-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
50 f/1.8 $200, 35 f/1.8 $400: WHY???
- Thread starter 123Mike
- Start date
The comparison was between the A-mount 35/1.8 and the E-mount 35/1.8.
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
That "metal barrel" is just a thin skin over engineering plastic internals. Just like the "metal mount" is really just a metal flange screwed into the plastic body.
Here is a teardown of two "metal barrel, metal mount" lenses:
Loading…
www.lensrentals.com
These days even premium lenses have mostly plastic internal structures.:
Loading…
www.lensrentals.com
The E35 is probably built better than the A35 but the visible metal is just window dressing.
Then hands down E-mount wins due to size, OSS and overall convenience
But then again I see you're the forums proponent of the 18-105 so I guess bulkiness isn't an issue for you
Last edited:
Don't forget, there are also e-mount video cameras.
Apparently Sony decided to go for a stabilized 35mm lens ... with decent sharpness and almost Zeiss-like contrast.
The Canon 35mm f2 with stabilisation costs even more. It's a FF lens though, so it's more glass of course. On the other hand, the Sony has to deliver good performance on a crop sensor...
The Samsung 30mm is a a very very nice lens, yes. It still can't reach the 35mm Sony (see photozone for comparison) though.
Apparently Sony decided to go for a stabilized 35mm lens ... with decent sharpness and almost Zeiss-like contrast.
The Canon 35mm f2 with stabilisation costs even more. It's a FF lens though, so it's more glass of course. On the other hand, the Sony has to deliver good performance on a crop sensor...
The Samsung 30mm is a a very very nice lens, yes. It still can't reach the 35mm Sony (see photozone for comparison) though.
But what about just optical performance. Does the E-mount win hands down for that?
The A-mount 35/1.8 is actually not that big. For A-mount it's very small and light. E-mount is smaller but the A-mount one is by no means "big".
I always thought the A-mount 35/1.8 was very good! Optically, it's tack sharp at f2.2 and the aperture appears completely round up to f/2.8. Contrast is good. I have doubts the E-mount one "crushes" that one. I did see in the KM test that the bokeh has rings in the A-mount one that wasn't mentioned in the E-mount test. So that could mean silkier backgrounds for the E-mount. But for pure sharpness, contrast, and defects? It seems to me pretty much the same. In fact.... It *might* be that the A-mount one is actually *sharpER* at f/1.8 and f/2.0 carefully looking at it... But I don't have both lenses so I can't test this myself.
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
I am not aware of a FF or APSc lens that doesn't improve in sharpness when stopped down. The difference makers are those that go from very good to excellent (and Sony E 35 fits that bill).
Sigma 30/2.8 doesn't even figure into the discussion until E35 is over a stop down.
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
Sony DT35 is bigger than E35 (also uses 55mm filter vs 49mm on E35). But you also need an additional 25mm "tube" so the size difference increase (effective length: 77mm).
But I didn't realize you were comparing DT35 optically to E35 above (you didn't specify lenses so I assumed Sigma 30). The E35 is optically superior to DT35 (having owned both).
The A-mount 55-300 and the E-mount 18-105 appears to gain no sharpness when stopping down.
Below are some shots from that 55-300... It's possible that you might point something out, but seriously, it's hard to spot any improvement at all.
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
Shorter lenses are easier to make if you can add length permanently to the flange. IIRC, Samsung uses 25mm flange, so 7mm "headstart". And it FL is also 5mm shorter.
That being said, the Samsung wasn't that cheap at launch (IIRC, $300+). That it is on firesale implies either a pending replacement or lack of enthusiasm.
As for "stabilization not needed" quite a departure for a guy who at least used to preach why IBIS is best since you don't get many lenses stabilized.
Last edited:
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
All of them. And add CA and color rendition as well.
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
The DT35 would be no better with a thin metal skin, it would just be shinier.
Since the skin is cosmetic and not structural, it's more of a marketing design criteria than an engineering one.
Yes, and a lot of that is silly too; just look at the Leica T body.
I've seen lenses with plastic flanges that have broken. I've seen lenses with metal flanges that have bent or been ripped out of the lens body. As the second link I included points out, good design is good design and metal vs. plastic is less relevant.
captura
Forum Pro
True:
"The 35mm lens needs more special shaped elements to prevent distotion, the 35mm need more and better coating to orevent from flare etc. So designing and building a good 35mm lens is more difficult."
"The 35mm lens needs more special shaped elements to prevent distotion, the 35mm need more and better coating to orevent from flare etc. So designing and building a good 35mm lens is more difficult."
Not sure I agree. I have both SAL35 and SEL35 and they are both very close in sharpness and contrast. In fact, I think the SAL35 might even win by a hair in sharpness. But that could be hindered by SEL35's OS (when shooting at high shutter speed).
Now regarding the "quality" of SAL35 definitely feels like a toy compared to the SEL35. And it looks like a fat midget compared to the svelte SEL35. However, I do prefer the (cheap feeling) focus dial of the SAL35 over the focus by wire SEL35.
captura
Forum Pro
Nevertheless, it still costs more to manufacture an E-35 than an E-50. Ergo, the selling price is higher.
7mm of tube costs a lot? A longer register gives optical flexibility?
Or: lengthening a tube is cheap, and from the standpoint of a lens designer the fewer constraints the better.
Readers can choose.
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
As a reader, you certainly did not choose to comprehend. The "tube" argument wasn't about cost.
If you want to discuss tube, price and stabilization, all three arguments were made in the post you just read. Respond accordingly.
I'm sure that's PART of it, but another part is there's a lot more glass in the E mount lenses.
SAL50F18 - http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sal50f18.html
5 groups with 6 Elements total
SEL50F18 - http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel50f18.html
8 Groups with 9 Elements total, plus the added cost of OSS
SAL35F18 - http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sal35f18.html
5 groups with 6 elements total
SEL35F18 - http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel35f18.html
6 groups, 8 elements total. Plus the added cost of OSS. And, on top of that, the cost of the Aspheric elements and Extra-Low Dispersion glass.
No, I don't think all of this makes the SEL35F18 worth 450. I'll admit I might grab one at 400. Maybe, eventually. But it's a different design, and all signs point to it being a more expensive design.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum