Fair enough, though it might mean there's another lens on the roadmap, like the 50/1.8 vs. the 55/1.8 (which I believe pre-dates the whole 'G' and 'GM' designations).
So, for all those not made happy by this particular lens, let the pining begin for the 40G and 35/1.2GM!!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Unfortunately most 35mm lenses lack axial CA correction. The Batis 40/2 does well here but it's not 35mm. Another great lens with well corrected LoCA is the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM.
I'm surprised you didn't like the FE 35/2.8 ZA as it has decent axial correction. All other native and faster 35mm versions like the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZA and Samyang 35/1.4 AF do not fare well either.
I don't blame you for hating axial CA because unlike lateral CA, it can be only masked in post.
It is a real pity that all affordable lenses in the 35mm range suffer from LoCA. If only the Batis were a tad smaller, I would probably buy it.
As for the FE 35/2.8 ZA, I noticed the LoCA particularly in the close range (e.g. for product photos) or in the bokeh.
Holger wrote:
? You compare to an old manual Nikkor lens? One for a much larger flange distance? Why don'y you compare to the Z-lens?
With the beating that dslr's have taken, especially Canon, which I use, I think it is more than fair to point out negatives here.
Especially when it is both larger and heavier than the 35/2 I bought 25+ years ago.
An advantage of dslrs is that once you get to 35 or 50mm or so, the short sensor to flange distance means mirrorless is going to need a physically longer lens. And people have made a big deal about mirrorlesshaving a size advantage.
AmbientMike wrote:
With the beating that dslr's have taken, especially Canon, which I use, I think it is more than fair to point out negatives here.
Especially when it is both larger and heavier than the 35/2 I bought 25+ years ago.
An advantage of dslrs is that once you get to 35 or 50mm or so, the short sensor to flange distance means mirrorless is going to need a physically longer lens. And people have made a big deal about mirrorlesshaving a size advantage.
I also had a small 35/2, a Nikon AF 35/2, which was poor quality. It had a total of six or seven lens elements and was beaten hands down by the older manual focus Ai-S Nikkor 28/2 and the Zeiss ZF 35/2 on optical performance. I’m not persuaded by a comparison to 25+ years old AF lenses as my experience is that they were so so on digital. That poor fate also befell the venerable AF Nikkor 20/2.8 D, which was great on film and a disaster on digital.
The Zeiss ZF 35/2 was by no means small, but it is one of Zeiss’ great lenses.
gordec wrote:
Anyone annoyed that all the Sony none G/GM primes have different filter size?
More like you mean pretty much every series of Sony lenses have different filter sizes? regular/G/GM/Sony Zeiss - I don't think there's much consistency here. 16-35mm f4, 50mm f1.4, and 70-200mm f4 or 70-300mm is the closest to a set of consistent lenses.
gordec wrote:
Anyone annoyed that all the Sony none G/GM primes have different filter size?
No, that would have meant some sort of bad compromise. Either all non-G/GM/ZA lenses would have 49mm filter thread and some be compromised optically like the Sony 28/2, or many of the lenses would be unnecessarily large, like at least some of the Zeiss Batis series lenses.
keepcoding wrote:
It is a real pity that all affordable lenses in the 35mm range suffer from LoCA. If only the Batis were a tad smaller, I would probably buy it.
As for the FE 35/2.8 ZA, I noticed the LoCA particularly in the close range (e.g. for product photos) or in the bokeh.
Yes, I remember now. The FE 35/2.8 ZA is not that clean and the specular highlights have onion pattern. The faster versions are even worse than this.
p.17 #10 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
Fred Miranda wrote:
At dpreview, most wide-open samples were at closer distance (a bit too close for portraits with a wide angle imo). Most lenses render well at close distance.
At mid-distance however (2-3m and longer), very few wide angle lenses are capable of smooth rendering. The FE 24/1.4 GM is one of them. The FE 28/2 and 35/1.8 not so much.
Agreed. For my use, shooting full body portraits, longer subject distance performance is much more critical. Unless u like the wide angle face look....
The 24mm is good rendering. The sigma 40mm is bad. The zeiss 35mm f1.4 is good but suffers from horrible loCa. To be frank the 24mm gm also has LoCA but not as bad as the zeiss 35mm.
Still waiting for the emount 35mm with good LoCA and rendering.
p.17 #11 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
wind30 wrote:
Agreed. For my use, shooting full body portraits, longer subject distance performance is much more critical. Unless u like the wide angle face look....
The 24mm is good rendering. The sigma 40mm is bad. The zeiss 35mm f1.4 is good but suffers from horrible loCa. To be frank the 24mm gm also has LoCA but not as bad as the zeiss 35mm.
Still waiting for the emount 35mm with good LoCA and rendering.
It looks like we could get a 35-40/1.4 GM but it I don't think it would be free of axial CA either. The Batis 40/2 does very well in this regard if you don't mind its rendering.
p.17 #13 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
wind30 wrote:
Agreed. For my use, shooting full body portraits, longer subject distance performance is much more critical. Unless u like the wide angle face look....
The 24mm is good rendering. The sigma 40mm is bad. The zeiss 35mm f1.4 is good but suffers from horrible loCa. To be frank the 24mm gm also has LoCA but not as bad as the zeiss 35mm.
Still waiting for the emount 35mm with good LoCA and rendering.
I’m sorry but by what metric is the Sigma 40mm tendering bad
p.17 #18 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
I just pre-ordered the 35 mm F1.8 . Hopefully this lens meets all of my requirements. Right now it's a toss-up between the Batis 40mm f2 and this lens. If Zeiss would lower the price of the Batis sub $1000 it would be a no-brainer for me! I'm currently using the 55mm 1.8 has my walk around lens. The 55mm 1.8 is a spectacular lens but just a little bit too long and has poor close up ability. I'm looking forward to the testing that is going to be done on the 35. I wish Tamron would produce their 35 mm in Fe mount.
p.17 #19 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
dennishh wrote:
I just pre-ordered the 35 mm F1.8 . Hopefully this lens meets all of my requirements. Right now it's a toss-up between the Batis 40mm f2 and this lens. If Zeiss would lower the price of the Batis sub $1000 it would be a no-brainer for me! I'm currently using the 55mm 1.8 has my walk around lens. The 55mm 1.8 is a spectacular lens but just a little bit too long and has poor close up ability. I'm looking forward to the testing that is going to be done on the 35. I wish Tamron would produce their 35 mm in Fe mount. ...Show more →
I'd try Greentoe, I was able to get one around that price.
p.17 #20 · Now in Stock: Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 ($748)
A lot of 35mm f/1.4 ZA copies popping up for sale. I bought mine a couple of months ago with a 2019 production date and seems super sharp and not de-centered. Other than the weight compromise, I can’t imagine stepping down to the new Sony. I get why so many people skipped the ZA, but with a great copy, maybe some solid used ones will find their way into people's bags at comparable prices!
