I think the only(?) area where the GM will be still clearly superior is AF in dynamic scenes (tracking mostly). I don't think that's a compelling argument for 35mm in most cases though .
Butterfingers wrote:
... so I got a Sigma 35mm f/1.2. I love the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and won’t part with it, but I have been missing the brutal sharpness and perfection of the GM lens with it’s compact size...
As an owner of the 35GM, there is no reason for me to get this lens. One of the things I love the most about the 35GM is its close focusing ability. I don’t give a flip about the slightly more distortion because I don’t take images where that matters. The lens is so good in so many ways. However, if I didn’t have a 35/1.4, this Sigma would be a great choice.
I recently sold my beloved 35/1.8 to get some of that 1.4 magic. This looks very impressive compared to a used GM. I shoot a lot of video and the only thing that gives me pause with this lens is the fact that dynamic active stabilization doesn’t work with 3rd party lenses. That’s cheat code when chasing a 4-year-old around haha. After pretty much never turning off since getting the a7v, not sure I can live without it.
screamsi wrote:
What would you all recommend now that this Sigma 35mm has the Sony GM beat in a number of categories. Buy the new Sigma 35mm, or purchase a good quality used Sony 35mm GM? Both are now at a similar price point so I'm trying to decide what might be the best option.
In my mind Sigma has entered the elite club of lens makers over 10 years ago, and this lens is just a continuation of their ongoing success. Objectively, you should be getting the Sigma simply because it's cheaper while competitive in all areas that matter (optics, build, weight).
But there are subjective factors, and they are just as important. Personally, I think in terms of prime lens sets. I want similar color response, haptics, button placement, filter sizes, hood designs, etc. This builds muscle memory, makes lens changes quick and safe, and speeds up post-processing of photo sets taken with the same lens line. I tried to have a mix of Sigmas and Sonys and it was annoying, so I "standartized" around the GM set simply because it was more complete at the time. So... if you can build a Sigma set that works for you, that would be my advice.
RoamingScott wrote:
Does anybody else loath that Sigma uses glossy black up against the mount where it lends tends to get handled quite a bit?
Honestly I don't mind it! From a looks perspective, it would be nicer I think, if it was a more uniform look, but from a purely functional perspective I think it makes sense. It's likely a more durable finish. My finger nail markings wipe right off of the anodized metal. If it was the mate black, any rubbing would slowly wear down, basically polishing the parts you touch and the wear would be much more noticeable.
I love the glossy finish. Just got a new 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art as well. As to the new 35/1.4 II, I'll pass as my old 35/1.4 Art still works well. I don't mind the weight as it balances well with the A7V and vertical grip. If I am going to upgrade it I'll look into the 35/1.2 Art either the first or second version. Or I might keep my 35 and get the Sigma 24/2 DG DN instead.
He tested the wrong thing. distortion should be tested at the same magnification level.
Even a perfect lens the size of a car would have more distortion at higher magnification level no? Its just the physics of it
0.17x - Distortion test needed
0.18x - Distortion test needed
0.19x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.20x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.21x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.22x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.23x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.24x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.25x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
0.26x - 35GM wins, Sigma cant do it
screamsi wrote:
What would you all recommend now that this Sigma 35mm has the Sony GM beat in a number of categories.
Buy the new Sigma 35mm, or purchase a good quality used Sony 35mm GM? Both are now at a similar price point so I'm trying to decide what might be the best option.
Optimal would be to wait until the Sigma's available to rent, rent them both, and then decide for yourself.
Outstanding wrote:
Sigma has almost no breathing and no distortions, GM has pincushion. Gerald Undone says Sony even after using breathing compensation which results in narrower view has more breathing than this Sigma. Sony still pulse a bit.
He also mentions Sony has bad distortion at MFD and Sigma has none, you can see the comparison and Sigma offers slightly lower MFD but completely undistorted.
old-gregg wrote:
In my mind Sigma has entered the elite club of lens makers over 10 years ago, and this lens is just a continuation of their ongoing success. Objectively, you should be getting the Sigma simply because it's cheaper while competitive in all areas that matter (optics, build, weight).
But there are subjective factors, and they are just as important. Personally, I think in terms of prime lens sets. I want similar color response, haptics, button placement, filter sizes, hood designs, etc. This builds muscle memory, makes lens changes quick and safe, and speeds up post-processing of photo sets taken with the same lens line. I tried to have a mix of Sigmas and Sonys and it was annoying, so I "standartized" around the GM set simply because it was more complete at the time. So... if you can build a Sigma set that works for you, that would be my advice. ...Show more →
I disagree, "over 10 years ago" (aka <=2015) most of Sigma's lenses were not great. In fact, Sony's lens options were not great either.
In fact I was still using 100% adapted lenses in 2018 / 2019 because to me there were zero lenses good enough to beat my L glass.
Sigma's "good" lenses were the 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM and 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, both announced 2018. They are optically good but also way too heavy.
All fixed now, these are the salad days of quality lenses. It's hard to keep up with them all, pretty much impossible. Sigma have surely earned their place, I thinks also Sony.
Just those two show they have been making 'top tier' lenses for over 20 years.
While Canon made some great lenses before then and after, they also made some ordinary stuff too.
I agree to aCuria. Sigma's "good" lenses were the 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM and 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art which are great for canon for others. Impressive and uniform sharpness. Panasonic Pro 50mm F1.4 also wonderful lens.
.
