He says the Sony is sharper, though the sigma 1.2 has a more "poetic" rendering (due to the wider aperture and slightly less contrast at 1.2?)
I'd say the Sony 1.4 ZA also has a more "poetic" rendering (smoother oof areas) than the GM as the designers decided to sacrifice sharpness for the rendering.
IMHO the sigma looks slightly better than the Sony for environmental portraits at 1.4, though the Sony is excellent also, though the Sony is sharper than the sigma.
I'd guess that after the Sony ZA 1.4, which was criticized for poor sharpness (amongst other things; I thought the sharpness was ok in the centre, though dropped outside the centre zone), Sony went all out for sharpness (it now being the sharpest 35mm), to silence the critics, though with a lens this sharp, the old areas won't be quite as smooth.
Still, for most people who want a 35mm 1.4 (and can't afford multiple 1.4s) the GM seems to be the best option, as it will serve as an excellent walkabout lens, landscape lens and portrait lens (and if you want to soften the rendering could use a black pro mist filter, for exams).
For those who'd mainly use it for environmental portraits (though one would think longer lenses would make up 80%+ of portrait images) and they want the smoothest oof, then the sigma may be their choice.
For the pros out there who want the smoothest oof rendering and the versatility of the GM, they'd get both, I guess.
The GM rendering has great contrast and the oof rendering is quite attractive, though the sigma 1.3 has the most "poetic" rendering.
Mar 10, 2021 at 08:28 AM
Previous versions of rainio's message #15526834 « Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399) »
