'Wow' factor lens treat
p.1 #1'Wow' factor lens treat
I am very pleased with my kit: A7CR, 16-35 and 24-50, plus some wide and longer lenses for special circumstances. It's great for travel, family, events, gatherings, walks, etc. Everyone loves the results.
I have the opportunity to indulge myself by adding another lens, something which duplicates the existing 40-50 range I have covered. Size and weight no object this time. What would you choose, as a complete treat?
So far it seems to me either the 50/1.2 GM or the Sigma 28-45/1.8 based on perusing many, many pictures and comments on this forum. Out of left field, I also really like the Leica 43/2 attached to the Q3 43, but that would mean acquiring the camera as well.
What would you do if you were me?
I have the opportunity to indulge myself by adding another lens, something which duplicates the existing 40-50 range I have covered. Size and weight no object this time. What would you choose, as a complete treat?
So far it seems to me either the 50/1.2 GM or the Sigma 28-45/1.8 based on perusing many, many pictures and comments on this forum. Out of left field, I also really like the Leica 43/2 attached to the Q3 43, but that would mean acquiring the camera as well.
What would you do if you were me?
Apr 02, 2026 at 04:19 AM
p.1 #2'Wow' factor lens treat
Do you want to buy a lens whose rendering you like, or do you want a specific focal length, and are willing to pay the most for it? The lenses you mentioned (including a camera!) are so different that I'm almost certain you're looking for the latter.
In short, I wouldn't ask others for advice, but rather ask myself what I'm actually looking for and why.
In short, I wouldn't ask others for advice, but rather ask myself what I'm actually looking for and why.
Apr 02, 2026 at 04:49 AM
p.1 #3'Wow' factor lens treat
I'm getting ready to post my 40 1.2 SE whenever I get around to taking pictures of it. It's one of my favorite lenses but manual focus.
Apr 02, 2026 at 07:38 AM
p.1 #4'Wow' factor lens treat
Seems like you are wanting/willing to duplicate focal length. In that case, are you wanting a faster lens? Or are you looking to replace one of your lenses? Between the choices you listed, I'd lean towards the 50/1.2 personally.
Apr 02, 2026 at 07:41 AM
p.1 #5'Wow' factor lens treat
Get the 40 nokton from Cosina
Or a Zeiss 55/1.8
When you fall in love with the IQ/rendering; you’ll know it for sure!
Or a Zeiss 55/1.8
When you fall in love with the IQ/rendering; you’ll know it for sure!
Apr 02, 2026 at 08:23 AM
p.1 #6'Wow' factor lens treat
Sounds like the next step for you is primes, but before you jump into the deep end of big expensive primes, I would start with cheaper f2/f1.8 primes until you understand the focal lengths you prefer. Pick whatever flavor of fast 24, 50, 35, 85, etc and you'll find no shortage of people who love to praise their own expensive purchase lol. But there are definitely stylistic preferences in focal lengths. For instance, me...I'm a 35mm/85mm guy and have never kept a fast 50 for very long. Just not my preference, but it took really experimenting with different lenses to understand this. Only when you know what you really want, should you jump into buying an expensive prime.
Another thing to consider is that for casual shooting, big heavy primes tend to be a hassle after the honeymoon phase wears off. For casual shooting, my love is for fastish f2/f1.8 primes that maybe are not optical quality kings, but are fun to shoot with. I have my Sigma 35 f1.2, 85GM, 24GM, 135 f1.8 mostly for gig work, but these tend to stay in the cabinet during off-season. That said, I just went ham ordering a bunch of cheap chinese primes (thanks a lot Nifty Fifty
all for a quarter of the price of a single GM lens
Another thing to consider is that for casual shooting, big heavy primes tend to be a hassle after the honeymoon phase wears off. For casual shooting, my love is for fastish f2/f1.8 primes that maybe are not optical quality kings, but are fun to shoot with. I have my Sigma 35 f1.2, 85GM, 24GM, 135 f1.8 mostly for gig work, but these tend to stay in the cabinet during off-season. That said, I just went ham ordering a bunch of cheap chinese primes (thanks a lot Nifty Fifty
all for a quarter of the price of a single GM lens |
||
| http:/ /https://focus-on-photography-forum.net/attachments/screenshot_20260331_224311_amazon-shopping-jpg.210107/ | ||
|
Apr 02, 2026 at 08:40 AM
p.1 #7'Wow' factor lens treat
It sounds like you already have all of the lenses you need. I would not recommend any big heavy lens for travel, family, events, gatherings, walks, etc. Perhaps a Sony 35/1.8 for low light. Perhaps a Samyang 85/1.8 P for a different look.
Apr 02, 2026 at 09:33 AM
p.1 #8'Wow' factor lens treat
Mystik wrote:
Sounds like the next step for you is primes, but before you jump into the deep end of big expensive primes, I would start with cheaper f2/f1.8 primes until you understand the focal lengths you prefer. Pick whatever flavor of fast 24, 50, 35, 85, etc and you'll find no shortage of people who love to praise their own expensive purchase lol. But there are definitely stylistic preferences in focal lengths. For instance, me...I'm a 35mm/85mm guy and have never kept a fast 50 for very long. Just not my preference, but it took really experimenting with different lenses to...Show more →
I agree with everything you said, but I'd like to add that when it comes to large and heavy prime lenses, it can just as easily be the other way around. For example, I originally planned to buy just a 50mm lens for my mirrorless camera. Since I had been shooting 6x6, always focusing manually, and wanted a lens that was as fast as possible but also as small and light as possible, I opted for the Nokton 1.2/50 SE and was absolutely thrilled with it. After a few months, I thought I should try autofocus, as focusing was quite tiring for my eyes (unlike with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad). Because I didn't want to give up the f/1.2 aperture, I ordered the 800g GM 1.2 and, even though I knew the specs, I was frankly shocked at what a hefty lens it was after unpacking it. My first instinct was to pack it up and send it back, but then I tried it out and was so impressed that I kept it. Later, I also bought the Sony 1.8/50 and the Viltrox Air 2.0/50 because I wanted something small and light, but honestly? They almost ALWAYS stay at home because I'm a fan of shooting wide open, and the look of an f/1.2 lens is ultimately what matters most to me. These days, I usually just snap pictures of everyday, unimportant things (like this forest path below), for example., and the f/1.2 lenses make them something special in my eyes. And for that, I'm always willing to put up with the GM's weight. Incidentally, its autofocus in both AF-S and AF-C is so fast, accurate, and sticky that it never ceases to amaze me, and the viewfinder image at f/1.2 is usually significantly better than with slower lenses because the ISO remains low.
So it's really a very personal matter. But I admit that my version is certainly less common than yours.
DSC04478 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
Sounds like the next step for you is primes, but before you jump into the deep end of big expensive primes, I would start with cheaper f2/f1.8 primes until you understand the focal lengths you prefer. Pick whatever flavor of fast 24, 50, 35, 85, etc and you'll find no shortage of people who love to praise their own expensive purchase lol. But there are definitely stylistic preferences in focal lengths. For instance, me...I'm a 35mm/85mm guy and have never kept a fast 50 for very long. Just not my preference, but it took really experimenting with different lenses to...Show more →
I agree with everything you said, but I'd like to add that when it comes to large and heavy prime lenses, it can just as easily be the other way around. For example, I originally planned to buy just a 50mm lens for my mirrorless camera. Since I had been shooting 6x6, always focusing manually, and wanted a lens that was as fast as possible but also as small and light as possible, I opted for the Nokton 1.2/50 SE and was absolutely thrilled with it. After a few months, I thought I should try autofocus, as focusing was quite tiring for my eyes (unlike with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad). Because I didn't want to give up the f/1.2 aperture, I ordered the 800g GM 1.2 and, even though I knew the specs, I was frankly shocked at what a hefty lens it was after unpacking it. My first instinct was to pack it up and send it back, but then I tried it out and was so impressed that I kept it. Later, I also bought the Sony 1.8/50 and the Viltrox Air 2.0/50 because I wanted something small and light, but honestly? They almost ALWAYS stay at home because I'm a fan of shooting wide open, and the look of an f/1.2 lens is ultimately what matters most to me. These days, I usually just snap pictures of everyday, unimportant things (like this forest path below), for example., and the f/1.2 lenses make them something special in my eyes. And for that, I'm always willing to put up with the GM's weight. Incidentally, its autofocus in both AF-S and AF-C is so fast, accurate, and sticky that it never ceases to amaze me, and the viewfinder image at f/1.2 is usually significantly better than with slower lenses because the ISO remains low.
So it's really a very personal matter. But I admit that my version is certainly less common than yours.
DSC04478 by Werner Wurst, on FlickrApr 02, 2026 at 12:06 PM
p.1 #9'Wow' factor lens treat
Get the CV 40/1.2 Nokton. I think Fred measured the actual focal length to be 42-43mm, which gives you the same angle of view as the Q3 43. If you need AF, consider the Sigma 45i. The rendering from both of these lenses is wonderful.
Apr 02, 2026 at 12:20 PM
p.1 #10'Wow' factor lens treat
I think I would go for the 50/1.2. The 28-45 might cause more decision overhead in choosing between two lenses that are mostly different by a stop of light. It might ultimately end up in you deciding you only really need one of those, or there is too much similarity. The 50/1.2 will have a very different role and still be easy to decide between lenses.
Apr 02, 2026 at 12:20 PM
|
p.1 #11'Wow' factor lens treat
LAARILEY wrote:
Get the CV 40/1.2 Nokton. I think Fred measured the actual focal length to be 42-43mm, which gives you the same angle of view as the Q3 43. If you need AF, consider the Sigma 45i. The rendering from both of these lenses is wonderful.
And where does it say what the actual focal length of the 43mm Q Summicron is? Has anyone actually measured it? Someone posted comparison images here once. If I remember correctly, the angle of view of the 43mm Summicron was wider than that of a 40mm Zeiss. But I can't recall which thread it was in. Probably in the 3D Pop Universe.
Apr 02, 2026 at 12:28 PM
p.1 #12'Wow' factor lens treat
rob_ww wrote:
I am very pleased with my kit: A7CR, 16-35 and 24-50, plus some wide and longer lenses for special circumstances. It's great for travel, family, events, gatherings, walks, etc. Everyone loves the results.
I have the opportunity to indulge myself by adding another lens, something which duplicates the existing 40-50 range I have covered. Size and weight no object this time. What would you choose, as a complete treat?
So far it seems to me either the 50/1.2 GM or the Sigma 28-45/1.8 based on perusing many, many pictures and comments on this forum. Out of left field, I also really like...Show more →
A gallery of shots from the 28-45 FWIW.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timdevinephotography/albums/72177720320199720/
I am very pleased with my kit: A7CR, 16-35 and 24-50, plus some wide and longer lenses for special circumstances. It's great for travel, family, events, gatherings, walks, etc. Everyone loves the results.
I have the opportunity to indulge myself by adding another lens, something which duplicates the existing 40-50 range I have covered. Size and weight no object this time. What would you choose, as a complete treat?
So far it seems to me either the 50/1.2 GM or the Sigma 28-45/1.8 based on perusing many, many pictures and comments on this forum. Out of left field, I also really like...Show more →
A gallery of shots from the 28-45 FWIW.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timdevinephotography/albums/72177720320199720/
Apr 02, 2026 at 12:53 PM
p.1 #13'Wow' factor lens treat
Rob_WW,
This is one of those questions that will generate a lot of options, all based on individual preference. From your initial post it's hard for me to know if you are buying a lens for your own self reward, or to impress your peers. Since I buy 2-3 new lenses a year, I've come up with a bit of a decision tree I follow when considering a new purchase. Maybe it will help you.
Decision 1: MF or AF? For me, the answer is almost always MF but that's a preference not about lens quality
Decision 2: What is my budget range? This will vary of course. This year, I have to buy new drives for my NAS so my lens budget is less than normal. Budget of course is more than how much you can spend, but what do you feel comfortable about spending and lugging out in the field.
Decision 3: Prime or Zoom? For me this is about expected use. I own two zooms that were specifically purchased for travel and varied shooting conditions when I didn't want to carry multiple lenses. Otherwise its all primes.
Decision 4: Am I purchasing this lens for a given subject matter? For instance, architectural photography is important to me and lenses I purchase for that meet certain criteria such as flat field focus, very low distortion, and acuity. I have other lenses that are for other subjects or conditions.
Decision 5: What aperture ranges do I anticipate using the most? Wide open or stopped down.
Decision 6: Am I look for a lens to help me do something I don't do now?
Decision 7: Am I looking for some cool factor? While I don't own one, I would love to own a funky lens like an MS-Optics or a LLL. I do own lenses that have a bit of cool about them and love using them, but they are not my bread & butter lenses.
That usually gets me close to deciding on a lens. I'll narrow it down to a couple and then mull it over for a couple weeks and make a purchase. Maybe this will help you.
Best - Kk
This is one of those questions that will generate a lot of options, all based on individual preference. From your initial post it's hard for me to know if you are buying a lens for your own self reward, or to impress your peers. Since I buy 2-3 new lenses a year, I've come up with a bit of a decision tree I follow when considering a new purchase. Maybe it will help you.
Decision 1: MF or AF? For me, the answer is almost always MF but that's a preference not about lens quality
Decision 2: What is my budget range? This will vary of course. This year, I have to buy new drives for my NAS so my lens budget is less than normal. Budget of course is more than how much you can spend, but what do you feel comfortable about spending and lugging out in the field.
Decision 3: Prime or Zoom? For me this is about expected use. I own two zooms that were specifically purchased for travel and varied shooting conditions when I didn't want to carry multiple lenses. Otherwise its all primes.
Decision 4: Am I purchasing this lens for a given subject matter? For instance, architectural photography is important to me and lenses I purchase for that meet certain criteria such as flat field focus, very low distortion, and acuity. I have other lenses that are for other subjects or conditions.
Decision 5: What aperture ranges do I anticipate using the most? Wide open or stopped down.
Decision 6: Am I look for a lens to help me do something I don't do now?
Decision 7: Am I looking for some cool factor? While I don't own one, I would love to own a funky lens like an MS-Optics or a LLL. I do own lenses that have a bit of cool about them and love using them, but they are not my bread & butter lenses.
That usually gets me close to deciding on a lens. I'll narrow it down to a couple and then mull it over for a couple weeks and make a purchase. Maybe this will help you.
Best - Kk
Apr 02, 2026 at 12:59 PM
p.1 #14'Wow' factor lens treat
Nifty Fifty wrote:
LAARILEY wrote
Get the CV 40/1.2 Nokton. I think Fred measured the actual focal length to be 42-43mm, which gives you the same angle of view as the Q3 43. If you need AF, consider the Sigma 45i. The rendering from both of these lenses is wonderful.Isn’t the entire proposition of the Q3 43 that the lens is exactly 43mm and equal to the diagonal measurement of the sensor, resulting in the most “natural” perspective possible?
Maybe it isn’t really 43mm, but it would be a very odd thing to market the way they have if it isn’t. Equally or more likely that Zeiss would round up or down the stated focal length of a lens that has a lot of focus breathing like the Batis 40/2 CF.
EDIT: Or the comparison you saw was against a RAW file that had no or little distortion correction applied. It’s very possible that the Q’s lens *is* wider than 43mm, but that in JPEGs with baked in distortion correction it ends up being 43mm. Which for all intents and purposes matches up with the 43.5mm measurement Fred got when measuring the CV 40 Nok.
Edited on Apr 02, 2026 at 02:22 PM · View previous versions
Apr 02, 2026 at 02:03 PM
p.1 #15'Wow' factor lens treat
Sony 28-70 F/2 GM. I don't own but have had my eye on it for a while. Meets all your requirements. Spectacular performance, large and heavy
Apr 02, 2026 at 02:06 PM
p.1 #16'Wow' factor lens treat
If I were in your position and could afford it as a “treat”, I would 100% buy the Leica Q3 43. No hesitation. You’d have a lot more fun with that camera than just buying another 40-50mm lens for your Sony. I’ve owned all the lenses mentioned in this thread (except for the sigma 28-45) and they are all fantastic, especially the Sony 50/1.2 GM. But…the Leica would be far and away more fun as a treat to yourself. 🙂
Apr 02, 2026 at 02:08 PM
p.1 #17'Wow' factor lens treat
mudlake wrote:
If I were in your position and could afford it as a “treat”, I would 100% buy the Leica Q3 43. No hesitation. You’d have a lot more fun with that camera than just buying another 40-50mm lens for your Sony. I’ve owned all the lenses mentioned in this thread (except for the sigma 28-45) and they are all fantastic, especially the Sony 50/1.2 GM. But…the Leica would be far and away more fun as a treat to yourself. 🙂
But only if you like the rendering of the 43mm Summicron. I was excited about the camera after the announcement, since I don't really need anything other than a standard lens anyway, but this lens is far too sharp, too contrasty, too digital for me. Technically, it's certainly top-notch, but I really don't like the rendering; it's not something I'd want. But then again, I'm rather old-fashioned.
You may stone me, but I even prefer the Viltrox Air 2.0/50, which costs 170 euros.
If I were in your position and could afford it as a “treat”, I would 100% buy the Leica Q3 43. No hesitation. You’d have a lot more fun with that camera than just buying another 40-50mm lens for your Sony. I’ve owned all the lenses mentioned in this thread (except for the sigma 28-45) and they are all fantastic, especially the Sony 50/1.2 GM. But…the Leica would be far and away more fun as a treat to yourself. 🙂
But only if you like the rendering of the 43mm Summicron. I was excited about the camera after the announcement, since I don't really need anything other than a standard lens anyway, but this lens is far too sharp, too contrasty, too digital for me. Technically, it's certainly top-notch, but I really don't like the rendering; it's not something I'd want. But then again, I'm rather old-fashioned.
You may stone me, but I even prefer the Viltrox Air 2.0/50, which costs 170 euros.
Apr 02, 2026 at 03:13 PM
p.1 #18'Wow' factor lens treat
The 50/1.2 GM is kind of unique. I can't recommend it highly enough and since buying one several years ago I've stopped looking for anything better, because I can't really see how it can be improved.
Apr 02, 2026 at 03:20 PM
p.1 #19'Wow' factor lens treat
LAARILEY wrote:
Nifty Fifty wrote
LAARILEY wrote
Get the CV 40/1.2 Nokton. I think Fred measured the actual focal length to be 42-43mm, which gives you the same angle of view as the Q3 43. If you need AF, consider the Sigma 45i. The rendering from both of these lenses is wonderful.Maybe it isn’t really 43mm, but it would be a very odd thing to market the way they have if it isn’t. Equally or more likely that Zeiss would round up or down the stated focal length of a lens that has a lot of focus breathing like the Batis 40/2 CF.
EDIT: Or the comparison you saw was against a RAW file that had no or little distortion correction...Show more →
Of course. That's all possible. But I'd still only believe the 43mm figure once someone has actually measured it. Personally, I don't put much stock in Leica's marketing. Regardless, it's certainly possible that it really is 43mm. Anything is possible. Frankly, I don't really care. I only pointed it out because you also calculated the "true" focal length for the CV 40.
Apr 02, 2026 at 03:33 PM
p.1 #20'Wow' factor lens treat
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Another thing to consider is that for casual shooting, big heavy primes tend to be a hassle after the honeymoon phase wears off. For casual shooting, my love is for fastish f2/f1.8 primes that maybe are not optical quality kings, but are fun to shoot with. I have my Sigma 35 f1.2, 85GM, 24GM, 135 f1.8 mostly for gig work, but these tend to stay in the cabinet during off-season. That said, I just went ham ordering a bunch of cheap chinese primes (thanks a lot Nifty Fifty all for a quarter of the price of a single GM lensI agree with everything you said, but I'd like to add that when it comes to large and heavy prime lenses, it can just as easily be the other way around. For example, I originally planned to buy just a 50mm lens for my mirrorless camera. Since I had been shooting 6x6, always focusing manually, and wanted a lens that was as fast as possible but also as small and light as possible, I opted for the Nokton 1.2/50 SE and was absolutely thrilled with it. After a few months, I thought I should try autofocus, as focusing was...Show more →
Thank you. This comment captures exactly what I have in mind! I have of course used many, many primes and zooms over 50 years of shooting. And I am very happy with my kit which always does a great job. There are no gaps for my needs. I just want to treat myself to someting different, in just the way you describe.
Mystik wrote
Sounds like the next step for you is primes, but before you jump into the deep end of big expensive primes, I would start with cheaper f2/f1.8 primes until you understand the focal lengths you prefer. Pick whatever flavor of fast 24, 50, 35, 85, etc and you'll find no shortage of people who love to praise their own expensive purchase lol. But there are definitely stylistic preferences in focal lengths. For instance, me...I'm a 35mm/85mm guy and have never kept a fast 50 for very long. Just not my preference, but it took really experimenting with different lenses to understand this. Only when you know what you really want, should you jump into buying an expensive prime.Another thing to consider is that for casual shooting, big heavy primes tend to be a hassle after the honeymoon phase wears off. For casual shooting, my love is for fastish f2/f1.8 primes that maybe are not optical quality kings, but are fun to shoot with. I have my Sigma 35 f1.2, 85GM, 24GM, 135 f1.8 mostly for gig work, but these tend to stay in the cabinet during off-season. That said, I just went ham ordering a bunch of cheap chinese primes (thanks a lot Nifty Fifty all for a quarter of the price of a single GM lens
Thank you. This comment captures exactly what I have in mind! I have of course used many, many primes and zooms over 50 years of shooting. And I am very happy with my kit which always does a great job. There are no gaps for my needs. I just want to treat myself to someting different, in just the way you describe.
Apr 03, 2026 at 05:35 AM