Sony 135mm f2.8
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/737-sony135f28ff?start=1
It is a strange optical design with a very slow t-stop though.

@BarnET — interesting (and interesting about the low t-stop — f2.8 -> t4.5)! Wide angle lenses tend to have far more optical problems (including vignetting) so if there were going to be a near-perfect lens in this regard, it's no surprise it's a telephoto.

they asked about a lens with no vignetting wide-open.
So i gave the only one i know about.

It works with very little vignetting, and has excellent center sharpness. Then why not?

For specific aplications or subjects where the main interest is in the centre and vignetting welcome, such DX-on-FX experiments may be viable. However, for general shooting, it just doesn't make an awful lot of sense. There're reasons behind different lens designs for APS-C and FF, and they're to do with physics (not exclusively with making money, as the conspiracy therorists will be quick to argue).

It's actually quite simple. If you really think you need FF for your photography, and you may have your reasons, you should be willing to pay the price: more size, more weight, higher investment (usually).

I'm not saying that you mustn't and shouldn't experiment. My point is just that some experiments make more sense than others - at least, where IQ matters ...

"It's actually quite simple. If you really think you need FF for your photography, and you may have your reasons, you should be willing to pay the price: more size, more weight, higher investment (usually)."

Funny, the 50/1.8 which on FF does a better job than 35/1.8 on crop weighs and costs less...

Sigma's lenses are very recent ones. How old is the 50/1.2?
I don't see it as embarrassment. Instead I find it to be a very interesting lens, sharpness is only slightly worse, it's cheaper and at 300g a perfect travel companion.

What? thanks for tipping me off! I haven't checked lenses in a while, and I've always wanted a 24-105 for my Nikons.

I'll gladly send my Money to Sigma since they appear to be paying attention.

And yeah, the Canon could be better, but it's all there was at one time.

@LarryK — yes Nikon merely offers you the higher-performing 24-120mm f4 (yes, it's pricier). The Sigma appears to be significantly sharper than the Nikon or Canon lenses.

The Nikkor 24-120 is a piece of junk, my friend was foolish enough to buy one.

LarryK: Harsh comment, the test results show decent results, similar to the Sigma in the center, edges on FF are a little worse. So no junk at all. It would be interesting to see somebody like you do tests for us all as you seem to be a lot more knowledgeable.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1
look at the resolution chart.
It's not junk at all focal lengths but it's at some.
The Sigma is simply the better option.

No, it's junk, I've never seen a good one in person. I think reviewers are getting bought off. I've owned Nikon for forty years, and I don't apologize for their shortcomings, they've made plenty of turkeys over the years.

If you'd like to buy my friend's, I'm sure he'd be glad to get rid of it.

Yeah photo zone is played off and your telling the truth.
The review isn't really positive showing wildly varying results at different focal lengths.

The thing is that the canon 24-105mm is better but not by much. That is also a mediocre lens. The sigma easily beats both.

+ED glass

Why...thanks for that. But we're not all pros.

It kinda seems obvious that to test the bokeh one......puts it to the test. How about that for an original thought. Flowers and vegetation don't do that.

And even pros take pics in other circumstances.

Maybe Nikon will make an adapter for the A7 like Sony did for A mount lenses with their mechanical Aperture?

"how would you propose to set the aperture of a Nikon lens properly accurately and reproducibly on an A7R"

by using the meter? (just a thought)

Lensrentals shows that differences in the thickness of glass in front of the sensor has a major effect on test results, especially on wide-angles.

Forget the technical hurdles, assume they do the testing on A7r. And how is that supposed to correlate with the result on Nikon bodies? Or you think that it's Sony users who are buying Nikon G lenses.

"By using the meter..." Really? Do you have any idea how a G lens works? It's got no mechanical control for aperture. You would need an adaptor with a mechanical aperture ring which converts the dialled in aperture to the electronic signal that G lens requires to set it precisely.

If you illuminate your test chart with a constant light source, then it's true that in principle you can set the aperture of a G lens by watching the canera's metered shutter speed. But it's not terribly accurate, and incompatible with the rest of DxOMark's testing method (which relies on flash exposure of the chart in a darkened room, and of course aperture information in the EXIF for the automated data analysis).

None of this is theoretically insurmountable, but it's just hugely impractical.

DStudio, I presume your post is ironic. The Canon 35 F2 IS is cheaper, just as good optically, if not better, has IS, and is only 1/3 stop slower.
And as for the old saying "Nikon has better lenses than Canon", I've never heard it before your post. Is it an old saying, because you've been saying it for a long time? I've often heard the opposite claim, but I suspect that the differences aren't significant either way.

Alastair, the saying was fairly common in the film days. I heard it quite a few times before I was even involved in photography (beyond using a 35mm compact) so I'm surprised you hadn't!

I wasn't being ironic at all; I was talking about the mid-range lineup as a group. But I'm not convinced about the 35/2 IS either. While I haven't been able to study photos from this new 35/1.8 yet, I'd say the Nikon 35/1.8 DX lens, and possibly even the similar Sony 35/1.8, already produce nicer looking images. Canon mid-range lenses look like they use cheaper glass, and they probably do. They produce what looks very much like flat, plain photographs - they don't capture something "extra:" neither beauty, nor dimensionality, nor interesting or compelling lighting.

But there always seem to be those who are anxious to justify Canon's under-performance in this area.

I'm not a fan from nowaday Nikon lenses, I think they feel to much like plas...oh wait, it is plastic. Anyway, as the old saying might be, the old lenses, like the D types preformed superior over those dated canon lenses. This gap might have been getting smaller, but overall I think Nikon lenses still get you better results as Canon’s, although Canon has some great lenses as well, but there 35 2.0 isn’t one of them, and yes, this Nikon 35 is a bit disappointing to me.