As noted by Lepidi the soon to be announced Zeiss Sonnar FE 35mm f/2.8 lens has the same size of the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens from the Sony RX1/R. It shows the advantage of the fixed lens FF RX camera where the lens has been designed to be as close as it gets to the sensor. That’s why NEX-FF lenses will be always bigger than lenses fixed on a RX FF camera.
Here are again the FE Zeiss specs (compared with current Zeiss 24mm APS-C lens).
161 Responses
No aperture ring. No close focusing mode. (If the image is to be believed)
Brace for the onslaught of people living in ugly places and requiring fast lenses.
IMHO – F/2.8 is fast enough for a FF, while not sacrificing DOF. Anything larger than that on a FF sensor, would be a specialty lens, where you need a crazy shallow DOF. In those scenarios, most of the time you have plenty of light and need a crazy high shutter with an extremely low ISO instead.
Agreed. Just look at the ZM line. These were lenses that people used with film, not the amazing sensors we have today, and apparently it worked out fine.
I would prefer 35mm lens to be f/2, it gives you nice breathing space of one full stop. Wouldn’t mind f/2.8 if the lens would cost around £200-300
That’s a Zeiss, so my bet is on 700 euros easy 🙂
that’s what worries me that it will be in the range of £700-900
For being a novelty item (the whole NEX FF thing) I bet more than that, unfortunately.
However, I see prices coming down soon-ish as the system gets momentum. RX1’s are not £2200-2300 in the UK down from £2499 at launch.
XD lol!
The 35mm lens is f/2.8 to make it small.
One of the first thing people moaned about with the early NEX lenses was that they were to big, no pancake lenses, and so on. Obviously they wanted to make sure they have at least one small lens at launch this time, so this doesn’t happen again.
Maybe they will later come out with a fast 35mm lens – but it will be much bigger.
None of this nonsense. Remember Contax G, people.
What about Contax G? The 35/2 is the weakest in all the G primes. People would bitch and moan when they see the FF performance of that lens. People should have realized that until these Sony primes, there is no lens designed specifically for this short flange distance and for digital sensor. Leica lenses would cost an arm and a leg and still have vignette (mostly due to the small throat of the M mount) and color cast. The only one that can work miracle (small enough with fast aperture and good performance) at reasonable price is Fuji. Voigtlander is stuck MF for good. So seriously, I’ll wait and see this 35/2.8 performance.
“Remember Contax G”. Yes that camera had a fairly crude AF system with a screw drive. The lenses were designed for film. Many of them had rear elements going well into the body, so the distance from the rear element to film was very short.
If it were as easy to make small fast AF lenses that don’t sacrifice IQ for size to work on a full frame NEX camera with a modern digital sensor as all the arm chair lens designers here seem to think – don’t you think Zeiss and Sony would do it?
Some people seem to think they know more about designing lenses than Zeiss and more about designing sensors than Sony.
Sony does not need to make it as small as RX system has.
They need to sold RX series as well, the size is the main advantage of the fixed FF lens atm. It’s just marketing…
If they would make it the same size then nobody would buy the RX series…
That extra stop of breating room, makes your whole system much heavier. Thats one thing to keep in mind for a NEX system. Extra 100g on my A65 with 16-50 wouldn’t be felt, but on a NEX system, it makes big difference.
Very true, regarding f2.8. I use Nikon’s 24-70mm f2.8 with D600 and f2.8 it’s more than enough on FF in 99% of situations, really. C’mon f4 is already flexible enough for most life situations.
People are so greedy, always need a FF lens 24-300mm f0.95 with the size and weight of sel-1650 and for the same price of course. 😀
I do agree f2.0 would be quite nice and it’s not suppose to make the lens bigger, anyways, let price talk now… 😉
F/2.0 would make it bigger due to a larger front element in relation to the rear element. If I remember F-stop math correctly, F/2.0 front element would have to have twice as much area as F/2.8. That would mean that if F/2.8 has a filter diameter of 49mm, assuming that the front element is very close in size, filter diameter of a f/2.0 lens would have to be 70mm.
Well, Canon managed to keep it somehow small @ 67mm with OIS – that’s very acceptable, not a pancake though 🙂 Going to f1.4 will definitely make a big expensive lens.
f2.8 is great enough for me on FF in 99% cases, not complains here! 🙂
If you’re going to compare with SLR lenses, you have to automatically add the 20+ millimeters that the NEX cameras don’t have, due to the SLR’s mirror box, if you want to make a fair comparison.
You don’t know if the front element really takes up the entire filter size.
Rollei once ordered a customized QBM mount Planar 50/1.4, nearly optically identical to Contax’s offering, but was smaller overall and used a 49mm filter thread instead of Contax’s original 55mm.
Contax had those…black rings of plastic, around the front element, whatever they’re called, while Rollei had those removed. The glass itself didn’t change in diameter.
A 35/2.8 really doesn’t need much glass, I highly doubt if a 49mm filter thread is really necessary.
f-stop is the ratio between the open aperture and the focal length, so with 35mm that means that the whole for the light to pass through for an f2.8 lens is 35/2.8 = 12.5mm
and f2 would be 17.5mm.
On top of that you then have all the casing for the lens and the filter size ends up being a lot bigger, but that does mean that if you had a 49mm filter for f2.8, the glass only needed to grow by about 5mm and so the filter thread could still be 55mm.
All very crude calculations and wide angle lenses complicate the issues particularly on SLRs, but just saying that increasing the aperture by 40% doesn’t increase the filter size by nearly as much.
f2.8 Is kinda slow. I think f2 on this format would have been perfect.
What was the logic of high shutter speed and low ISO? If you need very shallow DOF, no combination of shutter speed and ISO is going to do anything for you.
That said, f/2.8 is indeed enough for a vast majority of situations.
+1. That’s one of the funniest summaries of street photography I have ever read.
Fast full frame lenses could be made small, here is my full frame 50mm F1.4 Pentax FA with PK-NEX lens turbo adapter on my NEX-3N :
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2832/8941810155_51392273a8_k.jpg
on my full frame NEX-VG900:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8489/8170752122_b17dff4b98_k.jpg
full frame 20mm super wide :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8338/8170745790_59300d69fc_k.jpg
50mm lenses were easier to design for 35mm format. They can be made smaller, lighter and relatively higher quality.
You’ve got the wrong impression since it’s mostly SLR lenses that are around.
With a shorter flange range, 35mms are equally as easy to design, since this makes double gauss usable again.
Ok, maybe you’re correct since I base my opinion mostly on my observation of DSLR lenses. But I also read that it is easier to design a normal lens because.. it’s normal, maybe. Or there are less corrections that have to be done. As a general rule, normal FL = diagonal of the recording medium (approximately 44mm for FF). But seriously, I’m not really sure about this. Maybe someone can educate me (for free).
The Sigma 50mm F1.4 has a 77mm filter size compared to the full frame Pentax 50mm F1.4 with 49mm filter size.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/Images/four50s.jpg
Gee ~ f/2 Sumicrons, f/2.5 Sumarits, f/2.8 Elmarits and f/4 Elmars must all be terrible lenses because they are not f/1.4
+1
+1
+1,
Completely agree with your sarcasm! 🙂
+1
Hehehe, +1!
And f/1.4 summilux and f/0.95 nocttilux 😉
but Leica’s staple 35 prime is f2, not 2.8. I won’t have problems with a 90 elmarit or 28 elmarit, but for a 35mm prime that is pretty slow – The m mount did not have something that slow until the recent (and budget) summarit.
What was wrong with the 35mm f2,8 Summaron lens?
Nothing, absolutely nothing, brilliant lens, small and very, very sharp.
There’s nothing wrong with it, but the 35mm summicron ASPH proves that with modern technology, a faster and optically superior lens can be built with similar dimensions.
This is not 1960, which is why Sony should try a bit harder with the 1st FF NEX offering. I don’t believe making the lens f2 will compromise on size – just look at Canon’s new 35mm f2.
It will most certainly not, it’s been done 20 years ago. For some reason people are still looking for excuses for this lens, I just see Zeiss trying to rip people off and Sony trying to avoid cannibalizing RX1’s sales, nothing else. There’s nothing technological preventing a compact 35/2 from happening, and be priced at around $800, which would be a fair price for a 35/2 but a total rip-off for a 35/2.8.
If it was “done 20 years ago” – then the patent just ran out and anyone can start making them. Trouble is that wide angle lens designs made for rangefinder film cameras usually don’t work all that well on digital sensors.
This lens i.e. canon EF 35mm F2.0 IS USM is actually quite big. It is much bigger than Canon EF 50mm f1.4. It weighs 360g and it is laso large in diameter – 80mm with diameter of the hood of 90mm.
What about Elmars?
Anyway you can be sure this NEX will have a sensor that is far better at high iso than an M9.
They obviously made the 35mm lens f/2.8 to keep it small. F/2.8 doesn’t mean that the IQ is compromised.
It’s a piece of sh&t(according to “the only good lens is one with faster than f1.4 aperture” believers).
This is a reply to your reply above.
So Contarex lenses were made 50 years ago, they’re known for spectacular color, and everybody could make them. Why not? Because they don’t have access to comparable glass anymore. I don’t know how much you know about this but modern lead-free glass can’t compare with old glass with lead. They try to compensate with coatings (this is also much cheaper than trying to improve glass) but, well, the results are there and they’re not on par. Modern Japanese glass can’t even compare with Contax glass from the 80s, which is already using cheaper glass because of advances in coating.
Who knows what’s there 20 years ago that isn’t available today? Maybe, it’s simply the determination to make decent products? After all, money-raking is everybody’s top priority now, just look at Hasselblad, or Leica, or even Zeiss. Of course Canon and Nikon are still carrying on making puny improvements to their bodies every year and selling them as new products.
Brass mounts are durable and sturdy and have been available since like the beginning of time, but why is the NEX series stuck with crappy plastic mounts(BTW mine is loose)? Sony and Zeiss may know better, but by no means does that oblige them to do accordingly, they go whichever way they think would maximize profit, Zeiss doesn’t make monuments like the Super-Q-Gigantar anymore.I don’t like it but I don’t blame them for it either.
I wouldn’t exactly call any lens Leica make “budget” – but I guess it is relative, maybe they are budget for rich orthodontists who buy Leicas.
Size, performance, price, pick two. Leica is for people who choose 1 and 2, that’s all. For lenses of a similar size (Voigtlander, Konica M, Contax G)you can’t find similar performance, even Zeiss ZM lenses are usually somewhat bigger and heavier. Those with comparable IQ are all large, heavy and not nearly as well-built.
Oh please, Leica prices its products as luxuries. If a company similar to Leica but with conscience exists, they could price their products half of what it is now and still make money. You could only pick 2 out of the 3 because these companies delibrately made it so, it’s not necessarily a limitation.
I approve of this message.
Geeee…all those are manual focus lenses. Slap an auto focus on it then we will talk. -10000000000000000
What? A FF camera with a f/2.8 lens?? Why on earth would I buy that??? The (major) benefit of an FF camera is shallow DOF but for that to happen you need f/1.4 or max f/2.0. FF with f/2.8 will be the same as the X-Pro 1 combined with f/1.4 lenses.
The Sony mirrorless FF promise was/is THE answer to the stubbornly unavailable and excesssively expensive Leica and Leica optics (I – even more stubbornly – refuse at all times to put my name on a waiting list for a consumer good). I hope f/2.8 stays a rumor and we will see a range of f/1.4 and f/2.0 optics.
regards, MartinL
Since when sony make such a promise ?
You’re right, it really isn’t worth buying. With the DoF of a lens like this, AF is practically useless, so all the more reason to go for legacy lenses anyways.
How come the 35mm equivalent focal length is 52.5mm in the table? Isn’t it 35mm since it’s a full frame lens?
Please note 2 values for rows 3 and 4. Looks like row 3 is a FF angle of view, while Row 4 is an APS-C AOV.
Comparing 35mm Line 3 with 24mm line 4 explains everything – they should rename line 1 to APS-C Equivalent focal length
if it’s APC-equiv. focal lenght 35mm on FF is ~24mm in APC. this chart is very weird?!
A 24mm lens on an APS-C body has the same field of view as a 35mm lens on a FF body (24×1.5=36mm). But here we have only a 35mm FF lens, which, when mounted on an APS-C body becomes 35×1.5=52.5mm.
A full frame 35mm on the current 1.5x crop APS-C NEX has a 52.5mm eqiv full frame FOV. Do the math , 35 x 1.5 = 52.5.
For me, the biggest sacrifice with the rx1 is that down the road when one is no longer using the camera or has replaced it – the beautiful lens goes with it to the drawer of old equipment, ebay or the garbage. I’d rather it be a tad larger and a stop slower and have it in service for far longer.
Perhaps some pioneering lens tinkerers will find a way to recycle these lenses eventually and add some mounting hardware to it.
You could say the same for Sony’s new PXW-Z100 4K camcorder ($6,500) with fixed zoom lens.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/06/sony-announces-6-500-pxw-z100-4k-camcorder/
I wouldn’t for two reasons:
1) It has been the norm for video cameras under $7500 to have a fixed lens. Only in the post 5d mark 2 world has this been challenged to some degree.
2). Conservatively, the lens on the rx1 would be at least a $1000 lens, more than 1/3 the cost of the rx1. The lens on this video camera seems like a fairly standard, run-of-the-mill 20x video lens, unlikely to be 1/3 the cost of the camera. A videographer is paying for 4k, sdi-out and xlr inputs not so much the lens, which would hardly be as missed as the 35mm f2 Sony Zeiss sonnar (recognized to be one of the top 35mm full frame lenses around).
RX1 35mm f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens exposed :
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/8989458902_d40cde0ce6_o.jpg
120g is really light for a 35mm lens with AF !.. 😉
The zm biogon 35mm 2.8 weight about 178g and no AF motor inside…
I have seen 50 1:2 (for 135 film camera) MUCH smaller than that. Probably terrible on a modern sensor.
24f1.8 on APS has exact the same DOF of a 35f2.8 on 24×36.
The new 24×36 will be surely at least 1 stop better than the APS in Iso. So all it’s ok for me 😉 a nice compromise between size and performance IMHO.
The best news for me is that it is shorter than its APS-C equivalent and even shorter than M version. Great sensor is coming, that’s for sure!
What a pity they did not think upfront and make that E-mount wider. Now they are stuck with that problem forever, and the system has barely been born. Wait until we see the trouble with legacy lenses – vignetting et al.
It’s still wider than Leica or Nikon mounts. The only thing I’m concerned about is IBIS not fitting in there.
The difference is that, while the mount is similar in size to Nikon F and Leica M, it is closer to the sensor, so it creates a bottleneck closer to the sensor, which limits small and fast primes (without special microlenses like Leica uses.)
Yes but making the mount larger would necessitate a larger camera body and heavier lenses. The mount is already a bit oversized for even the Nex 7. The hope is that bit by bit, they will be able to make the sensor respond to angular light like film does. In the mean time, we’ll probably only have trouble with lenses under 35mm and that can be solved using a retrofocus design for the time being.
I have lenses with retrofocus design and they can produce coloured haloes in the edges. A larger mount would allow for simpler and shorter lenses, but alas.
What problem is that? Because this lens happens to be f/2.8 it doesn’t mean they can’t make a faster 35mm lens for the camera. I expect they will sooner or later.
They just wanted to have at least one small lens available with the camera. This lens accomplishes that – and means the camera is not competing as much with the RX1.
I highly doubt that somebody who is in the market for ILC would consider RX1 as an alternative and vice versa, especially with rumoured price for body and lens of this system.
Ok, please don’t beat me up if I don’t get this right, I’m trying to figure this out. What would be the f-stop equivelant of the 35 if it was to translate to APS-c. Not necessarily the DOF, but just for olight gathering purposes. I guess another way of say it, what would be the equevelant f-stop of this type lens (for light gathering) be for an APS-c lens. Like, would it be 3.5, or higher, understanding that the field of view would change to something else and the DOF would also change too. What I’m trying to understand is my advantages. I guess we get double advantage, one being the lense f-stop is not modified or reduced for APS-c equivilant and two, we have a larger sensor for light gathering, right? I understand that people like thin DOF and what not, and I can’t argue that, but I’m not hating on 2.8, I’m just trying to translate full frame, coming from APS-c life. Does my rant make sense, has anyone worked this out already?
Dan
To get the same in terms of dof and absolue light gathering (including the theoretical sensor advantage) you’d need a 23mm f/2 lens on APS-C. However, lens light gathering is the same regardless of sensor size, so you’ll get the same exposure time with a f/2.8 lens on both ff and crop sensors.
^^ Your question has merit so nothing to feel bad about. 🙂
Basically f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of what sensor is used.
So an f2.8 lens on a tiny P&S camera and an f2.8 lens on a large format camera will meter (more or less) exactly the same if they were shooting the same scene while having the same frame.
Consider a FF camera having a 35mm f2.8 lens on a tripod. You take a photo of a large uniform grey card which is evenly lit.
You then remove the FF camera and replace it with an APS-C camera with a 35mm f2.8 lens.
Now the APS-C camera will offer the same DOF as on the FF camera. However what you will see on the APS-C camera will be a crop of the original grey card (1.5x crop).
So in order to get the whole area of the grey card you will have to move the tripod behind to match the FOV of the FF camera.
Moving your lens away from the subject increases the DOF and thats why the same lens on APS-C will offer greater DOF if you match the same FOV of that lens on a FF camera.
Hope this helped though I fear my ranting made things worse. 😛
The metering is the same – but the total amount of useful light gathered increases with sensor size.
For light gathering purposes the F-stop will be the same. Here’s a good article about all that equivalence stuff, but before you start, try to find some time to go through it. It is not an easy read.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
that’s proper 😀
F stops are f stops, as far as light gathering goes. Same goes for ISO numbers. The only difference between FF and other size sensors is the DOF at each f stop gets slimmer as the sensor gets bigger. All the other differences between FF and APS-C are actually the result of different pixel density, since most FF sensors have bigger pixels than high resolution APS-C sensors.
Not pixel density, but sensor size. Take, for example, 36Mp FF sensor vs 16Mp APS-C sensor. Pixel level comparison is pure BS used only by noobs. The only way is to downsize FF pic to 16Mp. In case of monochrome sensor SNR boost after this procedure equals 5dB. It’s much harder to estimate in case of demosaiced data, but DxO shows 4dB difference and this is equals to advantage of D4’s 16Mp FF sensor over 16Mb APS-C one.
in terms of light no difference, in terms of DoF some difference -> DOF calculator might be better than words: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Very simple: a 135 sensor is about 2.5 times as large as an APS sensor. The log (base 2) of 2.5 is that F-stop you are looking for. F2.8 turns into F 4.summat.
So a 35mm F4.1 lens on 135 has the same DOF as a 24mm F 2.8 lens on APS, and a 35mm F2.8 on 135 has the same DOF as a 24mm F1.8 lens on APS, when shooting at the same distance.
Internet “experts” often confuse light gathering with light flux; a larger sensor gathers as much light as a smaller sensor with the same lens, *per unit of surface*; it will therefore require the same exposure; but it has a larger surface, so it does collect more light. We say that the light flux is higher (flux = vector product of magnitude and surface). How much? Same as above: log base 2.
Nice, clear and polite answers. Something missing on 43rumors, because of the huge amount of trolls. That’s great here, but sad on the other site.
yes.. there are too many troll in m43 forum who keep on spewing full frame is better.. yes full frame is better, but thats not the point of m43
they forgot or didnt know that photography is about making a picture, and not about arguing which format is better
forgot to add.. the bigger troll are the brand fanboys who keep on spewing things like brand x better than brand y etc…
Try saying that nexes have toy-like usability, or that RX1 and RX100 are overpriced toys, or that Sony EVFs are crap and enjoy the heated reactions.
@Bollox You mean, try trolling and see the reactions?
@bollox
yes.. those troll are the worst.. those who come to brand x forum and keep on saying brand x is crap brand y is better
if someone doesnt use and doesnt like brand x.. why bother going into brand x forum? i really dont understand their childish behaviour..
No people, it’s not about brands – I don’t work for any of those. It’s about keeping it real between flamboyant promises, compromise-laden reality and silly prices.
Let’s see if they learnt how to place the exposure dials, or how they will price a 2.8/35 lens, or if the camera will carry a viewfinder and a flash at the same time.
Come along children! The word is “bollocks” and nice people don’t use it in polite society even if it’s spelt correctly, and anyway it’s so f***** childish to use bad language when we have a whole Shakespearean dictionary available, of proper, descriptive language. Now take yourselves to the toilet all of you before you go outside to play like good little trolls
brilliant!
ITS HUUUUUUUGE!! F… SONUY
We have to differentiate between metering and light gathering. Specifically in terms of absolute light gathering or photon count, 35mm f/2.8 on FF is the equivalent of about 23mm f/1.8 on Sony APC-C sensors (cropfactor 1.53X). Meaning that both the FF and APS-C cameras shot at the respective focal lengths and indicated apertures mentioned, will not only yield the same DOF and FOV, they will also gather the same amount of photons and thus have similar noise levels for a given shutterspeed and visual exposure.
Why didn’t I mention ISO? Because the shutterspeed and the aperture are the two main factors affecting noise and exposure. ISO labels are used to complete the old exposure triangle and make our metering life easier, but they do not affect noise in ways that are often assumed. So yes, both cameras will be shot at different ISO’s in the above comparison, but that’s because a given ISO number does not reflect a given amount of signal gain between differently sized sensors.
Most of the cameras sold today even apply digital gain in different ways, rather than analogue sensor gain at higher ISO’s. Similar to boosting the visual exposure yourself in a RAW converter.
Ugh… that was a reply to Dan’s question of course.
Ha, owned by the comment system!
.
Would be really great if all NEX FF lenses had the same aperture ring and mechanical focus ring. Unfortunately it will never come true
Useless comparison, since the 35mm ƒ/2.0 is partially inside the body, while the interchangeable ƒ/2.8 is slower anyway but I really like the near pancake size.
Hopefully the RX10 has a 16-56mm f/4 lens.
F4?? I don’t know if I should prefer constant F4 or variable F3.5-4.5. I think F4 lenses are intentionally crippled(aperturely) at the wide end to protect 2.8 lenses sales. It’s supposed to be f2.8-4. But that may not be the case, because f2.8 lenses can be made f1.8-2.8 or something. Constant aperture zoom doesn’t not exist, theoretically. Max aperture at the long end will always be slower.
Why does everybody always talk about and compare the NEX system and lenses to Leica?
It’s the only FF mirrorless system.
I use my NEX-VG900 as a FF mirrorless camera to shoot jpeg/RAW stills with shutter speeds from 30-1/8000 sec with my PK mount lenses. I also use the Sony HVL-F60M flash with it.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8389/8682402346_f4b342c72b_k.jpg
They are the only small-sized 135 systems. There used to be several 135 compact cams in the analog era, but “technology” hasn’t really got there with digital – yet. Let’s hope Sony can change this, and let’s hope they build a competent camera, not just a sensor + some slick junk. If not, the usual C&N will see to it, no worries.
Because Sony is entering the world of Leica, prestigious and expensive. Or just expensive. It’s for you to decide.
E-Mount = Electronic Mount
Wich means you will never see mechanical controls like fokus or aperature on E-Mount lens.
You will also never see IBIS on E-Mount.
I’m fairly certain that’s correct. But you can always mount any mechanical-only lens on NEX. It’s a flexible system.
The reason it’s 2.8 is so that they can later sell an f2.
True. It’s good to have a choice. Not everybody needs the fastest.
Exactly. People here complain and think Sony will never ever release a faster 35mm. This is a pancake lens that will most probably come in a kit package. Plus, have you ever tried the ZM C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8 on a FF Leica M? If not, try it. It’s absolutely fantastic.
All lenses these days should be at f/2 or f/1.4 max aperture – there should be no excuse. If you want a good pancake lens, I reiterate that you can purchase a canon 40mm f/2.8 STM lens for $150 and it is pretty much as sharp as lenses get. An expensive f/2.8 pancake is ridiculous. The canon 35mm f/2 is ultra sharp wide open and has built-in image stabilization for $600. Larger aperture means more light gathering which means that your camera won’t need to have as high an ISO sensitivity to take street photography pictures. Even my iphone has an f/2.4 lens and the new iphone 5S has f/2.2, because it means sharper images in low lighting.
The Canon 40mm sits on a camera with a flange distance almost three times that of the Sony NEX. No wonder they can make a pancake out of that. Point is that this 35mm 2.8 Zeiss sitting on a FF NEX will be significantly smaller and lighter than the 40mm 2.8 on a Canon 6D for example.
For every stop a lens gets significantly larger and heavier. For street photography I would prefer this 120 grams Zeiss 35mm FF 2.8 lens over say a significantly more expensive and heavy lens being one stop faster.
there’s also small and light 35/2 AF-D Nikkor lens, I’m not saying it’s in the same class like this Zeiss rather pointing out that it’s doable to make small and light 35/2 lens.
The Nikkor is only a hair smaller than the A mount Minolta 35mm f/2(RS).
The nikkor is around 80% heavier (205 grams) and a cm longer. That is a significant difference. On top of that it sits on 4-5 cm flange distance. There is no comparison in my view.
The Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8 is the same weight as the Oly 17mm 1.8 m43 lens(!) Want a faster 35mm? Get the RX1 for now 🙂
dude, it’s also lens for SLR therefore it’s larger and heavier -> you can’t omit that fact, but as you can see it can be done. this is just rather strange decision on Sony/Zeiss part to release FF body with rather slow and overpriced lens with Zeiss badge on it. It’s the same like Tuoit lenses they released for both X and E mount -> how many Fuji shooters replaced their 35mm lens for Zeiss => none, zero, nothing, square root of nothing. Sony knows they can do this because there are not many good Sony lenses out there so they slap Zeiss logo on a lens which doesn’t have much to do with Carl Zeiss lenses of past years -> marketing BS
Megatron, you’re comparing an iphone f/2.2 lens with the Full Frame f/2.8 lens. Clearly you’ll get better performance out of the iphone lens so full frame is not for you.
I shoot leica FF and i love my iphone camera- doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. But 2.8 is silly. Micro 4/3 pancakes are all faster than this potential zeiss.
The only M43 lenses that can even compare to ff 35 f/2.8 have to be at least f/1.4. The only lens that I know that beats the ff 35 f/2.8 is the voightlander 17.5 f/0.95 which is about equal to ff 35mm f/2.0. And guess what – it’s 540 grams, 3.15″ long, costs about $120 and has no autofocus. How is that better than what FF 35mm f/2.8?
I mean costs about $1200
I can’t remember last time I had the need for f/1.4.
I shoot at f/4 – f/8 most of the time.
I want a small good prime to keep the system small, so I am happy 🙂
Sometimes I go all the way to f2, but that’s because my camera’s high ISO performance is not that great. For RX-1 high ISO performance, I think f2.8 is already fast enough.
2.8 lame … !
No one seemed to find the 24mm f/1.8 for aps-c lame and the fact that the 35mm is going to be smaller than the aps-c equivalent makes it pretty awesome.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f2-asph.htm …no comment
Nex, Nex, Nex while the Alpha faithful sit on the sidelines and wait for good news (I feel like a sucker for buying the 77).
Oh gosh, andrea! Thisnpoor fellow’s camera doesn’t take pictures anymore because there are no alpha rumours in SAR.
Enjoy your a77 – it is an awesome camera.
OMG! Do people really pay that much for a 35mm lens?!?!
If making fast, cheap, small, high quality, optically stellar lenses for full-frame digital mirrorless systems is so easy, why isn’t anyone doing it?
because there is only one mirrorless full frame camera on the market and it is from Leica and Leica does make small fast lenses for it
What’s with the new web site without ads?
Loads much faster!
35/2.8+nex-ff should give the same picture as nex-6+24/1.8, not overly attractive unless the 35/2.8 would cost almost the same as the 24/1.8, unless its Weather Sealed…then i’d save up for the big guy
2.8?! What is the point? Why not just get the nex7 or successor with the 24mm 1.8. Fuji 1.4?
And all of you defending the F stop, have you forgotten why you getting FF or just logically challenged? Shallow DOF and Speed are the only main benefits of FF. At 2.8 you not getting either one. What is this BS about small size? Isn’t a small FF 2.8 lens is basically the same as a fast small crop lens. Wait is it because sony want us RX1 users to stay happy? …Well done. Nex ff, small slow FF. Rx line, fast fixed ff lenses. Nex, fast small crop….okay I’m getting it.
You aren’t getting it. For someone claiming that others are “logically challenged”, you seem to be very challenged yourself.
Bla bla bla name calling? thanks for the worthless response.
If you call that “name calling” I would remind you you did it first, lol.
x-a1 + fuji 23mm 1.4 = more shallow dof and two more stops of lights at less than half the price of the ff nex body.
RX100, 3.6 zooms that fits in your pocket for the same price!
You may mock him, but Donsantos has an excellent point. If we agree that the advantages of FF sensors are (potential) resolution, DOF control, and noise performance, then putting a 35mm f2.8 lens in front of it nulls two of these advantages in comparison to a Fuji + 23mm f1.4 for example. Remains only the resolution advantage. Whether that’s worth $2000 more than the Fuji or not obviously remains up to you. That’s why a f2 lens, even slightly bigger, would have made more sense as it doesn’t compromise as much the interest to go for a FF camera while still likely remaining small enough to give sense to a mirror less FF camera (in comparison to FF DSLRs).
I’d assume you were replying to me. Equivalence is not as simple as your example, but given that I really have no desire to go into that, I’d say that I agree. The problem with his and your point and even the comment above is that you assume that there will be no other lenses whatsoever for that rumored NEX-FF.
The whole issue is that cross-format comparisons are already tricky by themselves and then top of that, you limit it to one lens and one body, and assume that’s the whole story.
And one more thing. Donsantos conveniently compared the x-a1 + fuji 23mm 1.4 to the price of the NEX-FF to make his point, yet said price is only a rumor. And then, if we are relying on rumors, why not include that the NEX-FF will quite probably be a much better camera than the X-A1.
You’re right indeed that we’re considering one lens. But that’s the point : we’re criticising the lens, not the system as a whole ! The presence of a (slightly too long) 55mm f1.8 demonstrates that the FF NEX will have a selection of primes which aperture makes more sense for it to maximise the competitive advantage of FF sensors. Unfortunately that won’t be the case for quite a long time for 35mm lenses as I don’t see Sony quickly releasing a faster 35mm lens soon after releasing this one.
But here is my point. I like this lens and it makes sense to me (both from a photography and business perspectives) – compact and I imagine with great IQ. I understand that it might not be everyone’s choice, but many here are dissing it like it is some kind of useless crap or a failure for Sony. That is what I don’t understand.
Although, admittedly I do have some trouble with that obsession for fast lenses. I am really wondering what these people are taking photos of.
If the RX1 is anything to go by it’s unlikely to be a crappy lens indeed. It’s just that, once again in terms of lens-lineup, Sony could have done something that made more sense, but didn’t. On this specific system I too probably wouldn’t have wanted a 35mm f1.4, it would likely be too big to make sense in comparison to DSLRs. But f2 would have been the sweet spot, the one that would have maximised the advantage of a FF sensor over smaller ones, while retaining a size small enough to keep a size advantage over FF DSLRs.
Fast lenses have their uses. That they may be used for no interesting purposes isn’t their own fault, but the photographer’s.
Made more sense to whom and why? See, it’s a tricky question as to where to stop it – 1.4 or 1.8? Or 2 or 2.8? There isn’t a real universal sweet spot.
As to fast lenses and interesting purposes and the photographer’s fault, here’s the issue on its other side – some photographers use fast lenses to a fault. So, yes, I am curious, now that we have amazing sensors, why do we need lenses as fast as those we had with film? In how many scenarios would we need those? Imho, a very few.
I believe that what I said should make sense for quite a lot of us : if you put a 2.8 lens over a FF sensor, you’re already negating several of its advantages over an APS-C sensor with a brighter lens. So you’re loosing part of its competitive advantage. I think the number of reactions about its aperture should tell that I’m not the only one thinking that it’s too slow.
This 35mm alone probably won’t prevent the system as a whole to be successful (Sony knows plenty of other ways to shoot themselves in the foot, but we’ll see about that when the camera’s released), but I wouldn’t be surprised in a few years time to see a brighter 35mm released, just like what happened for example regarding Olympus’ 17mm lenses on m43.
And what I said will also make sense for a lot of others. And this is also in the comments.
“This 35mm alone probably won’t prevent the system as a whole to be successful”
Precisely my main point. This lens will also be a good choice for many.
“Sony knows plenty of other ways to shoot themselves in the foot.”
Ha, tell me about it!
“I wouldn’t be surprised in a few years time to see a brighter 35mm released,”
And that is precisely part of that main point above. Right now the whole discussion is based off of the assumption that this will be the only 35mm lens.
As to losing FF benefits because of the smaller aperture, yes, but only some of them. It is a simple trade-off.
MTLAB, as you can see, it is really not a clear cut discussion. This is the reason for my reply above with the RX100 as an example. Not to mock anyone, but to show that these comparisons are tricky.
Vlad, you’re saying you’re “wondering what these people are taking pictures of” that they need a faster than f/2.8 lens. But I might as well ask, what are these people taking pictures of, that they require a full frame? And why stop at a 35 mm sensor, as opposed to a 24 mm sensor?
It’s exactly the same question. But let’s not talk about what people “need”. The point here is that 35 mm f/2.8 on FF is for most purposes equivalent to 24 mm f/1.8 on APS-C, which is a solution you can already have for less than $2000.
@skeptical My “wondering” was simply that, wondering, and outside of the points I made.
“The point here is that 35 mm f/2.8 on FF is for most purposes equivalent to 24 mm f/1.8 on APS-C, which is a solution you can already have for less than $2000.”
> I already addressed that, I believe.
i don’t care for “slow” ff-e-mount-lenses. when i sold my M8 because of the IR-issue and the poor image quality i got a nex 5 and used it with a 2/35 ZM-biogon and a 2/28 ultron. sever years later i bought a M9 but sold it 6 mounts again, because i was disappointed by focus shift whit my 1,5/50 sonnar and got a nex 6. i’m satisfied with the EVF, the flipsy display and the focus magnification. i also tried the RX1 – the files are stunning but i need/want/wish a build-in EVF and a folding display.
at the time i use my nex 6 with lens turbo with a old AF 2,8/28 and 1,8/50 non-D and it’s a joy to use. if there will be a FF-nex soon leica will be history for me and i’ll use it with my zeiss-ZM lenses – af is nice to have but not really important for me.
If you sell the M8 for pour image quality and the M9 because of the focusshift from the ZM 50/1.5 and are happy now with the nex 6, I don’t think a leica was something for you in the first place and I wonder why you decided to buy into leica.
or not check that Zeiss on another body -> the RF might have needed adjustment
i think it is the difference between film and digital. i like my M6 very much an i use it since a very long time.
Do you also experience focus shift with your Sonnar on M6? Because if not maybe your M9’s RF needed calibration.
no, not that much. i think one reason is the grain, the other reason for me is that the border between sharp and unsharp zone on film is softer than on a sensor. the sonnars focus shift is well known … to avoid you have to stop down at 2.8 (and get a very slow lens : ) or you can zeiss optimize it for 1.5. the better way i think is to use it with an evf … and you will see what get.
the same is with the voigtländer 1.4/35 nokton … i like it for film very much … but not with an M8/9 wide open.
Interesting, maybe my Plannar 50 and Voigtlander 50 Nokton have also some sort of problem I can’t see on film (also M6). I don’t have a digital Leica and tried them only on Fuji X-Pro1, so using EVF. Would be shame to find out on digital M though, considering the price of it.
as far as i know, there is no focus shift with the ZM 50 planar, but i don’t know nothing about the voigtländer 50 nokton. i think the EVF is a great advantage for using those fast lenses.
The 50 sonnar does have (very noticeable) focus shift. You can even have the lens calibrated by zeiss to be correct at f/1.5 (standard its f/2.8).
It has nothing to do with the M9’s rangefinder needing calibration. Its something specific for the lens. With the M6 the problem is there as well, but less noticeable because a sensor will show much more errors.
Same with the 35/1.4 nokton. Really nice lens but its flaws really show on a digital camera. I sold mine and replaced it with the ZM 35/2.8 (stunning lens) and the 35 cron ASPH.
There is a way to work around the focus shift but it needs a lot of practice. Focusing a little behind the object when the lens is calibrated at f/2.8 or leaning forward can be enough to hit the focus.
Its more easy to have the lens calibrated by Zeiss for f/1.5 and lean back when using it at f/2 to f/4. This because there is more room for error (bigger dept of field).
Oh, the 50 planar has no focus shift at all and is a real joy to use on the M9. I have no experience with the voightlander.
the nex is a really compact camera, great for travel and everyday use. i like it’s size and operability. the quality with ZM lenses is great.