What I don't understand is you just seem to jump in this thread and attack people, without expressing your thoughts on the GM 35. I wish you would contribute on why you disagree with someone's opinion, not just go after someone who expresses their opinion.
In any case....vacating this thread as well.
If at some point I look to pickup a faster AF 35 (than what I have), I would probably look at the GM 35/1.4 and Sigma i35/2. There are some I find interesting which are in non-native mounts, but not sure I want to adapt.
vdo1 wrote:
The use of "IMHO" is superfluous, as everything is opinion unless it is an independently verifiable fact. And it doesn't excuse one from making the connected statement.
Don't worry though, I can find other examples from the times when the RX1 lens was the best 35mm or when the 24 GM was the best E-mount 35mm ("when shot in crop mode").
What I don't understand is you just seem to jump in this thread and attack people, without expressing your thoughts on the GM 35. I wish you would contribute on why you disagree with someone's opinion, not just go after someone who expresses their opinion.
In any case....vacating this thread as well.
If at some point I look to pickup a faster AF 35 (than what I have), I would probably look at the GM 35/1.4 and Sigma i35/2. There are some I find interesting which are in non-native mounts, but not sure I want to adapt.
If you feel that anywhere in this thread I attacked you personally or I used abusive language against you, please point me to the offending post and I'll offer you my apologies and I will delete that post.
What got me riled up was the national geographer's not accepting photos from non-approved lenses comment. Seemed to be just meant to be inflammatory. If I offended you, my apologies.
I'm really "out" now.
vdo1 wrote:
If you feel that anywhere in this thread I attacked you personally or I used abusive language against you, please point me to the offending post and I'll offer you my apologies and I will delete that post.
vdo1 wrote:
The use of "IMHO" is superfluous, as everything is opinion unless it is an independently verifiable fact. And it doesn't excuse one from making the connected statement.
Don't worry though, I can find other examples from the times when the RX1 lens was the best 35mm or when the 24 GM was the best E-mount 35mm ("when shot in crop mode").
vdo1 wrote:
The use of "IMHO" is superfluous, as everything is opinion unless it is an independently verifiable fact.
I think it is not superfluous at all, assuming both parties can tell opinion from knowledge. I also think it is an important distinction, even if a vocal fraction in political discussions appears to disagree. And yes, what I'm writing here is merely my opinion.
Daran wrote:
I think it is not superfluous at all, assuming both parties can tell opinion from knowledge. I also think it is an important distinction, even if a vocal fraction in political discussions appears to disagree. And yes, what I'm writing here is merely my opinion.
if I were to write "The best VW sedan is the Passat 2019, IMHO", would the "IMHO" also disculpate me from implicitily affirming that a "best" sedan exists, or just from the opinion that the Passat 2019 is the one?
vdo1 wrote:
if I were to write "The best VW sedan is the Passat 2019, IMHO", would the "IMHO" also disculpate me from implicitily affirming that a "best" sedan exists, or just from the opinion that the Passat 2019 is the one?
It would clarify that you don't think your statement is the only possible valid statement about the subject, including acceptance that better informed opinions may exist. This is contrary to stating your experience or otherwise factual statements (e.g. this is the lightest 35mm by 5g), where any conflicting statements would have to imply that your statement is invalid (your are uninformed, mistaken, or deliberately lying).
Regarding the "best": problem rarely is whether it exists, but rather that there is no agreed upon definition of "good".
I don’t know about “best,” as I have not extensively used every possible 35 that can work on Sony, but the GM easily gives me the greatest reliability across a wide range of subjects. It is crazy sharp, has lovely bokeh, and I would say decent 3D character in good light. While fotogafur had a couple of well executed examples of how the 35 and 50 GMs create nearly identical images when subjects at middle distances are shot at equivalent framing, I can more easily get brilliant images with the 50 and 135 than the 35. This is likely user error and me being too conservative on aperture. Either way, the 35GM is a great lens, having now owned one for more than two years. I have sold off all of my other 35s and have rarely missed them.
Jim
These lenses I owned were easily outperformed by the 35GM:
These great lenses I have owned generated comparable quality images to the GM but ultimately were let go because of one or more areas (in parentheses) where the GM won out:
Zeiss ZE/ZF 35/1.4 (amazing but heavy on Sony; my most used 35 over the years)
Leica M 35/2 ASPH (sold my M9, this lens smears on Sony; otherwise wonderful)
Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 ZA (stellar rendering but CA made landscape work frustrating)
These are lenses I have yet to own that I feel can offer rendering that the GM cannot (though are unlikely to be as versatile):
Leica M 35/1.4 pre-ASPH (not ideal on Sony but wonderful character)
Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 (iconic 1950s-70s vintage look)
Picked up this lens, got a fairly good copy. Some thoughts:
* Excellent color rendition, and further away from the occasional-frequent yellow emphasis you'll see with the 20 and 40 G lenses. Might actually be more accurate than my Batis 40, though I still prefer the 40 CF's rendition of color, slightly. There was a nice nuetrality to the reds and a saturation of the blues in the CF that reminded me of a color palette one would see in oil paintings. Still, the GM's color is very, very good. Easily 2nd place over all the lenses I've tried in ~24 years of shooting.
* Sharp, right from the word go. I'm not sure if it has a sharper central zone at 1.4 than the 20 G has at 1.8, but this is good enough that I really don't see the need of anything higher. As I've never owned a 1.4 since the C/Y 50mm 1.4 Planar, it's a goddamn treat to not have to do the mental math on whether the softness wide open or the higher noise from more acceptable apertures will have a greater negative effect on my image. Suffice it to say that the resolution from this lens seems like alien technology in comparison to what I cut my teeth on in the film days.
* AF is very good, but I think the AF on the 20 G and 40 G might be better still. This isn't surprising, as it has the same motors as the 20 G while that lens has smaller elements, and the 40 G might be the best AF lens I've ever used in that the motors seem excessive for the wafer thin elements on that lens. If there's one thing I'm disappointed by, and to be fair I'm stretching the definition here, it's that we didn't get one or two more motors with the GM badge over the 20 G.
* Bokeh is similarly excellent. I don't think it holds up quite to the 20 G in terms of quality due to the 20 G's excellent (lack of) optical vignetting, but you certainly get more of it than you do with the 20 G. I think 1.4 is best at mid-distance. At traditional portrait framing you can get like, half an iris in focus. While it's certainly a look, I don't think I'll be using it that often. It's certainly nothing I can fault the GM for, but it does raise the question of whether I'd rather have a f=1.8 or 2 that's more compact or the current 1.4 that has excellent use in low light.
In summation, there's barely anything to fault the lens for in terms of execution and almost everything to compliment Sony for here. The lens is astoundingly good, and even though I'm not sure I'd rather have a 2/1.8 it has been said nigh-innumerable times already how compact it is for the specs and performance. All-in-all, you're probably getting the best lens of its kind for a decent price. Highly-recommended.
JVan_02 wrote:
Picked up this lens, got a fairly good copy. Some thoughts:
* Excellent color rendition, and further away from the occasional-frequent yellow emphasis you'll see with the 20 and 40 G lenses. Might actually be more accurate than my Batis 40, though I still prefer the 40 CF's rendition of color, slightly. There was a nice nuetrality to the reds and a saturation of the blues in the CF that reminded me of a color palette one would see in oil paintings. Still, the GM's color is very, very good. Easily 2nd place over all the lenses I've tried in ~24 years of shooting.
* Sharp, right from the word go. I'm not sure if it has a sharper central zone at 1.4 than the 20 G has at 1.8, but this is good enough that I really don't see the need of anything higher. As I've never owned a 1.4 since the C/Y 50mm 1.4 Planar, it's a goddamn treat to not have to do the mental math on whether the softness wide open or the higher noise from more acceptable apertures will have a greater negative effect on my image. Suffice it to say that the resolution from this lens seems like alien technology in comparison to what I cut my teeth on in the film days.
* AF is very good, but I think the AF on the 20 G and 40 G might be better still. This isn't surprising, as it has the same motors as the 20 G while that lens has smaller elements, and the 40 G might be the best AF lens I've ever used in that the motors seem excessive for the wafer thin elements on that lens. If there's one thing I'm disappointed by, and to be fair I'm stretching the definition here, it's that we didn't get one or two more motors with the GM badge over the 20 G.
* Bokeh is similarly excellent. I don't think it holds up quite to the 20 G in terms of quality due to the 20 G's excellent (lack of) optical vignetting, but you certainly get more of it than you do with the 20 G. I think 1.4 is best at mid-distance. At traditional portrait framing you can get like, half an iris in focus. While it's certainly a look, I don't think I'll be using it that often. It's certainly nothing I can fault the GM for, but it does raise the question of whether I'd rather have a f=1.8 or 2 that's more compact or the current 1.4 that has excellent use in low light.
In summation, there's barely anything to fault the lens for in terms of execution and almost everything to compliment Sony for here. The lens is astoundingly good, and even though I'm not sure I'd rather have a 2/1.8 it has been said nigh-innumerable times already how compact it is for the specs and performance. All-in-all, you're probably getting the best lens of its kind for a decent price. Highly-recommended. ...Show more →
Nice to see you finally got the 35GM.
Looks like this will be a keeper and will finally solve the AF-issues you had with the Batis CF. Looking forward to see some pictures!
