and my 35 GM (which I love) seeming to have some AF issues (still need to properly test it but I definitely missed some images that I wasn't missing before), I'm starting to think that maybe I want a 35 1.2.
But the Viltrox is heavy, and one of the things I really loved about the 35GM was its small size & weight. The Sigma 35 1.2ii is a lot closer to the GM, though clearly still larger and heavier.
For a difference of 2-300, I'd get the Sigma. But at nearly double the price?
Anyone with a strong view on how these compare? I did read the reviews out there, in particular Dustin Abbott.
I love the Sigma 35/1.2 II as well and was considering it having owned the old 35/1.4 DG HSM ART. However I couldn’t resist the Viltrox sale thus I ordered the non-label one. The heft and weight does not bother me as I even have a vertical grip attached to my A7V. I’ll tell you more about it in a few weeks.
I had the Viltrox lens and now shoot the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II.
My results have been the same as Dustin Abbott’s. While the Sigma is outstanding, the added contrast from the Viltrox just adds a nice subtle “punch” to the shots. I wish I had never sold the Viltrox lens. I might go back to the Viltrox lens. For me, the added weight is worth it. I use other, lighter 35mm lenses for travel.
Edit: The Viltrox-Sony lens that is currently on sale is the version that has the LCD display. I assume they are clearing-out this version to make way for the newer version that has no LCD display and incorporates a standard aperture ring. I found the LCD version annoying when changing aperture, so I would rather pay extra for the newer version, when it is released.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I had the Viltrox lens and now shoot the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II.
My results have been the same as Dustin Abbott’s. While the Sigma is outstanding, the added contrast from the Viltrox just adds a nice subtle “punch” to the shots. I wish I had never sold the Viltrox lens. I might go back to the Viltrox lens. For me, the added weight is worth it. I use other, lighter 35mm lenses for travel.
Edit: The Viltrox-Sony lens that is currently on sale is the version that has the LCD display. I assume they are clearing-out this version to make way for the newer version that has no LCD display and incorporates a standard aperture ring. I found the LCD version annoying when changing aperture, so I would rather pay extra for the newer version, when it is released. ...Show more →
I ordered the non LCD and it was on sale too, same price as with the LCD.
I owned the 35GM and I'm looking for a new 35mm. What stands out to me from Dustin’s review is the bokeh difference between the Sigma 1.2 II and the Sony when both are at f/1.4. The Sigma’s bokeh actually looks slightly smoother than the Viltrox. Maybe that’s just the Viltrox’s extra contrast.
With the Viltrox down to $800 (no LCD version available on B&H), the decision becomes harder.
Fboss wrote:
I owned the 35GM and I'm looking for a new 35mm. What stands out to me from Dustin’s review is the bokeh difference between the Sigma 1.2 II and the Sony when both are at f/1.4. The Sigma’s bokeh actually looks slightly smoother than the Viltrox. Maybe that’s just the Viltrox’s extra contrast.
With the Viltrox down to $800 (no LCD version available on B&H), the decision becomes harder.
The bokeh is very slightly smoother on the Sigma in most, but not all, conditions. I mostly use the f1.2 lenses for portrait work and the added contrast of the Viltrox makes a positive, measurable difference, to me. Smooth bokeh and high contrast seem to be somewhat at odds with one another in lens design.
When I did my first lens search on B&H, it only showed the Viltrox lens with the LCD - now I found the newer edition, on sale. Tough decision.
UPS delivered my new Viltrox 35/1.2 non-LCD yesterday so I tested it today with a model. Dang, for me the difference between shooting between a 35mm and a 50mm is that with the latter the subject is the star of the show while the 35mm is more or less the subject has equal billing with the environment. Shooting the Viltrox 35mm at f/1.2 it tilts it back to the subject :-) I absolutely love this lens---beautiful bokeh, fast AF and overall rendering. The only downside is the weight. Normally if I shoot with primes I would partner a 35mm with either a fast 85mm or 135mm. This lens is pretty heavy so it's gotta go solo. It balances pretty well though with the A7V and the vertical grip.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I had the Viltrox lens and now shoot the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II.
My results have been the same as Dustin Abbott’s. While the Sigma is outstanding, the added contrast from the Viltrox just adds a nice subtle “punch” to the shots. I wish I had never sold the Viltrox lens.
Jack Flesher wrote:
@Jojib. Your Viltrox obviously sucks and its only redemption is the quality of your models — they’d make a Coke bottle lens look good 🤣🤣🤣
Seriously, you’re making that Viltrox sing!
Thanks for the kind words Jack!! I just have amazing talented and beautiful women!!
corposant wrote:
As somebody who has the 35 GM and likes it, I have to wonder how meaningfully different this (or any similar image) would be if it were at f/1.4
I don't know. About 98% of the time I shoot at f/1.2 with my Viltrox and the other 2% maybe at f/4 if I wanted more of the scenery in focus. For me the only weakness of the Viltrox (sans the weight) is sometimes the AF hunts when the subject is in the shade and the background is extremely bright. Your GM is probably better in that regard. I don't have a 35GM but my 135GM is lightning fast!
