I love the 35/1.4G

Quite a few people have mentioned the poor reviews on the 35/1.4G. I think it's worth mentioning that in most cases, the statements about how poor it is, simply aren't supported by the tests. For example, about a year ago, LensTip.com did reviews of both the Sony 35/1.4G and the Canon 35/1.4L. The conclusion on the Canon said:

Can the advantages of this lens compensate the disadvantages? To tell you the truth, the advantages are significant – a fantastic, sometimes even record-breaking picture quality and a lens barrel fit for the most demanding atmospheric conditions. Something no professional can ignore.

The conclusion on the Sony was rather a contrast:

Taking into account the results of this test, I am surprised that Sony continues to produce this lens. It would be perhaps better if the lens was buried and forgotten with the late Minolta company. A new lens should be designed - a simpler, smaller and cheaper instrument with 2/35 parameters, which would please the whole crowd of small and big sensors owners. Let’s hope it will happen soon and with this hope we can end for now. The further description of Sony 1.4/35 performance, taking into account its exuberant price, would be like kicking an underdog…

From those, you'd think the Sony must have done a lot worse across the board in their tests, right? Graphing their results shows just a bit different story though:



Based on this, I'd have a hard time saying the Canon was really any better than the Sony at all. Wide open (what you're really paying for) the Sony is minutely worse at the center, and minutely better at the edges. As you stop down, the Canon gets better at the edges, but the Sony gets a *lot* better at the center.

Having owned one of these for close to 20 years now, I how no trouble at all in saying that a typical objective test won't show its real strengths. Even if we look only at the objective tests, however, it's clearly a lot better lens than the comments about it would suggest.

To avoid just spouting nonsense, I'll throw in a shot from the lens in question. I guess, to be entirely honest, mine is *not* a 35/1.4G -- it's old enough that it predates the "G" designation.

I agree. My copy is sharp at 1.4.

That said, there is room for focusing errors at 1.4 and the slightly lower contrast can give the impression of softness to some.

The longer I have my 35/1.4G the more I love it. I have a very nice collection of glass, but I have to say that I like the 35/1.4 the most.

There is just "something" about it.

common wrote: Just got this Lens and having a play in a bar at the weekend - some awesome bokeh! just need to work on the autofocus

Very nice!

Edited by dennismullen - 23 March 2010 at 22:30

The anti-aliasing is not it. The Leica is simply a better lens. It is 20 years younger and built without consideration for mirror flip space or price.

This being said, the Sony / Minolta 35mm f/1.4 will make very nice landscape pictures at f/5.6 on the A900. I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference between this and what the M9 outputs in prints as large as one meter or more...

a700eric wrote: I have seen some incredible shots with this lens, but it seems to get mixed reviews.

Hey Eric, that's been discussed several times, bottomline; Reviewers tend to compare lenses on a few basic things, not those specifics what sets some gems like the 35g apart from the rest.

Just another recent discussion where i bumped in as well;
http://www.flickr.com/groups/729221@N20/discuss/72157623284874007/

I have seen some incredible shots with this lens, but it seems to get mixed reviews.

I love my 35mm, its amazing..even wide open.

35mm @ F2