Prime lens advice needed

[Matthias]

Hi all,

I have searched the forum but for my specific situation I did not find enough results to make a decision, so I am hoping to get some additional insight through this thread.

Currently I am using a Sony A6300 and have 2 lenses:

• 18-105 F4 OSS (APS-C lens)
• 100-400 GM OSS (Full Frame lens but compatible with A6300)

There is a big chance that I will buy an additional body in the near future, this will most likely be the Sony A7IV.

I want to buy a prime lens that can be used eventually also on a full frame body. I will be using the lens for:

• shooting people (indoors and outdoors) and get that nice figure-ground separation
• taking city/landscape pictures on trips
• occasionally take with me to shoot some sports (indoor - fast but predictable moving)

Ideally the lense would not cost more than 1000 Canadian dollars (~ 800 USD). I am doubting between the following 2 lenses and do not seem to be able to make a decision.

• FE 40 mm F2.5 G (C$800)
• FE 35 mm F1.8 (C$800)

Also, the more I read/watch about the lenses the more indecisive I become, and start looking at other lenses like the 50 mm F1.8. Also, the A6300 does not have IBIS (in body image stabilization), and these lenses do not have OSS: is this a big deal when using shorter focal length lenses?

Any insights you might have to help me decide are most welcome!

Edit: Found my answer on the OSS in this topic: https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/how-necessary-is-oss.3114/

 

[Reciprocum]

1) city landscape and indoor sports with same focal length ? …
2) stay away from 50mm f1.8. It’s one of the worst FE Sony lens ever made.

I would go for the 35mm f1.8 in your case.

Edit: your 100-400 will love the A7M4, and vice versa. Oh, and be prepared to make the A6300 funeral no more than 6 month after you pick the M4 because you will just stop using it ;-)

 

[Hank]

Edit: your 100-400 will love the A7M4, and vice versa. Oh, and be prepared to make the A6300 funeral no more than 6 month after you pick the M4 because you will just stop using it ;-)

I'm feeling this comment.
I kept my a6000 when I got my a7m3 "just in case" and never used it, and now I have the a7m4 as well. I probably should unload one or both and divert the money to a lens upgrade. I would love to upgrade my 70-200 F4 to the new F2.8 version 2.

 

[Matthias]

Thanks all for the comments! I will go for the 35mm!

 

[Hank]

Thanks all for the comments! I will go for the 35mm!

Great choice. I have the 35 F1.8 which is an excellent lens and I use it a lot. It's small and light and as sharp as a pin and cheap as far as Sony lenses go . It's so good I'm finding it hard to justify upgrading it to the 35 f1.4GM.

 

[roxannebcb]

Hi all,

I have searched the forum but for my specific situation I did not find enough results to make a decision, so I am hoping to get some additional insight through this thread.

Currently I am using a Sony A6300 and have 2 lenses:

• 18-105 F4 OSS (APS-C lens)
• 100-400 GM OSS (Full Frame lens but compatible with A6300)

There is a big chance that I will buy an additional body in the near future, this will most likely be the Sony A7IV.

I want to buy a prime lens that can be used eventually also on a full frame body. I will be using the lens for:

• shooting people (indoors and outdoors) and get that nice figure-ground separation
• taking city/landscape pictures on trips
• occasionally take with me to shoot some sports (indoor - fast but predictable moving)

Ideally the lense would not cost more than 1000 Canadian dollars (~ 800 USD). I am doubting between the following 2 lenses and do not seem to be able to make a decision.

• FE 40 mm F2.5 G (C$800)
• FE 35 mm F1.8 (C$800)

Also, the more I read/watch about the lenses the more indecisive I become, and start looking at other lenses like the 50 mm F1.8. Also, the A6300 does not have IBIS (in body image stabilization), and these lenses do not have OSS: is this a big deal when using shorter focal length lenses?

Any insights you might have to help me decide are most welcome!

Edit: Found my answer on the OSS in this topic: https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/how-necessary-is-oss.3114/

Matthias - I am asking the very same questions as I have just received my A7 iii and FE 24-105 lens. I also have the FE 35mm F1.8. I'll let you know what I think once I figure out how to shoot this amazing camera. Just getting settings set at this point.

 

[roxannebcb]

Great choice. I have the 35 F1.8 which is an excellent lens and I use it a lot. It's small and light and as sharp as a pin and cheap as far as Sony lenses go . It's so good I'm finding it hard to justify upgrading it to the 35 f1.4GM.

After preliminary shooting I am feeling really good about the 35 F1.8 also. Would you purchase the 50mm prime lens also?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

@Matthias The Sony APSC 35mm f1.8 was my first prime lens when all I had was the 18-135mm "kit" lens.
35mm on an APSC becomes close to 50mm when you do the crop factor conversion, and its honestly a pretty versatile focal length. Good choice to get the 35, even if you're picking up the FE version.

 

[Hank]

After preliminary shooting I am feeling really good about the 35 F1.8 also. Would you purchase the 50mm prime lens also?

I personally prefer the 85 f1.8 which is an awesome portrait length and is from the same stable as the 35. It's as sharp as a pin, light and cheap (Relatively speaking).
I have a 50 f1.8 E mount for my a6000 which I love as a portrait lens, but on that crop sensor, it's field of view (FOV) is about equal to a 75mm in full frame. So although technically I have used a 50mm, I just like that longer focal length. I think 15mm from 35 to 50 isn't different enough to warrant carrying it and changing lenses. I'm sure others will have differing opinions.

So to answer your question, no, I personally wouldn't get the 50mm for full frame.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I personally prefer the 85 f1.8 which is an awesome portrait length and is from the same stable as the 35. It's as sharp as a pin, light and cheap (Relatively speaking).
I have a 50 f1.8 E mount for my a6000 which I love as a portrait lens, but on that crop sensor, it's field of view (FOV) is about equal to a 75mm in full frame. So although technically I have used a 50mm, I just like that longer focal length. I think 15mm from 35 to 50 isn't different enough to warrant carrying it and changing lenses. I'm sure others will have differing opinions.

Regarding your comment on the difference between 35 & 50, I totally agree that it doesn't make sense to carry both. I think that's why I haven't bought the Sigma 56mm yet, because I already have the Sony 35. Having one makes the other a "nice to have" rather than a "need to have".

 

[Jeff A]

So, correct me if I'm wrong. I just purchased a 35mm lens for my Full Frame A7IV.. If I'm walking around with my 35mm attached, on my Fn menu I can shoot in APS-C mode. My equivalent Focal Length is now 52.5mm. Is my math factor correct? I can make this change without even bringing my camera down, then change back. Is that cool or what?

 

[Matthias]

Matthias - I am asking the very same questions as I have just received my A7 iii and FE 24-105 lens. I also have the FE 35mm F1.8. I'll let you know what I think once I figure out how to shoot this amazing camera. Just getting settings set at this point.

Thank you! Looking forward to your experiences! I'm still browsing around to find the best deal but I want to have it before mid-March as I will go on a small trip then and have the chance to use it in a lot of different situations

 

[Matthias]

I personally prefer the 85 f1.8 which is an awesome portrait length and is from the same stable as the 35. It's as sharp as a pin, light and cheap (Relatively speaking).
I have a 50 f1.8 E mount for my a6000 which I love as a portrait lens, but on that crop sensor, it's field of view (FOV) is about equal to a 75mm in full frame. So although technically I have used a 50mm, I just like that longer focal length. I think 15mm from 35 to 50 isn't different enough to warrant carrying it and changing lenses. I'm sure others will have differing opinions.

So to answer your question, no, I personally wouldn't get the 50mm for full frame.

Thanks for your insight! When the full frame body is there, I might opt for the 85mm f1.8 as well. I only heard good stories about that lens!

 

[Matthias]

Update, I bought the 35mm 1.4 G-Master

 

[Hank]

Update, I bought the 35mm 1.4 G-Master

I'm doing everything I can to deal with my GAS and not upgrade to that lovely lens. You must be excited.

 

[Clix Pix]

It is a terrific lens! Enjoy!

 

[Matthias]

I'm doing everything I can to deal with my GAS and not upgrade to that lovely lens. You must be excited.

Very excited, I'm already addicted to the lens haha!

 

[Matthias]

It is a terrific lens! Enjoy!

Thanks!!

 

[Reciprocum]

So, correct me if I'm wrong. I just purchased a 35mm lens for my Full Frame A7IV.. If I'm walking around with my 35mm attached, on my Fn menu I can shoot in APS-C mode. My equivalent Focal Length is now 52.5mm. Is my math factor correct? I can make this change without even bringing my camera down, then change back. Is that cool or what?

If you don’t use the AEL button then assigning APS-C on/off to it is much more practical than Fn menu.

 

[AlphaWorld]

So, correct me if I'm wrong. I just purchased a 35mm lens for my Full Frame A7IV.. If I'm walking around with my 35mm attached, on my Fn menu I can shoot in APS-C mode. My equivalent Focal Length is now 52.5mm. Is my math factor correct? I can make this change without even bringing my camera down, then change back. Is that cool or what?

You will get told that “no, it’s not the same“ by some pedants (yes, I know, you are surprised that’s not me!).

What you will get is an image with the field of view of a 52.5mm lens, but with the depth of field of <insert ponderous description of how they calculate the equivalent depth of field>.

Basically, the takeaway is that it’s not quite the same, but it’s close enough

 

[Jeff A]

You will get told that “no, it’s not the same“ by some pedants (yes, I know, you are surprised that’s not me!).

What you will get is an image with the field of view of a 52.5mm lens, but with the depth of field of <insert ponderous description of how they calculate the equivalent depth of field>.

Basically, the takeaway is that it’s not quite the same, but it’s close enough

Thanks Tony!