Which 85mm lens?

The size and weight of the Viltrox/Tokina F1.8 is a reason I haven't tried it.

I have three 85mm AF primes right now which is rather silly as I don't have much use for them. One would be more than I need. Edit: and have since also bought another Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM.

The Samyang F1.4 is quite nice. It is sharper than the other 85mm primes I've had. It focuses faster than their other AF primes--very similar to the Sony F1.8. It has less CA than that lens. It is more chunky.

Edited by QuietOC - 23 September 2022 at 12:09

Meike have just released a new 85mm f/1.8 autofocus lens for E mount .
At £163 , it seems a bargain .
I'm guessing it's another lens that's a copy of a Canon lens who's patent has expired .
I'm waiting to see some reviews and I might pick one up .
https://meikeglobal.com/products/85mm-f1-8-full-frame-auto-focus-stm-lens-for-sony-e-mount-cameras

I have the 85DGDN Sigma, which is pretty petite for an 85/1.4. The rendering is fantastic and I have no reservations about the lens itself.

But if I were buying today, I would however opt for the 85/1.8 Sony lens. Specifically for its compact size and lightness, and f/1.8 is plenty fast for most situations.

nandbytes wrote: Don't forget there is now Voigtländer 35mm f2 APO-lanthar also. Voigtlander's APO-lanthar lenses are known for their optical prowess. But OP has a 35GM and I have personally not shot with any 35mm that's as good as the GM lens.

Yes, The APO-Lanthars are generally very good but apparently their 35 doesn't seem to reach the same standard https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-zeiss-loxia-35mm-2-0/

OTOH, if you (as Frank does) have a 35/1.4 GM already, then yes, I agree, there's no compelling reason to replace it or buy another 35mm

I think the 35/2 review on Phillipreeve.net (https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-zeiss-loxia-35mm-2-0/) in the end, has the a final comment that sums up my view.

"Despite some of the technical shortcomings I have bought this lens myself now. In retrospective the photos I have taken with this lens have something about them I really like, I think it is best described as a very punchy micro contrast. Take into account most of my photos are taken stopped down, this was indeed the best (small) 35mm lens for my needs."

Often it's not about buying the "best" lens you can find, but the lens that best suits your particular photography needs (and budget!). And the Loxias have a lot of other selling points for me- the small size makes them great for hiking with and the manual focusing experience is exceptionally good.

Wētāpunga wrote: The thing about the Loxia 35/2 being the weakest of the set, is that you're starting with a very high bar. You're comparing it to all the other Loxia lenses . The positive is is still has all the Zeiss rendering and resolving power of the other Loxias. Where it is weakest is in the f2 to f4 range, where the corners are softer, and there's more coma. As that's not the apertures I photograph landscapes or seascapes with, it's not a something that bothers me. If photographing wide-open does matter to you, then there are better options than the Loxia 35/2. If you are typically shooting at f5.6 or smaller apertures, all you'll really ntocie is that lovely Zeiss rendering One of the strengths of going 'all in' on the Loxias is they all share the same 52mm filter thread. I have a comprehensive set of high quality (=$$$) ND, circular polariser and night filters all in 52mm size. If I replaced the 35/2 with a different 35mm lens, I'd probably need to buy more filters just for it. So I have even less reason to replace it.

Thanks for that. I don't think I'd be shooting wide open with a Loxia 35mm unless I change my landscape style ... which is pretty unlikely. I suppose I could shoot them all at f2 and focus stack if I felt like being a masochist ... but no, I think f5.6 or 8 will be just fine for me.

The thing about the Loxia 35/2 being the weakest of the set, is that you're starting with a very high bar. You're comparing it to all the other Loxia lenses .

The positive is is still has all the Zeiss rendering and resolving power of the other Loxias. Where it is weakest is in the f2 to f4 range, where the corners are softer, and there's more coma. As that's not the apertures I photograph landscapes or seascapes with, it's not a something that bothers me.

If photographing wide-open does matter to you, then there are better options than the Loxia 35/2. If you are typically shooting at f5.6 or smaller apertures, all you'll really ntocie is that lovely Zeiss rendering

One of the strengths of going 'all in' on the Loxias is they all share the same 52mm filter thread. I have a comprehensive set of high quality (=$$$) ND, circular polariser and night filters all in 52mm size. If I replaced the 35/2 with a different 35mm lens, I'd probably need to buy more filters just for it. So I have even less reason to replace it.