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)
Thanks Fred! Any chance you got to test the relative t-stop against those two other 35s? if you took shots at the same timish and same metering you should be able to just compare shutter speeds assuming center frame exposure is the same.
Chris
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 →
It still doesn't make sense to me to compare an f/2 lens against an f/1.4 lens. The GM actually shows how good Sony is at making an f/1.4 lens that can compete/outperform a slower, well designed lens in many areas at the same aperture value. In a way, the GM is such a great value lens (maybe the new Sigma 35/1.4 would present an even better value for those who prefer smoother rendering). That is unexpected up until recently I say. On the other hand, the Sigma is expected to be smaller, lighter and cheaper given the aperture and the sharpness only equalize when stopping down is not something extraordinary. It's definitely interesting in seeing the rendering difference between the two lenses, however, since the GM 35 was expected to render much harsher.
I'm not sure how the Sigma beats the FE 35/1.8 handily either. The FE presents a more reliable tool to me with its native support and certainly faster and more reliable AF performance. IQ difference is minimal in real use. The Sigma does present a great alternative with some advantages for a more casual use.
It seems that once more a GM prime (my 35 GM arrived yesterday) is the final destination in my upgrade path for a particular focal length, even though I did not have that many 35s. My first was the 35 F1.4 ZA, then I added the 35/2.8 ZA for a compact alternative, sold the f2.8 for the Sigma 45/2.8, sold the 35 1.4 ZA in anticipation of the GM and got the 35i to have this FL covered during the wait. This was a bit of a bet, since the rendering of the 1.4 ZA was sublime (and I had a good copy), but happy to see that the GM does much better in that respect than the other sharp alternatives (fe 35 1.8, batis 40). Now I will sell the 35i, as for me the additional stop of light is important and the increase in weight and size over the 35i is still manageable. My old family kit was a7iii and 35 1.4 za (about 1450g), now with the a7c and 35 gm I am at 1080g (930g with the 35i), which is a noticeable difference, not only in weight, but also in size and the respective intimidation factor in social situations.
hiepphotog wrote:
It still doesn't make sense to me to compare an f/2 lens against an f/1.4 lens. The GM actually shows how good Sony is at making an f/1.4 lens that can compete/outperform a slower, well designed lens in many areas at the same aperture value. In a way, the GM is such a great value lens (maybe the new Sigma 35/1.4 would present an even better value for those who prefer smoother rendering). That is unexpected up until recently I say. On the other hand, the Sigma is expected to be smaller, lighter and cheaper given the aperture and the sharpness only equalize when stopping down is not something extraordinary. It's definitely interesting in seeing the rendering difference between the two lenses, however, since the GM 35 was expected to render much harsher.
I'm not sure how the Sigma beats the FE 35/1.8 handily either. The FE presents a more reliable tool to me with its native support and certainly faster and more reliable AF performance. IQ difference is minimal in real use. The Sigma does present a great alternative with some advantages for a more casual use....Show more →
Rendering namely. I've owned both. Was never happy with how the Fe 35 renders. Much more pleasing images out of the 35i.
Dave Sanders wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Yes, price is certainly the main factor apart from size, the GM is simply too pricy for most hobbyists. In Europe the difference is even worse (GM is ~3x the price of the 35i).
So the question for me is not which is better, but which has the better price/performance ratio. And there the Sigma is the clear winner.
We are talking about two of the best 35mm in the market.
In absolute.
The real bargain is the Sigma i as it is lighter, smaller less expensive and mainly very same optical qualities of GM.
Of course if one can sacrifice 1.4 aperture and 30 fps on some camera. But apart testing, how many times do you make use of such aperture in real world?
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)
Dave Sanders wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Oh yeah definitely price. GM is double the price and for the price of the GM, you can grab both the 35i and 65i.
No doubt the GM is the campion of the world.
I think mainly because of 1.4 aperture and relevant low light possibility and bokeh.
Nevertheless I tested the 35i on A7RIV and results are top level.
Nothing to share with any other 35mm in the market, at least for me.
Silky pictures with great rendering and bokeh. Limited CA, nice and very gradual light fall off etc.
I think the 61mpx are very well utilised resolution wise.
I’m looking for a substitute for the Bigma because it is beautiful by too heavy for me.
And the results I see are completely in line with what I expected.
At this point I see no reason the spent twice or three times for that additional f. stop.
Now, then I will see.
Also because the GM in not available here for testing.
scalanc2 wrote:
No doubt the GM is the campion of the world.
I think mainly because of 1.4 aperture and relevant low light possibility and bokeh.
Nevertheless I tested the 35i on A7RIV and results are top level.
Nothing to share with any other 35mm in the market, at least for me.
Silky pictures with great rendering and bokeh. Limited CA, nice and very gradual light fall off etc.
I think the 61mpx are very well utilised resolution wise.
I’m looking for a substitute for the Bigma because it is beautiful by too heavy for me.
And the results I see are completely in line with what I expected.
At this point I see no reason the spent twice or three times for that additional f. stop.
Now, then I will see.
Also because the GM in not available here for testing.
Schlotkins wrote:
Thanks Fred! Any chance you got to test the relative t-stop against those two other 35s? if you took shots at the same timish and same metering you should be able to just compare shutter speeds assuming center frame exposure is the same.
Chris
Hi Chris,
Thanks for reminding me. I will do this comparison.
I just finished my tests with the GM and the Sigma 35 F2. I’m actually quite surprised by both. The GM for being the sharpest I ever seen at 1.4 in the corners. I mean ever seen too and the Sigma actually keeping up to it. I’m keeping the GM no doubt mainly for the look at 1.4 and speed of course. My surprise is it’s a small lens in this category and certainly a great work lens for me. But given this size between them . I feel the Sigma may not be small enough of a difference between them to keep both. I was looking more for a pancake type or something. So I’m going to sell my Sigma and try something that does not distort and is smaller but the Sigma is a fantastic little lens on its own
Here is my review which compliments Fred’s hard work here
My copy of the GM seems pretty good. Tad, and I mean a small tad softer in one corner doing Fred's test and I wasn't using a tripod so maybe in fact it's not. Probably should have used one. On a brick wall using a tripod I see no difference corner to corner, side to side tested wide open through F8. Amazing this lens is that sharp corner to corner at F1.4. Center sharpness is razer sharp. Almost makes my 135 GM seem soft. lol. So its a keeper as far as I am concerned. Sold my Sigma 35 F2. I really struggled selling that lens. For the money it's hard to beat. I just do not need two 35mm lenses and the GM is small enough and light enough that it feels great on my R4 and A7C. The 35mm GM is one heck of a lens. I really enjoy the MFD it offers as well.
I returned my Sigma 35 f2. It is a great lens especially for the price and size. But the GM just provides more flexibility in terms of helping control DOF, ISO, shutter speeds, noise etc.... Also unlike other 1.4's this is really sharp corner to corner wide open even. The price I pay for that in extra dollars and size is worth it to me. This will be my most used lens. It really comes down to each individual and how, what and when they shoot. Can't go wrong with either.
As requested, Bigma vs GM at f1.4. Matching the FOV between these two lenses perfectly was actually pretty tough because of distortion in Bigma, and focus breathing on the GM (usually a non issue but it's annoying when you're trying to get a very specific FOV).
GM bokeh is definitely good, but the Bigma is still better even at the same aperture.
Is it worth dealing with the size and of Bigma and giving up the AF of the GM? It depends. I've shot some photos on the GM where the bokeh gave me pause, but its situational and the GM bokeh is usually very good...especially if you tend to frame tightly. If you shoot outdoor/environmental portraits, the Bigma makes a strong case for itself IMO. Aside from that, GM probably the more practical lens.
My bad, I misspoke. It is focus breathing I'm oncerned about. I do video occasionally but more critical for me is focus stacking. I any case, I've ordered mine today and it is expected to be delivered tomorrow. Hopefully the focus breathing issue will be manageable. T abadger wrote:
I haven't heard anything regarding focus shift problems with the lens. Maybe I missed it. But perhaps you mean focus breathing instead of focus shift?
Mystik wrote:
As requested, Bigma vs GM at f1.4. Matching the FOV between these two lenses perfectly was actually pretty tough because of distortion in Bigma, and focus breathing on the GM (usually a non issue but it's annoying when you're trying to get a very specific FOV).
GM bokeh is definitely good, but the Bigma is still better even at the same aperture.
Is it worth dealing with the size and of Bigma and giving up the AF of the GM? It depends. I've shot some photos on the GM where the bokeh gave me pause, but its situational and the GM bokeh is usually very good...especially if you tend to frame tightly. If you shoot outdoor/environmental portraits, the Bigma makes a strong case for itself IMO. Aside from that, GM probably the more practical lens.
Petegh wrote:
Depending on what's causing the problem, it may not be able to be fixed: lenses only have a certain amount of adjustability built in, and this depends on their design (some have none at all); we won't know unless Roger at Lensrentals does a teardown.
I'd be returning it for sure...
In the U.S., at least, Sony repair doesn't have a lot of capability to do optical corrections. I wouldn't bet on being able to get it corrected at the service center. Post-covid, we're very short handed in our repair department (and everywhere else) so we won't be doing a tear down anytime soon.
Mystik wrote:
As requested, Bigma vs GM at f1.4. Matching the FOV between these two lenses perfectly was actually pretty tough because of distortion in Bigma, and focus breathing on the GM (usually a non issue but it's annoying when you're trying to get a very specific FOV).
GM bokeh is definitely good, but the Bigma is still better even at the same aperture.
Is it worth dealing with the size and of Bigma and giving up the AF of the GM? It depends. I've shot some photos on the GM where the bokeh gave me pause, but its situational and the GM bokeh is usually very good...especially if you tend to frame tightly. If you shoot outdoor/environmental portraits, the Bigma makes a strong case for itself IMO. Aside from that, GM probably the more practical lens.
Hi Carlo,
This is a great test with enough subject distance so blur is not so strong.
Did you crop the images in-post to match their FLs or matched them during the shooting by moving the Sony a bit closer?
Also, did you take more shots for the same scene? It does not look like the Sony was properly focused at the same location (sunflower I guess) since it's not critically sharp there. We all know the Sony is a very sharp lens wide open. That could have skewed the rendering test.
