35 1.4 vs 35 2.8 + 55 1.8

[3dit0r]

Decided to go for it and switch over to an A7rii. Two lens choices are easy for me - 25mm and 85mm Batis - fast, lightweight and small enough, great stuff.

 

My problem is in between that, which is actually my most used range. The 55 1.8 looks great. My biggest problem is 35mm, which is also my favourite overall focal length.

 

Ideally I'd like something faster, and with better bokeh, than the 35 2.8. The 35 1.4 looks amazing IQ wise, but I'm reluctant to pair a lens that size/weight with a mirrorless body.

 

The Loxia f/2 would be perfect, but I need AF.

 

Thing is, the 35 f/1.4 is only slightly more weight, and cost, than the 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 combined. The 35 1.4 probably has almost as much OOF blur when cropped to approx 55mm (?) and the A7rii possibly has enough to resolution to get away with this, so it presents an interesting one lens to replace two option.

 

Personally, I'm worried if I get the 35 2.8 I'll resent spending so much on a relatively slow prime knowing I really want something a little faster. Also, though, I'm concerned I might spend even more on the 35 1.4 and be pleased with IQ but wondering why I'm carrying something the size and bulk of a DSLR.

 

Any thoughts? Anyone made the same choice and have any ideas? Any sign that Zeiss might produce a Batis 35/1.8 or f/2 any time soon?

[Singingsnapper]

Decided to go for it and switch over to an A7rii. Two lens choices are easy for me - 25mm and 85mm Batis - fast, lightweight and small enough, great stuff.

 

My problem is in between that, which is actually my most used range. The 55 1.8 looks great. My biggest problem is 35mm, which is also my favourite overall focal length.

 

Ideally I'd like something faster, and with better bokeh, than the 35 2.8. The 35 1.4 looks amazing IQ wise, but I'm reluctant to pair a lens that size/weight with a mirrorless body.

 

The Loxia f/2 would be perfect, but I need AF.

 

Thing is, the 35 f/1.4 is only slightly more weight, and cost, than the 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 combined. The 35 1.4 probably has almost as much OOF blur when cropped to approx 55mm (?) and the A7rii possibly has enough to resolution to get away with this, so it presents an interesting one lens to replace two option.

 

Personally, I'm worried if I get the 35 2.8 I'll resent spending so much on a relatively slow prime knowing I really want something a little faster. Also, though, I'm concerned I might spend even more on the 35 1.4 and be pleased with IQ but wondering why I'm carrying something the size and bulk of a DSLR.

 

Any thoughts? Anyone made the same choice and have any ideas? Any sign that Zeiss might produce a Batis 35/1.8 or f/2 any time soon?

They aren't delivering the 25 to schedule many people won't get the 25 until September - I won't pay £1000 without being able to test the lens first.  So you won't be seeing a 35 any time soon

[air]

I am in the same situation

I fear nobody can help us in this classical conflict of goals

 

If you want 1.4, take the expensive and heavy 1.4

If you want it lightweight and cheaper, take the 2.8 (or 28-2.0?)

None of them is bad...

 

I really love 1.4 even at 35mm. I am a bad photographer and need the ability to isolate the subject using this aperture rather than thinking about how to compose it better

 

So tomorrow I will buy the 1.4 together with the A7RII in Berlin

 

Btw: The sigma 35-1.4 seems to be quite good. But I don't like adapters and I believe you haven't things like eye-AF (which is great at wide open apertures to my mind!)

[Broncos_CA]

You might want to consider the 28 f2. It shoots clean, AF, great specs, along with the 55 1.8 they both weigh less than the fast 35...

[zlatko]

Any thoughts? Anyone made the same choice and have any ideas? Any sign that Zeiss might produce a Batis 35/1.8 or f/2 any time soon?

 

Somewhere online there is a Sony lens "roadmap" that suggests that there will be a Sony 35mm f/2 introduced some time this year.  But of course these roadmaps are no guaranty that the lens will come to exist.  However, I do think there's a good chance, as there is such a gap between the little 35/2.8 and the giant 35/1.4.  In the meantime, this is a real dilemma.  I think your choice depends in part on whether you do a lot of photography in very low light, because in that case the 35/1.4 would seem to be the better choice.  Good luck!

[JonathanStewartPhotos]

I went through the same puzzle when quickly building my new FE system, with the A7R2 which came just yesterday.  First off, the 35mm f/1.4 is a heavy beast. You notice right off how it throws the camera balance.  That said, it renders beautifully -- better than my Sigma art 35 I used on the a99, and focus is much faster.  I'm not a huge fan of the manual aperture ring, especially since it's not even mechanical, but fly-by-wire. I'm happy leaving it in A on the lens and controlling aperture on the body, just like the other lenses, but for some, I guess it could be nice. 

 

The 55 f/1.8 is nicely balanced, and a wonderful little lens.  Definitely get that one.  I also considered getting the Loxia 50 f/2, which is roughly the same price, but I don't regret getting the Sony version instead.  It's super sharp, focuses quickly and the size is a great fit for the body. 

 

I also got the 90mm f/2.8 macro, which is optically beautiful but a slow focuser, not to mention a beast of a lens on the body.  I too have the Batis lenses on pre-order and hope to get them ASAP. 

 

I think your deciding factor for the 35mm lens should be weight.  For me, it's enough to have one lightweight lens in the 55, for those times where weight is at a premium.  Otherwise, I'm willing to sacrifice for IQ and a faster lens.  The 25mm and 85mm Batis are fairly light and compact too, certainly better than the 35mm f/1.4 (I had a chance to test out both Batis lenses).  So sounds like you'll have plenty of lighter glass - splurge and get the f/1.4. 

[Wesley]

OP: Get the 1.4 and be done with it.

I have a good feeling you're one of those people that shoot wide aperture most of the time.

 

 

Somewhere online there is a Sony lens "roadmap" that suggests that there will be a Sony 35mm f/2 introduced some time this year.  But of course these roadmaps are no guaranty that the lens will come to exist.  However, I do think there's a good chance, as there is such a gap between the little 35/2.8 and the giant 35/1.4.  In the meantime, this is a real dilemma.  I think your choice depends in part on whether you do a lot of photography in very low light, because in that case the 35/1.4 would seem to be the better choice.  Good luck!

 

I really hope not. It would make it the fourth 35mm lens which would be incredibly redundant.

[zlatko]

OP: Get the 1.4 and be done with it.

I have a good feeling you're one of those people that shoot wide aperture most of the time.

 

 

 

I really hope not. It would make it the fourth 35mm lens which would be incredibly redundant.

 

Not so redundant, I believe, as there's no E-mount 35/2 with autofocus.  35/2 would fill the gap between the giant 1.4 and the diminutive 2.8, both in size and price.  Its absence is exactly what creates the OP's dilemma.  

 

Zeiss makes 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.8.  Leica makes 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.4.  Canon makes 35/1.4, 35/2 and 40/2.8.  Voigtlander makes 35/1.2, 35/1.4, 35/1.7, 35/2.5 and 40/1.4.  The lenses are somewhat redundant but also meet different needs.

[Wesley]

Not so redundant, I believe, as there's no E-mount 35/2 with autofocus.  35/2 would fill the gap between the giant 1.4 and the diminutive 2.8, both in size and price.  It's absence is exactly what creates the OP's dilemma.  

 

Zeiss makes 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.8.  Leica makes 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.4.  Canon makes 35/1.4, 35/2 and 40/2.8.  Voigtlander makes 35/1.2, 35/1.4, 35/1.7, 35/2.5 and 40/1.4.  The lenses are somewhat redundant but also meet different needs.

 

Why in the world does Voigtlader have four, 35mm lenses within 1 stop? Is one of them a tilt-shift? 

 

I believe time and resources should be spent on doing other lenses right now. 

For the record, 40mm ≠ 35mm.

 

As for the OP, I actually think only getting the 55mm is good instead. 

Better to crop the 25mm to 35mm because 35 to 55 will exhibit more distortion if you happen to photograph people closer.

[zlatko]

Why in the world does Voigtlader have four, 35mm lenses within 1 stop? Is one of them a tilt-shift? 

 

I believe time and resources should be spent on doing other lenses right now. 

For the record, 40mm ≠ 35mm.

 

As for the OP, I actually think only getting the 55mm is good instead. 

Better to crop the 25mm to 35mm because 35 to 55 will exhibit more distortion if you happen to photograph people closer.

 

Each of the Voigtlander 35's have different characteristics, different sizes and different prices (no tilt-shift).  I don't know why they make so many, but it's great for photographers to have the options.  I feel that more options around core focal lengths like 35 and 50 is a very good thing.

[3dit0r]

Thanks guys, a lot of thoughtful responses.

 

OK, well glad to know it's a common dilemma, and not just me!

 

I must say, I do still wish for a 35 f/2, or f/1.8 which is significantly smaller than the 1.4 and still has AF. I wonder if Sony will provide, or if we'll have to wait for a possible Batis? As has been mentioned, many manufacturers provide several different speeds in 35mm, and I'm sure this will come, it's just early days for FE mount right now.

 

In my mind right now, it's a toss up between just getting the 35 1.4 and sucking up the size/weight (although I'm a little perturbed about the comment it unbalances the camera - what were Sony thinking?), or the superb 55 1.8 and possibly that 28 2 instead of the 35 2.8, and just waiting to see if a more suitable 35 appears. If I had the 28 though, I'd probably wait on the 25 Batis, as I'd feel it was too close. So in that case I'd end up with 85, 55, 28. The 28 might not be quite wide enough for some of my landscape work.

 

I don't feel cropping from 25 to 35 is a great idea due to more perspective distortion, and very deep DOF. My love affair with fast 35mm began when I had a Leica 35 summicron back in the film days - then I could only afford one lens, so I got very, very used to moving my feet and changing compositions with one focal length. Of course, that was limiting, but I still think of it and 50mm as my most natural way of seeing a shot.

 

Someone asked if I shoot wide open all the time, which is a fair ask, but no, I don't. I shoot an equal amount of fairly 'classical' land/seascapes, due to where I live, which often require stopping down, but also people, and urban when in London or on holiday. I do like to play with DOF for artistic purposes, though, and sometimes a particular landscape, or person shot can look stunning framed for 35mm wide open. It's just the flexibility I want, really.

 

Wide open, it would also find a use for landscape astrophotography (which is also why I'm so thrilled about the Batis 25 f/2).

[3dit0r]

Does anyone know what resolution in megapixels you end up with if you crop from a 35mm fov to approx 50mm fov on an A7rii, please?

[denhaagsony]

What do you want to do with it all? How much do you want to spend? The difference in 35price is a flight to some exotic destination (where you can use the lens)! It seems you are almost certain on the 55 but would consider cropping the 1.4, I find it strange that you don't consider the 2.8 capable for that either.

 

I have both the 35 2.8&55 1.8(since Jan2015, before the 1.4 came out), and shoot >70% with the 35. I took both with me on holidays, but when going for a multiple day hike where I had to carry tent etc, I was happy to bring the 2.8 only and loved shooing with it. Generally that's its good side as noted, this holds for hikes&street ofcourse! So what do you want to do with it?

 

I'm not an experienced shooter and have often troubles with the pixel sharpness with the 55 at 1.8 (because its shallow dof, its really sensitive). I really wonder when you need this dof (or lower) on a 35mm (maybe someone can give an example?). 

 

For me there are some minor issues with 35 2.8:

-the standard lenshood is small and sensitive to touches.

-the standard lenshood can't be put on when I use my filter (both issues can maybe be solved by a different lenshood)

-the area of incoming light of the lens is small, I suppose this will only allow you to use a small area of your filter when you put it in front.

 

I miss the 16-35mm in your question. Because for its price and weight it is more comparable to the 1.4 ánd would save you buying a 28 or 25, but its not a prime.

And would it be possible to rent the lenses, so you can feel&see yourselve? Also I would ask myself if I were you: what do I miss when I buy only a 35 something and the 85mm? 55 is so close to both, that they can both take some share. What do you want to do with it? 

 

When looking at the offers now, I feel a bit the lack of a super wide angle prime (~24mm) and/or zoom (~10-~20mm), not an other 35. It seems lately that both prices for the 55&35 2.8 are dropping.

 

Good luck with deciding, but the options always seem plenty.

[Golem]

Does anyone know what resolution in megapixels you

end up with if you crop from a 35mm fov to approx

50mm fov on an A7rii, please?

No math, just logic. A 35mm has the 50mm FOV when

the 35 is on an APS-C. APS-C is a half frame of FF,

so you'll have half the MP.

 

`

[kiawui]

I have used the 35 2.8 and 1.4 before. I went for the 1.4. I am shooting with an A7II though. If your iso is better maybe you can get the 2.8. But i feel that the 1.4 is sharper when compared at wide open of 2.8.

 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[Christo25]

I would wait and see how the sigma 35mm art fairs with autofocus and eye autofocus compared to the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 as although it would mean an adaptor it is really really sharp (I have one) and it is way less of the cost and if ever you swap to something like a Canon in the future you will be able to use it with that as well. I have used it on my A7r and will test it on the mark 2 when it finally arrives at the dealers where I live. Currently I take the 35mm f2.8 Zeiss with me when I want less weight and the Sigma art when I want the shallow depth of field. Interestingly the sigma 35mm on the A7r is slightly wider than the Zeiss 35mm f2.8!

[3dit0r]

Thanks guys, a lot of helpful thoughts here.

 

I tried to help the decision by looking at my metadata in Lightroom for all my 'keeper' photos, and surprised myself that it was uncannily close, almost 50/50 between 50mm/35mm and the same for how much I used each stopped down and wide open. Given that up to now the lenses have been both f/1.4 that didn't help a lot, although they're on APS-C recently, so closer to about f/2 in terms of background blur maybe.

 

@golem, I like your logic, but I believe your figures are out - APS-C is not half the area of full frame, but approx 1.5, or 1.6 on some systems (micro 4/3 is pretty much half FF, although the change in aspect ratio makes that approximate again, which is why the 25mm m4/3 is about the same FOV as 50mm FF). 35mm APS-C doesn't exactly equate to a 50mm FF aov, either, but 35 x 1.5 = 52.5mm.

 

However, your way of working out sounds accurate to me, so it would really mean, (roughly, as the other lens is really a 55mm) that 42.4 / 1.5 = 28.2 MP. Does that sound right?

 

To be honest, if I'm still getting about 28 MP by cropping the 35 1.4 to a 50mm FOV, I'm not seeing much of a downside to simply missing out the 55mm and just getting one 35mm, and a mixture of moving feet a bit and a little crop here and there.

 

By the same rationale, the DOF should be about 1.5x so, about f/2.2 max aperture equivelent at approx 50mm? Again, I can live with that, the 55 1.8 will have a little more background blur, but not hugely different.

 

The suggestion to wait for adapted AF results from the Sigma 35 1.4 Art is interesting, and made me wonder, if the adapter works well, why not consider the new 24-35 f/2 Art, and not get the Batis 25? So that would then be possibly 24-35, 55, 85... The issue with that is simply how well the adapter works, or not.

[Guest all8]

IMO There is no point in buying the most expensive A7 camera, with the most pixels, and then worrying about cropping or DOF or using a good quality lens when there is a much better alternative, or about adapters which make medium sized lenses larger than large native lenses.

 

If I understand correctly, you like 35mm, shooting wide open, blur. That means the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4, which you can crop to 50mm, and then complement that with the Sony Zeiss 55mm f-whatever since that is also a great lens that is a little more compact. That sounds so good I feel like getting them myself ... if it were not for the Loxia     

 

 

Otherwise the A7ii is more than sufficient ...

[kiawui]

Its a consolation to know that using the a7ii and shooting on the 35 1.4 when cropped would be about like 55 1.8. I was still thinking about getting the 55 until I got the above logic. Though not exactly so as some may say, at least it made me contented with my 35 1.4.

 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[3dit0r]

@Timde agreed that eventually I'll inevitably end up with both! It's nice to know I can start with the 35 1.4, and build from there while still getting almost twice the resolution of my E-M1 even if I do crop!

[iiiNelson]

I had the same dilemma at one point and I can say this - buy the 35 Distagon FE and don't look back. It's really that simple.

 

The long version is that I own the 25 Batis, the 35 Distagon, the 55 Sonnar, the 85 Sonnar, and the 135 Sonnar. I had the Sigma Art 35 before the 35 Distagon FE and it's a great lens that is also a cheaper alternative for those without the funds for the native option but it's larger than the FE option if size is the concern. I'll say this the 35 Distagon balances well even if it is larger than some alternatives and the optical formula is special... Probably more so than everything else except maybe the 25 Batis.

[3dit0r]

@iiiNelson thanks for that - helpful. Yeah I'm pretty much decided that the 35 1.4 will be my first lens now. When you factor in the size weight of other lenses plus converter, and even the cost, it actually comes out well.

 

It's the way that lens draws, from every example I've seen, which really sold me, though. Like you say, there seems to be something very special about it, which to me is worth the money and size.

[kiawui]

As long as you can deal with the size, there is nothing you can complain about it. Maybe a bit on the weight. But when you download the images to your computer, it's all worth it. I was glad i got the battery grip though. It helps balances out the weight and evens out the grip for my hand.

 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[Cheatah]

Another question is, do you want to carry bulky and heavy gear?

[osullivan_s]

Sigma has revealed in May or June that they have a plan to release "art" lenses for the FE mount. I'm waiting for that. The Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is too much money and too big and heavy. The current Sigma 35 is great, but also need an adaptor, which I have, but the AF doesn't work well with it, and it's not small enough to do street work discretely. I like the 28mm f/2.0, and I'm hoping/betting that Sigma comes out in the next year with something that the OP (and I) is hoping for. 

 

In the meanwhile, I'll rent them when I need them ...