According to one source Sony will launch a 35mm f/1.4 G lens replacement soon. And this is certainly a welcome news. This is one of the oldest “sony” lenses launched back in 2006. And now we have cheaper and better alternatives like the Sigma ART 35mm lens ($899 here at Amazon). I don’t know the price but I have been told the replacement will NOT be Zeiss branded.
———
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
——–
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
0 Responses
Good news. We need a reasonably priced 35mm full frame lens. This Sony model was usually reviwed as expensive but only ‘ok’ quality. Maybe Sony will start re-badging Sigma lenses instead of Tamron??
I beleive Sony have a stake in Tamron but not Sigma.
The trouble is Tamron don’t make any primes, apart from macros.
Sony should simply pay Tamron to make more lenses for them and reap the rewards of CaNikon/Pentax sales. They aren’t bothered about selling sensors to Nikon users, so why not Tamron badged lenses too? 😀
What do you think about Rokinon’s 24mm T1.5 MF telecine lens? More wide then 35mm but bright and full frame, with tracking manual focus and tracking aperture. $599 @ Amazon. http://goo.gl/4FvmLk
I’d personally buy the newer G-Series, I’ve tried the economy lens route, only to be left totally unsatisfied. The current G-Series has a brilliant colour rendition, that neither the Sigma, or cheap alternatives can match. I eventually bought one (SAL35F14G) after reading all of the negative reviews, and came away very happy, because it’s an outstanding lens.
This lens has a brilliant colour rendition, and If Sony is able to sharpen up this lens, it could easily be the best 35mm f/1.4 on the market.
Thanks for the feedback. Since I already have a few legacy lenses (35, 50, 58mm) that are old Minolta / Canon lenses with converter adapters and have f/1.4 ~ f/2.0 depending on the lens, I think I will save money and just resign myself to using those lenses when I want to shoot bright and with a prime. Legacy lenses can be picked up for a song these days if one does not mind shooting MF.
Think “expensive”. 😉
The current one is still listed at 1.595,-€ (street price 1.450,-) although marked “not available”. So if they renew it under the G label, it will likely be as expensive.
Although they would struggle competing against the Sigma Art 35/1.4 if priced that high.
It would need to be close to perfection to justify 600,-€ additional price tag compared to the Sigma.
Yep, would need to be optically brilliant AND have weather sealing.
And have ssm – the Sigma is on the slow side.
I agree. The screw driven system is fast but noisy. It embarrassing to use in churches during ceremonies sometimes, and forget video.
“It would need to be close to perfection to justify 600,-€ additional price tag compared to the Sigma.”
Exactly. That’s big ask.
Very welcome addition, long waited one
That’s good news.
I was using it for some time at my A900.
It was not all that bad, but for sharp images you needed to stop down to f5.6 or even f8.
And therefore the G price tag was a little bit too much.
For a moderate WA it produced a fairly good bokeh.
If Sony really renews that lens besides the two mighty Zeiss’ (85 and 135) than A mount users will be missing only one renewal and one new design – the 100 Macro to a true IF design, and a moderate WA TS lens (sorry to say but the one and only existing Walimex/Samyang is not worth its high price)
That would be an outstanding idea, long due.
Sometimes I think”can Sony afford to develop two indipendent systems?”.
I mean A mount lenses and bodies,and E mount lenses and bodies; for sure with E cameras to use tele you have to rely on A mount or directly A bodies.This could be fine but in the end is a possible way for Sony?
I never understood why would you go with two systems. ofc theres the business aspect.
but it would just be easier and better to release e-systems with a-mount.
Infact you took my point.I don’t see profitable to have two systems if not as Nikon and Canon are doing with a lot of limitation.I hope that they will be able to differentiate the market of the two systems.
if I buy a E body I want a 35 1.4 with native mount,don’t want to use an adaptor.
Well, maybe you do not see it as profitable, but do you know?
I’m sure Sony makes money on both.
In fact, if a-mount was dropped, a few would go for e-mount, but most would go for C or N.
Why? Because their needs isn’t handled today by an MLC type camera. And some would for sure leave Sony just because they were pi$$ed for being left out.
But as I understand it your suggestion is for Sony to leave a profitble business and choose to loose all those customer for an unforseable future?
They’re able to get us to buy three bodies. I use the A99, for mainly the two brilliant Zeiss zooms (24-70, 16-35) , the 35mm G, 85mm G (d) Zooms, and the 70-200mm of course.
My A77II is essentially glued to the 70-400mm, or 400mm f4.5 g-series.
However the A7, is quickly becoming my camera I do almost everything else with.
This is true if you just have A mount system.Who come from another system,according to you want to invest in two system?Or better some lenses on A mont and others on E mount?
I suppose that people who are looking for a change or people who are upgrading from APS-C DSLR systems upgrading to Full Frame systems.
I was able to sell all of my Nikon equipment on http://www.ebay.com to pay for my new system, when I switched. If you’ve taken care of your camera equipment you’ll make most of your money back (70 to 80%).
The A-Mount excels with large 16-35, 24-70 , 70-200mm, 70-300mm, 70-400mm zooms. It is also has excellent for using 24mm, 85mm, and 135mm focal lengths. Its current 35mm is only so-so.
I haven’t really made a firm decision on what I’m going to do with the A7. I bought it with the 55 mm f/1.8, and it has been a stellar performer. It’s my only FE lens.
I personally see the A7 as a supplemental camera system for situations where I just don’t have the room to carry a full sized DSLR, and i’ll probably only buy one or two more compact prime lenses for it.
I’m not going to use it as a DSLR replacement what-so-ever, because it isn’t capable of properly handling large lenses like the 70-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4.
LU CID. Nice systems you’ve got going there! Ever had a chance to compare the Sony A77II + 70-400 to something like a Canon 7D + 100-400 Or the Nikon D7100 + 80-400? I am seriously considering a Sony, Canon or Nikon for a dedicated wildlife system.
The A77, and 70-400mm was a better combo than the Nikon or Canon equivalents, so I suppose the A77II, and the 70-400G2 would be even more advanced.
According to recent rumors, the old pump up Canon 100-400 is just about (i.e. this year) to be replaced with anew design.
If there is a market for them, Sony can afford to develop as many systems as it wishes.
“Sony can afford to develop as many systems as it wishes” Agreed. And that seems to be their digital camera strategy, attacking the market place with new camera bodies either Amount, Emount, or Cybershots ever few months, some more revolutionary than others–but the cameras keep coming. They did the same with their TV division for years until that finally ran out of money ( difference is I don’t think their TV division ever made a profit).
A large part of their TV epic failure goes beyond product churning rates. A lot of it was poor management. As the HD TV market matured Sony was increasingly left with more and more excess capacity. Meanwhile, companies like Samsung came in with aggressive pricing.
Sony tried to engineer their way out of the mess jumping on the 3D bandwagon but it never caught on. Now they’re doing the same with 4k.
Panasonic is having the same problems, BTW.
EarlFargis, well said. Philips the other TV giant ( prolific in non US markets) has gone through the same epic TV failure. Philips has been in the TV business for decades ( even acquiring some very successful brands) with little to no profit for years. Not exactly sure what’s next for Philips TVs albeit through some very crafty 3rd party manufacturing arrangements they’ve been able to hang on thus far.
The A-Mount is clearly the professionals choice, its faster, can use a massive assortment of f/2.8 zooms, or f/1.4 prime lenses.
The A-Mount is turning more of a profit than the entire E-Mount division (almost 50% more), and it’s growing faster. Maybe you should look at Sony’s professional camera division to see the future, cause nothing has stopped them from using/supporting a half dozen different mounts.
Here’s a crazy thought lets use a little common sense…………Maybe the A-Mount, and E-Mounts are actually designed for two different types of distinctly styles of photographers that have two completely different needs.
The 36mp A99II is rumoured to be capable of over 12fps, which is what semi-pro/professionals (sports/wildlife photographers) expect/want. Not a 36mp camera in a crap housing, that can’t even manage to pull off 4 decent fps in burst mode.
E-Mount (anything that doesn’t move or is extremely slow), and A-Mount for absolutely every possible shooting senario.
Here’s the last PPT on the A-Mount, and it is growing, probably from overpriced lenses.
Willful. You’ve posted some interesting statements not unlike what others have posted across various forums. In the end we are all just trying to figure out how to make the best investment decisions to support our needs as consumers, professionals, or both. No matter how we look at it Sony, has a plan and an approach that makes sense to Sony business leaders and their bean-counters. At the moment I happen to be invested in E-Mount APS-C and FE. From my perspective, FE cameras and lenses seems to be where all the action is, for now anyway. IMO, Sony has rolled out an impressive FE program to include A7s, A7r, A7 and some very nice primes and zooms in less than a year from what I can tell a few more nice FE lenses are right around the corner too. To me this new FE program certainly blurs the line between the generally accepted Amount = professional and Emount = consumer. Just when I was getting my head around maybe going all-in on FE and moving away from APS-C , Sony released the A6000 and A77MK2 ! I guess its a good problem to have so many fine choices–at a minimum makes for GREAT forum debates.
Faster lenses… yes, but partly mitigated due to half stop light loss of SLT. Sure, the AF is pro, but the A6000 AF is closing the gap.
The A77II just turned that, “GAP” a “Grand Canyon” and a new mirror may be introduced shortly which uses 1/2 the light of the current model.
SLT is better than both mirror-less and DSLR technology.
Sony is a big company not a couple of guys in a basement. Yes they can handle it. They produce video camera lenses and bodies in a variety of mounts and have done so for many years.
The ‘death of the a-mount’ mentality is generally rooted in the belief cameras are a zero-sum game and there’s x number of Sony engineers which is set for time immortal. So if we can only get rid of the a-mount which I hate that’ll mean it’ll start raining lenses because Sony will put all its resources into e-mounts which give me a giant stiffy. It doesn’t work like that.
So Sony could expand into medium format and, IMHO, it would be better for all systems.
Sony’s mediocre lens support is a marketing philosophy which I don’t see changing. It’s a (if not the) reason a company like Canon can get away with less innovation in their bodies yet still leave Sony choking on its sales dust.
Excellent news – I love my Sigma 35/1.4, but I’d be very tempted to go for the Sony version if it packs ssm and is smaller and lighter…
Don’t know if it would be much smaller or lighter. The older G is, but I can see a Zeiss version being at least as big/heavy as the Sigma… And of course over twice the price. The Sigma is a gem and has filled a hole in the Sony lineup that has been there for a while (though I have been considering the G lately despite it not performing as well as the Sigma).
Just noticed admin said NOT a zeiss version. Which kind of doesn’t make a heap of sense in their product strategy. I wouldn’t mind seeing a $600 f2 though.
yes! with a 35 0.9. why are you askin?
Actually a first version of this lanes dates back to late nineties (it is already present in redesigned cosmetically version in Minolta lens catalogue 2003), and it’s optical formula remained unchanged since then.
Actually, it dates back to the 1980’s, like the Minolta 85/1.4 it was cosmetically redesigned and gained the G designation when that was introduced (although unlike the 85/1.4 the 35/1.4 was never redesigned)
Correction – I’ve just found it in Minolta 9xi catalogue dating back to 1992 🙂
In fact, the first version of the 35/1.4 was released in 1987.
Optically this lens is old, dating back to minolta pre-digital. It is certainly due for a newly designed replacement.
This is good news, for the A-Mount community, because the Minolta 35mm f/1.4 (which is what this lens is) was introduced in 1987, when Photoshop was only available on a Macintosh II.
The G2 version will likely receive an updated lens solution that probably includes modern low dispersion glass element, and anti-reflection nano-coatings. It should significantly reduce its lack of sharpness between f/1.4, and f/4.
There is nothing wrong with the current model. Its colour rendition is superior to the Sigma Art, and the screw driven auto focus system is very noisy, fast, and accurate. However I firmly believe it should be stripped of its G-Series designation, and be marketed as an A-Series lens with a $500.00 to $700.00 price reduction. It should be selling for no more $899.99 USD/CDN.
A Zeiss model should be introduced for those who want weather sealed housings, SSM motors, and the ultimate in lens sharpness.
I reluctantly agree. I feel Sony should drop the price as well, and market this lens as A-series lens, because even with the updates its doubtful that its sharpness would match a 35mm Zeiss model.
A 35mm Zeiss model should be introduced for current Zeiss ZA users.
I also believe that the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G (d) should be reintroduced as a viable alternative to the current Zeiss model for $500.00 less. It should also be marketed as an A-series lens.
If SONY was going to reintroduce any of Minolta’s gems, the 85mm F1.4 G D shouldn’t be the first one that they bring out as it wouldn’t fill any holes in their lineup.
The Minolta designs that I’d like to see them rebadge and/or update with SSM and new nano coatings are as follows:
Minolta 200mm F2.8
Minolta 100mm F2
Minolta 28mm F2
Minolta 35mm F2
As for replacing their 35mm F1.4 G goes, I really think they’d be best to replace it with a collaboration with Zeiss and an entirely new optical design. Let it be expensive. And re-release the Minolta 35mm F2 with SSM for around $500/$600.
Heck, while they’re at it, another excellent move would be for them to resurrect the Minolta Rokkor 58mm F1.2 and add AF!
Sony should just combine the 100mm Macro f/2.8, and 100mm f2 into a single lens design. I’m pretty sure an internally focusing, weather resistant, SSM equipped 100mm G-Series f/2 macro would be an absolute hit.
The 200mm was a great lens, but most Minolta A-Mount users opted for the 70-200mm f/2.8, because of its increased versatility. If Sony was able to create a 200mm f/2.2 that’d be a hit.
I absolutely agree with the 35mm f/2 its an absolutely brilliant lens.
Agreed. A 100mm F2 macro with SSM would be a winner!
The 200mm F2.8 prime’s main strength was how small and light it was. I’d love to see if they could redo it with better control of CA and with an F2.2 (or F2 or F1.8) aperture.
And yeah. The 35mm F2 is a gem. I bought one. After reading this comparison: http://web.archive.org/web/20140630220513/http://kurtmunger.com/misclenscompsid100.html
I wounder if it’d be possible to open up the f/2 with todays technology to f/1.8, and keep it compact.
I agree to all of the above and would like to add the 135mm f2.8 as a cheap ‘easy choice’ like the little 85mm f2.8. A newer 24mm f2.8 would also be fantastic!
That’s true! Re-releasing the 135mm F2.8 would be a smart move too.
The epic 200mm 2.8 is the biggest glaring hole in the line up. It’s an insult to owners they aren’t producing it. Day on purchase if ever they release it.
If I remeber correctly , this lens have an internal, extra, aperture (flare cutter) ring to reduce relections and increase contrast. same as the old 28-70/2.8 g.
Anyways it is an advanced construction for sure. And maybe the can design some thing that is better ( pricier) but less expensive to produce.
1st part is more important, a replacement of the 35/1.4 would hopefully kill off some of the “a-mount is dead talk”.
Interesting observation on color rendition – the reason I’m not giving up my ZA 50 for the new Sigma. I love my Sigma 35mm Art, but it tends to lag when used in extreme cold, something I haven’t experienced with any of my native Sony lenses. Also, the Sigma build quality, while good, is not on par with Sony’s, especially the ZA’s. So this is very good news, and I for one, would be willing to shell out the bucks for a ZA version of the 35 1.4.
Why do we concern ourselves with color rendition in the time when colour is an almost no issue with current post-production software? It’s not as if one must spend hours with Lr, Ps, DxO, C1 or whatever you use to “match” the colour of another lens.
Sharpness, chromatic aberrations, bokeh, consistency across the frame and diffraction are things that are more difficult to compensate on post-production and the Sony did not deliver in any of those departments very well compared to its Canon, Nikon and ZF/ZE Zeiss siblings.
I personally like spending more time taking pictures right the first time, and spending as little time as possible processing photos on the Mac, so its colour rendition is very important to me. Its half the reason I’m still using the Minolta 85mm G (d) still.
Agreed. The Minolta 28-70, 35, and 85 are in constant rotation on my cameras. Those colors…
Eh, it comes down to a taste preference. Some people want clinical sharpness and consistency across the frame, and others prefer a softer, more haloed look. I personally fall in the latter camp because I think the Minolta 35/1.4 is magical wide open. It has the perfect amount of vignetting, isn’t so sharp that I see pores, the bokeh is unreal, and man oh man what it does to a blue sky in the background. I use the vignette to my advantage, drawing attention to the subject. The centers of images have such a beautiful glow. Leica-esque.
Is it good for everything? No. But for what I use it for, it’s perfect. And I’ve tried the Sigma… didn’t like it. It had a pretty sterile feel. Bokeh was good, sharpness was great, but images still lacked depth and 3D effect for some reason. And you can’t really add that in after the fact, either.
I’d be happy if newer coatings and SSM on the Sony 35/1.4G got the CA under control and made the lens less clunky sounding in the field. Other than that, I wouldn’t change a thing.
More Sony branded lenses and fewer overpriced Zeiss lenses please.
2006 isn’t old. Plenty of top lenses now were released in 2006 or even earlier. This lens was rubbish at launch.
The lens was launched as Sony in 2006 but it had been produced by Minolta for decades prior to that. It is an old design which is long overdue for an update. I’m very hopeful this rumour is true.
Apparently the Minolta version of the f2 35mm was better than Sony’s….I don’t know why but in plenty of forums (FM, Photo.net, DPreview to name a few) people often looked for the Minolta versions, as far I was concerned, the 35mm lens variants: f2 and f1.4.
Sony never had a 35/2. There were only the Minolta versions.
Then that’s what I was reading! To find that lens instead of this 1.4. Thanks for the clarification.
The Minolta 35mm F2 is sharper in the centre and in the mid section than the Minolta (or SONY) 35mmm F1.4 lenses are at F1.4 and at F2 and at F2.8 and at F4. The current SONY lens has less vignetting and smearing in the extreme corners though wide open and at F2 and F2.8
I chose the Minolta 35mm F2 restyled version (on ebay for about $650) when I bought a 35mm prime, mostly because of this comparison: http://web.archive.org/web/20140630220513/http://kurtmunger.com/misclenscompsid100.html
I assume this lens is for A mount and APS-C sensor, right? I hope it’s also SSM. There should also be an FF version!
It’s a G lens, how can it be for APS-C only? Of course it covers full-frame.
Nope, that’d be the 35/1.8. This will be ff
Before I bought my first full frame SLR, I was torn between the 5D2 and the a900 when it was out. I was willing to give away the video capabilities of the 5D2 for the a900 only if it had a competing 35mm. Nikon’s 35mm f2, 35mm 1.4 and Canon’s own lenses were better than this or the f2 lenses. Say what you want, but Sony’s 35mm lenses were not sharp and all other characteristics did not make a compelling case for that focal length. Even if I could have sourced the f2 Minolta version it would have been very expensive at that time – maybe even today. I would have loved to have jumped into Sony’s alpha system early on but the lack of a good 35mm lens was all it took to make me look the other way. I would have LOVED to have had a great 35mm f2 and that amazing 24mm f2 as a combo.
I only jumped to Sony when the NEX 7 was announced along with the 24mm 1.8 for it. An excellent lens that it’s highly undervalued.
Yeah it has been a hole in the line up, or at least a decent f2. Though the G has been available pretty cheap and considering that the Canon L isn’t that much better, certainly not the L I, then not a huge deal breaker. IBIS of the A900 is a plus even with this supposed ‘mediocre’ lens. I have seen them for $600 or less, at which point it’s not a bad lens at all.
I ought to disagree. I had the Canon 35mm L and it was very very good. What let it down was that the 5D2 had an aging AF sensor that was nailing it around 80% of the time. Having properly focused shots at f1.4 or f2 even in good light at 2.5-3.5m distance was not that great. The lens itself, however, was very good. The ZE 35mm f2 I bought later was much better, though.
I love the lens, even if it’s old, 1987… I think it’s my favorite one, but maybe I’m just melancholic :)) seriously though, some photographers give sharpness way to much credit. It really isn’t much of an issue, unless someone makes big prints, shoots testing charts or just doesnt know how to use it. It is soft at f1.4 especialy in the corners but you don’t shoot f1.4 in broad daylight, but it doesn’t matter when you do this to isolate the subject because of the bokeh. the same goes if you shoot by night because, well…it’s dark :)) chromatic aberration isnt’n much of an issue either in the era of digital correction especially if you shoot mostly raw like I do. SSM would be nice but, at 35mm…the fact that it doesn’t isn’t really a big deal. I’m not saying this lens is not due to an overhaul, on the contrary…it is a very old design no matter how you put it. regardless of this, the lens looks good, is really well build and, IF you use it properly, it does everything it’s supposed to 😀 the same goes for many other lenses that, as far as I can deduct, are judged by test charts only
What a positive post .Maybe the only thing we need to upgrade is our attitudes .
You don’t care about sharpness, but others will. You don’t want to shoot at f1.4 during the day, but others will. You don’t want near silent SSM, others will.
I love how people assume that their way of shooting is the only way of shooting.
I think you misread my post… I am not assuming anything, only suggested that it is overrated. I even said it is an old that should be replaced. I even wrote when someone should care about sharpness and why it wouldn’t matter if you use it properly. And yes, I shoot f1.4 in daylight 🙂 I just do it in a way that sharpness doesn’t matter. Since we talk about sharpness, out of curiosity, why does it matter to you and in which cases this lens isn’t sharp enough, besides test charts and big prints, cases that I already mentioned in my previous posts.
“some photographers give sharpness way to much credit. It really isn’t much of an issue,”
“or just doesnt know how to use it.”
“but you don’t shoot f1.4 in broad daylight,”
“SSM would be nice but, at 35mm…the fact that it doesn’t isn’t really a big deal.”
” the lens looks good, is really well build and, IF you use it properly,”
Enough said about how presumptuous you are.
:))))))
these are not assumtions but facts. sharpness just doesn’t matter in most cases. if it so important to you maybe you should use medium format 🙂
and yes, many don’t know how to use it. you can take the best lens and shoot it in a way that shows all it’s flaws – lack of sharpness or other flaws- or some averege lens and use it in a way to hide most of the flaws. you should use the 35mm G lens and judge it in the field instead of just considering some measurements.
They are not “facts”. They are assumptions, learn the difference.
they are facts, learn to shoot.
This is very welcome news! I agree “G” branding will be welcome over Zeiss branding.
I just looked up the 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss for Canon, its manual and they’re charging $1800.00 USD for. I’d hate to see what a Sony edition would cost.
Exactly. I think we’ll be lucky if this upgrade comes in under $1,800 with G branding. Then again, the Zeiss 50 1.4 is $1,500…so….who knows.
Regardless of how it’s branded, it is good news for A-mount. You know the current old Minolta design has paid for itself thousands of times over considering Sony had no investment in it for design and they’re selling it at such a markup.
Well they did have to, you know buy a whole imaging company and it’s IP to get it… for ‘no investment’…
True. But we dont know exactly how that deal was worked out. I’m sure Sony got a killer deal on it all.
But the “G”-logo is so unbearably ugly! Seriously, as nice as Sony’s designs are, why such an ugly font? And why is the 70-200FE so ugly, too? With that silver ring around the front and the white hood.
I’m in the market for a good A-mount 35mm 1.4. Anyone have experience with the Rokinon vs the Sigma Art? Or have any other recommendations?
That’s like comparing a Subaru BRZ to a Ferrari 458. Both do a good job for their position on the market. You just have to know what’s important to you. Autofocus? Build Quality?
Don’t care about AF. IQ is the primary consideration above build quality.
BRZ is a pretty decent car by the way. Handles like it’s on rails. The problem is it has no power whatsoever. The backseat- you couldn’t even fit a midget back there. So yeah, it’s no Ferrari.
That is a perfect review of the BRZ! I was looking at buying one. They really need to come out with the BRZ STi.
Was looking primarily for comments on the IQ differences between the 2.
I have not used the Sigma, I’ve only read that reviews that say it’s basically perfect. So, using ‘Perfect’ as a baseline. I have used the Rokinon, and it was a very nice lens. Focus ring was smooth and well damped, the optics are quite good. Very little flare or ghosting, and it’s pretty dang sharp even wide open. For the money, if AF isnt important (as you stated below), I’d go with the Rokinon. The only caution is that you have to be careful with handling the lens – it will not take knocks or rough handling. The screws that hold it together are small and fine threaded and strip easily.
Thanks for the info! I appreciate it. I had not heard those comments on the Rokinon build quality before.
IMHO………I think the Minolta 35mm f/2.0 maybe the right lens for the job. It’s a very compact, and light weight lens that’s much sharper than either Sigma’s or Sony’s competing designs.
Doesn’t Sigma have a 35mm f/2, and If so why isn’t there an A-Mount edition??
It’s not even close to perfect. On the A-Mount is AF speed is slower than a SAM equipped lens. Its new body style is impressive but its neither dust, or moisture resistant. Plus its made by Sigma, so you know its going to break once its warranty has expired.
It’s not 100% compatible, because Sigma won’t pay Sony royalties. They’ve reversed engineered the AF features, so it might stop working altogether so day in the future. It will never be AF-D compatible.
It’s colour rendition is terrible, and I wouldn’t dare use it for portraits, but its sharp and that’s the only thing that it has going for it.
I returned mine after two weeks, and have kept my 35F14G, because the grass wasn’t greener.
It’s ironic that you bring up the warranty while talking trash about Sigma since they offer one of the longest in the industry.
i dont think you lose with the sigma
Go home sony .Sigma already fixed this is problem ; P
was going to say the same thing! lol
Sony didn’t go home…they moved into the neighbors basement and started cranking out FE cameras and lenses. They don’t even know a problem exists.
The Mino 35/1.4 is half weight and size of the “better alternatives”. Works like new after 25 years and has earned me tens of thousands of dollars in the same time. Yes yes the “test charts” say it’s a dog. But if you ever use one in real life, that dog may become your best friend.
No upgrades in this working togs future.
why not Sonnar 35/1.4 ZA ?
Yup.
There should be two models; an updated G-Series for between $1299.99 and $1499.99, and a Zeiss model for those willing to pay the Zeiss premium.
That doesn’t make much sense. The G lenses are not any cheaper than Sony zeiss lenses (in fact they make up the top 5 most expensive alpha lenses). Also $1500 is a premium price for a 35/1.4 – in line with the pricing of the Sony zeiss branded 24/1.4 and 50/1.4.
Perhaps a 35mm 1.8 SAM full frame lens would be a good addition at around $400.
Actually after reading the post its apparent that the majority of A-Mount users want Sony to re-release the Minolta 35mm f/2.0, because the, “Easy Choice Lenses” build quality is a complete joke, like the SAM AF system.
I’d rather have a steel body screw driven 35mm f/2 for the price of the 50mm f/1.4 based on Minolta’s original design.
If they could open it up to f/1.8 that’d be great.
Actually, would like to have some more easy choice lenses… I really enjoy shooting with the 50mm f/1.8 SAM (then sold it when bought the a850) and then started shooting with the 85mm f/2.8 SAM. yes, the AF is a joke, but the quality from those lenses were great!
For the 35mm, I would prefer Sony to release a Zeiss 35mm f/2 for…1200USD or less? I like the contrast from my Zeiss 24, 50 and 135.
I own the 85mm 2.8 SAM. I rarely use it but wanted a small, light portrait lens to have around. It does feel very flimsy, but it’s good for Sony to have budget options. Optically, it’s fine so it’s obvious where Sony cut corners to bring down price.
I own a bunch of vintage minolta lenses, I’m not sure if SAM is any better or worse than the screw drive. It seeks more than the older lenses I have but that may be because the minimum focus on the 85 is poor. It does AF-D so there is that slight advantage and it is perhaps mildly quieter.
Please make ones for the FE mount, with both Sigma and Tamron are ignoring this system, we won’t see complete lens linup for A7/R/S unless sony move faster in this direction.
The problem with third party lenses is Sony’s insistence to not supply correct coding to them. Consequently, they can screw up any microadjustment of the AF.
Basically, if you need to set a value of +10 for a certain Sony lens, if a Sigma or Tamron uses the same identification code (often the case) then it will have the same +10 setting, even if it doesn’t need it! It is the same vice versa.
I think the lack of openness from Sony is the main stumbling block. From personal experience I am hesitant getting other makes.
Add to this the fact that Sigma and Tamron probably sell all they make to Canon and Nikon users anyway, the motivation to expand their range is limited. I wish it were different, but I think it unlikely to change for a couple of years yet.
As far as I Know the problem is not Sony’s “closeness” but Sigma doing reengineering instead of licensing.
But that’s the problem! Sony licenses the E-mount specs, but not A-mount. Just like Canon and Nikon, they force third-party makers to do reverse engineering.
Which is why the A-Mount pulls in more revenue, and I doubt Sony’s going to change its strategy anytime soon.
Sony licenses A-mount, Sigma don’t want to pay it. It is a SIGMA problem, not a Sony one.
It’s why Sigma have to recall their lenses for re chipping, but Tamron don’t.
Surely that depends upon the price of the licence! If Sony charge so much it means that a Sigma lens will be more than a Sony lens then it would be foolish for Sigma to pay.
Of course, if Sony charged too little then everyone might be inclined to buy Sigma!
However, history indicates that Sony are the party in the wrong here.
They have consistently repeated this trait for so many of their products to try to maintain the market for themselves. All that happens, though, is that the market bypasses them (Betamax versus VHS for example).
As regards Tamron, Sony are a large shareholder, so it muddies the water.
You’ve got 35mm f/2.8 for FE. For f/1.4 primes, there’s A-Mount.
Yeah, cause god forbid we can use f/1.4 on FE mount.
How about a 35mm .95? Now that would be something. We already have the almighty 35mm sigma ART. Give me speed or no need.
then you’ll have to look elsewhere
One other thing…the Zeiss logo shouldn’t be plastic. Zeiss should swear away any plastic at all…hoods, buttons, screws….glass and brass. In fact, the Zeiss logo should definitely be brass. The little window in the front for the focusing distance should be glass too. No paint, I want my F stops etched into the body. Filter threads definitely metal. Even the luxury guys these days are cutting corners. Cheap SOB’s.
Are you being facetious? Either way, You’ll have to take it up with Sony not zeiss. The aesthetics and fit/finishes of Sony zeiss lenses are purely sony’s choices.
If you like the minimalist mostly metal look, the zeiss Zf / ze lenses exist.
I’m a confessed lens addict. I was being facetious but maybe ever so slightly serious? Ok…I was serious about the no plastic thing. I’m hoping Zeiss comes out with some killer FE manual lenses at Photokina. If there is any…and I mean any….hint at a 135mm FE I’m going balls deep into mirror less territory. Until then, I’ll keep my alpha zeiss glass.
I’m generally anti-plastic in most facets of life, but plastic serves it’s purpose even in high end, mostly-metal lenses for keeping down weight, increasing durability and staying a bit cooler to the touch. Used judiciously, it’s generally beneficial.
When you have 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and 2 flashes in the bag the weight savings add up (particularly over a long day).
Metal is usually cooler to the touch than plastic, since it conducts heat away from the body much more efficiently than plastic does. Unless you live in an extremely hot climate, where the camera is warmer than your body, in which case metal would conduct heat to your body more efficiently than plastic would. Exposing your camera to direct sunlight would also make it warmer than your body.
Use ceramic insulating paint. It reflects more than 85% of incoming heat.
Great news, have been waiting for this lens. Zeiss or not as long as it has stellar IQ, hope the bokeh quality is good.
I know we mustn’t be greedy, but can we please get an update of the 50mm 1.4 Sony lense, too?
Not much I think they could do with that one- except add SSM. It’s so bargain basement price with a lot of competition right now. I sold that one for the Zeiss…but I still think it was a stellar performer even wide open.
Yep. I got one in EX+ condition from KEH for like $380. Love it. Wide open it’s a little low on contrast, but still quite sharp. Sure the Zeiss is better, but in my opinion this one is still 85% of the Zeiss for much less money.
That’s expensive!
….and I am guessing that others definition of “quite sharp” differs a lot from mine. The Sony 50mm at f1.4 is very soft and only starts to improve from f2.2.
See, this is exactly what I mean. I hear this kind of statement to often about that lense.
And yet the 35mm G is bad? They are about the same, but I guess there is a big price gap.
Hey that’s actually great to know. I’ve been hearing some so-so stuff on the Sony 50 1.4 and am holding off on getting it, but maybe I shouldn’t wait any longer.
how about the rumored updated to SAL1650?
is there a need for an update of such a lens?
Nope
I’m in the target market for a new 35mm! Already have the Zeiss 24, 50 and 135… Depending on Sony offering, I will be buying either a new RX-series (as long as it has a 35mm f/2 or faster), the new A-mount lens, the Sigma 35mm Art, or a new 7-series Fullframe with either 35mm f/2.8 or whatever bright prime comes later this year (according to the last roadmap I have seen)
Definitely welcome news! The Sigma is the better 35 available. We definitely need a Zeiss version!
i think sony must completing their FF lens system with 14-24mm F/2.8 and 100mm F/2.
and updating 20mm F/2.8, 28mm F/2.0, 85mm F/1.8, 135mm F/2.8
Yes! I would LOVE an 85mm 1.8 prime lense. Canon and Nikon have them, as far as I know…