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.6 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The fear with the oversized lenses was always that they would proliferate based purely on what the makers wanted to provide, to save themselves design effort and money. By swamping the market, this unasked for and unilateral industry move might have starved users who prefer medium or small lenses of much more than either f2.8 options or manual focus lenses, because of the erroneous claim that 'it has to be big to be any good'.
I heard a NY YT guy mention that some maker(s) may be designing for bigger image circles than the 43mm or so diameter we need to cover full-frame. It's never addressed in reviews.
Speaking of Japan, we are very lucky they prefer the long-established norms over the supersized variety, and they see size/weight as crucial design attributes which increase desirability. Cosina has indicated this is a key piece of information in their feedback from users, helping to explain the lighter SE lenses.
If Sigma's 1090g 35/1.2 was offered in a variant weighing 750 grams but which cost $200 more, would users prefer that? Resale value would be much higher for that one.
I heard a NY YT guy mention that some maker(s) may be designing for bigger image circles than the 43mm or so diameter we need to cover full-frame. It's never addressed in reviews.
Speaking of Japan, we are very lucky they prefer the long-established norms over the supersized variety, and they see size/weight as crucial design attributes which increase desirability. Cosina has indicated this is a key piece of information in their feedback from users, helping to explain the lighter SE lenses.
If Sigma's 1090g 35/1.2 was offered in a variant weighing 750 grams but which cost $200 more, would users prefer that? Resale value would be much higher for that one.
Jul 20, 2020 at 06:17 PM
p.6 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Steve Spencer wrote:
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...Show more →
I have the 35 2.8 and a very good copy of the Distagon but it is on ebay as you say is showing its age. I also have the 35 1.2 SE which I like a lot.
35mm is not a FL I use a lot but I think Sony should some out with a 35 1.4 GM a year or two from now and be the end all when they do. As you and other say 35mm is kind of crowded right not my dad always said until you have a competitive advantage don't compete.
Sony gets better and better each year at IQ, AF, size, coatings and as sensor resolution increases let them learn even more and come out with a 35 1.4 GM when they have learned even more and give us a lens that will not need a series II revision for ten years that will better all comers.
I would much rather see and I think it would be more profitable for them to come out with a series II 24-70 GM that is 15% smaller & lighter with much improved IQ and linear AF motors.
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 06:58 PM · View previous versions
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...Show more →
I have the 35 2.8 and a very good copy of the Distagon but it is on ebay as you say is showing its age. I also have the 35 1.2 SE which I like a lot.
35mm is not a FL I use a lot but I think Sony should some out with a 35 1.4 GM a year or two from now and be the end all when they do. As you and other say 35mm is kind of crowded right not my dad always said until you have a competitive advantage don't compete.
Sony gets better and better each year at IQ, AF, size, coatings and as sensor resolution increases let them learn even more and come out with a 35 1.4 GM when they have learned even more and give us a lens that will not need a series II revision for ten years that will better all comers.
I would much rather see and I think it would be more profitable for them to come out with a series II 24-70 GM that is 15% smaller & lighter with much improved IQ and linear AF motors.
Edited on Jul 20, 2020 at 06:58 PM · View previous versions
Jul 20, 2020 at 06:35 PM
p.6 #3Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
philip_pj wrote:
The fear with the oversized lenses was always that they would proliferate based purely on what the makers wanted to provide, to save themselves design effort and money. By swamping the market, this unasked for and unilateral industry move might have starved users who prefer medium or small lenses of much more than either f2.8 options or manual focus lenses, because of the erroneous claim that 'it has to be big to be any good'.
I heard a NY YT guy mention that some maker(s) may be designing for bigger image circles than the 43mm or so diameter we need...Show more →
I value bulk and weight of a lens just as highly as other attributes like corner performance. If I don't enjoy using a lens...it will sit on a shelf no matter how good the image quality is.
The fear with the oversized lenses was always that they would proliferate based purely on what the makers wanted to provide, to save themselves design effort and money. By swamping the market, this unasked for and unilateral industry move might have starved users who prefer medium or small lenses of much more than either f2.8 options or manual focus lenses, because of the erroneous claim that 'it has to be big to be any good'.
I heard a NY YT guy mention that some maker(s) may be designing for bigger image circles than the 43mm or so diameter we need...Show more →
I value bulk and weight of a lens just as highly as other attributes like corner performance. If I don't enjoy using a lens...it will sit on a shelf no matter how good the image quality is.
Jul 20, 2020 at 06:57 PM
p.6 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I thought we had:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Jul 20, 2020 at 07:03 PM
p.6 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Steve Spencer wrote:
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).
I think the onion ring issue is a bit overblown. Every (Nikon) wedding photographer's wet dream, the 58mm 1.4g has onion rings, the Leica 35mm Summilux has onion rings. However in my opinion Onion rings are rarely a problem. I have never heard a client complain about onion rings. With a 35mm lens especially how frequently would one have bokeh discs large enough for onion rings to become a distraction?
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).
I think the onion ring issue is a bit overblown. Every (Nikon) wedding photographer's wet dream, the 58mm 1.4g has onion rings, the Leica 35mm Summilux has onion rings. However in my opinion Onion rings are rarely a problem. I have never heard a client complain about onion rings. With a 35mm lens especially how frequently would one have bokeh discs large enough for onion rings to become a distraction?
Jul 20, 2020 at 11:34 PM
p.6 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
hotel117 wrote:
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Yes, it is.
Also worth having a look at the Lenstip review. Across frame sharpness at infinity at f/1.2 matches f/11.
That is completely insane and would have been something unthinkable of a few years back.
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Yes, it is.
Also worth having a look at the Lenstip review. Across frame sharpness at infinity at f/1.2 matches f/11.
That is completely insane and would have been something unthinkable of a few years back.
Jul 20, 2020 at 11:56 PM
p.6 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
hotel117 wrote:
I thought we had:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
I thought we had:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of it, like some other 35s, but I am waiting ultimate judgment until I can play around with it quite a bit more.
Jul 21, 2020 at 12:11 AM
p.6 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
From Fred’s post, then 24 GN should be the best 35 for a7R3/4 owners. In other news i have cancelled the order i placed for 35/1.4 Samyang. I will wait a bit for a nice 35 and i have 50s so i am not stuck.
Jul 21, 2020 at 01:49 AM
p.6 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Sinasina wrote:
I think the onion ring issue is a bit overblown. Every (Nikon) wedding photographer's wet dream, the 58mm 1.4g has onion rings, the Leica 35mm Summilux has onion rings. However in my opinion Onion rings are rarely a problem. I have never heard a client complain about onion rings. With a 35mm lens especially how frequently would one have bokeh discs large enough for onion rings to become a distraction?
I think they can be avoided in many situations, but probably not all (at least I can't avoid them in all situations). Like most issues with bokeh, however, how big of a problem they are is matter of personal taste. Some people are really bothered by them. Others are not.
Steve Spencer wrote
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).I think they can be avoided in many situations, but probably not all (at least I can't avoid them in all situations). Like most issues with bokeh, however, how big of a problem they are is matter of personal taste. Some people are really bothered by them. Others are not.
Jul 21, 2020 at 06:33 AM
p.6 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
chez wrote:
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.
I agree with you, chez, they won't be able to sell as many 35 1.2's as 24-105's or 35 1.8's, but may be the margins are much higher for every 35 1.2 they sell. Again, in the absence of data, there is no definite answer (Roger might have one?). However, based on the pricing of many recent offerings (the 12-24 GM is just the most recent example, and Sony clearly is not the exception here), makers seem to see a (robust?) market for very fast and very expensive glass. Some of these lenses may indeed be statement products that are sold at a loss/come with very high production costs, but makers might consider such a technological/optical tour de force necessary to make a point (like the original Noctilux 50). I would still think that most of these lenses are designed to make their makers a profit, though.
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.
I agree with you, chez, they won't be able to sell as many 35 1.2's as 24-105's or 35 1.8's, but may be the margins are much higher for every 35 1.2 they sell. Again, in the absence of data, there is no definite answer (Roger might have one?). However, based on the pricing of many recent offerings (the 12-24 GM is just the most recent example, and Sony clearly is not the exception here), makers seem to see a (robust?) market for very fast and very expensive glass. Some of these lenses may indeed be statement products that are sold at a loss/come with very high production costs, but makers might consider such a technological/optical tour de force necessary to make a point (like the original Noctilux 50). I would still think that most of these lenses are designed to make their makers a profit, though.
Jul 21, 2020 at 06:47 AM
p.6 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the onion ring issue is a bit overblown. Every (Nikon) wedding photographer's wet dream, the 58mm 1.4g has onion rings, the Leica 35mm Summilux has onion rings. However in my opinion Onion rings are rarely a problem. I have never heard a client complain about onion rings. With a 35mm lens especially how frequently would one have bokeh discs large enough for onion rings to become a distraction?I think they can be avoided in many situations, but probably not all (at least I can't avoid them in all situations). Like most issues with bokeh, however, how big of a problem they are is matter of personal taste. Some people are really bothered by them. Others are not.
I believe it's more the photographers are bothered by onion rings...not the client. But I understand the photographer needs to be happy with their results as well.
Sinasina wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
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).I believe it's more the photographers are bothered by onion rings...not the client. But I understand the photographer needs to be happy with their results as well.
Jul 21, 2020 at 07:55 AM
p.6 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I personally hate onion rings. I finally gave up trying on the FE 35 1.4 even after 5 tries the onion rings which are really bad No mater if I did get a great copy I still hate the onion rings. And no clients do notice onion rings. Not sure how they can not notice . It’s pretty damn obvious. Clients are hiring Pros so there very tuned into what we do and the look they are after. Stop thinking weddings. I shoot advertising and corporate commercial work and so do many of us.
Not sure what the big mystery is here each aperture standard on a lens means certain things. A 35 2.8 will be the smaller, lighter lens and the bokeh and look will not be as nice as let’s say a 1.4
Typically every 1.8 lens is designed to be very sharp, bokeh is just okay and it’s usually a middle of the road lens in terms of size, weight and let’s throw in price. You can call that the general purpose glass
Your 1.4 will be the bigger, heavier and more expensive offerings with a nicer look, nicer bokeh . Call this one the high end glass
The 1.2 lens follow that same trend but bigger , heavier and such. No one knows the sales numbers but guessing if there selling is a mistake. We don’t know and who cares. We all just want what we are looking for. I don’t mind spending the money so I usually go for the 1.4 lenses but that’s the whole line not just 35. Nothing really changes here with focal length they all follow this same pattern 24,35,50,85 and so on. Aperture is usually dictating how a lens in general really is. Seriously you want small and light do not look at a 1.4 lens. Notice they are not small and light. Fastest you will get is a 1.8 which is fine but more important this is how it all works. Brand and such means very little
There is a nice 35 lens for Sony in all apertures, just might Not be a Sony branded lens. Folks need to remember this is not about brands, size , weight or price . None of that dictates how a lens will act on cameras And it’s outcome will usually follow that aperture pattern mentioned . Your never going to Get the look of a 1.2 lens with a 1.8 or F 2 or 2.8 . Just not going to happen. Now is there a great 1.4 lens for Sony. Answer would be no at least not in AF. Too me the FE 35 1.4 now remember I bought 5 of them but it’s a epic fail. Onion rings not withstanding the production issue with soft corners was horrific. So yes be nice to see a GM 35 1.4 or a new Sigma 1.4 . Today it’s all about zooms from these folks
Be well everyone and be safe.
Not sure what the big mystery is here each aperture standard on a lens means certain things. A 35 2.8 will be the smaller, lighter lens and the bokeh and look will not be as nice as let’s say a 1.4
Typically every 1.8 lens is designed to be very sharp, bokeh is just okay and it’s usually a middle of the road lens in terms of size, weight and let’s throw in price. You can call that the general purpose glass
Your 1.4 will be the bigger, heavier and more expensive offerings with a nicer look, nicer bokeh . Call this one the high end glass
The 1.2 lens follow that same trend but bigger , heavier and such. No one knows the sales numbers but guessing if there selling is a mistake. We don’t know and who cares. We all just want what we are looking for. I don’t mind spending the money so I usually go for the 1.4 lenses but that’s the whole line not just 35. Nothing really changes here with focal length they all follow this same pattern 24,35,50,85 and so on. Aperture is usually dictating how a lens in general really is. Seriously you want small and light do not look at a 1.4 lens. Notice they are not small and light. Fastest you will get is a 1.8 which is fine but more important this is how it all works. Brand and such means very little
There is a nice 35 lens for Sony in all apertures, just might Not be a Sony branded lens. Folks need to remember this is not about brands, size , weight or price . None of that dictates how a lens will act on cameras And it’s outcome will usually follow that aperture pattern mentioned . Your never going to Get the look of a 1.2 lens with a 1.8 or F 2 or 2.8 . Just not going to happen. Now is there a great 1.4 lens for Sony. Answer would be no at least not in AF. Too me the FE 35 1.4 now remember I bought 5 of them but it’s a epic fail. Onion rings not withstanding the production issue with soft corners was horrific. So yes be nice to see a GM 35 1.4 or a new Sigma 1.4 . Today it’s all about zooms from these folks
Be well everyone and be safe.
Jul 21, 2020 at 08:49 AM
p.6 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Gotta use Panko crumb.
And don't skimp on the oil, put the evoo in the deep fry.
Life's too short not to enjoy a good onion ring.
And don't skimp on the oil, put the evoo in the deep fry.
Life's too short not to enjoy a good onion ring.
Jul 21, 2020 at 08:54 AM
p.6 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
What’s the best 35 in manual focus lenses? Is it 35/1.2 SE?
Jul 21, 2020 at 09:22 AM
p.6 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Leica mount
CV 35 1.2 SE the new one. I have not shot it but Fred really likes it. I may buy it , was actually planning on it
CV 35 1.2 SE the new one. I have not shot it but Fred really likes it. I may buy it , was actually planning on it
Jul 21, 2020 at 09:45 AM
p.6 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I liked the 35 SE a lot but looking for something sharper at closer distance, otherwise it's pretty much perfect.
Cameraquest has two for mint:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtlander-used/
Cameraquest has two for mint:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtlander-used/
Jul 21, 2020 at 11:03 AM
p.6 #18Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I absolutely LOVE my sigma 35 1.2. It was the first lens I got when I switched to sony and it keeps impressing me. It's rendering is so gorgeous and biting sharp. Reminds me of the sigma 40 1.4 I had that I still want to get 
I used the 35 1.2 for comet neowise last 2 nights and it has really impressed me a lot so far! I actually really enjoy it's long focus throw that helps to get stars in focus. I setup the camera to not correct for vignetting because it really tends to overcorrect for the 1.2.
The other awesome 35 is the sigma 35 1.4 that's been a damn bargain for a long time (been wanting to buy it again as I tend to not hike around with the 1.2 much). Haven't been impressed really with what sony has with their 35mm lenses. Who knows if we will see a 35 GM. IMO I kinda doubt. Plus sony really loves to mark up their lenses on new levels.
I used the 35 1.2 for comet neowise last 2 nights and it has really impressed me a lot so far! I actually really enjoy it's long focus throw that helps to get stars in focus. I setup the camera to not correct for vignetting because it really tends to overcorrect for the 1.2. The other awesome 35 is the sigma 35 1.4 that's been a damn bargain for a long time (been wanting to buy it again as I tend to not hike around with the 1.2 much). Haven't been impressed really with what sony has with their 35mm lenses. Who knows if we will see a 35 GM. IMO I kinda doubt. Plus sony really loves to mark up their lenses on new levels.
Jul 21, 2020 at 06:04 PM
p.6 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I had the Sigma 35 1.4 a couple times. Had some tech issues with one but more important never found it to be the king of 1.4 glass. Like to try the 1.2 though
Jul 21, 2020 at 06:44 PM
p.6 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.Some shooters aren’t too fond of the Bokeh and transitions on the 35 1.8. The coma and CA correction isn’t great, while flare/ghosting is just ok too. Colors are preferential, but I like GM colors.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of...Show more →
Full disclosure: I'm biased and I bought it. It'll always fall short of the Voigtlander 40mm F1.2, but the MFD and performance at MFD at great (at least in terms of sharpness), and fortunately it has all the extra buttons and switches I want on a lens. I agree the colors have that bit of Sony sterility. It really should have been 100-200 cheaper, considering what Nikon or Canon did with their initial mirrorless 35 offering.
hotel117 wrote
I thought we had:Sony 35 F2.8: Great sharpness, size, contrast, only weakness being MFD (which probably doesn't matter as much for a lightweight street lens)
Sony 35 F1.8: Still a small lens, proper AF/MF buttons, excellent sharpness and contrast, just the usual overpriced Sony tax
Sigma 35 F1.2: The only drawback is size, I even think it's worth the money for the intended audience. According the Phillip Reeves website (don't remember who actually did the review), it's pretty much optical perfection.
Price was fine by me though. I’d actually pay twice was much for a well built 260g 35mm with zippy AF and MFD and sharpness like the FE 35. It’s a solid lens, but people waited for it for a long time, and they wanted something along the lines of the RX1 Sonnar or GM 24.
I haven’t seen a lot of wow images out of...Show more →
Full disclosure: I'm biased and I bought it. It'll always fall short of the Voigtlander 40mm F1.2, but the MFD and performance at MFD at great (at least in terms of sharpness), and fortunately it has all the extra buttons and switches I want on a lens. I agree the colors have that bit of Sony sterility. It really should have been 100-200 cheaper, considering what Nikon or Canon did with their initial mirrorless 35 offering.
Jul 21, 2020 at 07:02 PM