35mm f1.4 Zeiss, when?

[eleskin]

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?

 

[jsrockit]

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.

 

[John E Earley]

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.

 

[Samouraï]

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.

 

[kxl]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

 

[Addy101]

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.

 

[Samouraï]

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.

 

[kxl]

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.

 

[santela]

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.

 

[Addy101]

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.

 

[Samouraï]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

 

[kxl]

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.

 

[NazgulKing]

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.

 

[NazgulKing]

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.

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...

 

[Samouraï]

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.