On the one hand, zero LoCa on the 40 makes me inclined to buy it, while on the other the nicer bokeh of the 35 makes me inclined that way instead. I'm also struggling with this same question. The thing is, the 35mm 1.2 is ALSO very sharp and with much smoother bokeh to my eyes so I kept the 35mm 1.2 for my portrait work. I had both and the Sigma 40mm 1.4 is sharper which is also confirmed by Lensrentals which is my favorite place for comparison due to their multi-copy testing. and thatвЂ™s the price, at least right now.

There is a more palpable difference though. I have/had both and I agree with that notion. I would focus on if they have the capabilities that you need to shoot what you want (close focusing, focus speed, field of view) rather than sharpness IMHO. Any great photo would be great with either, and any photo would be poor with either. There's no effective difference for any photo you would take other than the field of view and minor impact to the level of blur to your background. Possibly true, but at that weight it is a non sense lens apart studio for most. So, unless you are after technical perfection, 35mm seems the better choice. Still, most people would probably better off with the 35 due to the better balance of the heft, the greater F-stop number, and the native mirrorless functionality.ДЇrom what I've read, in short 40mm is better technically (sharpness, correction, etc.) but has worse rendering (if you search this forum, you should find somebody who actually sold 40mm because of harsh bokeh/transition zones) and handling (weight & weight distribution). Most likely due to the fact that the 40 can comfortably project an image circle large enough for crop medium format. Note how well the sharpness falloff is and how little astigmatism the 40 shows. pretty much any standard lens ever made at this point.Д®ven closing the 35 down to 1.4 shows inferior performance than the 40. For him the 35mm is the one to buy on Sony E-mount.ДЄccording to lensrentals, the average 40 will be a better performer than. But the first, has extra third f-stop, has much better mirrorless af, the aperture ring, function button, is lower weight, etc. In the last review (either 35mm f1.2 or 40mm art) by Dustin Abott he says he vastly recommends the 35mm over 40mm. Aberrations are also less noticeable on the О±7R III.ДЄs some have mentioned, Bastian and Dustin Abbott have also made some comparisons, which you could check out.Д«astian did a comparison on Phillipe Reeve's website : What's different is that they potentially could perform better on a higher resolution sensor, if they haven't already reached the limits of a previous one. The lenses should however, theoretically, perform similarly on the О±7R III. I have tested several lenses and have come to the same conclusions, like the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DN Art, Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8, VoigtlГ¤nder 21mm f/1.4, Sony 35mm f/1.8, VoigtlГ¤nder 50mm f/2 APO, VoigtlГ¤nder 65mm f/2 Macro APO, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, VoigtlГ¤nder 110mm f/2.5 APO Macro, Sony 200-600mm f/5-6.3 G OSS and so on.ДЄnyway, here's a link to their review if you are interested:Д«ut keep in mind that these are tested on the О±7R IV. I agree with many conclusions on this site as well. I would go for the 35mm f/1.2, as it's faster, bit sharper in the corners at wider apertures, got more features, and it being lighter. They both are first perfect in the center at f/2.8 and all around at f/4 on the О±7R IV. They are however similiar in the center at any aperture, both being perfect in the center wide open, but the 35mm f/1.2 gets perfect from corner to corner at f/2 on the О±7R III (or О±7R II for that matter), while the 40mm f/1.4 gets perfect at f/2.8 on the same sensor. 35mm 1.2 should be better in tracking eyes?ДЄccording to Sony Alpha Blog's tests of many lenses on the Sony О±7R IV, the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN Art is both sharper and faster than the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG Art at wider apertures in the corners.

Sigma 35mm 1.2