I have the 24-70 2.8 which means I have 35 2.8, but I am tempted to get the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 because of how small it is. It'd be nice to have a compact system sometimes. What other small lenses are out there? What are the opinions on this lens? I know its an older one?
I used to have the 55mm 1.8 and I did like it a lot.
I am shooting mostly landscape type stuff so the 2.8 doesn't bother me.
Going for the smallest size/weight lens on a full-frame body seems like diminishing returns, because your camera body still takes up the same space and weighs the same, no matter what lens you attach, and for both metrics, is a significant amount.
There's still a big difference between having a 35/2.8 or 40/2.5 mounted on said body vs a zoom or even a 35/1.8...
That difference might be lost on some who will always use a bag that can easily accommodate any of those lenses, but I can cram my A7R IV in a waist pack with 2-3 tiny lenses whereas it wouldn't even fit with a 35/1.8 mounted and putting said lens in there would reduce the number of lenses I can bring along to 1-2. For me that's the opposite of diminishing returns (on smaller lenses), but YMMV.
Your camera being a high-resolution body, it will actually be able to "pull" more quality out of any lens than could a lower resolution body. That's the good news.
The bad news is that if you want to "get your money's worth" from that high-resolution sensor that you paid real money for, you can't go too low in optical quality, and I think that 35 f/2.8 has been well-surpassed by other lenses in the years since its release. So I think I'd go for something more modern and a bit better.
That's really subjective, not that I fundamentally disagree, but some people may have bought an A7R body because they need the extra res at certain times but not necessarily
at all times.
Don't own it, but the Sony FE 40mm f/2.5 G looks like a good balance of size, features, and optical performance, if you are trying to keep things relatively small. I believe it has linear motors for AF, so should also be good for video, if that is of any interest. (I think I'd stay away from the Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G in that series, except maybe for video NOT on the full (FF) sensor, or still photography on APS-C. IIRC, according to Lenstip it was excellent in the center, but performance in the outer field declined rapidly as you stopped down).
Declined rapidly may be overstating it a little... I wouldn't call a -4lpmm drop at the edges from f2.8 to f8 a very critical flaw.
You're absolutely correct on this point. I had read the review soon after it came out, and remembered this part wrong, I thought it declined more than that.
Sure it doesn't improve along the edges as it's stopped down either, which is what you'd expect with a lot of lenses,
Indeed, that's true, but while you are understating the problem here in this sentence, what you said earlier is really the heart of the issue: its outer field performance (both FF edges and APS-C edges) actually
declines as you stop it down.
And that's why I had (and still have) a negative opinion of it. Because such a wide angle is unlikely to be used for portraits, a situation where I wouldn't that much care about what was happening in the corners or along the edges. A small 24mm is far more likely to be used for hiking (landscapes), city walks (architecture, storefronts, cityscapes, etc) where I'd mostly be using it stopped-down to about f/8 and would want good sharpness all the way into the corners.
but it's still better or equal to in that regard versus a lot of other small wides at similar apertures (eg 28/2, SY 24/2.8, Sigma 24/3.5, etc.).
Not better than the small Sigma 24/3.5, if the criteria is even performance at landscape apertures (i.e. f/8). Lenstip results:
FF edge -- APS-C edge -- center
Sony 24 f/2.8 G:
37 -- 46 -- 60
Sigma 24 f/3.5 dg dn:
45 -- 49 -- 57
The Sigma gives up 3 lpmm in the center, but turns in a better, more even performance across the rest of the frame.
I will concede that the Sony probably has better wet-weather resistance, if that's important. (Isn't for me, I live in the desert).
I'm quite happy with it on my A7R IV, but I did buy it largely for it's size which you don't seem to value much.
No, I
do value small size, it's just that I probably am willing to go a bit above the
smallest size in order to get a bit better result. So later this year I'll probably buy the Sigma 24 f/2 -- unless I decide to go for the Sony 16-35 f/4 PZ, which is a whole other set of tradeoffs, providing the convenience of multiple focal lengths in one fairly-light and (I think) not-overly-large (considering the multiple lenses it could replace) optic. But in fact, I'm still even actively considering the Sigma 24 f/3.5, for its combination of small size, close focusing, and long focus throw.
A Sanyang 24/1.8 or Sigma 24/2 would likely make a better all around 24mm, but I already had the excellent 20/1.8 so I wanted a much smaller alternative wide prime.
Understood. I don't own a 20. And no one makes a good small modern 28. So together, that makes the 16-35 PZ of high interest to me, perhaps able to take the place of
several optics and perform with hopefully adequate quality (and certainly convenience), for travelling, hiking, or just walking around. (That could actually be a bigger savings of
total space and weight than choosing the smallest primes).
