Wouldn't a compact wide Sony 1.8 be useful and an obvious need?

I find that the size and weight of the Sony 24 1.8 and 50 1.8 are about ideal for the a6xxx bodies: a little longer than I prefer, but they are light and handy and balance well. I have various belt pouches, and I often find that I am in good shape with two lenses: one on the camera and one in a pouch. That would usually mean obviously a wide and less wide like the Sigma 19 2.8 and Sony 50 or Rokinon 12 f2 and Sigma 30 1.4. (I don't have the Zeiss 24 1.8 because of price but I have shot with it.) I have and love the Sigma 30 1.4, and the rubber focus ring is nice and tactile, but I find that it is trickier to get in and out of the most compact pouch because the rubber texture grabs at pouch fabrics. Plus the lens is a bit larger than the 50 1.8 OSS. The way the size of a lens affects how and where you can carry it on your person is a significant characteristic of a lens.

 

So I have read all the reviews and love the idea of the performance of the Sigma 16 1.4, but I'm concerned it is beyond my size and weight threshold. I have the Sigma 19 2.8, but 2.8 is often just not quite fast enough, and the edge performance isn't quite in league to the Sony 24, 35 and 50 nor the Sigma 30s. So I guess what I'm getting around to is this: doesn't it seem there is a need for a wide f1.8 lens in the Sony aps-c lens system. To be precise, a 18 or 19 1.8 about the same size as the 50 1.8 would be really handy. Most systems have a fast equivalent 28 don't they, and the 20 pancake just isn't that? As it is, they have the crappy 16 2.8, the mediocre and not fast 20 2.8 and also the 10-18 f4 zoom, which is nice for what it is, but it isn't a semi-fast prime. I would say there is a conspicuous absence of a wide 1.8, and if they could avoid the Zeiss branding, perhaps it wouldn't have to be too expensive. I would prefer a semi-compact 18 1.8 to Sigma's 16 1.4 if the Sony quality is consistent with the 24, 35 and 50. I recall reading that Sony said somewhere that they were committed to continue developing the aps-c line, so what might that mean in the short term anyway?

Well you are not wrong, but I'd be more than happy with the Sigma 19/2.8 if it performed well. Speed is almost arbitrary these days, unless you really care about selective focus, in which case you will want a 19/1.0.

What is obvious to you, is not necessarily what the marketing folks at Sony may have in mind for the lens road map.

It is no different than the same discussion about other manufacturers, specifically Nikon and Canon for their APS-C crop dslr camera lenses.

 

Be happy with what you have. You are better off with the Sony kit than Nikon or Canon APS-C dslrs. As I do not think that Nikon nor Canon even has a crop sensor wide angle prime lens. Canon does not even have a crop sensor normal (35mm) lens.

 

By Sony opening their mount specs to other companies (Zeiss and Sigma), it frees them from having to flesh out the lens lineup themselves.

I would be most interested in that 16mm for my crop-body Sony. And in that respect, I think I would also go looking for something else with different pocket material, so that I could retrieve it with greater alacrity. I wouldn't be blaming the lens . . .

Karim, I agree about the Sigma 19 2.8 in that it is nice and small, and I find that in good light stopped down, it is pretty much hard to complain about. When I've seen comparisons to the 16 1.4 at 5.6, I just don't think it is that different, but shooting indoors in moderate light at 2.8 is different, but I understand and agree about how spoiled we are with darn good iso 6400 when needed and especially with the stabilized sensor.

Gary, I understand about being happy with what we have, but it just seems to me that the way Sony created their 24,35,50 laid the foundation in the road map (mixed metaphors?) to expand it. I also wish we had an aps-c 85 1.8 in that line (for light weight equiv fast 135/127) because it would be so much lighter than the FE version, but I can understand why they might not jump on that since at least the 85 FE exists is there. However they don't make a Sony 18, 20 or 21 1.8 FE to be the equivalent of a classic 28mm. (Plus it would be very large.) Having lenses available from Sigma, Rokinon and Zeiss has indeed

 

And also concerning lens pouches and lens size, I have many brief cases and small lens pouches because as I said, I think the subtle aspects have a big effect on usability. When I'm carrying only two lenses, one on camera and one in a pouch, it is ideal of course if they are similar in size. For example, I have a zippered Tamron belt case that is perfect for the Zeiss Battis 85 (without hood) and big enough for the 67mm diameter of the Rokinon 12 f/2 (but still not big enough for the 12's hood, which I find is essential because the lens is flare sensitive), but the fact is that case is almost ridiculously large on the belt (so I've looked at fitting it with a strap). I have a very handy neoprene pouch that works very well with the small sigmas and the standard Sony 49mm lenses and is compact enough to almost fit unnoticed under an untucked shirt. I'm willing to give up on the idea of lenses that fit in a khaki pocket and are superb for aps-c, but 2.5" long lenses with 49mm to 52mm diameter and a weight below 11 or 12 ounces seems like a constraint to me that isn't as arbitrary as it might seem for what I like to do. For my few professional shooting situations, none of this is an issue, but for any kid's birthday party, soccer game, school event of any sort, regardless of whether I take 100 pictures or 10, I prefer to have a couple of very very good lenses with me almost invisibly.

The flange distance on a Sony E-mount camera is 18 mm. This means the rear node of a 16 mm lens (24 mm equivalent on APS-C) must be behind the rear element. This is accomplished using an inverted telephoto design, with a strongly negative objective element. In order to obtain a good image quality, as well as a fast aperture, it is necessary to add elements, which in turn, increase the size, weight and cost of the lens. The rear element can extend into the lens body, increasing the angle of incidence at the corners of the sensor, resulting in vignetting, parallax between the microlens array, Bayer filter and sensor, and field curvature effects.

 

As a result, lenses with a focal length shorter than 35 mm or so tend to be increasingly heavier and larger. Some compromises can be made for the smaller coverage required for APS-C vs FF. There are several choices if you can settle for a smaller maximum aperture too (e.g., Sony 10-18/4). That presents little practical challenge in the field, since high ISO values yield good results on Sony cameras. Expecting a shallow DOF from a wide angle lens may not be practical in this case.

I am aware of the issues with extreme angles of incidence of the light approaching the edges of digital sensors even though I admit my insights are limited, but I know enough to know that in general for lenses to be optimized for sensors, it is best that the light strike the sensor as near perpendicular as possible (or per some particular relationship) and that means more elements and more weight and size, but all of that can only be quantified with respect to the precise chosen balance of size, weight, maximum aperture and quality and all that entails. What I mean is that if Sigma can make a 16mm f1.4 with 67mm diameter filter size at about 14 ounces to the high optical quality standard that everybody seems to attest for $440, then it seems to me that Sony could grab some of that market share with an 18 or 19 1.8 or even f2 that could be made somewhat smaller and lighter and more in line physically with the 24, 35, 50 line. It would be both less-wide angle and with a slower aperture. But it may be that what is possible with the design/physics just doesn't fit in quite as tidy as I thought it might, so they have just passed, but I don't see why that would be the case. While such a lens might cut into Sigma's sales, I don't think it would really hurt the sales of Sony 20mm tiny pancakes, $1,000 Zeiss 24s nor 10-18 f/4 zooms. A 19mm f/1.8 aps-c prime would be something quite different than their other aps-c offerings. I can only conclude that they don't want to cut into their full frame sales.

The Sigma 16/1.4 DN (E-mount) is a big lens, perfectly illustrating the points I made above. As for price point, Sigma has ways of cutting costs at the expense of reliability. They also play games in order to beat specifications of the competition, such as a millimeter or two at each end of the range, or wider aperture. If the name "Zeiss" commands a higher price, it comes with quality of design and construction. I bought a Zeiss Batis 18/2.8 mainly for taking starry landscapes. Stars are imaged as points from corner to corner, with no noticeable astigmatism or chromatic aberration.

 

While somewhat large (close to Nikon standards), the Basis 18 is light weight and balances well With a full frame camera, I prefer a 24 mm or 25 mm for urban use.

I have a Zeiss Loxia 35/2, manual focus and very compact, especially if the lens hood is omitted. The barrel diameter is abut 2", sli the same as an AIS Nikon lens, and a little larger than a Leica Summicron 50 (1-3/4"). Leica 35 mm lenses, even the Summilux f/1.4,are much shorter, but extend into the body and do not perform well on a Sony due to the thick sensor cover glass. The Sony 35/2.8 is also highly regarded, and about the same size as the Loxia, at half the price.

Thank you Ed. I genuinely appreciate every aspect of your input, but that doesn't mean that you have addressed my post, but that does't really matter in the scheme of everybody just enjoying the forum. I admit that I don't understand why Sony doesn't offer a wide fast aps-c prime lens. Nobody knows what they are thinking. And I want to say again that I appreciate that you are willing to offer answers and insights when sometimes nobody else is willing to do so. Thank you Ed.

 

As far as my fast telephoto needs, I still feel in limbo because I am not going to buy a 14 oz 85 1.8 full frame lens when I would love an 85 2.8 aps-c only lens that could weigh just 6 ounces and be fantastic. The A mount 85 2.8 defines what is possible for aps-c users and in fact what is possible for photography, but the vested interests in this and that lens will never do away I guess, which make me sad, but there it is.

The "vested interests" you imagine are not conspiring to keep products off the market. It is their fiduciary duty to make and sell products which produce a profit. If there is a suitable FX lens, it doesn't make sense to manufacture a DX version unless there is a significant advantage in size or cost. Below 50 mm or above 85 mm, neither condition applies. FX lenses can be used on DX cameras without adverse effects, but the converse is not true. I have owned a series of DX nikons, without every buying a DX-only lens. A good lens outlasts several bodies, until it isn't good enough to meet the competition of other photographers (or your own goals).

 

If your intent is to expose a conspiracy, I leave that to you to prove.

FX lenses can be used on DX cameras without adverse effects, but the converse is not true. I have owned a series of DX nikons, without every buying a DX-only lens. A good lens outlasts several bodies, until it isn't good enough to meet the competition of other photographers (or your own goals).

 

If your intent is to expose a conspiracy, I leave that to you to prove.

 

Let us all hope it's not a conspiracy

all DX, LX, GX and FX lenses can be easily used on a mirrorless camera

 

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I'm not as much accusing Sony of anything as just wondering about the precise reasoning behind their products and plans, and I would never think of their plans to make profit as a "conspiracy." To not offer one particular product to try to encourage customers to buy another product isn't a conspiracy either. I DO get the impression that companies plan their products carefully to try to sell as much as they can. For example, Fuji initially had their expensive 23 1.4 and also their 27 2.8 pancake, and they probably wanted you to buy both, and they are indeed very different in size and speed. You could only get a 24 f/2 on their X100. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if you wanted the best balance of size and speed of a 24 f/2, they wanted you to buy the X100 and probably the 23 1.4 and 27 2.8 too for an x-1 or other Fuji ILC? After the market for those products was drying up a little, they finally introduced the 24 f/2 and at a reasonable price. I don't think that's a conspiracy, but if I were a Fuji user, I would have found that strategy to be disappointing because I happen to like 24 f/2 = 35 f/2

 

Ed, I gave a specific example of how there exists a 6 oz 85 2.8 aps-c Sony A mount lens that was/is much lighter and more compact than the new/current 85 1.8 FE and still an excellent performer. I realize that is 2.8 vs 1.8. I don't understand why you are saying a crop sensor 85 1.8 wouldn't be much lighter than full frame FE? Wouldn't the elements typically have half the glass? Maybe not?

E-mount (same as FE) lenses for Sony must be designed around the same flange distance, 18 mm. Lenses shorter than 50 mm must be designed so that the rear element extends as little as possible into the body, which means some form of inverted telephoto is required. More elements are required for top-notch performance, hence larger and heavier body. This does not apply to an 95 mm lens,, so the reduced APS-C field of view would permit a more compact design.

 

Pancake lenses require a serious compromise on image quality in order to achieve their compactness. Throw image quality to the wind and you can achieve all sorts of "miracles". That's how Sigma got it's start, and there remains a lot of competition at the low end.

Edward, you touch on several issues, and I appreciate that you are offering information. I always think it is dumb when people are debating and one idiot says, "You are not going to change my mind." To that I say that my mind can always be changed with good information.

By the way, I think you are saying that indeed a 85mm crop sensor lens could indeed be produced for aps-c e and be smaller and lighter, which should be obvious because I gave the example of the a mount 85 2.8 lens that only ways 6 ounces, so obviously if Sony wanted to give us some great 85 aps-c lens at a bargain they could, ...but they don't want to.

There are several FE 85-90 mm lenses which will work equally on an APS-C camera -Sony 85/1.8, Sony 85/1.4 GM and Sony 90/2.8 Micro. Zeiss makes a Loxia 85/2.4 and a Batis 85/1.8. All are specifically designed for Sony mirrorless cameras. We have not touched on third party lenses, including a Leitz 90/2 Summicron, which performs extremely well on a Sony, but without benefit of lens to camera communication.

 

With such a crowded field, does Sony need another 85?

Because every 85 you just listed is a full frame lens that is heavier and more expensive than necessary for aps-c cameras. I have chosen to stick with aps-c because the camera is smaller, and the lenses can be smaller. I realize we don't always get what we want, but it isn't clear to me why it made sense to Sony to offer the light weight inexpensive aps-c 85 2.8 for A mount but not for E mount.

There is no anticipated development of the A mount, and for Sony, APS-C is at or near the same dead-end status. Since their latest APS-C, the A6500, three full frame cameras have been released - A9, A7Riii and A7iii. No new Sony APS-C lenses have been introduced in several years.

 

Perhaps you should look at Fuji, which seems stuck in the APS-C mode.

Well I am indeed curious about whether Sony will ever release an aps-c road map. In several articles from August 10 and 11 2017 interviews with Sony management, they were quoted as saying they would never abandon aps-c and that it is an important part of their overall vision. Having said that, I concede that if you think about what they said specifically, aps-c could be "important" to them for entry level cameras (meaning no need for many aps-c primes) and also for professionals wanting a smaller body and also to easily get more reach out of their full frame lenses (again not requiring more aps-c primes.) So we shall see.

I've been thinking about this post of mine from 4 1/2 years ago because I think Sony aps-c has developed about as well or better than I could have imagined at that time, and any issues of physics and cost with regard to lenses I hoped-for seem to have been handily addressed as well. May of this year, 2022, I bought the Rokinon/Samyang AF version of their 12mm f/2 manual focus lens. At just 7.5 ounces, quite compact and on sale for $350, this little equivalent 18 is quite a gem. It's actually lighter in weight than the manual focus lens.  With filter 62mm on the AF instead of 67 and by making the hood a little shorter, the new lens over-all is much handier. I believe it came out April/May 2021. I also have the manual focus lens and found it very useful although it flares terribly, which makes it useless in some situations. The lens coatings are much better in this regard on the AF version although I think it is the same optical design.

I also purchased the Tamron 17-70 December 2021, and it is incredible. It is sharper in the corners at 2.8 than any of my primes except the Sigma 56 1.4. So I suppose the problem in 2022 is choosing. As you all must know, now there is also the Sony 16-55 2.8, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Tamron 11-20 2.8, Tokina 11-18 2.8, Sony 11 1.8, 15 1.4, new 10-20 f/4 pz and the Viltrox  AF APS-C 1.4 primes too as well as all the TTArtisan and 7Artisan and other Chinese-made manual focus options for playing around. I just ordered the TTArtisan 25 f/2 for $55.  In a thread 5+ years ago when I was complaining about the total lack of anything of similar focal length to the $1200 Sony 24 1.8, I was as much as being told that something like that wasn't going to happen. Now there are quite a few equiv. 35-ish options.

Perhaps it is ironic that we have all these unanticipated choices, but there still isn't a super compact APS-C fast 85 (equiv 128). I have the Rokinon 85 1.8 manual focus for aps-c, and it is fantastic, but I need the a6500 sensor stabilization just to keep the image still enough in magnified view to focus the lens. With it's 62mm filter at 12 ounces and only about 3" long, if they make an AF version of this lens, I'm buying it even though I already have the MF version. I say this because according to what I have seen in reviews (Chrisopher Frost on YouTube in particular), the bulkier, heavier Sony 85 1.8 FE just doesn't hold up in the corners on APS-C, and we often can't count on performance to hold up putting FE lenses on APS-C. So I've polished my crystal ball and seeing a small AF 85 1.8 from Sanyang for $400 😉 

I have the Sony 35mm 1.8 lens which is the equivalent of 52.5mm, a great 'normal' lens and I also use the Sony/Zeiss 17-70mm 4.0 (25mm to 105mm) equivalent lens which stays on the camera most of the time unless I need the 1.8. I would much rather have the a6400 or a6500 than the a6000 I have but I'm focusing (pun intended) on the Canon mirrorless system currently.