If I was a little cranky yesterday I apologize. I'm not slagging the new Sony 35mm in any way, and it's important to mention that I didn't review it either! I haven't touched one.
IOW, I'm not judging.
As far as comparative size is concerned, most 35mm ƒ/1.4's are SLR lenses, aren't they? Some of them, like the Sigma, have been adapted to mirrorless by adding a permanently attached adapter...which is to say, starting with a retrofocus design to enable clearance for an SLR mirror, then adding spacing between the lens and the sensor. No wonder they're big.
The G Master 35mm seems to me to be a premium lens (highly corrected, no constraint placed on the number of elements) that has been designed from the get-go for mirrorless, that's all. It's reasonably sized for a lens of that description. But if it were designed with size and weight given real precedence in the balance of tradeoffs...let's just say those things could have been given more, um, weight. (Sorry, I can't help myself.) That's all I was saying.
Big lenses are popular these days; so are highly corrected lenses. Because that how Internet understand goodness*.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'll say again how the new GM 35mm really does make sense: as a sweet match for the 61-MP sensor in the A7R IV. If you like analytical sharpness and detail.
The video by Crissibeth Cooper is actually one of the better ones I've seen, despite being a promo (her website says her specialty is "social media content and influencer marketing"). Her measured words put the hype in reasonable perspective.
The one exception might be at 1:34 when she says "as of right now, this is the best 35mm lens on the market." Strong words! Better than the Canon EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L II USM? Better than the Leica APO-Summicron 35mm ƒ/2 SL? Hmm? We'd need Roger Cicala to run a multiple-sample test and teardown before making such an absolute statement.
Meanwhile, over here in my corner of the world, what little old me would say is that when lenses are bunched so closely at the top of the bar-chart, it doesn't really matter which one you pick; they're all good.
Question: Should I buy the Sony GM 35mm ƒ/1.4 or a different 35mm?
Answer: Yes.
My favorite 35mm might not even be a 35mm...it's a 23mm Fujicron.
Although the geek in me really likes the thought of that new Sony lens on an A7R IV. If you had that, you'd have it all, wouldn't you? You'd be the bee's knees**.
Mike
*Sic.
**Bee's knees: the best. "It’s sometimes explained as being from an Italian-American way of saying business or that it’s properly Bs and Es, an abbreviation for be-alls and end-alls. Both are without doubt wrong. Bee’s knees is actually one of a set of nonsense catchphrases from 1920s America, the period of the flappers, speakeasies, feather boas and the Charleston." (World Wide Words)
Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Book of interest this week:
Picture This: How Pictures Work, By Molly Bang
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon from TOP)
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Illka: "Be careful what you wish for. Your favourite 35mm might be the 45mm ƒ/2.8 Fuji you are about to try...."
Christopher May: "Having it all is spawning a curious phenomenon in prime lens design. Prime lenses, which were once praised for being smaller options to big, fast and heavy zooms, are now experiencing some Brobdingnagian growth spurts. Witness Nikon's trio of 50mm (-ish) lenses for the Z system. The 50mm ƒ/1.8S, 50mm ƒ/1.2S and 58mm ƒ/0.95 Noct range from big to huge to 'would you like the accessory golf cart to carry it?' The reviews online seem to heap praise in commensurate (if not proportionate) order, too.
"Still, gone are the days when putting a 'normal' lens on a camera was the way to turn it into a nimble little carry-everywhere job. Perhaps the upcoming 40mm 'compact' lens for the Z system will change that. It's also interesting to see that zoom design doesn't seem to be following the same path. Canon's 70–200mm duo are surprisingly small. Nikon's Z 14–24mm ƒ/2.8 seems to be better than its F-mount predecessor while shedding both size and weight. Excluding exotics like the Canon 28–70mm ƒ/2, smaller and lighter seems to be a common theme in the realm of zooms these days."
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.
Posted by: Stan B. | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 02:00 PM
"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.
Posted by: Albert Smith | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 03:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Rod S. | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 03:46 PM
Aw, come on. You were judging. And that's okay. Buck up.
Posted by: John Camp | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 04:04 PM
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?
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 04:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Chad Wadsworth | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 07:16 PM
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!
Posted by: Tom Hassler | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 08:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Roger Cicala | Friday, 15 January 2021 at 10:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Doug C | Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 09:27 PM