This topic is in the 2020 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2020Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
p.2 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
chez wrote:
What reliability problems does the Sony 35 1.4 have?
I think he meant variability.
nandadevieast wrote
I actually quite like the Zony 35/1.4 from the pictures i have seen. I like it more than Sigma 35/1.4 and Sigma 35/1.2. But I don’t want to buy an expensive lens that’s so not reliable. Of all these lenses i like the SamYang equally and its quite cheap so i can play lottery. My gripe is that Sony should have already had a flagship and benchmark 35.I think he meant variability.
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:17 PM
p.2 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they are not in a hurry to bring this market.
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more....
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more....
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:28 PM
p.2 #3Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they are not in a hurry to bring this market.
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more....
They could, but a 1.4/35 with the optical qualities of the GM24 would be way bigger; 24 and below seems to the the sweet spot for size reduction with short flange design.
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they are not in a hurry to bring this market.
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more....
They could, but a 1.4/35 with the optical qualities of the GM24 would be way bigger; 24 and below seems to the the sweet spot for size reduction with short flange design.
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:37 PM
p.2 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I feel we have enough choices from 35 to 55 from the various manufactures both AF and MF. I'd like to see some attention at the telephoto end like compact 200 2.8 and 300 4.0 lenses...something we don't have covered.
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:40 PM
p.2 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
Example 24 GM
How hard it is for Sony to make a decent 35, GM quality. What we have is one old unreliable chunky lens and a new guy on the table that is very convenient but doesn’t excel.
Added: We need a flagship 35 from Sony.
Rant over
Funny. I hadn't been on the forum for awhile but came specifically to see if there was any news about a new excellent 35...Guess not.
Example 24 GM
How hard it is for Sony to make a decent 35, GM quality. What we have is one old unreliable chunky lens and a new guy on the table that is very convenient but doesn’t excel.
Added: We need a flagship 35 from Sony.
Rant over
Funny. I hadn't been on the forum for awhile but came specifically to see if there was any news about a new excellent 35...Guess not.
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:51 PM
p.2 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
lightskyland wrote:
The Sigma 35/1.2 is awesome.
How is the autofocus?
The Sigma 35/1.2 is awesome.
How is the autofocus?
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:52 PM
p.2 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Awfully huge for a 35 f/3.4 without AF.
hasenbein wrote:
Want an awesome 35? Get an old Contax-Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4. There you go.
hasenbein wrote:
Want an awesome 35? Get an old Contax-Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4. There you go.
Jul 19, 2020 at 04:52 PM
p.2 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
DavidBM wrote:
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....They could, but a 1.4/35 with the optical qualities of the GM24 would be way bigger; 24 and below seems to the the sweet spot for size reduction with short flange design.
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA...Show more →
The FE 35/1.4 ZA is a 5-year-old design and from a time where XA elements were not even in production. Since then, Sony has greatly improved optical design with their GM line. When the 35/1.4 ZA was announced, asphericals were not used as front elements, but now, because Sony's asph molding process is so precise, this seems to be a trend with their latest designs. The advantage seems to be better coma and color aberration control which in turn translates to higher resolution/contrast. Perhaps there is an advantage in overall lens size as well.
I agree that 35mm does not benefit from the mirrorless shorter flange distance compared to 24mm but I still expect Sony to deliver an awesome (as the OP referred) 35-40mm GM lens. However, as you wrote, we should not expect it to be much smaller than the current 35/1.4 ZA.
Fred Miranda wrote
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they decided against it.Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA...Show more →
The FE 35/1.4 ZA is a 5-year-old design and from a time where XA elements were not even in production. Since then, Sony has greatly improved optical design with their GM line. When the 35/1.4 ZA was announced, asphericals were not used as front elements, but now, because Sony's asph molding process is so precise, this seems to be a trend with their latest designs. The advantage seems to be better coma and color aberration control which in turn translates to higher resolution/contrast. Perhaps there is an advantage in overall lens size as well.
I agree that 35mm does not benefit from the mirrorless shorter flange distance compared to 24mm but I still expect Sony to deliver an awesome (as the OP referred) 35-40mm GM lens. However, as you wrote, we should not expect it to be much smaller than the current 35/1.4 ZA.
Jul 19, 2020 at 05:01 PM
p.2 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Getting all the characteristics people desire is very hard, because 35mm serves such a wide range of interests and photographic scenarios. Some people can use the really large body lenses like Milvus and Sigma, but only a minority are fully on board with it.
Even the cheapest of these is getting expensive, the Sigma is $1500, and very complex at 17/12 elements/groups. These are obviously 'sledge hammers to crack walnuts' lenses, but also keep in mind today's lenses stem from the design ideas of 2-3-4+ years ago. Complex lenses can't be produced fast, so long lead times are the norm. And those were days when DSLRs were still hanging on, Zeiss gambled on pros sticking with them. They lost that bet.
Leica is much closer, with an AF lens at 750g and 13/11. It is near perfect, the best 35mm ever made yet is just 73mm x 102mm and takes 67mm filters. It could have been perhaps 650 grams in manual focus form. Leica actually added more correction than the original design to it to make it fill a common barrel size with SL range sibling lenses.
Two more 35s are likely: a Sony f1.2 at a more regular size than the Sigma and a Voigtlander, whose lens DNA owes more to Leica M than anyone else, but it's only for self-focusing users who see value in a high end f2 lens. With the proliferation of f1.2 lenses from Canon, Sony needs an f1.2 to 'compete', differentiate product and save face after the poor ZA 35/1.4 market reception.
Even the cheapest of these is getting expensive, the Sigma is $1500, and very complex at 17/12 elements/groups. These are obviously 'sledge hammers to crack walnuts' lenses, but also keep in mind today's lenses stem from the design ideas of 2-3-4+ years ago. Complex lenses can't be produced fast, so long lead times are the norm. And those were days when DSLRs were still hanging on, Zeiss gambled on pros sticking with them. They lost that bet.
Leica is much closer, with an AF lens at 750g and 13/11. It is near perfect, the best 35mm ever made yet is just 73mm x 102mm and takes 67mm filters. It could have been perhaps 650 grams in manual focus form. Leica actually added more correction than the original design to it to make it fill a common barrel size with SL range sibling lenses.
Two more 35s are likely: a Sony f1.2 at a more regular size than the Sigma and a Voigtlander, whose lens DNA owes more to Leica M than anyone else, but it's only for self-focusing users who see value in a high end f2 lens. With the proliferation of f1.2 lenses from Canon, Sony needs an f1.2 to 'compete', differentiate product and save face after the poor ZA 35/1.4 market reception.
Jul 19, 2020 at 05:08 PM
p.2 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
philip_pj wrote:
And those were days when DSLRs were still hanging on, Zeiss gambled on pros sticking with them. They lost that bet.
Sad but true.
And those were days when DSLRs were still hanging on, Zeiss gambled on pros sticking with them. They lost that bet.
Sad but true.
Jul 19, 2020 at 05:27 PM
p.2 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
May be because the market doesn't want one. No offense, gentlemen, but I think too often we here on FM think that we represent Sony's market. For better or worse, we're just a rather small friction of that target group. I wonder just how many people are willing to spend North of 1000 USD on that (close to ) perfect f1.8/f2 lens? Don't get me wrong, I wanted one, but for the time being I'm happy with the 35 1.8 and the CV SE.
Also, keep in mind that the Summicron APSH for SL Philip mentioned above weighs about as much as the Sony 35 1.4 and more than twice as much as the 35 1.8. That lens might be compact for the performance it delivers, but imagine the uproar around here, if Sony were to release a 35mm prime that was only f1.8, but heavier than the 35 1.4 ZA (which weighs 650g).
Assuming earlier rumors from SARS are correct and Sony sees the market (to some extent) like Canon and Nikon then they will probably release an expensive f1.2 prime between 35 and 50mm at some point. That would also allow them to dispel the stupid "you have an inferior mount that doesn't allow for fast glass" propaganda.
Also, keep in mind that the Summicron APSH for SL Philip mentioned above weighs about as much as the Sony 35 1.4 and more than twice as much as the 35 1.8. That lens might be compact for the performance it delivers, but imagine the uproar around here, if Sony were to release a 35mm prime that was only f1.8, but heavier than the 35 1.4 ZA (which weighs 650g).
Assuming earlier rumors from SARS are correct and Sony sees the market (to some extent) like Canon and Nikon then they will probably release an expensive f1.2 prime between 35 and 50mm at some point. That would also allow them to dispel the stupid "you have an inferior mount that doesn't allow for fast glass" propaganda.
Jul 19, 2020 at 05:29 PM
p.2 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....They could, but a 1.4/35 with the optical qualities of the GM24 would be way bigger; 24 and below seems to the the sweet spot for size reduction with short flange design.
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)I agree that 35mm does not benefit from the mirrorless shorter flange distance compared to 24mm but I still expect Sony to deliver an awesome (as the OP referred) 35-40mm GM lens. However, as you wrote, we should not expect it to be much smaller than the current 35/1.4 ZA.
They don't even have to be 1.4 for me. I'd love GM quality at 1.8/2 with the tradeoff being the size. They could start with a nice 28mm and 40mm.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they decided against it.Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)
They don't even have to be 1.4 for me. I'd love GM quality at 1.8/2 with the tradeoff being the size. They could start with a nice 28mm and 40mm.
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:16 PM
p.2 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....They could, but a 1.4/35 with the optical qualities of the GM24 would be way bigger; 24 and below seems to the the sweet spot for size reduction with short flange design.
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)The FE 35/1.4 ZA is a 5-year-old design and from a time where XA elements were not even in production. Since then, Sony has greatly improved optical design with their GM line. When the 35/1.4 ZA was announced, asphericals were not used as front elements, but now, because Sony's asph molding process is so precise, this seems to be a trend with their latest designs. The advantage seems to be better coma and color aberration control which in turn translates to higher resolution/contrast. Perhaps there is an advantage in overall lens size as well.
I agree that 35mm does not...Show more →
Oh sure I have no doubt they can make a way better 1.4/35 now, with big asph. front elements and other enhancements. I was just cautioning anyone who read “qualities of GM 24” as including size that they shouldn’t get their hopes up too much. But a lens as nice as the GM24 and not much bigger than ZA ought be possible, and I’d be interested. But I fear a 1.2....
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they decided against it.Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)
I agree that 35mm does not...Show more →
Oh sure I have no doubt they can make a way better 1.4/35 now, with big asph. front elements and other enhancements. I was just cautioning anyone who read “qualities of GM 24” as including size that they shouldn’t get their hopes up too much. But a lens as nice as the GM24 and not much bigger than ZA ought be possible, and I’d be interested. But I fear a 1.2....
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:30 PM
p.2 #14Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Tdlr physics and money.
The 35 1.4 ZA and the rest of their 35s are still selling despite fora criticisms. And I got confused when I read the title because there are so many 35s that meet pretty much every usage scenario now natively and adapted.
Sony 35 1.4 ZA (decentering is overblown recent copies all seem to be pretty good, still my favorite rendering when direct light doesn't flood CA)
Sony 35 1.8 G (fast, balanced, sharp, compact, close mfd)
Sony 35 2.8 (awesome IQ to size ratio, fast AF)
Sony 16-35
Sony 24-70
Sony 24-105
Sigma 24-70
Tamron 28-75
Tamron 28-200
Tamron 35 2.8 (seems super sharp and kinda compact)
Sigma 35 1.2
Tamron 35 1.4 SP
Samyang 35 1.2 XP
And pretty sure I'm forgetting a bunch
And I think Sony likes to fill in FL slots nowadays a 40 GM sounds cooler tbh and they seem to have no issue one upping Zeiss and Sigma in those overlaps. But they might wait until the A7R5.
Maybe someone should start a crowd funding thing for Sony lol
Edited on Jul 19, 2020 at 06:33 PM · View previous versions
The 35 1.4 ZA and the rest of their 35s are still selling despite fora criticisms. And I got confused when I read the title because there are so many 35s that meet pretty much every usage scenario now natively and adapted.
Sony 35 1.4 ZA (decentering is overblown recent copies all seem to be pretty good, still my favorite rendering when direct light doesn't flood CA)
Sony 35 1.8 G (fast, balanced, sharp, compact, close mfd)
Sony 35 2.8 (awesome IQ to size ratio, fast AF)
Sony 16-35
Sony 24-70
Sony 24-105
Sigma 24-70
Tamron 28-75
Tamron 28-200
Tamron 35 2.8 (seems super sharp and kinda compact)
Sigma 35 1.2
Tamron 35 1.4 SP
Samyang 35 1.2 XP
And pretty sure I'm forgetting a bunch
And I think Sony likes to fill in FL slots nowadays a 40 GM sounds cooler tbh and they seem to have no issue one upping Zeiss and Sigma in those overlaps. But they might wait until the A7R5.
Maybe someone should start a crowd funding thing for Sony lol
Edited on Jul 19, 2020 at 06:33 PM · View previous versions
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:32 PM
p.2 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....They could, but a 1.4/35 with the optical qualities of the GM24 would be way bigger; 24 and below seems to the the sweet spot for size reduction with short flange design.
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)The FE 35/1.4 ZA is a 5-year-old design and from a time where XA elements were not even in production. Since then, Sony has greatly improved optical design with their GM line. When the 35/1.4 ZA was announced, asphericals were not used as front elements, but now, because Sony's asph molding process is so precise, this seems to be a trend with their latest designs. The advantage seems to be better coma and color aberration control which in turn translates to higher resolution/contrast. Perhaps there is an advantage in overall lens size as well.
I agree that 35mm does not benefit from the mirrorless shorter flange distance compared to 24mm but I still expect Sony to deliver an awesome (as the OP referred) 35-40mm GM lens. However, as you wrote, we should not expect it to be much smaller (if any) than the current 35/1.4 ZA.They don't even have to be 1.4 for me. I'd love GM quality at 1.8/2 with the tradeoff being the size. They could start with a nice 28mm and 40mm.
It's my preference as well. I would really love a 35/2 GM with the rendering characteristics of the 24/1.4 GM (cough cough RX1).
But like others pointed out, this may not be where the market is going.
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Sony could make a great 35mm f/1.4 GM with the same characteristics of their 24/1.4 GM but for some reason they decided against it.Perhaps they feel they already produce the FE 35/1.4 ZA and offer two other versions: 35/2.8 ZA and 35/1.8. Not counting that protecting the RX1 series could also be a consideration.
I think the FE 24/1.4 GM is one of the best GM primes in terms of resolution and rendering. If Sony has reasons to avoid the 35mm focal length, it's easy...just give us a 40/1.4 GM!
I hope they don't try competing with Sigma and give us another giant f/1.2 lens costing even more.....
For that reason I totally agree that we don't want a 1.2! If you want one, nothing is going to be usefully better than the Sigma.
And achieving parity of performance with the Sigma would make it probably not much smaller and then only if a lot of money is thrown at shrinking it while keeping the performance comparable.
A 1.4 that is not much bigger than the existing ZA and optically similar to the GM24 what we might hope for. But I can see lots of reasons why they might make the 1.2 (I blame Nikon's mount diameter propaganda)
I agree that 35mm does not benefit from the mirrorless shorter flange distance compared to 24mm but I still expect Sony to deliver an awesome (as the OP referred) 35-40mm GM lens. However, as you wrote, we should not expect it to be much smaller (if any) than the current 35/1.4 ZA.
It's my preference as well. I would really love a 35/2 GM with the rendering characteristics of the 24/1.4 GM (cough cough RX1).
But like others pointed out, this may not be where the market is going.
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:32 PM
p.2 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Neurad1 wrote:
How is the autofocus?
The Sigma 35/1.2's AF is actually fast and accurate. Rendering is beautiful too. There are no real flaws with this lens except for size and weight. After a week with it, I decided it's not for me despite being the best 35mm lens I've ever used. I have a bias towards smaller lenses and prefer working around their compromises.
lightskyland wrote
The Sigma 35/1.2 is awesome.The Sigma 35/1.2's AF is actually fast and accurate. Rendering is beautiful too. There are no real flaws with this lens except for size and weight. After a week with it, I decided it's not for me despite being the best 35mm lens I've ever used. I have a bias towards smaller lenses and prefer working around their compromises.
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:38 PM
p.2 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Why can't fans of the Sigma 35 1.2 admit it's huge? It doesn't take away from the marvelous correction or rendering.
It's great if people don't mind the size or find it not overly large in their usage, but in actuality there are few larger faster FF 35mm's in production. The only I can think of is the Milvus 35.
Who decides what makes a lens huge or not? Maybe to you is huge but to me is normal and perfectly fine so there is nothing to admit.
Now my 105mm 1.4 that one I can call big for my own standards but I am sure someone with a bigger lens may feel is normal too. Its all a matter of perspective.
Why can't fans of the Sigma 35 1.2 admit it's huge? It doesn't take away from the marvelous correction or rendering.
It's great if people don't mind the size or find it not overly large in their usage, but in actuality there are few larger faster FF 35mm's in production. The only I can think of is the Milvus 35.
Who decides what makes a lens huge or not? Maybe to you is huge but to me is normal and perfectly fine so there is nothing to admit.
Now my 105mm 1.4 that one I can call big for my own standards but I am sure someone with a bigger lens may feel is normal too. Its all a matter of perspective.
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:47 PM
p.2 #18Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Think 35mm is an impossible to satisfy focal length. There's a combination of demand for cheap, fast, sharp wide open, sharp for landscapes, small size, beautiful bokeh, low CA, great colors, and autofocus that is impossible to compute perfectly in one lens.
In my books, owning the RX1R II (for wide open photography with AF) and the Loxia 35mm (for stopped down photography) would roughly equal having the best 35mm lens across the range.
In my books, owning the RX1R II (for wide open photography with AF) and the Loxia 35mm (for stopped down photography) would roughly equal having the best 35mm lens across the range.
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:48 PM
p.2 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
If you have 'Mastered the Art' of Manual Focus, the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens (with Adapter) is the one to look out for.
It is definitely a 'Flagship' 35mm Lens.
It is definitely a 'Flagship' 35mm Lens.
Jul 19, 2020 at 06:56 PM
p.2 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Takira71A wrote:
If you have 'Mastered the Art' of Manual Focus, the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens (with Adapter) is the one to look out for.
It is definitely a 'Flagship' 35mm Lens.
Tamron should've offered this lens in E-mount. They know how to make Sony AF electronics. It would be an instant competitor to the Sigma using a native mount. It would not be f/1.2 but it would be cheaper and slightly more compact.
If you have 'Mastered the Art' of Manual Focus, the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens (with Adapter) is the one to look out for.
It is definitely a 'Flagship' 35mm Lens.
Tamron should've offered this lens in E-mount. They know how to make Sony AF electronics. It would be an instant competitor to the Sigma using a native mount. It would not be f/1.2 but it would be cheaper and slightly more compact.
Jul 19, 2020 at 07:02 PM