-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The Missing Goldilock 35mm
- Thread starter JackyNg
- Start date
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
There's nothing "budget" about the FE 35s. The 35 2.8 is more expensive than all the competition's faster + stabilized FF 35mm offerings. I know what I bought into with Sony FE which is why I use Canon glass. And Sony has a long history of offering overpriced and often underperforming or questionably built glass across numerous systems. They are a semiconductor company. It would just be nice to have 2 basic lenses that have been offered on every 35mm system for the last ~40 years.
For me yes. I was a huge fan of the original Zeiss ZM lenses and I love my Loxia.
Have to admit though that I would love to try the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 Distagon but its very expensive and getting a great AF 35/2 would be fun t have as well.
Always searching for Goldilocks but yes my Loxia is my goto 35mm on my Sony.
Cartier-Bresson shot almost nothing but "street photos" throughout his career. I doubt he ever used AF. So it absolutely doable. But of course, it may be possible the he would in fact have used AF, if he had been 60 years younger. AF (without shutter lag!) suits street photography well - but I won't say that MF sucks for that.
I think using MF is a matter of getting used to it which comes through practice, and then it's not so slow. After all, AF has only been readily available for the last decades, and there were countless photographers before then who managed to work fast and catch "the decisive moment". News photographers of the 1960's to the 1990's used Nikon (and to some extent) Canon SLR cameras with MF lenses. Before then Leica and Rolleiflex were the preferred cameras for news pros. Even earlier it was the big format Speed Graphics (more in US than in Europe, I think).
Of course, "shooting from the hip" becomes easier with AF, though it can also be done effectively with MF by "previsualizing", using an aproppiate F stop and zone focusing / prefocusing. But it's different approach, a different mindset, and one has to think ahead and have the camera (and oneself) set and ready before the moment is there. Cartier-Bresson has explained this as the way he worked (he talked about "approaching his subjects on tiptoes" and about foreseeing the "decisive moment"). For me, exactly that mindset makes me shoot more deliberately, less randomly, with MF (and primes) than with AF (and zooms). I think my pictures benefit from that.
That said, when I know I will be shooting fast moving subjects like say sports, I bring a good DSLR with a fast AF system and a couple of f/2.8 zooms.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
If I had taken up photography as a hobby when I was younger I would gladly have learned it then. Now though with a job, wife and kids eventually on the way I don't have the time. I limit the new skills I learn to things that will keep me healthy or make me money. It would have been nice to have got started in college but back in 2001-2006 DSLRs were either non existent or eye wateringly expensive.
Anyways I think lenses as basic as the 35/2 and 50/2 are beyond no brainers. Sony has never made it easy though. Still no kit grade telephoto zoom either. Thank God for EF adapters.
Anyways I think lenses as basic as the 35/2 and 50/2 are beyond no brainers. Sony has never made it easy though. Still no kit grade telephoto zoom either. Thank God for EF adapters.
oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
It's ok, we know the silent majority stands with Trump.
OTOH, to make mirrorless great again would mean putting the guts of an A7 inside of an A99 body which is the proper size for an all around camera. Not to mention the far superior selection of A mount lenses.....
L
lokiminion
Guest
You still didn't answer my question of why you need 35mm f2 AF so badly. What specific use case are you missing that the existing line up can't address? I would rather have a small 35mm f2.8 than a large 35mm f2 lens any day.
I never said that the FE 35 f2.8 was a budget lens - it's a highly competent (maybe not the sharpest but still good) and high quality 35mm lens at a fraction the size of any other lenses produced by anyone outside of Leica. Compared to the Leica 35mm f2.5, it's an absolute bargain.
You're right Sony does not have a real budget 35mm lens right now but I also don't think they care about the budget audience right now. There's no money to be made in offering mediocre full frame lenses and only hurts your reputation when you are trying to establish a new product with early adopters, enthusiasts and pros.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
I like to keep a 2 stop minimum distance between primes and zooms covering the same focal length, and for me F/4 zooms hit the sweet spot, which means I don't bother with primes that aren't faster than F/2. The visible difference of 1 stop is negligible; the visible difference of 2 stops is significant. And I also need autofocus. Non negotiable.
You do realize that you are not everybody, right?
Who said anything about making a lens mediocre? Is the Canon 35/2 IS mediocre? How about the Nikon 35 1.8? Tamron 35 1.8 VC SP? If there is no money in such a lens why have all of those companies recently designed and released them?
Let me put it another way... what does the extra $200-250 the 35 2.8 get you over those other lenses? What value does it have in addition to the 24-70 F/4 or 16-35 F/4? It's not a bad lens but it is not a good value.
Plus keep in mind all of those lenses are retrofocal, so an FE 35/2 would most likely be a lot smaller and lighter than the SLR versions too. There is no good reason for Sony to not have such a lens in the lineup... a fast "budget" 35 and 50 for that matter are as basic as you can get for a FF lens map
Last edited:
L
lokiminion
Guest
Getting tired of this discussion so I'll make this my final response. Comments below.
The final point is that again, the Sony FE system is not a budget system and has never been positioned as such. Maybe in 5 years when the market is saturated with full frame mirrorless cameras, you can finally get your wish.
You still have not articulated what specific use case you absolutely need 35mm f2 AF for that the existing offerings are not addressing. You talk about how you manage your gear but I have not heard any good photographic reasons for you needing a 35mm f2 AF lens that the existing offerings are not addressing.
The Canon 35mm f2 is definitely the weakest and oldest of the three you listed. The other two lenses are not what I would consider cheap by any definition.
All Sony FE lenses are not good "value" compared to their Nikon and Canon equivalents so that's pointless. For $200 more, I get a much more compact lens offering comparable IQ to the f1.8 lenses above. The 35mm f2.8 has better image quality at 35mm vs. the 24-70 and 16-35mm f4.
I think this is wishful thinking on your part. Designing good lenses is not easy. Cost, size, build quality, image quality, auto focus and aperture speed are all somewhat mutually exclusive. You cannot optimize for all seven attributes at once. The 35mm f1.4, 35mm f2.8 and loxia 35 all represents different optimizations of the 6 attributes above.
The final point is that again, the Sony FE system is not a budget system and has never been positioned as such. Maybe in 5 years when the market is saturated with full frame mirrorless cameras, you can finally get your wish.
Are you kidding? I have read so many forum post comparing how xyz AF lens is too slow for their little kid and need the fastest thing in the world to do it, LOL, I am a fan of MF too and have a lot more MF lenses than AF lenses, the focus peaking in the A7R II in fact makes MF really easy, Specifically for the 35mm, I am using both Sigma 35 art in Nikon mount and Zeiss 35 1.4 ZE on my A7R II now but will be getting the new Canon 35L II to replacement the Zeiss ZE not because due to Manual focus but because the new Canon 35 1.4 MK II is so much better of a lens and I can use it on both all my Canon 1Ds2, 1Ds3 1D IV and the Sony.
Last edited:
How typical might you be of a7x users, Dan, being so complacent about these 750 gram lenses turning your a7x model into a water divining tool? This was always a threat to the need for right sized lenses for a7x users - multi-system users.
Hard to know how tolerant regular single system a7x users are, but the field is certainly open for fans of giant, built to the upper limit of endurance lenses. That Canon 35L actually dwarfs the 5DSr body, it is hard to believe something so ugly and misbegotten can be perpetuated on the buying public in 2016.
Here it is:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2
In fact, it is getting hard to buy anything else, if you look at Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss DSLR, Sony themselves, Canon. Big lenses are brute force and ignorance efforts, maybe the message will take a year or two more to sink in.
Any moves to downsize DSLR bodies to meet public demand is swiftly being negated by these gigantor lenses.
The first other company besides Zeiss to realize more is needed in the way of elegant, well-proportioned and discreet optics will reap what they sow, with a7x enthusiasts at least. The other guys can hire donkeys. Or carry a backpack. lol.
Hard to know how tolerant regular single system a7x users are, but the field is certainly open for fans of giant, built to the upper limit of endurance lenses. That Canon 35L actually dwarfs the 5DSr body, it is hard to believe something so ugly and misbegotten can be perpetuated on the buying public in 2016.
Here it is:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2
In fact, it is getting hard to buy anything else, if you look at Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss DSLR, Sony themselves, Canon. Big lenses are brute force and ignorance efforts, maybe the message will take a year or two more to sink in.
Any moves to downsize DSLR bodies to meet public demand is swiftly being negated by these gigantor lenses.
The first other company besides Zeiss to realize more is needed in the way of elegant, well-proportioned and discreet optics will reap what they sow, with a7x enthusiasts at least. The other guys can hire donkeys. Or carry a backpack. lol.
Last edited:
well, different people have different preference and standard, that's why so many people are better served with their iphone today.
He is talking about the new Canon 35mm f/2 with IS that came out in Nov 2013.
Lightfinity
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 380
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 477
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
This is a stupid trick. If you are tired of the discussion don't try to get the "final response" in.
What photographic reason do you need the 35 2.8 over any of the available zooms that cover 35mm?
The Canon 35/2 IS is a whopping 1 year older than the 35 2.8 and is right with it optically, for $250 less. All are considerably cheaper than the 35 2.8 and either as good or better optically.
So image quality is a valid reason to buy a lens, but speed is not?
Again, various other manufacturers have optimized all the attributes better for less money.
Whatever helps you rationalize your purchase.
Buy a used RX1 like me, bought one in mint condition for a $800.
I think my FE35 2.8 will never get used ever again.
Well, there is also the Nikon 35/f1.8, a very good balance between optical quality and size. For me, that would the lens I would want on my A7. While the "zeiss" 35/f2.8 is small, the optical trade off is a bit too much for me considering its price.
Loading…
www.photozone.de
JackyNg
Well-known member
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 89
So, u r implying that because not everyone shots sport photography, Sony can ignore the request for long telephoto lenses?
Which part of my article implies that everyone agrees with me that they need a 35 f/2?
Why are u so hostile anyway?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum