Nobody ever commented on them so I guess only I'm seeing the differences there, but to me they are substantial and easily to extrapolate to other scenes.
35 GM has quickly become my favorite lens (but that was expected I guess as 35mm is my favorite focal length) for its combination of IQ (pseudo-macro as a bonus ), AF and handling (to me 24GM was the perfect match for non-C camera and 35GM is nearly the same, I don't see any benefit going smaller/lighter with my current camera). This does not keep me from recognizing situations where I'd still prefer the Bigma however (they also render differently, so sometimes it's just a different look).
As for Magic's comparison, he notes that in some of the shots the Sigma (f1.4) misfocused, so it makes the comparison a bit more obscure......Show more →
the difference is definitely there, but the thing is unless I look at the images on a pixel level, I can't really see it. and that's what matters most to me. the sony 35/1.8 for instance renders sometimes so badly that it is very distracting and evident even when looking at the image globally. that's not the case for the gm.
robert614 wrote:
Thanks for the comparisons between the 35GM and the Bigma.
While I agree the background with Bigma looks nicer. I wonder how much of that is the 1.2 aperture? If you’re ever shooting another comparison, I’d love to see both lenses at 1.4
I am very happy with my 35GM. Especially as a travel/walk around lens. But that Bigma is a very special lens. I am still considering picking one up.
I'll try to take some today. But the differences come from a multitude of characteristics...f1.2 vs f1.4, slightly longer FOV on the Bigma, and just a difference in overall rendering. The microcontrast on the GM is on the intense side whereas the Bigma has a bit of a glow like the 85GM. This impacts the OOF rendering...on the GM, background elements have deeper shadows and strong contrast...and thus, more structured edges.
DavidBM wrote:
I suppose in theory it can affect focus stacking, but simple magnification change is the kind of thing that photoshops auto align does perfectly, unlike more complex issues to do with hand holding or movement. I guess the only issue is whether the ver slight upsizing the aligning does on the lower magnification images degrades quality. It will in theory, but on high mp modern lens images I’ve tried to see it, but in practice just can’t see any degradation. I guess the only other thing for folks to be aware of is they have to compose at the highest magnification end of the stack!...Show more →
I will test Photoshop focus stacking again. Perhaps Adobe perfected it since I tried it a couple years ago. It didn't do a good job in the past with lots of stacking errors throughout the image. I've been using Zerene for many years instead.
It will be interesting to compare the FE 35mm f/1.4 GM vs 35/2 APO to see how they do in a stack from MFD to infinity.
Mystik wrote:
I'll try to take some today. But the differences come from a multitude of characteristics...f1.2 vs f1.4, slightly longer FOV on the Bigma, and just a difference in overall rendering. The microcontrast on the GM is on the intense side whereas the Bigma has a bit of a glow like the 85GM. This impacts the OOF rendering...on the GM, background elements have deeper shadows and strong contrast...and thus, more structured edges.
Try some with both at f/1.4 while getting the same framing from both lenses. (By moving the tripod a little closer for the GM image). You can toggle to get the exact framing by using the play button to compare the last image with the live view from the other lens.
Ideally, shoot RAW and use default settings on your software for both images without adjusting white/black/contrast/clarity/texture, as those affect rendering. I would love to see the RAWs for them and play with settings to see it's possible to get the GM close to the Sigma's rendering. The GM is noticeably sharper and more contrasty and I think we could reduce this on the GM to get them close.
The Sigma has a noticeably wider AOV compared to the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM, so I tried matching them as close as possible by moving the Sigma lens forward (about 10 inches) for this shooting.
Overall, I find their rendering very similar at f/2. The GM looks is a bit smoother off-axis since it will have less optical vignetting (it's stopped down)
If you like the Sigma 35/2 DG DN's rendering, you will also like the Sony at f/2. As expected, the Sony is better corrected for axial CA at f/2 since the Sigma is wide open.
photosbyjaron wrote:
I think the question to ask yourself is whether later on you will regret not returning it? If so, return it. I've tested 4 different copies and have decided today after reviewing images taken over this last weekend to return them all, including the copy I was originally planning to keep. I could deal with a slightly softer corner, but all 4 have severely uneven vignetting in one or both top corners, especially top left, compared to the bottom corners, and it is not resolved with the lens correction in LR. I can deal with slightly worse sharpness, but significantly uneven vignetting is a PIA to fix in post, especially for landscapes. Clearly based on Fred's example, there are phenomenal copies out there. I guess I'll just keep trying until I find a decent one....Show more →
Bummer thats not what I wanted to hear, but its good to know. I had a similar experience as yours, returning multiple copies of the 40 Batis before I just gave up on it. I dont want to play that game again. Mine is mounted on an A7rii, I cant imagine how it would look when I upgrade to the IV. I called Sony yesterday to start a calibration request. I think Im going through with sending them my copy, especially after reading that youve had 4 bad copies already. Ill report back here to let you all know how it went.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will test Photoshop focus stacking again. Perhaps Adobe perfected it since I tried it a couple years ago. It didn't do a good job in the past with lots of stacking errors throughout the image. I've been using Zerene for many years instead.
It will be interesting to compare the FE 35mm f/1.4 GM vs 35/2 APO to see how they do in a stack from MFD to infinity.
I use Zerene, too. My sense these days is that sometimes Zerene aligns better, sometimes photoshop does. Zerene seems to work better when you aren’t hand held. I always use Zerene for large macro stacks, because you can do sub stacking automatically, whereas that’s a terrible pain with PS..
OH and with the errors, did you mean alignment errors, or actual stacking errors? I agree that PS still has lots of stacking errors, but the alignment seems good for stacks where magnification is the only difference. And that’s the only difference that breathing makes..
photosbyjaron wrote:
I think the question to ask yourself is whether later on you will regret not returning it? If so, return it. I've tested 4 different copies and have decided today after reviewing images taken over this last weekend to return them all, including the copy I was originally planning to keep. I could deal with a slightly softer corner, but all 4 have severely uneven vignetting in one or both top corners, especially top left, compared to the bottom corners, and it is not resolved with the lens correction in LR. I can deal with slightly worse sharpness, but significantly uneven vignetting is a PIA to fix in post, especially for landscapes. Clearly based on Fred's example, there are phenomenal copies out there. I guess I'll just keep trying until I find a decent one....Show more →
That is remarkable. I had such a different experience. I compared three copies and all were excellent and were very similar in performance, almost indistinguishable by my means of testing. My conclusion was that copy variation is very low with this lens.
I have never come across a complaint of uneven vignetting before. Do you have any speculation about what assembly error could cause uneven vignetting without causing uneven sharpness as well? I assume that somehow the image circle would have to be not centered on the sensor, for example if the lens barrel were curved or if the lens cell were tilted inside the barrel or were not centered in the barrel. But any of those seem certain to play havoc with sharpness as well as with the mechanical functioning of the lens.
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?
photosbyjaron wrote:
I may just have incredibly bad luck. I feel bad mucking up Fred's review thread with my struggles to find a good copy cause it seems like most are receiving excellent copies, for which I'm very jealous, so this will be the last I'll post about it. I have 3 more copies on order just to hedge my bets one will be good. To answer your question, I have no idea, but I would imagine both the uneven sharpness and vignetting are caused by the same misalignment. Of the 4 lenses I tested, here are the best two, but all 4 exhibited the same behavior. You'll notice how both bottom corners are noticeably brighter than the top corners, and similarly, both bottom corners on both lenses are sharper than their top corner counterparts. I was initially concerned with decentering and sharpness, and I hadn't really noticed how uneven the vignetting was until I reviewed images I took over the weekend.
Regardless, it appears that there are plenty of sharp copies out there, so considering how phenomenal good copies are, I'm just going to keep trying. ...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote: Rendering comparison to Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN @F/2
The Sigma has a noticeably wider AOV compared to the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM, so I tried matching them as close as possible by moving the Sigma lens forward (about 10 inches) for this shooting.
Overall, I find their rendering very similar at f/2. The GM looks is a bit smoother off-axis since it will have less optical vignetting (it's stopped down)
If you like the Sigma 35/2 DG DN's rendering, you will also like the Sony at f/2. As expected, the Sony is better corrected for axial CA at f/2 since the Sigma is wide open.
I had a blast pushing the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM lens to the limit this month. Overall, Sony once again delivers a top resolution lens, without neglecting rendering. In my opinion, the FE 35mm f/1.4 GM is easily the best 35mm prime on the market today.
With the lens wide open at infinity and close-up distances, it's razor sharp from center to extreme corners. This lens is compact with light construction, has great ergonomic features like custom buttons, aperture ring with de-clicking, AF/MF button and linear manual focus by wire. The latter almost tricks you into thinking it's a helicoid MF lens but I keep wishing it had a bit more resistance.
The Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM wide open, yields higher resolution across the field at any distance compared to the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN. When handling the two, the Sony is bigger but offers an extra full stop of light gathering. I still consider it a compact 35mm f/1.4 though. The Sigma on the other hand, wins on price, build quality and size. When stopped down, it performs close to the Sony in terms of resolution and contrast while having similar rendering and CA control.
Compared to Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar, another new 35mm lens compared here, the new FE 35mm f/1.4 GM provides a different look to the images, offering smoother focus transition zone and the ability to blur the background a bit more when using the f/1.4 aperture. The Voigtlander, which is a more specialized MF lens, beats the GM in terms of flare resistance, axial CA correction and sunstar rendering, making it perhaps more suitable for landscape photography. They perform very close in terms of resolution, distortion and coma, which is a big win for the Sony since it was able to match the superb Voigtlander in many characteristics while offering a faster aperture and AF.
I highly recommend the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM lens. It's the highest resolution 35mm f/1.4 lens on the market today. It also offers a pleasant rendering, very low distortion, low color aberration and well-controlled coma.
Pros:
Superb resolution and contrast at infinity and MFD (across the entire image field).
Fast, accurate and almost silent AF.
The lightest 35mm f/1.4 lens on the market with this level of image quality.
Only traces lateral (LaCA) chromatic aberration.
Nice rendering at any distance with equal balance between foreground and background bokeh.
Good flare resistance.
Weather sealed.
Well-defined sunstars at f/16.
Nice build quality with tight tolerance construction.
Linear manual focus by wire implementation.
Great ergonomics with a custom button, aperture ring with de-clicking and AF/MF button.
Round specular highlights from wide open until f/4, thanks to 11 rounded aperture blades.
Great coma performance for astrophotography.
Absence of onion-ring pattern in bokeh balls even though the lens has a large aspherical elements towards the front.
Above average minimal focal distance (MFD at 25cm and 0.26x magnification).
Cons:
Noticeable axial CA at f/1.4 (above average correction though).
Optical vignetting causes cats eyes' shape specular highlights at f/1.4. (Cured at f/2)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Try some with both at f/1.4 while getting the same framing from both lenses. (By moving the tripod a little closer for the GM image). You can toggle to get the exact framing by using the play button to compare the last image with the live view from the other lens.
Ideally, shoot RAW and use default settings on your software for both images without adjusting white/black/contrast/clarity/texture, as those affect rendering. I would love to see the RAWs for them and play with settings to see it's possible to get the GM close to the Sigma's rendering. The GM is noticeably sharper and more contrasty and I think we could reduce this on the GM to get them close....Show more →
Just seeing this but will try to do this done tomorrow!
I gotta say, I’m preferring the Sony. Which is a little surprising. Since I kept hearing that the Sigma f2 rendered backgrounds very well.
The fact that the Sigma 35 F2 is even in the same conversation as the GM speaks to the value proposition, but I don't think anyone should expect the 35i wide open to outperform the 35GM stopped down in terms of both rendering and resolution. The two lenses aren't necessarily equivalent in spec or product positioning.....35i is more of a natural alternative to the likes of the FE 35 1.8, samyang 35 1.8 and it outperforms both of those lenses handedly. The priority for grabbing the 35i is wanting to go as compact as possible. Usually that involves compromises, and yet, it performs at a level that is very close to the GM despite being quite a bit smaller.
It’s definitely high praise for the Sigma. I think if Sony had a body or would telegraph that one is coming like an a7cR I’d be more inclined to pick it up. As it stands I could see a rationale for it anyway, but the Sony just seems to beat it in everything. The CV has a few advantages but I’m not sure it’s enough. Seriously the Sony is the winner on practically everything but size (still small though) and price with a few shooting scenarios favoring the CV. Great review Fred. Thanks!
Mystik wrote:
The fact that the Sigma 35 F2 is even in the same conversation as the GM speaks to the value proposition, but I don't think anyone should expect the 35i wide open to outperform the 35GM stopped down in terms of both rendering and resolution. The two lenses aren't necessarily equivalent in spec or product positioning.....35i is more of a natural alternative to the likes of the FE 35 1.8, samyang 35 1.8 and it outperforms both of those lenses handedly. The priority for grabbing the 35i is wanting to go as compact as possible. Usually that involves compromises, and yet, it performs at a level that is very close to the GM despite being quite a bit smaller. ...Show more →
Mystik wrote:
The fact that the Sigma 35 F2 is even in the same conversation as the GM speaks to the value proposition, but I don't think anyone should expect the 35i wide open to outperform the 35GM stopped down in terms of both rendering and resolution. The two lenses aren't necessarily equivalent in spec or product positioning.....35i is more of a natural alternative to the likes of the FE 35 1.8, samyang 35 1.8 and it outperforms both of those lenses handedly. The priority for grabbing the 35i is wanting to go as compact as possible. Usually that involves compromises, and yet, it performs at a level that is very close to the GM despite being quite a bit smaller. ...Show more →
Price. I think the priority for grabbing the 35i is price
It used to be us hobbyists and amateurs weren't expected to buy $1400 lenses and companies thoughtfully had cheaper alternatives at half the price. The compromises in build and performance were understood. That it performs at a level that is very close to the GM while being about half the price (here in Canada) is amazing, considering the GM is best in class like, ever.
Do I still want the GM? Sure, but my soon-to-be-new kitchen says I likely should just buy the Sigma and be happy that it performs nearly as well and, as a bonus, is pretty compact to boot
, comparison between the Bigma and GM at f1.4 in demanding conditons with focus distance a bit above 4m I think:
), AF and handling (to me 24GM was the perfect match for non-C
