Yes, I don't understand why people are critical of this desire. I don't want a zoom. I don't want an off-brand lens. I don't want a large f/1.4 lens. I don't want a heavy lens. I don't want an f/2.8 lens. I don't want a manual focus lens, I already have those. I don't want a 40mm and I certainly don't want it at $1200. I want a 35//1.8 or 35/2, something I've been able to buy, affordably, in every single camera system I've used for 30 years, manual focus, autofocus, rangefinder, SLR or otherwise. It is also something that was delivered by every rival in every format within their first releases.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yes, I don't understand why people are critical of this desire. I don't want a zoom. I don't want an off-brand lens. I don't want a large f/1.4 lens. I don't want a heavy lens. I don't want an f/2.8 lens. I don't want a manual focus lens, I already have those. I don't want a 40mm and I certainly don't want it at $1200. I want a 35//1.8 or 35/2, something I've been able to buy, affordably, in every single camera system I've used for 30 years, manual focus, autofocus, rangefinder, SLR or otherwise. It is also something that was delivered by every rival in every format within their first releases. ...Show more →
Have you tried the 35 2.8? I know it's not an f2, but it sure is light and delivers great image quality. I too would like a light 35 1.8...but the 35 2.8 has been a fabulous substitute for me...and I doubt I'd ever sell it as there is nothing out there that delivers the size, weight, AF and image quality in one package.
hiepphotog wrote:
Well, this lens could be one that Sony will make a statement with. Just like the Canonikon DSLR day, the "slower" lens won't get the red L/gold G designation. But it doesn't mean it has to be bad in term of IQ. Sony has progressed so much in lens designing that they might just be able to make a great lens here with some sort of weather sealing, fast and silent focus, and corner-to-corner sharpness at WO. They could sacrifice distortion (to be corrected with a profile) and vignetting to achieve the IQ goal while keeping the lens small and light. If they manage to make something almost as good as the Nikkor Z 35 while being smaller, lighter and cheaper, they would crush the lens mount size hype. It's way better than producing a big and heavy "me too" 50/1.2. It also shows that the G and GM designation is for additional non-essential features (like speed, better weather sealing, latest AF motor, better construction, less compromises in distortion and vignetting, etc.) and less to do with the IQ....Show more →
I don't mind vignetting in the corners but hopefully it doesn't extend that far into the middle of the frame, or the f1.8 aperture will be more like T2.8 throughout most of the image (forget the corners). The 28mm f2 is like this and it's yet another reason I never bought one.
phototiimo wrote:
I don't mind vignetting in the corners but hopefully it doesn't extend that far into the middle of the frame, or the f1.8 aperture will be more like T2.4 or T2.8 throughout most of the image. The 28mm f2 is like this and it's yet another reason I never bought one.
Interesting, I thought the 28/2 only has the distortion issue. We shall see then. I personally don't have any interest in any of the 35 but I would love to see how Sony will handle this lens as it appears to be a very popular focal length and aperture combo. A great set of 1.8 lenses is just as important as a great set of GM
Some may disagree (and I can respect that) but I think I already got my 35/2 GM in the Sony 24/1.4GM in crop mode on the R73. Yes, it’s only 18.5 megapixels, but 99.9999% of the time that’s plenty of resolution for my needs, even if I have to crop some. So for me, when Sony invented the 24GM, they threw in a 35/2 GM for free. Of course, others may have different needs.
mudlake wrote:
Some may disagree (and I can respect that) but I think I already got my 35/2 GM in the Sony 24/1.4GM in crop mode on the R73. Yes, it’s only 18.5 megapixels, but 99.9999% of the time that’s plenty of resolution for my needs, even if I have to crop some. So for me, when Sony invented the 24GM, they threw in a 35/2 GM for free. Of course, others may have different needs.
Transmission is what I like most about the Sony FE 28/2. This extends to IR as well.
If you want to see the darkness, you should check out the Samyang/Rokinon etc branded ones.
phototiimo wrote:
I don't mind vignetting in the corners but hopefully it doesn't extend that far into the middle of the frame, or the f1.8 aperture will be more like T2.4 or T2.8 throughout most of the image. The 28mm f2 is like this and it's yet another reason I never bought one.
Edit: vignetting is quite favorable compared to many Sony FE lenses:
hiepphotog wrote:
Interesting, I thought the 28/2 only has the distortion issue. We shall see then. I personally don't have any interest in any of the 35 but I would love to see how Sony will handle this lens as it appears to be a very popular focal length and aperture combo. A great set of 1.8 lenses is just as important as a great set of GM
Yeah, vignetting on 28mm is pretty awful wide open. Here on Philip Reeve's review he says it is definitely above 3 EV, I would guess at least 3.5 EV. That's past the point where it can be corrected in post without noticing a lot of extra noise (particularly if you are already shooting at high ISOs...).
mudlake wrote:
Some may disagree (and I can respect that) but I think I already got my 35/2 GM in the Sony 24/1.4GM in crop mode on the R73. Yes, it’s only 18.5 megapixels, but 99.9999% of the time that’s plenty of resolution for my needs, even if I have to crop some. So for me, when Sony invented the 24GM, they threw in a 35/2 GM for free. Of course, others may have different needs.
Yes, you get 18.5 megapixels, but you also get a stop less dynamic range at base ISO and importantly you lose a bit over a stop of high ISO capability when the light is low. So, you have a 37mm f/2.2 lens when you crop the 24 GM, and a little over a half stop less light than a 35 f/1.8, so if the 35 f/1.8 is pretty good wide open it should have a distinct advantage not only in resolution but in the ability to shoot in low light.
WestTexas Sky wrote:
There are a lot of 35mm options
Sony 35/2.8
Samyang 35/2.8
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Loxia 35/2
Sony 24-70/4
Sony 24-70/2.8
Sony 28-70 kit
Sony 24-105
Tamron 28-70/2.8
Sony 28/2 cropped slightly
Sony 24/1.8? In APS-C crop mode
I am sure there are more. I just find it humorous with all those choices to use at 35mm there is a lot of complaining here. So I don't think a 35/1.8 will stop the complaining. It will just shift slightly😀
Of course I hope it is the mythic lens everyone else wants but I just don't think it will satisfy the crowd here.
I have five of the lenses on your list. None of them is the "Goldilocks" 35 we all want.
Hehe, you never forget to stress this point when someone talks about using FF in crop mode. You are like me, because i also never forget to stress the point about gear being small and light.
😁
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, you get 18.5 megapixels, but you also get a stop less dynamic range at base ISO and importantly you lose a bit over a stop of high ISO capability when the light is low. So, you have a 37mm f/2.2 lens when you crop the 24 GM, and a little over a half stop less light than a 35 f/1.8, so if the 35 f/1.8 is pretty good wide open it should have a distinct advantage not only in resolution but in the ability to shoot in low light.
nandadevieast wrote:
Hehe, you never forget to stress this point when someone talks about using FF in crop mode. You are like me, because i also never forget to stress the point about gear being small and light.
😁
Yep, it seems that some think that the only penalty with cropping is the reduction in resolution, but for me the loss in dynamic range and high ISO capability are much more important than the loss in resolution. Oh, and a 35 f/1.8 from Sony is almost certainly going to be smaller and lighter than the GM 24 f/1.4 as small and as light as that lens is for the aperture.
chez wrote:
For me the 35 2.8 is very close. Love the size, AF and image quality from the lens. Yes I wish it was f2...but the 35 2.8 hasn't held me back.
I have also been very happy with my 35/2.8.
The size is perfect. I can't see myself carrying around something the size of the 1.4.
AF and image quality is excellent, and it makes for great street lens that doesn't scare people.
RSSmith wrote:
I have also been very happy with my 35/2.8.
The size is perfect. I can't see myself carrying around something the size of the 1.4.
AF and image quality is excellent, and it makes for great street lens that doesn't scare people.
It also makes a great travel lens, being so small and light.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, you get 18.5 megapixels, but you also get a stop less dynamic range at base ISO and importantly you lose a bit over a stop of high ISO capability when the light is low. So, you have a 37mm f/2.2 lens when you crop the 24 GM, and a little over a half stop less light than a 35 f/1.8, so if the 35 f/1.8 is pretty good wide open it should have a distinct advantage not only in resolution but in the ability to shoot in low light.
All good points and I agree. But my primary point was that 99.999% of the time for me, that stuff won't matter in the least. One stop dynamic range and ISO capability may matter for someone taking scientific images or those getting paid a lot of money to deliver perfect images to a client, but I think you'll agree that those criteria apply to less than 1% of the people on this forum. For me, I'll be perfectly happy to have a dual lens in the 24 GM and not worry about the infinitesimal loss of a little ISO or dynamic range when taking vacation photos or images of my family, etc. For landscapes images, then yes, I'll never use the crop function. It's just a great solution for travel or family.
mudlake wrote:
All good points and I agree. But my primary point was that 99.999% of the time for me, that stuff won't matter in the least. One stop dynamic range and ISO capability may matter for someone taking scientific images or those getting paid a lot of money to deliver perfect images to a client, but I think you'll agree that those criteria apply to less than 1% of the people on this forum. For me, I'll be perfectly happy to have a dual lens in the 24 GM and not worry about the infinitesimal loss of a little ISO or dynamic range when taking vacation photos or images of my family, etc. For landscapes images, then yes, I'll never use the crop function. It's just a great solution for travel or family....Show more →
I’d be more concerned with the loss of pixels. There are many occasions when using the right lens I still need to crop to remove unwanted items from the image. Starting at 18mpix, this would be a challenge.
Personally i’d rather use the right lens for the situation rather than relying on crop mode.
Jun 30, 2019 at 08:21 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mudlake wrote:
All good points and I agree. But my primary point was that 99.999% of the time for me, that stuff won't matter in the least. One stop dynamic range and ISO capability may matter for someone taking scientific images or those getting paid a lot of money to deliver perfect images to a client, but I think you'll agree that those criteria apply to less than 1% of the people on this forum. For me, I'll be perfectly happy to have a dual lens in the 24 GM and not worry about the infinitesimal loss of a little ISO or dynamic range when taking vacation photos or images of my family, etc. For landscapes images, then yes, I'll never use the crop function. It's just a great solution for travel or family....Show more →
I use a 35 primarily for family and some travel photos too, but that is exactly why I want a lens to be able to handle low light. At least 40% of my shots with a 35 will be in low light and if I had a cap on ISO of about 2800 even with an f/1.4 I would find that pretty limiting. I could make it work some of the time, but when the light is lowest it would be a disadvantage and I would have zero room to crop if I didn't get the composition exactly right. Because I shoot so much indoors under low light I would want at least a 35 f/1.8 and I would prefer a 35 f/1.4, but there isn't an option that doesn't come with some serious compromises at f/1.4 (usually in terms of size). I am hoping this lens has fewer of those compromises.
chez wrote:
I’d be more concerned with the loss of pixels. There are many occasions when using the right lens I still need to crop to remove unwanted items from the image. Starting at 18mpix, this would be a challenge.
Personally i’d rather use the right lens for the situation rather than relying on crop mode.
Yes, I think since you make more large prints than I do, you would need to use all the pixels on the camera. I don't make a lot of large prints (and many people never print -which is a shame) and the images I do print large are landscapes where I'm on a tripod and crop mode would never be used. Eighteen megapixels is plenty to print the occasional 8x12 or 20x30.
By the way, Chez, would you rather have a 35/1.8 or the Batis 40/2? I know you were looking at it a while back.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I use a 35 primarily for family and some travel photos too, but that is exactly why I want a lens to be able to handle low light. At least 40% of my shots with a 35 will be in low light and if I had a cap on ISO of about 2800 even with an f/1.4 I would find that pretty limiting. I could make it work some of the time, but when the light is lowest it would be a disadvantage and I would have zero room to crop if I didn't get the composition exactly right. Because I shoot so much indoors under low light I would want at least a 35 f/1.8 and I would prefer a 35 f/1.4, but there isn't an option that doesn't come with some serious compromises at f/1.4 (usually in terms of size). I am hoping this lens has fewer of those compromises....Show more →
Steve - yes, it looks like crop mode wouldn't work for you shooting inside a lot of the time if it were pretty dark. If I were shooting inside a lot I would have to test whether crop mode was giving me results I can use. Thanks.
