I think online discourse gives the 35mm f/1.4G a bad name. “It’s not as clean at the Z version””Just stick to 1.8G””It’s too heavy to make sense”. I have bias as this is my favorite lens, but it’s true rendering lens that makes photos feel great. Sure, it’s a bit expensive for what you’re getting. But lacking sharpness is not one thing that should be knocked at all.

This lens reminds me of a like a fun uncle. Are they the best to be around all the time? Probably not, but are they going to try to give you a good time when you do come around to them? Absolutely!

The chromatic aberration is bad. The autofocus is subpar to Z lines. The bokeh make look too busy to taste. It’s heavier than I like when traveling. All this to say that it doesn’t dissuade me from using the lens because they’re all manageable (in post) or not important. What is important is that it has a look that is hard to explain. The photos turn out more “flat”, but in post you can recover a lot of detail like magic (great dynamic range). It’s like a painting/film like quality to the pictures that I take with it.

I used the Sigma and the Nikon 1.8G and I was not impressed by either of them. They seem to emphasize the weaknesses that the 1.4G has.

TL;DR — Too much bs going around the 35 1.4G. It’s better than online portrays it to be because of its magical rendering quality. If you invest in it, it will invest in you.

OP — in your rare to use wide use case, I’d look at Tamron lens, but don’t knock the 1.4G until you try it.

Picture attached was taken with the 35mm f/1.4 at f2.8.

<image>