I have an A7 plus the kit lens, 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 but I mostly use old film era lenses via Novoflex adapters.
I recently bought the Sony fit Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 and I've been very impressed with it but it's a little on the large side for me and I fancied the 35mm f1.4 when it was announced for the smaller form and slightly wider view.
Predictions and early feedback on the lens have maybe not stellar but I decided to buy one as early reports highlighted issues with the 40mm f1.2 but I haven't seen them and actually I think that lens is very very good. So, hoping that the 35mm f1.4 would be better than expected I placed my order and if it was only a match for my old Rokkor's, Zuiko's and FD's I'd be happy enough as at least I'd have a new well made and compact 35mm f1.4 that'd mount straight onto my A7 without an adapter.
Here are my thoughts...
- The build and handling are great.
- I'm not very worried about pincusion or barel distortion so I haven't looked for it.
- There's vignetting but it's within the range that my software (CS5) can correct.
.- I expected some blooming around lighter subject at f1.4 maybe in line with what I've seen from old f1.2-f1.4 lenses but it seems very good.
- I expected fringing with bright / backlit subjects but although there's sometimes a tiny amount it's very good.
- It's sharp in the central area at wide apertures and sharp across the frame at f5 with only the very corners showing some smearing, the corners are a bit better at f8-f10.
- Against the Sony 35mm f2.8, the Sony is good into the very corners at f5 and even better at f8, the Voigtlander at f8 can't match the Sony at f5 but this is at 100% and for normal viewing I think it's pretty good at f5 and better at f8/10. Brick wall shots look ok
- There isn't a great difference between the Voigtlander and the Sony bokeh at f2.8, IMO. At f1.x the Voigtlander looks busy with a subject such as flowers and twigs etc but for other stuff it's perfectly ok, IMO.
- I don't know what T stop the Sony and Voigtlander are but maybe the latter has a teeny bit less DoF at f2.8. I could be wrong.
Things that impress...
The build and handling.
It's sharp at f1.4.
Stopped down a bit it's sharp across the frame.
Next to no blooming around lighter things at f1.4.
Next to no fringing with backlit stuff.
Little CA at f1.4.
Resistance to flare seems good.
Nice sunstars.
Not so good.
At f5 the blurred corners are about 150 x 150 pixels and if you tighten your acceptance criteria maybe 300 pixels so I doubt anyone but us obsessive geeks will notice in a whole picture.
The very corners are only getting to be a match for what the Sony 2.8 can do at f5 at f10.
f1.x bokeh can look messy with the wrong subjects but is pretty much in line with what I expected from a 35mm at f1.x, at f2.8 it seems to be about the same as the Sony and would you want to shoot flowers, leaves and twigs at f1.x with a 35mm anyway?
So, I don't think that this lens will suit pixel peeping landscape or f1.x flower and hedge shooting guys and girls but for other stuff it's very good especially if you like nice manual lenses. IMO it's not as good as the 40mm f1.2 but still a good lens.
