SLRgear (Click here) is the first site having published a full detailed review of the new Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens. They write:
Image quality from the new 35mm ƒ/1.4 lens is very good, with excellent sharpness — though being an ƒ/1.4 optic, there is some softness, especially in the corners, when shot wide-open. Other optical qualities such as CA and distortion control are also very good, and while vignetting is understandable strong at ƒ/1.4, it’s less of an issue at smaller aperture.
Overall, Sony has produced yet another very good lens for the A7-series cameras — a super-solid lens with excellent build quality, a nice feel and great image quality. Sure, it’s significantly larger, heavier and more expensive than the earlier FE 35mm ƒ/2.8 lens, but if you’re a professional or advanced enthusiast photographer in need of a superior low-light lens for the your full-frame Sony mirrorless camera, this is the one to consider.
The Zeiss can be preordered here:
in USA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
in Europe at Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony FR, Sony IT, Sony ES, Sony NL, Sony BE, Sony AT, Sony CH, Sony SE, Sony FI, Sony NO, Sony PT.
in Asia/Australia at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
What’s hot with the lens:
– The lens has super fast Direct Drive focusing
– Advanced Aspherical Lens
– Aperture ring with click or clickless switch
– It’s weather sealed
All new FE lens preorder links:
In USA at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony Fisheye Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Fisheye Converter for E 16mm F/2.8 and E 20mm F/2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Converter for E 16mm F2.8 and E 20mm F2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
In Europe at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide Angle converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
In Asia/Australia at:
Sony 24-240mm FE lens at Digitalrev, CameraPRO, Sony Australia.
Sony 28mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Sony 90mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
98 Responses
pity, was hoping for good sharpness wide open, at least in the center…
…the ZM version is getting more and more appealing
You are correct. For the price and late trend from Sigma stuff… this Zeiss 35mm is not that great. I would say it’s okayish compared to the Sigma wich you can find it with 500$ used.
I used to own a Sigma 35 for canon. Made great, sharp,contrasty photos but did not focus that good at all.
Anyway, the bottom line, for the price, it’s clearly doesn’t compare to a Sigma.
That seems to be a general lack of the E-mount Zeiss lenses – they all are very good, but somehow disappointing especially when it comes to terms of value for maney in comparison with other lenses …
Exactly my point!
Not trying to bash it or something… but the truth is the truth. It’s not justifying the price. It has an average performance for the price…
Don’t forget you need a 400 dollar adapter to use the sigma with decent AF speed. It will also be larger and bigger then. Bokeh on the sigma is crap imho, very busy. It’s far worse than having a little less sharpness here and there.
Yes, that is the only disadvantage of the Sigma…it’s not native FE.
Did you own the sigma?
I had 2. Best lens I ever had on canon or nikon. And believe me…the “in focus” stuff is the most important…the the out of focus is second.
Just compare it with the FE55 F1.8 to compare how sharp the Fe35 F1.4 is. Do not do cross platform comparisons on slrgear.
Compare the 1.4 to the 2.8 and I think you know how much great the Sigma is compared to the 2.8 zeiss.
I think I already stated this several times. 🙂
Cross platform comparisons don’t work on slrgear, so compare it to 55 1.8. Pretty much as good! Only a fraction worse in extreme corners. That’s beyond expectation for a 35 1.4!
Compare it to the FE 35 2.8 wich is clearly sharper at 2.8
And we all know that the Sigma is better than the 2.8.
So…epic fail with this lens. No wonder it’s the less preordered lens out of the new lenses. If it was under 1000$ hell yeah!
Is this lens much “smaller” and lighter than sigma 35 1.4 A mount+le-ea4?
If you see the individual dimensions according to BH Photo:
Sony/Zeiss: 11.2×7.8cm
Sigma: 9.4×7.7cm
And know that the LE-A4 adapter adds 4.4cm to the length of any lens then:
Sony: 11.2×7.8cm
Sigma+LE-A4: 13.8×7.7cm
How much is smaller enough, that’s for everyone to decide.
Let’s also remember that disregarding the ability of adapting other lenses, buying the adapter alone to have AF and aperture control capabilities on the lens will alone set you back another $350 as per BH Photo pricing.
So, Sigma will be an inch longer than the Sony on an A7r series camera.
I already own le-ea4 adaptor…
Maybe at this point the clever option is to buy sigma….
That’s what I’ll do also. And soon I’ll get the Sigma 24mm 1.4 also but with a canon converter. Shame Sigma didn’t make the Art lenses for FE also. I don’t care if they don’t redesigns the lens and just add an extension tube. I’m more interested in the AF.
And what I already did. Without LA-EA4 is not really an option, to much great A-mount lenses around and still so few E-mounts.
That is what I heard too. Still… MF-ing the Sigma with the LA-EA3 looks more pleasing to me unting they release a decent 35mm 1.4 for FE
AF designed for SLR is very crappy on the A7x. Try any A-mount SSM lens with the LA-EA3 adapter for instance.
Sigma would have to redesign the AF motors for this to work properly.
Not sure 100% if the lens is the culprit or just the adaptors. I think they purposely did the adaptors like this. In order to push people to buy the FE lenses.
How does the adapter cope in low light – presumably that’s why you want f1.4? My big caveat with the Sigma is that mine needed a lot of micro adjustment out of the box (about -17), which is a pain, and you’re losing valuable light with the mirror.
Well considering the HUGE size, I did expect even better.
I’m curious to see the new Summilux FLE tested on the A7 II…
If you go to the same site and look for Sigma’s ART 35mm, tested on a 21mp 1DS3, you’ll see that the Sony is about on par at every aperture.
From the samples seen, the Sony seems to have better bokeh than the Sigma (up to taste, of course…some people like the bokeh of the CV 35mm 1.2)
All in all, for those who need or want a fast native 35mm for FE, this is it.
but 1DS3 is an older sensor, I would rather wait for a Sigma when it comes in E and FE mount.
Yes, so I guess that up until anyone does a straight 36 vs 36mp comparison, we won’t know how well both lenses can compare since a lower mp count favours any lens tested there.
You can use it with EA4 adapter or Canon adapter if you dislike the SLT technology
From what I’ve seen of the fe, and having owned the Sigma 35/1.4 (on an apsc body admittedly), I’d agree that bokeh is better on the fe.
Leaving chromatinc aberration aside, the Sigma is clearly better. It’s not on par.
Chromatic aberrations are counterproductive to resolving power since contrast areas will have a more difficult time having clear resolution. So, the sigma is not “clearly better” and also, as the-ownage has noticed, the Sigma has an advantage over the Sony/Zeiss in that the graph is only relative to 21mp and not 36, so comparison is skewed in favour of the Sigma for being tested ona less than 2/3 mp resolution sensor.
So what you are saying is that the Sigma is even sharper but chromatic aberrations hold it down or that the Zeiss wouldn’t even have that sharpness…thank god for the missing chromatic aberrations.
21mp vs 36mp…Compare the 1.4 to the 2.8 (A7R)
And then we all know how 35 2.8 is vs. the Sigma.
Yes, the Sigma is clearly ahead even if the Zeiss is still very sharp. The Zeiss doesn’t reach “par” with the Sigma until f/11. But it’s not like the Sigma is blowing the Zeiss away either . . . the Sigma is just sharper. (I agree with the Truth that we’d really need to see the Sigma tested on the A7r to get a more accurate comparison)
I think it blows it away(price & performance … not price/performance). The only advantage that Zeiss has is that it’s a native FE lens.
Sorry but this is the truth no matter how hard we all try to make it look better. It’s just not. It’s looks like the real deal but it’s just average for a modern prime.
You seem to be a little prone to over-exaggeration.
It seems you have a lot of subjectivity.
Subjectivity is pretty important in photography.
Not when you are talking about something that you can measure. Like IQ.
Measurements as is science leave nothing to subjectivity. It is what it is.
The Zeiss is sharper much sharper as the measurements on it are taken with 36MP AA filter free sensor while the Sigma is tested on 7 year old 22MP camera with extra strong AA filter….
The sigma is clearly a bit worse as the sensor on the Canon is mere 22MP with extra strong AA filter….
Just so you know…AA filters mess up sharpness ☺
And just so you know…again… the less mp… the less resolving power… your lens gets bottlenecked and you can’t measure it’s maximum sharpness.
So everything you said is in the detriment of the new zeiss.
I see you keeping saying that.
Just so you know…AA filters mess up sharpness ☺
And just so you know…again… the less mp… the less resolving power… your lens gets bottlenecked and you can’t measure it’s maximum sharpness.
So everything you said is in the detriment of the new zeiss.
SLRgear results are normalized to the sensor, so you cannot compare their charts across different systems/sensors. That’s what they say themselves.
A Zeiss, that big, that heavy, that expensive and that soft for the A7R and even for the upcoming 50MP cameras; that’s embaressing…
I hope the litle FE 28/2 would be not just much smaller,lighter and cheaper, but mostly much sharper; hopefully.
The zeiss 35mm 2.8 is sharper at 2.8 compared to this behemoth 🙂
No it isn’t. They’re more or less identical at f/2.8 over the frame as a whole, but the 35/1.4 wins in terms of central sharpness
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sony35f28zfe/ff/tloader.htm
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sony35f14ze/tloader.htm
Stop them both down further and the 35/1.4 becomes the clear leader.
Technically you may be right. However, both lenses perform at such a high level, the differences are pretty much irrelevant. That may also be the reason why so many are bashing these kind of lab testing.
They are both gorgeous lenses.
Generally agree on both points.
I would say though that the 35/2.8 is slightly weak at the edges for landscape use, certainly in my experience – but with the emphasis on slightly. Very acceptable results stopped down, but not in the same league as the 55/1.8 – the 35/1.4 looks to almost match the 55/1.8 in this respect.
As you say though, they’re all great lenses.
Yeah…for that dead center 5% the 1.4 wins. So what… the average sharpness of the 2.8 is clearly better at 2.8
No, it isn’t clearly better. They’re pretty much identical – identical enough to be pretty much irrelevant in the real world.
Are you looking at different charts?
Same charts. Look at the average sharpness. Not interested in the pinpoint 5% center of the image. The 2.8 is better at 2.8 if you judge the entire frame. And yes…I am interested in all 24mp not just 1mp in the center.
This was one of the reason I sold all my dslr gear…the AF was designed only for the center of the image. So … to me… the entire frame is more important than 5% in the center.
I am referring to the entire frame. You said the 35/2.8 was clearly better. Nothing clearly about it – the tiny differences are irrelevant.
If you genuinely are concerned with the entire frame, the 35/1.4 would be a better buy, as it reacts better to stopping down to obtain sharpness across the frame. I say this as a 35/2.8 owner.
Go around it all day. The truth is only one, this new 35 can’t prove itself from f2.8 and above even over the current 2.8.
You can deny it but like I said…that’s the truth… better face it.
And for the sake of internet pointless arguments I attached a picture to prove that the average sharpness of the 2.8 is better, if you don’t care about that 1mp in the dead center of the photo.
So sorry…but that 2.8 that you have…better keep it unless you don’t need the 1.4
Yep, it is a pointless argument, because you’ve just proved the differences are irrelevant.
But I can rest easy knowing I have a slightly more purple lens.
In the end you finally agreed your lens is more “purple”. ” slightly more purple” means slightly more sharper across the frame. You can thank me now for bringing truth in this matter.
So the new 35 1.4 is not amazing at all. Even Lotus Eater agreed in the end.
No, I don’t agree. You can’t tell me I agree when I don’t agree. You said “clearly” better. “Slightly” is not even close to “clearly”. Clearly would be observable in real shots. The differences in these charts wouldn’t be.
“But I can rest easy knowing I have a slightly more purple lens.”
That is what you said…
I think deep down you know you agree. It’s ok … 🙂
And “slightly” is very clearly. 1.1m is slightly larger than 1m but it’s a very clear fact that 1.1m>1m
Zeiss 35 2.8 is VERY small, not cheap but a lot cheaper and as sharp(maybe sharper across the entire frame) compared to the new 35 1.4
except its size is amazing.
The new lens becomes sharper stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8
The older lens is sharp straight from f/2.8
By the way I do not see anyone keeping both lenses for same shoots. These are completely different lenses. 2.8/35 is a street shooter and is THE BEST AF lens on the market for this goal.
The new guy is evidently for other purposes I do not know what these are. Evidently it is aimed at people that do not mind lots of weight.
The performance on the new lens seems to be on par with the Sigma 35/1.4 which should be good if not excellent performance.
So no real point to argue or antagonise.
Great…it’s sharper at 5.6 or 8.0 ! I’m sure that it was designed for those apertures being a 1.4
Sadly Sigma is better at more than half the price.
If people would stop praising zeiss/sony glass as being what it’s not for the price maybe something will change. This lens is average! Nothing special here. It’s heavy,big,expensive with an ok IQ.
And to prove I am not a zeiss/sony hater, the 55mm 1.8 is amazing. Cant say nothing wrong about it. It’s expensive but very small and IQ similar to Sigma 50 and Otus 55, just not 1.4
This new Zeiss seems to match the Sigma or be slightly better. The measurement uses 36 and 22mp sensors so…..
Nope…Zeiss 1.4 is the big loser here. It can’t even clearly overpass the zeiss 35 2.8
How do you open the F/2.8 to 1.4? At f/2.8 I agree that old lens is sharper but it will is amazingly sharp like stellar compared to other lenses on the unforgiving 36mp sensor. The new lens is actually the best 35 f/1.4 the Sigma is just not as sharp
So what? Did I mention that the 35 2.8 can replace a 1.4? Or that a 35mm 1.4 is useless?Read the comments again. The problem is the average lens performance.
What are most guys talking about? This lens looks crazy sharp even wide open. I am looking at their standard test target of the bottles & swatches of cloth.
The main reason why those swatches of cloth look blurry & soft is because of the crazy shallow depth of field at F1.4. If you look at the bottom of the image, you can see that the point of focus is just in front of the color card at the bottom. By the time you reach back to the colored swatches of cloth you are actually looking at the bokeh & saying that the lens is soft. When that’s not the case.
Just see how the “Imported Ale” is nice & sharp while the cloth patches are OOF & soft at the back… Its just the shallow DOF… Not lens softness. I think it might even be sharper than the Sigma 35mm 1.4 wide open. But the Zeiss appears to show more CA wide open than the sigma. Overall, quite impressive.
“I think it might even be sharper than the Sigma 35mm 1.4 wide open.”
It’s not. Not by a long shot. And how can it be impressive when it’s double the price of the Sigma.
Double the price means double the insanity!
Fairly boring test – it looks really sharp at f8, but that’s not the intresting part when buying such lens. At f 1.4 the overall look and bokeh is the intresting part and you can’t judge that by numbers or a studio test scene such as the one presented here.
This review simply tell you the lens is not unacceptably soft at f/1.4 and if you need sharpness f/5.6 is good option for you
Lenses 50 years old maybe acceptable at f/1.4.
It amazes me how those so called reviewers try to judge sharpness on images that are clearly misfocused.
Also no word about bokeh and pop rendering. These are no photographers, just lab sitters, and you guys fall for them.
As with anything “reviewed” these days. It is best to take the average out of a few reviews and make a decision then.
SLR gear is technical, just like Photozone and DxO so either of those will have a review sooner or later and one can compare. Same goes for LensRentals which may want to do one as well.
The 55mm 1.8 was initially vilified for being a Zeiss/Sony toy but as the reviews compounded, the value of the lens began to be very clear. Same goes for the Zeiss zooms which, as we now know, may be the only options on FE but that does not make them great lenses.
Exactly.
I have been surprised at how good the 24-70 FE lens is in real world shooting. As opposed to in the lab reviews. It actually is pretty darn good. Yes it is not 55mm FE sharp. But certainly on par with standard zooms from Canon and Nikon.
Their shoots are tack sharp. Just tiny depth of field. So, this statement is simply not true.
What is true, that they are most likely not photographers and that such kind of lab testing is pretty meaningless for real world photography.
Tests like these from Steve Huff, even though highly subjective, are way more relevant.
I don’t get the last one: How can you say that we guys fall for them? Pretty false and ignorant statement.
Steve Huff is very predictable. When talking about Sony or Olympus, everything is good, when talking about Panasonic or Fuji, everything is bad… I don’t call this subjective anymore, it is highly biased. I read his 35mm/f1.4 review, IMO it is completely worthless.
OK OK I take it back. Bad example. The whole Steve Huff site is indeed questionable.
However, I think you got what I was trying to say. Subjective real world reviews, or better real experience reviews are way more meaningful than lab tests. Even if you have to take them with a grain (or, in case of Mr. Huff, a bucket) of salt.
SLRgear should never be used for cross-platform comparisons.
When compared to the 55/1.8, the 35/1.4 looks quite impressive. Also compared to the small 35/2.8, the 35/1.4 stops down much better.
It is a lot more to carry compared to the Loxia though.
Whatever many say here, this lens is a great lens from the test results. It is a great lens amongst many great lenses available for the system. The differences discussed in comparison are irrelevant and even more if one takes real pictures. Only personal usage will show if such a quality lens fits one or not. Some are already going back to vintage lenses because those fit their style better than what can be achieved with technically perfect lenses. Find a style first.
Looks good.
Can anyone confirm if this new 35/1.4 has the fly-wire accelerometer focus ring, like the 55/1.8… or is is more like the SSM lenses from A-Mount?
Not ashamed to say I absolutely hate the fly-wire accelerometer focus ring. Turning ring really slow for precision doesn’t register and the lens won’t focus at all. It just stinks for folks who like manual focusing. I’ve heard videographers complain about fly-wire too, making it difficult for focus pulls. I returned my 55/1.8 for this very reason. Get more satisfaction using a Samyang.
It’s focus-by-wire, I assume it has the accelerating feature that all the other lenses do. If you’re going to be manually focussing a lot, save yourself a big pile of cash and get the Sigma 35 Art.
Sigma Art is very nice indeed. But its focus ring pales in comparison to the Samyang 35/1.4. And I don’t know if you’ve seen test results, or used it, but the two lenses are very close in IQ. Close enough that I’d rather have the Sammy. But the real star of Samyang is the 50/1.4. What a pleasure to use that lens. Not saying this lightly. I also own the ZA50/1.4 and the Otus 55/1.4. The feel of the Samyang is spectacular. The Sigma focus rings are nicely made, and well formed. But they’re so dry and short throw compared to the others. Like it has to “tick” out of position. Makes precision focusing a chore. Returned.
Apparently lenses using ‘modern’ stepper motors have to use focus-by-wire because the motors are fully electronically controlled.
Actually, I’ve been advised that focus-by-wire is how you recognise lenses with stepper motors, that are needed for a lens to AF well with on-sensor hybrid CF/PD AF systems, i.e. without hunting.
Sadly, with todays technology we have to chose either pure MF lenses, if we want mechanical focus ring, of AF lenses with focus-by-wire MF.
Most unpleasant for me with the latter is the lack of ‘hard’ stop at infinity.
The Samyang is manual focus only so you’d expect it to have a nicer focusing action than an autofocus lens like Sigma. I’m only interested in Sony lenses for AF, fortunately if you want manual focus there are loads of great options out there.
Although I do agree with your accelerometer comment. It is irrelevant for shooting motion. As all of the A7 cameras switch it off when changed to video mode. Becoming traditional manual focus, in that mode. Which goes to show, that it would simply be a firmware change to allow us to switch it on or off in stills mode.
I own the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 Art (with LA-EA4 adaptor) and its a cracking lens with the A7R. Some interesting comments on here about comparative quality with that lens and the Sigma does look slightly sharper from what limited tests there are out there.
For me I can live with that to have a native mount and I actually prefer the look of this ZEISS lens from the sample shots around. For me the real problem is the price – I think they just got it wrong. It needs to drop to sub £1k as even though its native, for me its hard to justify given the very capable competition and also the fact that focussing on the Sigma has the benefit of phase detection through the adaptor.
I would love to know what percentage of new A-mount lenses are being bought for E-mount cameras.
I read one review of a guy who went with the 50mm 1.4 zeiss over the 55 for his A7. I thought that has got to be the only outlier who’s shooting Sony. What I’d like to know is:
1) How many A mount users have bough an E mount camera?
2) How many A mount users have not bought any E mount lenses and use adapters.
3) How many A mount users have stopped buying A mount lenses all together.
Sub 1k native 35/1.4? That’s absurd.
Maybe for other systems, but until Sony sort AF out the adapted sigma is very very good (and sub £1k).
Disagree. The LA-EA4 is not a great solution when the light gets low – especially with the already pokey AF of the Sigma. Native AF, especially on the hybrid bodies and the A7s, will provide more consistent AF speed in all light conditions and you get the better native AF tracking (excellent on the A7II).
I didn’t say it was great, but it’s better than the standard af on the A7R. Maybe when the mk2 is out this lens will make more sense. For now if you want a sony body that takes advantage of the amazing resolving power of these two lenses (eg high MP) the adapter and the sigma is the better choice IMO.
^^ Its not the better choice. Its the cheaper choice. The Sony 35mm f1.4 will be optically better since you have a light grabbing mirror between the Sigma and the A7r. Plus the Sony combo will be lighter and AF much better.
Yes the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens at a good price but there is no guarantee it will work on future Sony bodies.
Many old Sigma lenses were rendered MF lenses on Sony bodies and Sigma fixed only the newer ones.
My judgment is based on the following and as I said is ‘for now’. Half a stop of light less due to Mirror (never ever been an issue for me with the Sigma), heavier due to adaptor, a lot cheaper roughly half the price, better AF on the A7R (I disagree that the native lens will have better AF my adapted lenses focus more accurately and quicker with the LAEA4 than FE), looks a bit sharper from tests so far. It’s not simply the cheaper lens. This is my opinion and like I said I like the ‘look’ of the Zeiss images better than the sigma (it’s not all about sharpness) but for now it’s just too expensive given all I said above to motivate me to buy.
It’s just so much money. Okay, no where near Leica FLE money, but at near £1500 in the UK it’s beyond my reach. If the 28mm f/2 is good that’ll be the one to go with my FE 55 and FE 70-200.
Those three lenses and maaaybe the fisheye (have to love that fisheye). What else do you need? Pretty solid set up.
I’m not a fan of SLRgear reviews. Poor web design (very little of the page is devoted to the review, the rest is all advertisement), hard to read charts, no samples. Please remind me to not click next time.
And yet dxomark whose website is so bad it causes many browsers to simply lock up and stop functioning is considered a competent review site. yeah right.
And again…Sony users indulging in such innocent, yet tragically naive
hopefulness…all their gearhead expectations to be shattered by the
walkman wielding giant 🙁
Are you comparing on SLRgear (which is the only one to have tested both?)
Actually look closely: the 1.4 is sharper in the middle (it has a shade of pink the 2.8 never gets to) and the corners range from better to the top right which is the same. And as you stop down the 1.4 is much better (not that I care coz if I get the 1.4 it’ll be for 1.4 and f2 usually, though I guess sometimes I’ll want to stop down). So pricey yes, but worth considering..