Yeah this 35 1.8/2 thing is getting quite ridiculous, especially if it really should turn out true that not only Sony is not doing itself for its commercial reasons but is actually preventing other manufacturers to do so, guess would be almost a primer in photography history for what I know..
For sure the fact that Samyang has done two 35 with exactly the same aperture as Sony's ones looks to be more than a coincidence..
As far as Zeiss is concerned, guess that they are done with the 35 FL with the release of this Batis 40/2, do not see them release anything close to it in the short term to avoid cannibalizing sales (and taking away attention to that idiotic ZX1 that probably hardly anyone will buy to begin with..)
The video review has me exited. As soon as its up, I’ll be pre-ordering the Batis 40. I think the main competition for it in my bag will be the zony 50/1.4. Wish that darn thing wasn’t so good, because it weighs a ton.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Me personally? No, but I can't talk for others and Sony is not alone anymore.
As a matter of fact, I prefer 40mm.
For most of my travel situations the 35 2.8 does just fine. I'm most likely going to purchase the Batis 40 for situations where the light is getting dim. The 35 2.8 is so darn small and light and does produce nice images...almost a perfect travel lens.
I ended up ordering the 40 and the new 24...I have a ton of glass in that general range but none that are exactly the same FL...Will be interesting to see which glass stays, the 40 or the Zony 50, like Norwegiandude above, I love my 50 but it's huge. Then there's the 24GM or the 25 Batis....I think I'm getting spoiled with all this amazing glass.
chez wrote:
For most of my travel situations the 35 2.8 does just fine. I'm most likely going to purchase the Batis 40 for situations where the light is getting dim. The 35 2.8 is so darn small and light and does produce nice images...almost a perfect travel lens.
Yes for sure. The 35/2.8 is a great choice for traveling.
To be honest I might, but I’m also not deeply invested in E glass. Prefer adapting old lenses. I’ve actually already stepped back so to speak, using an A7II and RX1R while waiting to see what was announced.
I love Sony but Nikon, with its 35/1.8, early ravings about the 24-70, Non-CPU Lens Data and a better EVF... I may well get it instead on an A7III. So I guess I’m not dumping Sony just for a 35, but then if Sony had one and I didn’t have to deal with the ergonomics I’d the RX1 I probably would t leave So y for just those other things either.
chez wrote:
Would you really dump all your Sony gear and jump to another brand just for a 35 f2 lens? Seems a bit drastic no?
Myself if I was not using my gear for work, I’d probably be shooting the the Hassy. I loved shooting medium format images but when I did it was not as compact as these new units from Fuji and Hassy. Bigger problem for me is the versatility of those systems as they can be limiting on for certain jobs so I would still need a Sony system. I could probably do it with just my AF kit with the 25,28-75,85,135 and maybe keep my 15 but have to sell my MF kit and go with a Hassy and just 3 lenses. Of course there is the money side of it too. I could downgrade to a A7iii as well. But I’m not that thrilled with going back with that kind of investment. Now if I was teaching workshops again than I diffently would. Frankly I would like to go back to doing workshops and slow down on commercial work. I’m kind of over it
Matt Kerby wrote:
I ended up ordering the 40 and the new 24...I have a ton of glass in that general range but none that are exactly the same FL...Will be interesting to see which glass stays, the 40 or the Zony 50, like Norwegiandude above, I love my 50 but it's huge. Then there's the 24GM or the 25 Batis....I think I'm getting spoiled with all this amazing glass.
Totally agree, we are entrenched in some real first world-problems here with all these awesome options available. After selling my 24-105, Batis 25, Nikkor 58/1.4 and Batis 85 - which were all under-used - I ordered the 24GM and will order the Batis 40 asap. That will leave me with the Batis 18, Loxia 21, 24 GM, Batis 40, CV 40, Zony 50 and the Batis 135. The only thing I know for sure is that one or more of those will have to go. Too much overlap.
The Batis 40 is exiting. I was hoping it would be a CV 40 with autofocus that starts at f2. The sample images I have seen so far shows it is probably not. But I have faith in Zeiss, and I really think this lens will be better than what we have seen so far. The video review had some pictures in it that really have great renderings both in and out of focus. Really hope this lens delivers. Some of the Zeiss-lenses have been an acquired taste for a lot of people. I for one don't regret getting the Batis 135 early on. That lens got a lot of flack for not being 1.8 or 2, but I love it for being almost perfect optically in a really light and compact package. Do I wish it was 1.8; yes. I tried the Sigma, its great - but twice as heavy and really cumbersome. Maybe the 135 GM will be F2 and a good compromise between the two in size - if so that will end up in my bag too.
The Zony 50 is great at everything. Everything. It also doubles as a great 75mm in asp-c. It is just too big and heavy. It feels like I am lugging around my old D800 with 24-70/2.8 again. I get that this probably is about as small as you can make a 50mm lens this close to optical perfection with AF, but I really hope the Batis 40 can make me forget about this one.
Saying that 50mm is a competitor for 40mm isn't far off from saying that 50mm is competing with 35mm. In some way it's true as they are fighting for a normal walkaround lens spot, but it's more common that ownership of both 35mm and 50mm is justified. So why not both 50mm and 40mm? They might be too close to each other in the same kit for people who enjoy using 35+50 pair, but different enough to form separate kits the same way 35+50 do:
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.
I would never be in the market for either of those. The 1.4 has a poor reputation and is way too big and heavy for travel. Or buy and carry another body just to have a 35mm lens? Never. Having a 1.4 doesn't seem to deter Nikon or Canon from offering a 35mm f1.8 or f2. Sony is way off base on this one. I'll bet there is one coming in the new lenses they have planned over the next year or so. Or one can hope.
Pre-ordered here in Norway yesterday. Most press-releases have cited shipping in november, but the shops here are saying they have tentative estimates their Zeiss distributor that lenses will be in stock around october 11.
Also: The rep from the store I use had been at the Zeiss-launch of this lens, and took some sample photos with an A7RIII. They were only JPG, but clearly show both nonagonal bokeh-balls and really good looking round bokeh-balls in different images - at F2. The nonagonal bokeh seems to happen on images close to MFD, at least that's what it looks like to me. Other than that this lens is really sharp and renders very nice images to my eyes. He said it handled really well, and that he really liked how the lens rendered. Looking forward to testing it. I'll do some comparison images with the Batis 40 and 24 GM in ASPC-mode, since I am still considering just keeping the 24. I'll post here if there is interest.
Canon EOS-R looks to offer a very nice 35 STM IS macro f2. Should be extremely versatile, and if Canon does anything well, it's luring you with their glass. It's a real shame, low hanging fruit, it's not like they wouldn't profit massively, they're simply too greedy.
chez wrote:
Would you really dump all your Sony gear and jump to another brand just for a 35 f2 lens? Seems a bit drastic no?
Charlie N wrote:
If it's your bread and butter, absolutely.
Canon EOS-R looks to offer a very nice 35 STM IS macro f2. Should be extremely versatile, and if Canon does anything well, it's luring you with their glass. It's a real shame, low hanging fruit, it's not like they wouldn't profit massively, they're simply too greedy.
Well if it's your bread and butter focal range I would think the 35 1.4 would do very well for you. To me, the 35 2.0 is more a travel lens with the 35 1.4 more a working lens.
chez wrote:
Well if it's your bread and butter focal range I would think the 35 1.4 would do very well for you. To me, the 35 2.0 is more a travel lens with the 35 1.4 more a working lens.
I have the samyang 35 f1.4, and I'm quite happy with the IQ, but @660g, it's a total beast and noticeably heavier than the tamron 28-75 f2.8. Sure it's a different animal, but I simply dont like primes that big, and for me the 28-75 is so good that an F2 is not that appealing anymore, unless it's significantly smaller, in the 300g range. The 35 f2.8 is also very good, but for someone just getting into the system, it's too expensive.
Canon's version is f1.8, 305g, 52mm filter, less than half price of the Batis ($500), and based on MTF, it'll be similar to the last 35 f2 IS version, which was good. in comparison, the Batis doesnt seem to offer much more.
Canon just makes Sony look totally foolish here, sure it's one lens, but the lens is arguably the most important single lens of any system, so important that Zeiss builds a fixed lens with those specs, Sony builds one, even Fuji has one with that FOV.
