I can see this winding up in my home, I love 35mm focal length..
I pre ordered it. Now to find the cash. Lol
35mm is my favorite focal body cap lens. Might sell my Mitikon for this
This lens looks stellar so far
Good move. Lol
My favorite focal length, and it looks to be a beauty.
Guess the Fuji system is going...
Yea this lens may just get rid of a few things. Lol
I would do the zoom from 28 wider it's really good and seriously from 21 wider not sure anything can touch it
How do you think this will measure up to the Sigma 35/1.4 Art?
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams
Agree . I think the Zeiss maybe a bit less clinical. 35 to me is a look lens.
My other thinking is have at least 3 killer primes . Canon 24 TSE , this Zeiss , my 85 1.4 and my bonus is the Minolta 200. That's a nice set of primes and fill the bottom end with the 16-50
Don't get me wrong though I do love my Sigma Art 35. It's every bit as good if not better as the $3,000+ Leica glass optically albeit much larger. Anyone that tells you differently is just biased/delusional.
Now the big question is if Sony will introduce a Zeiss 135FE (even at f/2.5 that would be really interesting and keep the size reasonable for many) because if so that would be about all I needed outside maybe another "Otus-lite" in 85/1.8. I'd like a fast native prime in the 18-21mm range as well eventually. At that point I could have a full FE system.
One thing I noticed about the 35/1.4 is that like the 55FE it seems to actually be more impressive on the higher resolution bodies than the A7s whereas many other lenses tend to do better with the fat pixels. This is exactly what I was hoping for because I FS converted my A7R in anticipation for the rumored Sony high megapixel FE body.
The 28 f2 represents a wide that is faster by 2 stops for maybe some low light stuff. My bet believe it or not the 16-35 at 28 maybe slighter better IQ wise but 2 stops slower and that for the cost maybe a nice option and a travel lens since it light.
Shoe maybe just buy all there if them . Lol
Still have a wedding and other stuff to pay for... Been kinda pondering what could be sold though.
Still think Sony missed the boat here. Wish the size wasn't so huge. If you want small have to go MF. And no, the AF shouldn't be the reason it's so huge.
http://500px.com/jstaben2 Member(s) liked this post
There's still the small 35/2.8 option if you want small with AF. I don't think there is a small and fast FF AF lens with premium optics on any platform.
It's big due to all the elements used for high levels of optical correction - 12 in 8 groups all up; plus the thing I expect to really surprise, Sony's new DD (direct drive) SSM AF activation. This system is designed to move large elements and groups around fast and accurately, it is reportedly 'whisper quiet'.
Photos make it look larger too, and remember to add the bulk/weight of any adapter to compare. Users are still reporting the ZM 35/1.4 goes better on Leica M240 than a skimmed a7II, so all the other fast 35s are large and heavy, and won't be a 'system fit'.
On the new FE90, it also shares the DD SSM, and how about this for dedication by Sony:
"Each (FE90) lens is individually tested and calibrated to minimise spherical aberration so that the smoothest, most visually pleasing bokeh is achieved."
That one is corrected the old fashioned way too, 15 elements in 11 groups and only one asph element. It uses the DD SSM to move two groups around and this:
'A floating focus mechanism ensures that consistently superior optical performance is achieved at all focusing distances.' So wisely they are after the general photography use case also with this 'almost macro' - it's only 0.92:1, to some people's chagrin. Funny, as CZ's 100MP and Leica's 100/2.8 APO are both 2:1 lenses. I want to see images from it - now! Plus an advance copy for me!
1 Member(s) liked this post
But I think back to the 24/1.8 which was really nice close in but only soso in long landscapes. I'd at least like to set the standard set by the FE 35/2.8 met at 5.6.
But I don't think it will happen.
A good 28/2 is an incredibly versatile tool. The 28 cron is one of the last lenses I'd sell in my M kit. In fact it's the last. F/2 let's you do more than just low light.
L1000530 by unoh7, f/2
And, as you know, the 28 FOV is delicious in landscape:
L1019741-2 by unoh7, f/11
I'm still waiting for Sony to wake up to the need to produce optically stellar compact and slow lenses for landscape shooters. They will be able to provide excellent performance for a lower price and ensure that the small size of the A7 etc is sustained via appropriate lens options. All I am seeing is increasingly large lenses, or in the case of the 28mm f2, one that may not quite convince.
Personally, I would like to see Sony take the approach of Leica (and Canon with the new 11-24mm f4) and produce f4 (ish) lenses (primes in this case).
18mm and 24mm would be the 'must haves', or 16, 21,28.
If you look at Leica for instance it's not the smaller, less expensive, and in many cases optically superior glass that's selling as quickly. It's the faster, larger, and in many cases heavily software corrected lenses that move first. As for Canon the excellent slow glass that they're making is still in their L series and it's not cheap. The 11-24/4 is going for $3K. People were complaining about the 35/2.8 being $800 and the 55/1.8 being $1K based on specs alone - versus sheer optical performance.
I am of course happy with the new lenses announced due to the fact that I can always stop down but I can't add more photons to the sensor into a smaller aperture. I agree with the poster that says the pictures can be a bit deceiving as far as size goes. People were screaming about how large the 55FE was before launch and I posted a comparison on here in December of 2013 showing that it was almost exactly the same size asa 50 Lux FLE with a M-mount adapter on it. If it's indeed a similar size as the 16-35 then it won't be ungodly large but rather about the size of the Sigma 35 Art without a LA-E4 on it.
I feel the same. For someone carrying either backpack or belt packing a small system with or without a tripod size does matter.
28mm f2.8, 21mm f3.5 or f4, 18mm f4
The key point is excellent performance.
The Olympus Zuikos of 1970-1990s were in two series.
The larger heavier f2 series from 21mm f2 though to 250mm f2.
And the smaller, cheaper 49mm filter sized lenses of lesser aperture from 21mm to 100mm.
I am convinced Olympus sold lots more of the compact sereies
2 Member(s) liked this post
Apparently, the 35/2.8 was made by Tamron for Sony and they slapped the Zeiss tag on it to make it look good. I think less and less of this "Zeiss". They do not seem to make any lenses anymore just rent out their name for lenses made by others.
I can see why people are excited by the new, fast lenses and am not suggesting that Sony should not be producing them, only that there should be a parallel 'slow' line.
I think Sony is missing an opportunity here and think the Leica M market (and buyer) is very different. Some Leica users want 'the best' (i.e. the most expensive) and some want what's fast, so that they can shoot in very low light etc. I am not suggesting a parallel to the Summarit concept (which some passed over as 'not real Leica), as this covers focal lengths we already have covered either with native or third party lenses, but the wides. Leica has done very well with their numerous f2.8 to 3.8 primes (18, 21, 24, 28) not to mention the WATE. These lenses have sold in vastly larger numbers than their much more expensive fast cousins (i.e. 21 & 24mm Summilluxes).
I'm a fan of the 35mm FE Sonnar no matter who made it! To me, it is the lens most in keeping with what I understood the original concept to be. The 55 FE is also great, but at the upper limit of 'ideal' size for primes IMO. Can't argue with the performance... wow, but as I found out, the Canon FDn 50mm f1.4 is not far behind at all.
Leica are, niche or not, the only innovative company when it comes to quality optics that are not of the size of a truck. If Sony follows the Otii crap, it is bad news.
Anyway, regardless of the opinions expressed, it is the market that will determine this path. If not many buy these monstrosities that will teach them. If they become a hit, they will continue making more of them.
I don't disagree with having small and light weight glass. The issue is folks think just because Sony went Mirrorless that lenses should be smaller. Well I never read a piece of marketing that said Sony was making smaller lenses to match there bodies. We are assuming they should because the bodies are smaller. Also Leica charges a lot of money for there glass a lot of money. Why do we assume Sony should do it for a lot less. That really is not Sonys market to compete with Leica . Now it would be nice and not here but Sony is being raked over the coals for this on other fora. I don't get that part at all. Even Leicas 18mm is in the thousands of dollars. Do we really think Sony can sell. 18mm for 3 thousand dollars. Sorry folks not a chance. They simple don't have Leicas reputation as a optical company.
The other really big issue is Sony is making AF lenses that's a whole different animal when comes to design
Sony Global - Digital Imaging - ?7S
What is point if it is palm sized or thumbnail sized when one has to use a truck sized lens on it?α7S
Full-frame, palm-sized α.
There is a glimmer of hope from Sigma:
CP+ 2015 Sigma Interview - "small office, big factory": Digital Photography Review
Hope they make their ART lenses for FE mount consistent with the size of the bodies.
Great opportunity for them!
Last edited by Guy Mancuso; 5th March 2015 at 05:11.
Guy, You are right, they never said the lenses being small. Only promote "Palm sized" cameras.
But are there any AF lenses in the M glass. No and thats a very big part of the design with regards to size and weight. Seriously 1600 for a 35mm 1.4 compared to a Leica 35mm 1.4 is dirt cheap and very competitive with Nikon at 1679 and Canon 1489. Thats Sonys market to work in.
Critics were wrong and the Elmar was truly an amazing lens. I don't think people realized how amazing it was until the Monochrom was released. Part of the problem with the Leica comparisons are that they're all MF and it's not cheap by any means. I mean look at the people crying about the costs of the Loxia's (which are also pretty small and MF.) Or people that compared the 55FE to the $100 Canon lenses. That's Sony's market more so than Leica. I think people are demanding that Sony be all things to all people overnight.
Again I hope they make smaller lenses for that crowd as well but I think many people haven't been impressed by anything short of the 55FE, the 16-35FE, and the 70-200FE which of course all came before the Loxia's that are starting to trickle out now.
my opinion: instead of a big big f1.4 lens and a f2.8 lens Sony should rather offer a good compromise, lets say a 35/2.0 in reasonable sie with good IQ.
Of course its possible and "ok" to put huge lenses on an a7II body, but I would assume that handling of such a big lens would be much better on a DSLR sized body.
2 Member(s) liked this post
I owned the Zeiss 1.4/35 ZF.2 lens for my D800E. Even on this camera, which is remarkably bigger than the A7 series cameras this lens was just huge and heavy.
The new 1.4/35 FE lens seems to be at least same size and weight, if not a tad bigger ..... for my taste this is too huge and kills almost all advantages of a small mirrorless body.
Same is BTW true for the new 2.8/90 Macro, which is huge, Huge,....
Not sure who is responsible at Sony for these designs and developments, cannot think of huge success here, but who knows .....
At least Steve Huff is praising it!
Life is an ever changing journey
It is what it is. If you don't like it don't buy it. I plan on buying the 90 Macro (based on early press shots) as well because optically it seems great from the bit I've seen of it. My 35 Distagon is already paid for and it seems to be everything I personally wanted in a native 35mm. I own the Sigma Art 35 and I love it but the AF points are clustered in the middle 1/3 of the frame. I owned the 35/2.8... hated it. This seems like the best compromise for me although I would've bought a manual focus ZM 35/1.4 Distagon given the Loxia treatment if it would've been released first.
Sony and Zeiss:
Listen up. This is what your customers want:
1) Lenses in all focal lengths.
2) Lenses at smaller maximum apertures (f4, f2.8 and f2) because these lenses need to be smaller!
3) Lenses at larger maximum aperture (f1.8, f1.4, f1.2 and even f1.0) because these lenses are not fast enough!
2) Lenses as sharp as Leica but without the required software corrections.
3) Much better auto-focus.
4) Much better stabilization.
5) Much lower priced.
Now get busy or we'll buy a cheap large sigma lens and a $10,000 manual focus Leica lens, blend them together and produce the magic Sigmeica lens. Cheap, small, sharp and with an auto-rangefinder focus system that can't be described. (Edit, actually I can describe it. It's autofocus where the camera itself gets to experience the rangefinder focus experience instead of the photographer).
Last edited by jfirneno; 5th March 2015 at 06:53.
3 Member(s) liked this post
Tre, The point is Sony did not make the 35/2 as you said. No.
Of course, I am not buying the lens. I suppose I can't say anything about it size because you are buying it?
Don't forget that these are the same guys who have been churning out crap year after year since the NEX-5 with a plastic mount. It took them many years since NEX-5 to change that habit.
Well looking at the size and weight of this lens I think I will stick with my CV 35/1.2 VII which is another hefty piece of glass but performs well when I need a wide aperture and for the rest I'll stick with my oh so small and light 35/2.8
Don't you GUYs know SIZE counts. It just had to be said. LOL
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
www.guymancusophotography.com3 Member(s) liked this post