lensfan wrote:
Been shooting 35GM (in parallel with light and compact Zony 2.8/35) recently while traveling and realized I find it flat and boring (just like Zony).
Loxia 35 and APO-L 35 got me excited about the the focal length but 35GM is not as fun in real life as it is with test shots for me.
35GM gives modern well-corrected results with smooth bokeh but does not click so far.
I'd be interested to see you supplement that with back to back images demonstrating the difference you claim.
Daran wrote:
I'd be interested to see you supplement that with back to back images demonstrating the difference you claim.
This is not about technical differences. Technically, 35GM is the closest to 'perfection'. But setting pixel peeping aside and looking at hundreds of photos made with the lens on the go (I primarily shoot while traveling for pleasure), I don't find them very engaging on macro level.
Funny thing, I think today I like the most the results I'm getting with Loxia 35 which is probably the worst lens of the bunch technically. I even started writing on FM bashing its 'vintage' performance wide open. For years of digital I was craving for resolution in my images and now after getting it with 35GM I feel like I don't want it anymore without some other 'emotional' components to the image some less perfect lenses deliver.
If I were a pro it would be 35GM hands down.
lensfan wrote:
This is not about technical differences. Technically, 35GM is the closest to 'perfection'. But setting pixel peeping aside and looking at hundreds of photos made with the lens on the go (I primarily shoot while traveling for pleasure), I don't find them very engaging on macro level.
Funny thing, I think today I like the most the results I'm getting with Loxia 35 which is probably the worst lens of the bunch technically. I even started writing on FM bashing its 'vintage' performance wide open. For years of digital I was craving for resolution in my images and now after getting it with 35GM I feel like I don't want it anymore without some other 'emotional' components to the image some less perfect lenses deliver.
If I were a pro it would be 35GM hands down....Show more →
I do understand, that your point isn't about technical IQ. But if, as you say, the images are less "engaging on macro level", then that could be a difference in the images (which you could show others) or something outside the image (e.g. how you "feel" while taking image, which likely would not affect others in the same way). While both can be worthwhile points, I think the distinction is absolutely essential for a productive discussion.
Daran wrote:
I do understand, that your point isn't about technical IQ. But if, as you say, the images are less "engaging on macro level", then that could be a difference in the images (which you could show others) or something outside the image (e.g. how you "feel" while taking image, which likely would not affect others in the same way). While both can be worthwhile points, I think the distinction is absolutely essential for a productive discussion.
You are absolutely right. However, I'm afraid I'm not good or experienced enough to provide proper fuel for such a meaningful discussion. This will turn into me not being able to find great subjects that provide the best illustration or variations with photo samples due to me not able to keep conditions identical.
Browsing through hundreds of photos made with 35GM, I feel that it lacks micro-contrast, 3d and color pop to the level I would be expecting from the best 35mm lens ever. This probably contributes to the results not being engaging enough. While a lot of detail is there, bokeh/rendering is non-distracting under challenging conditions, everything is smooth, still my eye does not snap to something on the picture. Its like the lens does not guide or force me to snap on something - its like I need to make a decision/effort to choose something to focus on.
Or maybe it is the nature of 35mm focal length which is somewhere in between being close and wide, getting stuff in the picture with no distortion but lacking focus? And it was Zeiss/Cosina pop that drove me to it despite the inherent characteristics of 35mm FL?
I agree with the notion that lens quality is best evaluated over a portfolio of work with different subjects, times of year, lighting and local conditions. Walter Mandler used to say "it takes a year to evaluate a lens, anything less is just a shortcut". It is a phrase that pops into my mind every time I watch one of those formulaic lens reviews probably compiled over two or three days with the usual nearby subjects.
That said, I am half a year into ownership of the 35GM and working in the Sony system in general. At this stage, for me, I am minded to think the 35GM is overall the best 35mm lens I have ever used -- notwithstanding some of Leica's very best optics at this and nearby focal lengths. In terms of pop, it provides an excellent base from which to start post-processing if that is what you are after. I am also a fan of the Batis lens range, but held back from the Batis 40/2.0 because the 35GM has not let me down in any situation: landscape, portraits, interiors, night shots, bright sunlight, overcast, seascapes, B&W high and low contrast, etc. etc. etc.
That's the issue with these kind of discussions, they end when asked for photo evidence ...
I'd also like to catch that ethereal lens quality that goes unnoticed in "technical" tests, but I've failed so far...
To stay on the topic, I do think the Bigma edges out the GM when it comes to portratis (esp. at longer distances), but that I can rather easily back by pointing to smoother bokeh which I see in my test shots (and seemingly narrower DoF) .
It’s very true that people see things very differently. No two people see exactly the same thing in the same way. Eyes and brains are very individual things.
My eyes and brain see LOTS of good things in my 35GM images. Color, contrast, pop, great bokeh, and a certain life. People pictures just come out so well I instantly know when I see an image I’ve taken with the 35GM. They are lovely.
But others see things differently. I don’t understand it, but I don’t have too! We can enjoy those lenses that make us happy.
Nov 11, 2022 at 02:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
lensfan wrote:
You are absolutely right. However, I'm afraid I'm not good or experienced enough to provide proper fuel for such a meaningful discussion. This will turn into me not being able to find great subjects that provide the best illustration or variations with photo samples due to me not able to keep conditions identical.
Browsing through hundreds of photos made with 35GM, I feel that it lacks micro-contrast, 3d and color pop to the level I would be expecting from the best 35mm lens ever. This probably contributes to the results not being engaging enough. While a lot of detail is there, bokeh/rendering is non-distracting under challenging conditions, everything is smooth, still my eye does not snap to something on the picture. Its like the lens does not guide or force me to snap on something - its like I need to make a decision/effort to choose something to focus on.
Or maybe it is the nature of 35mm focal length which is somewhere in between being close and wide, getting stuff in the picture with no distortion but lacking focus? And it was Zeiss/Cosina pop that drove me to it despite the inherent characteristics of 35mm FL?...Show more →
I am not at all sure the 35 GM is the best 35mm lens ever, but it certainly is a wonderful 35mm lens with lots of good qualities. Contrary to what you say here, however, it does have lots of microcontrast, and I think that is one of the strengths of the lens. I have used lots of 35mm lenses including the Zeiss Milvus 35 f/1.4; Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4; Zeiss ZE 35 f/1.4; Voigtlander 35 f/1.2; Voigtlander 35 f/1.7; Leica R 35 f/2; Minolta MD 35 f/1.8; Olympus OM 35 f/2, and Canon EF 35 f/2, and only the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 has more microcontrast and that lens has some weaknesses the 35 GM does not (primarily field curvature that brings the focus closer to the camera in the edges and corners). I'm not sure the 35 GM is the best of all these lenses, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to come to that conclusion. It is a great performing and very balanced lens and used well I think it can certainly be used to direct your eye where you want in the shot. I think the 35mm focal length can be a challenge to get those shots where your focus is directed, but the 35 GM can handle that as well as any of the 35mm lenses I have used and actually it is probably better than any of them at doing that. The one lens that might be better at doing that is the Zeiss C/Y mount 35 f/1.4, from which I have seen many shots that do the well, but that lens too has several weaknesses the 35 GM does not.
I guess what I am saying is the 35 GM might not be the very best at anything (other than AF on a Sony camera and there it really is clearly the best) but it is at least close to the best at almost everything. That provides a compelling argument for the 35GM being the best all around 35mm lens. If you value some of the things in which it is merely almost the best, however, then you might prefer another lens slightly more, but the 35GM I think is still a great option even in those instances.
A gentle reminder that microcontrast is purely a technical term used to describe the portrayal of detail just able to be seen or just beyond our vision in the image. All very good lenses have it. The term has shifted in meaning to now describe the harmonious combination of several desirable optical qualities (and it's beyond a short discussion). Ironically microcontrast has usually, in fact almost always, led to the entry of the word 'Zeiss' into the chat.
Mandler, the guy who felt he needed a year to evaluate a lens, was a film era person born in 1922. A huge extra load of variables entered the scene in the film era, and it was very hard to scan hundreds of well-presented and easily viewed images - which is the tech we have at our fingertips today. I usually look at up to a thousand images online from a lens of interest, and can't imagine not doing it before buying in. I also think very carefully about what exactly I will use the lens for.
[You have to 'see' images, and that is an art in itself. The favorable lens reviews of today are mostly decided when the release party is arranged and the invites sent out. It's very transparent, as Steve Huff recently admitted to.]
There is no doubt 35mm is a tough nut to crack. Many here think the best one is the Sony/Zeiss collaboration FLC RX1 35/2 Sonnar with its rear element placed millimetres from the sensor. That might be a clue.
Another issue: Sony is competing head on with Canon and Nikon, and that would have moderated any urges they might have had to make more of a character lens in the GM. Popular taste is the goal and they succeeded in that with this very complex 14/10 design. But 'sharpness' can be the photographer's equivalent of sugar - it obscures all other qualities, especially for full images, not crop inspections. We need to stop acting like we have 10x eyes.
Re subject matter, here is a page picked at random halfway through the GM 35/1.4 image thread.
It has a smattering of different kinds of images. See if you agree with me that the lens does best with portraits/flowers etc. at close range with flowing bokeh behind, rather than the city/landscapes. I have no doubt several other 35s would meet with greater acclaim from fair-minded individuals for open nature imagery, including the Loxia 35mm. Sony did not design the GM primarily as a landscape lens. All lenses have strengths and weaknesses. All of them. Very few deserve cult status.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not at all sure the 35 GM is the best 35mm lens ever, but it certainly is a wonderful 35mm lens with lots of good qualities. Contrary to what you say here, however, it does have lots of microcontrast, and I think that is one of the strengths of the lens. I have used lots of 35mm lenses including the Zeiss Milvus 35 f/1.4; Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4; Zeiss ZE 35 f/1.4; Voigtlander 35 f/1.2; Voigtlander 35 f/1.7; Leica R 35 f/2; Minolta MD 35 f/1.8; Olympus OM 35 f/2, and Canon EF 35 f/2, and only the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 has more microcontrast and that lens has some weaknesses the 35 GM does not (primarily field curvature that brings the focus closer to the camera in the edges and corners). I'm not sure the 35 GM is the best of all these lenses, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to come to that conclusion. It is a great performing and very balanced lens and used well I think it can certainly be used to direct your eye where you want in the shot. I think the 35mm focal length can be a challenge to get those shots where your focus is directed, but the 35 GM can handle that as well as any of the 35mm lenses I have used and actually it is probably better than any of them at doing that. The one lens that might be better at doing that is the Zeiss C/Y mount 35 f/1.4, from which I have seen many shots that do the well, but that lens too has several weaknesses the 35 GM does not....Show more →
I agree, I have a bunch of lenses and one thing I'm sure of is the 35mm GM has a lot of local contrast (or microcontrast).This is the main strenghts of this lens for me (I've posted some pics in the Sony GM vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 thread).
I'm very interested by the 35mm ZM now ... Does this lens has a lot more microcontrast than the 35mm GM or just a little bit ? Because this GM is one the lens I own with the best microcontrast (almost as much as my 25-50mm Pana Leica).
rob_ww wrote:
I agree with the notion that lens quality is best evaluated over a portfolio of work with different subjects, times of year, lighting and local conditions. Walter Mandler used to say "it takes a year to evaluate a lens, anything less is just a shortcut". It is a phrase that pops into my mind every time I watch one of those formulaic lens reviews probably compiled over two or three days with the usual nearby subjects.
Maybe I'm missing something important here, and if it takes you that long, that is absolutely fine by me. But surely that deeper wisdom you acquired after such a long gestation is demonstrable in an actual image comparison?
I also find that my favorable impression of a lens is earned over time. Those that I seem to gel with end up on my camera more, no matter how near perfect or flawed they may be.
Not a knock against any particular lens, including the GM 35 (never shot it), but everyone has different tastes and shooting styles.
tsdevine wrote:
I also find that my favorable impression of a lens is earned over time. Those that I seem to gel with end up on my camera more, no matter how near perfect or flawed they may be.
Sure, all sorts of preferences can make or break the fun, without affecting the resulting images at all. Especially if you don't shoot for money, that can be much more relevant than minor differences in the image.
Keunish wrote:
I agree, I have a bunch of lenses and one thing I'm sure of is the 35mm GM has a lot of local contrast (or microcontrast).This is the main strenghts of this lens for me (I've posted some pics in the Sony GM vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 thread).
I'm very interested by the 35mm ZM now ... Does this lens has a lot more microcontrast than the 35mm GM or just a little bit ? Because this GM is one the lens I own with the best microcontrast (almost as much as my 25-50mm Pana Leica).
In my experience the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 has a noticeable amount more microcontrast than the 35 GM, but I am comparing years apart so I very well might not be right. The Zeiss ZM is a Leica M mount lens and doesn't adapt all the well to a Sony camera, so you would have that to contend with if you try it.
duron_boy wrote:
I have a 35 1.4, but the focus is a little slow.Looks like 35 GM is much better
There are at least 5 Zeiss 35 f/1.4 lenses all of which are interesting, IMO. There is the 35 ZM for Leica M mount. There is the 35 Contax for Contax/Yashica mount. There is the ZE/ZF for Canon EF and Nikon F mounts. There is the 35 Milvus for Canon EF/Nikon F mounts, and finally the 35 ZA for Sony E mount. Only the last one has AF and they all have quite different optical formulas. I have owned the ZM, the ZE, and the Milvus which were all good lenses but I like the 35 GM better than any of them for most types of shooting.
...
.
