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.5 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
No no, the Sigma 35 f1.2 is out now.
Go buy and shoot and be happy
Go buy and shoot and be happy
Jul 20, 2020 at 09:29 AM
p.5 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
smpetty wrote:
The 35/1.4 ZA I had was well centered but IMO completely underwhelming in rendering and IQ given its size and price.
I had two copies of this lens, both well centered, one has more pleasing and gentler rendering but not as sharp wide open and corners weren't great (though symmetric). The other one tack sharp wide open and with sharp corners wide open, but rendered harsher and duller colors, and more problems with bokeh fringing.
I'm not sure I'm supposed to be happy or whatnot. But I moved on and shooting something that gave me rendering and color I love while living within its limitations.
Problem is remarks like the above always sounds like the za is a bad lens. It really isn't, I traded the better rendering copy with less sharpness because I read about the sharpness thing here and was being somewhat unrealistic.
Lenses money can buy today are mostly good to excellent. Not sure why people ask for more?
Jul 20, 2020 at 09:35 AM
p.5 #3Why 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’ll just opt to respectfully disagree and remain civil, and I won’t be ignoring your posts.
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’ll just opt to respectfully disagree and remain civil, and I won’t be ignoring your posts.
Jul 20, 2020 at 09:40 AM
p.5 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Thought I'd throw in my two cents. After getting my hands on a 20mm 1.8G... I think literally anyone would want that in a 35-40mm FL. To me, the only problems of the 35 1.8 FE are CA, corner resolution, and lack of more substantial sealing. For CA, we can see per DPReview's sample gallery that it's strong enough at f11 to cause grey outlining after corrections, which is where I think many people (myself included) draw the line. Corner sharpness is only bad compared to better modern lenses. Historically, it is very good. Also, while it isn't lacking sealing per say, it definitely falls short of the 40 CF, 35 lox, and 35 1.2 ART, all options that fall within its range in FL, and the 20mm 1.8 G that falls within its range in terms of development time.
The 40 CF isn't a perfect solution, as when you get to portrait range it stops down from 2 till 2.2-.5, which means you'll be anywhere between 2/3-a full stop less in terms of light gathering. I happen to like almost everything about the CF's output image, so you won't hear me complain about the affect on bokeh (and we can see per this depth of field calculator that at all points along this range the loss of subject isolation is less than a cm) but it does affect IQ via ISO aaaaand, while I've heard this is different on an a9/II (a7 III user here) it starts affecting AF.
The 20 is honestly something close to the best of both lenses. While it isn't quite as well built as the 40, it's substantially more sturdy than the 35—and it also walks the line between the two in barrel width, arriving at something that isn't overblown like the 40 but provides a useful grip the 35 does not. It lacks the charming character flaws of the 40, and indeed... any flaws at all really. The most substantial criticism I can make on its output image is the nitpickish not having equivalent color rendition of the 21 lox. Substantial CA at f11 is something no one will claim about this lens. As for AF... well, considering it has dual linear motors it logically should have better AF than the 35, but I have yet to see anyone thoroughly test this claim. The 20 G is, in short, as complete an optic as I've ever used.
However, my feeling is that a 35-40G is an optic that simply will never come. Due to the crowded nature of the E-mount market from bargain to premium, this will probably be one of the least profitable lenses to ever develop. If it did, however, I doubt I'd be the only one to prefer it over a 35-40 GM—as either 2/3 or a full stop of light gathering advantage would hardly be worth the increase in size... for my use anyway.
The 40 CF isn't a perfect solution, as when you get to portrait range it stops down from 2 till 2.2-.5, which means you'll be anywhere between 2/3-a full stop less in terms of light gathering. I happen to like almost everything about the CF's output image, so you won't hear me complain about the affect on bokeh (and we can see per this depth of field calculator that at all points along this range the loss of subject isolation is less than a cm) but it does affect IQ via ISO aaaaand, while I've heard this is different on an a9/II (a7 III user here) it starts affecting AF.
The 20 is honestly something close to the best of both lenses. While it isn't quite as well built as the 40, it's substantially more sturdy than the 35—and it also walks the line between the two in barrel width, arriving at something that isn't overblown like the 40 but provides a useful grip the 35 does not. It lacks the charming character flaws of the 40, and indeed... any flaws at all really. The most substantial criticism I can make on its output image is the nitpickish not having equivalent color rendition of the 21 lox. Substantial CA at f11 is something no one will claim about this lens. As for AF... well, considering it has dual linear motors it logically should have better AF than the 35, but I have yet to see anyone thoroughly test this claim. The 20 G is, in short, as complete an optic as I've ever used.
However, my feeling is that a 35-40G is an optic that simply will never come. Due to the crowded nature of the E-mount market from bargain to premium, this will probably be one of the least profitable lenses to ever develop. If it did, however, I doubt I'd be the only one to prefer it over a 35-40 GM—as either 2/3 or a full stop of light gathering advantage would hardly be worth the increase in size... for my use anyway.
Jul 20, 2020 at 10:38 AM
p.5 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I've gone the Tamron 35/2.8 route as it gives me excellent resolution to the corners, and it's relatively small and light. A CV 35 APO would pique my interest, but other than that I'm not sure what would. We have so many choices at the 35 FL (and more if you include 40) that anything produced would be a slightly different compromise of speed, sharpness, bokeh, size, weight and sealing (not to mentionAF/MF, IS/no IS.) Could someone do it all? Maybe, but my guess is there would still be a compromise....because there almost always is. Is another compromise (which is reality) going to knock it out of the park enough to garner the sales?
-Tim
Jul 20, 2020 at 10:55 AM
p.5 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
One thing’s sure this is not a discussion of the results but also a comfortable way to get those results. In other words, in some conditions, lens X will do a better job but I would rather use lens Y because it is smaller/lighter/better balanced. Yes indeed personal preference,
Jul 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM
p.5 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Has anyone tried the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226779-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2se_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226779-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2se_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
Jul 20, 2020 at 11:50 AM
p.5 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Tim, 2.8 and beyond starts getting overlapped with standard zooms. My 24-105 is not bad at 35. Then there is 24-70 and even a smaller optic, Tamron 28-75. None of these can be as small as a prime so point taken. But then you remember why you are shooting FF and lens like 24 GM lets you have your cake and eat it too, being small, light and 1.4.
tsdevine wrote:
I've gone the Tamron 35/2.8 route as it gives me excellent resolution to the corners, and it's relatively small and light. A CV 35 APO would pique my interest, but other than that I'm not sure what would. We have so many choices at the 35 FL (and more if you include 40) that anything produced would be a slightly different compromise of speed, sharpness, bokeh, size, weight and sealing (not to mentionAF/MF, IS/no IS.) Could someone do it all? Maybe, but my guess is there would still be a compromise....because there almost always is. Is another compromise (which is...Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
I've gone the Tamron 35/2.8 route as it gives me excellent resolution to the corners, and it's relatively small and light. A CV 35 APO would pique my interest, but other than that I'm not sure what would. We have so many choices at the 35 FL (and more if you include 40) that anything produced would be a slightly different compromise of speed, sharpness, bokeh, size, weight and sealing (not to mentionAF/MF, IS/no IS.) Could someone do it all? Maybe, but my guess is there would still be a compromise....because there almost always is. Is another compromise (which is...Show more →
Jul 20, 2020 at 12:05 PM
p.5 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
letchhausen wrote:
Has anyone tried the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226779-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2se_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
That's an APS-C lens. (very cool rendering though)
-----------------------
There are many great 35mm choices. The only thing we don't have is a relatively small 35mm lens that does it all, like the 24GM, or the RX1's lens. Even the Loxia or the Zony pancake-ish lens are good, if you don't have unreasonable expectations. I also believe that the big Zony 35 1.4 is quite magical..
It's not like Leica's lineup is so much better, but no one ever complains about that. The Summicron F2 or the Summilux are both pretty damn far from perfection, they are not "do it all" lenses either. (then again Summilux >> magical rendering + the same onion bokeh that the ZONY 1.4 has)
Most complaints surface about astro performance, but how many ppl care about 35mm POV astro really? I mean beyond the usual "I want to be able to do it, in case the opportunity presents itself, but it didn't in the past 2 years".
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 02:21 PM · View previous versions
Has anyone tried the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226779-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2se_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
That's an APS-C lens. (very cool rendering though)
-----------------------
There are many great 35mm choices. The only thing we don't have is a relatively small 35mm lens that does it all, like the 24GM, or the RX1's lens. Even the Loxia or the Zony pancake-ish lens are good, if you don't have unreasonable expectations. I also believe that the big Zony 35 1.4 is quite magical..
It's not like Leica's lineup is so much better, but no one ever complains about that. The Summicron F2 or the Summilux are both pretty damn far from perfection, they are not "do it all" lenses either. (then again Summilux >> magical rendering + the same onion bokeh that the ZONY 1.4 has)
Most complaints surface about astro performance, but how many ppl care about 35mm POV astro really? I mean beyond the usual "I want to be able to do it, in case the opportunity presents itself, but it didn't in the past 2 years".
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 02:21 PM · View previous versions
Jul 20, 2020 at 02:02 PM
p.5 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
While I'd love for the 24 GM to be made as a 35 GM, I just think the 35 FL is too crowded for Sony to consider right now, especially as it would eat into so many of their own products. I really think it's a product / portfolio / market opportunity decision that enthusiast consumers are gonna have a hard time swallowing.
Luckily there are so many options that you can at least get MOST of what you want, even if you don't get all.
I'm expecting a 40 GM within the next 1-2 years though, just a hunch.
Luckily there are so many options that you can at least get MOST of what you want, even if you don't get all.
I'm expecting a 40 GM within the next 1-2 years though, just a hunch.
Jul 20, 2020 at 02:11 PM
p.5 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I have a good number of excellent 35s.
Excellent is good enough for me.
Excellent is good enough for me.
Jul 20, 2020 at 03:01 PM
p.5 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Sinasina wrote:
That's an APS-C lens. (very cool rendering though)
Oops, missed that thanks! Guess I'll settle for my Contax 35-70 until that CV APO comes out!
That's an APS-C lens. (very cool rendering though)
Oops, missed that thanks! Guess I'll settle for my Contax 35-70 until that CV APO comes out!
Jul 20, 2020 at 03:31 PM
p.5 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
My take is that we have a number of really nice 35mm lenses, but there still may be room for a 35 GM. Here are in my book some of the very compelling 35s:
Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 -- amazingly small and still very nice sharpness and decent bokeh even though there isn't a lot of it with f/2.8 as the widest aperture. Still a compelling option if you want small size and can live with the smaller max aperture.
Tamron 35 f/2.8 macro -- bigger than the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8, but you get a lot less vignetting, really nice sharpness across the frame, and a useful and nice macro capability. Still quite small but obviously not as small at the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8
Sony 35 f/1.8 - fast focussing, sharp, and a reasonably fast aperture makes this lens very popular. Personally, I am not a fan of either the CA or the bokeh (largely because of the CA), but still a lens to draw a lot of people
Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 - early Sony lens that I think is showing its age. It isn't that sharp wide open and the bokeh although nice is some respects can show a lot of onion ring patterns. It has a fair bit of CA too, and the primary complaint is copy variation. Despite these flaws the lens is sharper wide open than most legacy lenses, and the bokeh can be quite nice if you avoid bokeh balls (and their onion rings on this lens).
Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 SE - It is quite surprising that no one has mentioned this lens, but I think it is a great MF option. It has a bit too much CA, and sharpness suffers closer than 1.5m wide open, but it has lovely bokeh and is nicely sharp across the frame when stopped down. CA clears up nicely as you stop down as well. Also, despite being an f/1.2 lens it weighs less than 400g. This lens is my MF choice and I am quite happy to have this option.
Sigma 35 f/1.2 - a wonderfully performing lens with good sharpness, excellent bokeh, very good AF, and very little aberrations. I like the rendering too--a lot. It is of course very large, but that isn't a problem to all people or in all circumstances. It is a great option, IMO. I will probably get it in time because it is so good, but I probably won't use it that much because of its size.
Given all these options, why would Sony make a 35 GM? I think they really should because their lenses are overshadowed by the 3rd party lenses at 35mm. The Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 is great, but a bit overshadowed by the Tamron 35 f/2.8 Macro. The Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 is one of their early and weakest lenses that tends to be overshadowed by the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art. The 35 f/1.8 holds a decent middle ground but is not a GM replacement.
My view is that Sony should take a page out of one or the other of two of their most praised GM lenses. On one hand they could come out with a 35 f/1.2 GM, but this lens would have to follow the strategy of the 135 f/1.8 GM. It would have to beat an awfully good Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and come in at a smaller size (say less than 900g). That is a tall order, but if they pull it off and have a lens that actually beats the Sigma 35 f/1.2 in IQ but in noticeably smaller, then I think it will sell well just as the 135 f/1.8 GM has.
Alternatively, (and here is where I think they should go), they could take a page out of the 24 f/1.4 GM playbook. Here they would need a 35 f/1.4 GM lens to come in at less than 600g, and it would need to be sharp, well corrected, and have nice bokeh. This lens would of course in practice replace the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4, but they need to keep this price similar. To really pull of this lens, it needs to be priced below $1,500 (i.e., less than the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 and no more expensive than the Sigma) as the 24 f/1.4 GM is. If they are able to pull all that off, then I think this lens would sell extremely well.
Either of these lenses is going to be really hard to build, but if Sony does it they will establish at this focal length as they have at others that they are the premier lens maker for their mount. Right now it is hard for Sony to make that claim and I think it is important that they do so.
Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 -- amazingly small and still very nice sharpness and decent bokeh even though there isn't a lot of it with f/2.8 as the widest aperture. Still a compelling option if you want small size and can live with the smaller max aperture.
Tamron 35 f/2.8 macro -- bigger than the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8, but you get a lot less vignetting, really nice sharpness across the frame, and a useful and nice macro capability. Still quite small but obviously not as small at the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8
Sony 35 f/1.8 - fast focussing, sharp, and a reasonably fast aperture makes this lens very popular. Personally, I am not a fan of either the CA or the bokeh (largely because of the CA), but still a lens to draw a lot of people
Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 - early Sony lens that I think is showing its age. It isn't that sharp wide open and the bokeh although nice is some respects can show a lot of onion ring patterns. It has a fair bit of CA too, and the primary complaint is copy variation. Despite these flaws the lens is sharper wide open than most legacy lenses, and the bokeh can be quite nice if you avoid bokeh balls (and their onion rings on this lens).
Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 SE - It is quite surprising that no one has mentioned this lens, but I think it is a great MF option. It has a bit too much CA, and sharpness suffers closer than 1.5m wide open, but it has lovely bokeh and is nicely sharp across the frame when stopped down. CA clears up nicely as you stop down as well. Also, despite being an f/1.2 lens it weighs less than 400g. This lens is my MF choice and I am quite happy to have this option.
Sigma 35 f/1.2 - a wonderfully performing lens with good sharpness, excellent bokeh, very good AF, and very little aberrations. I like the rendering too--a lot. It is of course very large, but that isn't a problem to all people or in all circumstances. It is a great option, IMO. I will probably get it in time because it is so good, but I probably won't use it that much because of its size.
Given all these options, why would Sony make a 35 GM? I think they really should because their lenses are overshadowed by the 3rd party lenses at 35mm. The Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 is great, but a bit overshadowed by the Tamron 35 f/2.8 Macro. The Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 is one of their early and weakest lenses that tends to be overshadowed by the Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art. The 35 f/1.8 holds a decent middle ground but is not a GM replacement.
My view is that Sony should take a page out of one or the other of two of their most praised GM lenses. On one hand they could come out with a 35 f/1.2 GM, but this lens would have to follow the strategy of the 135 f/1.8 GM. It would have to beat an awfully good Sigma 35 f/1.2 Art and come in at a smaller size (say less than 900g). That is a tall order, but if they pull it off and have a lens that actually beats the Sigma 35 f/1.2 in IQ but in noticeably smaller, then I think it will sell well just as the 135 f/1.8 GM has.
Alternatively, (and here is where I think they should go), they could take a page out of the 24 f/1.4 GM playbook. Here they would need a 35 f/1.4 GM lens to come in at less than 600g, and it would need to be sharp, well corrected, and have nice bokeh. This lens would of course in practice replace the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4, but they need to keep this price similar. To really pull of this lens, it needs to be priced below $1,500 (i.e., less than the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 and no more expensive than the Sigma) as the 24 f/1.4 GM is. If they are able to pull all that off, then I think this lens would sell extremely well.
Either of these lenses is going to be really hard to build, but if Sony does it they will establish at this focal length as they have at others that they are the premier lens maker for their mount. Right now it is hard for Sony to make that claim and I think it is important that they do so.
Jul 20, 2020 at 04:03 PM
p.5 #14Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
corrected 35 ultron needs to be made in autofocus variety......
with the 24 GM available, not going to waste time with 35mm offerings unless there was something really nice.
with the 24 GM available, not going to waste time with 35mm offerings unless there was something really nice.
Jul 20, 2020 at 04:33 PM
p.5 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Beni wrote:
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!).
Honestly, I don't know. That being said, seeing how Japan is still the third largest national economy in the world (fourth, if you count the EU as a block) and happens to be the home base of most major camera and lens makers, I would think that it remains an important market for the industry.
As for "one small country", compared to what? The territories of US or Canada? The American or European populations of 300 million each or those 1.4 billion Chinese? If that's your comparison, then yes, Japan is a relatively small country. However, it is easy to forget that Japan's population is still the same size as that of Germany and Spain combined or about twice as large of that of the UK or Italy.
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!).
Honestly, I don't know. That being said, seeing how Japan is still the third largest national economy in the world (fourth, if you count the EU as a block) and happens to be the home base of most major camera and lens makers, I would think that it remains an important market for the industry.
As for "one small country", compared to what? The territories of US or Canada? The American or European populations of 300 million each or those 1.4 billion Chinese? If that's your comparison, then yes, Japan is a relatively small country. However, it is easy to forget that Japan's population is still the same size as that of Germany and Spain combined or about twice as large of that of the UK or Italy.
Jul 20, 2020 at 05:33 PM
p.5 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 SE - It is quite surprising that no one has mentioned this lens, but I think it is a great MF option. It has a bit too much CA, and sharpness suffers closer than 1.5m wide open, but it has lovely bokeh and is nicely sharp across the frame when stopped down. CA clears up nicely as you stop down as well. Also, despite being an f/1.2 lens it weighs less than 400g. This lens is my MF choice and I am quite happy to have this option.
Steve, my impression was that this thread was primarily about AF lenses and therefore the SE was not mentioned.
I have it too and like you, I like it. It sharpens up nicely across the frame by around f5.6, which is better than my copy of the Loxia 35. Looks like a keeper, even though I've to admit that I still prefer the Zeiss colors for landscape shots.
As for potential 35 GM lenses, I think they are more likely to come up with a f1.2 lens. That way they can keep the 35 1.4 on the market and create a new lens that sits above the old ZA. Also, it would allow them to take a shot at the competition, demonstrating that e mount is perfectly capable of handling very fast lenses.
Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 SE - It is quite surprising that no one has mentioned this lens, but I think it is a great MF option. It has a bit too much CA, and sharpness suffers closer than 1.5m wide open, but it has lovely bokeh and is nicely sharp across the frame when stopped down. CA clears up nicely as you stop down as well. Also, despite being an f/1.2 lens it weighs less than 400g. This lens is my MF choice and I am quite happy to have this option.
Steve, my impression was that this thread was primarily about AF lenses and therefore the SE was not mentioned.
I have it too and like you, I like it. It sharpens up nicely across the frame by around f5.6, which is better than my copy of the Loxia 35. Looks like a keeper, even though I've to admit that I still prefer the Zeiss colors for landscape shots.
As for potential 35 GM lenses, I think they are more likely to come up with a f1.2 lens. That way they can keep the 35 1.4 on the market and create a new lens that sits above the old ZA. Also, it would allow them to take a shot at the competition, demonstrating that e mount is perfectly capable of handling very fast lenses.
Jul 20, 2020 at 05:43 PM
p.5 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Chris_88 wrote:
Honestly, I don't know. That being said, seeing how Japan is still the third largest national economy in the world (fourth, if you count the EU as a block) and happens to be the home base of most major camera and lens makers, I would think that it remains an important market for the industry.
As for "one small country", compared to what? The territories of US or Canada? The American or European populations of 300 million each or those 1.4 billion Chinese? If that's your comparison, then yes, Japan is a relatively small country. However, it is easy to...Show more →
CIPA breaks out camera / lens sales by various regions including Japan, Europe, Asia and North America.
Beni wrote
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!).As for "one small country", compared to what? The territories of US or Canada? The American or European populations of 300 million each or those 1.4 billion Chinese? If that's your comparison, then yes, Japan is a relatively small country. However, it is easy to...Show more →
CIPA breaks out camera / lens sales by various regions including Japan, Europe, Asia and North America.
Jul 20, 2020 at 05:46 PM
p.5 #18Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I'm not saying you shouldn't want your cake and eat it to. But speculation is that the GM 24 is smaller than we would normally expect due to mirrorless design and being freed from the longer flange distance of the mount. Those advantages diminish, as others have noted, as FL increases. I have the Tamron 35, and 24-105 G, and FE 35/2.8, and Samyang 28/2.8, and Leica 35-70/4, and C/Y 35-70, and Minolta MD 35/2.8, had the Batis 40...and probably some I forgot.....I also have the GM 24. And for me the Tamron works best.....it's not fast, nor incredibly small....but it's sharp at all apertures, and right to the deep corner for landscape. I've pixel peeped it, and it works for me. For some it's too big, too slow, etc. But given I predominantly shoot landscapes, I'm okay with slow. It's well corrected for CA, is sealed, and is relatively small and light.
But I know others will have differing priorities, and for them it would be their last choice...and that's very reasonable.
The point I was trying to make is that lenses are always a compromise of various factors. It seems as though many believe there is another mix of compromises that would be the 35 everyone is looking for. Given that there will be compromises...there probably won't be a lens that EVERYBODY believes is the only solution for everyone. It will just be a mixture of compromises that make a certain group happy. Maybe it's a very large group of people. I wouldn't be unhappy if Sony produces that lens, I might even buy it.
-Tim
nandadevieast wrote:
Tim, 2.8 and beyond starts getting overlapped with standard zooms. My 24-105 is not bad at 35. Then there is 24-70 and even a smaller optic, Tamron 28-75. None of these can be as small as a prime so point taken. But then you remember why you are shooting FF and lens like 24 GM lets you have your cake and eat it too, being small, light and 1.4.
-Tim
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 05:57 PM · View previous versions
But I know others will have differing priorities, and for them it would be their last choice...and that's very reasonable.
The point I was trying to make is that lenses are always a compromise of various factors. It seems as though many believe there is another mix of compromises that would be the 35 everyone is looking for. Given that there will be compromises...there probably won't be a lens that EVERYBODY believes is the only solution for everyone. It will just be a mixture of compromises that make a certain group happy. Maybe it's a very large group of people. I wouldn't be unhappy if Sony produces that lens, I might even buy it.
-Tim
nandadevieast wrote:
Tim, 2.8 and beyond starts getting overlapped with standard zooms. My 24-105 is not bad at 35. Then there is 24-70 and even a smaller optic, Tamron 28-75. None of these can be as small as a prime so point taken. But then you remember why you are shooting FF and lens like 24 GM lets you have your cake and eat it too, being small, light and 1.4.
tsdevine wrote
I've gone the Tamron 35/2.8 route as it gives me excellent resolution to the corners, and it's relatively small and light. A CV 35 APO would pique my interest, but other than that I'm not sure what would. We have so many choices at the 35 FL (and more if you include 40) that anything produced would be a slightly different compromise of speed, sharpness, bokeh, size, weight and sealing (not to mentionAF/MF, IS/no IS.) Could someone do it all? Maybe, but my guess is there would still be a compromise....because there almost always is. Is another compromise (which is reality) going to knock it out of the park enough to garner the sales?-Tim
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 05:57 PM · View previous versions
Jul 20, 2020 at 05:49 PM
p.5 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Chris_88 wrote:
Steve, my impression was that this thread was primarily about AF lenses and therefore the SE was not mentioned.
I have it too and like you, I like it. It sharpens up nicely across the frame by around f5.6, which is better than my copy of the Loxia 35. Looks like a keeper, even though I've to admit that I still prefer the Zeiss colors for landscape shots.
As for potential 35 GM lenses, I think they are more likely to come up with a f1.2 lens. That way they can keep the 35 1.4 on the market and create a...Show more →
If Sony comes out with a 35 1.2, we'd be looking at north of $2,000...basically a low volume seller given all the other options available. In a tough environment, not sure it's the wisest business move.
Steve Spencer wrote
Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 SE - It is quite surprising that no one has mentioned this lens, but I think it is a great MF option. It has a bit too much CA, and sharpness suffers closer than 1.5m wide open, but it has lovely bokeh and is nicely sharp across the frame when stopped down. CA clears up nicely as you stop down as well. Also, despite being an f/1.2 lens it weighs less than 400g. This lens is my MF choice and I am quite happy to have this option.I have it too and like you, I like it. It sharpens up nicely across the frame by around f5.6, which is better than my copy of the Loxia 35. Looks like a keeper, even though I've to admit that I still prefer the Zeiss colors for landscape shots.
As for potential 35 GM lenses, I think they are more likely to come up with a f1.2 lens. That way they can keep the 35 1.4 on the market and create a...Show more →
If Sony comes out with a 35 1.2, we'd be looking at north of $2,000...basically a low volume seller given all the other options available. In a tough environment, not sure it's the wisest business move.
Jul 20, 2020 at 05:49 PM
p.5 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Charlie N wrote:
corrected 35 ultron needs to be made in autofocus variety......
with the 24 GM available, not going to waste time with 35mm offerings unless there was something really nice.
I primarily use my FE 24/1.4 GM as 24mm but sometimes crop my images to 28mm (45MP) or even 35mm (29MP). Easy on the A7R IV.
24mm f/1.4
28mm f/1.6
35mm f/2
For 35-40mm, I am enjoying the new CV 35/1.2 and CV 40/1.2 lenses.
corrected 35 ultron needs to be made in autofocus variety......
with the 24 GM available, not going to waste time with 35mm offerings unless there was something really nice.
I primarily use my FE 24/1.4 GM as 24mm but sometimes crop my images to 28mm (45MP) or even 35mm (29MP). Easy on the A7R IV.
24mm f/1.4
28mm f/1.6
35mm f/2
For 35-40mm, I am enjoying the new CV 35/1.2 and CV 40/1.2 lenses.
Jul 20, 2020 at 05:52 PM