35mm lens- sony 2.8 or change to fuji system

zorki

zorki

Suspended / Banned
Messages
36
Edit My Images
No
i have a sony a7, and was thinking of buying the 35 2.8, but i'd really like an f2 lens- if there was an fe autofocus f2 i'd own it now and would be done with it, but there isnt- there's the massive 1.4, any the tiny slow 2.8... presumably they dont want to completely kill the concept of the rx1...
I own manual focus 35mm lenses but i'm a fan of exif data, and AF, focus peaking isn't accurate enough and zooming in is too slow for moving subjects
i'm not the greatest fan of the a7, the shutter is so noisy and it's just clunky to use, although I can work around it's many quirks, the af on the 55mm is fantastic, but the lens is too tele for me- if the a7II was quiter i'd likely upgrade to that, also to get in body IS which would be nice for video, I heard af was better too

i also own a canon 5d3 and a 35 1.4, which is too big and heavy but I ordered the 35 f2 (older version) that should arrive soon, but will still likely be too heavy as a take everywhere camera

i'm contemplating an rx1 (although no viewfinder, or attached EVF is offputting), an x100 (although 2/8 equivalent lens is offputting, although it is the smallest), or a fuji x-t1 or x-e2 with the 23mm lens


the camera/lens will serve double duty as a professional tool and as a fun camera, so with that in mind i'm tempted to go the smallest route of the x100s and leave the dslr for when I need a faster aperture. it's likely that I will buy a second sony (a7 II), or a fuji system so I have 2 mirrorless cameras so I can use the 35 and 50mm lenses at the same time (for professional use only though, for fun stuff i'll likely only use the 35)


things I need are accurate autofocus, particularly in low light, a sharp lens with reasonable bokeh potential

come on sony all you had to do from the start was make a 35 f2 lens!
 
would the new 28mm f2? be close enough to 35mm for you?

the sal35mm might have passable ff coverage, but af might suck with lea 3
:/
 
i'm actually very tempted by the 28 f2

i've also been interested in using a mount lenses with the adapter- I figure if i'm using ef lenses with an adapter then it's just the same size but with added AF

I think the 28 f2 is the best idea :)
 
If your buying a camera for fun you just need to put a bit of thought into what makes photography fun for you.

For me, I wanted something with a retro feel, good image quality, some manual dials and something I could modify to suit me. I got the x100t and I love it. I'm just about to add the wide/tele converters to my wish list too.

If you prefer a more digital feel or you need stonking ISO performance, maybe the RX1 is a better buy for you.

If you want to change lenses and don't mind having something a bit bigger, then maybe the XT1 or XE2.

For what it's worth, I had an XT1 which I really enjoyed, but I soon realised that with a good zoom attached the whole size benefit goes out the window. I also wasn't keen on having two sets of lenses so flipped it for a Nikon Df as a second body to my D750.

X100T is my go to camera :)
 
I've played with the Olympus M5 mk2 a few times now! Low light is great! Af is good and with the 5 axis is is fantastic ! Well worth a look!!!!
 
zorki said:
... i'm a fan of exif data, and AF, focus peaking isn't accurate enough...
Click to expand...

This caught my eye and I know everyone is different but...

One thing I like about manual lenses is that they remove some of the geekish behaviour. When I look at my manual lens images the exif data is reduced and "all" I get is ISO and shutter speed and the aperture setting and focal length is missing. The result of all this is that when I look at my pictures I often forget what lens I used and it becomes less about the gear and the settings and more about the picture.

I find focus peaking to be quite accurate especially at wider apertures and I find that if there's time I can focus quite accurately at 50mm and f1.2.

On the other stuff, if the excellent 35mm f2.8 is too slow (in aperture I presume) and the excellent 35mm f1.4 is too big go for the 28mm f2 and be happy :D
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
I use something called EXIF Tool to input the lens details into my files within Lightroom :) Doesn't tell you which aperture you used though, but is helpful when trying to remember which lens produced which pictures :)
Click to expand...

^^ That's handy to know. I've been thinking of finding a way to do that myself. Ta :)

I'd say the 28/2 would be your best bet. I'm half tempted myself with it but I have 28mm in manual [at f/2.8] & it does enough for landscape.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I use something called EXIF Tool to input the lens details into my files within Lightroom :) Doesn't tell you which aperture you used though, but is helpful when trying to remember which lens produced which pictures :)
Click to expand...

thanks for that, really useful tool


I think I will get the 28 f2 when it's released, but even for a budget lens it's pretty expensive
 
I don't think it's marketed as a budget lens although it's not G so is cheaper than other Sony native FE lenses. Considering you also have a 5D3 and are considering an RX1 I wouldn't have thought budget was an issue?

Also the difference between f2.8 and f2 on a camera with good ISO performance like the A7 is marginal so why not just buy the AF 35/2.8?
 
Last edited:
zorki said:
I think I will get the 28 f2 when it's released, but even for a budget lens it's pretty expensive
Click to expand...

stevelmx5 said:
I don't think it's marketed as a budget lens although it's not G so is cheaper than other Sony native FE lenses. Considering you also have a 5D3 and are considering an RX1 I wouldn't have thought budget was an issue?

Also the difference between f2.8 and f2 on a camera with good ISO performance like the A7 is marginal so why not just buy the AF 35/2.8?
Click to expand...

Quite. I think the way to look at the 28mm is not that it's an expensive budget lens but a reasonably priced quality lens :D
 
woof woof said:
Quite. I think the way to look at the 28mm is not that it's an expensive budget lens but a reasonably priced quality lens :D
Click to expand...

I like that way of thinking :D


it's less of an issue of light gathering, but more of an issue of isolation, I like the wide shallow look I get from f2 on full frame, the difference between f2 and 2.8 is too great
 
zorki said:
it's less of an issue of light gathering, but more of an issue of isolation, I like the wide shallow look I get from f2 on full frame, the difference between f2 and 2.8 is too great
Click to expand...
Well the 28mm f2 is unlikely to improve this all that much given it is wider so will have more dof.
 
^ I agree with that

28mm F2 isn't going to give you massive DOF unless you're pretty close to your subject. For portraits on FF you're starting to risk some distortion. There was a review of it on Steve Huff's page a while back showing some examples;

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/...-28-f2-on-the-sony-a7s-bam-by-chad-wadsworth/

Without seeing the type of shots you take I obviously can't comment but I've never seen a huge difference between 2.0 and 2.8 on FF?
 
stevelmx5 said:
^ I agree with that

28mm F2 isn't going to give you massive DOF unless you're pretty close to your subject. For portraits on FF you're starting to risk some distortion. There was a review of it on Steve Huff's page a while back showing some examples;

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/...-28-f2-on-the-sony-a7s-bam-by-chad-wadsworth/

Without seeing the type of shots you take I obviously can't comment but I've never seen a huge difference between 2.0 and 2.8 on FF?
Click to expand...

To me it's all marginal between f1.4 and f2 but becomes to get more noticeable at maybe f2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top