This is the ONLY review on UA-cam I can find that does wide-open full body shot comparisons between the tiny 35/1.8, Zeiss 35/1.4 and the new Sigma. My Zeiss 1.4 practically lives on my gimbal/steadycam but lately I've been quite curious about the Sigma and much lighter 1.8. This is a much appreciated video.
Personally I own the sigma 35mm 1.4, and i would rather have either the Z 35mm 1.4 or the 1.8 Sony. The sigma just feels so much heavier than it should on paper for me. My 85mm gm feels lighter than the sigma. I also really enjoy the physical aperture ring on the Zeiss, but too afraid too buy one and get a bad copy.
I got the sigma 35 1.2 with my a7riii and absolutely LOVE it. It's a great achievement by sigma to create this. Takes really stunning images. It's my only 35mm option but I am sure I will have more 35/40mm lenses down the line :)
Thank you Chris... I know my opinion will be unpopular, but I've downloaded all photos and examined very closely. When magnified on my calibrated 4K, aligned in ACR, viewed back to back, with and without distortion corrections. It's very apparent that the Sony ZA 1.4 has far smoother bokeh on mid-range OOFA. It bests the Sig 1.2 considerably on mid-range. And that's even when your Sony ZA1.4 seems to back focus a little compared to the others. Look at the crown of hair on the boys head sitting on steps. The ZA1.4 is back focused, and still gives smoother mid-range bokeh. This is apparent in both human shots. On far range OOFA, the Sig 1.2 seems tiny bit smoother, but is defeated by the dimmer light transmission. As well, you may consider that it's not the Sony ZA that needs color correction, but the others do. Cheeper glass is notorious for yellow tinting. And yes, it can be corrected back to the ZA colors with -1000 towards blue on the slider. The ZA corrects for that with cooler skin tones and more neutral greens, not so hyper saturated as the others. The Sony ZA1.4 also needed far less black correction to reduce the contrast in your dappled light portrait. The Sigma 1.2 just crushes the blacks. I needed -50 black to recover on the 1.2, -35 black on the Sig 1.4, and -10 black on the Sony ZA1.4... to make them all match. Thanks for the downloads. They all serve a purpose. The Samyang bokeh is far worse than I ever imagined, but like the Sony, it seems to have back focused a bit. Both the Samyang and Sony 1.4's are exceptionally sharp on different parts of the head... just not the eyes.
@@MaxKoenig-Mk001 Well thank you very very much for putting the comparison together and making the files available. No small feat and very useful gesture on your part. These comparisons are not easy to do and you did this one very nicely. Much obliged.
I've got the Sigma 35mm 1.4, wide open it's not super sharp like the 50mm 1.4, but it does a good job. Auto focus with the latest update is really fast, no complaints. I think it's the perfect allrounder, for best optics choose the 1.2, for lowest weight choose Sony 1.8.
I have the Rokinon 35mm 1.4 which is the exact same lens as the Samyang and I don’t think for most people including myself that the differences justify the high price for the Sigma 35mm 1.2 unless money is no object. I can do everything I need to do with 1.4. I’m not a pixel peeper and difference in background blur is something that most people are not even aware of. They are looking at the subject.
I agree other than the focus. My second shooter had it for a while and constantly had issues. Specially with video. BUT weddings are very demanding on a lens
Are you done trying to convince yourself????? Because, the Rokinon while a nice lens is NOWHERE NEAR what the 1.2 can do in sharpness, smooth bokeh, CA correction, etc. And lets not forget AF which is spotty at best. And color cast..So stop making up lame statements
shaolin95 for what I do, street photography and occasional portraits, the Rokinon is more than satisfactory. I have better Sony lenses such as the 24mm 1.4 GM, the 85 1.8, 24-105 f4 and the 55 1.8. I have done video with the Rokinon in low light and didn’t have any focus issues. If I got the Sigma 35 1.2 the differences would not justify the cost. I’m not a pixel peeper and the people I usually photograph are usually happy with the quality of cell phone photos and the photos I produce with the Rokinon blow them away. Too many people get hung up on critical specifications and image quality when in reality most people don’t care and can’t tell the difference.
When looking for a 35mm lens I heard the one stuck on the Sony RX1 was really good. I wound up buying the Sony RX1R and it’s been a fantastic camera and lens combo.
I guess you got a bad copy of the Samyang 35mm f1.4 and that it wasn’t on the latest firmware. Latest firmware and the autofocus is very good. Also compared the Samyang with the Zeiss and found it sharper and with smoother bokeh. Didn’t have busy onion rings like the Zeiss. Only cons are it makes some autofocus noise and the build doesn’t feel as solid as the Zeiss. In regards to the Sony 35mm f1.8, it’s a nice overall lens but in terms of picture quality I think it really lacks that micro contrast pop and the busy bokeh is ugly. I’m hoping Sony makes a G Master 35mm, be it f1.8 or f1.4 but that seems unlikely now with the new average f1.8. Nice review though, keep the content coming.
I was interested in Sigma 24mm 1.4 for my A7R iii but I will get Sony 35mm 1.8 instead of my main glass Sony 55mm 1.8 Zeiss. It has rly nice performance and when you shoot 40+ weddings in one year and commercials like me I’m sure you gonna kill sour hand with Sigma lenses. I like Sigma output rly and bokeh but there is no way to do 3 weddings every week for 10 hours each with such heavy lens. Also i have new Moza Aircross 2 and light 35mm lens from Sony pairs better with it. I wanted to pick 24mm GM but it is still big and cost almost 3x 35mm 1.8 here. Thank you for these videos about 35mm lenses they helped me alot! Keep up good work 😊.
Awesome video ! I am a big 35mm focal length fanboy. I shoot manly apsc so i have the sigma 30mm f1.4, the sony 35f1.8 apsc with OSS, the sony 35 f1.4 FE (i agree with you it's a fantastic lens) and the sigma 18-35 f1.8. I had the samyang 35 f2.8 but since i don't have the a7rii and i shoot with the a6400 i prefer using the 35 f1.8 with oss if i want a very small setup. The sigma 35mm f1.2 looks great, i may rent it for a new video project to see how it compares with the 35mm f1.4 FE. Also, your framing on this video is a bit tight, your head is so close to the top of the frame, it makes me look every time to see if you touch it, haha !
I don't have the zeiss, but yes, I don't find any differences in terms of af with the sony 1.8, which I own. Also, once the samyang is at 1.8 is as sharp as the sony.
Love your videos! It would be nice if you would add more footage using the lens tho(like attaching a go pro on top while using) as reviews are quite common on youtube. Keep it up!
Such an excellent review. Straight to the point, covers all the key aspects. Balanced and honest. This sort of review video is so hard to find. BTW I own the zeiss 35 1.4. It’s great, but must admit to a little GAS for the Sigma 1.2. I wish Tamron released their new 35 1.4 in FE mount. By all accounts, it’s stellar, with some reviewers saying the best 35 they’ve ever used.
Very helpful review, thanks. For completeness sake though, it would have been interesting to include a few adapted DSLR lenses, particularly the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 which might be as good as or perhaps even better than the best lenses tested here.
I just bought the 35 1.8 for my A7iii, mostly for video. Couldn't be happier. I also have the Zeiss Loxia 35, which I use for travel. Will be interested to see how they compare.
Hi, i have the loxia too but at f2 the lens are soft and without AF I miss some shots. Also bokeh is a bit nervious, i’m thinking in the sony 1.8 or the samyang 1.8. What’s your opinion between sony and the loxia? Thanks!
Could you please also put in the Batis 40mm f2 in a follow up video? I am still reluctant on picking up the 35f1.8 or the 40f2. The 35f1.8 has a really good magnification ratio around 1:4, which is just a tiny bit lower than the Batis at 1:3. However, I still have not found any comparison regarding the rendering comparison between these 2 lens.
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer it would be great if you can make a comparison between these 2. If the price difference is justified by the rendering, or is it just the build quality?
Hey Chris, between the sigma 35MM 1.4 vs the new Sony FE 35MM 1.8 for use with portraits and weddings which one you like more ? Thanks for the comparison!
hi Chris, i like your channel and that peaceful mood in your videos. Sigma 1.2 kill 'em all for sure :) i was wonder why you dont like your samayng 35mm 1.4, i really like my copy so i did have a look at your raw files and it seems like your lens is a bit off and for sure is not focusing properly.. the focus is on your son hands not on his eye/face.
Ah I must have uploaded the wrong raw. But that is the main reason the focus is a bit dodgy on any copy I’ve ever used. My second shooter you used it for a season and always had issues. Weddings are pretty demanding on a lens though I’m sure day to day use would be fine
Thanks for the great comparison and raw files ! Now I feel better with my 35 1.8 mm :) BTW - the colors in your raw files look great in Capture One without any editing whatsoever , but when I import the pictures I take with my Sony a73 , the colors usually look very dull and I must increase the contrast and saturation to make them look more natural. Any idea why ?
That’s weird? What profile are you using I just have mine in standard. Different light will make a difference also, plus the brighter the images are the more washed out they will look
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer the profile doesn't impact the RAW files as far as I know. It only affects the in camera JPEG generation. Also, I've shot a lot of of photos with various lighting conditions with the a73 and they are all very dull , and you're look much more vivid( in RAW - without any added saturation by the software ) .
@@pianoman1973 Old comment I know, but for anyone else reading this, creative style options don't effect RAWs but profiles do! Make sure your profile is set to standard, not SLOG or something.
Hey I own the 16-35mm Sony GM 2.8 It's great for landscape photography, however it's quite heavy and I found out I usually take my photos at 35mm. I think I'll be buying the Zeis 35mm 1.8 because of the weight. Traveling with the 16-35mm GM its exhausting sometimes it's big and heavy, I'd be great if you can do a review about that one. Thanks for the review. Greatings from Chile.
Great review..best I've found. I'm really tossing up between the Sigma 1.4 or Sony 1.4. It'll be used mostly for manual video use and maybe some portraits. Leaning towards the Sigma 1.4 as the thread is 67mm that'll match my ND'S. The Sony is 72mm which is odd.... Ahh this is the hardest decision I've had to make all year 😂 What would you recommend?
Chris, have you compared 35mm lenses with the Sony 24mm 1.4 GM in crop mode? You have a video where you use the 24 1.4 as the 24mm and switch to crop mode for the 35 equivialnt. This saves time switching out lenses and you seemed satisfied with the quality. Thanks, Frank W.
Chris, thank you so much for doing this video. If you could have one lens for travel, what would it be? I was thinking of the pancake Zeiss 35mm instead of the 35mm 1.8 . I am looking for a good travel solution (I'm done with the Fuji X100V!!!)
Can you do a comparison for 85mm lenses especially 85 1.8 vs samyang 85 1.4. Also how is the af on 14-24 f2.8 dg dn and 35 f1.2 dg dn compared to dslr sigma lenses on sony with built in mc11
Had the SonyZeiss 35 2.8 in the the past and would agree the Samyang 35 2.8 really is so similar. Adapted a Sigma Art 1.4 and just wasn't too impressed with it when looking at the corners. It couldn't justify it's weight. Glad the Sony 1.8 came out and that short minimum focus distance is great to have. Do you find yours vignettes a bit more than you would like? I find it never goes away in JPEGs. Think it's due to the linear motor having a long floating area. Also does yours hiss when turned on?
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer I'm shooting raw + JPEG but still having to tweak the raw a little in Lightroom. The JPEG is for sharing of course and just a few more steps in editing when comparing it to other lenses. No biggie was expect a more corrected file that's all.
Thanks or the video. This is helping me with my choice to purchase the 35 1.8 fe. However, would you choose a 24-70 2.8 over the 35 mm focal length for group photos? I'm aware that sigma is about to release in December their 24-70 fe lens. And I can only choose one. But my purpose is event photog. My only issue with any lens is weather sealing as I am usually in humid/dust/damp prone environments. What's your recommendation? Other than that, thank you for all your 35 mm videos with the jeep, i've seen those as well.
I've had my 35 1.8 for a few months and had it amongst the rain and never missed a beat. Similar to the 85 1.8, I've had that in crazy rain and that thing was/is solid!
If I were doing paid work for group photos the 24-70/2.8 would be my choice hands down. It gives you tremendous flexibility that a single 35mm lens can’t deliver. For instance, many group photos look much better at 50mm since there is no distortion to the people on the ends. Since you never know what the future holds, the 24-70 makes you “future proof” with the ability to shoot anything that comes your way. If you can only choose one, the zoom is the one to get. Also - you’ll never shoot a group photo at an aperture larger than f2.8 anyway. Usually you’re shooting at f4-f11 to make sure everyone is in focus.
Chris! I never message on UA-cam but I have to tell you to add some amazon links. you are missing out on money. I wanted to buy though your link of the lens I wanted because its easier then going on Amazon and searching for it. take my money.
Was wondering if it's okay to use the 35mm 1.2 on a super 35mode on an R3 to make focal length 50mm. Like how you use the 24 and make it 35mm. Would it render the same if you would use it for portraits? Thanks!
Going to be selling my sony 35mm f1.8 my copy is very soft compared to the sigma 35mm f1.4 which is very frustrating because the sony lens was not cheap
my samyang 1.4 is sharp as a tack and focuses really fast even in continuous. loved it so much so that i added the sammy 35mm 2.8 i get it tomorrow. the sigma 1.2 interest me if i get the 1.4 sold
@@cesarjaidar4167 didn't really test it properly, but the focus is very good on the Sigma 1.4 (in many situatios foudn it do be better yhan my Sony 85 1.8). The only thing I didn't like about it was the weight.
@@dota2dota394 Define better. Tamron has better IQ. Samyang is tiny and renders a lot like Zeiss 35mm f/2.8. If you are looking for a tiny lens, Samyang is better. For everything else Tamron is better.
Kelly Turney both, the 24 is definitely optically superior but that’s to be expected with the price and I prefer 24 as a focal length also. But I’m weird
That's good to know. Thank you! I'm glad I found your account. I feel like people review lenses most often with video in mind. However I am also a wedding photographer and recently purchased the A7iii with a GM zoom lens. I want to purchase a reasonable portrait fast aperture lens to compliment it.
Try to keep it, I have the sony 1.8 but is so tiny small!...try to have both and use them depending of the circumstances. 1.4 I only have the humble Samyang but I really would like the zeiss...
I don’t know about importance.. I think the only importance is what you like to use. 35mm generally is just a good all round lens, street, portraits, weddings, landscape etc much more this lens is useful for. I think what’s more important and why people use a 35mm is because it’s a prime. Generally prime lenses push you to be a little more creative, it’s the reason I only use 2 lenses at a wedding (24&85) because I’m not screwing around trying to decide which lens or focal length to shoot.
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer I kept the 35/1.8 and returned the ZA 35/2.8 but it was a tough decision for me. To me the only downside of the ZA was the closest focus distance, but I really enjoyed handling A7IV + ZA with one hand.
@ i think sigma 14-24 f2.8 dg dn and sony 35 1.8 combo is better than 16-35 f2.8gm. The gm glass is too pricey for its optical performance. The earlier combo has better low light, wider and mord optical peformance.
After a73 no one is buying a7r3 or r4, sales are down, no point of making lens videos, most of the peorpke are using adapters to use their canon lenses on sony bodies.
Good review, Chris, but black tee and gray cinderblock wall (combined w/tats) make you look like a convict. Detracts from message. Get the impression I’m visiting a prisoner. (Sorry)
This is the ONLY review on UA-cam I can find that does wide-open full body shot comparisons between the tiny 35/1.8, Zeiss 35/1.4 and the new Sigma. My Zeiss 1.4 practically lives on my gimbal/steadycam but lately I've been quite curious about the Sigma and much lighter 1.8. This is a much appreciated video.
Personally I own the sigma 35mm 1.4, and i would rather have either the Z 35mm 1.4 or the 1.8 Sony. The sigma just feels so much heavier than it should on paper for me. My 85mm gm feels lighter than the sigma. I also really enjoy the physical aperture ring on the Zeiss, but too afraid too buy one and get a bad copy.
On my way to Best Buy 😁 to get 35 1.8 Sony , am was struggling which one to buy , and now thanks to you its clear . Thank you !!!
What you got finally? 🤣
I got the sigma 35 1.2 with my a7riii and absolutely LOVE it. It's a great achievement by sigma to create this. Takes really stunning images. It's my only 35mm option but I am sure I will have more 35/40mm lenses down the line :)
and here i am still taking pictures with my canon 40d loil
@@brentschmgbert3578 its a great camera!
Thank you Chris... I know my opinion will be unpopular, but I've downloaded all photos and examined very closely. When magnified on my calibrated 4K, aligned in ACR, viewed back to back, with and without distortion corrections. It's very apparent that the Sony ZA 1.4 has far smoother bokeh on mid-range OOFA. It bests the Sig 1.2 considerably on mid-range. And that's even when your Sony ZA1.4 seems to back focus a little compared to the others. Look at the crown of hair on the boys head sitting on steps. The ZA1.4 is back focused, and still gives smoother mid-range bokeh. This is apparent in both human shots. On far range OOFA, the Sig 1.2 seems tiny bit smoother, but is defeated by the dimmer light transmission.
As well, you may consider that it's not the Sony ZA that needs color correction, but the others do. Cheeper glass is notorious for yellow tinting. And yes, it can be corrected back to the ZA colors with -1000 towards blue on the slider. The ZA corrects for that with cooler skin tones and more neutral greens, not so hyper saturated as the others. The Sony ZA1.4 also needed far less black correction to reduce the contrast in your dappled light portrait. The Sigma 1.2 just crushes the blacks. I needed -50 black to recover on the 1.2, -35 black on the Sig 1.4, and -10 black on the Sony ZA1.4... to make them all match.
Thanks for the downloads. They all serve a purpose. The Samyang bokeh is far worse than I ever imagined, but like the Sony, it seems to have back focused a bit. Both the Samyang and Sony 1.4's are exceptionally sharp on different parts of the head... just not the eyes.
thanks for doing the research and sharing the results with us!
@@MaxKoenig-Mk001 Well thank you very very much for putting the comparison together and making the files available. No small feat and very useful gesture on your part. These comparisons are not easy to do and you did this one very nicely. Much obliged.
Great to see you back! Currently looking for a 35mm lens and glad you uploaded this, deciding between the Sony 1.8 and sigma 1.4
I wouldn’t get the sigma honestly. Mostly because of the focus not being as good
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer what about photo only?
The focus is not as good as the Sony ones. But honestly it's good enough for photography only and I absolutely had a blast with it until now
@@thomasploner9424 thanks for letting me know!
@@IwasKiddinggg I mean, it's not perfect, but the images it produces simply are. I don't rely on it in terms of income, I only enjoy it
I've got the Sigma 35mm 1.4, wide open it's not super sharp like the 50mm 1.4, but it does a good job. Auto focus with the latest update is really fast, no complaints. I think it's the perfect allrounder, for best optics choose the 1.2, for lowest weight choose Sony 1.8.
Love my 35mm F1.8 stuck on my A7riii.
That's the review I needed!
Every lense compared in a very compact, yet detailed enough review.
Much love for you
Great to get some reassurance on my decision... I'm getting the 1.8 for myself this Christmas!
I have the Rokinon 35mm 1.4 which is the exact same lens as the Samyang and I don’t think for most people including myself that the differences justify the high price for the Sigma 35mm 1.2 unless money is no object. I can do everything I need to do with 1.4. I’m not a pixel peeper and difference in background blur is something that most people are not even aware of. They are looking at the subject.
I agree other than the focus. My second shooter had it for a while and constantly had issues. Specially with video. BUT weddings are very demanding on a lens
Are you done trying to convince yourself????? Because, the Rokinon while a nice lens is NOWHERE NEAR what the 1.2 can do in sharpness, smooth bokeh, CA correction, etc. And lets not forget AF which is spotty at best. And color cast..So stop making up lame statements
shaolin95 for what I do, street photography and occasional portraits, the Rokinon is more than satisfactory. I have better Sony lenses such as the 24mm 1.4 GM, the 85 1.8, 24-105 f4 and the 55 1.8. I have done video with the Rokinon in low light and didn’t have any focus issues. If I got the Sigma 35 1.2 the differences would not justify the cost. I’m not a pixel peeper and the people I usually photograph are usually happy with the quality of cell phone photos and the photos I produce with the Rokinon blow them away. Too many people get hung up on critical specifications and image quality when in reality most people don’t care and can’t tell the difference.
A good review esp,. from a photographer's point of view, your analysis is straight to the point NO ranting.
When looking for a 35mm lens I heard the one stuck on the Sony RX1 was really good. I wound up buying the Sony RX1R and it’s been a fantastic camera and lens combo.
Glad to have found you. Love the straight to the point approach.
I guess you got a bad copy of the Samyang 35mm f1.4 and that it wasn’t on the latest firmware. Latest firmware and the autofocus is very good. Also compared the Samyang with the Zeiss and found it sharper and with smoother bokeh. Didn’t have busy onion rings like the Zeiss. Only cons are it makes some autofocus noise and the build doesn’t feel as solid as the Zeiss.
In regards to the Sony 35mm f1.8, it’s a nice overall lens but in terms of picture quality I think it really lacks that micro contrast pop and the busy bokeh is ugly. I’m hoping Sony makes a G Master 35mm, be it f1.8 or f1.4 but that seems unlikely now with the new average f1.8.
Nice review though, keep the content coming.
David M he definitely didn’t update it cause it’s amazing after you do
I have Sigma 35mm art 1.4 (mc.11) , I very happy with this lens. I don't need other 35mm except by the same with e-Mount.
I was interested in Sigma 24mm 1.4 for my A7R iii but I will get Sony 35mm 1.8 instead of my main glass Sony 55mm 1.8 Zeiss. It has rly nice performance and when you shoot 40+ weddings in one year and commercials like me I’m sure you gonna kill sour hand with Sigma lenses. I like Sigma output rly and bokeh but there is no way to do 3 weddings every week for 10 hours each with such heavy lens. Also i have new Moza Aircross 2 and light 35mm lens from Sony pairs better with it. I wanted to pick 24mm GM but it is still big and cost almost 3x 35mm 1.8 here. Thank you for these videos about 35mm lenses they helped me alot! Keep up good work 😊.
... wuuuh, isn‘t it an amazing lens, the 35/1.2 - great review! 👍🏻
Thanks for your review. You convinced me to go with the 35mm Sony 1.8.
Excellent video and thank you for the raws. This video is pretty much a public service announcement for Sony shooters.
The 35/1,8 since I bought it, is always on my camera. If I need to cover a wider angle, my 28/2 is there.
Awesome video !
I am a big 35mm focal length fanboy.
I shoot manly apsc so i have the sigma 30mm f1.4, the sony 35f1.8 apsc with OSS, the sony 35 f1.4 FE (i agree with you it's a fantastic lens) and the sigma 18-35 f1.8. I had the samyang 35 f2.8 but since i don't have the a7rii and i shoot with the a6400 i prefer using the 35 f1.8 with oss if i want a very small setup.
The sigma 35mm f1.2 looks great, i may rent it for a new video project to see how it compares with the 35mm f1.4 FE.
Also, your framing on this video is a bit tight, your head is so close to the top of the frame, it makes me look every time to see if you touch it, haha !
Sold! And my next and first Sony lens is the f1.8. Thanks, mate. Your reviews are great. See you when lockdown end. Some time in 2074. All the best.
My Samyang 1.4 focuses superbly. No difference compared to the Zony 1.4. I sold my Zony and kept my Samyang; I absolutely love the lens.
theyasman love mine 2
I don't have the zeiss, but yes, I don't find any differences in terms of af with the sony 1.8, which I own. Also, once the samyang is at 1.8 is as sharp as the sony.
Love your videos! It would be nice if you would add more footage using the lens tho(like attaching a go pro on top while using) as reviews are quite common on youtube. Keep it up!
Such an excellent review. Straight to the point, covers all the key aspects. Balanced and honest. This sort of review video is so hard to find.
BTW I own the zeiss 35 1.4. It’s great, but must admit to a little GAS for the Sigma 1.2. I wish Tamron released their new 35 1.4 in FE mount. By all accounts, it’s stellar, with some reviewers saying the best 35 they’ve ever used.
Thanks!
The 1.2 Art has smoother bokeh so it would be my choice either way.
Very helpful review, thanks. For completeness sake though, it would have been interesting to include a few adapted DSLR lenses, particularly the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 which might be as good as or perhaps even better than the best lenses tested here.
I’ve tried them they just don’t focus well enough. Depending on what your photographing of course
Hi,thanks for the review.
What about the Tamron 35 mm f2.8 lens?
I think it's also a great lens with a very interesting price.
I just bought the 35 1.8 for my A7iii, mostly for video. Couldn't be happier. I also have the Zeiss Loxia 35, which I use for travel. Will be interested to see how they compare.
Hi, i have the loxia too but at f2 the lens are soft and without AF I miss some shots. Also bokeh is a bit nervious, i’m thinking in the sony 1.8 or the samyang 1.8. What’s your opinion between sony and the loxia? Thanks!
Liked the video before even watching it 🤣 ive been waiting for your videos. It feels like ages since your last one. Don't do that again. Haha
Great comparison video. Thank you.
Samyang 35mm f/1.8 is out. Can you compare this with Sony 35mm f/1.8?
Nice review. Helpful for me to decide which 35 Lens to buy. Probably I will go for Sony 35 f1.8. Please review Sigma 24-70 DG DN.
Think you need to update this with the tamron! :p been trying to find a comparison for 35mm 1.8 vs tamron 35mm 2.8
A GM version has got to be on the horizon!!!
bruh u were right, it is actually check SAR
@@Soker92I hope so..!!! I’ve been holding out on Zeiss and 1.8s for a GM 35 and a 50
When I take my bag to put it on my shoulder, at that very moment, I love my 35mm 1.8.
What about the newer 35mm 1.8 vs the Zeiss Batís 40mm? I am debating.
it's a battle of your wallet and how much money can come out of it
The best review for a Long time, thanks 👍
Really nice review - To. The. Point! - Looking at the A7iii so this is really handy!
Could you please also put in the Batis 40mm f2 in a follow up video? I am still reluctant on picking up the 35f1.8 or the 40f2. The 35f1.8 has a really good magnification ratio around 1:4, which is just a tiny bit lower than the Batis at 1:3. However, I still have not found any comparison regarding the rendering comparison between these 2 lens.
Sedthawit Tangsumpant I’m also in between these 2 as well. Hopefully we can get an answer.
I’ve done a video on that lens ages ago. I’m not a fan but personal preference
ua-cam.com/video/gm07covtCcU/v-deo.html
Also deciding between these two
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer it would be great if you can make a comparison between these 2. If the price difference is justified by the rendering, or is it just the build quality?
The new setup looks very nice!
Was waiting for this for a long time!
Hey Chris, between the sigma 35MM 1.4 vs the new Sony FE 35MM 1.8 for use with portraits and weddings which one you like more ? Thanks for the comparison!
Definitely the 1.8 the focus is much more reliable. I owned the sigma for a few months before realising that
Sigma 35 1.2 is The undisputed King of the 35s!! It's so good Sony probably isnt even gonna bother making a 35 GM
Well.... This didn't age well. Lol
😂
hi Chris, i like your channel and that peaceful mood in your videos. Sigma 1.2 kill 'em all for sure :) i was wonder why you dont like your samayng 35mm 1.4, i really like my copy so i did have a look at your raw files and it seems like your lens is a bit off and for sure is not focusing properly.. the focus is on your son hands not on his eye/face.
Ah I must have uploaded the wrong raw. But that is the main reason the focus is a bit dodgy on any copy I’ve ever used. My second shooter you used it for a season and always had issues. Weddings are pretty demanding on a lens though I’m sure day to day use would be fine
Wonder what you think about the new 35mm 1.4 G master compared to these now?
Thanks for the great comparison and raw files ! Now I feel better with my 35 1.8 mm :)
BTW - the colors in your raw files look great in Capture One without any editing whatsoever , but when I import the pictures I take with my Sony a73 , the colors usually look very dull and I must increase the contrast and saturation to make them look more natural. Any idea why ?
That’s weird? What profile are you using I just have mine in standard. Different light will make a difference also, plus the brighter the images are the more washed out they will look
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer the profile doesn't impact the RAW files as far as I know. It only affects the in camera JPEG generation. Also, I've shot a lot of of photos with various lighting conditions with the a73 and they are all very dull , and you're look much more vivid( in RAW - without any added saturation by the software ) .
@@pianoman1973 Old comment I know, but for anyone else reading this, creative style options don't effect RAWs but profiles do! Make sure your profile is set to standard, not SLOG or something.
It doesn’t affect raw at all. I’ve tested it out
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer Thanks Chris for testing :)
now i know what to buy for my needs, tks
Hey I own the 16-35mm Sony GM 2.8 It's great for landscape photography, however it's quite heavy and I found out I usually take my photos at 35mm. I think I'll be buying the Zeis 35mm 1.8 because of the weight. Traveling with the 16-35mm GM its exhausting sometimes it's big and heavy, I'd be great if you can do a review about that one. Thanks for the review. Greatings from Chile.
The Zeiss is 2.8
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer I meant the FE 35mm F1.8
Jose Muñoz ah yeah I’ve already done one. On the channel
Thanks buddy, very helpful!
thank you for this. might invest in the sony 1.8 or the sigma 1.2. 👍🏻👍🏻 quick question though, what baseplate are you using for your A7R III ??
It’s the really right stuff plate
Hi Chris thank you so much for your video what video profile do you use for your Sony?
Great review..best I've found. I'm really tossing up between the Sigma 1.4 or Sony 1.4. It'll be used mostly for manual video use and maybe some portraits. Leaning towards the Sigma 1.4 as the thread is 67mm that'll match my ND'S. The Sony is 72mm which is odd.... Ahh this is the hardest decision I've had to make all year 😂 What would you recommend?
Ethan Hart if it’s mostly manual video I’d get the sigma
Chris, have you compared 35mm lenses with the Sony 24mm 1.4 GM in crop mode? You have a video where you use the 24 1.4 as the 24mm and switch to crop mode for the 35 equivialnt. This saves time switching out lenses and you seemed satisfied with the quality. Thanks, Frank W.
That’s a good one I’ll make video comparing it to my 35 soon
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer yes please!
Chris, thank you so much for doing this video. If you could have one lens for travel, what would it be? I was thinking of the pancake Zeiss 35mm instead of the 35mm 1.8 . I am looking for a good travel solution (I'm done with the Fuji X100V!!!)
Hard to say eh, the new little zooms from Sony are pretty sweet, I don’t think I’d use the zeiss one over them
Well done, nice content!
Thank you Chris.
I choose to get 35mm f1.4 zeiss in second condition
Rathet than 35mm f1.8 in new condition
Never regret it, its the beast
Can you do a comparison for 85mm lenses especially 85 1.8 vs samyang 85 1.4. Also how is the af on 14-24 f2.8 dg dn and 35 f1.2 dg dn compared to dslr sigma lenses on sony with built in mc11
ua-cam.com/video/ZnFasxh8i3I/v-deo.html Direct comparison of the AF speed between the Sigma 35mm 1.2 and 1.4 Art lenses
Great job
Had the SonyZeiss 35 2.8 in the the past and would agree the Samyang 35 2.8 really is so similar. Adapted a Sigma Art 1.4 and just wasn't too impressed with it when looking at the corners. It couldn't justify it's weight. Glad the Sony 1.8 came out and that short minimum focus distance is great to have. Do you find yours vignettes a bit more than you would like? I find it never goes away in JPEGs. Think it's due to the linear motor having a long floating area. Also does yours hiss when turned on?
Don’t mind the vignette too much but I’m shooting raw. Can’t hear any hiss no
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer I'm shooting raw + JPEG but still having to tweak the raw a little in Lightroom. The JPEG is for sharing of course and just a few more steps in editing when comparing it to other lenses. No biggie was expect a more corrected file that's all.
Sub'd because you share raw files
Oh, would of like to see the new tamron.
I agree, did a similar video review but the sigma f1.2 was not available yet.
I appreciate this
look 👏 at 👏 those 👏 presets 👏 doe 🔥
Thanks or the video. This is helping me with my choice to purchase the 35 1.8 fe. However, would you choose a 24-70 2.8 over the 35 mm focal length for group photos? I'm aware that sigma is about to release in December their 24-70 fe lens. And I can only choose one. But my purpose is event photog. My only issue with any lens is weather sealing as I am usually in humid/dust/damp prone environments. What's your recommendation? Other than that, thank you for all your 35 mm videos with the jeep, i've seen those as well.
I've had my 35 1.8 for a few months and had it amongst the rain and never missed a beat. Similar to the 85 1.8, I've had that in crazy rain and that thing was/is solid!
Group shots the 35 is usually ok depending on the size otherwise I use the tamron 17-28, the 28-75 is decent also.
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer and darlylswalker (walking dead daryl?) thank you both for your responses, i believe i will order the 35 1.8 fe.
If I were doing paid work for group photos the 24-70/2.8 would be my choice hands down. It gives you tremendous flexibility that a single 35mm lens can’t deliver. For instance, many group photos look much better at 50mm since there is no distortion to the people on the ends. Since you never know what the future holds, the 24-70 makes you “future proof” with the ability to shoot anything that comes your way. If you can only choose one, the zoom is the one to get. Also - you’ll never shoot a group photo at an aperture larger than f2.8 anyway. Usually you’re shooting at f4-f11 to make sure everyone is in focus.
Or just buy 35 1.8 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 so youare covered well
Wonder the difference between these lenses and a 28-75mm Tamron at f/2.8 shot wide open?
Or around f/5.6 or f/8?
Chris! I never message on UA-cam but I have to tell you to add some amazon links. you are missing out on money. I wanted to buy though your link of the lens I wanted because its easier then going on Amazon and searching for it. take my money.
Haha yeah I keep meaning too. Will eventually get there
hi. do you think 35mm 2.8 Zeiss is better than sony 28mm f2? thanks
Not enough to justify the extra cost
Was wondering if it's okay to use the 35mm 1.2 on a super 35mode on an R3 to make focal length 50mm. Like how you use the 24 and make it 35mm. Would it render the same if you would use it for portraits? Thanks!
great review
Going to be selling my sony 35mm f1.8 my copy is very soft compared to the sigma 35mm f1.4 which is very frustrating because the sony lens was not cheap
On a budget, would you recommend one of the pancakes vs the Samyang 1.4? Cheers!
I have the Samyang 1.4 and i absolutely love it.
my samyang 1.4 is sharp as a tack and focuses really fast even in continuous. loved it so much so that i added the sammy 35mm 2.8 i get it tomorrow. the sigma 1.2 interest me if i get the 1.4 sold
Which has the best image quality. The 28 mm 2.0 or the 35 mm 1.8?
Definitely the 35 hands down
Chris Turner Photographer Thank you:)
Yeahh, sigma 1.2 is a big monster but it takes great images.
Just changed the Sigma 1.4 with the Sony 1.8 because of the size and weight difference.
Adrian Luca do you notice better autofocus?
@@cesarjaidar4167 didn't really test it properly, but the focus is very good on the Sigma 1.4 (in many situatios foudn it do be better yhan my Sony 85 1.8). The only thing I didn't like about it was the weight.
Which lens is better, Tenglong 35mm2.8 vs Sanyang 35mm2.8
无聊的工作消耗着我廉价的生命 These two lenses do not exist , maybe on an a parallel universe
@@charruaporelmundo sorry it is tamron35 2.8 vs samyang 35 2.8
which of these two lenses is better?😂😂
@@dota2dota394 Define better. Tamron has better IQ. Samyang is tiny and renders a lot like Zeiss 35mm f/2.8. If you are looking for a tiny lens, Samyang is better. For everything else Tamron is better.
Since you own the 1.8 do you often use it in weddings?
I’ve used it a fair bit but I do prefer the 24
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer for the focal length or quality?
Kelly Turney both, the 24 is definitely optically superior but that’s to be expected with the price and I prefer 24 as a focal length also. But I’m weird
That's good to know. Thank you! I'm glad I found your account. I feel like people review lenses most often with video in mind. However I am also a wedding photographer and recently purchased the A7iii with a GM zoom lens. I want to purchase a reasonable portrait fast aperture lens to compliment it.
you missed the Samyang 35 1.8 :-)
It's hard to justify the 35/1.8 when it's literally double the size of the 35/2.8!
Im planning to sell my sony 35 1.4 za. Should i ? :( , what a dilema
Try to keep it, I have the sony 1.8 but is so tiny small!...try to have both and use them depending of the circumstances. 1.4 I only have the humble Samyang but I really would like the zeiss...
What about viltrox :(
hey! i was wondering what is the importance of a 35mm lens? ive heard alot of talk around 35mm. currently i have a Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
I don’t know about importance.. I think the only importance is what you like to use. 35mm generally is just a good all round lens, street, portraits, weddings, landscape etc much more this lens is useful for.
I think what’s more important and why people use a 35mm is because it’s a prime. Generally prime lenses push you to be a little more creative, it’s the reason I only use 2 lenses at a wedding (24&85) because I’m not screwing around trying to decide which lens or focal length to shoot.
4:00 why hard to justify the pancakes? They are half the size of the 1.8.
Because it’s way better and it’s still tiny
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer I kept the 35/1.8 and returned the ZA 35/2.8 but it was a tough decision for me. To me the only downside of the ZA was the closest focus distance, but I really enjoyed handling A7IV + ZA with one hand.
Did you sell your 16-35 gm?
Yeah ages ago, regret that one slightly
16-35 GM is the same size as a 35 f/1.4 while offering the benefits of several f/2.8 primes.
Frank Feng yeah but it’s 2.8 not 1.4 lol
@ i think sigma 14-24 f2.8 dg dn and sony 35 1.8 combo is better than 16-35 f2.8gm. The gm glass is too pricey for its optical performance. The earlier combo has better low light, wider and mord optical peformance.
Tamron 35 f/2.8?
Not out yet here
Sigma 35 1.4>
After a73 no one is buying a7r3 or r4, sales are down, no point of making lens videos, most of the peorpke are using adapters to use their canon lenses on sony bodies.
Cool man
Too much bla bla... Focus on the main point, the lenses: Comparison pictures/video performance! No need to show your face about 80%.
What are you talking about? It was pretty damn to the point and he gave raws. You're a whiner.
Good review, Chris, but black tee and gray cinderblock wall (combined w/tats) make you look like a convict. Detracts from message. Get the impression I’m visiting a prisoner. (Sorry)
Oh I am. Prisons are really relaxed here in New Zealand