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.4 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
Because its a hassle finding a good copy, per reports here. In any case i have already ordered SamYang and i like it equally if not more.
So why don't you just use the ZA? By all accounts, it's a great lens.
Well there you go...your 35mm problem solved. As far as bad copy reports...you never hear people talk about their good copies so the Internet really skews things.
Because its a hassle finding a good copy, per reports here. In any case i have already ordered SamYang and i like it equally if not more.
chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
Do you guys like your FE 35/1.8. It was launched backed by huge demand here and elsewhere but the critical evaluation has been lukewarm. I had it. Its so convenient but not entirely convincing. I tend to use my 35 a whole lot and i was very neutral about the look it creates. 35 ZA 1.4 is miles ahead.Well there you go...your 35mm problem solved. As far as bad copy reports...you never hear people talk about their good copies so the Internet really skews things.
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:36 AM
p.4 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Very well said. Larger market is completely different. a6000 has been top of the chart and all brands sell their 50 1.8’s in boatloads. Here, many of opinion makers are less value conscious.
On 1.8’s my take was different. I never thought 55 is rubbished here. It has a fan following at FM no doubt.
85 is clinical
35 is less clinical
55 to me isn’t clinical. It has lots of contrast wide open and my copy is significantly sharper than above two.
My sharpest lens though is Samyang 85/1.4. Its sharp wide open (less than or equal to 55) but at F4 it is unbelievably sharp. My CV 50/1.2 is also very very sharp stopped down. 35 is sharp wide open but noticeably less sharp than these.
Chris_88 wrote:
Hmmm, I have a feeling that FM's group of well heeled enthusiasts with a smattering of pro's is exactly Sony's market.Let me rephrase what I said: We may be the type of people Sony want to sell their cameras and lenses to, but the tastes/preferences of this board may not necessarily align with the wider target audience and/or Sony marketing's perception of the latter.
For instance, not just the 35 1.8, but also the 55 1.8 has a relatively bad reputation around here: Too much CA, too bland/clinical, boring rendition, bokeh no good, you name it (the 85 1.8 seems to get slightly better reviews).
Of course, without actual sales figures and marketing data it is difficult to make any claims,...Show more →
On 1.8’s my take was different. I never thought 55 is rubbished here. It has a fan following at FM no doubt.
85 is clinical
35 is less clinical
55 to me isn’t clinical. It has lots of contrast wide open and my copy is significantly sharper than above two.
My sharpest lens though is Samyang 85/1.4. Its sharp wide open (less than or equal to 55) but at F4 it is unbelievably sharp. My CV 50/1.2 is also very very sharp stopped down. 35 is sharp wide open but noticeably less sharp than these.
Chris_88 wrote:
Beni wrote
Chris_88 wrote
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.For instance, not just the 35 1.8, but also the 55 1.8 has a relatively bad reputation around here: Too much CA, too bland/clinical, boring rendition, bokeh no good, you name it (the 85 1.8 seems to get slightly better reviews).
Of course, without actual sales figures and marketing data it is difficult to make any claims,...Show more →
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:47 AM
p.4 #3Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
If Sam turns out ok then yes solved. But Sam is a different company. Sony should make it, rather prioritise it.
chez wrote:
So why don't you just use the ZA? By all accounts, it's a great lens.Well there you go...your 35mm problem solved. As far as bad copy reports...you never hear people talk about their good copies so the Internet really skews things.
chez wrote:
nandadevieast wrote
Because its a hassle finding a good copy, per reports here. In any case i have already ordered SamYang and i like it equally if not more.chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
Do you guys like your FE 35/1.8. It was launched backed by huge demand here and elsewhere but the critical evaluation has been lukewarm. I had it. Its so convenient but not entirely convincing. I tend to use my 35 a whole lot and i was very neutral about the look it creates. 35 ZA 1.4 is miles ahead.Jul 20, 2020 at 07:49 AM
p.4 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Chris_88 wrote:
Plenty of other users are probably less critical/demanding, when it comes to testing/using gear.
Must be peasants...
https://jenacidebybibliophile.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/giphy-17.gif
Noble connoiseurs would never touch such lenses.
Plenty of other users are probably less critical/demanding, when it comes to testing/using gear.
Must be peasants...
https://jenacidebybibliophile.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/giphy-17.gif
Noble connoiseurs would never touch such lenses.
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:51 AM
p.4 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
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.If you compare it to other lenses of the same class it is very large. That is not a matter of perspective but a fact.
If you need to do creative thinking like comparing 35mm lens to 105mm lens to say the 35mm isn’t a big lens, well, you should just compare it to an 800mm lens, and then it will be pocketable.
The fact that is bigger than other 35mm lenses makes NO DIFFERENCE to the fact that whether a lens is considered too big or not is a matter of perspective and personal opinion. THAT is the fact. If I had a lens that was .5 inch long, another 1 inch long, and one more that was 3 inches long, it would be much bigger than the others yet still very small.
Now, what makes YOU the person that defines when a lens is TOO big and asking people to "admit" things. That is just disrespectful and silly..
You completely misunderstood or rather tried to steer, the comment about the 105mm to fit your needs.
Can you just respect the fact that what for your is a HUGE lens for others maybe just normal since we are not all alike? Again, what makes you the one that defines things?
I made 2020 the year of not engaging in nonsense arguments like this so I am done with this and with you, welcome to my ignore list.
GabrielPhoto wrote
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.
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.
If you need to do creative thinking like comparing 35mm lens to 105mm lens to say the 35mm isn’t a big lens, well, you should just compare it to an 800mm lens, and then it will be pocketable.
The fact that is bigger than other 35mm lenses makes NO DIFFERENCE to the fact that whether a lens is considered too big or not is a matter of perspective and personal opinion. THAT is the fact. If I had a lens that was .5 inch long, another 1 inch long, and one more that was 3 inches long, it would be much bigger than the others yet still very small.
Now, what makes YOU the person that defines when a lens is TOO big and asking people to "admit" things. That is just disrespectful and silly..
You completely misunderstood or rather tried to steer, the comment about the 105mm to fit your needs.
Can you just respect the fact that what for your is a HUGE lens for others maybe just normal since we are not all alike? Again, what makes you the one that defines things?
I made 2020 the year of not engaging in nonsense arguments like this so I am done with this and with you, welcome to my ignore list.
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:51 AM
p.4 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:52 AM
p.4 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
If Sam turns out ok then yes solved. But Sam is a different company. Sony should make it, rather prioritise it.
So why don't you just use the ZA? By all accounts, it's a great lens.Well there you go...your 35mm problem solved. As far as bad copy reports...you never hear people talk about their good copies so the Internet really skews things.
Why? If the Samsung turns out great...why do you care? I personally don't care who makes my lens...in fact manufactures like Tamron give me a 6 year warranty...something Sony does not.
If Sam turns out ok then yes solved. But Sam is a different company. Sony should make it, rather prioritise it.
chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
Because its a hassle finding a good copy, per reports here. In any case i have already ordered SamYang and i like it equally if not more.chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
Do you guys like your FE 35/1.8. It was launched backed by huge demand here and elsewhere but the critical evaluation has been lukewarm. I had it. Its so convenient but not entirely convincing. I tend to use my 35 a whole lot and i was very neutral about the look it creates. 35 ZA 1.4 is miles ahead.Why? If the Samsung turns out great...why do you care? I personally don't care who makes my lens...in fact manufactures like Tamron give me a 6 year warranty...something Sony does not.
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:55 AM
p.4 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
Very well said. Larger market is completely different. a6000 has been top of the chart and all brands sell their 50 1.8’s in boatloads. Here, many of opinion makers are less value conscious.
On 1.8’s my take was different. I never thought 55 is rubbished here. It has a fan following at FM no doubt.
85 is clinical
35 is less clinical
55 to me isn’t clinical. It has lots of contrast wide open and my copy is significantly sharper than above two.
My sharpest lens though is Samyang 85/1.4. Its sharp wide open (less than or equal to 55) but at...Show more →
May be you're right. I got the impression that very few people around here still use the 55 1.8 and seem to recall that every time the 55 is brought up, people are very quick to rant about its (real and perceived) flaws.
I have all three f1.8 lenses. I agree that the 55 1.8 is sharper than the 35 and 85. Its resolution continues to impress me, even though my copy has been with me for more than six years. If you compare it to the Loxias, it clearly has lower contrast, though. For landscapes, I prefer the Zeiss rendition, but for cityscapes, for instance, I don't mind the more subdued contrast of the 55. The 35 seems to have more punch than the 55 1.8. I mainly use the 85 1.8 for portraits, where (in a positive sense) it doesn't get in the way.
Very well said. Larger market is completely different. a6000 has been top of the chart and all brands sell their 50 1.8’s in boatloads. Here, many of opinion makers are less value conscious.
On 1.8’s my take was different. I never thought 55 is rubbished here. It has a fan following at FM no doubt.
85 is clinical
35 is less clinical
55 to me isn’t clinical. It has lots of contrast wide open and my copy is significantly sharper than above two.
My sharpest lens though is Samyang 85/1.4. Its sharp wide open (less than or equal to 55) but at...Show more →
May be you're right. I got the impression that very few people around here still use the 55 1.8 and seem to recall that every time the 55 is brought up, people are very quick to rant about its (real and perceived) flaws.
I have all three f1.8 lenses. I agree that the 55 1.8 is sharper than the 35 and 85. Its resolution continues to impress me, even though my copy has been with me for more than six years. If you compare it to the Loxias, it clearly has lower contrast, though. For landscapes, I prefer the Zeiss rendition, but for cityscapes, for instance, I don't mind the more subdued contrast of the 55. The 35 seems to have more punch than the 55 1.8. I mainly use the 85 1.8 for portraits, where (in a positive sense) it doesn't get in the way.
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:04 AM
p.4 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
Do you guys like your FE 35/1.8. It was launched backed by huge demand here and elsewhere but the critical evaluation has been lukewarm. I had it. Its so convenient but not entirely convincing. I tend to use my 35 a whole lot and i was very neutral about the look it creates. 35 ZA 1.4 is miles ahead.
I love my Sony 35/1.8. Fast, light, small, very sharp from f/1.8, and usually with pleasing bokeh.
I shot my RX1R II and the A7R3/Sony 35/1.8 at the same event and had great difficulty determining which setup took which pictures. The 35/1.8 absolutely kept up with the RX1R II.
I owned the Sigma 35/1.2 for a week. I'm a big guy with big hands, and IMO the Sigma handles like a cinder block bolted to the front of my A7R3. Great images though :P.
Not a fan of the swirly bokeh seen in the Loxia and Voigtlander 35's.
The 35/1.4 ZA I had was well centered but IMO completely underwhelming in rendering and IQ given its size and price.
Like everyone else, I'd be all over a Sony 35 GM like the 24 GM. Until then, I'm very happy with the Sony 35/1.8.
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 08:10 AM · View previous versions
Do you guys like your FE 35/1.8. It was launched backed by huge demand here and elsewhere but the critical evaluation has been lukewarm. I had it. Its so convenient but not entirely convincing. I tend to use my 35 a whole lot and i was very neutral about the look it creates. 35 ZA 1.4 is miles ahead.
I love my Sony 35/1.8. Fast, light, small, very sharp from f/1.8, and usually with pleasing bokeh.
I shot my RX1R II and the A7R3/Sony 35/1.8 at the same event and had great difficulty determining which setup took which pictures. The 35/1.8 absolutely kept up with the RX1R II.
I owned the Sigma 35/1.2 for a week. I'm a big guy with big hands, and IMO the Sigma handles like a cinder block bolted to the front of my A7R3. Great images though :P.
Not a fan of the swirly bokeh seen in the Loxia and Voigtlander 35's.
The 35/1.4 ZA I had was well centered but IMO completely underwhelming in rendering and IQ given its size and price.
Like everyone else, I'd be all over a Sony 35 GM like the 24 GM. Until then, I'm very happy with the Sony 35/1.8.
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 08:10 AM · View previous versions
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:09 AM
p.4 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
If Sam turns out ok then all good. Yet I have spent time and money searching for the right lens. And still not sure if the search is over. In any case its not unnatural to try find a lens by the same manufacturer who made the camera. Especially for an extremely important FL like 35.
For example, if today i am looking to buy a 24mm lens i can simply buy it in 2 minutes flat. 24 GM. No heartburn either.
chez wrote:
So why don't you just use the ZA? By all accounts, it's a great lens.Well there you go...your 35mm problem solved. As far as bad copy reports...you never hear people talk about their good copies so the Internet really skews things.Why? If the Samsung turns out great...why do you care? I personally don't care who makes my lens...in fact manufactures like Tamron give me a 6 year warranty...something Sony does not.
For example, if today i am looking to buy a 24mm lens i can simply buy it in 2 minutes flat. 24 GM. No heartburn either.
chez wrote:
nandadevieast wrote
If Sam turns out ok then yes solved. But Sam is a different company. Sony should make it, rather prioritise it.chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
Because its a hassle finding a good copy, per reports here. In any case i have already ordered SamYang and i like it equally if not more.chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
Do you guys like your FE 35/1.8. It was launched backed by huge demand here and elsewhere but the critical evaluation has been lukewarm. I had it. Its so convenient but not entirely convincing. I tend to use my 35 a whole lot and i was very neutral about the look it creates. 35 ZA 1.4 is miles ahead.Jul 20, 2020 at 08:09 AM
p.4 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
GabrielPhoto wrote:
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.If you compare it to other lenses of the same class it is very large. That is not a matter of perspective but a fact.
If you need to do creative thinking like comparing 35mm lens to 105mm lens to say the 35mm isn’t a big lens, well, you should just compare it to an 800mm lens, and then it will be pocketable.The fact that is bigger than other 35mm lenses makes NO DIFFERENCE to the fact that whether a lens is considered too big or not is a matter of perspective and personal opinion. THAT is the fact. If I had a lens that was .5 inch long, another 1 inch long, and one more that was 3 inches long, it would be much bigger than the others yet still very small.
Now, what makes YOU the person that defines when a lens is TOO big and asking people to "admit" things. That is just disrespectful and silly..
You completely misunderstood or...Show more →
I think that everyone who is saying that the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 is a large lens (me included) is using other 35mm mirrorless lenses as the comparison. That is how valid comparisons are made. It is fact, not perspective or personal opinion, that the Sigma 35/1.2 is much larger than most (all?) mirrorless 35mm lenses.
You set up a straw-man argument that isn't valid, and then you get haughty and hateful when others don't agree.
nehemiahphoto wrote
GabrielPhoto wrote
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.
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.
If you need to do creative thinking like comparing 35mm lens to 105mm lens to say the 35mm isn’t a big lens, well, you should just compare it to an 800mm lens, and then it will be pocketable.
Now, what makes YOU the person that defines when a lens is TOO big and asking people to "admit" things. That is just disrespectful and silly..
You completely misunderstood or...Show more →
I think that everyone who is saying that the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 is a large lens (me included) is using other 35mm mirrorless lenses as the comparison. That is how valid comparisons are made. It is fact, not perspective or personal opinion, that the Sigma 35/1.2 is much larger than most (all?) mirrorless 35mm lenses.
You set up a straw-man argument that isn't valid, and then you get haughty and hateful when others don't agree.
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:18 AM
p.4 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Contrast depends on lighting also. I have read Fred’s very positive impressions of 55 and he also says its relatively less contrasty.
There are even couple of 55 fan threads right here in this forum. This is what i wrote in one of them recently:
So i bought my 55 with a7 at launch. That was quite some time back. I bought this lens with the camera.
Fast forward to 2020:
I have bought and sold a7/a7rIII twice/a7III
I have bought and sold 16-35/4 twice, 100-400 twice, Tamron 28-75, 24-105, 70-300, 70-350, 85/1.8 twice, CV 40, Loxia 21, Sony 90, 28/2 twice, 24 GM.
But my oldest lens is still with me. That’s how good 55 is.
Recently i have been wondering how good my FE 35 is, thinking of replacing it with SamYang 35/1.4. Sony 35 is sharp wide open and good enough so i came back to the conclusion that I won’t get a better lens than this maybe. There is no obvious flaw with 35. So yesterday i just mounted my 55 and took few pictures and wow ! Its biting sharp and much more contrast wide open. I immediately knew that my 35 is going, alas.
Chris_88 wrote:
On 1.8’s my take was different. I never thought 55 is rubbished here. It has a fan following at FM no doubt.
85 is clinical
35 is less clinical
55 to me isn’t clinical. It has lots of contrast wide open and my copy is significantly sharper than above two.
My sharpest lens though is Samyang 85/1.4. Its sharp wide open (less than or equal to 55) but at F4 it is unbelievably sharp. My CV 50/1.2 is also very very sharp stopped down. 35 is sharp wide open but noticeably less sharp than these.May be you're right. I got the impression that very few people around here still use the 55 1.8 and seem to recall that every time the 55 is brought up, people are very quick to rant about its (real and perceived) flaws.
I have all three f1.8 lenses. I agree that the 55 1.8 is sharper than the 35 and 85. Its resolution continues to impress me, even though my copy has been with me for more than six years. If you compare it to the Loxias, it clearly has lower contrast, though. For landscapes, I prefer the Zeiss...Show more →
There are even couple of 55 fan threads right here in this forum. This is what i wrote in one of them recently:
So i bought my 55 with a7 at launch. That was quite some time back. I bought this lens with the camera.
Fast forward to 2020:
I have bought and sold a7/a7rIII twice/a7III
I have bought and sold 16-35/4 twice, 100-400 twice, Tamron 28-75, 24-105, 70-300, 70-350, 85/1.8 twice, CV 40, Loxia 21, Sony 90, 28/2 twice, 24 GM.
But my oldest lens is still with me. That’s how good 55 is.
Recently i have been wondering how good my FE 35 is, thinking of replacing it with SamYang 35/1.4. Sony 35 is sharp wide open and good enough so i came back to the conclusion that I won’t get a better lens than this maybe. There is no obvious flaw with 35. So yesterday i just mounted my 55 and took few pictures and wow ! Its biting sharp and much more contrast wide open. I immediately knew that my 35 is going, alas.
Chris_88 wrote:
nandadevieast wrote
Very well said. Larger market is completely different. a6000 has been top of the chart and all brands sell their 50 1.8’s in boatloads. Here, many of opinion makers are less value conscious.On 1.8’s my take was different. I never thought 55 is rubbished here. It has a fan following at FM no doubt.
85 is clinical
35 is less clinical
55 to me isn’t clinical. It has lots of contrast wide open and my copy is significantly sharper than above two.
My sharpest lens though is Samyang 85/1.4. Its sharp wide open (less than or equal to 55) but at F4 it is unbelievably sharp. My CV 50/1.2 is also very very sharp stopped down. 35 is sharp wide open but noticeably less sharp than these.
I have all three f1.8 lenses. I agree that the 55 1.8 is sharper than the 35 and 85. Its resolution continues to impress me, even though my copy has been with me for more than six years. If you compare it to the Loxias, it clearly has lower contrast, though. For landscapes, I prefer the Zeiss...Show more →
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:18 AM
p.4 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
There are people who think 500/4 is light. When they say that they obviously have 600/4 in mind. So it depends. Sig 35/1.2 is a large and heavy lens within the category. If I don’t find it heavy, that’s more about me than the lens itself.
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:21 AM
p.4 #14Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Chris_88 wrote:
Hmmm, I have a feeling that FM's group of well heeled enthusiasts with a smattering of pro's is exactly Sony's market.Let me rephrase what I said: We may be the type of people Sony want to sell their cameras and lenses to, but the tastes/preferences of this board may not necessarily align with the wider target audience and/or Sony marketing's perception of the latter.
For instance, not just the 35 1.8, but also the 55 1.8 has a relatively bad reputation around here: Too much CA, too bland/clinical, boring rendition, bokeh no good, you name it (the 85 1.8 seems to get slightly better reviews).
Of course, without actual sales figures and marketing data it is difficult to make any claims,...Show more →
Does anyone have any data to suggest what percentage Japan's sales figures represent relative to the worldwide market? Japan is an interesting microcosm of the photographic world and the trends there are often vastly different to the rest of the world. I often see Japan's statistics shown but I've always wondered how relevant they are. It's only one small country, albeit one that is camera nuts (in a good way!).
Beni wrote
Chris_88 wrote
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.For instance, not just the 35 1.8, but also the 55 1.8 has a relatively bad reputation around here: Too much CA, too bland/clinical, boring rendition, bokeh no good, you name it (the 85 1.8 seems to get slightly better reviews).
Of course, without actual sales figures and marketing data it is difficult to make any claims,...Show more →
Does anyone have any data to suggest what percentage Japan's sales figures represent relative to the worldwide market? Japan is an interesting microcosm of the photographic world and the trends there are often vastly different to the rest of the world. I often see Japan's statistics shown but I've always wondered how relevant they are. It's only one small country, albeit one that is camera nuts (in a good way!).
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:38 AM
p.4 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
In any case its not unnatural to try find a lens by the same manufacturer who made the camera. Especially for an extremely important FL like 35.
Well that manufacturer has released 3 35mm lenses already so you can just as easily go pick up a 35mm lens from the same manufacturer that made your camera.
There's a very light compact travel lens: 35 2.8
There's a light semi fast very sharp lens: 35 1.8
There's a nice character portrait lens: 35 1.4
Surely adding another 35mm lens is not a priority right now.
In any case its not unnatural to try find a lens by the same manufacturer who made the camera. Especially for an extremely important FL like 35.
Well that manufacturer has released 3 35mm lenses already so you can just as easily go pick up a 35mm lens from the same manufacturer that made your camera.
There's a very light compact travel lens: 35 2.8
There's a light semi fast very sharp lens: 35 1.8
There's a nice character portrait lens: 35 1.4
Surely adding another 35mm lens is not a priority right now.
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:47 AM
p.4 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Beni wrote:
Hmmm, I have a feeling that FM's group of well heeled enthusiasts with a smattering of pro's is exactly Sony's market.Let me rephrase what I said: We may be the type of people Sony want to sell their cameras and lenses to, but the tastes/preferences of this board may not necessarily align with the wider target audience and/or Sony marketing's perception of the latter.
For instance, not just the 35 1.8, but also the 55 1.8 has a relatively bad reputation around here: Too much CA, too bland/clinical, boring rendition, bokeh no good, you name it (the 85 1.8 seems to get slightly better reviews).
Of course, without actual sales figures and marketing data it is difficult to make any claims, but a quick glimpse at the sales rankings for Sony glass at kakaku.com (which is the biggest online price comparison site in Japan) shows the three f1.8 lenses sitting at spots 6, 10, 12, with the 20 1.8, the APSC 35 1.8 and the 200-600 coming out on top. In other words, plenty of users end up buying those f1.8 lenses, despite their flaws.
I happily admit that I have no clue whether those users would be willing to shell out more money and/or accept slightly larger lenses in exchange for better CA correction, but it seems to me that those lenses are doing pretty well (in Japan at least), when compared to their mediocre reputation around here.
Edit: Before anybody gets this into the wrong throat: I think it's well established that many FM'ers are very critical and as Fred likes to point out, it's good to know a lens' weak spots. Plenty of other users are probably less critical/demanding, when it comes to testing/using gear. This is not a "good versus bad" thing, it's just different. My point is that we may at times underestimate this gap.Does anyone have any data to suggest what percentage Japan's sales figures represent relative to the worldwide market? Japan is an interesting microcosm of the photographic world and the trends there are often vastly different to the rest of the world. I often see Japan's statistics shown but I've always wondered how relevant they are. It's only one small country, albeit one that is camera nuts (in a good way!).
I believe the Japanese market is more skewed towards small and compact gear. They embraced mirrorless much quicker and much stronger than North America. Olympus does very well in Japan...again I believe because of the equipment size.
Chris_88 wrote
Beni wrote
Chris_88 wrote
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.For instance, not just the 35 1.8, but also the 55 1.8 has a relatively bad reputation around here: Too much CA, too bland/clinical, boring rendition, bokeh no good, you name it (the 85 1.8 seems to get slightly better reviews).
Of course, without actual sales figures and marketing data it is difficult to make any claims, but a quick glimpse at the sales rankings for Sony glass at kakaku.com (which is the biggest online price comparison site in Japan) shows the three f1.8 lenses sitting at spots 6, 10, 12, with the 20 1.8, the APSC 35 1.8 and the 200-600 coming out on top. In other words, plenty of users end up buying those f1.8 lenses, despite their flaws.
I happily admit that I have no clue whether those users would be willing to shell out more money and/or accept slightly larger lenses in exchange for better CA correction, but it seems to me that those lenses are doing pretty well (in Japan at least), when compared to their mediocre reputation around here.
Edit: Before anybody gets this into the wrong throat: I think it's well established that many FM'ers are very critical and as Fred likes to point out, it's good to know a lens' weak spots. Plenty of other users are probably less critical/demanding, when it comes to testing/using gear. This is not a "good versus bad" thing, it's just different. My point is that we may at times underestimate this gap.
I believe the Japanese market is more skewed towards small and compact gear. They embraced mirrorless much quicker and much stronger than North America. Olympus does very well in Japan...again I believe because of the equipment size.
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:50 AM
p.4 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Since I am new to Sony, I was surprised to see this thread. I've owned many 35s over the years from Nikon and Canon. As I recently compared current offerings, the 35 f1.8 jumped out immediately for its combination of light weight and great low light abilities. It's my smallest and lightest Sony lens and the perfect featherweight addition to the bag when the lowest light situations would challenge my 2.8 lenses such as the also stellar 16-35 f2.8.
What is it about this lens that bothers others? My early impressions of it are really positive. My copy is razor sharp.
Also, if you haven't seen it, I enjoyed Patrick Murphy Racey's YouTube comparison of 35mm choices for Sony. Like Patrick, I would trade off the modest 1.4 vs 1.8 low light abilities for a lighter lens. Happily, I also have the 24 f1.4 and that might be my favorite Sony lens of all thus far.
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 08:53 AM · View previous versions
What is it about this lens that bothers others? My early impressions of it are really positive. My copy is razor sharp.
Also, if you haven't seen it, I enjoyed Patrick Murphy Racey's YouTube comparison of 35mm choices for Sony. Like Patrick, I would trade off the modest 1.4 vs 1.8 low light abilities for a lighter lens. Happily, I also have the 24 f1.4 and that might be my favorite Sony lens of all thus far.
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 08:53 AM · View previous versions
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:51 AM
p.4 #18Why 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.
I like my 35ZM, but I'm with you. I'd really like a VC35 APO, 35GM, or both.
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.
I like my 35ZM, but I'm with you. I'd really like a VC35 APO, 35GM, or both.
Jul 20, 2020 at 08:53 AM
p.4 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Well we are back to that again. I wish i was shopping for groceries and not lenses.
This is too slow
This is jack of all trades
This is not reliable
chez wrote:
Well that manufacturer has released 3 35mm lenses already so you can just as easily go pick up a 35mm lens from the same manufacturer that made your camera.
There's a very light compact travel lens: 35 2.8
There's a light semi fast very sharp lens: 35 1.8
There's a nice character portrait lens: 35 1.4
Surely adding another 35mm lens is not a priority right now.
This is too slow
This is jack of all trades
This is not reliable
chez wrote:
nandadevieast wrote
In any case its not unnatural to try find a lens by the same manufacturer who made the camera. Especially for an extremely important FL like 35.There's a very light compact travel lens: 35 2.8
There's a light semi fast very sharp lens: 35 1.8
There's a nice character portrait lens: 35 1.4
Surely adding another 35mm lens is not a priority right now.
Jul 20, 2020 at 09:04 AM
p.4 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nandadevieast wrote:
Well we are back to that again. I wish i was shopping for groceries and not lenses.
This is too slow
This is jack of all trades
This is not reliable
Well that manufacturer has released 3 35mm lenses already so you can just as easily go pick up a 35mm lens from the same manufacturer that made your camera.
There's a very light compact travel lens: 35 2.8
There's a light semi fast very sharp lens: 35 1.8
There's a nice character portrait lens: 35 1.4
Surely adding another 35mm lens is not a priority right now.
You say the 35 1.4 is not reliable...yet you went ahead and purchased a samyang lens...which are known to be much less reliable than most. I don't get your logic here.
As far as "jack of all trades"...what exactly in your images does the 35 1.8 not accomplish. I hear way too many people get onto the internet band wagon and say a lens is too clinical or does not have character...without actually trying out the lens for their shooting requirements. Too much internet echo goes on and once a lens gets a reputation...the echo chamber kills it without many even trying one out.
Well we are back to that again. I wish i was shopping for groceries and not lenses.
This is too slow
This is jack of all trades
This is not reliable
chez wrote
nandadevieast wrote
In any case its not unnatural to try find a lens by the same manufacturer who made the camera. Especially for an extremely important FL like 35.There's a very light compact travel lens: 35 2.8
There's a light semi fast very sharp lens: 35 1.8
There's a nice character portrait lens: 35 1.4
Surely adding another 35mm lens is not a priority right now.
You say the 35 1.4 is not reliable...yet you went ahead and purchased a samyang lens...which are known to be much less reliable than most. I don't get your logic here.
As far as "jack of all trades"...what exactly in your images does the 35 1.8 not accomplish. I hear way too many people get onto the internet band wagon and say a lens is too clinical or does not have character...without actually trying out the lens for their shooting requirements. Too much internet echo goes on and once a lens gets a reputation...the echo chamber kills it without many even trying one out.
Jul 20, 2020 at 09:23 AM