[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

Same thing goes for the Minolta/Sony one,

[/quote]

The Sony 35 1.4 is a dog... in terms of optics, design and also price. Tried using it on an a900 or an a850 but was crap. The C and the N ones are far better, I have to say.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

and the Zeiss also appears to be of a similar optical design.

[/quote]

I don't know about that one... I think whenever Zeiss doesn't make a good lens, they say they just want to give a unique nostalgic feeling rather than creating a superb optic. For example, they don't say the same about the 100/2 or the 21/2.8 which are very good.





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

I wonder what is so special about 35mm on 135 format that makes manufacturers not make any real progress? They keep being reruns of old designs.

[/quote]

I have the same question about 50mm lenses...





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

Maybe Canon will surprise us when they update the 35mm f1,4 L USM (we know it is up for updating, it is one of the older L's and not sealed).

[/quote]

I expect a 35L II to be sharper than the 24L II because it's the same aperture but easier to make because it's longer. This is good news because the 24L II is definitely and absolutely much better than the 35 1.4G in the corners.



GTW