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.9 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Glad I found this thread.
So I am one who has tried all of Sony's offering of AF 35' and still own the 35/1.4 ZA and 35/1.8. Also own the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 and Batis 40/2 CF. For simply walking around admit I like the 40/2 CF a lot and its girth doesn't bother me. Sure it would be great for Sony to try to catch the same lighting in the bottle as they did with the 24 GM but maybe it just can't be done. So I will ask this and look at it a little differently.
If you were looking for the best mirrorless 35mm lens out there, independent of manufacturer or mount what do you think is the best? Then I wonder if Sony could match it or do even better? Don't know but would that be the benchmark to shoot for? There should be one MF, one AF and then maybe one ultra small. Which lens would you like to see Sony best? Let us all know.
For AF I am not sure but for MF I always thought the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon for M mount was the one I always wanted but did not show up in the Loxia line. The new CV's might be every bit as good but I just haven't had an opportunity to try one. I've had the the Loxia 35/2 since it first came out (I pre-ordered it). For MF I just never saw the need to replace it but maybe I should look at the new CVs.
So I am one who has tried all of Sony's offering of AF 35' and still own the 35/1.4 ZA and 35/1.8. Also own the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 and Batis 40/2 CF. For simply walking around admit I like the 40/2 CF a lot and its girth doesn't bother me. Sure it would be great for Sony to try to catch the same lighting in the bottle as they did with the 24 GM but maybe it just can't be done. So I will ask this and look at it a little differently.
If you were looking for the best mirrorless 35mm lens out there, independent of manufacturer or mount what do you think is the best? Then I wonder if Sony could match it or do even better? Don't know but would that be the benchmark to shoot for? There should be one MF, one AF and then maybe one ultra small. Which lens would you like to see Sony best? Let us all know.
For AF I am not sure but for MF I always thought the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon for M mount was the one I always wanted but did not show up in the Loxia line. The new CV's might be every bit as good but I just haven't had an opportunity to try one. I've had the the Loxia 35/2 since it first came out (I pre-ordered it). For MF I just never saw the need to replace it but maybe I should look at the new CVs.
Jul 24, 2020 at 07:26 PM
p.9 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
swldstn wrote:
Glad I found this thread.
So I am one who has tried all of Sony's offering of AF 35' and still own the 35/1.4 ZA and 35/1.8. Also own the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 and Batis 40/2 CF. For simply walking around admit I like the 40/2 CF a lot and its girth doesn't bother me. Sure it would be great for Sony to try to catch the same lighting in the bottle as they did with the 24 GM but maybe it just can't be done. So I will ask this and look at it a little differently.
If you were looking...Show more →
I think it’s a very crowded field but when Sony who’s lenses get better each year can Trump the 35’s on the market today they will come out with a 35 1.4 or even a 2.0 that blows the others away. It’s just a matter of time.
Jul 24, 2020 at 07:51 PM
p.9 #3Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
trstahly wrote:
Bob_S wrote
The Sigma 35/1.2 doesn't flare any more than other similar lenses.The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it is proof it's not that heavy.
It's lighter than my 105/1.4, 70-200, 24-70 -you know, other popular lenses that are regularly used.
Go get yourself one.
Also which is slightly contradicting my first sentence when you already have the 16-35GM that accepts filters its hard to get excited about buying a whole new lens for 2mm.
I have every reason to believe that the Sony will at least equal the Sigma from 14-24 and will AF better and improved ghosting etc. Cost is not a consideration with me only getting what I want in a lens.
I have the 12-24 and it's beautiful, better than any 14-24 for it's ability to go wider and exaggerate perspective, however, it's not a 35 let alone a 35 f1.2, even at 24mm and cropped to 35mm, it's not even close in terms of the look you'll have from the Sigma.
You should try the Sigma 35 1.2, it's really exquisite, the way it 'draws' a picture isn't comparable to any other 35 and it focuses, as you said, very, very close. Give it a shot, it's a very sweet optic 👍
Jul 24, 2020 at 10:37 PM
p.9 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
For optical flaws in Sony 35 f/1.8, it is too expensive imo. $800 for a lens with harsh unpleasing bokeh, coma smearing and fringing issues is hard to digest, otherwise it is an excellent size for Sony mirror less bodies. I don't understand why Sony didn't make it like their 20mm f/1.8G. That lens is a pure joy to use and IQ is amazing. If they were going for Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 aesthetics, they should have gone all the way and labeled it Zeiss and fix those optical issues.
Jul 25, 2020 at 05:35 AM
p.9 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Bob_S wrote:
The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it is proof it's not that heavy.
It's lighter than my 105/1.4, 70-200, 24-70 -you know, other popular lenses that are regularly used.
Go get yourself one.I have the Sony 12-24 GM coming instead, I want 12mm where you can really do some neat stuff when focusing on near objects and for architecture and indoor photos of buildings.
Also which is slightly contradicting my first sentence when you already have the 16-35GM that accepts filters its hard to get excited about buying a whole new lens for 2mm.
I have every reason to believe that the Sony will at least equal the Sigma from 14-24 and will AF better and improved ghosting etc. Cost is not a consideration with me only getting what I want in a lens.I have the 12-24 and it's beautiful, better than any 14-24 for it's ability to go wider and exaggerate perspective, however, it's not a 35 let alone a 35 f1.2, even at 24mm and cropped to 35mm, it's not even close in terms of the look you'll have from the Sigma.
You should try the Sigma 35 1.2, it's really exquisite, the way it 'draws' a picture isn't comparable to any other 35 and it focuses, as you said, very, very close. Give it a shot, it's a very sweet optic 👍
I'll take your word for it but at 38.5 oz I have zero interest in using one, even if it were free. That is just to flippin heavy and large especially for a wide angle lens.
trstahly wrote
Bob_S wrote
The Sigma 35/1.2 doesn't flare any more than other similar lenses.The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it is proof it's not that heavy.
It's lighter than my 105/1.4, 70-200, 24-70 -you know, other popular lenses that are regularly used.
Go get yourself one.
Also which is slightly contradicting my first sentence when you already have the 16-35GM that accepts filters its hard to get excited about buying a whole new lens for 2mm.
I have every reason to believe that the Sony will at least equal the Sigma from 14-24 and will AF better and improved ghosting etc. Cost is not a consideration with me only getting what I want in a lens.
You should try the Sigma 35 1.2, it's really exquisite, the way it 'draws' a picture isn't comparable to any other 35 and it focuses, as you said, very, very close. Give it a shot, it's a very sweet optic 👍
I'll take your word for it but at 38.5 oz I have zero interest in using one, even if it were free. That is just to flippin heavy and large especially for a wide angle lens.
Jul 25, 2020 at 07:44 AM
p.9 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Somebody please make a 35/2 that is between the size of the Sony 35/2.8 and the Lox 35/2, but excellent right from wide open (Zeiss swung and missed with this lens). Doesn't need to have super build quality (make it like the Sony 35/2.8 which is just fine), but decent AF and excellent from wide open. Did I mention excellent from wide open? Make it an expensive lens just due to the optical quality and many will buy.
Jul 25, 2020 at 10:33 AM
p.9 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Zenit officially announced their new Zenitar 35mm f/2 lens for Sony E-mount
 |
||
| https://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Zenit-Zenitar-35mm-f2-lens-for-Sony-E-mount.jpg | ||
|
Jul 25, 2020 at 10:55 AM
p.9 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I totally love the sigma 35 1.2. It's so darn good 
Shot at 1.2.
Shot at 1.2.
Jul 26, 2020 at 12:17 AM
p.9 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I pulled the trigger for the Tamron 35mm 2.8 for Sony. It does have good reviews and is very affordable. I don't care about the speed of the AF - since I'm normally working in MF with my Apo Lanthar.
I hope the AF is at least precise, any opinions on this? Second concern: It does have some distortion. I work with CO. Any recommendations for that? They haven't done a profile for it until now.
I hope the AF is at least precise, any opinions on this? Second concern: It does have some distortion. I work with CO. Any recommendations for that? They haven't done a profile for it until now.
Jul 26, 2020 at 04:43 AM
p.9 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The AF seems similarly reliable compared to my other lenses. I will say that AF is more snappy in AF-C mode though. I don't think distortion is much of an issue, that was a bigger problem with the 20 and 24.
My copy is sharp into the corners wide open, and seems to hold resolution better into the corners compared to my FE 35/2.8 ZA. But that lens is somewhat known for copy variation, so I guess you have to take it with a grain of salt. I have all 3 APO-Lanthars and this lens and there isn't a huge gap in performance from a sharpness and CA perspective.
Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 @ f/2.8
Full Size
Full Size @ f/5.6
-Tim
obwohl wrote:
I pulled the trigger for the Tamron 35mm 2.8 for Sony. It does have good reviews and is very affordable. I don't care about the speed of the AF - since I'm normally working in MF with my Apo Lanthar.
I hope the AF is at least precise, any opinions on this? Second concern: It does have some distortion. I work with CO. Any recommendations for that? They haven't done a profile for it until now.
My copy is sharp into the corners wide open, and seems to hold resolution better into the corners compared to my FE 35/2.8 ZA. But that lens is somewhat known for copy variation, so I guess you have to take it with a grain of salt. I have all 3 APO-Lanthars and this lens and there isn't a huge gap in performance from a sharpness and CA perspective.
Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 @ f/2.8
|
||
| https://www.devine.photography/img/s/v-10/p3850777703-6.jpg | ||
|
Full Size
Full Size @ f/5.6
-Tim
obwohl wrote:
I pulled the trigger for the Tamron 35mm 2.8 for Sony. It does have good reviews and is very affordable. I don't care about the speed of the AF - since I'm normally working in MF with my Apo Lanthar.
I hope the AF is at least precise, any opinions on this? Second concern: It does have some distortion. I work with CO. Any recommendations for that? They haven't done a profile for it until now.
Jul 26, 2020 at 06:06 AM
p.9 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
For optical flaws in Sony 35 f/1.8, it is too expensive imo. $800 for a lens with harsh unpleasing bokeh, coma smearing and fringing issues is hard to digest, otherwise it is an excellent size for Sony mirror less bodies. I don't understand why Sony didn't make it like their 20mm f/1.8G. That lens is a pure joy to use and IQ is amazing. If they were going for Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 aesthetics, they should have gone all the way and labeled it Zeiss and fix those optical issues.
I just don’t see “harsh unpleasing bokeh” or “fringing issues” in any of my many images taken with the Sony 35/1.8. Is what you’re describing from personal experience with the lens?
For optical flaws in Sony 35 f/1.8, it is too expensive imo. $800 for a lens with harsh unpleasing bokeh, coma smearing and fringing issues is hard to digest, otherwise it is an excellent size for Sony mirror less bodies. I don't understand why Sony didn't make it like their 20mm f/1.8G. That lens is a pure joy to use and IQ is amazing. If they were going for Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 aesthetics, they should have gone all the way and labeled it Zeiss and fix those optical issues.
I just don’t see “harsh unpleasing bokeh” or “fringing issues” in any of my many images taken with the Sony 35/1.8. Is what you’re describing from personal experience with the lens?
Jul 26, 2020 at 07:26 AM
p.9 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
smpetty wrote:
I just don’t see “harsh unpleasing bokeh” or “fringing issues” in any of my many images taken with the Sony 35/1.8. Is what you’re describing from personal experience with the lens?
I really don't give a single dime about the bokeh because I find everything looks good in the right scenario, but I'd be curious for you to elaborate on a lack of fringing. There were a lot of reviews when the lens came out pretty clearly demonstrating that the fringing just never goes away, ever.
DPReview's Sample Gallery, f11 corrects to all the leaves having gray outlines. Phillip Reeve's review shows similar performance. As I was really hoping to use the lens for documentary styled purposes, I was a bit taken aback by this performance. I didn't really care about a lack of corner sharpness compared to the best modern lenses, because extreme corner sharpness is rarely important even in landscape applications.
I've also heard some more favorable reviews though, and I've always wondered where the disconnect is. Care to elaborate?
I just don’t see “harsh unpleasing bokeh” or “fringing issues” in any of my many images taken with the Sony 35/1.8. Is what you’re describing from personal experience with the lens?
I really don't give a single dime about the bokeh because I find everything looks good in the right scenario, but I'd be curious for you to elaborate on a lack of fringing. There were a lot of reviews when the lens came out pretty clearly demonstrating that the fringing just never goes away, ever.
DPReview's Sample Gallery, f11 corrects to all the leaves having gray outlines. Phillip Reeve's review shows similar performance. As I was really hoping to use the lens for documentary styled purposes, I was a bit taken aback by this performance. I didn't really care about a lack of corner sharpness compared to the best modern lenses, because extreme corner sharpness is rarely important even in landscape applications.
I've also heard some more favorable reviews though, and I've always wondered where the disconnect is. Care to elaborate?
Jul 26, 2020 at 07:39 AM
p.9 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
That first image is very good! They all are but that one really caught my eye, very nice!
Jul 26, 2020 at 07:58 AM
p.9 #14Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party lenses and nearby lenses such as Sigma Art 40mm. A Sony user already had plenty of options to choose from. On the other hand, there are specialty lenses that aren't available in the E-mount yet such as T&S lenses which certainly add to the overall value of the system once they become available.
So I prefer that Sony doesn't develop yet another prime 35mm at least until they have completed their lens line up with some specialty lenses or even some exotic lenses!
So I prefer that Sony doesn't develop yet another prime 35mm at least until they have completed their lens line up with some specialty lenses or even some exotic lenses!
Jul 27, 2020 at 07:35 AM
p.9 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
raminolta wrote:
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party...Show more →
Oh Pshaw...there aren't that many 35mm lenses for E-mount!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party...Show more →
Oh Pshaw...there aren't that many 35mm lenses for E-mount!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
Jul 27, 2020 at 07:39 AM
p.9 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Jman13 wrote:
raminolta wrote
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party lenses and nearby lenses such as Sigma Art 40mm. A Sony user already had plenty of options to choose from. On the other hand, there are specialty lenses that aren't available in the E-mount yet such as T&S lenses which certainly add to the overall value of the system once they become available.So I prefer that Sony doesn't develop yet another prime 35mm at least until they have completed their lens line up with some specialty lenses or even some exotic lenses!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
Add the character full ZM35/1.4 and anything else adaptable that works well.
Jul 27, 2020 at 07:41 AM
p.9 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
raminolta wrote:
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party...Show more →
Jman13 wrote:
Oh Pshaw...there aren't that many 35mm lenses for E-mount!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
I don't think there would be any kind of clamoring for a better 1.8/2 35mm if not for a) better corrected, better rendering (if perhaps lower resolving @ center) similarly fast lenses didn't exist for other systems via the Voigtlander 35 1.7 Ultron, Nikkor 35 1.8 s, and even the 40 CF if we want to extend the focal length a bit, b) if the 35 1.8 FE didn't come out almost at the same time the much better 20 G came out (if it came out at the start of the system it would be considered a classic I'm sure), and c) if the 1.8 FE wasn't so functionally perfect via AF speed & accuracy, linear MF response, close to 0 focus breathing, sealing, and excellent mfd that if it had the optics & build of the 20 G it would be the definitive compact 35 for any system.
If it had been further off the mark, made in 2013, or if lenses with better optics & a similar form factor didn't exist no one would have cared. Sure, if you want the end all, be all of 35mm professional lenses the 35 1.2 will probably only be beat in any significant way via AF speed & distortion correction (and perhaps size, but I literally don't have the optics know how to comment). But the fact that the 35 1.8 FE isn't one of the all time greats when all the tools were there at Sony's disposal and they didn't use them has probably left a sour taste in people's mouths.
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party...Show more →
Jman13 wrote:
Oh Pshaw...there aren't that many 35mm lenses for E-mount!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
I don't think there would be any kind of clamoring for a better 1.8/2 35mm if not for a) better corrected, better rendering (if perhaps lower resolving @ center) similarly fast lenses didn't exist for other systems via the Voigtlander 35 1.7 Ultron, Nikkor 35 1.8 s, and even the 40 CF if we want to extend the focal length a bit, b) if the 35 1.8 FE didn't come out almost at the same time the much better 20 G came out (if it came out at the start of the system it would be considered a classic I'm sure), and c) if the 1.8 FE wasn't so functionally perfect via AF speed & accuracy, linear MF response, close to 0 focus breathing, sealing, and excellent mfd that if it had the optics & build of the 20 G it would be the definitive compact 35 for any system.
If it had been further off the mark, made in 2013, or if lenses with better optics & a similar form factor didn't exist no one would have cared. Sure, if you want the end all, be all of 35mm professional lenses the 35 1.2 will probably only be beat in any significant way via AF speed & distortion correction (and perhaps size, but I literally don't have the optics know how to comment). But the fact that the 35 1.8 FE isn't one of the all time greats when all the tools were there at Sony's disposal and they didn't use them has probably left a sour taste in people's mouths.
Jul 27, 2020 at 09:40 AM
p.9 #18Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Hehe i clearly see a place for a GM here 
Jman13 wrote:
So I prefer that Sony doesn't develop yet another prime 35mm at least until they have completed their lens line up with some specialty lenses or even some exotic lenses!Oh Pshaw...there aren't that many 35mm lenses for E-mount!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
Jman13 wrote:
raminolta wrote
I vote against Sony spending R&D on yet another 35mm prime lens no matter how stellar that may turn out to be. Yes, in an ideal world this is a great idea but in the real world, Sony doesn't have unlimited R&D resources. Designing an unnecessary lens means lack of resources for developing other lenses that aren't currently available in the E-mount yet, for example T&S lenses. The fact is there are now many 35mm primes lenses available in the E-mount from Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 to the compact Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and all the other 35mm third party lenses and nearby lenses such as Sigma Art 40mm. A Sony user already had plenty of options to choose from. On the other hand, there are specialty lenses that aren't available in the E-mount yet such as T&S lenses which certainly add to the overall value of the system once they become available.So I prefer that Sony doesn't develop yet another prime 35mm at least until they have completed their lens line up with some specialty lenses or even some exotic lenses!
Just:
Sigma 35/1.2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 SE
Sony 35/1.4
Samyang 35/1.4
Sigma 35/1.4
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Classic
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Loxia 35mm f/2
Samyang 35mm f/2.8
Sony 35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35mm f/2.8
And probably a few more. I mean, that's only 11 options at this focal length....clearly we need more.
Jul 27, 2020 at 11:31 AM
p.9 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
.. in my back there is always room for a extraordinary lens
..the Sigma 35mm 1.2 is extraordinary but to heavy for everyday use(I have it)
..the Batis 40mm is a F2.8 lens (not sharp at F2) - but lives on one of my camera body’s (hate and love)
So I`m also waiting for a GM 35 or/and GM 50 (I hate the 50mm 1.4 the focus is to noisy)
..the Sigma 35mm 1.2 is extraordinary but to heavy for everyday use(I have it)
..the Batis 40mm is a F2.8 lens (not sharp at F2) - but lives on one of my camera body’s (hate and love)
So I`m also waiting for a GM 35 or/and GM 50 (I hate the 50mm 1.4 the focus is to noisy)
Jul 27, 2020 at 11:46 AM
p.9 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
GM 24
GM 35
GM 50
GM 85 II
GM 135
GM 300/4 DO
GM 400/5.6 DO
GM 600/8 DO
GM 35
GM 50
GM 85 II
GM 135
GM 300/4 DO
GM 400/5.6 DO
GM 600/8 DO
Jul 27, 2020 at 11:52 AM