Opticallimits

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2039437762...-f1-8-lens

Wonder what the Internet people are going to be moaning about now that this most glaring, inexcusable, deal-breaking hole in the Sony E lineup has been patched?

Sorry folks, I can't help poking fun at the stuff I'm reading sometimes on the photo forums and rumor sites, especially in the comments section. I've been mining pure comedy gold at times.

Was there a hole? Didn't notice ;-)

(07-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Was there a hole? Didn't notice ;-)

Oh but the collective consensus especially in the photo rumor sites (I'm idly browsing them each day while commuting to work...) was that the lack of the Sony FE 35/1.8 lens was the biggest shortcoming of the system. Funny that none of the off-brand makers - from Sigma/Tamron/Tokina to the daft new Chinese - had seen fit to plug this apparent hole the size of Solar system.

At €700 it is not exactly cheap, but quite a bit less than the Zeiss Loxia 35mm f2. The Loxia shows that the gap mentioned did not really exist, though.

I doubt that Zeiss is totally happy with its Sony alliance, Sony keeps on offering cheaper options for what Zeiss offers for E mount exclusively.

Yes, Zeiss is surely not happy with Sony at the moment. It seems as if their partnership has ceased to exist - other than having a mount license.
There were no new Sony-Zeiss co-designs lately.

To be fair here - the Sony-Zeiss lenses often lacked greatness - albeit it is unclear what that relationship was all about. Just a design verification by Zeiss or Zeiss-native designs?
We won't find out.

And I who was comlaining that Canon RF 35mmf1.8 macro was rather expensive at 500$....
The upcoming Sigma 45mm f2.8 is 700$ what the point ? prices everywhere are skyrocketing with no reason

(07-10-2019, 01:54 PM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ]And I who was comlaining that Canon  RF 35mmf1.8 macro was rather expensive at 500$....
The upcoming Sigma 45mm f2.8 is 700$ what the point ? prices everywhere are skyrocketing with no reason

The reasons:

• Lenses are getting sharper (and with some exceptions) better corrected. This is done by using more elements and more expensive to manufacture elements. Hence, prices go up.
  
• Inflation.
  

Besides that, what exactly the point is about the Sigma 45mm f2.8, I have no clue about. It was said to be almost pancake size, but it actually is more "pancake + integrated mirrorbox/adapter" size. Not at all like a Canon EF 40mm f2.8, more Sony/Zeiss Will be interesting to see its lens construction.

I already wondered how they could manage 45mm + pancake size with a 18mm flange distance.... I guess they could not. BTW: I read that it would cost $600, not $700. Still very expensive, though.

PS:
35mm f1.2 appears to be the new trend. First Samyang with its XP 35mm f1.2, now Sigma for the L-mount.

Compared to their 40/1.4 Art, practically every other lens is already more pancakish...



Front part looks like a lens hood. Also, apparently it's a "contemporary lens", meaning small and light. I'd say it will make an excellent standard lens for those who don't need f/1.4.

The 14-24/2.8 Art looks a bit smaller than it's DSLR counterpart.

And the 35/1.2 Art also has an aperture ring. Question is, if the aperture will be driven by wire? I guess so, but then maybe only the A-position?

(07-10-2019, 03:25 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]Compared to their 40/1.4 Art, practically every other lens is already more pancakish...



Front part looks like a lens hood. Also, apparently it's a "contemporary lens", meaning small and light. I'd say it will make an excellent standard lens for those who don't need f/1.4.

The 14-24/2.8 Art looks a bit smaller than it's DSLR counterpart.

And the 35/1.2 Art also has an aperture ring. Question is, if the aperture will be driven by wire? I guess so, but then maybe only the A-position?

Great post. It was much needed. Love your simplistic style of explanation.

(07-10-2019, 03:16 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]...
Besides that, what exactly the point is about the Sigma 45mm f2.8, I have no clue about. It was said to be almost pancake size, but it actually is more "pancake + integrated mirrorbox/adapter" size.
...

That's wrong, according to a product picture



Looking at the distance of the rear element, it certainly is not a DLSR lens with a glued adapter.