David Arbogast wrote in post #19228607
I have not sat through Gerald Undone’s 35GM review, but he titled his review as “AN ALMOST PERFECT LENS”. That isn’t how you title a review if you got “a really bad copy.”
Just quickly scrubbing through Gerald’s review he says it’s “ridiculous” how sharp the 35GM is. Where the heck do you get the idea he got a really bad copy?
I think we might have misunderstood each other, I'm speaking of the Sigma 35 1.4 DG DN.
Some of the really big negative take-aways for me from Gerald's review were the truly crazy bad LoCA (also pointed out in DPReview's video) and the lack of sharpness at minimum focusing distance, certainly compared to the 35GM. His samples to me weren't terribly good (same for Jared Polin's imo). DPReview's findings on bokeh quality were also definitely negative imo, their samples were terrible (though they might have chosen subjects that were too challenging?). I was only half-listening to Gerald's review by the end, but he even recommended that people seeking to buy a 35 1.4 just save for the GM if they were concerned about price.
When I later watched both the SnapChick's "review" (she definitely doesn't have a very methodical approach) and Dustin Abbott's review, it seemed to me like they were reviewing a completely different lens. Dustin Abbott's samples, especially, definitely showed a lens that was very good and something that anyone shopping for a portrait 35mm lens should consider (especially at that price point).
All this to say that I'm looking forward to seeing that lens in action in more real-world situations... though with the number of people here in this thread having gotten the GM I don't know who that will be
I'll definitely hold off on any move to replace my 35 1.8 for the time being.
