For what it is, a fast high IQ lens, it's quite small. Look at some of the Sigma F1.4 monsters and they even make F1.2's that are like small bazooka.

Not sure you'd pick this or any of those Sigma's for an unobtrusive street shooting mission.

There are however several options for Sony E mount at various price points to have a very compact set up with such lenses as the Samyang & Sony CZ 35mm F2.8's, Sony's own 35mm F1.8 and the Sigma 35mm F2.

None of these are as good as the F1.4 (though the Sony F1.8 is not far off in the tests I have read) so the question then becomes is the slightly less quality on offer as good as or better then the m 4/3 and APC-C offerings? On 24mp sensors you might not see the difference between this F1.4 and the F1.8 or other lenses anyway and 24mp is where you are with APC-C so there is your choice.

I noticed the same thing when X-100V came out. EVERYBODY did the exact same review.

Sony does have a great marketing machine, and I don't hold that against them. That's a company doing its job.

But yes, I do notice that whenever a new Sony product comes out, it isn't just that the reviews flow on the same day....that's normal...but it's that the message is literally the same. With this lens, the dominant message has been "perfection"..."the best"...etc.

Now it does seem to be a really great lens...but it is funny that the messages so sync up. It was the same way with the a7c...the message was "full frame power in a compact package"...and that was repeated by all sorts of YouTubers/reviewers, and that's literally the marketing message on the Sony website.

So I would guess that Sony sends out some sort of marketing talking points with review units...maybe calls the recipients and has their own marketing people prime the reviewers by using that phrase.

But there does seem to be some sort of message discipline.

Canon does the same. they have the finance to do so. they do distribute the product to popular reviewers with an NDA, get them working on the product. when they announce the product, the review is ready to publish. They also use this to get feedback and improve via FW updates etc.
The R5 was similar but backfired on the heat issue. The earlier reviewer tired their best to contain the info but when people stated criticising them, they opened up the info.

The point isn't that when a new product launches, there are a flood of reviews released and ready to go. Yes, most companies try to get review units to popular and sympathetic reviewers so that on launch day there is this maximum impact of reviews dropping.

But what I've noticed about Sony releases is that the reviews seem to use the same talking points. There is a unity of message that reminds me of what political campaigns do. It's sometimes called message discipline.

no... there are some whom commented about the focus breathing and mentioned that for video work, use the 1.8 version.
you're trying very hard to proof your point.

Unfortunatly the 1.8/35 has worse (nervous) bokeh than the Sonnar 2/35 on the RX1.
In the end, its the 1.8/85 vs 1.4/85GM discussion all over again. The 1.4/35GM will have better bokeh especially with demanding backgrounds where the 1.8/35 bokeh gets pretty nervous especially at medium distance.

Did focus breathing ruin any videos ever? I don't think that it's even a thing. Every lens is a set of compromises.

@Based

Focus breathing is an issue if you need to manually pull focus during a shot.

If you focus before you shoot you won't see any breathing. Also the lens focusses extremely fast, which also makes it less of a problem.

So definitely not 'strictly stills only'. For what's it's worth Tony Northrup says he's buying one for video at the end of his review.

@whtchocla7e - Sony G Master marketing fluff in general claim that GM lenses are optimised for both stills and videos. Also plenty of video shooters want large aperture lenses.

@Based

It’s not “marketing fluff” far from it. As I said, Focus breathing doesn’t affect video and is easy to work around. There is no need to change focus during video or to track a subject moving from far to near focus.

I’m not sure how useful a 1.2 actually is, eye focus systems can frequently pick the front of an eyelash rather than an eyeball, and too shallow a dof can look a little sickly or cliched after a while, 1.4 is plenty enough for me I’d shoot f2 or smaller most of the time anyway

I SAYD : It is NOT about speculating the merits of the lens, but of DpReview about silencing the obvious competing "contender". The morality of that. I have the time to wait for reviews by for instance Dustin ABBOT (YouTube and his website), and then I do compare to my own gear before deciding. And it depends of our own needs, wish, and working conditions etc. ( I did swap the Canon mark II for the DN despite it's weight and size, for the amazing images from this DN - despite that don't like its size and weight. (but I love working with it). I would NEVER go back to that Canon version that dpReview mentions... I DONT MIND if Sony was to be better then the DN for me. Again : Here I just am angry that nobody seems to be worry about decent principles of responsible attitude from opinion makers such as dpreview. (Even if they are not the only ones do behave this way.)

Niall, it’s a lens and it’s about the release of a Sony lens. This is a hands on release not a review. Sony have lent the lens to dp review to announce its release and no doubt hopefully have it reviewed. Understand that the reason you can waste time hear getting angry about nothing is that DP will plug new releases for manufacturers. In this case the Sigma has nothing to do with the price of eggs

Niala2 if you check out gordon laings youtube review directly comparing them you're not likely to go for the sigma

A lot of 35/1.4 lenses get used for reportage. The 35/1.2 is twice the weight of the GM and the size makes it ridiculous for reportage, being obvious and intimating. An adapted 35Lii isn't exactly discreet but it's about the limit for size I'd consider as a 34/1.4 option.
If you've ever used and appreciated the 24mm GM (target market for the 35GM must be similar) there is no way you'd consider the 35/1.2.
Comparison to the 35/1.8 is interesting because some of use bought one as a stop gap.

Or, maybe they're assuming you have a level of experience with autofocus, wide aperture lenses, which are by their nature, large and heavy compared to say, a Summilux 35/1.4. It all depends on what you're comparing it to.

I think it's curious Mike Johnson thought it necessary to add "historically" and "for the spec and the format"...

Sigma Art 35/1.4 - 755g - 77 x 120mm
Canon 35/1.4L II - 760g - 80 x 106mm
Tamron 35/1.4 SP - 815g - 81 x 105mm
Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 - 630g - 79 x 112mm
Samyang 35/1.4 - 645g - 76 x 115mm
Nikon 35/1.4G - 600g - 83 x 90mm

Sony 35/1.4 GM - 525g - 76 x 96mm

The GM ends up 25% lighter than the average full frame AF 35/1.4, or 18% lighter if you only compare it vs the two other options native to E mount. The next lightest (Nikon) is also the oldest. The only smaller or lighter 35/1.4 options at B&H are Leica rangefinder lenses or manual lenses like the CV Nokton.

The only other FF 35/1.4 w/AF that I see at B&H is an old Sony A mount that's actually pretty close to the GM, well and stuff like the Sigma f1.2 DN & Zeiss Milvus but those are all far larger and heavier. I guess his definition of history or the way he compares specs must be different than mine...

I've read and liked stuff at T.O.P. in the past, I really don't see why he thought it was necessary to bring politics into this tho (not that I sympathize with T****p in any way)... Or why he starts the article with a whole diatribe asking why Sony thought the lens was necessary, clearly he hasn't so much as googled the rep the Zeiss had earned...

Nevermind that Mike's whole thing was a regurgitation of the press materials and the MTF, the very thing he was ranting against? Maybe he can share something of value when he has one in his hands? Like, y'know, DPR's hands-on & galleries... Or maybe he just wanted to put something out there with his B&H affiliate link, understandable.

"Light" is mentioned BECAUSE saying that justifies / enables to not mention Sigmas DG DN Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG DN Art. And it is indeed worthy to be angry about that thy shamelessly manipulate us this way. Does DpReview really needs to behave like this ??????

/facepalm

I recommend you compare its size and dimensions to other 35/1.4 lenses currently in the market. Compared to its counterparts, it is lighter and more compact.

That might be relevant if this was a 50mm f2 lens... Or a 50mm at least.

It's mildly humours when ignorant people weight up with their opinions. It's been happening a lot in the last 4 years.

And? That lens is for an APS-C image circle, and thus the size difference is irrelevant. Of course it's going to be smaller. It's not even the same angle of view, either.

Nobody here is wrong, it's simply hilarious to see 'compact and light' applied to FF gear. In any capacity. I suppose baby elephants are 'compact and light' as well.

" Nobody here is wrong, it's simply hilarious to see 'compact and light' applied to FF gear. In any capacity. " -fujian

In *any* capacity huh? Fuji doesn't have a monopoly on compact gear...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1478738-REG/samyang_af_45mm_f_1_8_fe.html

That FF lens is 25g lighter than your Fuji 35/1.4, about the same size (give or take a mm), sharp on a 61MP body, and half the price (as it should be given the construction). It's AF and has pretty nice rendering, in case you're curious.

If you're gonna compare a 53/2.1 equivalent lens against a 35/1.4 and use it to drag the whole format then surely a 45/1.8 is at least somewhat relevant no?

Or we can just stop this incessant nonsense, accept all formats can scale up/down to some degree, and it's all a (subjective) compromise... I'm afraid hell would freeze over first tho. ✌🏻

Fujian. Don’t get me started I would argue apsc is yesterday’s format all night... Sony A7 is compact and light, GFX is medium weight to me

The GF 45/2.8 is 490g. The X-100V is 478g, but then you get a complete package.

Unfortunately, the FE 70-200 f/4 still has acceleration, but it's workable. I wish Sony would release a firmware update to change it, like Sigma did for the 30mm 1.4.

> all those effects are usually in there just to cover for cheaper sensors under the focus ring

Yeah, I've been assuming that, too, so no firmware update would be possible. Some very expensive lenses make this choice so maybe I'm wrong and they genuinely believe customers want it.

I've yet to hear anyone ever go "boy, I sure love how when I turn my focus ring a couple mm it does nothing but then when I turn it a bit faster it starts moving way way farther than I'd expect, fun!"... :P Those things basically behave like bad or early gen optical mice, I think it's just designers not identifying that as a priority.

Olympus seemed to care about that years ago with the faux mechanical focus clutch they'd put on their lenses (which adds hard stops and the scale atop linear mapping), some copied it and some just switched to linear (and presumably better sensors). Even if *some* people wanted the effects, they'd be better implemented as an option rather than forced.

@lifeatf8
Now please do a G master 50mm f/1.4 or give me an firmware update for the 1.8, because it's "autofocus is horrendous on the A7/A7ii."

I hear you to the point I might only buy manual focus lens for my own a7ii. Autofocus is beyond horrendous. I have my eye on the Samyang 135mm and the Samyang MF 14mm f/2.8 WS Mk2 . However I don't know if I can coup with the issues know with the 14mm.

Bring on the G master 50mm f/1.4 .

@BackToNature1
Thanks for hearing me on this one. The third party Samyang 35mm f/2.8 from the same year is 3-4x faster to autofocus, and I know that the lens isn't the same type of focus system as the 50mm f/1.8, but I've used it on a7 iii, and it's great, so I know it's not just the lens. This problem must have a fix.
One thing I can complement on is the bokeh of the 1.8, it is extremely nice and I am never disappointed by it.

There is for sure a marked for high end lenses too. Professionals, and many amateur photographers that "need" the best.

With luxury prices beyond the reach they blame COVID for plunging sales. It's not COVID it is the price, short shelf life, too many yearly iterations and models.

People don't buy every cameras introduced yearly.

STOP BLAMING COVID PANDEMIC!!!🤑😖🤕😫

A company's flagship products always command top prices. It's only a big issue if there are no alternatives to these expensive flagship products which clearly isn't the case here.

The Canon 35II is $1800 US and 6 years old, so I'm not seeing the trend you speak of.

Ha! The proverbial price moaner.

What is wrong with the current offering, although not a GM batch?

RE Alpha: well that is just you, as you see the GM35 is on a different level than the Zeiss counterpart so it will be the same story with a GM50 if they make it soon, there is a lot of new tech they can utilize so it will be definitely a good idea to introduce it already.

@ David Ramos: Native mount lenses for mirrorless?

Adapters have their place, but not for everything.

'Sony still does NOT have any where near the number of lens Nikon nor Canon have.'

There comes a point where the difference ceases to matter. Am I going to the ice cream shop with 38 different flavours, or the one with 47 different flavours? I don't know - but taste, price, location and queuing time will certainly be more important in my decision than the extra nine flavours.

@David Ramos

"Sony still does NOT have any where near the number of lens Nikon nor Canon have."

There's no substitute for researching your point. There are 85 EF, EFS and RF lenses and 85 E and A mount lenses, so Sony actually has EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER of lenses as Canon.

Sony's mix of great 1st party and interesting/different 3rd party lenses is what made me take another look at FF and ultimately drew me into E mount.

There are not many lenses missing in the FE lineup. A 40mm pancage, one or two F1.2 AF lense, some tilt shift lenses, some macros and a bunch of bright tele lenses (200mm F2.8). It helps that there are so much nice 3d party offerings.

Sony menus system suck so who cares about lens when you have to deal with that CRAP. End of story.

@ David Ramos: There are tons of menu choices, and you can set up the camera almost any way you want, since these cameras are complex. The items are sorted in logical groups in the menus.

Or do you want fewer options, so that you easier can find what you are looking for? Well, there is customizable buttons, program settings, Fn button, etc., and even a My meny where you can put often used menu items if you want quick access to settings.

Just set up your camera properly, and everything will be easy and very fast accessible. When actually working with the camera, it would be plain stupidness to move trough the menus.

It has character, I love it

im curious why you would not like a aperture ring for photography? How is the small dial on the camera better?
alone the sound of the clicks on a good aperture ring :-d

@WesPerry, I find aperture rings very useful when hunting for a candid or random shot. This way you can immediately set your desired aperture/DOF based on the subject you are anticipating, and then raise the camera and shoot before you get noticed. Fiddling with on-body controls and constantly checking aperture values on the display/EVF is far, far less suitable for this kind of work.

I love aperture rings but sometimes it's easy to turn them by accident. Maybe that's why some dislike them?

@phouphou:
I really like the aperture ring BUT I wish the clicks were a bit more solid. It is quite easy to change aperture without meaning to. For me the biggest advantage is I can see at a glance what f stop I am at without using viewfinder or screen.

The meaning of that sentence, "optical PARTICULARLY impressive when you consider the size and weight of the lens", is not obscure at all... it means that this new Sony lens reach same excellent levels of image quality that other lenses of other brands have recently showed but this one does it in a "small package"... so maybe a "bigger mount" is not so necessary to design a lens that is optically excellent and not a behemoth at the same.

1.4/35GM is almost as small (but heavier) than the Nikkor Z 1.8/35 but optically superior. THIS its why its impressive. And it is a real problem for Nikon, because if they ever make a 35/1.4 they can't make one alike the Sony GM or they canibalize their own lens. Good thing they only have a (probably much larger and 1kg+) 1.2/35 on their roadmap for 2021.

Phophou

Most People are set in one system, you don’t see a massive movement of users from one system to another anymore, as where the case back when Canon and Nikon didn’t have or had a limited selection of Mirrorless lenses. Now all three major brands offer a great line up of high quality lenses, with Sigma saying they will launch DG DN in the two remaining Mirrorless FF systems that will just enhance that tendency to stay whit what you have, there is no objective reason to jump ship.

What’s the selling point now is getting new users onboard and for that you need great lenses that are light, small without compromising IQ, people thought Nikon with its bigger mount had an advantage but Sony just proved three times in a row that isn’t so with the 20, 24 and now 35mm.

Bottom line is what competitors do is largely irrelevant for most users.

I think the answer to your question is that in the recent past when we have seen very sharp and fast prime lenses being produced they all been pretty huge and the argument goes they need to be huge to achieve both speed and be very sharp. So the fact Sony has achieved this in a smaller lens is impressive.

Or put it another way, small but fast lenses aren't supposed to sharp but this one is so that is impressive.

one is for e mount and the other is not..

According to dpreview's lens tests, the 35mm 1.4 L II will be hard to beat. You'll be hard pressed to find anything sharper overall across any brand when you consider all the factors such as sharpness wide open, corner sharpness, sharpness at its optimum aperture, and CA. With that said, sharpness isn't everything.

Looking forward to side by side comparisons.

The Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L II is a stellar lens so you will probably not find a relevant difference optically to the 35GM.
80.4x105.5mm (760g) vs 76x96mm (524g)
However, the Sony is smaller, lighter and probably has faster AF.
And they're priced pretty much the same (new)...

Nexuser

Irrelevant question it’s on another system... it’s only remotely relevant for people who are considering jumping on board a ff Mirrorless system, but for everyone else it doesn’t matter what the other brands offer.

@Malling
I know may Canon users who would say if they could only keep only a single lens it would be the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L II.
They can now have that stellar performance in an much smaller package at Sony. The offerings in the foreseeable future from CaNikon are 1.2/35mm which are probably gonna be very large and heavy.

I'd say it will be one of the most important and best selling lenses for Sony in the future, judging from how popular the 1.4/24GM and 1.4/85GM is.

Phouphou

Corrections: Best selling GM lenses, I’ll bet on that Sony sell more cheap lenses then they will ever sell GM lenses.

I often see people with sony a7 a9 series and rarely do I see people using GM lenses, it happens but not nearly as often as kit or entry level stuff.

Although this lens is light from a pro perspective, it’s not light in everyone else perspective. +500g is still seen as bulky by most folks, it twice the seize and weight than several other 35mm and 6x that of the Samyang 2.8 so we should not make it smaller then it really is.

@nex - if you want to make use of the A9 fabulous AF system you need a native lens.
Of course you can AF the Canon and for some easy portrait sessions it will be good enough. But then you could have also bought an A7iii.

Optical the Canon is a great lens. The GM seems sharper but the Canon has outstanding CA control.

And - the Canon with adapter will feel like a brick compared to the 35GM (frontheavy).

@biggercountry

Well, after Nikon "Mirrorless reinvented" for the Z6 and Z7, everything is allowed.

@WesPerry, I am still giggling. These lenses are like buying 890 mph cars that CAN’T be used at street roads. Not that they need to made softer. There are a million options anyway, and these make the others cheaper. But fascinated about those upgrading. I’d make more sense to buy used when 160MP cameras get released.

I am particularly more interested in larger sensors than sharper lenses right now, as the total light determines noise, which sets a limit to how detailed things can be, and how even/consistent.

@ WesPerry: You can avoid moire when capturing a frame, or remove the colorful pattern at post processing.

Would you rather have a soft lens for all your hundreds of thousand photographs without moire? Well, there are some of them on the marked too.

The Nikkor 1.4G... seriously? That probably the worst IQ 50mm lens I have tried until it’s stopped down to at least F2.8. It does have a GREAT size and weight advantage, but since it’s VERY soft @ F1.4, it really makes no sense as a F1.4 lens.

Lenstip tested it for coma and it looks very very well corrected there, their diode test is more punishing than actual stars in that regard.

I trust labs as far as I can throw them. I'd rather see results from average Joe here on DPR.

Do you recall a filter test by Lenstip ? I do.....with an ad on the front page for the filter that "won" the outcome. Do I really need to say more ? I'm sure you can put the dots together on that.

DerKeyser we are talking about 35mms here... it's right in the title LOL. Pay attention

Why would you buy a wildlife lens? Terrible for 5x macro!

Probably because wildlife photography is a very specific field and majority of people shoot daily lives..?

"majority of people shoot daily lives" majority of people would not be able to afford this lens... ;)

It's a running joke here as soon as anything gets announced.

I’ve already paid for one, but I definitely don’t “have it” yet...🤔

Enjoy it once it comes. It looks fantastic.

Who makes a much smaller 35/1.4? Leica? CV? What the heck, I had these open cause I'm a tab hoarder, the GM isn't outstandingly small but it is easily the lightest modern AF 35/1.4...

Sigma Art 35/1.4 - 755g - 77 x 120mm
Canon 35/1.4L II - 760g - 80 x 106mm
Tamron 35/1.4 SP - 815g - 81 x 105mm
Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 - 630g - 79 x 112mm
Samyang 35/1.4 - 645g - 76 x 115mm
Nikon 35/1.4G - 600g - 83 x 90mm

Sony 35/1.4 GM - 525g - 76 x 96mm

And it's easily amongst the smallest of the bunch, with the Nikon, which is also amongst the oldest (circa 2010).

Edit: I guess the Voigt Nokton would be the smallest recent one, with manual focus and completely different performance characteristics but still... And there's 7artisan's stuff. Just stumbled across the old Sony A mount 35/1.4 too, which was a little smaller still than the GM, huh... Go figure.

I’m totally agree with @Impulses.
Furthermore, for using in a E-mount cameras as this GM does, you have to add the adopter into all those DSLR lenses as well.

It is easily the smallest 1.4/35 lens for FE-mount.

FWIW, you'd only need to add an adapter to the Canon 35L II, the Tamron SP, and the Nikon (tho those first two are amongst the very best 35mm AFAIK, along with the Sigma f1.2 DN that I didn't list), the measurements/weight for the Sigma Art are for the E mount version with (essentially) the built in adapter (so subtract a few grams if you're a DSLR shooter)... The other two (Samyang/Zeiss) are mirrorless designs, there really haven't been a ton of fast 35s for mirrorless, yet.

@Scrollop Cheaper than rivals? You sure? It's more expensive than Sigma new 35mm 1.2 and twice expensive as Sigma 1.4 version, so what are you talking about?

You can believe whatever you want.
It is a free country (used to be...).
That thing you are holding in your hands is not a "Canon EOS R..." camera, that is a cellphone...
;)

More than anything, when can Sony update all FF cameras to the a7IIIS menu system?

What are you expecting from A7 IV?
What’s missing in current line of Sony full frame cameras?

They are fine bodies but lens choice in RF system is a nightmare. You can choose between superbig and superheavy sledge hammer L glass or half useful plastic crap as 85mm f2.
Today almost all new camera's are great but lenses are what make the difference. Canon is closed system and whole their philosophy regarding lens choice and crippled video specs to protect more expensive C line is a complete failure. But that is long story and I don't care what they do anymore. Just waiting for a new a7 IV and in the same day I going to camera store ;)

@honoris, a7III is great hybrid camera but fact it is too old. Pretty bad EVF, small resolution (for my needs), AF needs some improvements. Also color science is decently improved with a7 SIII and a7IV will follow that path. According to some my comparisons a7SIII has better color rendition than my EOS R. So, there is no need to rush and invest in almost 3 years old body when new one is behind corner. ;)

@catlyn, a7c is great little camera with few improvements compared with a7III BUT unfortunately it is mostly for vloggers or eventually videographers. Tiny small EVF makes this camera not a good choice for pro photographers. On the other side a7RIV is mostly photography oriented and I am now somewhere in the middle :) ...

Sony menus system sucks. End of story.

The Loxia is a marvel ... but I think I would buy the Sony 20mm today.