I've had the 28mm before, but never with an A7R3. And now there's the 35mm. I tend to like both of these for environmental portraiture. I think my concern is the performance of the corners wide open with the 28mm. Of course, the 35 is faster, but also over twice as much now. Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!
I had the 28mm on the A7rIII and wasn't very fond of the lens. CA and quite soft away from the center. The image quality reminded me more of a zoom lens than a prime (maybe I'm just too picky). Also, I didn't really like the 28mm as a general purpose lens, it was just a tad too wide for my taste.
I've never had the 35mm, but it seems to be sharper across the frame. Unfortunately, it isn't any better in terms of CA, but that's just something you will have to live with at this focal length. Being 35/1.8, it will have an advantage over the 28/2 in terms of subject separation. Bokeh is quite harsh though on this lens, check out some sample photos to see if you like the rendering.
it took me a while to warm up to the 28, and on my second copy. First time around, I just did not like it for the distortion. Second time around, I forgave it for the original flaw, and I think it's an OK lens, nothing great. A fine lens for a hybrid shooter, I dont really find 35 suitable for "normal" video, 28 + 16:9 forced crop means that 28 is my 35. For that reason, 28 is the new 35 for me, and I've been hesitant on expanding on 35mm options for that reason, mainly the sigma 35 1.2 art. Love the concept of an ultra 35, but no longer fits my style.
I always liked 28, a bit of character lens. But 28 is too wide for me. Hence 35. This one especially is just the right lens in most respects. Close focus, sharp, light, small, well built, focus hold/eye af button, linear MF, great bokeh and fast (1.8).
I owned the 28/2 for a couple of years and really liked it for environmental portraits. I sold it after purchasing the 24GM. Some of my favorite family images are from the little 28. It has a certain “look” I really like for people images. Sharp in the center wide open with a nice fade to the outside that make people pop. Stopped down to f11 it’s pretty good for landscape too.
Is it better than the 35/1.8? Probably not. But if you like 28mm it’s a good little lens. And used they sell for $275-325. That’s a steal.
mudlake wrote:
I owned the 28/2 for a couple of years and really liked it for environmental portraits. I sold it after purchasing the 24GM. Some of my favorite family images are from the little 28. It has a certain “look” I really like for people images. Sharp in the center wide open with a nice fade to the outside that make people pop. Stopped down to f11 it’s pretty good for landscape too.
Is it better than the 35/1.8? Probably not. But if you like 28mm it’s a good little lens. And used they sell for $275-325. That’s a steal.
Interesting. I realized sort of "after the fact" that if I shot the camera vertically with the 28, I didn't like the photos as much. I really needed to keep the camera in a landscape position to reduce distortion. I'm not sure I'd want the 35 over the 28 at this point...I'd grab a fancier 28 if it existed, but not yet, it seems.
I bought the new 35/1.8 recently and really love it! I've never owned the 28/2, but I did have the Batis 25/2. Close'ish. Anyway, I prefer the 35mm for portraits of my family and friends vs anything wider. I also like it more for just documenting family life. My wife also finds the pictures taken with the 35/1.8 more flattering than those produced by the Batis 25. Happy wife, happy life.
crashwins wrote:
I've had the 28mm before, but never with an A7R3. And now there's the 35mm. I tend to like both of these for environmental portraiture. I think my concern is the performance of the corners wide open with the 28mm. Of course, the 35 is faster, but also over twice as much now. Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!
The 35/1.8 is head and shoulders above the 28/2 in my opinion, having owned both. The 28/2 is fine and did produce some nice shots. But - it has softer corners, more distortion, even in the center is not nearly as sharp as the 35/1.8. And the mythical 'pop' is not quite there for the 28/2 whereas it certainly is for many instances with the 35/1.8.
The 28/2 was fine for me starting out with full frame but I never loved it like I love the 35/1.8. Not that the 35/1.8 is perfect, but it is actually a great lens despite the CA and 'busy' bokeh in a small set of conditions. It's not a 'studio' lens, but rather a walkaround/travel/family lens. Perfect for that given the size/weight/output.
I'd bet though that there will be some minor price break/sale on it by the end of the year. Maybe just have a month's patience. Even if not - still worth the purchase to me.
Personally I'd choose based on the focal length you want to shoot at. There is a difference between 28 and 35...you can always crop a 28 to get 35...but not really any easy way to get a 28mm FOV shooting a 35.
I’m not into 35mm lenses, so I’d prefer the 28mm. But when I compared it some years ago with the 25mm Batis, it showed its deficiencies. Hence, I don’t know what I’d do if I wanted that range on a Sony. Then again, if I was looking at a lens for environmental portraiture, I wouldn’t care about the corners.
I never warmed to the Sony 28 (it's more like a 26 anyway). I think the only real "native" 28mm option on Sony's high res bodies is the Sigma Art. My Zeiss 28/2 recently took a damaging nose dive onto a rock path - and it struggled on the A7R III anyway - so I replaced it with the Sigma, and am surprisingly happy with it. It's absurdly sharp (even the corners are good wide open on the A7R IV) but much more importantly, it renders well.
Unfortunately it's about the size and weight of the 135 GM. But for 28mm fanatics - and I am one - it's worth a try.
There are several fine, fast 28mm and 35mm AF lenses for the FF Alphas. However, the best of them are not small and light. You really have to decide whether you are about convenience or IQ.
My choice for light, small and convenient is the RX100 V with it’s, equivalent, 24-70 zoom. For world class IQ with my A9 I have the Sigma 35mm F1.2 and/or the Sony 24-70mm F2.8. For a faster 28mm I am considering the new Sigma 28mm F1.4.
If you are ambivalent about FLs one way to decide is to mount a zoom lens, spanning your considered range, then notate what percentage of shots approximate a prime FL.
