Tirpitz666 wrote:
Returning to the video review, lens rendering seems quite nice, very difficult to judge if there is the similar angular bokeh or not.
Seems the jury is still out on that..
Nice to get back on track. I think my comment got lost back there. Will you take a look at the sunset shot at 2:04 and let me know if you see flare on the rocks on the left side?
eyal wrote:
Nice to get back on track. I think my comment got lost back there. Will you take a look at the sunset shot at 2:04 and let me know if you see flare on the rocks on the left side?
Having the Tamron 28-75/2.8 makes it really hard for me to get this lens, even though on paper, this is the perfect lens for me. I should really, really want this.
I will use either a ThinkTANK Retrospective 7 or even a Retrospective 10 or a Speed Freak.
hanay78 wrote:
very interesting for me the 15l thinkthank! it is comfortable to carry?
speaking of batis lenses, you mention you have a shoulder bag in which 3 of them enter. i understand one mounted, plus two additional unmounted. which bag is this?
I have a retrospective series 6l. i have lox 21, ultron 35, cron 90 and fe 55. heavy but leaving space for an additional lens. I use collapsible rubber hoods to minimize space. But with batises,... ummm, 3, with the hoods, not sure..., whithout, maybe... This even more critical in winter, with globes to keep and hot
sorry for my insistent questions, but in my experience, the best lens is the one one uses...
After spending some more time shooting my Loxia 25 and 85 today, I've concluded my dream lens would be a 35 or 40, f/2 or better, with AF and with rendering identical to those two Loxias. Unfortunately, that's not what the Batis 40 is...
I’m wondering how you know it’s not Batis 40? ;-)
If you like Loxia line, then MF is the only choice. No Loxia 40mm AF, right?
MrTMan wrote:
After spending some more time shooting my Loxia 25 and 85 today, I've concluded my dream lens would be a 35 or 40, f/2 or better, with AF and with rendering identical to those two Loxias. Unfortunately, that's not what the Batis 40 is...
MrTMan wrote:
After spending some more time shooting my Loxia 25 and 85 today, I've concluded my dream lens would be a 35 or 40, f/2 or better, with AF and with rendering identical to those two Loxias. Unfortunately, that's not what the Batis 40 is...
Unfortunately there isn't a lens that exactly match what you want so you need to decide on what compromises you can live with. Not a single lens I own is perect for me...but I make do with what I got.
MrTMan wrote:
After spending some more time shooting my Loxia 25 and 85 today, I've concluded my dream lens would be a 35 or 40, f/2 or better, with AF and with rendering identical to those two Loxias. Unfortunately, that's not what the Batis 40 is...
Different look but how about the Loxia 35/2?
Rendering smooths after f/2.5.
TheEmrys wrote:
Having the Tamron 28-75/2.8 makes it really hard for me to get this lens, even though on paper, this is the perfect lens for me. I should really, really want this.
This was my thinking was this 40 to replace my 28-75 in my AF kit but I’m still debating it so I did not pre- order the 40 yet. I have the Batis 25,85,135 so it be nice to get the 40 for all the same ergonomics but I tend to need this mid range zoom. No hurry to decide this one
Fred Miranda wrote:
Different look but how about the Loxia 35/2?
Rendering smooths after f/2.5.
Thanks Fred, I do own the Loxia 35, and I do actually quite like it. But the 25 and 85 have spoiled me. I consider the Loxia 25 and 85 to be ideal lenses, in terms of rendering, so I'd love a 35 or 40 that matched them.
MrTMan wrote:
Thanks Fred, I do own the Loxia 35, and I do actually quite like it. But the 25 and 85 have spoiled me. I consider the Loxia 25 and 85 to be ideal lenses, in terms of rendering, r Loxia 25/ 85 which I have alsoso I'd love a 35 or 40 that matched them.
I have yet to look at any samples of the 40 but pairing it with your Loxia 25/85 which I use also may not match it . Something for comparison once it’s out. I actually want the Loxia 35 to match my 25/85.
Today I went through Joshua Tree park and shot the CV 50 and my Loxia 25. I did not buy the 50 for this work but I wanted to shoot it since I just got it. I’ll post some in that thread
I preordered both the new 24mm GM and the Batis 40mm. I’ve been waiting for that allusive 35 f1.4 or f/2 that never showed up but I beginning to like the 40mm focal length a lot having used it now for awhile with the CV40. I think my new AF prime kit is complete now with 16-35 GM, 24 GM, Batis 40, Batis 85 and Batis 135 or the 100-400 GM.
I'm going to hold out for a 35mm. How Sony or Zeiss think we don't need one is driving me crazy. My brain just can't compute 40mm. 18-24-35-55, 85 etc... now that works perfectly in my head. I may wind up with the Loxia 35 eventually if there is no compact AF 35mm option. Sony did a nice job with the 24 so maybe a 35 is in the works?
stevesanacore wrote:
I'm going to hold out for a 35mm. How Sony or Zeiss think we don't need one is driving me crazy. My brain just can't compute 40mm. 18-24-35-55, 85 etc... now that works perfectly in my head. I may wind up with the Loxia 35 eventually if there is no compact AF 35mm option. Sony did a nice job with the 24 so maybe a 35 is in the works?
At this point I'm getting the distinct feeling they are actively not making one to protect sales of the 35 f1.4 and the fixed-lens 35's.
Well I go back and forth between MF lenses and AF lens but do use AF more. So for AF I have settled on the Batis family and with the 40mm will have the 18, 25, 40, 85, 135. I also own the Loxia 21, 35, 50. I also own some other primes like the 90mm macro and even the 50mm f/1.4 ZA which I have become very found of. 50 has always been special for me because it is what I shot with for almost 20+ years on my film SLRs.
Then there are my "legacy" primes that I use now and then for pure fun. Have plenty of 35mm f/2 and 50mm at f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2.
The Batis 40mm will be my second try at this focal length since I admit 35 and 50 have been my traditional focal lengths but I really want to give it a try.
BPsmith511 wrote:
At this point I'm getting the distinct feeling they are actively not making one to protect sales of the 35 f1.4 and the fixed-lens 35's.
That's not all. It looks like they are not allowing anyone else to make one either!
There is no reason for Samyang, Tamron or Tokina to skip an AF 35/2 E-mount which would a home run for them! At this point, I think it's pressure from Sony since they control the mount.
We now understand why Sigma and Zeiss didn't make one either... (L-mount agreement and ZX1 respectively)
Sony may be developing a new RX1R III and always protected their RX1 series so, they have their own reasons to skip this FL and aperture....but Sony shooters are starting to get really fed-up and there are other alternative mirrorless systems now...(All with 35/1.8-2 lenses)
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's not all. It looks like they are not allowing anyone else to make one either!
There is no reason for Samyang, Tamron or Tokina to skip an AF 35/2 E-mount which would a home run for them! At this point, I think it's pressure from Sony since they control the mount.
We now understand why Sigma and Zeiss didn't make one. (L-mount agreement and ZX1 respectively)
Sony may be developing a new RX1R III and always protected their RX1 series so, they have their own reasons to skip this FL and aperture....but Sony shooters are starting to get really fed-up and there are other alternative mirrorless systems now...(All with 35/1.8-2 lenses)...Show more →
Would you really dump all your Sony gear and jump to another brand just for a 35 f2 lens? Seems a bit drastic no?
? ;-)
I consider the Loxia 25 and 85 to be ideal lenses, in terms of rendering, so I'd love a 35 or 40 that matched them.