Sony lenses are very fragile, this GM zoom was no exception, it suddenly died in Asahikawa area of Hokkaido just a couple of weeks after this shooting.
The cult of lenses 2- why fanatics obsessed with rendering(updated 3):
When the FE35mm f1.8 was announced I was not very interested in that lens......studied some samples DPR and others kindly provided and I even went to Sony store to briefly test it myself and concluded it'd not be worth anything, I 'd skip it.
But a few days ago my local photographer showed it to me in person and I tested it myself a bit and I kinda felt the positive review on that lens from DPR is right. Rishi and Barney were really criticized by Nikon fanboys they are biased against Nikon, or deliberately ignoring the high price for the Sony lens. In other words, they are too benign to Sony and Canon and too strict to Nikon.....but I did not see that in their last lens review of the Sony FE35mm f1.8. I find it pretty fair to all.
They seemed quite honest and accurate, I find exactly what they said pros for the Sony as pros for the Sony in real life use. I did not have much time to test it thorough like they did, still I was quite impressed with it.
Sure it is not a perfect lens (there is no perfect lens any way), far from it, but it may be an ideal travel or street lens for many , even a superb lens for casual or more environmental portrait or pet photography as it has super fast AF and quite sharp wideopen.
It has crazy fast and super accurate AF....I do not think any other lenses that I have personally tested have this fast AF....
Nikon fanboys and some of Sony users who hate this lens for so-called boring soul-less look criticize this lens overpriced, but it is not overpriced considering all high-tech modern features and modern lens qualities it has.
One of obvious old lens fanboys at DPR commented below:
"Another one of these soulless, clinically rendering, unattractively designed, semi fast, semi compact, semi weather resistant, boldly priced me too 35mm "meh" lenses. They all look and render about the same, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Olympus, Panasonic........these days, it seems".
I guess this guy hates all the latest modern lenses except those oversized Sigma Art f1.2 or overpriced manual focus only Zeiss Loxia or some of fast Voigtlander cult lenses like the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2.
What really annoys me about this kind of comment is that they all overly glorify old lenses look as superb rendering or a great character or look, and criticize modern better corrected more serious lenses as clinical soul-less lenses......seriously give us a break.
I really hate this I call "Rendering Cult", it is just too subjective word to use for any lens review.
Maybe what you think superb rendering is mediocre rendering to us , maybe what they call superb rendering might be the worst old 1950's style rendering to some of us , who knows ? It is all personal preference, and therefore too subjective.
Many worship rave about the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 , but I find it is a bit too much of a character lens.
I much prefer so-called much more clinical looking Sony FE35mm f1.8 or Zeiss Batis 40mm f2CF......and I found reasons to keep both the Sony and the Batis in my bag for a few more weeks.
I really hate this Rendering cult , glorify every old or badly corrected character lenses , but trash optically superior more modern better corrected lenses like the Batis 40mm f2CF or the new Sony 35mm f1.8.
I mean all lens flaws of older lenses or niche lenses like Voigtlanders become " beautiful character" and accurate reproduction of more modern well corrected sharp lenses becomes "soulless" in their cult world. How pretentious can they get?
And they criticize lenses like the Sony FE35mm f1.8 , Batis 40mm f2CF, Batis 85mm f1.8E, Sony 90mm f2.8G ,etc. for their allegedly harsh or bad bokeh every time these lenses are discussed.
But lets face it, bokeh is another very super subjective quality of lenses which we can not objectively measure.....so I think we should not trash lenses for that.....maybe some prefer more structured bokeh of the Batis 40mm f2CF to the smooth creamy bokeh of the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2, which I found is the most overrated prime ever made for Sony.
Now, it is very dangerous risky to talk about anything negative about the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 SL in any lens forum as people believe the members of the lens cult are always right and know exactly what they are talking about when it comes to lens quality assessment.
Usually people use harsh bokeh (subjective) to trash other wise great lenses when they can find nothing wrong with a given lens in objective lens tests like optical bench or immatest.
I mean the Batis 40mm f2CF or the Sony FE35mm f1.8 can be very close to objectively flawless lens for many people , at least objectively measured their optical performances show that is the case. So how and what about these lenses can they criticize( if they really dislike these lenses) ?
The quality of its bokeh , or rendering as harsh or too clinical the easiest thing to criticize about when they have nothing really objectively bad to say about a given lens.
And modern lenses are optically good in most of measurable aspects of IQ , that is why these subjective old lens quality loving lens cult guys focus on 'BOKEH', 'RENDERING' and dismiss all objectively measured data.
Another annoying trend is that every time Sony, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss ,etc. announce a good lens like the FE35mm f1.8 or the Z35mm f1.8S with a very reasonable price tag, those crazy cheap old lens lovers criticize about the price of these lenses. Sure many lenses are overpriced, or oversized, but this Sony or the 35mm Nikon S is not , these are definitely reasonably priced for what it is.
One old man at DPR said:
"Sony lenses are generally more expensive than the Canon equivalents. I think $750 is expensive... canon 35mm f2 is $550....I would rather pay more for a better quality and/or smaller manual focus 35mm f2."
Well why does this guy compare a good quality optically very modern 2019 lens to a 8 year old really dated D-SLR lens?
Is it really fair to do this kind of comparisons all the time?
Lets face it most of times what you get what you pay for in lens transaction , sure there are some exceptional cases like the Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art vs the Zony 35mm f1.4ZA, but most of cases the bigger and more expensive newer lenses the better vastly so in performance.
If you really demand really near perfect Otus or Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art like performance in a compact package, then you must pay over a 5k on each lens , that is why all APO Leica primes are so expensive, and some of us find the high price of the Leicas perfectly justifiable...nothing wrong with that..
So lets be honest and try not to compare completely an outdated D-SLR lens tech with a terrible AF motor to a latest modern lens with the fastest AF in the planet...and conclude the latter is overpriced...
That is not fair.
Another annoying unfair criticism on the Sony FE35mm f1.8 kind of lenses that we see many of Mirrorless lens forums is criticize its build compared to the much more expensive lenses like the FE35mm f1.4ZA .
"Why? Most f/1.8-2 lenses don't have the more durable rugged build and are made of cheaper plastic components, and why these are so of trashy fragile quality , why not use a bit more metal? "
To me this kind of of comments the most annoying ones , as I know plastic lenses are actually tougher than those overrated old metal lenses. Honestly, this kind of guys never used lenses in a difficult challenging environment, other wise, he or she is not typing what she or he typed above.
In a super humid Okinawa wood, I found the Batis 40mm f2CF and 85mm f1.8 the toughest lenses ever made for Sony despite of usual harsh criticism on the build quality of these lenses from those who never ever use these lenses in real life.
What these lens cult members think build quality is actually perception , or feel of lens barrel quality.....so they think the more metal used in a lens the more durable it is in real life use.
But It is actually opposite: The more rubber more elastic plastic used in a lens the tougher a lens becomes in real life use. If you doubt it drop your Batis or similar lens onto grass covered ground and then do the same to your metal lens like FE35mm f1.4ZA, to see which one will die first...
And many of us do not need f1.4 or f1.2, just sharp f1.8 or f2 is fine for those of us who really care about real life usability and practical performance of lenses more than just full of perfection in their spec sheet.
For many of us who are interested moderately compact moderately fast sharp 35mm prime, it is a wonderful new addition to Sony's already respectable set of prime lineup.
I really do not understand why some people think it's got be either f1.2 or f1.4 to be a serious lens, I think some professionals might question this also.....as I saw many threads like that in Fred Miranda and other forums.
For many of us ultimate speed is not the most important quality, even f2 or f2.8 can be fine for a given focal length, and therefore the Zeiss 135mm f2.8 Batis or the Voigtlander 65mm f2 APO , or the Sony FE 100mm f2.8GM STF,etc. are so popular.
Many of us prefer the Batis 135mm APO to the Sony 135mm f1.8GM or similar Sigma Art although the Sony GM is a superb lens with over a stop of extra speed advantage over the Batis.
Anyway, IMHO, the new Sony FE35mm f1.8 is a winner , fantastic lens for many of us who are interested in using a moderately fast super sharp prime for street or travel work.
It is extremely reasonably priced for the amazing package it provides.
It is fantastically small, much smaller than the Batis 40mm f2CF, which I personally consider also small and love......
Sure it is a bit bigger than the tiny (negatively so) FE35mm f2.8ZA super overpriced lens, which I really really hated, but the new Sony without the silly fake Zeiss blue badge on it is much faster, much sharper, much faster in focusing.....so they cannot be compared.
The AF of the new lens is super fast , super accurate, I think it is one of the fastest and best focusing lenses ever made.
It takes any normal cheap 55mm filter.
It has strong tough fluorine water repellent coating....so it is super easy to clean the lens and that makes it easier to shoot it under a heavy rain storm or snow storm.
It is quite sharp even wideopen, definitely a bit better than the much overpriced Sony FE35mm f1.4ZA fake Zeiss at f1.8. And it gets really really sharp stopped down to f2.8 and on.....it peaks at f5.6 or 6.3.
And distortion is very well controlled on this lens.....All of this for just 650 USD or 67000 yen at Amazon.com (japan).......or 65600 yen at Map camera in Tokyo is an amazing bargain deal...
So how can you complain about this lens logically?
It is near impossible.
But for those member of the cult of lenses , it is a terrible another soul-less lens just like the Nikon Z35mm f1.8S, which is , in fact, another amazing lens that I really respect.
To those members of the cult of lenses, all lens flaws of older lenses or really niche Voigtlander or Loxia lenses become " a great character" and accurate reproduction of well corrected modern lenses like this Sony or any of the Batis line lenses is "soulless."
I must ask this question again: How pretentious they can get? How dishonest they have to be , they should admit that they are just too biased to see any nicheness or flaw of these old or niche lenses as super quality.....
UPDATE: Now Roger Cicala at LensRentals tested the FE35mm f1.8 and his results seem to be really positive. I think his results positively confirmed that DPR was right and all the members of the rendering cult at FM forum were wrong again.
The FE35mm f1.8 seems to be a superb lens with a set of amazing resolution figures to support that.
I was really glad I trusted my own test and DPR, not the members of the lens rendering cult.
Roger also confirmed that the FE24mm f1.4GM is indeed the best 24mm f1.4 lens ever made for any mount system.
On this one , the members of the rendering cult were right, however , if you compare it to the Zeiss Loxia 25mm f2.4 or the Sigma 28mm f1.4 at f5.6 and on the Zeiss and the Sigma are sharper than the Sony FE24mm f1.4 GM.
So if you do not need f1.4 speed at 24mm , then there are better options than the GM, but if you absolutely demand that speed at 24mm , then there is no better choice than the GM.
So congrats to Sony and us FE users. Sony seems to have been on a long roll with these new FE lenses.
To be honest , none of their newer lenses released after 2016 are bad. Most of these are actually excellent lenses.
So now it is difficult for us to go seriously wrong with any of these offerings from Sony, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Sigma , Samyang and Tamron for FE system.
UPDATE2: Now I really think cameras(sensors) are more important than lenses, even a mediocre lens is just fine on any sort of new high resolution cameras in the center and about 80 percent of frame except the far corners and edges.
So just think a lens as a natural defringing filter.
Even so called convenient zooms like FE12-24mm f4G and FE24-105mmf4G easily outsolve the 61 mp sensor in all rational test at least near the infinity range. So worrying about lens resolving power too much and not upgrading the sensor is a silly mistake. So I must say even in this sense these forums like LL and FM are misleading at beast.
DPR is more honest.
UPDATE3: another common lens forum myth is that you must need a set of very best primes to resolve a high resolution sensor properly. In real world, most lenses even the FE24-105mm f4g or anything like that easily outsolve the sensor of the A7R4. In fact, high resolution sensor will work like lens defringing filter, or more like AA filter for really high resolution primes or zooms which often produce a lot of moire on a lower resolution sensor body.
I find my Batis 135mm APO, Vaoigtlander 65, Voigtlander 110,Loxia 25 and Sony 16-35mm GM still produce a lot of moire even on my A7R4.....albeit a bit lower amount.
so even if you do not need really high resolution body, it is always better to opt for one that may or may not outsolve most of your lenses. it will reduce a lot of unwanted optical artifacts produced by modern lenses.
