Anything in the 35-50 range should work. My pick of the range would be the "new" Sigma 35 ART.
I too am tempted by the Sigma 35mm Art, but I would not call it "new" it just has an adapter semi-permanently attached to it. According to Sigma, the 35mm could have been made smaller due to Sony's mirrorless architecture. If money were no object and I was going to use an adapted lens, my first choice would be Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4LII...
Regards, I am considering the not-really "new" Sigma 35mm or staying with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4ZA (Granted, I would have to buy several copies to ensure I get a good copy. Perhaps, 5 will do... Perhaps. the quality control issues on this lens is indeed over perpetuated, but regardless it does beg for caution.)
There's a reason I put new in quotation marks. Where did Sigma say they could have made the 35 smaller? There were already 2 35 1.4s in existence (Sony and Samyang) and they are pretty much the same size as the Sigma. I think for a 35 1.4 worth making it's going to be ~700g and ~110x70mm in size with 11-14 elements:
They said it in the interview given almost immediately after the release of the FE versions of the existing lenses. They essentially stated that wide angle lenses up to 35mm could be made smaller and benefit from the shorter flange distance and design parameters of Sony's mirrorless architecture. So, to me this means it could be made smaller without comprising the optical qualities of the lens without increasing the prices much. We don't want to get into Leica price territory.
Yamaki-san actually said, "
Probably, the 14mm, 20mm and 24mm lenses could have been smaller [if they were designed for Sony full-frame from the beginning]." Furthermore, he more or less excluded 35mm from a reduction in size when he pointed out that the mirrorless-design Sony 35/1.4 is much the same size as the Sigma 35/1.4 Art.
Ref
The reference i was looking at was the one from sonyalpharumors, but from your reference, there may or may not be much of a size difference. However, to quote the reference:
But any lens longer than 35mm, they’d be about the same size. Our 35mm F1.4, for example, is about the same size as the Sony 35mm F1.4. But for wider lenses, because of the short flange-back distance of the E-mount, we could make them smaller."
It is implied that it could be made smaller (or at least maintaining its present size without the additional length of the adapter built into the lens).
That's a bit different to your misquotes about 35mm. Also note the word "probably".
I have noticed that in the tech world, probably = it can be done.
Also, it does NOT, as you wrote, "... just has an adapter semi-permanently attached to it." The control/communications systems are much more efficient and will result in better responsiveness and performance, compared to the EF-mount version combined with an MC-11 adaptor. And I won't even go near your choice of the words, "semi-permanently attached". Simply bizarre.
But, it is semi-permanently adapted or welded on. From what I have read and possibly misinterpreted as Sigma offering a mount conversion process, but if true, then the FE mount is not permanently apart of the lens. The discussions I have read on this matter though have been vague and confusing to me. So, if my assertion was in error, I stand corrected and thank you for this.
Overall I read between your comments a negativity about Sigma's great gift to FE-land. Some of the best uncompromised glass ever put on an FE mount, and at prices that almost make one laugh out loud. And 9 top-notch prime lenses all at once, instead of drip-feeding us one fully-new design every 2-3 years.
I agree they are top-tier lenses. Yes, it is good to have the "semi-native" option. But, changing the firmware is different than creating a new redesign. Regardless, the price to performance ration for most of these lenses represent a very good to great value. On the other hand, it could be argued that they already had more than 3 years to design new lenses for mirrorless. And, one can assume with a company as big as Sigma could design more than one lens at a time. As such, Sigma could have released 2 or more redesigned lenses for the wide angles and popular lenses while following what they have done for the longer lenses. This would have been the ideal scenario.
FE guys and gals should be dancing in the streets.
So, I think this is going a bit too far. Albeit, I am seriously considering the 35mm myself. Or, I might even have to buy 4-5 copies of the 35mm f/1.4ZA at one time, test them all and cherry pick the best one for my personal use. It is the only lens I am truly considering that seems to be plagued with large sample variation.
