[Rover]

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.

[Klaus]

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

[Rover]

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.

[Brightcolours]

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.

[Klaus]

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.

[toni-a]

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

[Brightcolours]

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.

[JJ_SO]

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?

[Brasshopper]

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.

[JJ_SO]

...
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.