FS7: 35mm lens e-mount under 1000 euro

P

Publimix

Veteran
I get confused by the amount of good 35mm lenses; zeis, sony sigma Otus Milvus Sony loxia in different price-categories. Which lens 35mm is the best buy (under 1000 euro) for use on FS7?

I like sharpness, e-mount (no adapters) and if possible but not necessary autofocus.
And a more expensive used lens under 1000 euro is also good of course.

And a cheaper good alternative would be nice too.
 
The Loxia 35mm is lovely but not AF. I think it's far better for not being AF.

Everything is a compromise.
 
Actually yeah I forgot they do it native E mount - I shot a entire documentary on the Samyang/Rockinon 35mm f1.4 a while back that was well received. Good shout.
 
Thanks so far,

Doug, I have a box full of adapters. If I can I avoid to use them. But not against all cost. So if you know a good alternative...

I will use the lens mostly outside, run-gun and nature/landscape/technical environment. So minimal distortion is also on my wish list.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
TI have a box full of adapters. If I can I avoid to use them. But not against all cost. So if you know a good alternative...
Click to expand...

Spend $1000 if that gives you confidence.

Alternatively, may I humbly suggest the cheap, but fabulously sharp and beautiful Konica 40/1.8

Yes, you'll need an adapter and it's 40mm rather than 35mm - but you can buy it for around $50 on eBay, plus a cheap adapter for around $10.

I now use one for all of my interview shoots. (eg https://vimeo.com/169846070)

There's also a Konica 35/2.8, which I have, but I haven't tested extensively. Some very good and reliable info here:

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eHexanonHaupt.html

Ben.
 
Consider the $900 Sigma Art Series 35mm f/ 1.4.

The following article goes so far as to describe it as having performance "only rivaled by the Otus"-

https://fstoppers.com/originals/irrational-reasons-buy-800-35mm-f28-lens-86428


The Sigma is an APS-C lens. You did not specify full frame. If FF is a requirement, the Sigma is out of the running.

One consideration would be the lenses you already own. That is, working towards a matching set of glass. If you already own several Canon lenses then you might want to pursue a Canon 35mm. Same if you already own some Zeiss glass, or Nikon glass, etc. Then again, mixing lenses with different qualities is more common these days and something I do myself. I mix Canon EF, Sigma Art, Rokinon, Sony, and Red lenses. Were I shooting commercials or narrative work I would likely make effort to avoid the dancing between glass of varying character.


I would consider Videographer Ben Scott's advice as he is a talented Videographer whose videography I have long admired.
 
JPNola said:
The Sigma is an APS-C lens. You did not specify full frame. If FF is a requirement, the Sigma is out of the running.
Click to expand...

Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is a full frame lens. Great lens, but need an adapater, either A-mount to E-Mount or EF to E-mount (like the MC-11 or metabones smart adapter). You can also get the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art is also awsome. If you use it with a the metabones speedbooster then you will have roughly the same FOV as a 35mm.
 
The Sony SEL 35/1.8 is decent for situations when low weight and auto focus is needed. Not an exciting image but clean and sharp enough. But the minuscule size & weight and the optical stabilisation makes it a handy thing to have around...
I have the Samyang 35mm/T1.5 as well and much prefer its image but it's a big lens and not suitable for all situations. You could have both for under $1000.

I wish Sigma would release their Art series in E-Mount versions!
 
It's interesting to see the different focal lenths people use. I have a Cine-Xenar 35mm f/2 PL and a Sony prime f/2 PL and I can't remember the last time I used either one. They aren't wide enough for handheld or landscapes, and it's 50mm too short for interviews. A middle-ground focal length I have almost no use for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying other people don't have a good use for a 35mm, but it's sure not a lens I need. I had no idea so many people were using 35's.
 
Doug Jensen said:
It's interesting to see the different focal lenths people use. I have a Cine-Xenar 35mm f/2 PL and a Sony prime f/2 PL and I can't remember the last time I used either one. They aren't wide enough for handheld or landscapes, and it's 50mm too short for interviews. A middle-ground focal length I have almost no use for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying other people don't have a good use for a 35mm, but it's sure not a lens I need. I had no idea so many people were using 35's.
Click to expand...


Below are links to articles on the merits of the 35mm focal length. The articles speak for the most part in terms of so-called "full frame" (36mm X 24mm ) still photography. However, that being, the articles make some relevant points regarding opening one's creative mind to less popular focal lengths.

35mm is a focal length often used in narrative film. It is close to the "natural" field of view of human vision. Or should I say, the field of view of the human eye. Thus the reason the nearly all high-end prime lens sets include a 35mm prime.

On our Fs7's the 35mm is roughly the equivalent f.o.v. of THE most popular focal length in 35mm still photography, the 50mm. ( or am I messing up the math there? )

Anyway, here are those articles-

"Learning to Love 35mm Lenses"

http://jeremiahrogers.com/2015/01/love35mm/

"I was convinced that the best focal lengths for portraits was my trusted 85mm lens and the best focal length for landscapes was my 16mm to 35mm lens. I had 50mm lenses and almost everything in between but never a 35mm lens.

Now that I have one, I am surprised at what I was missing and I have changed my mind. 35mm lenses are a must have (in my opinion) for any photographer and videographer."

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/16/the-top-8-reasons-why-im-a-big-believer-in-35mm-lens-photography/


"To me, this kind of thinking is borderline nonsense as the 35mm focal length is one of the most useful, if not THE most useful focal lengths you can use! I truly believe that if you shoot with just a 35mm focal length for at least 6 months your photography will improve and so will your knowledge of composition, reading light, and even your “vision” will improve. By that I mean, the way you see things in relation to photography."

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/06/09/why-shooting-with-just-a-35mm-lens-can-help-your-photography/

 
Last edited:
JPNola said:
On our Fs7's the 35mm is roughly the equivalent f.o.v. of THE most popular focal length in 35mm still photography, the 50mm. ( or am I messing up the math there? )
Click to expand...

True, but those articles that you posted were discussing 35mm on fullframe if I'm not mistaken. So an equivalent of a 24mm on S35.

I can second the the quality of the Nikkor 35mm f1.4, it's the best prime I have and cost me as much as all my other primes put together. It's by far the most sought after nikkor AIS prime and reasonable quality ones going for £500 on Ebay and £800 mint from some dealers.

I've read a lot of photographers' accounts of using 35mm over the years and it seems many consider 35mm on FF their 'normal' rather than 50mm.
 
Last edited:
JPNola said:
On our Fs7's the 35mm is roughly the equivalent f.o.v. of THE most popular focal length in 35mm still photography, the 50mm. ( or am I messing up the math there? )
Click to expand...

The math is right.
But:
These articles refer on the focal length of 35mm of a 24x36 still photo sensor.
The equivalent focal length on the FS7 25.5×15.6 sensor would be about 23mm
 
Clermond said:
The math is right.
But:
These articles refer on the focal length of 35mm of a 24x36 still photo sensor.
The equivalent focal length on the FS7 25.5×15.6 sensor would be about 23mm
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.

The articles are not germane to this discussion other than to promote exploration of less popular focal lengths that are dismissed as having little use.

I should have stayed out of this one. I have little choice but to live on zooms in my work. :cry:
 
JPNola said:
I should have stayed out of this one. I have little choice but to live on zooms in my work. :cry:
Click to expand...

I appreciate the articles too, so thanks for posting. But as others have pointed out, the FS7 isn't full frame. I do use my 25mm lenses often so I suppose I'm getting the "35mm effect" anyway. My favorite primes are my 75mm Xenar and 85mm Sony PL. I love working at those focal lengths with those lenses.
 
Thanks so far. Some dvxusers are happy with $50 dollar lenses while others like lenses at the expensive side of the spectrum ($900 or more).

I found a nice site lenstip.com, good reviews, but not all lenses are covered. The Samyang 35 mm has a very good review but the thought of keeping 500 dollar in my pocket with a vintage lens is tempting.

I have an old $50 24mm Canon 2.8 FD lens (with adapter) which seems pretty good. I use it often but sometimes it is a bit wide. I regret selling all my Zuiko Lenses including the exceptional good OM Zuiko 90mm f2.0 macro, 35mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 lens.

I sometimes wonder if the top-lenses from the 'golden age of photography' can compete with modern glass. The 24mm Canon lens is 40 years old, it is dustfree and fungus free, but how does it compete with a modern Canon lens? (any websites that specialize in reviewing old vs new lenses?).
 
$900 isn't expensive for a good fast 35mm.

If you want a bargain amazing razor sharp lens the Contax Zeiss 35mm f2.8 is a amazing even wide open and is lovely and compact. The 1.4 version is phenomenal but might be over budget.
 
Ben Scott said:
$900 isn't expensive for a good fast 35mm.

If you want a bargain amazing razor sharp lens the Contax Zeiss 35mm f2.8 is a amazing even wide open and is lovely and compact. The 1.4 version is phenomenal but might be over budget.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ben, saw these lenses on ebay, what mount should I look for contax/yashica?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top