Now you have a new reason to play a little bit with the DxO mark comparison tool. They just added the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G lens test results inside their database (Click here). And you can see how the lens performs when used on different cameras. See for example the Sony A900, A700 and A550 lens results (Click here). As you can see the lens is neither a winner neither a looser. I hope there will be soon an upgraded version, maybe a 35mm 1.4 Zeiss for Alpha? Let’s cross the finger!
Check the Sony 35mm f/1.4 price at [shopcountry 7016].
37 Responses
For me the 35G is a winner, my copy is sharp and very useable from f/1.4, there is something magical about this lens can’t really describe it, you have to try it out yourself. Itøs my walkaround prime on my A900.
Doesn’t seem to worth its price.
Only a fullframe comparison would bei useful! Too bad their database has no other 35mm with fullframe.
http://dxomark.com/index.php/Lens-with-Camera/Compare/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/380/%28lens2%29/168/%28lens3%29/196/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/483/%28camera3%29/483
The Minolta 35/1.4 is an excellent lens, no need for an upgrade for me. But seeing as primes seem to be Zeiss now, it would make sense to complete the line with a ZA.
This lens needs replacement
I own the 35G and think it’s wonderful.
If they made a ZA35, I won’t be “upgrading”.
It’ll just be ‘different’ and slightly more modern.
I’ve directly compared mine to the Contax 35/1.4. The Zeiss wins hands down at f1.4, but stopped down a bit and it’s a different story.
I guess if one is the type to only shoot wide open there’s something to be gained by replacing it, but on full frame at least the depth of field is too shallow at 1.4 to be useful for general purpose photography.
Interesting comparison Carl. I’ve found I can use all the Minolta 1.4 primes at 1.4 and get usable images, although this is generally at ‘middle-ish’ focusing range, rather than very close in. Still, very infrequently used that wide.
I do shoot wide open for “effect photography”, but that sort of stuff hardly needs at least 70 line pairs per millimeter at 40 percent contrast or some arbitrary metric like that. So much of the shot will be out of focus anyway that sharpness of the part within the circle of least confusion will be hard to judge anyway.
Yes, it’s a nice tool that speaks loudly to Sony’s lens problem
Without going into all of the test, you can see that DxOMark score for an A900 with this lens is a low 17 with very strong Resolution score of 52 and a price of $1,360.00….ouch!
Nikon little 35mm f1.8 scores a 18 on a D5000 with lower resolution numbers but cost less then $200.00
You can get a manual Zeiss that scores a whapping 24 on a D700 for under $1,100.00
Sony’s 35mm G lens is just not worth the money
I also, would be happy to buy the Zeiss, but for some reason Zeiss dosen’t make it for the A-mount
Is Sony keeping Zeiss from selling lenses directly?
you are comparing the 35G to a 35f1.8? Really? Sony has one also. Or a 30mm or something.
The 35G has that something that cannot be defined. It may be a bit overpriced but it is wonderful. My favorite lens but I just picked up the Zeiss 85mmF1.4 and that may become my favorite.
Do not knock this lens until you try it.
Gotta luff people who judge a lens by looking at some graphs… But yeah in that respect, the kit lens or the nikkor 35/1.8 could be much sharper and 5 times cheaper,
People need to get stop looking at lenses as just a bunch of MTF50, if you ask me. It’s resulted in modern lens designs being harsh and over-contrasty. MTF50 is not a resolution metric, it’s a contrast metric.
Those who complain about the 35G are those who have not used it.
I agree with Carl, people should not be so convinced by MTF charts, they serve a purpose but people lose sight of the overall scheme of things.
You will get Leica lenses that are outperformed purely on MTF charts yet, they deliver an unquantifiable quality that have made them brilliant.
JCristopher,
I’m glad it works go for you.
I thought it had a little too much light fall off at wide on my A850 and I already have a Minolta 35 f2 that doesn’t stay in my bag because of that and I thought the cost a bit much.
I’m I wrong about the light fall-off on FF?
Right now I cover that range with my Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 and I too have the Zeiss 85 f1.4 and would be happy for something of that quality and speed in the 35mm prime range.
Some über expensive Leica lenses have quite a lot of vignetting. Not all photographers find it to be a negative, as it helps isolate the subject. Minolta’s lens designers are cut from a similar cloth, and didn’t always design their lenses to measure well like a Zeiss or Olympus lens would, being more concerned with subjective artistic qualities.
Of course, it’s a problem if it’s bad enough to affect metering, but at least as far as the 35G is concerned, I haven’t had any problems there, and it’s my most used lens.
We need to cross more than 1 finger if we’ll be hoping for a 35Z… but count my fingers in!
If there can be a 50mm f1.2 Zeiss SSM?
I don’t need F1.2 but I demand SSM for that price tag. The 35mm F1.4 G is a joke.
Why on earth would you want 50mm f1.2 Zeiss SSM that cost $2000? It will be useless decoration piece in camera shop for 99.9% of users who won’t buy it nor can afford it.
I would rather see Sony keep making cheaper consumer lenses, 30mm F2.8, 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8, 85mmm F2.8, ALL GREAT lennses that everyone loves to buy and use. Next up should be 15mm F2 SAM, and some F4 SAM zooms (especially a cheap 70-200 F4)
I hope they simply replace SAM by SSM or something similar. SAM is a pain…
That’s all Sony ever be? Be a cheap skate producing cheap dslr/dslt and lenses?
There’s certainly room for a better 50. I have the current Sony 50/1.4, and I’d hardly describe it as my favourite lens.
Besides, there’s no reason a relatively straight-forward eight element double gauss lens need cost $2k short of them filling the thing with expensive aspherics. Back in the film era fast fifties used to be common as muck. Minolta made two.
Performance from 1.4 to f2 isn’t great, but, again I wouldn’t say I dislike the lens. It has that classic Minolta look which I think I’ll always like. An upgrade would be nice though.
Some 1-2 years ago dpreview did a tests of all 50mm lenses. Sony 50mm f1.4 was the best of tested.
I used this lens for years, but, when I bought Zeiss 24-70mm, I rarely using Sony 50mm because according to my tests Zeiss IQ starting at f4 is very similar to 50mm or whatever prime in 24-70mm range.
MF f1.4 Zeiss costs 700USD, add 200-300 for SSM, 200-300 just for Sony and it will cost around 1100-1300USD.
It’s one of the best current production 50/1.4s, yes (although Pentax’s 55/1.4 is better). I wouldn’t have bought mine if it was bad. But in terms of outperforming the 50/1.0L or Noct-Nikkor, not a chance. But it’s not supposed to, it’s a $300-400 lens.
This result is a JOKE right??? Comparing Fullframe lens with a full frame body and a cropped body and lens. @_@
They could have used a Sony 35mm f1.8 with a a580. <_<
+1!
I have to agree with the others here that the 35G is a fantastic lens as is, and it can’t be quantified easily. If you’ve used one, you know what I mean.
I have the Minolta version, and I’ve also found it to be superbly sharp, with gorgeous colors. Use it on a FF cam and you will fall in love with it. This and the 85G are my favorite lenses, hands down. I have rented Zeiss lenses, and they are amazing, but I can’t see myself “upgrading” from my old Minoltas anytime soon. The Minoltas have a filmy quality that the newer, more contrasty lenses seem to lack.
But of course, this is either something you like or something you don’t.
I have the Minolta version, and I have to say I love the lens. The lens is expensive, but still is less than the only other AF 35mm f1.4 – the Canon USM L. But that lens has what this one needs – a good focus motor.
There’s also an AF-S Nikkor. Nice and sharp, but I find its bokeh unpleasant.
+1
cheeky – comparing the Sony lens test on a full frame camera and the Nikon one on a DX
has DXO not tested the nikon lens on a full frame or is it a DX lens?
Just take a look at all the patents Canon filled in during last hours for lenses: most interesting to come are updated 300 f4, 50 f1.4, 35 f1.4L. I wish I could ever read something like that for Sony too..
I’m planning to buy the 35/1.8. What do you guys think about the price vs usability between the 35/1.8 and 35/1.4G?
Putting it side by side with 35/1.8, in terms of quality (not just speed), does it make the 35/1.4G look overpriced?
The 35G is an artisan lens. If you just want a sharp lens in that focal length get the 35/1.8 or 35/2.