rebates mean that companies are paying for the trump tax.

but no company is paying for trump tariffs, in any line of business, it is overwhelmingly being paid for by american consumers.

"Rich farmers, not mom-and-pop farms, will collect most of Trump’s tariff bailout"
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-farm-bailout-20190528-story.html

you got the part where u.s. companies that manufacture in china are in trouble.

what you don't understand that setting up manufacturing lines in a foreign country takes a lot of time; in this case, sony was setting it up long before trump started this trade war... china is the worlds biggest exporter of goods, by far.

sony isn't "losing market share", that's just you not understanding the issues.

I lot of companies are affected by these tariffs. It's a bit silly to single out Sony. Most of the world's electronics and consumer devices are made in China.

@Leandros S - what part of trump tariff costs being paid by the consumer, NOT a company, was unclear?

you are out of touch with lens pricing these days... did you not get the part where the Nikon z35/1.8 is more expensive than this sony fe35/1.8, for example.

your reply to t3 indicates that you don't know where sony lenses are assembled.

no, I never claimed that sony is "not affected by the tariff", in fact I've repeatedly stated the opposite, with proof of tariff-induced pricing, via multiple posts showing that this lens costs $609 in Canada.

your posts indicate that you are having some reading comprehension issues.

The Sony 35 2.8mm was $800, this is only slightly bigger and is a faster lens.

Lots of CA, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1602079/11, scroll down a few to the image of leaves with purple all around. Will this all get corrected? Seems like an fe 50 type performance for $748. I'm pretty sure this is called greed.

Like written before, some samples here on DPR showing heavy CAs, that is for 700 EUR (into germany) way un-acceptable.

Sony would being wise, to lower the price tag to max. 550 EUR, as said before, but this Non-G FE 35/F1.8 would sell best for 449-499 EUR. ;)

Their 28mm F2 FE is just 400 EUR.

Good Night Forum.

Agreed with Marc, way too expensive, for me the price would be on the 600 maximum and lower it to the 450-500 mark at first year.

The reason for this is that the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (the closest lens) has 3 aspherical elements, one of them double. Also carries the zeiss premium badge.

So, to me, it's overprized, more considering that there's the 28 f2 and the 45 1.8 that sit close. And the other 35 2.8 and 1.4 options

With an adapter, yes, and you know that wasn't my point.

It was the logical conclusion of your point. It is not the same thing because it is not an option to use on a Sony camera so it is moot. A better point is the forthcoming Yongnuo FE 35mm F/1.8 that is going to cost around $200.

It might be an option if you already have an adapter. But if you don't have one, a Nikon F to Sony E adapter would run you about $250:

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fusion-Adapter-Mirrorless-Cameras/dp/B0792MCQK3/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Fotodiox+Fusion+Smart+Adapter+Mark+II%2C+Nikon&qid=1562795297&s=electronics&sr=1-2

The Nikon 35/1.8G (FX lens) is currently $526.95:
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-1-8G/dp/B00HQ4W4XO

$250 adapter + $527 lens = $777

I would just wait for the price of the Sony FE lens to drop or for it to go on sale. Or get a 3rd party E-mount 35mm lens.

yes, it seems that the fe35/1.8 pricing was set by trump tariffs, not sony.

American consumers pay for trump tariffs... not sony, and not the Chinese.

All major camera companies offer very affordable entry level ILC's...you can buy into Canon/NIkon/Sony at the APS-C level for a few hundred dollars.

If someone wants a step up from a smartphone that is a great start. And we haven't even talked about the bargains on the used market.

But the camera companies have the data; they know the market. They know the lower end sales are going away, as smartphones get better and better.

Also, the gear for that lower end doesn't need to be upgraded as frequently, but the fact that their may be not as much new gear doesn't mean that the gear doesn't exist.

Bottom line: if someone wants to buy into a dedicated ILC there are plenty of options, and probably better than ever before.

there are some good deals on used e-mount gear, that's what is nice about going with a format that's been around for years.

in this particular lens case, the trump tariff appears to be what jacked the price up.

there are alternatives for new glass, like the cheap Samyang 35/2.8, for $267 or less.

@vynz - "I know a lot of people who want to buy a camera to step-up from their smart phones but are not looking to spend money like this."

But they aren't necessarily looking at FF either. They are more likely to step up to APS-C. There are plenty of very affordable options in APS-C mirrorless. Sony E-mount has a lot of APS-C primes that are very affordable (all around $400 or less). Here are a few:
Sony 35/1.8 OSS, Sigma 19/2.8, Sigma 30/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4, Sigma 60/2.8, Sony 50/1.8 OSS

"Soon only professionals will be able to afford (or be willing to pay for) anything more than a smartphone camera and then the camera manufacturers will really suffer."

Most ILC shooters really don't need FF. APS-C ILCs are *plenty* good, and very affordable. It is foolish of you to think that the only options are smartphones and FF ILCs, with nothing in between! LOL, that's simply false. Most ILC sales are still sub-FF cameras, in both DSLR and mirrorless.

The problem with APS-C is that phones are already starting to rival full frame in terms of image quality. People who upgrade to a APS-C camera with kit lens will probably be disappointed at this point. So yes, compact and affordable full frame cameras are at least for now an option as an upgrade from phones. Of course phones will also eventually outperform full frame cameras if development continues at current pace.

@Verland - Stop with the nonsense that APS-C isn't good enough, and therefore everyone needs to move up to FF to be satisfied with image quality. That is pure nonsense. Smartphones deliver excellent convenience and good image quality (within limitations), but people moving up to ILCs are doing so because they want the flexibility and experience of using interchangeable lenses. Furthermore, smartphone sensors are still tiny, which creates obvious limitations in light gathering capacity (and therefore, low light image quality). Sony’s new IMX586 sensor for smartphones measures only 8mm diagonally, compared to an APS-C sensor which measures 28mm diagonally. The pixel pitch of a 20mp smartphone sensor is 1.1 microns, while the pixel pitch of the average 24mp APS-C sensor is 3.9 microns. That's a huge difference in light gathering capacity. It also affects things like diffraction limits as well, which affects the sensor's ability to capture fine detail. Dynamic range is also affected.

Whoa... hold on there. Smartphones absolutely are NOT rivaling APS-C IQ. HELL no! That's not saying that the benefits of smartphones' computational photography doesn't often create a more pleasing image than ILC's will put out. Afterall, it's a form of processing, often pretty complex processing. But the IQ cannot compete with APS-C sensors, particularly at higher ISOs. And don't be so quick to dismiss kit lens IQ. If shallow DOF isn't necessary or desired, Nikon's 18-55mm kit lenses are pretty damn impressive. Canon's probably are too, but i don't have experience with them so i can't say. Sometimes i take my D3300 with 18-55mm VR2 out with me for tiny, light, and versatile and that IQ will burn down any smartphone. Burn it to the ground! 😁 But again, that's not saying that my friend taking the same shot with a phone won't have a more-readily pleasing image SOOC. I often have to work my images in post to beat the look of phones. 😕

Of course it’s not the same quality, but if you want to spend $2K on a phone, you could use that money on a decent kit IF ITS IMPORTANT TO YOU?

So what's keeping these people who want the lower priced equipment from buying those entry level Canon DSLRs with those less expensive lenses, like the EF 50 f1.8 you mentioned? Canon still sells inexpensive DSLRs with kit lenses for under 500 USD, not to mention their very small EOS M kits.

And that's before one looks at some great bargains on the used side.

Camera companies are not going to update the lower end models so frequently, those customers don't demand that. But the bargains are out there, more than ever before.

good luck with uncompressed 20 fps raws on the brand you are using. i am sure you have one.

@Aegon Targaryen

Usual trolling nonsense from you.

If you knew anything about the A9 you'd know that the dynamic range of the sensor is below the tone curve of the compression in most instances so there is no penalty to shooting uncompressed raw. The camera comes with an ethernet port for FTP uploading - the camera is designed to primarily output jpeg.

Even if it wasn't, to experience the artifacting from missing information you would need to be shooting subject matter that included large amounts of brightest and darkest channel information (essentially artificial lights in night scenes) rather than midrange. And why would you need to shoot a night landscape image at 20fps?

As for your 'lol'ing at the concept of 20fps, I would suggest that you wouldn't find it funny if your preferred brand could do it.

@Aegon Targaryen : technically those lenses can handle 20fps uncompressed raws since the compression is happening on the body itself, so when Sony releases a new camera that does 20fps uncompressed, the sames lenses can handle it.

@pollup:
True. I was merely stating a fact just as you did in the OP.

And thanks for replying with a polite "simply-discussion" demeanor. Unfortunately, as you can see above, instant disrespectful excessive defensiveness and namecalling is typical anytime anyone says anything that can in some way be construed as any sort of slight against Sony. I prefer simply to comment and discuss. Thanks for being of like mind.

Peace. 🙂

@RD:
🙄 Really? More namecalling from you?

Many would prefer if you just presented your facts and opinions and made your case without the insults and hyperbole. That's actually more effective anyway. Besides, such demeanor makes you look like a child; which I'm assuming you're not. If you are a child, please let us know so we may view your statements in the proper context.

And FWIW, i rarely shoot my D500 faster than 7fps though it can go 9 or 10fps (i forget). Too much culling beyond that. Honestly, i typically shoot sports and events in Single frame advance. Often in Single-point Single AF or Single-point Continuous AF. I mean, i used to shoot sports in manual focus with a 4fps motor drive shooting film. You learn things that way that today's "spray-and-pray"ers simply never learned.

Einmaligkeit. Plus experience, bro. 😉

@Aegon Targaryen: And Canon doens't have ANY FF camera that can shoot 20 FPS with uncompressed RAW, and neither does Nikon.... The only difference with Sony is that these cameras can't shoot 20 FPS in JPG either....
And what is more, both the Canon (16FPS) and Nikon (14FPS) cameras that come close to 20 shots a second both have less MPs to use, so in a way they are all compressed in RAW, but also when you shoot at 1 FPS....

@brendon1000 You are missing the point. The Rokkor is a 40 year old design. Lenses used to be small, light and sharp. MILC lenses are almost always too long. This lens however is very nice.

If you really want small and light and sharp the m43 system is a better bet. Old lenses were sharp but only when stopped down. I used the old Minolta 50mm f1.4 and the Minolta 85mm f1.4 and both were very soft wide open on even my 24 MP sensor camera. On a 42 MP sensor they would have performed even worse !

Brendan is right. Those old lenses might have been good at the time, but are extremely soft by today's standards, especially when used on digital. It's not a case of just refining the optical formula or updating the coatings, it requires a more complex design which makes it bigger. There's no way around that, at least not until we have curved sensors.

MILC cameras can be small but most of the lenses are unnecessarily big and heavy.

So... those older lenses that were "small, light and sharp", where they doing fast AF? Did they have stabilization (not that this lens does)? Did they have to house electronics? What medium where they for? Cause imaging on a digital back is not the same as imaging on a film back.

@David610

There's actually no difference between milc lenses and DSLR lenses. You only think there is because many DSLR lenses are essentially made-over film-era designs.

Compare the first version of the 35/1.4L with the version 2. The 35/1.4LII is at least a fifth longer. This is to allow a near telecentric projection of the ray bundle and give a better performance on a digital sensor, which is a structured surface with a glass overlay.

Because milc has a shorter register companies have had to make all their lenses from scratch, so you will not see lenses as short as some of the EF and F ones, which are not digital-specific designs.

@zorgon : " It's not a case of just refining the optical formula or updating the coatings, it requires a more complex design which makes it bigger." => *refining* the optical formula was the problem, nobody actually *solved* it, so they just added more and more elements to correct aberrations, which made the lenses bigger. However, the formula was recently solved by a physician (the Wasserman-Wolf problem), and it means that it's now technically possible to create a "perfect" lens, that is, one that doesn't create aberrations, and the mount size and flange distance are irrelevant in that equation too. => yup, it's possible to create a perfect lens that is also super compact, and curved sensors are not needed.

I agree with Alexsfo.

If we all would make a quick comparison:
- Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 costs 750 USD.
- Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art costs 774 USD. (Everyone knows how great this lens is.)
- Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS & Macro costs 499 USD. (Where IS is 5-stops!)
- "Old" Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS costs 549 USD. (Yes, this one has also IS!)

Well, it looks like a progress but not a good one.

Pollup, all lenses have IQ issues. This Sony lens will also have some IQ issues.
Please don't believe everything you read on these "review" sites. The 35mm Canon lens is great optically, has very fast AF (slightly louder than USM motor but only as loud as EF 40mm f2.8), has excellent IS and is a macro lens.
For 250USD more (50% more), I expect Sony to have way better IQ overall, otherwise the price should come down.

@aksyok : sorry but what you're missing the full picture. There are other elements that matter, how about the size and weight (Sigma), how about the lack of weather sealing (Canon RF), how about the noisy focusing (RF), how about comparing the IQ first, how about the super fast AF (Sony)? You cannot declare that the lens is a success or a failure without knowing all the information. That's why I'm just waiting for now. Mentioning twice that Canon has IS also doesn't make sense, since Sony has camera bodies with IBIS.

@ozturert : I'm not believing anything yet, just patiently waiting to see good comparisons and maybe compare myself. I had an interest in the RF 35 but then I was disappointed, so I'm going to check how the Sony performs. There are just loads of people already declaring this lens to be a success or a failure without having even seen a proper comparison, so that's all I'm saying. I agree, if it's more expensive, then we have the right to expect some improvements, and if it's not better, then it's an inferior lens.

It is always better to make direct personal comparison, for what concerns me, I have found RF 35 f1.8 a nice lens with macro capabilities, which is nice, silent AF, is stabilized (and ibis bodies are coming from Canon (they are late with ibis), not an incredible character I admit, lightweight (not the lightiest one obviously) and right priced (and this is very important for many people, more than DPR forum people guess/know), haven't tried the Sony I will not say anything about it, I find the price is a bit steep, this is the only one consideration, I will not give any opinion based on the pictures of this gallery (if not that pictures have always that green/yellowish Sony look which was one of the points of my coming back to Canon, but that's a personal taste, nothing wrong generally, so take it as a note only).

The lenses seem to be about on par, give or take a tick or feature here and there. None of them is excellent and none is a dog. However, fact is Sony asks for $250 more. And - while it seems to be on par with the 28 2.0 FE as well - why has the price become so inflated? Do not tell me US tariff, because there is no such thing in Europe and the price of the 35 here is inflated as well and because the 28 is having the same situation without being massively expensive.

It is simply the sony premium. One of the reasons why I switched away from them.

Lets say I was on the sony system (so others don't get into the canon vs sony thing). This lens is just 100 euros cheaper than the 55 ZA, which has been named the little otus in the past. FL aside, why oh why would I get this 35 f1.8 for 750 over the 55 ZA for 850? The latter is an excellent lens, with that zeiss micro contrast, super sharp across the frame... well its a zeiss. Based on that alone this lens is over priced.

The sony 50 is more than the stm, the GMS are a good deal more expensive in general (70-200 for example is 600 euros more than the canon EF). Etc etc. Maybe canon's approach to manufacturing makes their lenses cheaper, maybe it is about volume (though even the RF lenses (those that can be compared apples to apples) are generally cheaper), maybe it is that certain other aspects is where the difference is in terms of cost such as OSS, coatings, focus motors. Who knows?

canon also released equally cheap 2500$ plus lenses for r mount. Best mirrorless right there for price point.

Zxaar

I don’t get your point. You taking about those one of a kinda there is nothing to compare them to lenses? Cause last I checked canon didn’t try to say it was cheap or affordable, and they are designated L.

However here we have Sony releasing a budge lens which they didn’t bother labeling GM or G or ZA for a 50% markup vs the R. There are plenty of 35 f1.8 out there to compare it to, and yes nikon’s also costs roughly the same but it is at least it is supposed to be that S (their Z mount L) line.

As I said. Look at the lenses that canon released that are not exotic, the RF 35, 24-105, and now the 24-240, and we see the trend persists. Sony is generally more expensive period. If you are alright with it, by all means, I ain’t stopping you from buying any of them, in fact go blow all your money on them for all the rest of us cares. Regardless the trend remains the same.

@Alexsfo - The problem is that you have to use that lens with Canon bodies! No IBIS. That's a deal breaker right there. Not every lens will have IS. But with IBIS, every lens has IS. Plus, I would never choose a system based on a single lens, let alone the price of that lens when it was introduced (prices change). When it comes to lenses, selection means more. Sony has a huge lens selection and huge 3rd party support since they license their mount to 3rd party lens makers-- which means a lot more choices for E-mount users. So if this particular 35mm lens doesn't float your boat, another one made by Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang/Rokinon, Zeiss, Cosina, etc, might because all these companies are Sony-licensed lens makers.

As for the Sony FE 35/1.8, with increased competition (and possible tariff factors), I can see the price dropping on this lens. It sounds like that's the only real objection some people have with this lens.

@aksoyk
Canon first released their 35/2 IS for whopping $800. Then adjusted the price based on demand, as Sony probably will do as well.
As for the Sony price in the US, as others mentioned it may be affected by tariffs on China, as it is cheaper in Canada after currency rate conversion (usually it is the other way around). Canon released their RF lens before the tariffs, and raising the price right now would be bad PR - so they are likely simply swallowing losses or reduced profits.

@Krich13 - Canon also released the 6D MKII at $1999. Within a year, the price tumbled down to $1499. Now it's only $1299. Same with the EOS R, which was introduced at $2299 (way overpriced). Now it's $1999 (which I think is still a bit overpriced for what it is). The point is that prices change.

I like the way people here are comparing lenses without having it in their hands and on their cameras. I can't tell if the Sony lens will be a good priced lens or not, we have to wait until we can compare them in real life pictures and measurements....
And as T3 said Canon does the same with their cameras, the launch price is way to high, and they drop their prices after a few months, when the real Canon lovers have bought it for way to much money...
And looking at the Canon R camera at the moment, it costs about the same as the Sony A7III and has way less options, shorter battery life and less lenses....
Again this lens might come down in price after some time, or it might be a very good lens one way (optically) or an other (weather sealing, focus speed, handling)

@zxaar
Sarcasm isn’t always picked up in text. You don’t hear the person’s tone or facial expression. And I don’t know you, so my bad. Guess you need to be more obvious.

So you were expecting the 50 F1.2 a d the 28-70 f2 to be budget/cheap?

4 lenses were launched. 6 out now. Half of them are priced lower at launch than their Sony counter parts.

35: $450 vs $750
24-105: $1100 (1000 if kitted) vs $1300
24-2400: $900 vs $1100

28-70 f2 vs ?? No equal
50 F1.2 vs ?? No equal
85 F1.2 vs ?? No equal

If you have a look at the EF counter parts you will see that the RF lenses are priced similarly. Canon used a formula for EF in terms of balance of performance and price that ended up making them #1 for decades. Stands to reason that they will do so with RF too.

Don’t tell me you don’t see the pattern? Cause IMHO I see that pattern continuing. It should be good for Sony users though. It may drive the price of Sony glass down, now that they aren’t the only FF MILC manufacturers in town.

And what is the explanation for inflated prices of the 35 in EU? We do not have that Trump-tariff. And why is the 28 still affordable while the 35 is over the top? Does the 28 have no tariff in the US?

Introduction price of the 85mm was €650,-, this one €700,-. Seems similar.

This is not the first or only product that Sony makes in China; those other products have not gone up in price. For instance, their A7riii and A7iii models are made in China, and many of their other lenses are made in China.

I agree the trade war is stupid, but it's really jumping to conclusions that the pricing on this model is in any way influenced by that.

Look at the CA and PF or possibly on the price and you understand it is not professional grade.

Gfrensen, I did not mention anything about price in my post if you bothered to read carefully.

Do some basic research and youll see there are already heaps of reviews/videos and first impressions commenting on handling and build quality and full size image samples. Not sure what youre talking about.

Not sure if it's true but there is speculation that it would have been around $600 if it weren't for the tariffs on Chinese made goods. If the trade war ends perhaps the price will drop (unless of course Sony is selling a boat load at $750).

right, when sony a7 series was released back in 2013, it was a direct copy of eos-r!

brilliant observation!!

The Sony lens is mostly metal, has dust/moisture sealing, and has a customizable focus hold button. The Canon RF 35/1.8 does not. Plus, according to dpreview, it outperforms the Canon and Nikon mirrorless equivalents:
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/8465544595/sony-fe-35mm-f1-8-sample-gallery?comment=1170674576

@Nicephore Niepce - Canon does well selling low-end cameras like the Rebel T6 and EOS M50. But their higher-priced cameras have been selling very poorly. The 6DII was a flop. And the EOS R/RP have done poorly as well.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3587145682/sony-a7-iii-sales-beat-combined-efforts-of-canon-and-nikon-in-japan

So in today's market, is it better to be the king of low-end bargain-basement cameras, or is it better to go after higher-value sales? In the long run, I think it's better to go after higher-value sales and higher-value customers because they are more likely to invest in the system over the long run. Low-end buyers don't spend much in the long run.

Nicephore Niepce
Joined on Jul 8, 2019

https://www.dpreview.com/members/3317985477/overview

Looks like another fake identity created just in time for the sake of trolling by a very sad individual.

@T3 This lens is mostly plastic. Its not weather proof. The Canon 35/1.8 has a custom control ring. This lens is on the same level as the Sony 28/2 FE, but double the price for some reason.

@T3... I'll take it a step further and say that Canon might do well selling low-end cameras for now but that is not going to last. So not only is Canon likely dealing with razor thin margins on the low-end cameras but it will get worse because they will sell less and less as time goes on. No question in my mind it's better to be the king of higher revenue and higher margin sales.

@Critical Thinker - No lens is "weather proof". All lenses with dust and moisture sealing are referred to as "resistant" because the weather "proof" claim is too high a standard. As for being double the price of the FE 28mm f/2, it's not double. The FE 28/2 is $448. Double would be $896. Plus, the FE 28/2 is simply an exceedingly good value. In comparison, the Nikon 28/1.8G is $700:

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-Compact-Wide-angle-Cameras/dp/B007VGGIRK

The FE 28/2 is even cheaper than the old Canon EF 28/2 ($509) which was introduced in 1995:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=canon+28mm+f%2F2&qid=1562708977&s=electronics&sr=1-3

DPR should have some sort of troll control... new accounts every day to deal with!

@T3 Yes, this lens is poor value for money and is obviously artificially inflated. The 28/2 sets the bar for an affordably priced FE lens at $450US. Realistically this lens should be $500-$600US Max. It doesnt have any additional features to warrant the $750 price tag. Even sticking a G label on it and putting a rubber ring around the mount would justify it. But its pretty much priced as a premium lens for no reason other than Nikon doing it. Unfortunately Sony are still in the monopoly mindset, and only reacting to what the competition does and offering the bare minimum they can get away with. We'll have to wait for Sigma or Tamron to bring out a proper affordable 35/1.8-2, and maybe then Sony will come to their senses and adjust this lens appropriately.

@Critical Thinker - Regardless, it will still sell well. And it will eventually probably drop in price. Plus, the beauty of the Sony E-mount system is that there are plenty of 3rd party options because Sony licenses their mounts to third party lens makers. And those 3rd parties also add competitive forces to the E-mount system as well, which will also help with pricing. But in the meantime, even at its initial price, Sony will still sell plenty of these lenses. Pricewise, it sits between the Canon RF 35/1.8 ($499) and the Nikon Z 35/1.8 ($850), which I think is a perfectly fine place for it to start at.

@T3 Its not perfectly fine to simply slap on premium prices on to your affordable entry level product lines. As a consumer anyway. Do you work for Sony?

why do you want ois, when sony bodies have ibis?

why make the lens bigger and heavier, when it's not necessary?

If you had to guess whether 1.8 lenses are generally bigger than 2.8 lenses, what would you say? Once you come up with the answer, you will also understand why they released it.

I guess the Sigma is twice as big and heavy though.

so how does "higher prices" make up for "losing the consumer base"?

what, people will stick around if they can pay more? lol

that makes about as much sense as when you just told us that equivalence doesn't matter, and that dslrs have the same tech as milc.

The Nikon version is an "S" lens that is intended to be more pro-ish. This SONY lens is meant to be more main stream and walk around as such it is priced too high for that purpose.

The "S" in Nikon's Z lenses doesn't stand for "Pro-ish," LOL. It stands for "Software correction required."

@G1Houston - Stop falling for the marketing nonsense. The Sony FE 35/1.8 is a moisture and dust sealed lens with a customizable focus hold button and supposedly very good optics and build.

The Nikon "S" designation apparently applies to all of Nikon's mirrorless lenses, because the entire mirrorless line of lenses is referred to as "S-line":

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/features/nikon-z-lens-roadmap

"S-line" lenses go on "Z-mount" bodies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRPpYUvBtNo

So apparently, the S doesn't mean what you think it means. In the video, the speaker simply says that the "S" refers to Nikon's "first generation" of mirrorless lenses. Subsequent generations may be called T-line, U-line, whatever.

@MSullivan - The "S" doesn't mean much if the tests don't bear it out that these lenses are actually better. And apparently, dpreview is saying that the Nikon 35/1.8 S does not outperform the Sony FE 35/1.8 lens:
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/8465544595/sony-fe-35mm-f1-8-sample-gallery?comment=1170674576

Maybe the "S" stands for "soothing" you into paying more?

Yep, same opinion is applicable to Nikon as well.

And Fuji ~899$, and Olympus ~1199$

So basically applicable to every camera manufacturer who can design internal focusing lenses

Nah, I'd say people who bought the EOS R at its original $2300 price were the suckers. 5fps, no IBIS, single SD slot, no eye AF for $2300? Yep, definitely a camera for suckers.

Panther fan the non-premium Fuji and Olympus equivalent lenses are around £400.

Well if you want slower lenses there are two F2.8 versions available in the Sony system

aperture =/= what the price should be. Depends on actual IQ or operational qualities.

Those are also faster optics.

@wats0n

You mean optics with less DOF control and lower ability to avoid noise?

Yes how could I even compare them

@wats0n - "Those are also faster optics"

no, the m4/3 lens is slower, when you factor in equivalence, it can't match the sony lens wide open.

There is NO equivalence with aperture. Not sure why people don't understand science. Aperture is a fraction, doesn't matter which format it is on, f1.2 is going to let in the same amount of light.

@wats0n

"f1.2 is going to let in the same amount of light."

Common misconception. All F1.2 lenses share the same light density
But that is not the same as the same amount of light

"No, that is because more light is needed for the larger sensor hence the diameter of the lens, but it's still the same."

"more light is needed"

"but it's still the same."

"more light"

"the same"

@wats0n - don't quote equivalence articles that you don't understand.

I don't have time to educate children, now run along and play and let the big boys talk..

Oooo, the irony, lol.~

@wats0n: "Aperture" literally means "opening". The same "f number" on a smaller sensor camera has a smaller opening, hence, a smaller aperture by definition.

Wats0n Don't get annoyed with the buffoons, they'd compare a Rolls Royce to a Toyota Camry based on 0-60mph figures... if they had a Camry ofc. That is the important part.

@wats0n - "Mirrorless was the best thing to ever happen to the camera industry, it gave them the ability to recycle the same DSLR technology"

no, milc is not "the same dslr technology" at all.

if you can't understand that milc doesn't have a mirror, at least try googling ospdaf, for instance.

I do understand thank you, but for the past few years all mirrorless has been doing it trying to catch up to DSLR quality focusing, battery life, etc. You might need google more than I do.

no, you don't understand the differences between milc vs. dslr.

you have made it clear that dinosaurs still roam the earth, tho ;-)

Uhm isn't the Olympus 17mm F1.2 1199$ ?
While being heavier, giving you less DOF control and worse low light ability?

Bought my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for €220 (second hand, new condition). Nice tiny and lightweight lens with metal build. Same exposure as this Sony.

The f/1.2 version is another kind of beast. It will outperform this consumer grade Sony in every way expect dof.

But nice for the Sony users they have this option now. More options is almost always better. :)

M43 boys live in denial, their "pro" lenses aren't small or cheap. They will end up spending more and loading pretty much the same than FF just to "compensate".

There's already a 35mm 1.8 Sony APS-C lens...

Pro lenses wil never be small and cheap. Not for FF, not for APS-C and not for MFT. But MFT offers some amazing lenses the FF Gestapo must know that by now.

I hope someone here has alerted the media to all your activity. I am sure everyone is gonna want to know what's going on with your buying and selling decisions.

@Thorgrem - "Bought my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for €220 (second hand...)"

thorgrem has to quote used lens prices in order to be competitive with sony prices, lol

i suggest that you try looking at the m4/3 equivalent for the sony fe85/1.8...

and newsflash for you and the o.p.: this is not the m4/3 echo chamber.

the oly 45/1.8 is not equivalent to the 85/1.8, it's far too slow, it would have to be an f/0.9 lens to be equivalent... the resolution is also far lower on m4/3.

try again? lol

Yes try again. f/1.8 = f/1.8 in exposure. You know what that is? It's where the F number on a lens is primarily used for.

@Thorgrem

Did I talk about exposure? I said the Sony would give you better DOF control and lower noise. What else do you care about?

Sony APS-C lenses are reasonably priced for the most part. The Sigma E mount primes are wonderful and very affordable. I'm quite happy with APS-C and have not felt the need to go FF. Video is important to me. I'm still pleased with my A6000. Great image quality and great video codec. The really good M43 glass is expensive too. My A6000 kit is pretty compact. I like the M43 system too but it wouldn't really save me much size or weight if at all. FF is expensive regardless of the system.

@Thorgrem - "f/1.8 = f/1.8 in exposure."

fail, again.

you can ignore equivalence in the m4/3 echo chamber, but not in the real world.

I've had the 17mm .95 Voigtlander, 17mm 1.2 and 17mm 1.8 Olympus. The 17mm 1.2 I think has a special rendering and next to my 35mm 1.7 Voigtlander, I often prefered it even though it wasn't as sharp wide open (but hey, 1.2 verses 1.7 on FF is a no brainer). Point being, Olympus has its own rendering style that some may prefer regardless of ultimate IQ differences between systems. It is an excellent system.

it is crazy to compare a 1.8/35 mm to a 1.2/17 mm.
The mFT is sharp as chilly and nearly perfect built.
The Sony has to prove!

Again... the 17mm 1.2 gives you the FIELD OF VIEW of a 35mm F2.4.

@chadley_chad- again, we get that you are confused about sony, but what does any of that have to do with this fe35/1.8?

Impulses - I tried the Sigma 16mm f1.4 on my A6300 ... didn't rate it at all!

Yes its f1.4, but I didn't find it as sharp as the Sigma f2.8 and worst of all, its a VERY large and heavy lens ... too large and heavy in my opinion and with no IS, I struggled in low light anyway, despite the fast lens! On an A6500 maybe, but I couldn't recommend it for any lower model unless on a tripod!

ZeBebito:

'M43 boys live in denial, their "pro" lenses aren't small or cheap. They will end up spending more and loading pretty much the same than FF just to "compensate'

Firstly, the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro lens I (finally) purchased today is much smaller than many of my 'pro' Sony lenses, is of significant better build quality, is fully weather sealed and cost only £500!!! So you're wrong - M43 lenses are clearly smaller, cheaper and from tests I've just done, SUBSTANTIALLY sharper than any Sony Zeiss offering!!

I'd also just note your derogatory use of the term 'M43 boys'. This kind of childish manufacturer tit for tat is just that ... childish and quite pathetic. I had hoped camera users were of a hire calibre than Apple v's Android phone users; but you've clearly proved me wrong.

For the sensible readers out there, as per my original post, I shoot 1", APSC, FF and now M43 ... and anyone with the right photographic skills can extract Fab pictures out of all sensor sizes!

@chadley_chad - "the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro lens"

is a 24-80/5.6 on ff, which is dog slow, not "pro" grade by any stretch of the imagination.

you just don't understand what people are telling you.

MILC man - your arrogance and complete lack of understanding does nothing but make you look rather silly to the MANY professional photographers out there and on this very site who shoot M43. Maybe you just have a snobby attitude to smaller sensors ... so might I suggest you visit a camera store and try the lens for yourself; or read one of the many online reviews that rate this lens above many pro Zeiss models.

As Steve Huff wrote (although I guess you think you know more than him!):

'This lens is versatility and IQ and speed all in one package that comes in at half the size and less than half the cost of those full frame 24-70 counterparts while giving up nothing in performance. In the Micro 4/3 world, this is a must own if you want one lens that will deliver prime lens image quality. The lens is freeze, shock, dust and weather proof. Olympus designed this one just right and it is an impressive zoom. With a constant semi-fast f/2.8 aperture, it is the real deal in the M43 world'.

@chadley_chad - get back to us when you understand what equivalence is.

here, this will help you: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

MILC man ... I understand equivalence - have you made that comment as some sort of nod to your photography prowess for all here to see. How about you shoot FF and APSC Sony then try this lens on M43. At least then your Argument might have some validity; rather than dismissing something you’ve zero experience of using ..; and in general, taking my original constructive comment and turning the whole thread into some childish ‘mines better than yours’ debate. Go get yourself a hobby!

MILC man, don't waste your time with this moron chadley, we are not here to educate him. Not worthy. He is a fangirl of Steve Huff... so enough said LOL.

@chadley_chad
"I understand equivalence" - You absolutely do not understand equivalence. And USING stuff doesn't make you know better.

chadley always getting into fights. zzzz

@chadley_chad - "M43 lenses are clearly smaller, cheaper and from tests I've just done, SUBSTANTIALLY sharper"
- You clearly have no idea what you are doing with your toys.