abadger wrote:
If I am gapping, 24 is too close to 35 for me. So I use 21mm instead. I can use 21/35/85 as a kit for gapping. But that doesn't mean I still don't have the 50 option in there as well, because, well, it has its own look that I like.
Yes, you're right that such gapping is better. The thing is, I already struggle with a 24mm prime to compose properly so I'm really reluctant to go even wider (plus 24GM is something special).
abadger wrote:
Ideally at the end of the day it would be nice to have an f/2.8 zoom for ultrawide options, and an f/2.8 zoom at the longer end. And then if needed I could go UWA zoom/(35 or 50)/Tele-zoom.
Exactly! 35GM is so universal I don't feel a need for another prime in that range.
abadger wrote:
But yeah, I had been really wanting the CV40 for example, but simply can't justify having that and the GM35. It's just too close and one will inevitably get left sitting on a shelf most of the time. While the 85 prime, for me, is so different from both 35 and the tele-zooms, that I couldn't imagine not having it in my kit.
I guess it is up to your personal preference, but I wouldn't sell the 85-ish focal length if I were you. Unless you get the 50GM and decide that is good enough for things like portraits
I already tried 50GM (and it's spectacular, might be the best Sony lens from "wow from first look at the picture" perspective), but had to sent it back (with a heavy heart) because it had one weak corner that was very slow to improve with aperture (and it's too expensive for such a flaw for me). Because it's 50mm and f1.2 it gives more "pop" I'd say, but it's not as universal as 35GM imho. I also think that, contrary to MTF charts, 35GM, thanks to its high contrast I guess, is better suited for landscapes, etc.
The thing for me is that, leaving the obvious focal length differences aside, 35GM has the combination of great IQ and usability (handling, AF, etc.), which coupled with 35mm being my natural perspective, makes me reach out for other lenses less and less...
Trying to decide between Sony 35gm and Voigtlander 35 apo for colour work - but has anyone tried either on an infrared converted camera as good performance in IR (665 and 720 nm) would swing it for me.
So back in the late April/beginning of May I got my 35 gm and it looked to decentered. I posted on this thread that I was going to send it to Sony to have it looked at and I would report back with what happened. Not long after posting that, tsdevine responded to photosbyjaron who had similar centering issues with multiple copies of the lens. Because Im a CS major without a lot of free time, I decided to wait until this week to rent another body to test on before sending my gm to Sony. Lone behold my gm looks to be perfectly centered on this ariii rental. So the issue must be with my arii's sensor not being aligned. Thanks for sharing tsdevine! Now I dont have to send my gm in to Sony and I have a reason to upgrade to the ariv after I graduate
tsdevine wrote:
If they are all bad in the same way, I'd start to question whether your sensor is perfectly aligned. I assume you don't see this similarly with other lenses?
Ok I caved and bought this lens. It is was hard to resist with Sony's excellent deals at the moment, but it was very tough choice between this and the 135GM.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ok I caved and bought this lens. It is was hard to resist with Sony's excellent deals at the moment, but it was very tough choice between this and the 135GM.
Where did you find an excellent deal on this lens?
Thanks for this info. I tried a couple copies of this lens and they were almost all exactly decentered the same. I'm thinking that the quality control is pretty good in these and I fear my a7III is a little off. smmerz56 wrote:
So back in the late April/beginning of May I got my 35 gm and it looked to decentered. I posted on this thread that I was going to send it to Sony to have it looked at and I would report back with what happened. Not long after posting that, tsdevine responded to photosbyjaron who had similar centering issues with multiple copies of the lens. Because Im a CS major without a lot of free time, I decided to wait until this week to rent another body to test on before sending my gm to Sony. Lone behold my gm looks to be perfectly centered on this ariii rental. So the issue must be with my arii's sensor not being aligned. Thanks for sharing tsdevine! Now I dont have to send my gm in to Sony and I have a reason to upgrade to the ariv after I graduate
Just got GM35 from a fellow FMer - great images without efforts but feels heavy compared to 50mm and below manual focus lenses I already got used to. Takes too much space in a small photo shoulder bag. It would be a shame if I will not be using it as much as it deserves.
It is not that much heavier than Batis 85, but I have an impression that the weight difference is rather noticeable.
lensfan wrote:
Just got GM35 from a fellow FMer - great images without efforts but feels heavy compared to 50mm and below manual focus lenses I already got used to. Takes too much space in a small photo shoulder bag. It would be a shame if I will not be using it as much as it deserves.
It is not that much heavier than Batis 85, but I have an impression that the weight difference is rather noticeable.
It's weight is a bit noticeable but lighter than any Canon or Nikon AF 35mm f1.4
fotografur wrote:
It's weight is a bit noticeable but lighter than any Canon or Nikon AF 35mm f1.4
Definitely, in my previous Canon life, my walkaround combo was 2kg and I did not understand why people felt its heavy.
Now, that I got used to light setup, GM35 feels to be on a heavier side but not terrible by any means.
The GM 35 is the default lens on my A7R3 when my partner and I pack for shoots. It just does everything so well. I snap on the Zeiss 55 1.8 or Batis 85 when it's time to do more portrait-y pictures.
lensfan wrote:
Definitely, in my previous Canon life, my walkaround combo was 2kg and I did not understand why people felt its heavy.
Now, that I got used to light setup, GM35 feels to be on a heavier side but not terrible by any means.
At only 524 grams, the FE 35/1.4 GM is the smallest and lightest 35mm f/1.4 AF ever produced!!
Lighter than that you may have to get a f/1.8 or f/2 lens. Some options are the Sigma 35/2 DG DN and Sony 35/1.8 lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
At only 524 grams, the FE 35/1.4 GM is the smallest and lightest 35mm f/1.4 AF ever produced!!
Lighter than that you may have to get a f/1.8 or f/2 lens. Some options are the Sigma 35/2 DG DN and Sony 35/1.8 lenses.
Indeed but I'm comparing it to my other 35mm CV 35 APO, Loxia 35, Zony 35 2.8 - which are lighter and smaller.
Today it is the 3rd heaviest lens I have after old Sonnar 135/2.8 and FD 70-210/4 which are by no means my walkaround lenses. Making GM35 my heaviest.
I have the GM35 and love the results but I have to say I usually choose lighter lenses for walk around photography -- e.g. a day in a new city. Apart from weight, I always feel larger lenses are more intrusive when you point them at people. It's just psychological I guess, but a more compact lens looks more non-specific and not threatening. One of several reasons I do not like using zoom lenses.
Maybe it's just my background in 30+ years of rangefinder photography though!
rob_ww wrote:
I have the GM35 and love the results but I have to say I usually choose lighter lenses for walk around photography -- e.g. a day in a new city.
I think my issue with Sony a7 and 400+ grams lenses is that the body is not big enough. I find myself holding it with 2-2.5 fingers which becomes noticeable over time. While I had much better grip on something like Canon 5D body which I was fine to carry around with much heavier lenses.
An RRS or similar base plate improves ergonomics for me with little weight gain. Gives a spot to rest little fingers and more of a lever vs heavier lenses.
lensfan wrote:
I think my issue with Sony a7 and 400+ grams lenses is that the body is not big enough. I find myself holding it with 2-2.5 fingers which becomes noticeable over time. While I had much better grip on something like Canon 5D body which I was fine to carry around with much heavier lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
At only 524 grams, the FE 35/1.4 GM is the smallest and lightest 35mm f/1.4 AF ever produced!!
Lighter than that you may have to get a f/1.8 or f/2 lens. Some options are the Sigma 35/2 DG DN and Sony 35/1.8 lenses.
With an emphasis on the AF. A Summilux is still only about 320g. And your phone will son be able to take comparable images, I expect, even if it's awkward to use.
Goodrich wrote:
With an emphasis on the AF. A Summilux is still only about 320g. And your phone will son be able to take comparable images, I expect, even if it's awkward to use.
Of course if one takes "AF" out of the equation, there will be many smaller/lighter choices. For example, the new Voigtlander 35/1.5 Nokton is only 188 grams and it's expected to have high performance: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1778058/1#16067385
Character manual focus lenses can be even smaller in the case of the Leica 35/1.4 Lux "pre-asph" and Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton lenses.
