Thinking, L mount black finished Nikon Zfc but full frame :-)

The 20/1.8 is pretty small and light for what it is, I'd argue Sony is leading the pack when it comes to making smaller but high performing primes, a lot of them are consistently smaller than Z mount's despite the supposed mount advantage. Sony just hasn't tackled certain FLs and f-stop combinations.

The 85/1.8 isn't that small but no 85/1.8 anywhere seems to be, I dunno what it is about that combination. The Samyang 75/1.8 is way smaller, just a smidge larger than this 90/2.8 but lighter. Seems going slower or a bit shorter is the ticket to a smaller tele prime. I'd like to see a slower and smaller 135mm from anyone (besides the pricey Batis, which is lighter but not smaller).

I'd consider them more second party but it's semantics I guess.

It’s possible that they cannot contractually release a new 24mmF1.4 until a certain elapsing of time if they have, for instance, been commissioned by another lens house to design or produce one for them.

Sigma and Panasonic are equal partners with Leica for the technical development and revision of the L-mount, and may well have been involved in initial development. All three must agree before any other company could be admitted to the L-Mount Alliance.

Sigma have an advantage working with E-mount, however, they subscribe to it rather than author or adjust it.

E-mount is more mature and has fewer parties and projects to resolve or accommodate, so it still has an advantage, yet over time there will be more convergence and harmony among the L family. At the moment, I think they’re primarily focussed on establishing their own lines.

Once phase-detect or something similar propagates L-mount (beyond the fp L), there will likely be more performance parity visible.

If you shoot close-up wide open with a busy background, the rendering is busier than 24GM. But when subject is beyond 1.5m, the different is unnoticeable.

I actually think the Samyang 45/1.8 & 75/1.8 have really nice rendering, the 24/1.8 is more mundane and the 35/1.8 is average. I wouldn't paint them all with the same bush.

I think the Sigma 35/2 had an advantage over the SY/Sony 35s but for all the talk of the 45/2.8's rendering I've never thought it looked much better than the SY 45/1.8's, certainly not enough to give up over a stop. Haven't seen enough of the 90/2.8 yet... The 65/2 was a cut above most tho.

@Ziginox my understanding is for tele lenses you really don't get much loss in size going from FF to crop. The size is determined more by the focal length and F number.

Urbex, Look at the M43 75/1.8 lens. There are not many FF 150mm lens anywhere near as small. Same with their 400mm zooms. The Canon 800/F11 is twice its size. Same goes for M43 300mm F5.6 lenses and the Canon 600/F11. The Canon is more than twice the volume/size. Other FF lenses are 3-4 times larger
And there will be a new 25MP and 33MP sensor coming too for M43.

@MyDog - there isn't an m43 camera that can come close to Sony AF for tracking my kids running or jumping on a couch - at any price or size. If there were, I would be happily shooting m43 all day long.

These small I series lenses and Sony's own G trio of compact primes are a great way to get close to m43 sizes, while benefitting from Sony's real time tracking.

At some stage I’ll probably get this 90mm to use alongside that 56mm (and the 30mmF1.4) on APS-C. It’s nice that they’ll be similarly balanced. Beautiful, too. The aperture doesn’t bother me since the other two are bright, and compression will maximise the bokeh if required.

MirrorlessComparison's BIF testing is very useful indeed but it's not an all encompassing test of C-AF and tracking, what works best for BIF may not necessarily be what works best for humans, and IIRC they're testing C-AF more so than tracking (and definitely not testing eye AF, etc) by using whatever works best for BIF even if it means keeping the AF point or area over the birds manually...

(cont.)

I'd actually say Pana's own eye AF had surpassed Oly's at one point but I haven't used the E-M1 III, even low end Pana bodies seem to follow it better and recognize faces when they're smaller in the frame than my E-M5 III tho... So you can't make generalizations about the whole system's AF capabilities based on the one Olympus body, at least not until Oly is more willing to implement that across their whole lineup.

Frankly I think it's high time they did that but they seem very reticent to do so, they still don't have a <$1K body with C-AF with ya damn even tho it's table stakes for everyone else.

Tele reach is still an advantage on smaller formats but it's due largely to the fact that equivalent lenses don't and may never exist across formats. Nobody makes a FF 150/3.6 (heck there's only one overpriced 135/2.8 w/AF), or a 70-200 f5.6 with nice optics and an internal design, etc etc.

That's actually why I brought up the 75/1.8 example first, at that precise FL (but not necessarily under it) lenses seem to start approaching the same size regardless of the image circle size, and it's more about FL / f-stop. eg Olympus 75/1.8 vs Samyang 75/1.8, or Panasonic 100-300 vs Tamron 70-300, or Oly 100-400 vs Sigma 100-400 DN.

All those teles are really close in size and are usually close in weight except in cases where one is just better built (Oly 75). The smaller format has a reach advantage when using the same FL by it's very nature, but you can argue cropping 61MP by 2x gets you pretty close to the same result (~15MP), same goes for APS-C.

(cont.)

I'm not arguing either route is better, in fact I still shoot M4/3 largely for the teles, and I'd totally buy the 56/1.4 and/or 90/2.8 if I had an APS-C body instead (along w/the 70-350 G). Just saying, Max was right IMO and teles tend to have more or less a fixed size based on FL, f-stop, and whether it's an internal or external zoom. You can just leverage certain FLs differently based on format.

At shorter FLs what's possible design wise seems to get blurrier and there's more overlap while taking equivalence into account. eg PL 25/1.4 vs Samyang 45/1.8 (similar size, > 1 stop equivalence difference), or for a more extreme example Oly 25/1.2 vs Sony 50/2.5 (there's obviously vastly different design goals between the two), or one of the most interesting ones for me personally Voigtlander 10.5/0.95 vs Sony 20/1.8 G.

I'm well aware, thanks, did I say anything to the contrary that would warrant that comment?

However, the reality is we're never gonna get straight FL equivalences at a lot of FLs and for a lot of ranges. So if people are happy shooting a FF f5.6 or f8 equivalent tele in daylight then it's kinda irrelevant whether the larger FF zoom is faster by equivalence, the sports shooter that needs FF's higher shooting envelope already knows it and the casual shooter will never even consider the kilobuck FF tele.

It's at shorter FLs where things get interesting, tho the instances where you still have straight equivalence matches (eg CV 10.5/0.95 vs Sony 20/1.8) are still hit or miss. My comment regarding teles was just to agree with Mark, teles at a given FL and f-stops don't ever deviate too much size-wise (a bit more weight wise but that's down to construction), I wasn't even talking about the same equivalent FLs there.

(cont.)

I'd still say for the average user the smaller formats, despite a smaller shooting envelope, will still have a reach advantage (in daylight, and/or if you don't wanna crop or go w/a $3K+ FF body). If you're shooting moving subjects and/or already got over the higher body cost of FF then you probably know why you needed it.

Everything I said was while being well aware of equivalence, that's why I suggested a 2x crop of a 61MP body would net you end results pretty close to that of a M4/3 body, but there's still practical reasons beyond the end output why you might prefer one or the other.

Mad Cow - You make that completely out of your thumb.

@FTOG ...or Zeiss (12/2.8, 32/1.8, 50/2.8)

Well, yeah. One might find some old Zeiss stock, but Zeiss has long stopped putting any effort into Fuji X mount lenses whatsoever. Must be that the initial trio simply didn't sell well enough to warrant more R&D expenses.

Panny AF motors were never a strong point

@Djehuty yet they blow away Sigma's lens AF in every regard.

@Alan53 maybe it's cheaper at list price in your country, but in the USA the Panny at list is $599.

22mm is nothing, but a stop and a half slower is everything.

@Urbex Mark: I must admit I haven't tried that one.

RAW video? Why do you need a tiny lens if you are traveling without a giant external recorder

This is exactly what happens when everyone asks for smaller and lighter. To make it small some corrective elements need to be removed and then rely on software correction later. I'm really not a fan of the direction most lens makers are going.

Nikon is probably the only exception for putting out large 1.8 primes with very little optical flaws of any kind. I prefer it the way.

A7C + Samyang 75/1.8 is a good FF alternative to the Sigma APS-C combo, tho the A7C's always on EFC is still ehh... The Sigma 90/2.8 is indeed a little more appealing on APS-C IMO as it's smaller than any 85 and gets you more reach than that 75...

With longer focal lengths the crop factor becomes more evident:

56 x 1.52 = 85mm
90 x 1.52 = 137mm

I plan to use both these on APS-C. The 56 can serve lowlight if necessary, and I like to have a compact long lens ever since I tried the GM5 and miniature tele-zoom combo. F2.8 should hasten AF, and compression will boost the bokeh if called for.

@panther fan
I guess you included Sigma's adapted DSLR designs, which I would not really consider 'native'. E.g. the Sigma 28mm 1.8 ART may be stellar but is a bit unwieldy on a compact mirrorless camera.

Remember when everyone was crying for more E mount 35s and even 24mm alternatives to the GM? Pepperidge Farm remembers! Seriously I think we have enough of both for the next 5+ years. Do any other FL, please.

Did you count the Batis 25 in with the 24s btw?

Well it will never make the lens more streamlined. Maybe other lenses do it in a less obtrusive way.

Generally the styling of these is kind of retro and blocky anyway, which probably contributes to the cluttered look. It's all the (minor) changes in diameter IMO - thats probably the issue more than the aperture ring itself.

If I look at other lenses with aperature ring, then there are some that look really beautiful. But Sigma lenes look gernerally speaking cluttered and unfinished. That is my opionon. I am not talking about the optical perfomance here.

I have the seen the first review. The distortion is horrible. Not everyone wants to iron out all those imperfections on the computer. An image needs to be delivered as perfect as possible. Another Sigma lens with genetic defect.
I would rather get an older NIkon 24 1.8 afd.

He's obviously just looking for stuff to complain about, apparently not aware that software corrections can be applied to JPEGs in camera either... TBH a lens aesthetic is pretty much at the end of my priority list, I'm not gonna pretend I'm not vain enough to pay some attention to it but I'm not gonna pass up a decent option because a ring is 5mm to one side or ribbed...

@impusles
First of all, it is an observation that the industrial design does not appeal to me. Though it is not importamt to some it might be to others.

Secondly, I am pretty much aware that in-camera corrections could be turned on.
The companies approach is like: we do as imperfect as possible and we get the software to sort it out. Here are a few concerns that interest me:

- I am not sure if the in-camera correction slows down the camera as a whole (eg burst rates.

- Applying lens corrections in raw converters takes for extra time. Lens corrections are not always working in Lightroom / Capture one. The lens is ready and sold on the market but no lens profiles available for softwae apps.

This is why I stay away from unfinished products like lenses as the Sigma 24/2 I-series

I have playfully tried out lens corrections in Capture One. When I dump the images on the server and then creating a new session, importing the images from the server to my work storage on the computer, I can see that more CPU power (time) is required when lens corrections are applied. It is not an issue to me because I don't need it and therefore, I admit, I have lost the interest in that topic a bit.

Would I be using a Sigma 24/3.5 I could live without lens corrections,however, the Sony 24/.28G requires it badly. It touches barely the 10% mark.

Employing software is cost saving matter to many lensmakers now. Shaving off weight, maybe 1oz, 5oz or 10oz, reducing cost in production time and maybe also in materials, packaging, shipping, spareparets etc. The costs of saving these extra expenses are transferred to the customer (electricity bill, bit more editing time) - I am saying this intentionally now, just to have thought about it.

...

The Leica Tele-Elmarit 90 2.8 is even smaller (62mm long, 51.5mm diameter, 220g and 39mm filter ring), but of course it is all manual.

Smaller than A mount 85 f2.8?

Per B&H, the 85 2.8 is lighter, a bit wider, and a bit shorter. But given the option, I'd definitely go for the Sigma. The differences (apart from weight) are negligible.