The Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM has a very good flare resistance for both ghosting and veiling but it's not perfect. In backlit situations, some ghosting and loss of contrast are noticeable. For the most part, if one is careful with the lens angle, it's not hard to avoid excessive ghosting.
Compared to other 35mm lenses like the Sigma 35/2 DG DN and Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO, it does a better job suppressing flare compared to the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN but it's no on-par with the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO which looks to be a top lens for those shooting under backlight.
Here are some side by side comparisons to the Sigma and Voigtlander lenses:
Thanks Fred. Given your comparison of the Sony 12-24GM showed better flare resistance than the admittedly older CV15, I was expecting the Sony 35 GM would do better than this in this regard. For high resolution landscape work against the sun, the Voigtlander APO is the clear winner for my purposes.
j4nu wrote:
Exactly, I even wrote in one of the comments that if I were to shoot full body portraits in sunlit woods I'd take the Bigma . You don't have to blow-up the photo to 100% to see the difference then.
... but it seems we're alone in this...
+1
I changed my mind and will keep the Sigma instead of buying the GM even though I hate size and weight.
But to be fair, it also depends on your post-processing style whether the rendering can make a difference...
HelBen85 wrote:
+1
I changed my mind and will keep the Sigma instead of buying the GM even though I hate size and weight.
But to be fair, it also depends on your post-processing style whether the rendering can make a difference...
That's a good point about post-processing. Some lenses are so sharp and contrasty that there is not need for much extra sharpening, especially without "masking" the effect to the OOF rendering. Also, increasing contrast, clarity, texture or adjusting white/black points can sometimes be detrimental to rendering by adding too much contrast/sharpening/clarity to this area. As examples, for lenses like the FE 35/1.4 GM, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN and FE 135/1.8 GM, I would try leaving these sliders alone as much as possible. Of course this is subjective and vary depending on the subject and output.
j4nu wrote:
Exactly, I even wrote in one of the comments that if I were to shoot full body portraits in sunlit woods I'd take the Bigma . You don't have to blow-up the photo to 100% to see the difference then.
... but it seems we're alone in this...
Bokeh/rendering like always are highly subjective things, but when it matters it matters.
I was ready to ditch the Bigma, but the GM failed to usurp it in terms of rendering and is actually a step backwards for me...so GM is going back to BH. Others may go a different direction depending on their priorities.
As a compact option, the 35i makes a strong case as it's notably smaller than the GM, and performs at a high level optically. Then the new 35 1.4 art gets announced to add to the drama. If it ends up being a smaller version of the Bigma in terms of rendering, then it has an interesting value proposition of its own.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a good point about post-processing. Some lenses are so sharp and contrasty that there is not need for much extra sharpening, especially without "masking" the effect to the OOF rendering. Also, increasing contrast, clarity, texture or adjusting white/black points can sometimes be detrimental to rendering by adding too much contrast/sharpening/clarity to this area. As examples, for lenses like the FE 35/1.4 GM, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN and FE 135/1.8 GM, I would try leaving these sliders alone as much as possible. Of course this is subjective and vary depending on the subject and output.
Absolutely.
I have a kind of love-hate relationship with my 135mm GM, it's so sharp and has such a fantastic autofocus. Unfortunately, the pictures are often just not as "dreamy" as they used to be with the 135mm L from Canon ... I often reduce clarity and texture (mostly with the background).
But I don't think the 35mm GM needs this treatment quite as much as the 135mm.
@ Fred: By the way, thank you for the wonderful reviews of the new 35mm lenses.
If you can find the time, I would be very interested in an ultimate sharpness comparison of your very good FE 35mm APO against the 35mm GM (Center / Midfield / Corners) or which one the new 35mm sharpness king is
Regarding sharpness, both lenses are so impressive...
HelBen85 wrote:
Absolutely.
I have a kind of love-hate relationship with my 135mm GM, it's so sharp and has such a fantastic autofocus. Unfortunately, the pictures are often just not as "dreamy" as they used to be with the 135mm L from Canon ... I often reduce clarity and texture (mostly with the background).
But I don't think the 35mm GM needs this treatment quite as much as the 135mm.
@ Fred: By the way, thank you for the wonderful reviews of the new 35mm lenses.
If you can find the time, I would be very interested in an ultimate sharpness comparison of your very good FE 35mm APO against the 35mm GM (Center / Midfield / Corners) or which one the new 35mm sharpness king is
Regarding sharpness, both lenses are so impressive... ...Show more →
On the Sony 135 . Try lowering structure a little . Has a nice effect on faces. Use less clarity too. So play with that a touch. I use C1.
But yes the Sony is a freaking laser for better and worse too
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a good point about post-processing. Some lenses are so sharp and contrasty that there is not need for much extra sharpening, especially without "masking" the effect to the OOF rendering. Also, increasing contrast, clarity, texture or adjusting white/black points can sometimes be detrimental to rendering by adding too much contrast/sharpening/clarity to this area. For lenses like the FE 35/1.4 GM, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN and FE 135/1.8 GM for example, I would try leaving these slider alone as much as possible. Of course this is subjective and vary depending on the subject
Agree on these really sharp lenses like you mentioned Fred sometimes I lower the sharpness from my basic setting and if a portrait type I than lower clarity/structure sometimes.
Slightly off topic comment to members. You wanna work on your post processing and be a expert at it. It’s as powerful as being a top notch shooter. Seriously it’s another good reason I did so well in this career.
Good news my 35 GM is coming today. I missed it yesterday, I bought 3 freaking cars in 20 hours.
All VW
Passat for me
Tiguan for my Son
Arteon for my wife
The thing about correcting rendering in post....yes it's doable, but it isn't necessarily simple. If you're wanting to correct something like busy bokeh in post and don't want to apply global corrections that will affect the rendering of your subject, then getting a clean and natural looking mask is pretty onerous. Masking strands of hair in shots at fast apertures is really tough to do well. Not ideal if you need to chomp through batches of images.
Very generally from a rendering perspective, best to have a lens that SOOC renders closely to what you are trying to achieve as this sets the baseline for what you need to do in post.
Mystik wrote:
The thing about correcting rendering in post....yes it's doable, but it isn't necessarily simple. If you're wanting to correct something like busy bokeh in post and don't want to apply global corrections that will affect the rendering of your subject, then getting a clean and natural looking mask is pretty onerous. Masking strands of hair in shots at fast apertures is really tough to do well. Not ideal if you need to chomp through batches of images.
Very generally from a rendering perspective, best to have a lens that SOOC renders closely to what you are trying to achieve as this sets the baseline for what you need to do in post....Show more →
Agree I know we are off topic but absolutely get a lens you love for the need you have. I try to do very little in post especially masking and all that can really be a bear. No question simple is usually best. But know the tricks
Mystik wrote:
....Good to have choices these days....
Yes is is good to have choices, and for me, the new 35mm f1.4 GM fills a hole in my lineup I have been waiting for since the 24 F1.4 GM was announced. I loved the 24GM size, controls and results, but the 24mm FOV was just not wide enough for landscapes or too wide for environmental type portraits, so when the 20 f1.8G came out, it replaced the 24. I wanted a 35mm f1.4 GM for environmental type portraits and now it is here. Mainly I do outdoor portraits and the 20 G and new 35 GM complement my 2 main Batis portrait lenses, the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm f2.8, both with OIS.
Just love the Batis lenses and while the 85mm F1.4GM and 135mm f1.8 GM might be better choices for some, they are not for me, the smaller size, huge weight savings, uniform 67mm filter, the special Zeiss look and OIS more than make up for the slightly better rendering that the GM’s might bring. With the 35mm GM that same applies vs. the Sigma 35mm f1.2. Now my standard 4 prime lenses weigh in at a svelte 1882gr, or just about 4-1/4 pounds. Compare this to the same 20mm f1.8G with Sigma f1.2, and 2 GM’s at 85 and 135mm, it would weigh 3235gr or just about 3 pounds more!
In the end the new 35mm GM is PERFECT for me. Yes the Sigma f1.2 might have slightly better rendering a in a few specific situations, or the C/V 35mm f2 APO might have slightly less flare, or the Sigma 35mm f1.4 may be $500 cheaper (but apparently not better at any of the performance features of the 35 GM), but overall the 35mm GM is by far the best choice for me. These 4 primes along with the 100-400 GM cover 99% of what I shoot with great IQ, performance, AF accuracy and most important, results.
Infinity Performance compared to Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO E-mount
This is an important comparison and I made sure to test it over and over. I am very confident I have optimal copies of both lenses. It took me 3 copies of the Voigtlander and only one for the Sony GM (luck for sure).
Both lenses are absolutely amazing in regards to resolution and contrast. The best 35mm lenses I've seen to date in this regard.
Enough talk. Let's see some crops!
Distance: Infinity
Focus: Center - Best of three @ 12.4x magnification
35mm MID-FIELD resolution/contrast comparison between Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM vs Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO
Mid-field at f/2: Amazing performance for both lenses. Usually 35mm lenses have a mid-field dip and it's not the case here. The GM does very slightly better but the APO is wide open
Mid-field at f/2.2: The Voigtlander improves noticeable with only 1/3 stop and it's now similar to the GM. Notice how the Voigtlander renders color tonality with more separation though
Mid-field at f/2.5: Not much changes
Mid-field at f/2.8: Both lenses improve slightly
Mid-field at f/4: Very small improvement for both lenses
Mid-field at f/5.6: Some signs of diffraction on the 61MP sensor
Mid-field at f/8: Some diffraction but still very strong performance
35mm EXTREME CORNER resolution/contrast comparison between Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM vs Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO
Extreme corner at f/2: Outstanding performance for both lenses. Even wide open, the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO has a small advantage capturing high frequency detail
Extreme corner at f/2.8: Nice jump for both lenses and they are now similar
Extreme corner at f/4: very small improvement for both lenses. Similar performance
Extreme corner at f/5.6: No much changes. The CV 35/2 APO, slightly more crispy
Extreme corner a f/8: Both lenses diffraction. The Voigtlander slightly less so
That was one of my first takeaways when comparing against the Sigma 1.2, too. This isn't only great for landscape, but also for weddings. You can take group shots at large apertures.
Initially I learned to stop down considerably with the Sigma lens to get people close to the border in focus, too.
After reading this -- and as much as I like many of the Voigtlander APO lenses-- will go with the Sony 35mm 1.4G.
It is a great focal length for walk around for which I prefer having AF) and as Fred notes great for landscapes.
For airplane travel kit (when photography is not main purpose of the trip) .... still trying to decide which ultra wide option to go with but thinking one of the 12/14-24mm options, 35mm/1.4G and 70-200mmf4 (which I think is such a great zoom) and if room the Voigtlander 110mm macro (another lens I really love the rendering).
. You don't have to blow-up the photo to 100% to see the difference then.
Lovely photo mystik. Love the rendering and bokeh. 
