Full Version: Advice about a 30/35mm prime
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
So, the year is nearly ended... and I can plan a fresh, new budget for the next year. As I told you in the past, I don't have need of big things. A thing that I'd like to do - even though I've been repeating this for a long time, and did not much so far Rolleyes - is to make more use of primes. In my mirrorless system I only have two: the Samyang 12 mm f/2 (which has been scarcely used, but used a bit, with very pleasant results) and the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 (which has been used only at the very beginning - it was the first lens I bought with the NEX-6 three years ago).


The reason is mainly laziness in unmounting and mounting lenses - also because, curiously, I've seen myself being forced to clean the sensors much more frequently than in the past (I suspect my car - I mostly change lens in the car - has been loaded with lots of dust, because of long drives along white roads). But having the third camera body, it's probably easier to fix my attitude.


So, the doubt is about whether it make sense to replace my Sigma (which was bought because of its excellent performance/price ratio, at the same time wanting to stay cheap because I didn't knew whether the mirrorless switch would have happened or not). There are so many choices... I don't know whether to go with the Sony SEL35F28Z (even though it's a FF I'd take advantage of extra border sharpness with my APS-C cameras) or the Sigma  30mm-F/1.4 C AF DC DN.



Sigma pros: costs half, it's faster (more flexibility, could be used for more than landscape).

Sigma cons: it is really bigger and heavier than the other; it has the stabiliser (I'd like not to have it with a prime lens, because if I go with a prime it means I'm taking my time and I have at least a monopod; furthermore, short focal and relative brightness reduce the need for stabilisation).


Sony pros: it's smaller and lighter; no stabiliser.

Sony cons: expensive.


For sharpness, the Sigma is said to be sharp edge-to-edge even at full aperture, and I suppose the Sony is also very sharp on the APS-C borders.


I lack a comparative evaluation - even with my current Sigma. For this lens, the primary criterium is IQ: sharpness and reduction of aberrations. Buying one of the two candidates I'd really be much better than with my current lens?



PS Of course, having a wide offer in this segment, I'd like also to hear about other candidates. But, for instance, reading the latest review of the Sony 35mm f/1.4, I think the performance/price ratio of other products is not excellent.


Consider also that a manual focus lens would be great as well - but the problem is the bulkiness of the adapter...

Sony 35/1.8?

Sony 35/1.8: Compact size, good enough performer, not that expensive. Probably would be my go to lens if I were shooting Sony APS-C.


Sony 35/2.8: I don't think I'd pay that much for this lens. How much better would it be compared to Sigma 30/2.8? Had the sigma for a few years and the only part I didn't like was how it forced me to be a good photographer because I couldn't cheat with shallow DOF. I had to compose really carefully and slow down. Made me a better photographer for sure but sometimes I wanted to cheat.


Sigma 30/1.4: I'd be between this and Sony 35/1.8. This one is a bit brighter but Sony has image stabilization (Sigma doesn't, you are mistaken). Sigma is slightly larger, around the same as my 55/1.8 so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Sony is absolutely featherweight though. Tough call, I'd flip a coin and ignore the result and get the Sigma.


Zeiss Loxia 35/2: Not cheap, completely manual, not lightweight (heavier than any of the above). I'd pass.


Samyang 35/2.8: Cheaply made copy of Sony's 35/2.8ZA. Probably not better than your Sigma except for the weight. Ignore this.


Samyang 35/1.4: No experience. I saw one and it seemed alright but you'd be paying up for a FF lens.


Get the Sigma. Or stay where you are... with your Sigma.

Quote:Sony has image stabilization (Sigma doesn't, you are mistaken



You're right. It's that Amazon (Italy) is telling the wrong story. Another point for the Sigma.

Just FYI, here's the review of the Samyang 35/1.4:


I wonder if they're going to release AF counterparts to their other popular MF stuff, like the 24/1.4 and 85/1.4? After 4 AF lenses, I bet they're willing to be serious (and to tell you the truth, if I had been into E mount, I would've taken a long hard look at some of their new stuff).

How about a fixed lens camera like the sigma merrill or fuji x100 (wider lens in that instance)?


Sticking with the 30/35mm prime option, I would probably go sigma as its less cash and is 2/3 stop faster, however the sony is a fair bit smaller and is a bit closer to the traditional 50mm fov. 

I'd stay clear of Sigma Merrills, at least these days. I don't know if they are still available (not talking of the quattros). I like my Merrills for details and their colours. And simplicity - but beyond ISO 100 there's nothing to gain. However, after complaing a lot about the super slow RAW converter, their 6.5 version on Mac is finally on par with the Windows version. Lenses are great, sensor cleaning no issue - but other than that, nearly everything is exotic. And slow. Or both.  Big Grin
No more cameras: I already have got three in my bag, and it doesn't make sense to buy another with a fixed lens.


I've seen the Samyang 35/1.4, it's interesting, but definitely too bulky. The Sigma is indeed consolidating its pole position. In any case, I won't buy the thing before a few months, so I'll be still looking around.