« New Sony G Master 35mm f/1.4. Wait, What? | Main | Virtual Staging Gone Horribly Wrong »

Friday, 15 January 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I realize some (some) photographers do actually need the speed of a 1.4, but the overall increase in size, weight and price make them more a disadvantage for ordinary, every day use.

"My favorite 35mm might not even be a 35mm...it's a 23mm Fujicron..."

Just my opinion, but another data point for someone's impression of "best" 35mm(E) for Fuji:

The 23mm Fujicron was the lens that I chose for my experimental venture into the Fujifilm X interchangeable lens system (have the first gen. X100). After getting my in-camera film simulations tweaked out to my liking, that lens was very satisfying for me.

However, there was one situation where I felt that lens was lacking. Close in and at full aperture, there was a softness, almost a smearing of details. I thought it might just be me, but this is talked about in forums where people discuss Fujifilm lenses.

I bit the bullet and bought the f/1.4 version and it was startlingly better in that situation. It is better at f/1.4 than the f/2 is at it's full aperture, and at f/2, forget it. If you are shooting at f/5.6 and at moderate distances, then flip a coin, either lens is fine.

If you can tolerate the size difference, the Fujifilm XF 23 f/1.4 WR is a lens that lets you know that you are not compromising quality by using APS-C over full frame.

Mike, then your test subject on the Fujinon GFX 50R has to be the e-35mm GF45mm 2.8. Let’s see how it compares.

Aw, come on. You were judging. And that's okay. Buck up.

A little like those exotic car reviews in magazines where they'd compare a Ferrari xxx to a Porsche nn to a McLaren xpx, each costing north of $200,000 dollars and on page 7 of the comparison they'd say that each car is excellent in its own way. For $200,000, I'd say that excellent is the minimum requirement. For $200,000, I want my socks to be blown off.

Aren't we supposed to be living through tough times?

Based on the measurements over at lenstip, this may very well be, as both Crissi and I have claimed, the best 35mm 1.4 in production. You may question how or why one would make such a claim without the measurement tools that the folks at Lenstip or Roger Circala use, and the answer is pretty simple, the files don’t lie. I realize everyone is going to go on about the resolution but what makes this lens so special imho is that it pairs that insane resolving power with aberration corrections that usually render bokeh a bit bleh. Such is not the case with the GM, so we really are getting a best in class optic at a price, hundreds less than the previous Canon/Nikon flagship 35mm 1.4 lenses and at a non insignificant fraction of the size and weight. I fully state my bias as a Sony ambassador but I’m confident that when all the measurebatement is complete, the GM will hold the title for finest 35mm.

I'm with Mike, it's an embarrassment of riches in the 35mm focal length these days. And nothing against the GM series, they're undoubtedly state-of-the-art. But my Goldilocks 35 for the A7R4 is the Sony 35/1.8. It does all the right things well - fast enough, very sharp (even wide open,) nice rendering, focuses close, not huge. Works for me!

I have not test the Sony 35mm and it does seem superb; I look forward to doing so. In the meantime, however, I've gone on record: the highest resolving 35mm lens is neither the Canon or Nikon flagship, nor is it the Leica. The humble Tamron 35mm f/1.4 SP is the highest resolving, just a hair better than the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art. That's what the Sony will have to compete against.

It seems the Sony GM 35mm is smaller lighter cheaper and optically better than the Sony Zeiss, just incrementally in each case AFAIK. And so worth introducing.

It seems to me that the Sony Zeiss lenses were overrated and not all that good. I only have the 35 f2.8 and it's OK. Nice and compact but never the equal of either of my 35mm Summicrons. And the 24mm for half frame? Much better I hear, but why is it twice as big as it should be?

I have never really known what to think about Zeiss lenses. Never had them on 35mm, and my Hasselblad system? Yeah that was great, but apples to oranges.

Of course I liked, maybe loved my M Leicas, and I take it you never warmed to them. So my impressions are systems, not head to head comparisons of individual lenses.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007