35mm f1.4 Zeiss, when?
Old 06-19-2014   #1
eleskin
Registered User
 
eleskin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,072
35mm f1.4 Zeiss, when?

Fuji is blazing ahead with lens after lens. Sony needs to beef up their lineup. The 55 f1.8 is perfect. They need to dump the 35 2.8, sell them off at a discount ($500) and sell a 35mm f1.4 at the same price as the 55mm. Perhaps they could keep the 35 2.8 in production as a budget lens. At any rate, I would be thrilled to use a 35 f1.4 and 55 1.8 and nothing else. Any rumors or facts out there?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #2
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,274
Huh? The 35mm 2.8 as a budget lens? The lens is a great lens for the price. I'm looking for a 24-28mm prime for the FE series.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #3
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
 
John E Earley's Avatar
 
John E Earley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Virginia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleskin View Post
Fuji is blazing ahead with lens after lens. Sony needs to beef up their lineup. The 55 f1.8 is perfect. They need to dump the 35 2.8, sell them off at a discount ($500) and sell a 35mm f1.4 at the same price as the 55mm. Perhaps they could keep the 35 2.8 in production as a budget lens. At any rate, I would be thrilled to use a 35 f1.4 and 55 1.8 and nothing else. Any rumors or facts out there?
I could not agree more. I have the 55/1.8 which I really like and have considered the 20mm but other than that, nada. They need a really good 35/1.4 at a reasonable price.
__________________
Creation stands with neck outstretched....
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2014   #4
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 503
I'm so impressed that the two FE primes have t-stops matching their f-stops. I'd be extremely happy with a 35/1.8, the 55/1.8, and an 85/1.8. Those three lenses with t-stops matching their f-stops would be the tops. I'd also enjoy a pancake lens. How Canon has produced such a great 40/2.8 pancake for such a low price is beyond me. FE could use some cheap, fun lenses.

But forget all of that. What I'd really prefer is a 50mm/1.4 w/OSS. That would do me and I could be done with buying any more lenses.

---

Actually, what I'd really prefer is a set of lenses employing the Minolta STF optical apodization filter across an entire lineup of lenses. A set of STF lenses on the A7S would be pretty much the most exciting thing in the photographic world.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2014   #5
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 3,016
If I had any say in it, the next FE lenses would be a 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 both priced in the same range as the 35mm and 55mm FE lenses.
__________________
Keith
My Website
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2014   #6
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,274
I'd settle for a 24mm/28mm 2.8 at this point... fast lenses are nice, but Sony has a problem delivering prime lenses in general.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2014   #7
Addy101
Registered User
 
Addy101 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,522
Silly, they have a perfectly good 35mm lens, small for the people who want to go small, fast enough for most situations. I would use my resources for something different if I were Sony.
__________________
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2014   #8
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addy101 View Post
Silly, they have a perfectly good 35mm lens, small for the people who want to go small, fast enough for most situations. I would use my resources for something different if I were Sony.
Won't an f/1.4 be pretty small, too? I thought that was the point of these mirrorless cameras: wide angle lenses don't need to be retrofocal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2014   #9
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I'd settle for a 24mm/28mm 2.8 at this point... fast lenses are nice, but Sony has a problem delivering prime lenses in general.
I guess f2.8 would be okay for the WA lens as long as the performance is comparable to the FE 55/1.8, and the price point remains in the same range. For the tele, however, I would insist on f1.8... if I had any say in the matter.
__________________
Keith
My Website
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-21-2014   #10
santela
Registered User
 
santela is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 145
I would buy a 28/1.8 in a heartbeat. Nikon has made a great 28, and if Sony can offer sth similar I will be stoked.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-22-2014   #11
Addy101
Registered User
 
Addy101 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samouraï View Post
Won't an f/1.4 be pretty small, too? I thought that was the point of these mirrorless cameras: wide angle lenses don't need to be retrofocal.
By definition a f/1.4 lens needs more glass then a f/2.8 lens and will therefore be bigger.

To give you an idea:
The Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 is 46mm long and has a 56mm diameter, weighing 320gr.
The Leica Summarit-M 35/2.5 is 33.9mm long and has a 51.4mm diameter, weighing 220gr.

I wouldn't mind a 35/1.4, but Sony has more important gaps, like a wide (28/24) lens.
__________________
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-22-2014   #12
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addy101 View Post
By definition a f/1.4 lens needs more glass then a f/2.8 lens and will therefore be bigger.

To give you an idea:
The Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 is 46mm long and has a 56mm diameter, weighing 320gr.
The Leica Summarit-M 35/2.5 is 33.9mm long and has a 51.4mm diameter, weighing 220gr.

I wouldn't mind a 35/1.4, but Sony has more important gaps, like a wide (28/24) lens.
I understand why the lens would need to be larger in diameter (though I feel the 35FE is so wide for aesthetic reasons--sitting flush with the mount). But why must it be much longer? I suppose this could be answered by optical physics for dummies. I guess I don't know exactly in what situation the literal focal length of a lens dictates the fov among other qualities. There are so many designs that seem to negate that idea.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2014   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
I guess f2.8 would be okay for the WA lens as long as the performance is comparable to the FE 55/1.8, and the price point remains in the same range.
So, the only thing you want is a wide angle that has the same quality as one of the best new leneses (at any price) out there? I wouldn't count on it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2014   #14
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
So, the only thing you want is a wide angle that has the same quality as one of the best new leneses (at any price) out there? I wouldn't count on it.
Key word is WANT. Wanting something and counting on it are not necessarily synonymous. But if I'm going to want something, it's certainly not going to be a run of the mill lens with so so performance.
__________________
Keith
My Website
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2014   #15
NazgulKing
Registered User
 
NazgulKing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I'd settle for a 24mm/28mm 2.8 at this point... fast lenses are nice, but Sony has a problem delivering prime lenses in general.
I think they have problems delivering anything but bodies in general. It's such a pity that their consistency with lens quality is so uneven, like the severe astigmaticism found in he Zeiss 24-70/f4.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2014   #16
NazgulKing
Registered User
 
NazgulKing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samouraï View Post
I understand why the lens would need to be larger in diameter (though I feel the 35FE is so wide for aesthetic reasons--sitting flush with the mount). But why must it be much longer? I suppose this could be answered by optical physics for dummies. I guess I don't know exactly in what situation the literal focal length of a lens dictates the fov among other qualities. There are so many designs that seem to negate that idea.
It will be longer because you need more elements to correct for the aberrations that turn up at larger apertures.

FOV is really dependent on the image plane size and the focal length.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samouraï View Post
Won't an f/1.4 be pretty small, too? I thought that was the point of these mirrorless cameras: wide angle lenses don't need to be retrofocal.
Eh.. with digital, everything has to be as retrofocal as possible...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2014   #17
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by NazgulKing View Post
It will be longer because you need more elements to correct for the aberrations that turn up at larger apertures.

FOV is really dependent on the image plane size and the focal length.



Eh.. with digital, everything has to be as retrofocal as possible...
I understand how field of view works. I'm more curious about the actual science of determining/designing and assigning the focal length of a lens, especially in retrofocal or telephoto lenses.

Anyway, is the 35FE a retrofocal design? I thought this particular 35 sonnar design was something not possible on an slr.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:09.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.