35/1.4 G - overlooked gem or overpriced dud?

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
womprat4
Acolyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:50 am
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

35/1.4 G - overlooked gem or overpriced dud?

Unread post by womprat4 »

So, I was in my local sony style store and they have a 35 1.4 G available for testing...so of course I did just that. This is a lens I have been fairly intrigued by; I like to shoot in low light, and I don't mind paying a premium to get premium gear if I have to (this is certainly not a cheap lens). I understand it's not the sharpest lens until around f4, but that's not so much my concern...to me overall atmosphere and image quality has a lot of factors, sharpness being just one small part of that equation.

Here's the thing: no one seems to own this lens that I know of. It appears to be somewhat regarded as bit of an overpriced, under performing novelty by some. Yet, I can't stop myself from wanting one...am I crazy to spend $1500 on this lens just cause it has a 'G' badge?! (ps...the 35 f2 isn't much interest to me as a substitute). Do you own it? Have some thoughts to share? I'm listening....

Paul
womprat4
Acolyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:50 am
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Re: 35/1.4 G - overlooked gem or overpriced dud?

Unread post by womprat4 »

Ok, I see that no one has any advice to offer...I should come clean then: I had pretty much made up my mind that I want it, I was just looking for some validation from those who have it that it's a sweet piece of glass. Anyone care to indulge me and tell me how great it is?

Cheers, Paul :)
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 35/1.4 G - overlooked gem or overpriced dud?

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

In the Minolta version it was superb. I have not used the Sony and can not comment if there is any difference. The main issue is whether or not your body will focus accurately. It is important to test the lens on a subject about 30 feet away with AF, at a wide aperture like f2.8 (not necessarily f1.4). If you can't get a sharp image, don't buy. The image it produces should be sharper than anything you are normally used to. Do not test on close-up subjects, it will always focus acceptably on these. The problems which arise are at distances over 2m. I would try to check 3m, 10m, infinity before buying.

David
womprat4
Acolyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:50 am
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Re: 35/1.4 G - overlooked gem or overpriced dud?

Unread post by womprat4 »

Thanks for the advice David. I went back to the Sony store with my memory card and fired off about 75 photos with the lens and the store demo A700, and came home to look at the results...what's the word I'm looking for here...oh yeah, disapointment, that's it.

The lens (or the camera) back focussed significantly at large apertures (2 to 2.8ish) on virtually all targets beyond 10 to 15 feet. The lens has wonderful bokeh on close focused subjects however for a 35mm lens.

In the end I certainly didn't see anything in any of the photos that made me think that this lens was worth 3 times what my standard sony zooms can produce. What's the point of a fast lens if those settings are all but useless, particularly at that price point. It's like buying the CZ 24-70 f2.8 and shooting only at f8; I mean, why would I buy a 35 f1.4 and NOT shoot with it at f2 all the time. Moments like these make me really frustrated with photography...I want to spend my money, yet, am continually disappointed with so much of the hardware I try. I just don't understand: a camera is a machine, and so is a lens. why is it so difficult to manufacture and calibrate these things to work properly, especially at these price levels. Every time I buy a lens it shouldn't be a gamble as to whether or not it will work well and focus properly. I honestly think I should be able to walk into the sony store, throw down 1500 bucks on a camera, another 1500 on a lens, put the two together and have no doubt they will perform together perfectly. I don't believe there is so much magic involved in assembling these things...so frustrating.

Enough complaining I guess...looks like I'll be sticking with my $500 low end zoom lenses. What a bummer (again).

Paul
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 35/1.4 G - overlooked gem or overpriced dud?

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

The camera is calibrated at 1.93m distance with a 50mm lens. If you want a 35mm f1.4 lens to be sharp at 5m, you have to get the body custom calibrated with the lens. Or whip the sticker off the bottom and turn the AD adjuster screws 1/3 of a turn each and then retest it. It's a permanent problems and affects almost every make, because the calibration test benches in the factories are all about 2m long. They do not set up for infinity.

David
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests