Reading mode: Light Dark

Fast 35mm lenses

Go to last post
AeroPhotographer

AeroPhotographer

Senior Member
Messages
1,162
Reaction score
1,012
Location
Silicon Valley
I already have the Sony 35mm f1.8 which is a very good lens. But I thought I might like a faster 35, but only if it's not heavy. The Sony 35mm f1.4 is a great lens, but at 524g, it's heavier than I want to walk around with. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton SE at 340g might do, but reviewers say it's hazy at f1.2, ok at f2.0, and don't say how it is at f1.4. It must also be stopped down quite a lot to sharpen the edges.

I read Reeve's comments on the cheap and light Pergear 35mm f1.4. They wrote that it's poor, but capable of shooting some good shots. I bought it and it arrived today. It is so crappy that I can't imagine ever bothering to mount it again. I'll send it back. But that got me thinking .... "Why would I ever care if my 35mm lens were f1.4 vs f1.8? I can't think of a situation where the half stop matters.

So I'll ask those of you who own fast 35mm lenses. Can you suggest a situation where 35mm f1.4 matters vs 35mm f1.8?

Looking forward to your comments.

Alan
 
Last edited:
AeroPhotographer said:
I already have the Sony 35mm f1.8 which is a very good lens. But I thought I might like a faster 35, but only if it's not heavy. The Sony 35mm f1.4 is a great lens, but at 524g, it's heavier than I want to walk around with. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton SE at 340g might do, but reviewers say it's hazy at f1.2, ok at f2.0, and don't say how it is at f1.4. It must also be stopped down quite a lot to sharpen the edges.

I read Reeve's comments on the cheap and light Pergear 35mm f1.4. They wrote that it's poor, but capable of shooting some good shots. I bought it and it arrived today. It is so crappy that I can't imagine ever bothering to mount it again. I'll send it back. But that got me thinking .... "Why would I ever care if my 35mm lens were f1.4 vs f1.8? I can't think of a situation where the half stop matters.

So I'll ask those of you who own fast 35mm lenses. Can you suggest a situation where 35mm f1.4 matters vs 35mm f1.8?

Looking forward to your comments.

Alan
Click to expand...
I had Sony's 35/1.8. It was fine, as was my Sony 85/1.8. But, I sold both of them for Samyang's 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 MkI because, as an event shooter, I often work in extremely dim conditions where I don't want to, or can't, use flash, and that extra 2/3 stop makes the difference between sharp and slightly soft. Also, there are situations where I want to pick an individual out of a group by throwing everything/everyone else out of focus. This works noticeably better with the 35 at f1.4.

Outside of event work, I rarely want f1.4, so I have Samyang's 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 as more portable alternatives for going walkabout.
 
Last edited:
I bought the 35GM (and later sold the Sony 35/1.8, kept the Samyang 45/1.8) for a good variety of reasons besides that extra 2/3rds stop tbh, and I haven't regretted it. The flare resistance on the GM is particularly good, and out of all the AF options f2 or faster I think only the two Sony options achieve a similarly high max magnification (which I find useful). LoCA was occasionally annoying on the f1.8 Sony and there's 35s with better rendering IMO (Sigma 35/2, the GM), but that just amounts to being picky.

TBH the system went from having no great/fast 35mm options pre-2019 to being inundated in them, each one makes minor compromises but none of the ones that came out since then are awful, most are good to great IMO. I'm kinda surprised you hated the Pergear so much, based on what I'd read. I've got an even cheaper TTArtisan 50/2 that I quite like. If you want something better corrected, there's the Cosina Voigtlander 35/2 APO-Lanthar at ~350g.

I think if you have a good sample of the Sony 35/1.8 and you like it's IQ then it's worth hanging unto it, smaller stuff like the 40/2.5 G makes more compromises. The GM was on the upper bound of what I like for size/weight, if it wasn't as good as it is I would've had more trouble accepting the extra bulk.
 
Last edited:
It's usually not only about difference f1.8/f1.4 (but could be handy for small extra smoothness of bokeh or faster shutter speed you can use). Manufacturers often produce f1.4 version as a "PRO" with better build quality, extra features and better image quality - sharper, less aberations etc.

If you look for compactness, better to stay with your f1.8 version though.
 
A couple of other tidbits:

The APSC Pergear 35mm f1.6 is a superb lens. But this thread is about FF.

I was shooting a lot with my Batis 40mm f2 and liked it. Then I realized that my Sony 35mm f1.8 was substantially lighter and slightly sharper. Suddenly the 40mm seemed silly to me, even though Fred Miranda has written that it would be his choice if limited to a single lens. I can always crop 35mm to 40mm FOV with only slight loss of pixels. But of course, I can't crop 40 to 35 and 35 has long been my favorite FOV.
 
AeroPhotographer said:
I already have the Sony 35mm f1.8 which is a very good lens. But I thought I might like a faster 35, but only if it's not heavy. The Sony 35mm f1.4 is a great lens, but at 524g, it's heavier than I want to walk around with. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton SE at 340g might do, but reviewers say it's hazy at f1.2, ok at f2.0, and don't say how it is at f1.4. It must also be stopped down quite a lot to sharpen the edges.

I read Reeve's comments on the cheap and light Pergear 35mm f1.4. They wrote that it's poor, but capable of shooting some good shots. I bought it and it arrived today. It is so crappy that I can't imagine ever bothering to mount it again. I'll send it back. But that got me thinking .... "Why would I ever care if my 35mm lens were f1.4 vs f1.8? I can't think of a situation where the half stop matters.

So I'll ask those of you who own fast 35mm lenses. Can you suggest a situation where 35mm f1.4 matters vs 35mm f1.8?

Looking forward to your comments.

Alan
Click to expand...
Hi,

I had the Fuji 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 for my Fuji system I used before Sony. I very rarely used f1.4 and eventually sold them all - replaced by the Fuji 16/2.8, 23/2, 27/2.8 pancake, 30/2.8 Macro and 50/2. No regrets, ever - so it didn't matter to me. A few years later I switched to Sony FF and opted straight for primes of modest speed. Again, no regrets.

It all depends on your interests, subjects and style. Using slower lenses worked for me because my interests were (and still are) travel, hiking, landscapes, and nature. I stop down far more often than I open up. I appreciate lower kit weight because I have to carry it for long periods of time, often with a full pack. And I rarely take images of people beyond casual family and friends'. I appreciate the portraits and sports images other photographers take with fast lenses, but I just don't do that kind of work.

I'm a bit dubious about the frequent references one reads here to needing fast lenses for low light..... Having f0.95, f1, f1.2 or f1.4 certainly deals better with subject movement, but there's a caveat that rarely gets mentioned : It still depends what your shooting. It only works if the image doesn't require deeper DOF than the aperture offers. And there isn't much. Fine for people, but not everything. Decades ago, I worked as a photographer for a few years, and I did quite a few interiors for advertising images. If you have to shoot a 'whole of room' restaurant shot in low light with all the tables laid, candles, settings, etc, or a showroom displaying flooring, or say bathroom settings, etc, you're going to be stopping down a long way. Forget f1.4 - stop down, crack out the tripod and the lights.....

There is another argument that is also often run..... "Buy a fast lens - you can always stop it down. You can't open up the slower lens." This is literally true, but not contextually helpful. 1) If you never actually use the faster aperture, its redundant. You wasted your money and schlepped its weight around for nothing. And 2) You'll never hear this argument run by anyone who loves weight critical pursuits..... Extended travel, climbing, multi-night hiking, cycle-touring, kayaking, etc. A kit of fast lenses can quickly become prohibitively heavy.

My 35mm for my Sony system is the Sigma 35/2. I'm happy with it. I still rarely in fact shoot it at f2. Its not the lightest of Sigma's i-Series lenses. If Sony had announced a 35/2.8 in the 'Tiny G' series, I would probably have bought that instead. (I don't like the ZA.) I bought the 40/2.5G and often substitute that for both the 35/2 and 50/2.5. I find a kit of the A7CR with a the Sigma i24/3.5, 40G and i90/2.8 quite liberating.....

Don't know if any of that helps...... In the end, it just comes down to what you like.

Cheers, Rod
 
Last edited:
Typically you use a 35/1.4 for subject isolation at a distance in landscapes or group portraits. You can do more extreme isolation close up if you are in a confined space. F1.4 lenses are often designed to be better at f1.4 than f1.8 lenses at f1.8.

You can use f1.4 lenses in low light, provided you can handle the depth of field.

The ultimate fast 35mm is the Sigma 35/1.2.

I eventually settled on a Sigma 35/2 because it is better at f2.2 than the Sony 35/1.8 and way better than my copy of the Samyang 35/1.8. Looking at reviews I'd say there are good and bad copies of the Sony and Samyang f1.8s.

My fast 35mm is an adapted Tamron 35/1.4 SP, which is huge, was cheaper used, and only comes out when I need it.

If you intend to use a lens for subject isolation, look at sample imsges. at different apertures and background distances to make sure you are happy with the bokeh.

A
 
AeroPhotographer said:
I already have the Sony 35mm f1.8 which is a very good lens. But I thought I might like a faster 35, but only if it's not heavy. The Sony 35mm f1.4 is a great lens, but at 524g, it's heavier than I want to walk around with. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton SE at 340g might do, but reviewers say it's hazy at f1.2, ok at f2.0, and don't say how it is at f1.4. It must also be stopped down quite a lot to sharpen the edges.

I read Reeve's comments on the cheap and light Pergear 35mm f1.4. They wrote that it's poor, but capable of shooting some good shots. I bought it and it arrived today. It is so crappy that I can't imagine ever bothering to mount it again. I'll send it back. But that got me thinking .... "Why would I ever care if my 35mm lens were f1.4 vs f1.8? I can't think of a situation where the half stop matters.

So I'll ask those of you who own fast 35mm lenses. Can you suggest a situation where 35mm f1.4 matters vs 35mm f1.8?

Looking forward to your comments.

Alan
Click to expand...
I own the 35mm f/1.4 GM. Best 35mm I've ever owned or used, but if I'm being honest, I probably would have done fine with the "i"-series Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN, for less than half the price of the Sony GM, and with a 200g weight savings, and overall been mostly-satisfied with both optical and operational (i.e. AF) performance.

The top-of-the-line f/1.4 lenses such as the GM do for the money usually deliver more than just that f/1.4 maximum aperture. They usually provide better AF, and better optical performance at f/2 and f/2.8. At f/2, that f/1.4 GM has the advantage of being used one stop down, whereas the Sigma f/2 is being used wide open, with the non-optimality for the Sigma that use wide-open usually implies. As others have also mentioned, better bokeh.

Still, the question remains about how much of any lens' better performance will actually be seen by either photographer or viewer. Much photography is only being seen on-screen, and a 4K monitor or TV, no matter how big, is only displaying 2160 lines vertically, 3840 lines horizontally, and only needs about 8 megapixels to do so. Of non-pros, many who print seldom if ever go bigger than the A4/8.5x11-inch size they can get from their basic home-oriented all-in-one printer. And as print size ramps up beyond that, fewer and fewer photographs get printed at each larger size.

Furthermore, not every shot needs or even benefits from a bright aperture. Unless the photographer is shoe-horning every one of his/her images into an identical aesthetic, I'd expect a distribution of aperture sizes to be employed across one's photography. By the time one gets down to f/5.6, I challenge anyone to tell the difference, in most cases, between the results from a GM and a Sigma "i"-series lens.

So there you have it. Yes, the better, brighter GM lenses are objectively technically better, but are providing diminishing returns against cost, and even less benefit if evaluated perceptually. No doubt, an f/2 (or in the case of their 90, f/2.8) Sigma "i"-series lens is a far better value. For the price of the new Sony 85mm f/1.4 GM II, I could buy almost three Sigma "i"-series f/2 lenses. And I don't think my photography would be noticeably worse for it.

As for f/1.4 lenses from Samyang or some of the Chinese manufacturers, certainly lower cost than the GMs, but usually appreciably-worse resolution and flare control relative to both the GMs and Sigmas, so as I see it, no benefit over a Sigma f/2 unless lighting conditions are so bad that you really need the f/1.4 aperture, or (sometimes) want a lens with no aspheric elements for bokeh-related reasons. I view them as one-(or sometimes two-) trick-ponies. Plus often sample variance issues, and at my age, I don't want to waste my time with that.
 
Last edited:
Jacques Cornell said:
... I often work in extremely dim conditions where I don't want to, or can't, use flash, and that extra 2/3 stop makes the difference between sharp and slightly soft.
Click to expand...
I shoot poorly lit concerts on small stages in dive bars. I have the Sony 35/1.4GM and I imagine my experience with it echoes yours. In my opinion, it is only a little bigger and heavier than my Sony 20/1.8G and I don't have a problem using it as a walkaround on my a7Rv.
 
Rod McD said:
AeroPhotographer said:
So I'll ask those of you who own fast 35mm lenses. Can you suggest a situation where 35mm f1.4 matters vs 35mm f1.8?

Looking forward to your comments.

Alan
Click to expand...
Hi,

I had the Fuji 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 for my Fuji system I used before Sony. I very rarely used f1.4 and eventually sold them all - replaced by the Fuji 16/2.8, 23/2, 27/2.8 pancake, 30/2.8 Macro and 50/2. No regrets, ever - so it didn't matter to me. A few years later I switched to Sony FF and opted straight for primes of modest speed. Again, no regrets.

It all depends on your interests, subjects and style. Using slower lenses worked for me because my interests were (and still are) travel, hiking, landscapes, and nature. I stop down far more often than I open up. I appreciate lower kit weight because I have to carry it for long periods of time, often with a full pack. And I rarely take images of people beyond casual family and friends'. I appreciate the portraits and sports images other photographers take with fast lenses, but I just don't do that kind of work.

I'm a bit dubious about the frequent references one reads here to needing fast lenses for low light..... Having f0.95, f1, f1.2 or f1.4 certainly deals better with subject movement, but there's a caveat that rarely gets mentioned : It still depends what your shooting. It only works if the image doesn't require deeper DOF than the aperture offers. And there isn't much. Fine for people, but not everything. Decades ago, I worked as a photographer for a few years, and I did quite a few interiors for advertising images. If you have to shoot a 'whole of room' restaurant shot in low light with all the tables laid, candles, settings, etc, or a showroom displaying flooring, or say bathroom settings, etc, you're going to be stopping down a long way. Forget f1.4 - stop down, crack out the tripod and the lights.....

There is another argument that is also often run..... "Buy a fast lens - you can always stop it down. You can't open up the slower lens." This is literally true, but not contextually helpful. 1) If you never actually use the faster aperture, its redundant. You wasted your money and schlepped its weight around for nothing. And 2) You'll never hear this argument run by anyone who loves weight critical pursuits..... Extended travel, climbing, multi-night hiking, cycle-touring, kayaking, etc. A kit of fast lenses can quickly become prohibitively heavy.

My 35mm for my Sony system is the Sigma 35/2. I'm happy with it. I still rarely in fact shoot it at f2. Its not the lightest of Sigma's i-Series lenses. If Sony had announced a 35/2.8 in the 'Tiny G' series, I would probably have bought that instead. (I don't like the ZA.) I bought the 40/2.5G and often substitute that for both the 35/2 and 50/2.5. I find a kit of the A7CR with a the Sigma i24/3.5, 40G and i90/2.8 quite liberating.....

Don't know if any of that helps...... In the end, it just comes down to what you like.

Cheers, Rod
Click to expand...
BRAVO ROD!

It's tiresome to read about fast heavy lenses as if their weight and shallow DOF didn't exist.
 
Last edited:
AeroPhotographer said:
Rod McD said:
AeroPhotographer said:
So I'll ask those of you who own fast 35mm lenses. Can you suggest a situation where 35mm f1.4 matters vs 35mm f1.8?

Looking forward to your comments.

Alan
Click to expand...
Hi,

I had the Fuji 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 for my Fuji system I used before Sony. I very rarely used f1.4 and eventually sold them all - replaced by the Fuji 16/2.8, 23/2, 27/2.8 pancake, 30/2.8 Macro and 50/2. No regrets, ever - so it didn't matter to me. A few years later I switched to Sony FF and opted straight for primes of modest speed. Again, no regrets.

It all depends on your interests, subjects and style. Using slower lenses worked for me because my interests were (and still are) travel, hiking, landscapes, and nature. I stop down far more often than I open up. I appreciate lower kit weight because I have to carry it for long periods of time, often with a full pack. And I rarely take images of people beyond casual family and friends'. I appreciate the portraits and sports images other photographers take with fast lenses, but I just don't do that kind of work.

I'm a bit dubious about the frequent references one reads here to needing fast lenses for low light..... Having f0.95, f1, f1.2 or f1.4 certainly deals better with subject movement, but there's a caveat that rarely gets mentioned : It still depends what your shooting. It only works if the image doesn't require deeper DOF than the aperture offers. And there isn't much. Fine for people, but not everything. Decades ago, I worked as a photographer for a few years, and I did quite a few interiors for advertising images. If you have to shoot a 'whole of room' restaurant shot in low light with all the tables laid, candles, settings, etc, or a showroom displaying flooring, or say bathroom settings, etc, you're going to be stopping down a long way. Forget f1.4 - stop down, crack out the tripod and the lights.....

There is another argument that is also often run..... "Buy a fast lens - you can always stop it down. You can't open up the slower lens." This is literally true, but not contextually helpful. 1) If you never actually use the faster aperture, its redundant. You wasted your money and schlepped its weight around for nothing. And 2) You'll never hear this argument run by anyone who loves weight critical pursuits..... Extended travel, climbing, multi-night hiking, cycle-touring, kayaking, etc. A kit of fast lenses can quickly become prohibitively heavy.

My 35mm for my Sony system is the Sigma 35/2. I'm happy with it. I still rarely in fact shoot it at f2. Its not the lightest of Sigma's i-Series lenses. If Sony had announced a 35/2.8 in the 'Tiny G' series, I would probably have bought that instead. (I don't like the ZA.) I bought the 40/2.5G and often substitute that for both the 35/2 and 50/2.5. I find a kit of the A7CR with a the Sigma i24/3.5, 40G and i90/2.8 quite liberating.....

Don't know if any of that helps...... In the end, it just comes down to what you like.

Cheers, Rod
Click to expand...
BRAVO ROD!

It's tiresome to read about fast heavy lenses as if their weight and shallow DOF didn't exist.
Click to expand...
I don't think shallow DoF is that hard to manage on a 35/1.4... Basically the same as a 45/1.8. The extra (almost 2x) weight is definitely there tho, one pays progressively more for any gains on AF glass.
 
Impulses said:
Impulses said:
BRAVO ROD!

It's tiresome to read about fast heavy lenses as if their weight and shallow DOF didn't exist.
Click to expand...
I don't think shallow DoF is that hard to manage on a 35/1.4... Basically the same as a 45/1.8. The extra (almost 2x) weight is definitely there tho, one pays progressively more for any gains on AF glass.
Click to expand...
I agree that as focal length becomes shorter, DOF rapidly increases. In fact, for a constant distance from the focal point:

DOF is proportional to f# divided by lens Focal Length squared.

So 35mm at f1.4 has the same DOF as a 45mm f2.3, which is even more favorable than you suggest. So you have a good point. Although my "It's tiresome" statement wasn't meant to be confined to 35mm.

Things can get a bit confusing here. Rod and I were complaining about shallow DOF resulting from fast apertures. But of course that's prized in many situations.

The formula above is a reminder that when seeking shallow DOF, the easiest way is longer focal length. For the same distance to the focal point, 50mm f2.8 has the same DOF as 35mm f1.4. And 85mm f8 also has about the same DOF as 35mm f1.4. That is the power of focal length squared. But even when two different focal lenses have the same DOF, they don't necessarily have the same bokeh. Bokeh also depends on the distance to the background.
 
Last edited:
AeroPhotographer said:
AeroPhotographer said:
AeroPhotographer said:
BRAVO ROD!

It's tiresome to read about fast heavy lenses as if their weight and shallow DOF didn't exist.
Click to expand...
I don't think shallow DoF is that hard to manage on a 35/1.4... Basically the same as a 45/1.8. The extra (almost 2x) weight is definitely there tho, one pays progressively more for any gains on AF glass.
Click to expand...
I agree that as focal length becomes shorter, DOF rapidly increases. In fact, for a constant distance from the focal point:

DOF is proportional to f# divided by lens Focal Length squared.
Click to expand...
Wait, why squared?

I know a crop's resolution is MP divided by focal length squared, but I've never seen that applied to DoF...
AeroPhotographer said:
So 35mm at f1.4 has the same DOF as a 45mm f2.3, which is even more favorable than you suggest. So you have a good point. Although my "It's tiresome" statement wasn't meant to be confined to 35mm.
Click to expand...
The way I usually visualize it is simply FL/f-stop so 35/1.4 = 45/1.8 = 25...
AeroPhotographer said:
Things can get a bit confusing here. Rod and I were complaining about shallow DOF resulting from fast apertures. But of course that's prized in many situations.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with Rod too, but ultimately it comes down to use case and personal preference, as he said.
AeroPhotographer said:
The formula above is a reminder that when seeking shallow DOF, the easiest way is longer focal length.
Click to expand...
The easiest way is not only compatible with other artistic goals tho, and the easiest way is actually bringing the subject in closer and pushing the background out, but again, not always feasible...
AeroPhotographer said:
For the same distance to the focal point, 50mm f2.8 has the same DOF as 35mm f1.4.
Click to expand...
Why would you shoot at the same distance with different focal lengths tho? Even so, the potential to isolate the subject is about the same with a 35/1.4 as with a 50/2, in fact if you crop by about 1.4x into a shot made at 35/1.4 what do you get? Bingo, something with the apparent DoF and light gathering ability of a 50/2.
AeroPhotographer said:
And 85mm f8 also has about the same DOF as 35mm f1.4.
Click to expand...
~85/3.4
AeroPhotographer said:
That is the power of focal length squared. But even when two different focal lenses have the same DOF, they don't necessarily have the same bokeh. Bokeh also depends on the distance to the background.
Click to expand...
Sure, and also dependent on the rendering of any particular lens, bringing us full circle to why some may prefer faster glass. It's not always solely about the extra speed but about other less obvious advantages that faster glass may have... Less double outlines, onion ringing, cat's eye, LoCA (which can impact bokeh), etc.
 
Last edited:
AeroPhotographer said:
AeroPhotographer said:
AeroPhotographer said:
DOF is proportional to f# divided by lens Focal Length squared.
Click to expand...
Wait, why squared?
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

But note that symbols are different. For example wiki uses f for focal length, I use F and you use FL
Click to expand...
Thanks... And you're just throwing out the circle of confusion and distance to subject? Why are you shooting different FL at the same distance again?
 
Last edited:
As an Rx1 owner I have always wondered why that lens is not available.
 
i8z said:
As an Rx1 owner I have always wondered why that lens is not available.
Click to expand...
Hi,

In the RX1, a large part of the optics sit inside the sensor chamber and the rear element is apparently very close to the sensor. I've read that this wouldn't be feasible with an interchangeable lens.

R
 
Rod McD said:
i8z said:
As an Rx1 owner I have always wondered why that lens is not available.
Click to expand...
Hi,

In the RX1, a large part of the optics sit inside the sensor chamber and the rear element is apparently very close to the sensor. I've read that this wouldn't be feasible with an interchangeable lens.

R
Click to expand...
This explains why fixed-lens compacts generally can offer brighter lenses in smaller packages. For example, Panasonic's LX100 has an MFT sensor (slightly cropped) and goes to f1.7. To get close to this light gathering with an MFT ILC, you need to ditch the kit lens and go with a much larger, heavier and more expensive "pro" f2.8 zoom. This makes cameras like the RX1, LX100 and LX10 actually quite capable low-light cameras. You need a lot more camera to do better. There's no way the LX100's itty bitty pancake zoom could be made to work on an MFT ILC body.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top