The Online Photographer

So here's a weird thing about me. I don't do TOP primarily as a business. "Content" is not a business problem that I need to solve in order to draw readers; the content itself is my interest (I like to write and despite being an agonizingly slow typist, I need to do it every day), and if lots of people share that interest then that's cool. One of the things that inspired me to launch TOP in the first place was that I realized I was writing long, elegant (and often researched) emails and forum posts every day, and I figured since I was doing it anyway I might as well do it for more people.

So when you see me post little blats like "Any Love for the D500," yes, it mentions current products, and yes, I do be a dutiful blah-blah-bloggah so I link to those products, because that's one of the engines that keeps the choo-choo chugging. And you could be forgiven for thinking that it's just knee-jerk click-bait. But, usually, it isn't—usually, it's mainly because my OCD gets going and I start thinking about gear and I wanna talk about it. It's not deliberate click-bait, in other words...

...It's more like a form of suffering. Ha!

Just thought I'd mention that.

DX, FX, [x]X
So John Krill just commented on that post,

"Nikon continues to make bodies and lenses for the FX line but fails to support DX. Yes, I know, they just released the D500 but what of lenses for the DX line? Not much at all and still only three primes for the DX bodies. The zooms for DX aren't all that great either."

Made me think of two things...one, whenever you say that, many Nikon people will say some version of the following: "Yeah, but you can do anything you need to do with the AF-S Nikkor 35mm ƒ/1.8G DX!" It's as if, yes, true, Nikon has only a few DX-specific primes, but Nikonista are ecstatic they get any at all.

And here's a funny blip, which I think kind of shows where Nikon's corporate head is at. I was at an official Nikon site the other day searching wanly for lenses for my imaginary D7200 that I don't have, and the 35mm ƒ/1.8G DX lens was listed under "Wide Angles." Made me chuckle.

It's probably just an understandable mistake by a lower-level functionary who doesn't get that 35mm is a normal lens on DX, or who got the DX version confused with the FX version which, after all, has a nearly identical name. Thou art forgiven for thy flub, thou flunky.

I've recently had a serious case of jonesing for the D7200. Go look at some pictures taken with that camera sometime this weekend. Parade of lovliness.

But in the end, Nikon just doesn't have the lenses I'd want for a DX camera. Strange thing to say, about a marque that traditionally had the biggest system of all, servicing every need and fulfilling every desire.

Click this
So here's a bit of pure click-bait. (And off-topic, too.) I've been outfitting my kitchen here at the TOP digs at scenic Keuka Lake, and after cleaning up yet another smashed drinking glass and stressing over missed shards of glass interacting in unpleasant ways with bare feet and with doggies—who, after all, live down there near the floor (I really dislike broken glass)—I found these Tritan tumblers by Michley. And, go figure, I absolutely love 'em. So click on that link and buy some.

They're clear enough, they can go in the dishwasher and they dry without spots (I use a drying aid in the dishwasher), they're very light (when you lift a full one it seems oddly that you're just lifting the liquid and nothing else), and the nicest thing is that they're somehow soft-feeling. I find their peculiar tactility appealing. Don't really know why. And of course if you drop them they don't shatter. They bounce. I'm a fan.

A little on the expensive side, but, another problem solved by modern materials engineering! These are my best purchase recently, in any realm. Recommended.

Next, I'm going to try to kill weeds in the driveway with steam. I'll let you know how that goes.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ken Bennett: "I like the Tervis Tumblers (feel free to add a click-bait link here). They are double walled plastic, so they keep drinks cold longer, and the glass tends not to sweat in hot weather, so no wet ring on the table or drops of water in my lap."

k4kafka: "Hey Mikey...those Tritan tumblers don't shatter because...(wait for it)...they're plastic!"

Mike replies: But not just any plastic. It's a copolyester developed by Eastman Chemical Company that's been extensively tested and has among the best safety and durability features of any clear polymer approved for food. And not all plastic is shatterproof by a long shot. Don't make me tell the sad story of my (plastic) Fuji GS645s medium-format rangefinder again....

Steve Higgins: "As someone who is so clumsy that I managed to trip over my shoe-laces while walking around my flat in my bare feet, and has had to replace all my dinnerware with melamine items (which does, unfortunately, bring back some memories of the old, often chipped plastic plates used for school dinners when I was a boy) to save buying a new dinner service every year, those tumblers look ideal for me...."

Mike replies: Funny! I use melamine plates too.

Let me know what you think of the tumblers. I've now replaced all my drinking glasses with a dozen of them.

New Nikkor Speed King making a D810 look wee.
Sorry the picture is slightly cut off, but it wouldn't quite fit*.

Now that's a handful of camera!

With Sony going "big" with its new FF lenses, Nikon is not backing down. We'll see your Dodge Ram 3500 and raise you a Ford F650!

The lens of course is the new Nikkor 105mm ƒ/1.4 that has just been announced.

The guy who sold me my house has his own bulldozer. Now that's macho. If you aren't willing to commit that far, this might be the next coolest thing.

Ansel Adams used to answer the question "what camera do you use?" by saying, "the biggest one I can carry!" If you're made of the same stern stuff, the new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm ƒ/1.4E ED lens should rock your world. (I almost said "float your boat" but rock has more accurate connotations here than float. Okay, I kid. Ignore me.) It has a dazzling array of tech benefits: 14 elements in 9 groups, three extra low dispersion ED glass elements, Nikon's Nano coating, weather sealing, internal focusing, fluorine coating on the outer elements for smudge resistance, Nikon's SWM Silent Wave Motor, full-time manual focus override, and 9 rounded aperture blades. (It also has an electromagnetic aperture, so check compatibility on older cameras.)

And it takes 82mm filters (!), is 3.75 inches in diameter, and weighs 985g (35 oz.)(!!). It focuses to 1 meter.

The 105mm focal length used to be known as the shortest lens that you could use as a general-purpose short telephoto but with which you could also do full headshots (an 85mm or 90mm had a little too much distortion that close). Nikon, of course, is famous for its 105mm lenses, going way, way back to the four-element rangefinder lens of the 1950s. It's identified with them. In 1982 there came the previous speed king, the awesome and heavy Ai-S 105mm ƒ/1.8. I knew a guy who owned one once, but he said he never carried it because it was too heavy. (He had the 135mm ƒ/2 as well.) That 105mm ƒ/1.8 only weighed a measly 580 grams, though. Nikon's all-time champ was the legendary 105mm ƒ/2.5, which went through many updates. There were others. 105mm is a central focal length in the Nikon lineup, and for Nikon heritage. This new one is the fastest ever.

And remember, size and cost are the two biggest design constraints limiting the performance of lenses. Relax one or both, and you are likely to get better performance. That is, if very good isn't good enough.

And guys 'n' gals, this will most likely be a lens for those times when very good isn't good enough.

Mike

*I've used this joke before. Am I predictable, or what?

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Hugh Crawford: "Big?

"You must be kidding. it's probably the smallest 105mm ƒ/1.4 lens you could make.

"Aperture is bit more than 75.7 mm and the filter ring is only 82mm. That leaves less than 2mm around the front of the front lens element, which doesn't seem like enough to prevent vignetting wide open on full frame. Those aperture blades need to go someplace when they are wide open, and there is some focusing mechanism and motor in there too.

"I'll bet this is not a telephoto design but is in fact a slightly retrofocus design or is maybe like those famous Kubrick/NASA high speed Zeiss lenses that were essentially a pretty fast medium telephoto with what we now call a speed booster/focal reducer in back of it. Maybe a 210mm ƒ/2 design with a .5 focal reducer added. In a perfect world with unicorns and free ice cream this would have twice the resolving power of the 200mm ƒ/2 which is pretty sharp to start with.

"But how'd they make it so darn small?"

Steve G: "Sigh. Yes, I remember the 105mm ƒ/2.5 'chrome front ring'. As I've said before, that was the lens that taught me that some lenses have something going for them that doesn't show up on the spec sheet. Steve (Currently in Kronberg, Germany, with the Zeiss 24–200mm-e on the Sony RX-10)."

Mani Sitaraman: "I'm a little puzzled when I try to figure out the point of these very wide-aperture portrait lenses, in this day and age. Surely,the availability of very high ISO settings in cameras these days means that the wide maximum aperture is not needed for available light situations? And an ƒ/1.4 is useful only if you wish to do portraits in which just one eye is in focus in three-quarter profile shots, or portraits in which just the plane of the face is in focus, but not the nose. Is there a real demand for lenses that will make such pictures possible? Aside from the fact that major lens makers make these lenses simply to assert that they can, is there any market for these lenses? I suppose a lens like this one does impress clients...."

Mike replies: Don't look at me, I'm an 85mm (and equivalent) kind of guy.

Not looking to start any arguments, but interested in opinions. I've been using the Panasonic GX8 recently and have discovered—big surprise to me—that I'm actually a huge fan of Panasonic lenses.

Micro 4/3 wins the war when it comes to lens size—a whole kit is lovely and compact, easily portable. For all the popularity of Sony's A7 cameras, some of the new lenses are monsters and a kit doesn't really look to offer much "schlepping" advantage over full-frame DSLRs. The Panasonic 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 has been thoroughly overshadowed by Olympus's better-on-paper variant of the same idea, but the 12–35mm is a truly fine lens by all the measures I personally care about. Just a really great all-rounder that scores highly in every way, from its lovely image quality to focal-length flexibility to its constant maximum aperture to size, weight, and operability. If I shot Micro 4/3 you'd have to use a crowbar to pry that lens out of my hands.

Love it.

If I were going to build a lens kit in the Panasonic lineup, I'd choose four: the 20mm ƒ/1.7 II, ; the aforementioned 12–35mm ƒ/2.8; the "King of Bokeh" 42.5mm ƒ/1.7; and the 35–100mm long zoom, which would be useful in the landscape I currently live in but which I know only by reputation. That would cover all the bases for me.

And that whole kit weighs in at a grand total of 31.12 ounces (882 grams).

Compare that to just the new single normal zoom for the A7 cameras, the Sony FE 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 GM, and you can see where the real advantage of Micro 4/3 over FF lies:

Entire 4-lens Panasonic kit: 882 grams
Single Sony FE zoom: 886 grams

This is not to say there aren't still excellent reasons for going with Sony's full-frame mirrorless offerings, but there's going to be a bit of a portability hit. (Somehow, though, I don't see anyone choosing Sony FE quite yet, much less Sony APS-C E-mount, as the best lens line.)

Here's a size comparison between the Canon D80 and the marvelous EF 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II and the Panasonic GX8 with its 12–35mm (24–70mm angle of view equivalent) ƒ/2.8. Graphic courtesy CameraSize.com.

Or is it Nikon or Canon? When I wrote a magnum opus magazine article called "The EOS Revolution" for Camera & Darkroom magazine in 1991 or so, Canon was flying high as an innovator. Now, it has the reputation of being complacent and hidebound, a broody hen sitting on its eggs. (That's probably just that "don't mess with success" phase that corporations go through when they insist that the handwriting on the wall isn't actually on the wall.) But its lens lineup is huge and has many high points, including what might be the prettiest normal zoom optically of any, the EF 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II. Beautiful lens, and it's hardly Canon's only great one. So does Canon get your nod?

The Leica M-mount has as many fun options as Micro 4/3 and likely more, depending on what you count. Of course, many of the tastier of those options have a very high price bar—like a big bouncer at the club door who won't let anyone in. And they lack certain features the market cares for, like, well, that little alleged convenience called "autofocus." Still, I can see Leica M lenses winning the palm for the right person.

I suppose I voted with my wallet when I bought the Fuji X-T1 review sample and 23mm ƒ/1.4 lens two years ago. Fuji's lens line just makes great sense for me. Although so far my investment has lagged—I now own the 23mm and only one additional lens, the XF 14mm ƒ/2.8. The other day Ctein, Moose and I were discussing the Olympus 12mm ƒ/2 that Ctein still doesn't like very much, which allowed me to sing the praises of the XF 14mm. Yeah, I know they make a two-stops faster 16mm, but in my view the 14mm is one of the reasons to shoot Fuji in the first place. (Thanks again to Stephen Scharf, who originally recommended it to me.)

But I still haven't plunked down for the 56mm I need or the longer tele zoom I think might be useful for the hills and lakes of Western New York. (It's the only place I've lived where I consistently see small pictures that are far away!) I suspect my commitment to Fuji might be...weak. Too many good alternatives out there I guess. Or maybe it's a knee-jerk frugality that makes me balk at the combined expense.

But what do you think? All things considered, what gets your vote (even if it's not what you shoot with)?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Frank Grygier: "Despite a recent dalliance with a Sony A6000 I have been a dedicated Micro 4/3 user. I happen to have all the lenses that you listed except my 42.5mm is of the ƒ/1.2 Nocton variety. I also have many of the Olympus prime lenses. I do find myself gravitating toward the Panny lenses lately and travel mostly with the two zooms you mention. I also pick up the Panny GX8 over the E-M1. I continue to struggle with the selection of Sony lenses for the A6000 and will probably stay with Micro 4/3 because of portability and the investment I have made in the system."

Tom Hassler (partial comment): "...I'm going to cast my vote for the Zeiss Batis line for the Sony FE mount...."

[Please see the Comments Section for the full text of "Featured" comments, where Tom makes some good points about plastics. The Featured Comments are just meant to be samplings of the Comments for people who only have time to read a few. —Ed.]

Craig (partial comment): "I strongly dislike the MIcro 4/3 lens lineups from both Olympus and Panasonic because they seem to have decided that since software can correct for geometrical distortion, there's no need for the lenses to do it. Raw files from most of these lens show really bad distortion. While software can straighten the images out, this unavoidably reduces sharpness toward the corners."

Technical Editor Ctein replies: I have to disagree that raw files from most Micro 4/3 lenses show really bad distortion. Apropos the email conversation Mike and I have been having, I've been looking at a lot of uncorrected distortion figures (because it's the fastest way for me to filter out a whole bunch of unacceptable candidates). Some Micro 4/3 lenses have unacceptable levels of geometric distortion. Most don't. I think you're running into sample bias—the focal lengths that you're interested in don't have good performers.

Note that correcting modest amounts of barrel distortion in software (under ~2%) produces no visible degradation in edge/corner image quality at all. It's an entirely useful tool for designers. It's when you correct large amounts in software that you screw things up, because the degradation goes up with the square or cube of the distortion (not sure which—haven't played with the maths).

Numbers up over 5% are very, very bad, and if you're looking for something in the 24mm-equivalent range in Micro 4/3, you're pretty well out of luck. (I also looked at the various APS-C options. No joy there, either.) Nothing is particularly better than my much-maligned Olympus 12mm, and some are worse. So, no alternative for me, yet (there might be a new Leica 12mm lens coming down the pike, but I ain't getting my hopes up).

But...looking at the same vaguely equivalent-focal-length for the Fuji X cameras, every single lens also has unacceptable levels of distortion. There's nothing in that regard that makes them superior to the Micro 4/3 line.

Except...

The 14mm (21mm-equivalent) Fujinon XF ƒ/2.8 has insignificant distortion—0.4%. That's ridiculously good for any ultrawide in any format. It's the sole exception to the pattern. So, what did the designers sacrifice to get that good distortion correction? Vignetting is serious—something like –2.5 stops wide open. That's not a good number. But you can deal with that.

UPDATE: Ctein amends: I have just become aware that DxO and Photozone (where I usually go for lens tests) do the math differently when calculating distortion. Both sites have good and reliable data, but DxO's distortion numbers are precisely half of Photozone's. So...

When I said under 2% distortion's okay and over 5%'s trouble, those are Photozone numbers. Divide by 2 (i.e., under 1% and over 2.5%) if you're looking at DxO's reports.

It's never simple, sigh.

Ryan Cousineau (partial comment): "A very brief, self-deceiving bid for Pentax, as the best value in lenses. The Micro 4/3 stuff is smaller (and the best stuff is very good), and Canikon do Canikon surpassingly well, but if you're a cheapskate like me, the 'obsolete' 50mm ƒ/1.4 from Pentax is still the best value around, and you can find fantastic old lenses for no money at all...."

Ken: "What's the Best Lens Line? Well, that depends on what you shoot, doesn't it? For wildlife, which is my primary interest, I am not aware of any line that tops the Nikon and Canon telephotos."

Jeff: "Well, since the 'best' camera is the Leica S, a lot of its appeal comes from the equally superb S lenses. Not small, and perhaps not the state of the art AF, but all have outstanding IQ and weather sealing, and are pretty, too, on that camera. The weakness is that there aren't enough of them...only 24mm to 180mm (equivalent 19–144 in 35mm terms), and no wide tilt/shift. Oh, and they're expensive."

Stephen Scharf: "I have the Olympus OM-D E-M1 (terrific camera) and some of the Olympus primes for it, but the two lenses that go with me everywhere with that kit are that sweet, sweet Panny 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 and 35–100mm ƒ/2.8. I love 'em. I can fit the entire kit into a small ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 20 bag, and it is small (8.9” W x 6.1” H x 4.5” D), compact and light, so the entire kit is highly schlepp-able. A truly superb and very versatile kit for travel with literally pro level quality.

"My heart really belongs to Fuji X, though. I know you don't use or have shot with the 18–55mm ƒ/2.8–4 zoom, but it is a really good pro-level zoom (David Allen Harvey of National Geographic says is it the first zoom he has ever liked), plus I love, love, love the Fuji 14mm. X-T1, 18–55mm, and the fabulous Fuji Fourteen and color me done...."

sneye: "To me Micro 4/3 strikes the best compromise between size, optical quality and equivalent speed. It has a vast collection of native lenses to choose from. I currently own an Olympus 12mm, a Voigtlander 17.5mm and a Panasonic 25mm (among others—I'm embarrassed to mention them all. Anyway, those three see the most use). Each has its own drawing style.

"That said, Fuji's selection of primes looks excellent too. I only wish they made some more ƒ/2 lenses like the new 35mm. A maximum aperture of ƒ/1.4 seems a bit over the top these days. Pentax offers a few unique small primes I must try one day. Leica? Of course. I keep admiring the subtle transitions which characterize those jewels, but owning one is way beyond my means."

David (partial comment): "Canon lenses are excellent and they have a fantastic array from which to chose. I've used a huge selection of their lenses over the years and they can always be relied upon. The latest 24–70mm is really an amazing performer. Many photographers I know have ditched primes in its favor."

hugh crawford: "Re 'For all the popularity of Sony's A7 cameras, some of the new lenses are monsters': Putting on my pedantic hat:) It's simple math. For a given size Micro 4/3 camera or lens, to scale it up to full frame it will be twice as long and have eight times the bulk and weight. The Sony A7 weighs 27.1 oz. with batteries and the kit lens. The Panasonic G7 weighs 19.1 oz. with batteries and its kit lens, but if it were as compact as the Sony A7 it would weigh less than 3.5 oz. So the real question is, why are Micro 4/3 cameras so darn big?

"By the way, did you know that the Crown Graphic is one of the most compact cameras ever? If it was as compact as a Minox it would be 40 inches wide and weigh around 400 pounds, and if a Minox was as compact as a Crown Graphic it would be smaller than a dime and weigh about as much as a cornflake. Back on topic, the Zeiss/Sony 55mm ƒ/1.8 may be my favorite lens ever. It's certainly the sharpest lens I've ever used."

Peter Filtness: "Best lens line (and value) for me...Canon FD series. Lasted 20 years+ on a Canon F1/F1n and still going strong on my Sony A7. But you gotta love that manual focus ring...."

Prototype Lomography Daguerreotype Achromat 64mm ƒ/2.9 Art Lens

Jeez, some people are born optimists. Lomography hoped to raise $100,000 to make a replica Daguerreotype lens. Out of brass. With Waterhouse stops, no less. (Freaky-styley ones, of course. Or funky-fun, if you prefer.)

A hundred grand? Who are they kidding? They'll never raise that much.

Just kiddin' around. Have a look.

Wow.

That's even more impressive than this much for a little paperback book that was on the shelves of the library where I went to art school.

There are still 12 days left to get in on that, if you want to. (The lens, I mean.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

David Dyer-Bennet: "Embrace the power of 'and'!

"Kickstarter has been used by big companies—Warner Brothers was a partner with Rob Thomas in the Kickstarter that funded the feature film based on the Veronica Mars TV series for 5.7 million dollars. (I was a supporter of this; and we received the BluRay of the movie as promised and are quite happy with it.)

"And my partners and I raised $22,000 dollars for a reunion concert and audio and video recordings by a band made up of our friends (and are just now shipping the important rewards, more than a year later; and are likely to end up out-of-pocket when we're all done). (That Kickstarter is closed, so I hope nobody sees any impropriety in my linking to something I'm financially involved in.)

"I see nothing wrong with big outfits using Kickstarter. In the cases I've supported, it's been clear who they were, and it's been clear what they were offering for our support. We were in a position to make an informed decision about whether we wanted to support them.

"The vast majority of Kickstarter projects are still from penniless unknowns; there doesn't seem to be anything happening to make it less useful for them."

The Sony A7 II with the new Sony FE 50mm ƒ/1.8

If you're interested in jumping into Sony's very hot full-frame mirrorless system and you want a native lens, the price of admission just went down. With not one but two normal primes already available for the system—the highly corrected Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm ƒ/1.8 ZA ($898) and the manual-focus Zeiss Loxia 50mm ƒ/2 Planar T* ($949)—Sony has introduced a third, the Sony FE 50mm ƒ/1.8. There are lots of differences, but perhaps the main one is the price: only $248. Paired with the least expensive body of the A7 series, the A7 II, at $1,698, that means that the cost of a basic body and a standard normal FE lens has dipped below $2,000.

The new 50mm is a classic old-fashioned design, very similar to a lot of older lenses from decades ago. (Albeit with one aspheric element, which the old lenses didn't have.) Just looking at the design, I'd predict that the lens will have quiet, unobtrusive bokeh and possibly even that nice property of older lenses whereby they're less sharp wide open, allowing you a little "sharpness control" depending on the aperture you pick. Very useful when you don't always want "clinical 'n' analytical" sharpness all the time! But we'll see about that.

Anyway, a nice option if you're stretching to buy the camera and don't have a lot left over for your first lens. And who knows, maybe that's not the only type of buyers who will appreciate a lens with a little more of an old-fashioned look.

I'm guessing I'm going to like this lens. Hey, a little nostalgia never hurts. Perfect for an OC/OL/OY, too.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 DG HSM Art, which Sigma calls "our true flagship," is a third-party 35mm full-frame lens that is available in Canon, Pentax, Sigma, Sony, and Nikon mount. It is intended to be a premium-quality lens competitive with the best proprietary lenses, but costs only $900, which is a bargain compared to many other makers' best 35mm ƒ/1.4 options.

I recently had the chance to try two new 35mm lenses (long my "home," or most used, focal length—I've used an embarrassing number of 35mm and 35mm-e lenses over the years, many dozens of them), thanks to a loan from Roger at LensRentals, the leading camera and lens rental site. (Thanks, Roger.) The first was the Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.8 Di VC USD, which was plenty sharp but did not excite further interest. It seemed too big for its moderate speed, and I was not liking what I saw of the way it transitioned to o-o-f; also its IS did not seem to be working right in very dark conditions with the D750, something I could well believe was operator error (or focusing glitches) rather than equipment failure. If I had cared to, I might have tracked down the source of that trouble. But seeing as we were not hitting it off and since my time with these lenses was very tight, I set that one aside and opted not to review it.

The Sigma 35mm Art was a different story. It put a smile on my face right from the start. I immediately settled into full lens-geek mode, exploring its properties, putting it through its paces, and happily admiring the results I was getting. I've developed a number of quick trials over the years that let me see quickly how a lens is behaving under a variety of conditions. Not only is there much more to a lens than "sharpness," but there are different kinds of sharpness! I look mainly at bokeh, since it's been years since I've tried a truly "unsharp" lens, but there are all sort of other properties hiding in plain sight, such as shadow contrast, curvature of field (to see about that, put a complex subject in the plane of focus and bring the focus forward—if you see different degrees of blur across the subject, chances are it's curvature of field), distortion, and several kinds of flare and veiling glare (which, really, you could "test" for months if you lived on a different planet where you had nothing else to do). And so on.

I liked the Sigma's kind of sharpness, though. It has a pleasing "look" with plenty of lens contrast [paywall] and is nicely consistent, with no detectable sharpness anomalies. I'll give you one example. I don't test for corner sharpness at the widest apertures, for the simple reason that there are usually only two reasons you use the widest apertures, namely that you don't have enough light, or you want things to be blurry; corner sharpness is just almost never an issue at open apertures in practical use. But I do take a look at corner sharpness at smaller, normal shooting apertures.

Take a look at that tenacious red apple in the upper left (this is from the A900, which has a nicer, brighter viewfinder than the Nikon D750):

You can just barely make out a little CA in the full file, but there's nothing wrong with this lens in the corners. If that isn't sharp enough for anybody, they don't need a different lens, they need their meds.

Flare
To single out one of my trials...the only real problem I encountered with the Sigma was with flare with the sun at the edge of the frame. Coatings have gotten so good these days that many lenses can handle this kind of thing with aplomb. Most often, flare trials leave me feeling a quiet wonderment for the state of technology in this regard. (Everyone should photograph with an historical uncoated lens for a while just to appreciate where we are now. It'll do for your appreciation of lens coatings what sleeping in a tent does for your appreciation of your nice mattress and box spring and a temperature-controlled environment underneath a snug roof.) And for the most part the Sigma does well enough; I didn't have problems with specular sunlight glittering off the lake or with indoor light sources. But...

...Uh-oh! Here's something I haven't seen in a while: big, obvious "drip" flare ghosts with the sun just out of the edge of the frame. A case of back to the past, a bit...with '70s lenses, playing with direct sunlight was like little kids pressing on their eyelids to see all the pretty colors (note to little kids: stop doing that). You just waited for all the strange surprises, all the fantastical and alarming blobs and streaks and pretty colors.

At the same time, note the distinct lack of veiling glare. There's nice lens contrast in those rocks at the lower left (take my word for this, I'm looking at the full file and you're not), and the lens is holding detail everywhere. Seventies lenses would be unlikely to match that.

As a side note, it's generally not large optical flaws and errors that trip up most pictures...it's small ones photographers are not quite aware of. Slight motion blur or slight misfocus can very subtly degrade image quality even when it's not easy to put your finger on what's wrong. Same with veiling glare...it can just cut contrast a bit and make a picture lose its magic, often without the photographer being aware of what's wrong. I can't say for certain—I'd have to use it for a longer time—but I would guess the Sigma Art has got your back where this is concerned.

You have to learn any lens you use, to be able to anticipate surprises and identify the situations where it might let you down. This specific kind of flare ghosting is what I'd most watch out for with the Sigma Art. Curiously, I wasn't able to find flare problems in most other situations. It passed the window test, for example (shadow contrast when there's a large area of bright light just outside of the field of view), and that's one of the trials that the beautiful old Mandler-designed Leica 35mm Summicron-R, to name one, fails. And my current all-time favorite* among 35mm (and equivalent) lenses, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, makes garish stars out of lights in the frame. With any lens, you come to know its strengths and weaknesses and can shoot accordingly.

O-o-f blur
Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is not super-important with a 35mm lens either. Because of the wide-ish field of view, usually you're shooting to get everything in focus, perhaps excepting some inconsequential not-very-blurry far-background stuff. But bokeh bugs me, and I've got a bit of a "golden eye" problem** where it is concerned.

The news is both mixed and also good. Say what? Well, when "stressed," which you do by putting the focus relatively close and having complex, high-contrast subjects in the deep background, the Sigma Art does not look too good. It doesn't actually behave poorly, in the sense of having bright-ring highlights, but it's not attractive, either.

The saving grace is that that's not the sort of thing you commonly encounter when using 35mm lenses.

High contrast subject matter far back of the plane of focus is usually the toughest test for a wide-angle or normal lens. The Sigma is not
poor but also not pretty.

On the good side, the news is good: the sort of bokeh you will encounter a lot with 35mm lenses is near bokeh from wider apertures at closer distances, and in such cases the Sigma comports itself beautifully. I'm not sure I'd use this lens just for the bokeh (I'll break down and confess my utter dweebishness here, which is that I do own several lenses I just use when I get a hankering to wallow in beautiful bokeh), and there do exist situations that you do have to be on the lookout for. But for the most part I think this lens does very nicely with the kinds of o-o-f you're most likely to encounter with a 35mm in real shooting. Which happen to be just the sort of shots where other fast 35mms let you down. I've gotten rid of lenses for that sin. I'd keep the Sigma.

In short
Sigma's designers and engineers set out to make a world-class lens that can stand alongside the world's best without apology, and I'd say they succeeded. It doesn't feel or behave like a lens made to a price-point.

Mainly, if you like sharp, then this lens, you will like.

But that's not all. This is a very well-balanced 35mm all-purpose lens, with excellent properties and a coherent, cohesive across-the-board performance (sun-in-the-frame flare being the only glaring—pardon the pun—exception). I used the lens on two full-frame cameras, the older Sony A900 and the newer Nikon D750; and I'm quite familiar with the competition from makers such as Canon, Nikon, and Leica. This lens consistently pleases with a high degree of sharpness, just the right lens contrast, and a fine and tractable consistency across the field and up and down the aperture range. I'm hard to please, and I liked this lens a lot. It just does most of the many things I want a wide-normal to do, and does them in a way that I find good to look at.

It's not just a failure to offend which defines its goodness, though—in most cases I found it a lens that actively pleases the eye. Looking at pictures made with the Sigma Art made me happy. Given its solid but ultimately reasonable size and especially its surprisingly advantageous price, this would probably be my top pick as my main lens, if my main camera were any of the full-frame DSLR brands that Sigma makes mounts for.

It's that good. In short, maybe just shy of a total home run due to the identified shortcomings, but a good strong bases-loaded triple with three RBIs. For the price especially, it can't be beat. But even where price is no object, it's a contender. Cheers and high-fives from me.

Here's the Sigma Art from B&H Photo and here it is from Amazon.

Mike

P.S. Thanks again to LensRentals for the equipment loan.

ADDENDUM: Here's more or less the same "trial" shot taken with the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-series lens on the NEX-6. Lens hood off, sun just outside the frame area, sunlight striking the front of the lens directly.

*Although when you really love lenses, naming one favorite is like naming one favorite song...there are lots of good ones, and in many cases each can be appreciated for different reasons.

**Adapted from the term "golden ear" in audiophilia, the compulsion to obsessively identify reproduction faults inaudible to most people who are just listening to the music.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Carsten Bockermann: "After trying this lens I immediately sold my 35mm ƒ/1.4 AF-S Nikkor and never looked back.

"At least not to the Nikkor; in situations where nice bokeh is really important, I prefer the 35mm ƒ/1.4 Zeiss ZF.2."

Mike replies: Another fine 35mm. I prefer the ƒ/2 (discontinued now) but only because of size and weight.

Shubh Mohan Singh: "Excellent piece, I too am a fan of 35mm lenses and I recently tried out the Samyang 35mm ƒ/1.4. Quite liked it other than the fact that it is difficult to get the manual focusing right on the modern DSLR viewfinders."

Kusandha Hertrich: "Thanks for this great review. You've given me some good insights in to how to test my lenses here."

Mike replies: Someday I should just do an article about how to test lenses using pictures. I've been saying that for years, though.

adamct: "Where are the test charts? You can't review a lens without test charts. It's like walking and chewing gum at the same time: it simply can't be done....  :-) 

"P.S. For what it's worth, standardized objective tests have a very important role to play in evaluating equipment. Still, it's a nice change of pace to have a review from a respected voice who is clear about his biases and evaluates a lens based on experience, rather than solely based on lab tests.

"P.P.S. I don't mean to imply that anyone who includes lab tests in their review doesn't do any real-world testing.

"P.P.P.S. What I really meant to say was: 'Thanks, Mike!'"

Robert Harshman: "The Sigma Art series 20mm ƒ1.4 and 50mm ƒ/1.4 are also great bargains and extremely good lenses. I have all three. Great value and the 20mm ƒ/1.4 is suppose to be the widest ƒ/1.4 ever."

Before we begin, Micro 4/3 is the best, when you're talking about the size and graceful proportion of lenses relative to the cameras they fit on. "Stipulated," as they say in courtrooms. That means: even though we're about to get argumentative, we're willing to concede that point. So no need to argue or prove that.

But we were talking about Sony's "Ex-NEX" cameras the other day (i.e., the Sony APS-C ILCs [interchangeable-lens cameras] that used to be called NEX), and there's something that usually bugs me when that subject comes up. It's that Ex-NEX lenses are "huge" and "extremely large" and "way too big" and other expressions along those lines.

No. Not so.

But it's become an Internetism. (Internetisms are things that are repeated so often that people think they're true.)

What is true is that they're not proportionate. They don't look well balanced or graceful on the tiny Ex-NEX bodies such as the new A6300. They tend (most of them) to look too big for the bodies.

They also look awkward to handle...

...But they're not. I shot with the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 for several years, on a NEX-6. It's one of those lenses that the Internet always says is "huge." It actually handles very nicely.

Here, courtesy of the ever-useful camerasize.com, is a size comparison. Three lenses of approximately equivalent angles of view on three APS-C-sensor cameras. Left to right, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 on a Sony A6300; the AF-S Nikkor 24mm ƒ/1.8G on a D7200, and the Fujinon XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 on an X-T1 (my camera and lens).

Does the Fujinon 23mm look huge too? I don't have the Zeiss 24mm on hand to show you, but here's the Fuji 23mm:

That's just not a large lens. That's a beautifully sized lens. Just right, in my humble opinion—big enough to handle easily, light enough to be portable. (Don't get me started on how perfect the Fuji 23mm is. I can go on.)

The Zeiss is just a little longer than the Fuji (and of course not quite as fast). But they're very close to the same size.

Other Zeiss lenses for the Ex-NEX aren't really much larger. From left to right, the 24mm, the 55mm ƒ/1.8 (an 82.5mm short tele on the A6300, but it also covers FF on the A7 series cameras) and the 16–70mm ƒ/4 zoom. All three are shy of three inches long and weigh less than 12 ounces. They look big. They're not. They look ungainly. They're not that, either—at least I don't think. I always found the NEX-6 with the Zeiss 24mm to handle very nicely and naturally. It never struck me as unbalanced at all. The lens is on the large size but it's not heavy, and it never gets in the way.

In fact (continuing this line of reasoning), I might even argue that the size of the 24mm is a plus, because it allows you to hold the camera in one hand by hooking the fingers of your right hand under the grip and letting the lens rest against the back of your fingers; then, on the NEX-6 at least, you can work the controls on the camera back with your thumb, thus allowing you to change the camera settings with one hand while holding something else in you other hand.

This post will, of course, have absolutely zero effect on the associated Internetism. People will go right on repeating that Ex-NEX lenses are "huge." Sometimes I wonder if people even care what's true any more. Weighing constant repetition of a falsehood on one hand and truth on the other, the zeitgeist seems to think the scales are about equal.

But at least now you know.

Mike
(Thanks to camerasize.com)

P.S. May I just say here that I think moving away from the NEX name was, um, the wrong move on Sony's part. "NEX" was a serviceable name that functioned as a name, i.e., a label that reliably distinguished a distinct class of products from all Sony's other products. Sony had worked to establish the name and the name was established. And then it changed, to a word that does not function as a name and does not reliably distinguish that class of products from other different products. In other words, it changed from a useful name that had no drawbacks to a useless name that has several drawbacks. For no reason that I can detect.

I'm just going to go on referring to Sony's APS-C ILC mirrorless line as "Ex-NEX," so that people will know what I'm talking about.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ken Tanaka: "Re 'It's that Ex-NEX lenses are "huge" and "extremely large" and "way too big" and other expressions along those lines.'

"'Internetism' indeed. I have a better phrase for it but you wouldn't print it. So I'll settle for equine byproduct.

"My set of Sony E-mount lenses with a Canon 24–70mm at top for comparison. The A6000 with the E-16mm is in the foreground. The largest E-mount shown here is the 18–200mm.

"Sony's E-mount lenses are the smallest, lightest, and generally sharpest lenses I own.

"Now on to photography!"

For reach-way-out-and-grab-it, nothing helps like a smaller sensor. It was one of the big arguments for 35mm back in the film era.

And few things in my life as a photo writer surprised me more than when I learned, at the dawn of digital, that photographers—most photographers—don't actually care.

You see, long teles used to be hot ticket—highly prized and heavily coveted by photo hobbyists. Mine was bigger than yours; you have a 400mm? Yeah, well I have a 600mm.

So when digital came along with its smaller sensors, I thought, wow, the gang is going to love this. You can get a 4/3 camera and double the reach of your teles!

...And nobody cared. As I say, big surprise. It turned out that most hobbyists liked long teles for the bragging rights—they were big, they were expensive, they were impressive. Status symbols. For every ten Photo Dawgs who owned or coveted big long glass, only one or two actually needed or used it.

But it's been an article of faith for a while now that if you actually are one of those photographers who needs long teles, you had to go to Canikon to get it.

And that's changing. Fast. The two 50% competing / 50% cooperating members of the Micro 4/3 consortium have both recently announced lenses with really long reach. The Panasonic/Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100–400mm ƒ/4–6.3 ASPH. Power O.I.S. ($1,798) (here it is on Amazon ) has a 35mm focal-length equivalency of 200mm to 800mm. Shazam, Batman. This is going to be the lens to have if you shoot critters.

And apropos our post the other day about the Fuji 90mm ƒ/2 being the sharpest lens ever, Olympus says its new M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm ƒ/4 IS PRO ($2,499) is the sharpest lens the company makes—which is a big claim. That one is a 600mm equivalent. (PanaLeica wins?)

Are the mirrorless makers starting to harass the remaining advantages of DSLRs like a swarm of angry gnats?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Geoff Wittig: "Not sure if long lens envy is entirely a matter of...compensation...but there's certainly an element of that involved :-/

Back in the prehistoric days of 35 mm film, my second lens purchase was a 70–210mm zoom, followed sequentially by gradually longer lenses (300mm ƒ/4, then 500mm ƒ/4.5, finally a 600mm ƒ/4) as I realized those birds and deer were smaller than I thought. If you really wanted to photograph wildlife, there was no substitute for more focal length. And given the reality of slow slide film, where K64 was 'fast' and K200 superfast with golf-ball sized grain, you really needed f:4 apertures to see or shoot in anything other than blinding mid-day light.

"The digital reality of high image quality at much, much higher ISO has changed things a lot more than longer effective focal lengths, IMHO. You can now get fabulous image quality at ISO 1600, which makes it possible to get photos you couldn't even imagine 25 years ago.

"The ƒ/6.3 zooms are still a challenge for aging eyes and optical viewfinders because the image is pretty dim, but I presume the electronic viewfinders in mirrorless cameras (don't use one myself) can compensate for that. The Olympus 300mm ƒ/4 looks fabulous, mostly because it gives you 600mm (equivalent) reach for about one-fourth the price of a modern 600mm ƒ/4 full frame lens. I still use a Canon 500mm ƒ/4 lens with some regularity, and it works great on a modern D-SLR; the higher ISO is just wonderful."

Robert: "Until the Micro 4/3 bodies have continuous AF that really competes with Nikon, I'm stuck lugging around big(ish) glass on big(ish) bodies. The joys of compensation."

The World's Best three-wheeled car. You will love
yours! The several times you drive it!

I'm currently shooting Fuji, although my weakness for IBIS is exerting a gravitational pull back toward Sony that I might not be able to resist forever. Fortunately, 2016 promises to be a good year for Fuji, what with the X-Pro2 and X-T2 rumored to be on the way.

And anyway a Fuji lens is garnering plaudits Webwide as the best lens of 2015. Didn't one of the big review sites name the Fujifilm XF 90mm ƒ/2 R LM WR ($949) as the sharpest lens it has ever tested? I can't find that. (By the way, I don't know what "LM" stands for unless it is followed by an "AO." "WR" stands for "I would never take my expensive lens out in the rain, but I could.")

I've always had this problem in photography, in that a photograph can be infinitely technically perfected, to a minute and hyperfastidious degree, yet still not be, well, a good picture. Port the same idea metaphorically to lenses and you have my problem with the Fuji 90mm ƒ/2.

...It's a 135mm focal-length equivalent.

Has anyone ever really needed a 135mm? Used a 135mm as a main go-to lens? Done more than a little good work with a 135mm?

I only know of one person—my cousin Chris. She took very nice pictures with just a 50mm and a 135mm. I don't know of anyone else. [UPDATE: All right, and Don McCullin. Of course I'm no Don McCullin! —MJ]

Fuji X-T1 with XF 90mm ƒ/2 R LM WR

135mm lenses earned what popularity they have because they were the longest telephoto focal length that could be fitted on 35mm rangefinders. That's why they existed. That's why every good gearhead had to have one back in the days when everybody loved rangefinder cameras, a.k.a. the 1950s. The legacy of that is why they were considered a mainstream focal length in the early days of 35mm SLRs, before everybody bought a 200mm or a 70–210mm zoom and it began to grow on them how useless their 135mms (back at home) actually were.

Short teles are (apparently) the easiest lenses for designers and manufacturers to optimize, so, over the years, there have been many great ones...if you consider "great" to mean optically perfected to a minute and hyperfastidious degree. Over the years I've had many friends and known many photographers who bought absolutely glorious high-performance 135mm lenses to leave at home. They loved them. In principle. They never did much shooting with them, because the focal length is kinda worthless. But they could have. The Fuji 90mm ƒ/2 is like the world's best three-wheeled car. How good can it be? It's only got three wheels.

So is the Fujifilm XF 90mm ƒ/2 R LM WR the Lens of the Year? Could be. Tell you what—you buy one and then you tell me. You'll probably love it, all several times you use it. If you've already bought one, hey, great. Use it up.

The way I look at it is, however good a 135mm-e lens is, it's only got three wheels.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

dd-b (partial comment): "I know a bunch of Canon photographers who swear by the Canon 135 ƒ/2 ('L,' I guess)."

Mike replies: Sure, because it's perfect. I'm not saying people don't swear by them, I'm saying they do swear by them. They're amazing lenses. I had a friend once who swore by his AIS 135mm ƒ/2, which was his most gorgeous hunk of glass and a prized possession. He had even used it three or four times.  :-)  Mostly it was too heavy to carry along.

John Krill: "In 1966 my Dad sold me his Nikon F with a 28mm, 58mm, and the 135mm. All kit lenses. I ended up using the 28mm most of the time. Never used the 58mm, and used the 135mm only three times. I went to the Cam-Am races at Laguna Seca three times in '69, '70, and '72. It turned out the 135mm was the perfect lens for that course. Still is. Never used it anywhere else. Ever again."

SeanG: "Did you fall and injure yourself this holiday season? This has to be the silliest post I've seen on this site. Seriously."

Mike replies: Just playin'. So have you gotten your XF 90mm f/2 yet? You're going to love it, it's perfect.  :-)

Dave: "I wish you would've written this eight years ago. You see, back in 2007, after having my APS-C camera system stolen, I had to decide how to spend the insurance money. Should I replace my crop-sensor body and kit of zooms from 17mm up to 400mm? Or, should I upgrade to full frame and just one or two lenses?

"I opted for a Canon 5D classic, 24–70mm L, and Canon 135mm L. At the time, I talked myself into the 135mm by telling myself I was splitting the difference between 70mm and 200mm. Who needs a zoom when you've got feet? And then there were all those reviews extolling the magic of Canon's 135mm L.

"What a mistake...I've carried that brick everywhere for the better part of a decade trying to justify the purchase and I haven't yet taken a single portfolio-worthy shot with it. Yes, it's sharp with pretty bokeh, but that doesn't matter because the focal length is worthless. Last year, my wife bought me the much less expensive, non-L, Canon 85mm. I love the 85mm, use it all the time, and took more good pictures with it in the first two weeks of owning it than I ever took with the 135mm."

Andreas Weber: "You know, it's not the length but how you use it.  ;-)  I only got the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135mm ƒ/2 in April 2014—and since then it accounts for pretty exactly three-fourths of my shots with interchangeable lenses. ...And yes, it's optically perfect as well!"

Dana Thomas: "Hey Mike, 'LM' means linear motor which a few of the Fuji lenses have such as the 90mm ƒ/2. This type of motor allows for very smooth and nearly silent operation of the moving optics. This is a good thing and does help the Fuji cameras improve focus."

Mike replies: Thanks Dana!

Herb Cunningham: "I shot a distant landscape with a 135mm on Canon full frame, got it in a few shows, won a prize or two. Sold my Leica 135mm to a dealer and now plan to buy it back from him. They have a place 5% of the time."

Carl Weese: "Yes, when I had a busy commercial/editorial photography business I had Nikkor prime lenses in every focal length from 20mm to 300mm, with one exception...never got a 135mm."

Dragan Novakovic: "The 135mm is one of Don McCullin's favourite lenses. (See here, and here at about 11:25.)"

Mike replies: Augh! YouTube!  :-)

Joseph: "This post nailed my experience with the 135mm focal length. Shortly after getting the original Canon 5D, I found myself lusting after the 135mm L lens that everyone raved about. It was ridiculously sharp and had almost zero distortion, something that I felt was important at the time (before lens profile corrections and such in camera raw). I purchased the lens and remember using it exactly twice. Once it felt too long (for portraiture) and the other time it was much too short. After a few months, I sold it and fell in love with the 70–200mm ƒ/4 IS lens. And now I'm much more of a 28mm/35mm focal length guy for my work. It's a strange thing how these preferences develop."

Sven Erikson: "Apparently it was SLR Gear that said the Fuji 90mm was the sharpest lens they've ever tested."

Stephen Scharf: "It was Imaging Resource that found this to be the sharpest lens they have ever tested. Even sharper than the much-heralded Fuji 56mm ƒ/1.2. These test results confirm something I've consistently experienced in my three years of shooting the XF series of lenses: not only were they excellent when they started, but they are getting better and better with every release."

Lory: "Mike, thanks for the post: I finally feel less lonely (and less guilty) in feeling no attraction whatsoever to 135mm as a focal length!  :-)

"And  also, I now feel I'm in the right company to confess....

"Brothers, forgive me for I have sinned, but I have purchased one year ago the Zeiss 135mm ƒ/2 Apo Sonnar, literally mesmerized by its optical quality and lured by visions of acknowledgement of my quality as a photographer thanks to the images I was certainly going to make with it.

"A few shots with it, and I was sold: never, ever I had seen a similar image quality before in my life. Very expensive, manual focus only (yuck!), but what was money and manual focus compared to its brilliance and the promise of great pictures? I left the shop chock-full of enthusiasm and confidence, and with a heavily sedated conscience that I still could hear nagging me from a sidereal distance but wisely (?) chose to ignore.

"I shouldn't need to say more, but long story short: yes, it is a fabulous lens with no peer (just the new Otuses, apparently); it produces incredible image quality, and of course it is the least used lens in the cabinet, having resulted in literally zero portfolio images made with it. And to add insult to injury, it's proven even difficult to sell where I live without taking a massive hit! It sits there, hidden by other lenses, and I just know it's there waiting to remind me mercilessly of careless shopping and naïve enthusiasm!

"Sure, part of the blame goes to manual focusing. Working on a D750 or D810 and their non-discriminating viewfinders is a frustrating exercise. But the reality is: I just like 85mm and 200mm more, by a bunch, and they not only help me produce better images consistently, but also offer the pleasure of more interesting perspectives through which to look for images. So, the 85mm and the 200mm enrich my portfolio. And my expensive 135mm stays home....

"So, thanks for the post: knowing I'm not alone in this idiosyncratic detachment from 135mm, and also not alone in having collected an expensive mistake, truly has made my day!  :-) "

Mike replies: That's why I wrote this post. Because I know that people naturally get "mesmerized by...optical quality" when they read reports like those the XF 90mm ƒ/2 has been getting. I'm just saying: "think twice," that's all.

P.S. The similar mistake I made was with a Hasselblad 100mm ƒ/3.5.

BH: "I agree with Herb Cunningham. The 5% (1%?) of the time a 135mm is the right focal length it can't be beat! I owned a 135mm ƒ/2L and despite its limited use it's one of the few lenses I've gotten rid of that I actually miss. When you nailed a shot it was magic.

"Truth be told I feel this way about any focal length longer than about 50mm. For me they're all specialty optics. Sometimes I'd really like to have the longer focal lengths covered, but they just sit on the shelf."

The only lens reviews I regularly read any more are Roger Cicala's at LensRentals. He's the only person on the web who a) tests multiple samples and b) takes things apart. I mean literally...he takes things apart.

If you love photography equipment, you owe it to yourself to read his teardown report on the new Canon EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L II USM.

I don't want to quote too much lest I risk stealing Roger's hard-earned thunder, but here's a short bit: "I keep repeating myself, but by this point I was really rather awestruck by the amount of careful over-engineering that went into making this lens. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, else is engineering lens mechanics like the newer Canon lenses."

Read also his paragraphs in the same piece about the phrase "built like a tank," and his closing comments.

And I made fun of this lens for being too big and heavy. I hereby take it back, and by the way, this crow I'm dining on isn't half bad. It goes well the humble pie. Kudos, Canon, and a kowtow.

Here's LensRentals' optical report on the same lens (and the older version, and the Zeiss and Sigma Art competitors). And here's where you rent one from Roger.

Mike
(Thanks to Michael J. Perini)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Chris Y.: "It's nice to hear Canon get some positivity. I've used Canon EOS since 1995. I still use my 70–210mm ƒ/4 first generation tele too...clunky as it is, I have film shots made with it that I wouldn't trade for anything. My EOS 2.8 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 non-IS just kills. Yes, with the hood on that thing looks like a bazooka, but I for one never wanted smaller cameras, I always wanted bigger ones. When I point that at someone they know I'm serious. I've been klutzy enough to have to use the repair service in New Jersey three times over the last several years and, while pricey, they could not have made it easier and faster. I don't have any tattoos, but if I ever got one it would say '5D Forever' But then, 'Fender' and 'Campagnolo' would have to get equal time, so best not to get started. And I agree—lensrentals.com is great!"

Hugh: "Recently swapped my 35mm ƒ/1.4L mark I for the mark II lens. Delighted with it. Just heard rumours the 135mm ƒ/2.0L mark II is coming in 2016. Can't wait. You don't really need much more than those two lenses.

"Canon Professional Service (CPS) is another factor that gets overlooked. Dropped my 135mm ƒ/2 three feet onto concrete. Pulled out the broken bits of glass from the filter. Still worked perfectly. Finished shooting. Sent it to Canon for repair. Forty-eight hour turnaround, £17 for a new filter ring, £100 for labour, including a service.

"Used CPS three times, always had the lens back in four days including shipping both ways."

I have not lost my mind; I have not become a zombie; the real Mike was not kidnapped and replaced by a cyborg; the sun did not come up in the West this morning, nor did all the birds begin to fly backwards;—although as to whether hell has frozen over, can't say, never been there.

But...for a task like last Thursday's, shooting the arborists at work dismantling trees, a zoom would have been a better choice than my XF 14mm and 23mm primes.

I know, right? Never thought you'd hear me say that, did you?

Zooms usually come into their own in my opinion when you can't control your standpoint. That includes when your subject is 70 feet in the air and you're stuck on the ground, or when you need to stay out of the way of large chunks of wood falling out of the sky. (The time in my shooting life when I was most obviously stuck with the wrong tools was when I went to Keeneland, a horse racetrack in Kentucky, with a Leica M6 and a 50mm Summicron. Nice camera; nice lens; not for that situation. On the other hand, a Leica M6 and 35mm Summicron was perfect when I had a pit pass at the Michigan 400 Indy car race.)

I've owned a few zooms over the years. I have but few favorites, based mainly on work I've seen by others, published lens tests, and brief trials. They include the magnificent Canon EF 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II USM, the Fujifilm XF 55–200mm ƒ/3.5–4.8 R LM OIS, the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17–55mm ƒ/2.8G IF-ED, (a premium lens Nikon made back when it was thinking of sticking with APS-C), and the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 Asph.

Mike

P.S. Many people have commented that zooms are now "as good as primes." While that might be true optically—I think generally it is—the other two of the three classic objections to zooms still hold, which is that zooms are typically as large or larger than the largest prime they replace, and as slow or slower than the slowest prime they replace.

From a "seeing" perspective, I believe there are distinct advantages to primes, as I discussed in the essay linked above under the header "Learning how to visualize."

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John Lehet: "Over the 30 years I've been doing this, I've careened between zooms and primes and have settled on a reasonable balance. Or unreasonable, if you look at how much gear I carry. Now I carry three cameras with me, and three zooms. Also five primes.

"With Micro 4/3 and mirrorless in general, some excellent small primes came to be, and I could carry around a ridiculous number of excellent primes in my bag. Also with Micro 4/3 came some of the best zooms ever. It's lens heaven. So the funny thing now is that I use the primes by choice, very often, based on their character and vision, rather than the old time reason that it was the only way to have something sharp and low distortion.

"The infrared Micro 4/3 camera has a zoom on it because that is the best infrared lens I've found. In particular, that copy of that zoom. So that's that.

"The not-infrared Micro 4/3 camera often has the amazing Olympus 12–40 ƒ/2.8 on it, which is corner to corner sharp at every focal length and aperture ƒ/8 and below. But it doesn't have a vision. I never know what the bokeh will do. So I'm weird: I often envision with a prime, and then use the zoom more like a last resort if I need another framing that the prime can't do. I also use that zoom for everything wide. That zoom is also good when it's very cold (I spend a lot of time photographing in low temperatures). I change lenses a lot more than I 'need' to, always fiddling with primes when I could in theory just use excellent zooms.

"When I started carrying the D800E along with my mirrorless bag, I vowed that the only way this would make any practical sense at all would be if I didn't have heavy zooms at all. So for the full frame I only have two primes, the amazing Nikkor 85mm ƒ/1.8, and then the reasonable and inexpensive Nikkor 50mm ƒ/1.4. Both of these lenses are sharp and light and with nice bokeh, but the thing is, each has a vision. My eye composes based on the character of these primes, or one of the Micro 4/3 primes, more often than not. It's not just about how the shot is framed—how much of the view fits into the frame. It's not always the same to use your feet as a zoom either to change the framing. A focal length has a character and a vision, and the clarity of that is lost with zooms.

"I think most importantly, it's good to really know the lenses and what they'll do. So I would much prefer to use the 45mm prime on the Micro 4/3 than to use the Olympus zoom at 40mm, because with the prime I know the difference between the way the bokeh looks at ƒ/2.5 and ƒ/3.2, and really the whole character of the vision. With the zoom I just know how much I can fit in the frame."

Careful, don't go nuts...B&H just announced "Lens & Flash Friday," a one-day sale with almost 60 lenses and flashes at deep discounts. It's not just slow-movers, either—the deals include the superlative Fuji 56mm ƒ/1.2, the Canon EF-S 17–85mm zoom, the Panasonic 12–35mm that so impressed me when I tried John Camp's in Madison, and even the desirable Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 PRO for $150 off.

And, as they say, "too many more to list." Check it out.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

It was before my time, really, but film SLRs in the "MMM" (metal, manual, mechanical) era used to come with a "standard lens" which was usually a moderate-fast 50mm. This was eventually replaced with an inexpensive normal or standard zoom, the ancestor of today's "kit zooms" that come included for a bargain price with many lower-level camera bodies.

Some photographers missed the "nifty fifty" for a long time. Back then, it was everybody's first lens, and what they learned on.

So this is fairly mysterious—this is a brand new lens, not even shipping yet, but B&H has it on sale for a mere $99, marked down from $249.

Its formal name is the Panasonic Lumix G 25mm ƒ/1.7 ASPH. It's a 50mm equivalent for Micro 4/3. An inheritor of the tradition of a great many fine inexpensive medium-fast 50mms from days of olde.

And talk about a perfect lens for an OC/OL/OY project, too.

Mike
(Thanks to Duncan Holthausen and others)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ernest Theiseb: "I have that lens. I paid full price for it. I love it. I use it on my Pany G7 and it works a treat! That is a great price for an excellent lens."

I love lenses. Lenses are my equipment fetish, and my extra-photographic photographic hobby. And of all lenses, the best ones are usually short telephotos.

By that I mean full-frame lenses that are commonly in the range of 75mm to 105mm, or equivalents.

There are almost no "bad" short teles. Unless you just get a bad sample, most of them have their gifts to give...it doesn't really depend on brand name or renown or even cost, although cost is a severe constraint for most lens designers and manufacturers and relaxing it does help them.

And there have been great short teles in most eras of "miniature format"—24x36mm, what we now call "full-frame."In every era over much of the past century there have been short teles that have excited photographers' admiration as standouts.

In the era of mirrorless we have some truly gorgeous "equivalents"—for example the exceptional Fujifilm XF 56mm ƒ/1.2 R and the Panasonic Lumix G Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm ƒ/1.2 ASPH. Both very great lenses that are doubtless bringing constant pleasure to those lucky enough to own them.

It would be great fun to give a grand guided tour of many of the great "full-frame" short teles of the past thirty or forty years. I've known many of them.

And now there might be a new great to add to the pantheon. For the past several days I've been enjoying looking online at pictures taken with the new Zeiss Batis 85mm ƒ/1.8 Sonnar. You can't tell everything about every lens from online samples, but I can detect (almost) everything I need to know about a short tele that way—if I can look at a certain critical mass of samples. Well into the hundreds at least.

And I recognize this lens! Zeiss has long had a special way with short teles, a special sense for them. Its best short teles are among the most satisfying lenses you can use for photography, if you like true "image quality" and aren't just fixated on nasty razory "hard sharpness." The Zeiss "look" has richness of color (due in part to its proprietary coatings), a "roundness" or dimensionality to the way mass is rendered and the way "body" is suggested (in contrast to super-res lenses that make three-dimensional shapes look as flat as microscope slides) and just delicious bokeh—smooth without being fuzzy at all, beautiful in its transitions, yet with just a bit of bite and interest. I could just wade in this lens's bokeh. The new lens looks to me like it is a classic Sonnar, a true Zeiss.

The speed choice
Zeiss has a habit, baked into its DNA since at least since the original Contax/Yashica lenses of the '70s, of providing fast and slow lenses for each focal length within the most-used range (moderate wide / normal / moderate tele); it has followed that old practice in the 35mm FE lenses for the Sony full-frame mirrorless cameras, for instance, where you can choose between an ultra-compact but undeniably slow ƒ/2.8 FE Sonnar or a fast and gorgeously well-corrected but undeniably large, heavy and expensive ƒ/1.4 FE Distagon. It was the same with the 85mm lenses in C/Y mount in the 1970s—the exquisite Sonnar ƒ/2.8 and the justly famous Planar ƒ/1.4.

And just about as long as Zeiss has had this habit, I've been decrying it. In the 35mm FE focal length just mentioned, I'd personally rather have an ƒ/2 lens in the middle of the existing choices than either of the two existing options, one of which is just too big and the other just too slow. So I'm highly pleased to see that the new Batis short tele is a "mid-speed" lens for the focal length, closer to ƒ/2 than ƒ/1.4. This, critically, keeps the size and weight down while exacting hardly any price at all in practical performance. The Batis hearkens all the way back to the beautiful, aristocratic Zeiss 85mm ƒ/2 Sonnar for the kingly Zeiss Contarex.

I haven't used the Batis (Michael Reichmann calls it "the Badass") yet, mind you—haven't held it or made my own files with it. So my interest (and approval) is provisional and conditional.

At the same time, I can make a pretty well-educated guess. My suspicion, my gut feeling, is that a new standout, a new classic, may well be just now arriving on the scene.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

david stock: "The Batis 85mm is still hard to get. After waiting four months, mine arrived yesterday. 85–100mm is my favorite focal length range, so this is a big deal for me. The Batis feels wonderful in the hand. Perfect weight and size on an A7RII. Initial testing is promising; today I go out and actually shoot with it.

"I still have my German-made Zeiss Planar 1.4 for C/Y, so this newcomer has some big shoes to fill for me.

"One notable issue with the lens, for a long-time Zeiss user, is its obvious pincushion distortion. That's easy enough to correct in post processing, but it still made me hesitate. Zeiss says this was a compromise that allowed better overall optimization of the lens. I guess this is the new world order in lens design. (Hasselblad does it with their lenses too.) And to be honest, I'm not so traditional that I'm complaining about the Batis' autofocus or image stabilization...."

Bruce: "I haven't really appreciated or fallen in love with a lens until recently, even after fifty years of photography, during the last ten of which it was my main income. A Tamron 70–200mm non IS was breathtakingly sharp on my Canon 7D for eight years. (Don't laugh—it was better than my friend's Canon equivalent.) But recently, having jumped ship to Micro 4/3 and the Olympus E-M1, I've fallen head over heels in lust with Oly's 75mm ƒ/1.8. Combined with eye recognition autofocus, 3200 ISO, and in-body image stabilisation, it is sublime in low light, producing unobtainable-twenty-years-ago portraits, opening up a whole new genre for me. I feel young again, as if I have a new young lover!!!"