FAQ: The 35mm f/1.8 has a closer focusing distance than the 35mm f/1.4, so why did my test show the 35mm f/1.4 filled the frame with the camera more? It's the difference between maximum magnification and close focusing distance. The 35 f/1.4 has a min focus distance of 9.8", while the 35 f/1.8 is 8.7". So, yes, the f/1.8 can focus at a shorter distance - BUT - the focal length must shrink to 25mm or 30mm or so because of focus breathing (we have a video on this topic). The 35 f/1.4 has a max magnification of 0.26x, whereas the 35 f/1.8 has a max magnification of 0.24x. Thus, the 35mm f/1.4 fills the frame with the subject more, even though it's further away. It probably stays closer to a true 35mm than the f/1.8 lens does. You don't actually care about minimum focusing distance - you care about maximum magnification. Here's a video on the topic: th-cam.com/video/XP5-e4Q01Ac/w-d-xo.html
It’s good you explain things to make it easier to follow. However, I would like to see more Nikon lens reviews. The Nikon 35 f1.8 and the 35 f1.4 both have the same 0.16x maximum magnification. However, with Nikon the 35 f1.4 still seems to fill the frame with the subject better than the 35 f1.8. Nikon pretty much puts the magnification theory on the back burner again. Yes, the Nikon 35 f1.8 gets in closer than the 35 f1.4, so I don’t know what’s going on. Maybe because the 1.4 lens is bigger or it’s more about the apertures? That is really puzzling.
@@uncruckus9345 Thats I thought, the one's closer to a true 35mm is the f1.8, the gm has focus breathing problem and thats why it has tighter view, yet it zooms closer than the f1.8
I am a professional wedding photographer and IMHO the Sony 1.8 series is a lot better option for most people. In the real world you will never see a difference (and most importantly: you clients certainly wont) but they are lighter, smaller and a lot cheaper for almost the same performace. Yes they are not weather sealed but in all those years I have never shot in conditions a normal lens could not handle. And yes they can not gather as much light, but this is also not a problem with modern cameras and high ISO values. Great work from Sony with the 35 1.4 GM though
Thanks for comparing the 1.4 GM against the 1.8! Most of the other TH-camrs didn’t think to do that. That’s the comparison of new glass that matters the most. The 1.8 held up well for the price!
@@TheKMov Yeah that's what I meant...Zeiss branded lenses are not Zeiss lenses per se. Their original lineups (Otos but even the lesser Batis) are just superior.
@Any RD I tend not to judge lenses according to Dxomark rankings. Most of the Zeiss lenses own are sharper than I need and have a lovely character and very nice color rendition. Something that some super-duper-sharp Sigma lenses for example don't have.
would like to see comparisons to other manufacturers, like sigma, samyang, tamron in your lens reviews, as those are hugely relevant to most people watching the videos.
A comparison to the Sigma 35 1.4 would've been nice, as that one is already regarded as the higher quality alternative to the Zeiss. So is the GM worth it compared to the Sigma at basically double the price?
Why use the high res mode for the sharpness test? Since the camera is not actually taking one 240MP image the lens wouldn't have to resolve that much detail, right? Would the sharpness difference really be different than in just the 60MP images? Or does combining them amplify the sharpness differences? Also your model's expression makes me think I just asked her to give me a ride to the airport 🙃
The stacking amplifies the demands on resolving power on the lens, if it can't resolve pixel level differences really well then you end up with a worse HR stack (think garbage in garbage out)... It seems counter intuitive at first, just need to think about it for a min.
@@TiaHermana43 thanks! I don't think it's counter intuitive at all, I had just never seen a comparison of two lenses using both methods, so I was assuming the sharpness differences would just carry over 1:1
The GM images look very nice. Unfortunately it has focus breathing which makes it harder to use for focus stacking. If that wasn't the case I'd get it.
If 35mm is your favorite focal length, then this lens should be pretty compelling. I'm impressed by the size, price and performance. Wondering if the availability with follow other GM primes patterns. 🤔
Great review. Covered most things in a clear way. I would like to see some real world shots on a lower mp camera to show what differences I would see in my own photographs. The Zeiss flaws are probably obvious but the 1.8 may hold up very well.
Taiwan filled preorders on the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM at the beginning of Feb. I've had mine for 2 weeks and love it. If you go budget and buy the f/1.8 lens, never pick up the GM lens and use it. You'll hate yourself for not spending the extra bit of cash to buy it. Is it worth twice as much as the Sony 35mm f/1.8? Most definitely! As for the Zeiss 35mm lens, forget about it.
I've been debating on whether to go with Sony or Canon for quite some time now. The Canon wins in ergonomics and still outperforms with the lenses but this lens might have me grabbing a Sony. I'd love to see how this lens compares with Canon's 35 L II.
I jumped Nikon's ship over the summer to the Sony a7r4. Shortly there after Canon came out with the R5 and I started to get buyers remorse but realizing that with my budget I could have never gotten the body, a 24-70 2.8, and 70-180 2.8 in if I waited for canon. Having really good 3rd party lenses available is the game changer for me since I'm not a money making professional.
Thanks for this video. I've been wanting to buy a prime lens and debating between the f/1.8 and f/1.4. Since I am an amateur, the f/1.8 has such amazing value and will probably be plenty powerful for my projects.
Yes. All of these tests are imo, largely a waste of time. In real world use these differences with chromatic aberration and fringing are negligible. They are there, and they aren't a big issue. And if they do bother you enough, you can remove them in 10 seconds in post. All of these sony lens are very sharp, don't buy into the hype that you need to spend thousands for good optics.
Thanks for the review! I own the Sony Zeiss and sample variation is really high. A test by the guys from LensRentals showed this. My copy happens to be excellent. However, having the 24 GM definitely would sell anyone on the G Master line.
What a coincidence that you absolutely unbiasedly (if thats even a word) reviewed this lens along with Lok, Jared and god knows how many reviewers and released the video at the exact same time.
There are embargoes - and often they have to post on a specific day. Rules about when they can post and all have the same rules. There's nothing sneaky going on.
I think that the only reason to pay more for the Zeiss version would be the name. I’m not saying that it’s a good reason, but vaunted names have value. It’s the same reason that Leica has overcharged for years on slightly modified Panasonic and Minolta products. Also the Zeiss name could help at resale.
i think considering the price for each, they all fit their range quite well. f1.8 is phenomenal and cheap. f1.4 zeiss increases the price incrementally for the extra aperture for a slight compromise on the IQ (seen videos in the past where it gives comparable results at f1.8), and the f1.4 gm gives no compromise at a price best suited for pros.
Definitely get that lens if you can afford it. But aps-c users if your not ready to buy a lens that cost more then your body.....get a Sony 35mm F/1.8 oss. Fantastic image quality from corner to corner gorgeous Boca and only like 300$ definitely you can do a lot (Aps-c users) with that 35mm lens
Sony 35mm Distagon is a great lens but its expensive , big and heavy....35mm 1.8 is ideal modest choice ....24mm 1.4gm great lens but too wide ....I ordered the 35mm 1.4gm and i am curious about it. Great Review thank you very much.
tony I watched your videos all the time, but this company you recommended don't pay you what your lenses really worth. I try it recently with a canon 70-200mm 2.8 L Prime lens only a years use, offer me a ridiculous offer. you and your wife, have the best and coolest videos.
Great review, and thanks for the KEH promo code. I really need to get going and clean my closet out. You're right, no reason to be a collector of unused stuff someone else my shoot with everyday. I owned the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 several years ago, and while it did give a sort of "art" look to many images, one of the special looks in the way that Leica M lenses (other than the new APO series) can give. With a 42 megapixel sensor at the time (A7R III) is was for practical purposes pretty sharp in the center wide open, and very good stopped down to landscape type apertures. I didn't really care for it, as the poor contrast got in the way for me. This new lens looks like an incredible value for its price. Hopefully you'll shoot some actual photographs in a range of situations in a follow up review.
Great 3-way comparison, I definitely must sell my 35ZA... but not to buy the 35GM, I will rather go wider to the 24GM and skip the 35mm focal length for now. Next is 50GM, next is A7M4 or A9R, and only then will I consider 35GM
Idk what has been going on with Sony lately but damn they're almost doing everything right. The only thing I'd say that was underwhelming from them lately was the A7C but its still a great camera
I used the Zeiss 35 1.4 for a while and liked the pictures I was getting, but didn't like the pictures I was missing because that lens focused quite slow. It would be interesting when reviewing primes to test how fast a lens focuses from power on, or when a subject pops into the frame.
Ok I know this isn’t a lab test and it’s a bit of fun but was your bokeh test a little unfair on the Zeiss? You seemed to move your head very close to the lens making the bokeh balls significantly bigger with the Zeiss. The onion ring texture was evident albeit less in the GM, but because you kept the Zeiss and the1.8 bokeh smaller it was less noticeable when you zoomed in.
The size of the bokeh balls is relative to how close I am to the camera, but the texture is the same regardless. I just froze the frame there so I wouldn't have to zoom in as much.
@tony & Chelsea:Did you realized this massive focus breathing in the second scene.Its from 40 seconds till 1 minute and 52 seconds.That looks really bad.
... Alright, I was considering selling a few lenses to get the Sigma 35mm f/1.2, but I think that instead I'll sell some lenses and get the Sony 35mm GM. Right now, I have the old Sigma 35mm ART.
Thanks Mate for such detailed comparison review, i am comparing Sony 35gm and Sony 35 1.8 ,If I am a video maker and don’t really mind focus breathing issue. Wondering the video images quality gonna make any noticeable difference on FX3 ‘s 4K 10bit ? Consider the resolution is very low on 4K. My key consideration is image quality on video.
Wow! That was a great review. You covered the really important issues, not just sharpness. As an old guy, I am often blown away by even ordinary modern lenses. I have never had a GM lens from Sony that made me unhappy. It's so sad to see Zeiss falling so far behind. Do you know what's going on with the company? Have they been reducing R&D to cut losses? Are they getting out of the consumer camera business?
While you were filming the Christmas tree bokeh portion it looked like the camera was "pulsating" for lack of a better term? What is that called? Is that a defect or expected?
He said he will work on his hoarding issue. When a new replacement comes in then you get rid of the used one. Also helps save money on your new purchase, more room in the closet, and everyone on the house benefits.
wide angle lenses very very very often have problems in the corners, in chromatic and in speed that lens not having that is a very good result there are 85 mm lenses that have such results but to find 35 or lower focal lenghts are rare even in 2021 i wonder if they could make a 20 mm focal length lens also without that problems (dream)
1) There's a difference between focusing close and magnification. Magnification is how big the subject appears in the frame, and that's all anyone really cares about. Many lenses suffer from focus breathing, where the focal length actually shrinks as you get closer to a subject, so a 35mm lens might only be 30 or 28mm at its minimum focusing distance. 2) Did they use manual focus? As I mentioned, it doesn't focus as close with AF. 2) You saw the results of my test, as well as my methodology, soo...
I added more detailed information on this to the pinned comment. Here it is for reference: FAQ: The 35mm f/1.8 has a closer focusing distance than the 35mm f/1.4, so why did my test show the 35mm f/1.4 filled the frame with the camera more? It's the difference between maximum magnification and close focusing distance. The 35 f/1.4 has a min focus distance of 9.8", while the 35 f/1.8 is 8.7". So, yes, the f/1.8 can focus at a shorter distance - BUT - the focal length must shrink to 25mm or 30mm or so because of focus breathing (we have a video on this topic). The 35 f/1.4 has a max magnification of 0.26x, whereas the 35 f/1.8 has a max magnification of 0.24x. Thus, the 35mm f/1.4 fills the frame with the subject more, even though it's further away. It probably stays closer to a true 35mm than the f/1.8 lens does. You don't actually care about minimum focusing distance - you care about maximum magnification. Here's a video on the topic: th-cam.com/video/XP5-e4Q01Ac/w-d-xo.html
"if you check any of the stats online it shows that the 1.8 has a greater magnification" The specs online show the f1.8 has maximum magnification of 0.24x. The f1.4GM has max magnification of 0.26x. That is exactly what our tests showed.
Under the lab yes canon is a bit better but real life canon, Nikon, panasonic, sony, tamron and sigma are amazing lenses don't choose according to the crazy test they all perform great. Price is the biggest factor and durability .
Your 35 ZA is probably a decentered copy since its bokeh rings are noticably off the center, shifting towards the top-left. Nevertheless, I heard this is a frequent sympton of 35 ZA due to its overly complex optical design.
@@mirrorlessny agreed, smaller and lighter to match is brethren. Possibly better/smoother focus for video, that was really my only minus on the lens but I never intended to use it for video. It's size and wieght never bothered me. Talking about the Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 lens.
At various times during this video, a tripod extension can be seen holding the camera. It looks like something like s bsll head is built directly onto the extension. I might like to get one of those. Would you post its name here or send me that information directly? Thanks. Also, Thanks for this more technical video on these lenses.
Canon and Sony may be a hair apart. But Tamron's two 35mm's with VC are impressive and vastly less expensive. I use Tamron's 35mm and minimum focusing is macro-like
Nice comparison, but I was hoping on how it will preform in astrophotography. Is it better than the 24GM. just seeing if it be my new 360 astropano lens
As a brand new photographer as in my camera gets delivered today, is it worth justifying the 1400 price difference for the gm lens, obviously i would love to have the gm but since im just starting out am i better off getting the 1.8 and getting 2 - 3 prines for the price of the one gm. And later one once im confident putting out the money for the top quality stuff. Or shoukd i go with the buy once buy right type idea. Any input appreciated. Ty
FAQ: The 35mm f/1.8 has a closer focusing distance than the 35mm f/1.4, so why did my test show the 35mm f/1.4 filled the frame with the camera more?
It's the difference between maximum magnification and close focusing distance. The 35 f/1.4 has a min focus distance of 9.8", while the 35 f/1.8 is 8.7". So, yes, the f/1.8 can focus at a shorter distance - BUT - the focal length must shrink to 25mm or 30mm or so because of focus breathing (we have a video on this topic).
The 35 f/1.4 has a max magnification of 0.26x, whereas the 35 f/1.8 has a max magnification of 0.24x. Thus, the 35mm f/1.4 fills the frame with the subject more, even though it's further away. It probably stays closer to a true 35mm than the f/1.8 lens does.
You don't actually care about minimum focusing distance - you care about maximum magnification.
Here's a video on the topic: th-cam.com/video/XP5-e4Q01Ac/w-d-xo.html
It’s good you explain things to make it easier to follow. However, I would like to see more Nikon lens reviews. The Nikon 35 f1.8 and the 35 f1.4 both have the same 0.16x maximum magnification. However, with Nikon the 35 f1.4 still seems to fill the frame with the subject better than the 35 f1.8. Nikon pretty much puts the magnification theory on the back burner again. Yes, the Nikon 35 f1.8 gets in closer than the 35 f1.4, so I don’t know what’s going on. Maybe because the 1.4 lens is bigger or it’s more about the apertures? That is really puzzling.
@@ytr8989 the hood wants Sony and Canon chief. Nikon aint it.
@@ytr8989 Focal length of lens is always measured at infinity focus.
I think you got it mixed up, the Sony 35 doesn’t have focus breathing , the gm does
@@uncruckus9345 Thats I thought, the one's closer to a true 35mm is the f1.8, the gm has focus breathing problem and thats why it has tighter view, yet it zooms closer than the f1.8
I am a professional wedding photographer and IMHO the Sony 1.8 series is a lot better option for most people. In the real world you will never see a difference (and most importantly: you clients certainly wont) but they are lighter, smaller and a lot cheaper for almost the same performace. Yes they are not weather sealed but in all those years I have never shot in conditions a normal lens could not handle. And yes they can not gather as much light, but this is also not a problem with modern cameras and high ISO values. Great work from Sony with the 35 1.4 GM though
Thanks for comparing the 1.4 GM against the 1.8! Most of the other TH-camrs didn’t think to do that. That’s the comparison of new glass that matters the most. The 1.8 held up well for the price!
I'm actually kinda shocked how bad the Zeiss performed. I always thought they were supposed to be the premium option.
That's actually quite an old Sony-Zeiss lens. Lenses really made by Zeiss for their own lineups are on another level.
Try Zeiss Otus 😂
@@TheKMov Yeah that's what I meant...Zeiss branded lenses are not Zeiss lenses per se. Their original lineups (Otos but even the lesser Batis) are just superior.
@Any RD I tend not to judge lenses according to Dxomark rankings. Most of the Zeiss lenses own are sharper than I need and have a lovely character and very nice color rendition. Something that some super-duper-sharp Sigma lenses for example don't have.
would like to see comparisons to other manufacturers, like sigma, samyang, tamron in your lens reviews, as those are hugely relevant to most people watching the videos.
Selling the Ziess right away, no questions, thank you so much Tony.
The Samyang 35 1.4 is my most used lens (15k photos a year) for 3 years now - I guess i make the switch :)
why?
Test bokeh outside to see which lens do best at blurring out background and also smooth transitions. Thank you
A comparison to the Sigma 35 1.4 would've been nice, as that one is already regarded as the higher quality alternative to the Zeiss. So is the GM worth it compared to the Sigma at basically double the price?
Got to say the GM was amazing but I thought the F1.8 did a great job especially considering the price point
That's exactly how I felt.
I don’t see how GM can help Sony. 🙃
In my honest opinion I think the f1.8 has a lot of swag/character
@@ytr8989 GM has much better coma which is important as the 1.4 could be great for astro!
Why use the high res mode for the sharpness test? Since the camera is not actually taking one 240MP image the lens wouldn't have to resolve that much detail, right? Would the sharpness difference really be different than in just the 60MP images? Or does combining them amplify the sharpness differences?
Also your model's expression makes me think I just asked her to give me a ride to the airport 🙃
The stacking amplifies the demands on resolving power on the lens, if it can't resolve pixel level differences really well then you end up with a worse HR stack (think garbage in garbage out)... It seems counter intuitive at first, just need to think about it for a min.
@@TiaHermana43 thanks! I don't think it's counter intuitive at all, I had just never seen a comparison of two lenses using both methods, so I was assuming the sharpness differences would just carry over 1:1
The GM images look very nice. Unfortunately it has focus breathing which makes it harder to use for focus stacking. If that wasn't the case I'd get it.
If 35mm is your favorite focal length, then this lens should be pretty compelling. I'm impressed by the size, price and performance. Wondering if the availability with follow other GM primes patterns. 🤔
Crikey! You're garage is cleaner than my kitchen. I won't say how horrible my garage is.... Thanks for the video, happy newyear and stay safe.
Just got the GM to serve my R4 in situations where I don't need the 2470, and double as the astrophotography lens!
Great review. Covered most things in a clear way. I would like to see some real world shots on a lower mp camera to show what differences I would see in my own photographs. The Zeiss flaws are probably obvious but the 1.8 may hold up very well.
Taiwan filled preorders on the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM at the beginning of Feb. I've had mine for 2 weeks and love it. If you go budget and buy the f/1.8 lens, never pick up the GM lens and use it. You'll hate yourself for not spending the extra bit of cash to buy it. Is it worth twice as much as the Sony 35mm f/1.8? Most definitely! As for the Zeiss 35mm lens, forget about it.
The 35mm f1.8 is the best bang for the buck. An impressive lens.
I've been debating on whether to go with Sony or Canon for quite some time now. The Canon wins in ergonomics and still outperforms with the lenses but this lens might have me grabbing a Sony. I'd love to see how this lens compares with Canon's 35 L II.
I jumped Nikon's ship over the summer to the Sony a7r4. Shortly there after Canon came out with the R5 and I started to get buyers remorse but realizing that with my budget I could have never gotten the body, a 24-70 2.8, and 70-180 2.8 in if I waited for canon. Having really good 3rd party lenses available is the game changer for me since I'm not a money making professional.
@Photo Bunny no one is buying DSLR's anymore so nikon is DOA. Sony still has more mirror less lenses than they do.
@Photo Bunny Geez...you are buying tools not a religion.
@Photo Bunny you would not find equivalent of most Sony E lenses on Canon or Nikon mirroless .
@Photo Bunny none of the mentioned by you stuff is needed by me or 99.9% users. One can always attach grip to A9.
Thanks for this video. I've been wanting to buy a prime lens and debating between the f/1.8 and f/1.4. Since I am an amateur, the f/1.8 has such amazing value and will probably be plenty powerful for my projects.
I can clearly hear the AF motor while you're filming with the new 35mm, is it only me?
So, final conclusion for me was: the 1.8 lens is almost 80-90% as good as the new lens and cost less than 50% (and weights less)? Cool :)
More like 40%.
@@heathwirt8919 Cost wise? :)
@@bernardosilva7306 Performance.
Yes. All of these tests are imo, largely a waste of time. In real world use these differences with chromatic aberration and fringing are negligible. They are there, and they aren't a big issue. And if they do bother you enough, you can remove them in 10 seconds in post. All of these sony lens are very sharp, don't buy into the hype that you need to spend thousands for good optics.
@@waawaaweewaa2045 very good point, especially considering that images/videos are largely viewed on smaller screens =cellphones/tablets/laptops
Thanks for the review! I own the Sony Zeiss and sample variation is really high. A test by the guys from LensRentals showed this. My copy happens to be excellent. However, having the 24 GM definitely would sell anyone on the G Master line.
What a coincidence that you absolutely unbiasedly (if thats even a word) reviewed this lens along with Lok, Jared and god knows how many reviewers and released the video at the exact same time.
There are embargoes - and often they have to post on a specific day. Rules about when they can post and all have the same rules. There's nothing sneaky going on.
Nice to see our warm, human and wonderful human Peter Gregg getting a mention!
So glad to hear the Z7ii review is coming soon
Great comparison, thank you. I particularly like the 240 Mpx test to really dig deep into the lens optical quality.
I think that the only reason to pay more for the Zeiss version would be the name. I’m not saying that it’s a good reason, but vaunted names have value. It’s the same reason that Leica has overcharged for years on slightly modified Panasonic and Minolta products. Also the Zeiss name could help at resale.
I sold my Sony Zeiss 35mm 1.4 to KEH several weeks ago. Just received my Sony 35mm 1.4 GM today.
what was your major selling point for the GM? i wanna get it too
@@Weensy I like the rendering. The sharpness. Also, its light weight. Kind of expensive though but.....
Definitely sold me on the 1.8 while the 1.4 is back ordered. Goal is to make enough money with that lens to justify the 1500 upgrade 😅
i think considering the price for each, they all fit their range quite well. f1.8 is phenomenal and cheap. f1.4 zeiss increases the price incrementally for the extra aperture for a slight compromise on the IQ (seen videos in the past where it gives comparable results at f1.8), and the f1.4 gm gives no compromise at a price best suited for pros.
Definitely get that lens if you can afford it. But aps-c users if your not ready to buy a lens that cost more then your body.....get a Sony 35mm F/1.8 oss. Fantastic image quality from corner to corner gorgeous Boca and only like 300$ definitely you can do a lot (Aps-c users) with that 35mm lens
I love that 60fps look of these videos
This was an excellent review and comparision! I guess I will be asking for a new 35mm GM for Christmas :)
Sony 35mm Distagon is a great lens but its expensive , big and heavy....35mm 1.8 is ideal modest choice ....24mm 1.4gm great lens but too wide ....I ordered the 35mm 1.4gm and i am curious about it.
Great Review thank you very much.
The full frame e-mount Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 T* OSS ZA of 2015 is five year old. A very old lens which needs an update.
tony I watched your videos all the time, but this company you recommended don't pay you what your lenses really worth. I try it recently with a canon 70-200mm 2.8 L Prime lens only a years use, offer me a ridiculous offer. you and your wife, have the best and coolest videos.
Great review, and thanks for the KEH promo code. I really need to get going and clean my closet out. You're right, no reason to be a collector of unused stuff someone else my shoot with everyday. I owned the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 several years ago, and while it did give a sort of "art" look to many images, one of the special looks in the way that Leica M lenses (other than the new APO series) can give. With a 42 megapixel sensor at the time (A7R III) is was for practical purposes pretty sharp in the center wide open, and very good stopped down to landscape type apertures. I didn't really care for it, as the poor contrast got in the way for me. This new lens looks like an incredible value for its price. Hopefully you'll shoot some actual photographs in a range of situations in a follow up review.
this video is so well directed
we need more like this!
Thanks!
It seems that the new 35/1.4 is really good. I'd like to try this lens at Sony store tomorrow. Thanks a lot!
Such a helpful video. I’m going for the 1.8 👍🏻
Great 3-way comparison, I definitely must sell my 35ZA... but not to buy the 35GM, I will rather go wider to the 24GM and skip the 35mm focal length for now. Next is 50GM, next is A7M4 or A9R, and only then will I consider 35GM
The new 35GM can fully replace Zeiss 35; but never to replace Sony 35 1.8 due to the size and weight.
For photography I would give it to the new GM lens but the focus breathing taking video is very annoying.
Nice video, please tell lens manufacturers especially Fuji to give us an 18mm f1.2 lens, I will be really grateful...
0:41 When you didn’t want to but you boss (Chelsea) grabbed you by your shirt told you get in there “make that video” 😂
Great video guys, loved it!
love your videos JT
Idk what has been going on with Sony lately but damn they're almost doing everything right. The only thing I'd say that was underwhelming from them lately was the A7C but its still a great camera
Great Review. I love the 35mm focal length. It's not super wide so you can tell a better story.
I used the Zeiss 35 1.4 for a while and liked the pictures I was getting, but didn't like the pictures I was missing because that lens focused quite slow. It would be interesting when reviewing primes to test how fast a lens focuses from power on, or when a subject pops into the frame.
what about the focus breathing?
That's a garage? Looks more like a perfume and powder room. Fru-fru! Good review with the other lenses.
Ok I know this isn’t a lab test and it’s a bit of fun but was your bokeh test a little unfair on the Zeiss? You seemed to move your head very close to the lens making the bokeh balls significantly bigger with the Zeiss. The onion ring texture was evident albeit less in the GM, but because you kept the Zeiss and the1.8 bokeh smaller it was less noticeable when you zoomed in.
The size of the bokeh balls is relative to how close I am to the camera, but the texture is the same regardless. I just froze the frame there so I wouldn't have to zoom in as much.
@tony & Chelsea:Did you realized this massive focus breathing in the second scene.Its from 40 seconds till 1 minute and 52 seconds.That looks really bad.
... Alright, I was considering selling a few lenses to get the Sigma 35mm f/1.2, but I think that instead I'll sell some lenses and get the Sony 35mm GM. Right now, I have the old Sigma 35mm ART.
I guess this is a "must have" lens if you want to get that blurry background... Its hard to get it with 2.8F
Not really, just get closer to your subject. The closer you get the blurrier the background will be.
Thanks Mate for such detailed comparison review, i am comparing Sony 35gm and Sony 35 1.8 ,If I am a video maker and don’t really mind focus breathing issue. Wondering the video images quality gonna make any noticeable difference on FX3 ‘s 4K 10bit ? Consider the resolution is very low on 4K. My key consideration is image quality on video.
Looks like the f/1.8 is a great bang for your buck for us mortals/ amateurs and the new f1.4 forv the serious pros making $$$ with their business.
Great review. I would have loved to see the Samyang 35 f1.8 included in the comparisons.
Wow! That was a great review. You covered the really important issues, not just sharpness. As an old guy, I am often blown away by even ordinary modern lenses. I have never had a GM lens from Sony that made me unhappy.
It's so sad to see Zeiss falling so far behind. Do you know what's going on with the company? Have they been reducing R&D to cut losses? Are they getting out of the consumer camera business?
OBTW, KEH rocks! I have bought and sold through them.
Nice review, although I can almost feel Casey warming up at the sight of all that bokeh ... lol!
That moment when my favorite part was the Peter Gregg reference 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽🎄🎄🎄🎄
First stop on the Sony 35mm f1.4GM Review videos train, 6 more videos to go!
I'll never buy this lens, but love the content
Please do a comparison of the 35mm GM vs Leica 35mm f1.4 Summilux on the same Sony body using an adaptor.
While you were filming the Christmas tree bokeh portion it looked like the camera was "pulsating" for lack of a better term? What is that called? Is that a defect or expected?
Whatabout the Sigma 35 f1.2 that's about the same price?
Be sure and compare the Nikon lenses you are using on your upcoming Z7ii review with these lenses!
Hi,can you make a comparison between sony 16-35 f2.8 and this new sony 35 mm f1.4. Which one is the sharpest at 35 mm?
Hi Tony,
What is the vintage lens on your vintage Russian camera?
How *DARE* you suggest that I don't need all the gear I've collected!
He said he will work on his hoarding issue. When a new replacement comes in then you get rid of the used one. Also helps save money on your new purchase, more room in the closet, and everyone on the house benefits.
wide angle lenses very very very often have problems in the corners, in chromatic and in speed
that lens not having that is a very good result
there are 85 mm lenses that have such results but to find 35 or lower focal lenghts are rare even in 2021
i wonder if they could make a 20 mm focal length lens also without that problems (dream)
@7:28 That is just incorrect; the 1.8 focuses significantly closer than the new 1.4, and all of the other reviews confirm that
1) There's a difference between focusing close and magnification. Magnification is how big the subject appears in the frame, and that's all anyone really cares about. Many lenses suffer from focus breathing, where the focal length actually shrinks as you get closer to a subject, so a 35mm lens might only be 30 or 28mm at its minimum focusing distance.
2) Did they use manual focus? As I mentioned, it doesn't focus as close with AF.
2) You saw the results of my test, as well as my methodology, soo...
@@TonyAndChelsea Focus breathing on that GM 1.4 is pretty bad compared to the 1.8, don't you think?
I added more detailed information on this to the pinned comment. Here it is for reference:
FAQ: The 35mm f/1.8 has a closer focusing distance than the 35mm f/1.4, so why did my test show the 35mm f/1.4 filled the frame with the camera more?
It's the difference between maximum magnification and close focusing distance. The 35 f/1.4 has a min focus distance of 9.8", while the 35 f/1.8 is 8.7". So, yes, the f/1.8 can focus at a shorter distance - BUT - the focal length must shrink to 25mm or 30mm or so because of focus breathing (we have a video on this topic).
The 35 f/1.4 has a max magnification of 0.26x, whereas the 35 f/1.8 has a max magnification of 0.24x. Thus, the 35mm f/1.4 fills the frame with the subject more, even though it's further away. It probably stays closer to a true 35mm than the f/1.8 lens does.
You don't actually care about minimum focusing distance - you care about maximum magnification.
Here's a video on the topic: th-cam.com/video/XP5-e4Q01Ac/w-d-xo.html
@@TonyAndChelsea yes, and if you check any of the stats online it shows that the 1.8 has a greater magnification
"if you check any of the stats online it shows that the 1.8 has a greater magnification" The specs online show the f1.8 has maximum magnification of 0.24x. The f1.4GM has max magnification of 0.26x. That is exactly what our tests showed.
Tony, will be interesting to get comparison of 35 mm Sigma f2 vs Sony f1.8 lens and maybe Sigma f2 bokeh against Sony and Sigma f1.4 lenses. Thanks.
I would love to know how do you think it compares to the sigma 35mm 1.2
Under the lab yes canon is a bit better but real life canon, Nikon, panasonic, sony, tamron and sigma are amazing lenses don't choose according to the crazy test they all perform great. Price is the biggest factor and durability .
I’m not a Sony owner but that lens and GM lenses are phenomenal
Love the 1.8. 1.4 worth twice the price?
I'd be more interested in seeing the new lens pitted against the Samyang 35mm f 1.4 at 1/3 of the price.
Thumbs up for the shoutout to Peter Gregg. Love that guy.
That's one of your best reviews/comparisons.
At 8:26, I said wow.
Thanks!
agree, it's very useful to see side by side comparison with other lenses, especially the bokeh 😵
Happy to see in this 2021. Much love from Nigeria
I would love to get a hands on this baby! Thanks for the video.
Question: why upload in 1080p60?
Your 35 ZA is probably a decentered copy since its bokeh rings are noticably off the center, shifting towards the top-left. Nevertheless, I heard this is a frequent sympton of 35 ZA due to its overly complex optical design.
This makes me excited for the potential of a 50mm GM. I'll sell my Zeiss for that!
Have you tried the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4? It's an outstanding lens. I can't see myself getting a 50mm gm unless it's a 1.2 ...
@@jfranco3281 I love the lens as well, but if the upgrade to GM shows similar improvements I'll happily switch.
@Kyle Wolfe likely many improvements = smaller,lighter,higherImageQuality, I hope for 67mm filter thread 🙏
@@mirrorlessny agreed, smaller and lighter to match is brethren. Possibly better/smoother focus for video, that was really my only minus on the lens but I never intended to use it for video. It's size and wieght never bothered me. Talking about the Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 lens.
I currently do not have a 50 or 55 mm now and also waiting for a 50mm GM.
Would love to see a side by side comparison of 35mm f1.4 GM vs the Sigma Art 35mm f1.2
Gordon Laing did one in his
Cameralabs review
Closets by design do your guys garage cabs?
Looks like the best value is the f/1.8.
At various times during this video, a tripod extension can be seen holding the camera. It looks like something like s bsll head is built directly onto the extension. I might like to get one of those. Would you post its name here or send me that information directly?
Thanks.
Also, Thanks for this more technical video on these lenses.
If you are turning into a Peter Gregg then that is not a bad thing as he is a nice guy too.
Canon and Sony may be a hair apart. But Tamron's two 35mm's with VC are impressive and vastly less expensive. I use Tamron's 35mm and minimum focusing is macro-like
Hello Tony. Did you already Made a review or did you try the z cam ?
Axial chromatic aberration test is flawed, as it is clear that lenses have been focused differently by mistake.
Very glad I bought the f1.8
What camera and lens did Tony used to record himself in this video? 🤔
7:14 That’s a vintage Makita 90° drill on the wall - I’m guessing batteries are nonexistent and that’s just for display
Another optical masterpiece following 24GM.
right? things are moving slowly but in the right direction 💪
I like your videos but on this one there is a constant noise on the background, maybe is it the mic that is making that sound.
Nice comparison, but I was hoping on how it will preform in astrophotography. Is it better than the 24GM. just seeing if it be my new 360 astropano lens
"Welcome to the Christmas room!"
As a brand new photographer as in my camera gets delivered today, is it worth justifying the 1400 price difference for the gm lens, obviously i would love to have the gm but since im just starting out am i better off getting the 1.8 and getting 2 - 3 prines for the price of the one gm. And later one once im confident putting out the money for the top quality stuff. Or shoukd i go with the buy once buy right type idea. Any input appreciated. Ty