Jump to content

24-70 f/2.8 GM vs 35 f/1.4

Yoshi99

By Yoshi99,
in Sony Alpha Full Frame Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Yoshi99 Newbie

Yoshi99

Posted
  • Author
Posted

35mm is pretty close to 28mm so aside from being a stop faster, it won't give you much difference in usage really.

If it's between these two the 24-70 is the better choice.

 

What is it you shoot mostly?

 

A variety of things ranging from portraits to landscapes. I would also be traveling with the lens as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
EvilTed Contributor

EvilTed

Posted
Posted

35mm F1.4 has pretty bad de-centering and chromatic aberration / spherochromatism wide open.

There are lots of complaints of people going through 3+ copies and still not getting a good copy.

This puts me off buying one.

Maybe I should buy 3 copies and test them and keep the best one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathias Community Regular

Mathias

Posted
Posted

Love my 35/1.4.

Oh and no complaints about decentering here, it's very sharp and renders beautifully. A very special and versatile lens.

 

Then there's the 50/1.4 Planar which is lovely too, but AF is rather slow and noisy and it's definitely in a weight class I would say is on the limit. But image quality is beyond anything else except maybe 85GM. I love the results I get with it.

 

Have you also thought about 24-70GM and 55/1.8 combo? Or rather 16-35...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DirkB Apprentice

DirkB

Posted
Posted

At first you need to decide depending on your style what the lens needs to deliver. As you indicated size and weight doesn't matter. What about budget?

 

I would consider either 35 or 50/55mm.

The 35/1.4 Distagon basically is an awesome lense, if you can get a decent copy (I gave up finding one after 5 tries of decentered ones). Excellent colors, sharpness and bokeh. Vignetting is quite high until stopped down to f2.

The 35/2.8 Sonnar is a nice and light lens (again you need to watch for a good copy). Excellent colors. Vignetting very high, and borders need f8, if sharpness is required there.

The 55/1.8 Sonnar hype was compared to my experience a little bit overrated. Excellent colors and very good sharpness. High vignetting, above average bokeh fringing and the oof rendering not so nice as I'd expect from a fast 55mm.

The 50/1.4 Planar is acceptable from size and weight. Focus sound (same drive as 85GM, "Darth Vader Autofocus") quite loud. Excellent colors and sharpness. Fantastic oof rendering, smooth transition area. Bokeh fringing can be a matter up to f2.8.

 

Honestly all 4 are recommendable. For both focal length, 35 and 50mm, I would go for the seeing the light (f1.4). As indicated check the built quality of the Distagon. For the Planar check whether the AF sound could be annoying to you.

 

If speed of the lenses is not the main requirement to you, you may also take a look onto the zooms. The 16-35/4 is a superb wide angle zoom, and the 24-70/2.8GM would deliver a most versatile focal length range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reinhold_1 Collaborator

Reinhold_1

Posted
Posted

You should go for the Zoom 24-70 GM. From my point of view, there are three reasons for this:

1. The optical quality of the GM series from Sony is really impressive. In a test of the magazine "Alpha PHOTO" (available in Germany)  the zoom has an overall rating of 95.3% (of 100%), the 1.4/35 ZA is rated with (very good) 91.6%.

2. You already have the 2.0/28 as a prime-lens in this focus range.

3. Just for travel, a zoom-lens is much more versatile than any prime-lens.

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShotGal Explorer

ShotGal

Posted
Posted

You should go for the Zoom 24-70 GM. From my point of view, there are three reasons for this:

 

1. The optical quality of the GM series from Sony is really impressive. In a test of the magazine "Alpha PHOTO" (available in Germany)  the zoom has an overall rating of 95.3% (of 100%), the 1.4/35 ZA is rated with (very good) 91.6%.

 

2. You already have the 2.0/28 as a prime-lens in this focus range.

 

3. Just for travel, a zoom-lens is much more versatile than any prime-lens.

 

Good luck!

 

 

Agree with this - from reports the 24-70 is as good as using a prime in most cases.  Versatility is important for travel, events etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pic-pop Contributor

pic-pop

Posted
Posted

I had the 35mm 1.4 and the 50 1.4 as well as the 85 1.4. When I tried the 2.8 zoom I was sold on it and did the following. I traded the 35 and the 50 for the the 24-70 2.8 and the 55 1.8 which is light and easy to walk around with. I now have less repetition and more versatility.I would suggest you go for the zoom. I kept the 85 as it is an amazing unique lens that is lots of fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JimmyD Collaborator

JimmyD

Posted
Posted

If weight and size not an issue for you, then sell the 28mm f/2; its a high value for the money lens and a keeper if you want light and small, but its not in the same league as the other lenses discussed here. Some people really prefer primes over zooms. If that's you, then go with the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.4 (maybe I was lucky, but I have the 35 1.4 and it is simply amazing). If you are okay with zooms, get the 24-70 2.8 and the 85 1.4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
magicklens Apprentice

magicklens

Posted
Posted

I have the 24-70GM including the 35mm f1.4, 55mm f1.8 and 85mm GM primes. The fast primes are sweet for portrait work if you want to isolate the subject.  I've no complaints about any of them.  The 24-70GM is so sharp and versatile that I'll think twice about packing another lens unless I have something very specific in mind.  It's a workhorse and there's no doubt that if I could have only one lens the 24-70GM would be at the top of my list. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Richard A
      ISO Bracketing

      By Richard A · Posted

      ISO 320 is the A7R5's second base ISO setting. You will find at ISO 320 you will get better results than even ISO 200. I normally take a set of shots at 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO. I am taking 60 light frames and 10 dark frames. I don't do any adjustments to the files before stacking. I really need to get organised and do some bias frames now. Here is pretty much my first successful Milky Way shot from a few months ago. I was combatting a bit of ambient light and quite a lot of cloud but I'm pretty happy with this. It was shot using my Sigma 16-28 f2.8 which is better at astro than I had anticipated, at ISO 1600.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • popeye10
      ISO Bracketing

      By popeye10 · Posted

      Thanks for the information. Since my original post, I did some "experiments" at different iso settings. Best results were obtained at iso 320, and then increasing the exposure by four stops in Lightroom. The biggest difference compared to using a higher iso was that there was detail in dark foreground areas, while at high iso the dark areas were blocked. This is consistent with articles I've read about ISO invariance.
    • Richard A
      ISO Bracketing

      By Richard A · Posted

      I do a bit of astro photography and do a lot of research etc. on best settings to use. I have never heard of anyone using ISO bracketing! Typically, higher ISO settings such as 1600, 3200 or 6400 are used and multiple light and dark frames are stacked to reduce noise. If you are worried about noise in dark foreground areas then just use a seperate exposure for them then blend the exposures in post processing. By the way, I also have an A7R5.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...