Sony FE 35mm F1.8 sample gallery

The CA in picture 8 is no problem. I don't see it at "fit to screen" size. But yes, it's easy to see at 100%. In Lightroom, one click with the Fringe Color Selector removes it on the jpeg (it's on the Lens Corrections tab). View at 300% for even easier selection. Fixing a RAW file would work the same. It's not perfect, but it's much better.

The 85mm 1.8 was 650€ at release. So the 35mm 1.8 is just 50€ more. If it comes down 100€ like the 85mm 1.8 did, it will be a great value lens.
The 28mm f2 may be a good value at 400€, but it is not so great optically. I sold it, because even stopped down to f5.6 it was not on par with my Tamron 28-75.

Longer focal lengths will tend to allow you to get more of the face in focus while still blurring out the background considerably, yes. But they don't give you the environmental context, or the depth a shorter focal length gets you. Nor do you get the intimacy you get with a wider lens, since it more closely approximates how you would have viewed the subject in real life (with a wider lens you stand closer to the subject, as you do in real life).

The reason focus seems to fall off faster from one eye to the next with a wider lens is because the relative distances to camera for the left and right eye, for a turned face, is rather significant. At 85mm or above, though, even with a slightly turned face, the two eyes are relatively pretty similar distance away from the camera.

Usually with wides I align the plane of the sensor to the plane of the face to keep both eyes in focus, but here I was more interested in testing lens sharpness & other characteristics vs. getting the perfect shot.

Ah, it seems that a thread you were involved in was deleted at the root, and your replies went with it.

@Yake

Your comment about me being strikingly handsome and an inspirational role model to you has also gone, I see. Shame.

@trippalhealicks, Repeating just for you ... I noted that Steve Huff reviewed the 35 1.4 ZA in 2015 and said it was the best 35mm he had ever used, better than Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc. He was effusive with praise about sharpness, color and bokeh ... and probably prompted a lot of people to go buy it. Google it.

Following up on the link above (about the new FE 35 1.8) that says "Importantly, bokeh is very smooth without any onion rings, harsh edges or texture, a performance that puts it far ahead of the more expensive FE 35mm F1.4 ZA", Rishi said the 35 1.4 ZA was one of the worst lenses he had ever used.

But when threads are disappeared, such content is lost. And people are told they are imagining things, and then people who know nothing about it click "Like" on the claim of imagining things.

Life is pain. And it sounds like Steve H either got a really good copy of the ZA, or his priorities when assessing lens quality don't entirely align with ours (which is fair enough). I'd also point out that a lot has happened in the world of optics since the ZA came out, and our expectations have evolved accordingly.

Ya Rishi posted a comment soliciting response on the Zeiss. That whole thread is now deleted. Dunno why

Thanks,but what is technical limitation,why does that happen?
(Slower af when stopped down)

rishi posted results that he saw with one pre-release lens.

looks like more test data is needed, for example using other lenses in the same situation.

"rishi posted results that he saw with one pre-release lens.

looks like more test data is needed, for example using other lenses in the same situation."

No, slower autofocus as you stop down is a problem we've encountered with all Sony lenses. In AF-C. It's why we've been asking Sony to offer a mode that focuses wide open in AF-C, which is the fastest AF mode on Sony cameras.

A "focus wide open" option would be welcome. Sony actually delivers this option in a limited fashion. If the live view option is off, the lense is wide open for focusing, but closes to the pre-selected aperture once focus lock is achieved. If the live view option is on, the lens stops down immediately. Fast lenses tend to have a focus shift when stopped down. The current solution is from an engineering viewpoint, not that of a photographer.

@rishi - "No, slower autofocus as you stop down is a problem we've encountered with all Sony lenses. In AF-C. It's why we've been asking Sony to offer a mode that focuses wide open in AF-C, which is the fastest AF mode on Sony cameras."

focus wide open when stopped down, aka opening the aperture for every frame? maybe at the slowest af-c rate, but flapping the aperture around at 15-20fps af-c doesn't sound feasible.

many of us have used the superzooms at 600/6.3, they rock at 10fps or greater on fast-moving targets, 60mph or more, so why would a sony lens stopped down at f/2.8 not be able to get accurate focus on a fast target.

I know that f/2.8 works on the a9, because I've done 15fps af-c sports shooting at f/2.8 with the fe90, so it's not the f/2.8 aperture per se: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61630683

MILC man you can make the blades of the aperture open and close as fast as you like ...as each blade is very light ...unlike the mirror in a DSLR which is the limiting factor for FPS in a DSLR at the min about 12-14 FPS ...a leaf shutter which works in a similar way to the blades of the aperture can have speeds up to 1600th of a sec which is fast.so there is no way the aperture is the bottleneck when it comes to the FPS (maybe on old Nikon and sony A that are not electronic possibly a different story)......as Sony uses stop down AF to mask the optical failings in some of their lenses E I focus shift ...i am guessing that as some lenses suffer from focus shift less that sony opens them lenses more so seems less of a problem so maybe why you have had no problems

@dave8 - last time i looked, these cameras don't use leaf shutters, so I have no idea what you are talking about... given that the best dslrs can barely manage 10fps af-c in real-world use, it's not the same thing.

@dave8 - "Sony uses stop down AF to mask the optical failings in some of their lenses E I focus shift"

no, sony lenses tend to have less of a focus shift problem than other brands, for instance:

" Here’s a summary of the worst-case focus shift effects in size of the circles of confusion that result in micrometers:
Sony/Zeiss 55 mm f/1.8 (Zony 55) — 2 um (but that gets worse using AF-S)
Sony 100-400 mm at 400 mm — 4 um
Sony 100-400 mm at 100 mm — 2 um
Sony 90 mm f/2.8 macro — 5 um
Zeiss Batis 85 mm f/1.8 — 10 um
Sony 70-200 mm f/4 at 100 mm — 4 um (but AF-S makes that even worse)

I should note that there is far less focus shift for these lenses than many of the Nikon ones that I tested on the D850."
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-autofocus-accuracy-summary/

Sorry MILC man i not keep it simple ... forget i mention DSLR .... you say

>>> but flapping the aperture around at 15-20fps af-c doesn't sound feasible.<<<
i say it is feasible as the construction of the aperture blades is very similar to a leaf shutter.I NOT say sony lenses have a leaf shutter in their lenses i say the aperture blades are similar to a leaf shutter..... leaf shutters can go VERY fast there is no reason that aperture blades cannot go very fast as well ...the fastest leaf shutters will do 1600th of a sec that's from closed to open to closed in 1600th of a second ...i am NOT saying Aperture blades are designed to work at 1600th of a second ....but 20th of a sec or evan 100th of a sec won't be a problem ..so stop down AF IS NOT because the aperture blades cannot keep up and you say its not to mask focus shift then please tell me why Sony is crippling their low light AF with stop down AF if its notr to mask focus shift ...not exspecting a drect answer from you

That's true, but it's not like it's a 24 or 45, it's close enough.
For the reasons above, I'll be sticking to my 28.

If I need 35 and don't need the speed, my $250 Samyang 35mm f2.8 is MUCH smaller, lighter and performs very well.

My thoughts exactly.

Exactly. My Samyang 35/2.8 FE performs great. It's 95% the Sony "Zeiss" 35/2.8 FE IQ, for a fraction of the price - and unlike the Sony, being continuously enhanced via FW Updates. ;) You can get one <200 bucks mint-like used, i paid 300 new, last fall.

For Landscape, Objects, even Street, with the Sony A7 a small, and unobstrusive combo.

@marc petzold - I have the Samyang 35/2.8 too. Great lens. For the price, size, and performance, it's tough to beat. I do miss having more aperture speed sometimes. But other than that, I'm very very pleased. It's only $269 right now. It's a steal.

@TORN, Rokinon is Korean, not Chinese.

Really bad and strong. I would not to use this lens for landscape on bigger prints because it will always be noticable even after pp RAW colour correction.

Ken Rockwell says "This lens has vividly strong green-magenta spherochromatism". That doesn't bother me, but some would describe that as a serious flaw.

I agree that there's a lot more purple fringing then I expected. Perhaps the the in-camera correction isn't finalized or will be improved with a later FW update

You can't correct it without low dispersion glass, which is expensive. The 24GM for example has three extra-low dispersion elements and no fringing but is double the price.

Really? I don't see any difference. At least not big enough to call it sad. In fact, Canon has lost a LOT of its old color "magic" so all bets are off these days I would say.

Different perception and liking maybe. For white people it’s more or less OK in sony, maybe a bit oversaturated and darker than it should. But for darker people, sony skin in these lightroom conversion is most of the time too greenish, too bright and lacking saturation. Of course, if you fix one kind of skin, the other will be way off, Canon colors in my view are much better balanced. Highly saturated colors are highly saturated in canon, and pale colors are pale in Canon. With the Sony, is either everything too saturated or everything too muted, and the pictures have like a kind of filter and look cartoonish, whereas Canon pictures look to me like real pictures.
But yes, it’s about taste and perception, for some people Sony colors are OK.

Hmmm. I see good and bad examples in both galeries.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9958447403/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-sample-gallery/0119398319

And I wouldn't say it's perception, would say it's the choice of raw converter standard profile ;-)

And back again to the blind test theory...
Basically all blind tests experiments i've seen, with experimented photographers participating, shown that the "experts" failed to classify images by manufacturer (in a statistically "enough" quantification). That is with OOC colors.

I understand that you are really convinced but what you say (by the way, i am a fan of Fuji colors) and there is of course some truth in these "color styles", but it really depends on situation, light, etc. Each manufacturer has it's pluses and minuses. And we must understand that the most important part in this is a subjective opinion that is heavily influenced by the fact that we know what camera was used.

@Juan
The sony isn't bad but the canon is really nice

Check out this video about how bad skintones in Lightroom look for so y compared to canon. Canon feel like a natural photo, so y is cartoonist.
https://youtu.be/0xYun2Xp1HQ

And it's not easy to fix.

Hard to watch and even more difficult to understand what the guy in the video is saying or trying to do, but to my eyes, in the comparison, simply the WB on the sony is on the warm side and underexposed compared to the canon portrait ... hard to really blame one manufacturer or the other because of that, or jump to such conclusions as you have. Also easy to fix ... adjust exposure and WB :)

But of course, everybody is free to use what works great for him. Simply i am kind of amused of these absolute claims "Sony always gives plasticky looks", "Canon always make sunset look great", etc.

I said it's not easy to fix because I've shot both cameras side by side and it's not a white balance or exposure issue. It's just the Sony color balance is off, and in jpg this last generation is much improved, but the Adobe profiles are quite bad.

Adobe DNG profiles for Canon cameras are always a lot better than the ones for Sony. They are more solid when you ajust the sliders, very hard to see posterization due to heavily adjusting compared to Sony.

With Sony cameras you have to do a lot more homework about custom profiles to get the right tonality. When I was still a Canon shooter I had zero knowledge about making your own profiles, because most of the time I did't have to. Now with the Sony I have to understand everything I don't want to learn, such as CFA differences, peaky spectrum illuminant response, demosaicing algorithms, color reproduction profiles, general purpose profiles....

I love Sony, especially autofocus tech. But admit it, the color of Eos R sample galeries or Nikon Z sample galeries is a lot better. The main reason is the DNG profile.

Neither of those galleries - Sony nor Canon - is particularly convincing when compared to the ZA 35/2.8, ZL 35/2, or ZB 40/2.

Color science is a matter of how long you stare at one particular color profile. Blind tests confirm that people can't substantiate their claims.

@juanmasecass

The photos in the Canon gallery are ACR conversions. The Sony gallery is all OOC jpegs.

If it focuses stopped down, what is the problem? DSLR's have to focus wide open because of the primitive AF module left over from the 1980's.

That's great ... a solution to a problem with this lens is ... "just use an adapted dslr lens" instead. Awesome!

@Yake - "a solution to a problem with this lens is"

wrong, he never stated that he had a problem with this lens, you are making false claims, again.

back off with your constant sony-bashing.

@MILC man, What did he say? Quote:

"Regarding the stop down focusing in AF-C. This is my largest problem with shooting Sony in low light club events when I need to stop down for group portraits."

Obviously that "problem" is not with *this* lens (just announced, not yet available), but with Sony lenses generally ... of which this lens will be one.

I'm not Sony-bashing. I shoot Sony too. I'm commenting on your proposed solution ... to use an adapted dlsr lens.

It would be nice if Sony SLT's and mirrorless cameras both offered the same options for aperture behavior while focusing. Many of Sony's A-mount lenses inherited from Minolta would benefit more from stopped down focusing. It could also reduce shutter lag. The current behavior of both makes no sense as far as how the lenses and focusing systems of both perform.

@Yake - "but with Sony lenses generally"

your attempt to bash this lens, and sony in general, with a blanket claim like that, is not based on any personal knowledge of this lens, because it hasn't been released yet.

given that you've never posted any sony pics, nor any pics from any camera, I don't believe that you own sony.

rather than mislead dpr readers with false claims, you should read this, and learn how sony works:

"In testing the a7RIII with the following lenses:
Sony/Zeiss 55 mm f/1.8 (Zony 55)
Sony 100-400 mm
Sony 90 mm f/2.8 macro
Zeiss Batis 85 mm f/1.8
Sony 70-200 mm f/4
In AF-S mode, the a7RIII focuses with the lens diaphragm wide open, or very close to that."
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-autofocus-accuracy-summary/

so your claim that it's "generally" a problem with sony isn't necessarily accurate.

this situation is a minefield of changes with sony, and afaik z-mount for instance always focuses stopped down... ospdaf is complicated.

To teach me about "how Sony works" you posted a quote about AF-S. Meanwhile, the specific problem mentioned by lattesweden was about AF-C (said so twice).

I just tested the A7iii and ZA 55/1.8 and can confirm that in AF-S it focused wide open, and in AF-C it focused stopped down. False claim?

I only have a couple of Sony lenses, so maybe I'm unaware of the Sony "minefield" that you mention. But I'm happy to learn from you that using an adapted dslr lens can solve this problem.

To clarify: It was a comment to what Rishi wrote in the article but the problem is with all Sony lenses since Sony in AF-C always focuses at the working aperture.

On the good side: no focus shift, no EVF blackouts or exposure jitter on the A9 and max fast fps since the aperture doesn't need to change.

On the bad side it lets less light in since it has stopped down = the AF works less good. And since I shot in low light I often already are on the edge.

The remedy I have found is to turn of the settings effect, set shutter priority to shutter and go over to AF-S where it focuses near wide open even if the working aperture is set to f8 etc. I usually get a lock then. And any small movement by me or the group between focus acquisition and shot is normally covered by the DOF.

In worst case I turn on my lamp on the mobile and aim it from the side with one hand so the group don't get the ligth in their eyes. The flash I normally use for the group portraits washes the mobile light away.

@Yake - "To teach me about "how Sony works" you posted a quote about AF-S"

because using af-c was obviously not the ideal solution for what he was shooting, as he already figured out on his own.

also further proven by the fact that sony does the low-light testing spec with af-s, not af-c.

MILC man: Please allow reasonable discussion to occur without attacking members.

The OP is correct that this continues to be a problem for Sony, and others as well. With high burst speeds, you can't open up the aperture in between shots, that is a fair point.

However, why not focus wide open until the first shot is taken at least? Or work this way until you select a burst rate high enough that opening and closing the aperture is problematic?

The high road is to use look up tables to account for focus shift, but with moving subjects it's much better to nail somewhere near focus than to slow down focus altogether. In this gallery you'll see a shot of my daughter at the apex of her swing. Every single F2.8 shot in that series is back focused (I only fired the shutter as she was approaching), meaning focus was playing catch up. Meanwhile all my F1.8 shots were relatively spot on.

I'd have expected a higher hit rate at F2.8 than F1.8. And AF-S doesn't solve things, it's painfully slow.

@lattesweden - why not use a button on the A9 to put it in AF-S during press?
So you can stay in AF-C during normal shooting and force AF-S focusing for the group shot with flash.

I'm eager to see all of this "outperformance".

@Yake - Ultimately, they are probably going to be quite comparable in performance. But again, I would give it to the Sony because it is more compact, lighter, and less expensive. And if the Sony lens is currently at the price that it is due to Chinese tariffs-- which means it would sell for a lot cheaper after those tariffs are lifted-- then the Sony would be a no brainer, an easy winner over the far more expensive, larger, and heavier Nikon Z 35/1.8.

You also have to decide which system, overall, you want to buy into. The Sony system, of course, is far more mature. And unlike other FF mirrorless systems, the Sony system has 3rd party support since Sony licences their mount to 3rd party lens makers. So even if you didn't choose this particular Sony 35mm lens, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang/Rokinon, Tokina, etc. might offer one that you like.

First, let me say that the Sony. lens seems to be a really strong performer, and will be an excellent lens for Sony shooters if they want this focal length/aperture. I also agree that the light weight is great.

But it makes no sense to come up with these schoolboy comparisons of one lens for one system vs another lens for an entirely different system. A Sony shooter will not buy a Nikon Z lens, nor will a Nikon Z user consider buying the Sony lens. And no one is going to switch systems due to some minor differences.

As for the ever smaller number of people considering buying into their first camera system, no one is going to make that selection based on a 35 f1.8 lens.

And Nikon has a full lens systems for their Z, because their DSLR lenses work as well with the Nikon Z adapter as on a DSLR.

Bottom line: this lens is for existing Sony users and it will be a great addition to the lineup.

@Thoughts R Us - You're wrong. People move from system to system all the time. I know so many people who started with one system at one point in their life, but then moved to another system at another point in their life. I, myself, was a big Nikon F user because my dad was one. But then I moved to Canon EOS. And with mirrorless, I've owned EOS M, Samsung NX, m4/3, Fuji X, and Sony E. It's not that hard to sell your gear, especially in the internet age. And most people are not so heavily invested in a particular system anyway. So you should stop with the false notion that people are married to a brand forever. They aren't.

People do switch. How do you think Canon EOS went from zero market share in 1987 to overtaking Nikon by the mid to late 1990's? It's because lots of people (like me) switched.

@T3: regardless of your history, I can assure you that most people do not switch systems; it's too costly and there's also the cost in terms of learning a new system. It takes a real camera geek to even learn about multiple systems, much less switch between them (and I say that as a camera nerd myself).

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all but to have it happen on a large scale requires a product that is perceived as massively better. Sure we see Sony doing some neat stuff, but at this stage no one brand will be massively better. Let's face it: pretty much any brand can satisfy someone's needs for quality photography.

What we see moreso than switching system is some users buying into multiple systems, reflecting the reality that each one has their strengths and weaknesses. But again, that is a small subset of the market, with deeper pockets.

I'm with TRS on this one. People who switch systems all the time have either poor judgment or too much money. Most people don't changed systems that easily.

The impression I get from reading forum discussions, is that most system switchers are motivated either by frustration with the quality of their photos (which may not be gear-related at all), fear of missing out, or simple lust for new gear to play with, rather than a rational analysis of system benefits and user needs. The latter seems to be the rare exception.

Oh yes, people do switch systems! I know at least 10 working pro's who switched to Sony in last couple of years, majority of them from Canon and few from Nikon...

@Thoughts R Us
Many people like T3 don't learn what their camera device is capable, they just spent tons of money on the hype, put the thing in all automatic, tout here and there how marvelous their latest acquisition is "the future", and when the next big hype arrive, they get rid of the tons of money they spent before into another system just for the sake of spending money and showing to the earth (or internet forms) how big and pro they are.

The same guys are claiming the ultimate superiority of their latest toy, whereas they are unable to distinguish a shot taken by a smartphone vs their new thing, but hey ! they spent tons of money on that new system, so their skills have been upgraded too, even if there is zero difference between the previous system and the new one.

If you have to swap system every 5-10 years, or even at shorter paces, you know NOTHING about photography. And the biggest problem is those people are just too rich and don't know what to do with their money ! #fail

@Gon0S - First of all, when significant numbers of Nikon F users switched over to the EOS system, it wasn't because they didn't "learn what their camera device is capable." The reality is that most people switch BECAUSE they know what their camera/system is incapable of, and so they are switching to a system that provides those capabilities. Most people do it after considerable thought and evaluation. Read this article, which is a very sincerely, thoughtful chronicle of how two photographers ended up switching:

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/18/how-i-switched-to-sony-and-took-my-best-friend-along-with-me/

And it's not just younger photogs who are switching. Old-timers such as David Burnett and Doug Mills have too.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/legendary_photojournalist_david_burnett_is_switching_from_canon_to_sony.html

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4714207/doug-mills-switches-sony-a9

These aren't guys pursuing new toys. They are working photogs who rely on their gear.

Since most of these sites exist to sell stuff, of course there would be ZERO official discussion of the impact of HIGHER PRICES due to trade issues.

I do recall seeing optical equipment listed on the US Commerce Department's website as being impacted by the Trump tariffs.

Look for made in Japan or Thailand, they should be 25% cheaper.

Economics is a very complex topic with many factors, and it's totally jumping to conclusions that the US trade war w/ China is inflating the price of this lens. It may be, but without some deeper analysis we don't know.

Consider this: Sony and others make a lot of other camera equipment in China, yet that has not gone up in price. So why would the trade war only apply to this one lens?

Sony has never been a bargain provider of lenses. They, esp of late, have tended to produce high quality lenses at higher prices. Nothing wrong with that, but why assume that anything is different with this lens? It seems to have a lot going for it, and Sony feels they can ask a higher price.

Depends on how you set it and AF-S or AF-C. It CAN focus wide open if you need to.

Why would one ever want to focus stopped down?

Nothing against noses (!), but QuarryCat makes a good point - wide-angle lenses exaggerate perspective compared to longer lenses, which is why portrait photographers generally prefer something in the 70-120mm focal length range.

The advantage of a wide-angle lens is that it allows the subject to be shown in context with his/her surroundings, but the exaggerated perspective will distort facial features if used closer than about 2 metres from the subject.

@Quarrycat

Most smartphone lenses are more like a 25-26mm equivalent. They distort the face a lot more than these portraits.

I have to say I also disagree with you that the 'wide-angle portrait' has anything to do with the smartphone. I think it's more a development of street and reportage photography and is processed by the 'modern brain' without any 'revolt' or difficulty.

Well, for me, 35mm is right about as wide as I'd want to go for close up shots. I think Rishi did a great job shooting portraits with the lens (having an attractive spouse helps 😉), showing multiple possibilities and angles. I didn't find any to be particularly disturbing or bothersome in terms of proportion.

28mm and wider, though, which is where the selfie crowd lives, is another matter altogether.

"Shut up big nose or I'll slug you" Monty Python L of Brian.

Kharan - a lot simply comes down to personal preference. People who dislike having their "personal space" invaded would probably be more likely to find the close-shooting wide-angle approach visually disturbing.

The sweet point in focal length for most people seems to be about 70-105mm, some find 35mm mildly disturbing, and most find 28mm or wider uncomfortable to view.

Shooting close with a 35mm lens needs some skill if unflattering perspective is to be avoided. Rishi, as you note, has made a good job of it with his beautiful wife.

It may be a la mode to show wide propositions in faces - but for me it is wrong, to close and disturbing and has nothing to do with the nose, eyes and the face itself!
Your implication seems to be unfriendly.
I don‘t like either when photographers use a 50 mm wrong on a halfsize-sensor and go closeer then 1m to a face - ask Leica, Zeiss and japanese lens designers why 85mm lenses are created and why they mostly have a distance from 0,85m to the face.
A 35 mm lens is great to show people in their world - but not so close that a clownsface appears.

And to clear it up -
I just looked at the pictures -
I didn‘t realise the photographer - nor the maybe personal relationship to the people in the pictures.
Nor do I have anything against woman, noses or ethics.
I just wouldn‘t use my camera/35 mm lens, like the photographer dit.

Better try 135mm :-)

Yes the Canon 35L isn't competitive. Btw I have one to sell you if you'd like :) But the Canon 35L II is in another league of its own, as our shootout will soon show you. That lens is just unbelievable.

The 35L II, from a purely technical perspective, is the best I’ve seen. Given my budget, it looks like I’ll be very happy with the Sony...

@Superpam - "Amazing how many Sony owners use Canon lenses still."

It's because so many Sony users are former Canon users who have switched over. And we've been taking our time retiring our old Canon EF lenses, one by one. The Sony FE 35/1.8 is far more attractive to me for street and travel, thanks to its smaller size and light weight.

I "loved" my Canon 35/1.4L when I was still using bulky DSLRs. But it's a new era. I'm no longer in love with the size and weight (580g without adapter) of the Canon 35/1.4L.

@Rishi

"...as our shootout will soon show you."

Does this shootout also involve the Sigma 35/1.2? :)