35mm f/2 AF compact lens- when if ever?

[psartman]

When will Sony (or a respectable 3rd party) release such a lens? For many photographers this is the bedrock lens of a system meant to be compact and stealthy for travel and street shooting. I'm currently a Fuji X user but on the edge of switching to an A7R2. I just tested one with a 24-70 f/4 zoom  (borrowed from the school where I teach) on an extended photo road trip, and am really pleased by the quality of the files. I'm going to make test prints soon of 24X30 and larger. But it's hard to make the jump when comparing the Sony lens line to Fuji's beautiful compact prime lenses. All I'm asking for is the one basic lens- the 35mm f/2 (not the relatively large and heavy manual focus Zeiss one.)

[Username]

While not exotically expensive, a 35/2.0 is in the 

"extra cost" design/build catagory. For a lens that 

costs a bit extra, Sony is understandably reticent 

to go the compact route cuz Sony filter packs are 

thicker than others. To avoiding a steep projection 

angle of the imaging beams toward the corner of 

the frame means using retrofocus lens designs.  

   

Fuji lenses "equivalent to" 35/2.0 can seem to be 

more compact designs cuz they don't hafta cover 

24x36mm and cuz Fuji's APSC bodies are almost 

as large as Sony's FF bodies. Also Fuji's sensor 

pack is thinner, allowing a less retrofocused lens.  

   

FWIW, I'm using Nikon and Maxxum 35/2.0 on an 

a7-II, via Metabones and Sony converters. Altho

not pancake compacts, their results are worth the

"baggage". I have 3 pancake lenses, and all 3 are

excellent imagers, but all 3 are for SLRs, meaning

that these same optics would NOT be pancakes if

remounted [or converted] for use on shallow body

live view bodiess. IOW, no steep projection angles. 

   

The solution, acoarst, is a collapsible AF 35/2.0 at

even more extra cost. Don't hold your breath :-(    

   

In the time you could waste waiting for a lens that 

will never arrive, you can save up for the Zeiss 2.8 

which, by all reports, is actually worth the price if 

you can scrape it together. 35/2.0 is a traditional 

spec, that dates from the days of ISO 40 "speed" 

emulsions. Nothing wrong with 35/2.8 these days. 

[psartman]

Thanks for your response. I'm aware that a full frame lens will be larger than an APS-C (fuji) lens of the same coverage. I'm not sure what you mean by "thicker filter pack", is this in reference to Fuji's lack of a Bayer filter? Sony doesn't seem averse to producing exotic high speed glass (24-70 f/2.8 for example), I would think a 35mm f/2 would be fairly conservative in comparison. I think of the 35mm f/2 Leitz Summicron as an example of what can be done for quality and compact size at full frame. No autofocus you say? Fuji is able to produce compact autofocus lenses which, while granted for a different format, do not involve huge housings for AF mechanisms. Everything else about the Sony A7R2 is so right in terms of size, weight, file quality, finish and handling, it's just curious that they have not produced this classic lens that has been the go-to for many of the great photojournalist and documentary photographers.

"Saving up" is not the issue, I'd be willing to pay $1000+ for such a lens. The problem I have with the Zeiss is that it Its still large for the speed, and not autofocus.

I'm curious, which 3 pancake lenses are you using?

While not exotically expensive, a 35/2.0 is in the 

"extra cost" design/build catagory. For a lens that 

costs a bit extra, Sony is understandably reticent 

to go the compact route cuz Sony filter packs are 

thicker than others. To avoiding a steep projection 

angle of the imaging beams toward the corner of 

the frame means using retrofocus lens designs.  

   

Fuji lenses "equivalent to" 35/2.0 can seem to be 

more compact designs cuz they don't hafta cover 

24x36mm and cuz Fuji's APSC bodies are almost 

as large as Sony's FF bodies. Also Fuji's sensor 

pack is thinner, allowing a less retrofocused lens.  

   

FWIW, I'm using Nikon and Maxxum 35/2.0 on an 

a7-II, via Metabones and Sony converters. Altho

not pancake compacts, their results are worth the

"baggage". I have 3 pancake lenses, and all 3 are

excellent imagers, but all 3 are for SLRs, meaning

that these same optics would NOT be pancakes if

remounted [or converted] for use on shallow body

live view bodiess. IOW, no steep projection angles. 

   

The solution, acoarst, is a collapsible AF 35/2.0 at

even more extra cost. Don't hold your breath :-(    

   

In the time you could waste waiting for a lens that 

will never arrive, you can save up for the Zeiss 2.8 

which, by all reports, is actually worth the price if 

you can scrape it together. 35/2.0 is a traditional 

spec, that dates from the days of ISO 40 "speed" 

emulsions. Nothing wrong with 35/2.8 these days. 

[psartman]

I just looked at the thread 35mm f2 (or f2.8) legacy lens recomendation that has Username's contribution. It seems the Canon 40mm f2/8 EF pancake with a high quality adapter (Metabones or Novaflex?) would be a fairly compact AF option, and the Rokkor-M 40mm f/2 with M to E adapter would be fast and compact, but no AF (unless I consider the crazy Techart Pro M to E AF adapter https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1233758-REG/techart_pro_talmea7_leica_m_lens_to.html Anyone here try that?

[tinplater]

In my opinion the Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is an exceptional lens...tiny and extremely sharp with the Zeiss "look".  I leave it on my A7RII (and also A6000) much of the time.  I don't miss the 2.0 aperture since most of the time I use it for just day to day photography or landscapes. 

[Username]

Thanks for your response. I'm aware that a full frame lens will be larger than an APS-C (fuji) lens of the same coverage. I'm not sure what you mean by "thicker filter pack", is this in reference to Fuji's lack of a Bayer filter? Sony doesn't seem averse to producing exotic high speed glass (24-70 f/2.8 for example), I would think a 35mm f/2 would be fairly conservative in comparison. I think of the 35mm f/2 Leitz Summicron as an example of what can be done for quality and compact size at full frame. No autofocus you say? Fuji is able to produce compact autofocus lenses which, while granted for a different format, do not involve huge housings for AF mechanisms. Everything else about the Sony A7R2 is so right in terms of size, weight, file quality, finish and handling, it's just curious that they have not produced this classic lens that has been the go-to for many of the great photojournalist and documentary photographers.

"Saving up" is not the issue, I'd be willing to pay $1000+ for such a lens. The problem I have with the Zeiss is that it Its still large for the speed, and not autofocus.

I'm curious, which 3 pancake lenses are you using?

    

A thicker filter pack means total amount of glass atop the actual photo-sensor 

is thicker. It varys brand to brand. Sony has a thick one, possibly the thickest.  

Fujis do not "lack" a Bayer filter. They use an equivalent filter, an X-trans filter, 

same device but with different pattern of color distribution. I noticed today, at 

a retail store, that the Fuji 25/1.7 [35mm eqiv] is longer than the 35/2.0 [50mm 

equiv]. This would indicate that the 25/1.7 is retrofocus. Were these 2 lenses 

been built for a non-SLR film camera, the 25 would be what you call "classic" 

and therefor physically shorter than the 35. 

   

You mention the Summicron and mention the idea of classic designs, both as 

desirably compact. These are film lenses. Their projection distances are short. 

Digital cameras "prefer" retrofocus lenses [aka SLR lenses], not to allow room  

for an SLR mirror but to reduce the projection angles off-axis. The Summicron

is a red herring as a reference for physical form. It's the wrong optical type.  

   

Digital M-Leicas have a special micro-lens array in their filter pack, which is

to accommodate the Summicrons. The micro-lenses are all pointed straight 

ahead in other filter packs but in an M-Leica they're aimed toward the center 

to accommodate the projection angle of lenses like the 35mm Summicron. 

 

   

My "pancakes" are 24/2.8 and 40/2.8 on EOS SLRs, and the 50/1.8 Nikkor  

SLR lens which was built both semi-compact and "pancake" style. I have the 

latter. They're "pancakes" on SLRs, but the mount converter adds at least an 

inch to the in-use length of these lenses on an E-mount camera. These are 

all long enuf FLs to avoid unfortunate off-axis projection angles without need 

of retrofocus design. But shave off just a few mm of FL these lenses would 

be either [A] problematic compact wide angles, or retrofocus, thus larger. 

    

Get the 35/2.8 Zeiss-Sony. It was built just for you, even tho other influences 

are leading you astray. For example [in your own words]:  

   

" it's just curious that they have not produced this classic lens that has been the

go-to for many of the great photojournalist and documentary photographers "     

  

You are referring to now-obsolete tools that were favored by a now-obsolete 

class of photographers. Few of those tools remain viable, and the audience 

for further output from that class of photographers is rapidly evaporating. You

are, acoarst, entitled to persist in rowing against the tide. It's good exercise :-)  

[psartman]

Thanks for this information. Yes, I forgot that Fuji has its own X-Trans filter instead of the Bayer. I am not aware of a 25mm f/1.7 fuji lens, you're probably referring to the 23mm in both f/2 and f/1.4 versions. I appreciate your explanation of the advantages of retro focus design in wide angle for digital sensors. I take some issue with your description of this classic focal length and speed of lens as "obsolete tools" for a "now obsolete class of photographers." Obviously all the major manufacturers other than Sony disagree, because they all make versions of this lens that are quite popular. I was mistaken in thinking the SZ 35mm f/2.8 was manual focus, yes perhaps this is a good choice for my needs. It's true, of course, that high-ISO capabilities of these cameras make large aperture lenses less important. And I have no interest in the look of good "bokeh" (kind of hate that word), I really just resist the idea of paying a premium for a 2.8 35mm lens when Sony/Zeiss DOES make fast prime lens in a variety of focal lengths. They are just HUGE (the 35mm f/1.4? Oh please..), negating the wonderful advantages of this compact camera.

    

A thicker filter pack means total amount of glass atop the actual photo-sensor 

is thicker. It varys brand to brand. Sony has a thick one, possibly the thickest.  

Fujis do not "lack" a Bayer filter. They use an equivalent filter, an X-trans filter, 

same device but with different pattern of color distribution. I noticed today, at 

a retail store, that the Fuji 25/1.7 [35mm eqiv] is longer than the 35/2.0 [50mm 

equiv]. This would indicate that the 25/1.7 is retrofocus. Were these 2 lenses 

been built for a non-SLR film camera, the 25 would be what you call "classic" 

and therefor physically shorter than the 35. 

   

You mention the Summicron and mention the idea of classic designs, both as 

desirably compact. These are film lenses. Their projection distances are short. 

Digital cameras "prefer" retrofocus lenses [aka SLR lenses], not to allow room  

for an SLR mirror but to reduce the projection angles off-axis. The Summicron

is a red herring as a reference for physical form. It's the wrong optical type.  

   

Digital M-Leicas have a special micro-lens array in their filter pack, which is

to accommodate the Summicrons. The micro-lenses are all pointed straight 

ahead in other filter packs but in an M-Leica they're aimed toward the center 

to accommodate the projection angle of lenses like the 35mm Summicron. 

 

   

My "pancakes" are 24/2.8 and 40/2.8 on EOS SLRs, and the 50/1.8 Nikkor  

SLR lens which was built both semi-compact and "pancake" style. I have the 

latter. They're "pancakes" on SLRs, but the mount converter adds at least an 

inch to the in-use length of these lenses on an E-mount camera. These are 

all long enuf FLs to avoid unfortunate off-axis projection angles without need 

of retrofocus design. But shave off just a few mm of FL these lenses would 

be either [A] problematic compact wide angles, or retrofocus, thus larger. 

    

Get the 35/2.8 Zeiss-Sony. It was built just for you, even tho other influences 

are leading you astray. For example [in your own words]:  

   

" it's just curious that they have not produced this classic lens that has been the

go-to for many of the great photojournalist and documentary photographers "     

  

You are referring to now-obsolete tools that were favored by a now-obsolete 

class of photographers. Few of those tools remain viable, and the audience 

for further output from that class of photographers is rapidly evaporating. You

are, acoarst, entitled to persist in rowing against the tide. It's good exercise :-)  

[darkinners]

They already have.

It's called RX1/RX1r/RX1R II

When you buy the lens, Sony will give you a free body.

[Username]

......... And I have no interest in the look of

good "bokeh" (kind of hate that word),.........

  

Apparently, it's just thee & mee 

against the world ... bokeh-wise. 

  

I refer to the phenomenon as the 

"Bokeh Cult".   

   

I do agree it's too easy to feel a 

resentment toward the company 

for their pricing a 35/2.8 ... a very 

modest spec ... as if it was some

kind of exotic optic :-(  Altho not  

exactly the item you're seeking, I 

suspect that the price of the SZ 

35/2.8 is what sells a lotta Sigma 

30/2.8 compacts.   

    

----------------------------------------   

   

As to my remark about Obsolete 

Tools for Obsolete Practitioners, 

I stand by it. No prejudice there, 

just honest evaluation including 

self evaluation. I've had far more 

versions of that tool than prolly 

anyone you'll ever encounter ... 

and I'm lusting after one more, 

altho it's a $600 ticket ... not very 

palatable for a new lens to fit my 

least-useful-to-me lens mount [ I 

use 4 different mounts] ... it's just 

my knee-jerk response, cuz I am 

one of the obsolete practioners !   

   

Yup, 4 different mounts. So it's

perfickly normil that I have a few 

too many 35/2.0 lenses :-)  

 

--------------------------------------------  

   

FWIW, this is typical of what this

OP loves about using his OT:  

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  

   

Nice figure-ground separation at 

about f/8 ... with no cultish bokeh !

   

   

  

`

[psartman]

I've given up on fighting the bokeh thing. My students insist on shooting everything wide open with their kit zoom lenses because it looks "cool." The on-line photo-gear-nerd (of which I guess I am one, because, well, here I am) obsession with the quality of out-of-focus circles has always seemed odd to me. I guess it's an aesthetic choice, but I'd rather fill my compositions with interesting stuff than blurry circles.

I might be able to give you some competition for the number of 35-40 mm lenses owned (I've been doing this a long time), except never with more than one mount at a time (well two a long time ago- Leica and Nikon, which I used together.) I think it's pretty ridiculous to define a particular focal length as an "obsolete tool", it's only a particular field of view that photographers, new and old, can use in many different ways to make images.  It's only obsolete if one is using it to ape a particular long-ago style.

----------------------------------------------

Apparently, it's just thee & mee 

against the world ... bokeh-wise. 

  

I refer to the phenomenon as the 

"Bokeh Cult".      

   

Yup, 4 different mounts. So it's

perfickly normil that I have a few 

too many 35/2.0 lenses :-)  

   

   

  

`

[tinplater]

Username referred to Sigma 30mm, I have the 19mm and it is a delightful little lens but not FF and the build quality and finish is nothing like the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 (in fact it "rattles" with moving internal parts which I find annoying).  The Zeiss is almost ridiculously tiny, both in size and weight, producing excellent images and I can't fault it on either my A6000 or A7rII

[Username]

Looks like I should clarify something ....  

 

 

I've given up on fighting the bokeh thing. My students insist on shooting

everything wide open with their kit zoom lenses because it looks "cool." The

on-line photo-gear-nerd (of which I guess I am one, because, well, here I am)

obsession with the quality of out-of-focus circles has always seemed odd to

me. I guess it's an aesthetic choice, but I'd rather fill my compositions with

interesting stuff than blurry circles.  

 

I might be able to give you some competition for the number of 35-40 mm

lenses owned (I've been doing this a long time), except never with more than

one mount at a time (well two a long time ago- Leica and Nikon, which I used

together.) I think it's pretty ridiculous to define a particular focal length as an

"obsolete tool", it's only a particular field of view that photographers, new and

old, can use in many different ways to make images.  It's only obsolete if one

is using it to ape a particular long-ago style.

----------------------------------------------

    

    

The quote boxes are screwed up [above] so actually PSARTMAN said:  

  

pretty ridiculous to define a particular focal length as an "obsolete tool"   

     

[Everything above is psartman, and tho I mostly tend to agree, the words are his.]    

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

   

[OK. Now below is Username's words]

  

On that situation I agree. To be extra clear, what I referred to as an "obsolete tool" 

is the FAST 35mm, the f/2.0 or even f/1.4 versions. Since these derive from times 

when film speed was about ISO 40, and began to perform "miracles" later when 

film speed of 400 [note the extra zero] became common, it's lens SPEED that I'm   

referring to as obsolete !   

  

And I stand by that. Sensor speeds are rising faster than film speeds rose back in 

film era, leaving only "bokeh" as an excuse for needing a faster 35mm than f/2.8,  

and "bokeh" is just photo industry marketing BS. So, to be perficklee clear, I never 

tried to refer to a FL or FoV as obsolete. I only meant that the optical descendants

of the iconic 35mm Summicron [and Summilux] have had their day ... a fine day it 

was, too ... but it's over. 

  

FWIW, the 35 Summicron was an RF lens, and most of the later 35/2.0 were SLR 

lenses, back when a fast lens was necessary to get quick and accurate focus on 

the SLR screens of the time. With the typical 10X focus magnifier in use today, that  

rationale for lens speed is also obsolete. 

  

EF 40/2.8 [pancake], wide open .... and just what I once-upon-time

needed a 35/2.0 or 35/1.4 to accomplish:   

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

   

    

   

  

`

[psartman]

Sorry about the quote screw up. And thanks for the thoughtful and right-on response.

 

Looks like I should clarify something ....  

 

    

The quote boxes are screwed up [above] so actually PSARTMAN said:  

  

pretty ridiculous to define a particular focal length as an "obsolete tool"   

     

[Everything above is psartman, and tho I mostly tend to agree, the words are his.]    

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

   

[OK. Now below is Username's words]

  

On that situation I agree. To be extra clear, what I referred to as an "obsolete tool" 

is the FAST 35mm, the f/2.0 or even f/1.4 versions. Since these derive from times 

when film speed was about ISO 40, and began to perform "miracles" later when 

film speed of 400 [note the extra zero] became common, it's lens SPEED that I'm   

referring to as obsolete !   

  

And I stand by that. Sensor speeds are rising faster than film speeds rose back in 

film era, leaving only "bokeh" as an excuse for needing a faster 35mm than f/2.8,  

and "bokeh" is just photo industry marketing BS. So, to be perficklee clear, I never 

tried to refer to a FL or FoV as obsolete. I only meant that the optical descendants

of the iconic 35mm Summicron [and Summilux] have had their day ... a fine day it 

was, too ... but it's over. 

  

FWIW, the 35 Summicron was an RF lens, and most of the later 35/2.0 were SLR 

lenses, back when a fast lens was necessary to get quick and accurate focus on 

the SLR screens of the time. With the typical 10X focus magnifier in use today, that  

rationale for lens speed is also obsolete. 

  

EF 40/2.8 [pancake], wide open .... and just what I once-upon-time

needed a 35/2.0 or 35/1.4 to accomplish:   

  

Kristof_8558 E1 GS WS.jpg    

    

   

  

`

[x_holger]

I use the Canon EF 2.0/35 IS USM on my A7 II with an EF->E electronic adapter. This combination is lightweight but not really compact.

 

AF is working fine and the IQ is really good.

 

The Canon 2.0/35 IS USM is rather inexpensive around 420 Euro after Canon rebate (summer special ...)

 

Another good choice is the Voigtlander VM Heliar 2.8/40 that is really compact (but not light, all metal and glass) plus the Voigtlander VM-E helicoid adapter or the TechArt Pro Leica M to Sony E AF adapter that even gives you AF with most Leica M mount lenses. The Heliar has no focus helicoid on its own so it needs the VM-E helicoid adapter or the TechArt Pro.

[thefsb]

Thanks "Username" for the explanations. I had also been hoping for a pancake in the normal to 35 range but had been persuaded that the T* 2,8/35 ZA is the way to go. Now I have a much better understanding of the technical constraints and can say that I'm convinced.

[thefsb]

You "refer to the phenomenon as the "Bokeh Cult". I have a theory about this.

 

In short, I think obsessing over the aesthetic qualities of blur is an unconscious excuse/motive for GAS. Manufacturers want to sell new expensive products. Consumers desire these products. (I sure do.) But for many people, simply fulfilling their desire not adequate justification, they need practical reasons. But the practical reasons don't always need to be real or may be exaggerated in significance. Bokeh can conveniently step in to provide the required practical reason.

 

In psychoanalytic terms, Bokeh is agalma—the object of desire is not really superior blur but a new lens.

 

I don't mean to imply that there are no valid uses for shallow DOF. What I mean is that there's money to be made from developing this cult.

[Username]

You "refer to the phenomenon as the "Bokeh Cult". I have a theory about this.

 

In short, I think obsessing over the aesthetic qualities of blur is an unconscious excuse/motive

for GAS. Manufacturers want to sell new expensive products. Consumers desire these products.

(I sure do.) But for many people, simply fulfilling their desire not adequate justification, they need

practical reasons. But the practical reasons don't always need to be real or may be exaggerated

in significance. Bokeh can conveniently step in to provide the required practical reason.

 

.....  ........ ... .... ..... ... ....... ... ... .. .....

     

+1    

   

When I called bokeh "marketing BS" that was shorthand. If I had spelled it out 

in some detail, you words and mine would be 90% [or more] fully the same :-) 

[Username]

Psartman expressed, in his own words, something that I greatly agree

with, especially as concerns his students]. He wrote:  

    

I've given up on fighting the bokeh thing. My students insist on shooting

everything wide open with their kit zoom lenses because it looks "cool." The

on-line photo-gear-nerd (of which I guess I am one, because, well, here I am)

obsession with the quality of out-of-focus circles has always seemed odd to

me. I guess it's an aesthetic choice, but I'd rather fill my compositions with

interesting stuff than blurry circles.  

  

I gave that some thought, and have this suggestion about teaching 

students that there's better ways to deal with backgrounds, rather 

than just eliminating them.   

  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Message to Psartman, and TWIMC]:    

    

Thinking about your bokehphilic students, I have a "vision", altho it's 

kinda too far into this semester to try anything like it. So ..... 

   

Teacher asks the class if they know how to eliminate a busy background. 

According to you, plenty of them will shoot wide open and accomplish 

this. For those student not knowing this trick, team them up, or pair them 

up, with the bokeh-wise students to learn it. 

  

Teacher assigns all students to demonstrate their ability at blowing out 

backgrounds via minimizing DoF. This should show a 100% success rate,

which [ this is important ! ] allows teacher to declare that ....

  

A. This technique is now learned and known, and .... 

B. That we are here to learn new things, so .... 

C. We are DONE, all finished, obliterating backgrounds this semester. 

   

Moving on, the next assignment, which will take all semester and 

even longer cuz the endeavor never ends, is "making the background 

work for the subject/image/idea". This is not to consume all your class 

time, but is to be INCLUDED in all class work and assignments, which 

is quite reasonable, since unlike simply "dialing away" backgrounds, 

actually USING backgrounds is a never-ending concern, and a semester 

is a rather limited time span. 

   

It's not as if this dictates to students how they will address backgrounds. 

Students are not instructed that Big Bokeh is bad or wrong. Students are, 

however forbidden to use it during the semester on the basis that "we are 

all here to learn, and Big Bokeh took only 30 minutes to learn ... but

using backgrounds productively takes at least a few months ... and

usually many years ... to become a constructive habit" :-)   

     

YMMV ... as typically happens when dealing with humans. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

One stop is not a major issue, although I quite like the 35/1.4 format.

 

At 35mm you'll never get super creamy bokeh, so it's just a matter of choosing the style of bokeh that suits you.

 

On the subject of bokeh, the 1970's was the golden era of bokeh because films were still relatively slow while lenses were getting sharper and faster. Some great accidental examples of bokeh, while people were just trying to get the exposures right.

[Username]

......... ... ........ ......... ......... ..... ................... ... ...

On the subject of bokeh, the 1970's was the golden era of bokeh

because films were still relatively slow while lenses were getting

sharper and faster. Some great accidental examples of bokeh,

while people were just trying to get the exposures right.

   

How very true ... and altho not every such image was at 

full open maximum aperture [where the pupil is acoarst 

always round] there was no complaint, denigration, or 

gnashing of teeth concerning straight, or nearly straight,  

iris blades, or about the low number of blades. Beautiful

polygons sing and dance in the background of most of  

those images ... unless photons were so scarce as to

require using the maximum aperture.  

   

Another feature of images from that era is really great

sun stars :-)  Today, marketing teams encourage you to

shun the type of iris that makes "vintage" sun stars :-(  

[Username]

What gets lost in all the current BS about "bokeh" is 

the very real and useful aspects of how lens design 

sculpts the not-in-focus image details, especially at

the edges. Not the edges of the frame but the edge 

qualities of all things withing the frame. 

 

The phrase "not-in-focus" is not meant to imply "out 

of focus blurs and blobs". It refers to anything in the 

image that is, to ANY degree, defocused ... which if 

you think about it means about 99% or more of that 

which shines on the sensor or film. It's part of what 

is loosely called "rendering". Just part of, but a very 

significant part.  

[3dit0r]

35mm f/1.8 or f/2 Batis would be perfect.

[kenneth]

In my opinion the Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is an exceptional lens...tiny and extremely sharp with the Zeiss "look".  I leave it on my A7RII (and also A6000) much of the time.  I don't miss the 2.0 aperture since most of the time I use it for just day to day photography or landscapes. 

 

I would second that? My 35mm Sonnar f2.8 virtually lives on my a7R ll. I don't quite see the issue that the OP is posting?