No beef with you liking the 35 GM more..it has AF, it's a faster lens, you might like the way it renders better, etc. I was just struggling with the assertion that the 35 APO was much larger and heaver than the 50 APO to the point that was closer to the 35 GM than the 50 APO.
And honestly if that's the way it feels to you...I won't argue that. I don't find them much different in terms of size and weight. But again those are my perceptions, can't say they trump yours.
On paper though (and even in my dry cabinet), to me they look nearly the same size and are close in weight. Haven't tried to see if the 35 APO is more front heavy, it's lighter, but maybe more weight is shifted to the front.
lensfan wrote:
Resolution charts I saved from Lenstip. 35GM has extra f-stop, fast and reliable autofocus - these make me choose 35GM over 35APO.
tsdevine wrote:
No beef with you liking the 35 GM more..it has AF, it's a faster lens, you might like the way it renders better, etc. I was just struggling with the assertion that the 35 APO was much larger and heaver than the 50 APO to the point that was closer to the 35 GM than the 50 APO.
And honestly if that's the way it feels to you...I won't argue that. I don't find them much different in terms of size and weight. But again those are my perceptions, can't say they trump yours.
On paper though (and even in my dry cabinet), to me they look nearly the same size and are close in weight. Haven't tried to see if the 35 APO is more front heavy, it's lighter, but maybe more weight is shifted to the front.
Well, it's 6mm longer than the E mount CV 50. I guess that 6mm is too much. You could always try to adapt the M mount version, but design is different from an optical perspective. Or just be happy and shoot the 35 GM.
Maybe get a thinner aluminum filter for the CV 35 and put a thicker brass one on the CV 50. That could eat into that 6mm difference and also get some more weight on the front of the CV 50. (Little levity there.....)
In any case, not trying to convince you to shoot the CV 35 over the 35 GM.
lensfan wrote:
Each time I look at it I cannot stop thinking: tooo looong.
35APO for M-mount felt much better. https://i.ibb.co/mb0r1YH/35AL.jpg
tsdevine wrote:
Well, it's 6mm longer than the E mount CV 50. I guess that 6mm is too much. You could always try to adapt the M mount version, but design is different from an optical perspective. Or just be happy and shoot the 35 GM.
Maybe get a thinner aluminum filter for the CV 35 and put a thicker brass one on the CV 50. That could eat into that 6mm difference and also get some more weight on the front of the CV 50. (Little levity there.....)
In any case, not trying to convince you to shoot the CV 35 over the 35 GM.
...Show more →
Both are great and I'm picky here. Does not make much sense to have both when I travel.
I initially purchased M version hoping to use it on both systems but was not satisfied with its performance on Sony sensor, so I had to get E version as well. Later I got 35GM and it took over.
lensfan wrote:
You are forgetting to factor in 1-stop + 2 linear motors. Of course there is weight and volume difference, but all things considered basically same size.
Charts show optically they are almost identical at similar apertures. I had the same impression when I was looking at Fred's comparison.
35APO has definitely less fringing, while 35GM shows some at close focus when there is a lot of contrast.
Between 35APO vs 50APO on camera - 35APO feels loooong.
I had (and sold) the 35GM, and now have the Voigtländer 35/2 apo. The Sony is much bulkier and considerably heavier.
Lenstip got a dud copy of the 35/2 APO for their testing. Their results contradict not only the maker's MTF (real measures) but also the lived experience of many reviewers and users.
Relative darkness has settled in at the Leica and Cosina design studios. Whatever were they thinking using maximum lens speeds of a paltry f2? And they made so many of them! All their top SL amd M lenses and these Lanthar items.
Chevrolets can never be Audis, but they sure sell more of them. Sony might be chasing the digital art / video segment more these days. It's best we don't start on the GM 35/1.4's shortcomings here, but at least some aficionados will see the graceless highlight handling, the lack of image depth, globby bokeh, the painted on in-focus subjects. Dustin Abbott unwittingly shows off these 'attributes':
'Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Long Term Review | The Best 35?'
Jeff Kott wrote:
I love my 50/2 APO and use it with the supplied hood on my A7riii.
Thinking ahead to my purchase of an A7CR, has anyone figured out a more compact hood solution that works reasonably well?
You could justify the additional purchase of the 35 APO to allow you to use that somewhat shorter hood on both the 35 and 50mm lenses.
A sorta-kinda dome hood can work as a less expensive option. I didn't see any vignetting when pairing 49 to 46 and 46 to 40.5 step-down rings, and I seem to recall that a 46 to 39 ring was also ok (but did not work with my 35mm APO).
lensfan wrote:
Extra 170g for a bright AF vs relatively dark MF prime at this level of performance is negligible for me.
In the meanwhile tiny G series of 150-175g started to grow on me.
It's fine that the extra weight is of no importance to you, but that is not why I made this remark.
It was stated that the 35GM is nearly identical in weight and size to the Voigtländer 35mm f2 apo, which is simply not the case in my experience, the handling is significantly different regardless of whether it matters to a particular user or not.
TBH, the closest APO-Lanthar in size/weight to 35GM would probably be 65/2 (φ78.0×91.3mm, 625g) ...
tsdevine wrote:
That's interesting. I don't have the 35 GM, but I do have the E mount CV AL 35 & 50. I have to be very carful when I pull them out of the bag, as I have often mounted the wrong one on the camera (based on what I was intending.)
From B&H
35/2 AL
Dimensions: 2.5 x 2.6" / 62.6 x 67.3 mm
Weight: 12.4 oz / 352 g
50/2 AL
Dimensions: 2.46 x 2.41" / 62.6 x 61.3 mm
Weight: 12.84 oz / 364 g
35/1.4 GM
Dimensions: 3 x 3.8" / 76 x 96 mm
Weight: 1.2 lb / 524 g
Without hood and caps the CV 35/2 AL is actually lighter than the 50/2, and given the hood is smaller on the 35/2 I would expect with hood it is still measurably lighter. The CV 35/2 AL is much closer to the size and weight of the 50/2 AL than it is the GM 35.
I have the 24 GM, which I think is smaller and lighter than the 35 GM. I can tell you there is no way I'd mistake the 24mm GM with either of the CVs based on size and weight feel. (There are other tactile differences in the feel of the lens that would make it really obvious though, but size and weight alone would be enough to have me not mix them up....)
Yesterday I spent one hour and half relaxing in Centrale Montemartini.
It's always a pleasure to be there with my MF lenses. The Z 50/2 Apo Lanthar never disappoints!
All pictures @ f/2.
(Little levity there.....)
