I can't wait!!!
jonikon: I have been into photography long enough to remember when serious 35mm primes were expected to be f2.0. Making a sharp 35mm f2.8 prime is cheap and easy. Too bad Sony took the low road and made this consumer grade lens a full stop slower than the excellent Minolta 35mm f2.0 legacy lens of yesteryear, and adds insult to injury by pricing it like a pro f2.0 lens. I just don't see how Sony's new FE mount camera system will be successful without a full set of pro quality FE lenses, and in terms of maximum aperture, this lens does not qualify as such.
Doesn't a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Manual focus for other mounts cost ~$1k? How is this lens priced at the same value? Wouldn't it be more than $1k with AF?
Dtech: The vignetting is a bit too much for my taste.
Vignetting is visible at nearly every F-Stop. Corner smearing is very noticeable wide-open.
I have countless shots like the one below. Don't pay attention to the graininess; I shot it at ISO 6400. This shot was taken at F/5.6 - F/2.8 is a lot worse.
Sony needs to go back to the drawing board with this lens. When comparing it to my RX1 with the Zeiss F2.0 there is no comparison.
That's strange. I had to actually add vignetting on this shot here and it's still indiscernible. http://ambercool.smugmug.com/Events/Katsucon-2014/i-VprPJwG
I even added vignetting on here too and it's very light. http://ambercool.smugmug.com/Events/Katsucon-2014/i-hcKVCX2
ambercool: It's funny how there are a lot of you guys who talk a lot of talk, but have no professional link, no professional photos, no professional e-mail, or even work experience. If there was an Olympic gold for that(trash talk) there would be massive ties for first place across the board. LOL
I bet if a lot of you were given an AE-1 with 400-1600ASA film, you would be utterly disappointed by enlightenment alone.
Mouhtaropoulos earned his spot, and I'm sure he's enjoying himself while more ignorance is spread and ignored.
IZO100, it's a good thing you don't make any kind of living from photography.
It's funny how there are a lot of you guys who talk a lot of talk, but have no professional link, no professional photos, no professional e-mail, or even work experience. If there was an Olympic gold for that(trash talk) there would be massive ties for first place across the board. LOL
It's so funny some of the negative comments in this article. Do you remember back when the only thing that most people could afford was a roll of film? And when one wanted to take a candid shot there wasn't even an option to 'flash fill'.
So technical if he's going for that 35mm camera with no accessories he got it right. Artistically, he's always right.
Come on people. I really don't understand some of the comments made by what's technical. You could argue what's technical now might x+y=z, but if he wants the technical look where there was only x then what's the problem?
One important reminder for film studies; overexposure is not wrong. And in art nothing is wrong. Plus, he said "fashionable". Care to argue with anyone on what's "fashionable"? Seriously, do you guys listen to what you say?