ULTIMATE SONY ZOOM LENS!! Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Sigma 28-45mm F1.8 lens ($1349): SDP.io/S2845
Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II lens: SDP.io/S24ii
Sony 35mm F1.4 GM: SDP.io/S35GM
Tony Northrup reviews the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 lens. It's the WORLD'S FASTEST Full-frame lens! It's more than a full stop faster than the traditional f2.8 zoom lens, meaning the results you get in low-light basically turn your full-frame camera into a medium format camera.
We test the sharpness, which turns out to be AMAZING! We also test the contrast and flaring, which beat the Sony zoom but don't quite match the prime. The macro capabilities match the Sony 35mm prime, but don't surpass the 24-70 zoom.
Ultimately this 1.6X zoom lens is pretty niche. I think of it as a 35mm F1.8 prime with a bit of wiggle room. But for scenarios where this is the perfect focal length, like a wedding reception or many types of video, it's the ultimate professional lens.
![Oscar Maydon x Fuerza Regida - Tu Boda [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ymicn0_GYc/mqdefault.jpg)
100% a lens for portraits and weddings. One lens at f1.8 to cover all of your wide-end focal lengths.
Anybody who has any sense would take 35/1.4 instead of this brick.
Due to the limited range, I'm wondering if I'd rather have this or just a 35mm f1.2 (or f1.4) & take one step back or one step forward.
Perspective changes with zoom, something you cant do with feet zooming.
@@alyousuf It's the opposite, perspective changes when you physically move and change your location relative to the subject, zooming in lens only narrows the field of view. By stepping back and zooming in you can create a sense of compression but that is entirely based on your physical placement and not an effect of the lens.
I have the Sigma 24-35 f2 and the Tamron 35 1.4, for events when I don’t know the space and need to be versatile, I bring the 24-35, when I know exactly what I’m shooting (ie portrait session etc) I bring the 35 prime.
I think this 28-45 1.8 is a revision of their 24-35 f2 for FF DSLR, I’d be tempted if it came in Canon RF!
I find 35mm can distort though
@@Chromatomic Zooming while holding focus will change the compression in a scene without moving. Both moving and zooming give different results which are often best used when combigned. Though cropping can be used in post to fix the composition once you have the perspective you want to capture (assuming your shooting wider so you can crop).
For OP, IMO, the zoom is worth the extra stop especially with it's clarity, though if the weight would stop you shooting, stick to the prime.
Yes the range is limited but with prime speeds, no focus breathing and prime rivaling sharpness.. It's a powerful tool for working in the wide to V slight zoom.
16-45 woulda been better but I bet it would have come with even more weight/size/cost or less quality.
Tony: Gear won't make you a better photographer
Also Tony: This lens will make you a better photographer
Gear can absolutely make a difference depending on your style of photography ruclips.net/video/_1MfQKPcDBs/видео.html
damn i'd be embarassed if i was you
@@mellin7049 I would be if I didn't have a sense of humor
Cool! Sigma still has the chops. Sounds like a rebirth of the legendary 18-35 f1.8 lens.
Faster. That was an F2.7 equivalent!
There is nothing legendary about 18-35/1.8. It might be unusual on APS-C, but at FF it's equivalent to roughly 28-53/2.8 -- there are many FF lenses much better than that, not even mentioning a better resolution.
@@USGrant21st Uhm: well name one that you could use with video autofocus in 2013?
And that is parfocal with no focus breathing?
That lens was a breakthrough at the time.
Sigma went from selling crappy cheap lenses to challenging the best fullframe lenses in a very short time with the art series. I was very impressed with that at the time.
But yeah:what would you consider legendary lenses?
@@jaapkamstra9343 ridiculous
@@jaapkamstra9343 The 18-35/1.8 isn’t parfocal at all and has quite noticeable focus breathing. And yes, I have one and am not just pulling an opinion out of somewhere.
Hi Tony. Did you ever sort out the eye-autofocus issue on the Sigma 24-70mm v2? It seemed unusually problematic for a new Sigma design. Perhaps a firmware issue or one-off problem with that particular lens? Discuss with Sigma personnel? Thanks!
Hey Tony, just a note on the HDR. Through my small journey with grading HDR I’ve learnt that although the wider colour gamut is beautiful to have and display to the viewer, the luminance levels don’t need to be pushed just because they can, the additional colour latitude and bit rate (that YT will allow over SDR) will bring that richness to the image. Pushing the luminance up too much can give a slightly metallic feel to the image. Some roll-off on the highlights really helps with this and only if the specular highlights need it should the higher nits be reached. Obviously, this is my subjective opinion but thought, as you look to be doing this more often, it was worth mentioning and may help in some way 😊
Thanks! We're still working out the HDR editing process. It's especially tough considering every HDR screen is different, so the results we see during editing don't reflect what you see on different screens. But yeah we need to err more on the side of being conservative.
@@TonyAndChelseatotally understand that. For effective HDR grading you’ll need to invest in a grading monitor to ensure uniformity over other devices for sure. It’s a real learning curve and one that I’m still very much on. I would suggest though that you use HDR10 with the Rec2020 colour space and the PQ or HLG curve instead of Dolby Vision and DCI P3, purely because DV isn’t actually supported on RUclips and will produce slightly incorrect results, although you’re still able to upload it the RUclips player it doesn’t support the DV license, so will make a conversion to the other HDR standard. Good luck with it though as I do eventually think people will become more used to it and it will become ‘the norm’ at some point 👍
Tony I wonder if you could compare this lens to say the Sigma 28mm f1.4 ART, 35mm f1.4 ART and 50mm f1.4 ART? (obviously the 28 is a dslr lens but still its amazing).
Pure G.A.S.!!! A photo taken with this lens vs any other will not magically earn you a gallery showing. LOL. The right tool for the job...if you can afford it.
I love your energy and enthusiasm, Tony!
But that's the thing. This sigma costs half of the price of sony GM. There are no downsides.
@@Karjavanukas Maybe so, but the cost is still over $1,000 and is in a weird mm range. I’d think about it long and hard ONLY after looking long and hard at my checkbook balance. And besides, I already have a lens that covers that range and the images are great already. No one I know, short of a pixel peeper, will notice the difference.
I‘m going to buy one for street photography.
Torn among these three Sony. At the city I live A1 costs $4500, A7RV $2700 & A9II $3300. (yes, their LCD are tilted/able to tilt).
I love the idea of this lens for environmental portraiture as this is mostly what I shoot. However I already have the sigma 35mm f1.2. Would you think that this could be a replacement?
Seems like the focal length differences on both ends would not make that much of an impact on my work.
It's an exercise in what can be done and trying to have something no one else has in order to have something unique to sell. It will appeal to gear geeks but professionals who actually make a living with their camera and are practical will not and shouldn't care. It's difficult to make a fast wide range zoom that is small enough to be practical. So companies have been using smaller zoom ranges to try an accomplish this in a form factor that is of use. But rather tam going for maximum apertures perhaps they should focus first on the zoom ranges pros actually use currently and try and try to increase the aperture say to 2.4 or 2.2 and keep the price low. Price and practical application still sells more than any other factors. Instead, these lens companies are trying to force people into what they are able to do not what people actually want or need.
I honestly don't know who this is for. Not wide enough for travel, not long enough for portraits.
For modern portrait styles it is…
Mainly it will benefit Astrophotography and low light
Exactly
@@sujithcheeralnobody would use this for Astro. 28mm isn’t really wide enough for that. There are plenty of wider lenses at wider apertures like the Sigma 20mm 1.4. Astro doesn’t require versatility like this. It usually a very planned setup and primes are fine.
Event photographers will love it, wedding photographers will love it, full frame videographers will absolutely adore it, environmental portrait photographers might appreciate having this one lens instead of a bag of primes… this lens is for a lot of people
Rf Canon 28 70 2.0 is kind of the same with more reach?
That lens is a beauty, also more than 2x the price though
Yeah I do discuss that. I'd still LOVE to have that lens for Sony; it's definitely a great reason to buy Canon.
I find this lens impressive, but frustrating. Tony you often mention how modern photography has a wide angle bent to it. 28mm is just not wide enough. If I’m in a smallish room at an event 28mm feels very tight for a wide or group shot, but 24mm feels at least workable. I can’t see picking this lens over a 24-70 for that reason, if I have two bodies I’m going with a 16-35 paired with a 50 1.2 or 85 or 70-200. If this was 24-40 or especially 20-35 then it would sell like crazy and fit the needs of more people. As I know you share this opinion about focal length based on other reviews, why didn’t you mention the issue with a 28mm minimum focal length?
Sigma have a full frame DSLR 24-35mm f2 which I love for events as my wide lens, also paired with 85/135/70-200 on another body. MKBHD has said in the past it’s his favourite lens. I also agree that for events, 28mm just isn’t wide enough for all situations, it’s what has put me off the Canon 28-70 f2 until now…
@@WilliamJohnston I bought the Tamron 28-75 g2 when it came out. I keep it because it's great for corporate video work, talking heads, etc, but I rarely use it for photography, it's just not wide enough. I guess if I owned this lens, I'd use it for low light content type video for clients like Spas, etc that have a more low light mood to them, and for low light events in big / outdoor venues... beyond that what is the use case?
If 35mm is still considered the standard wide angle lens for photo journalism then 28mm will be just fine for wide angle shots of people. Anything lower and we’re just talking about ultrawide which definitely has its specific use case
Just bought mine. So awesome.
For me, having the shorter zoom range is okay. I’d rather have more light and walk take a few extra steps to hit my desired framing, than to have a 24-70 2.8.
Keep using Optimus for lens tests. I need to be sure that my lenses can accurately capture the Allspark
What about the energon flares?
As a Hybrid Shooter.. I'm definitely getting this lens. And I already own the Sigma 35m 1.2
why?
Why do I feel that the Sony e-mount lens selection blew up after Nikon and Canon announced how great the new "Z" and "R" mount is going to be 😅
Even less sharp, I'd still take the prime. I love my 35-150 but I hate the weight and size, and the autofocus of any third party lens ends up disappointing me.
Not sigma they are better than tamron
@@DanBallzerianfwiw he literally says in this video the sigma misses shots and isn’t as precise as the Sony’s
The thing is that 28-45 doesn't add anything useful to 35 prime in real life. Slightly wider and longer FLs are immaterial, a step closer to the subject, and step further -- all that it means. And this Sigma costs even more than 35/1.4GM, which is by far a better choice.
@@USGrant21st stepping closer or further does change the background though; 28-45 can give you some slight wiggle room to get exactly what you want, faster. I think that's the primary use-case for this lens. A pretty specific use-case.
The price is also good. It cost as much as a 35GM, so weight, size and autofocus really are the only downsides. This lens is not for me, but I'm happy that it exists and we have options.
@@DanBallzerian Sigma is no better than Tamron. They're trading blows.
Great video as always! This gem of a lens...mmmm! What a beauty.
Can you please compare all the Sony, Sigma and Tamron lensen (telezoom). There are too many to choose from! Now theres this 60-600 Sigma AS WEll!
Ridiculously short range. If only was 24-50mm, THAT would be a TRULY game changer
Love how the bigger lens has the hood on, while the smaller one doesn't, that really drives the size comparison home :)) Hah
I prefer something like 24-40mm or 35-55mm
I was thinking along similar lines. If anyone made a 35-85mm f/2 with fast, accurate af motors … well, I’d preorder that, even at ridiculous prices.
Never bought a Sigma, but when this goes to 1089 or so I'd definitely get it.
Sigma and Tamron are the only reason I'm on E mount. And man do they deliver.
The focal range is very narrow so why not just get a smaller fast prime 35mm?
Yes, it’s "gorgeous" but only over a very limited focal length. If it were a 24-50mm f/1.8 it would be a way better offering. I guess it would have gotten even heavier and more expensive but at least the added expense would be more justified as truly being able to replace at least two other fairly expensive lenses.
Great ideas in your presentation
It, this lens, is like the Leica noctilux
Makes a very different image by design
I have the canon version of this lens, I am using a canon to sony adaptor so I can use it with my A7IV
Is this truly apples to apples or am i deluding myself?
Considering there doesn't exist a Canon version of this lens, I would say there is some delusion going on 😅
@@valdemarjrgensen8072 yes, sorry I have the old version for canon
Sigma does it again! The Art series is absolutely stellar! But I'm a Canon shooter so this one is off the menu. But make no mistake, if this was available for Canon I'd be buying one today.
Eyes rolling on AF...LOL! that along stops me cold even though I was thinking about buying it. Great lens for shooting low light and especially wedding but I would never take the chance of missing shoots due to miss focused images just because of its zoom convenience. Great concept to be able to somewhat replace the Sony GM 24mm/35mm/50mm even f/1.4 lenses that would be over 1,400g all together and cost over 5x to purchase but.... AF ability needs to be there. If Sigma is able to update the firmware on the AF to be as good as Sony GM to go with the superior IQ in the future than it's f/1.8 FF+APS-C 28-67.5mm range would be worth consideration for me.
Nice that Sigma showed us what is possible and have even more options in e mount lenses. but for me? 28-45mm ? no way. better wider focal lengh in both directions and worse aperture...
I have a vintage manual-focus 8:18 Olympus OM 28-48 f/4 zoom. It is tiny and light, and great for casual street photography on a vintage film camera. I have long wished that a modern lens manufacturer would make a short-zoom-range, fixed-aperture, high-image-quality autofocus lens as a spiritual successor. This very bright and heavy lens isn't it, but if this succeeds maybe we will see a Sigma 24-70 f/4 or 24-50
f/2.8 in the future.
With an A7R body one could use the 1.5 crop and give you a 67.5mm F2.7.
Sigma is really pushing the OE lens manufacturers. I love it!
Pleeeease Nikon bring this to the Z mount. Would be the perfect stunt to enter the Full frame Z mount.
Pretty excited about this release
Sigma strikes back. :-) As other said this is the 18-35 rebirth in fullframe? Probably yes.
And sure, this is the first 1.8 zoom for full frame, but for Canon RF there is the 28-70/2 which is only 1/3 slower, but much more reach (and wight and a hefty price of course).
But for that price that will be a "bargain".
It'll be great for indoor sports photographers like for basketball or wrestling
Oh nice! I really hope lenses like these eventually get ‘permitted’ to Canon RF. For now I’m happy using the Sigma 24-35mm f2 adapted to my R5 which can be had for an amazing price used, and is the FF DSLR equivalent to the famous 18-35 1.8.
I don’t know what I prefer between 24-35mm vs 28-45mm, as I often need the 24mm end at events, and I always shoot with a second body with something longer (85, 135 or 70-200), but going out to 45 would make for a more useful single lens solution.
I’m also just really glad to see other companies making their response to Canon’s 28-70 f2!
Just when I begin to accept the size and weight (and price) of a 24-70 F2.8...this comes out 🤦♀
they FINALLY made the 18-35 for full frame Sony-native. ooh I cant wait!
Except 35 is an equivalent of 52.5mm FF. That's a bit of a difference in the reach.
@@Tarets yeah I noticed that. definitely disappointing. I'm honestly debating just going back to my 18-35mm and using it on my a7r5 in crop mode. I never need those extra megapixels and file sizes anyway. by far my fav lens of all timme-wish I never got rid of it.
I am confused by this lens. I find it a little less useful than a 35mm prime
This exactly, and for anyone interested just grab the older 24-35 f2. It seems thst every reviewer forgets that that lens exist
Let's not forget that T-stop can sometimes be more important than f-stop, so the difference in light transmission between actual lenses shouldn't be overlooked. Some f/2 lenses, despite having a physically smaller aperture than f/1.8 lenses, may actually transmit notably more light to the sensor.
Love your channel ❤❤❤❤
Im very disappointed at the DJI. Battery died on me after only two shoots. Was brand new. Anyone experienced issues with the DJI?
LIMITED USAGE 28-45mm
maybe a great video lens and that's it
Very good and interesting lens, yet the RF 28-70/2 is MUCH more versatile.
you should do a comparison video with the 18-35mm 1.8. I'd love to see how they compare
While not for Nikon, i personally wouldn't bother with this for my usage. 50mm 1.8 and the 24-70mm f4 fit my needs for now, and while a bit more, id just opt for the 35mm 1.8 instead.
1.8 might be nice at times, but im usually shooting at f8 anyway.
The exact difference is that f/1.8 captures 3x more light than f/2.8. That's 1.5 stops.
I'd rather have more range, smaller lens and 1/3 stop slower. Like 25-50 f2
I want one!!!
The Sigma 18-35 1.8?
Didnt seen Tony so hyped for last 5 years ? 🙂 So i think its really game changer, but i am not happy its not for Canon EF RF :-(
Its not a game changer, the game has remain unchanged
Samyang 35-150 is better....yeah a couple stops but just use a higher iso
Sigma 24-35 f/2 for FF exists. It's close :)
Hey, Sigma, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Tamron and anyone else out there. Consider what pros actually currently use and love and then try and increase the aperture from there. Quit trying to force something onto people because you haven't yet figured out how to make a faster lens with practical zoom ranges that don't need a hand truck to carry. A good, sharp 18 or 20-50 or 20-70 even if you only got it to 2.4 or 2.2 would be far better than this lens or a Sony 16-25 that have so little zoom as to be no better than a good middle ground prime and a second 2.8 practical range zoom at any event. Only gear geeks care about lenses like this. Make a lens that accommodates what I already do, not a lens that asks me to compromise for it. After all, I can take pictures in low light with great result with the lenses I already have. 1.8 is better but only if I have enough range to work with. This isn't it. It's like all these camera bodies offering high frame rates but no improvements in dynamic range. Never had an issue with "just" 10 FPS but have had an issue with limited DR.
Finally a zoom lens with internal zooming. I think it's the first lens for mirrorless cameras. I'm curious as to when sigma will launch this for the R mount. I would definitely buy this over Canon's 15-35mm f2.8. And I would still choose the weight over external zoom and a slower f stop.
It’s a wedding videographers lens. Wedding photographers are better off with the 35 prime.
Don’t worry they’ll make a 45-70mm f1.8 next
"nothing like this has ever existed"
...except the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for APSC from 10 years ago.
At 1/5 of the price.
Yeah, we discussed that lens and showed samples from our many years of using it. It's an APS-C lens, which means it's f/2.7 equivalent and gathers less than half the total light of this lens. It's a much lesser lens.
f1.8 is f1.8 as far as light gathering goes. Doesn't matter what sensor you put it on. Convert it and put it on an apsc, the lens gathers the same amount of light. It would be the same if you put the 18-35 1.8 on a FF sensor for some crazy moment.
Don't mix in the sensor low light advantages with the lens specifications.
Less than half the total light? Where the crop factor is 1.5, not 2.0+ needed to make this even possible.
As far as depth of field goes, that's something else. But again a product of the sensor not the lens.
Sigma could make a constant f1.0 if it wanted and price and size were not a factor. Just as they could make a constant f1.4 for apsc with the same limitations.
It's nice that sigma finally made an updated version of the 18-35 1.8 for FF. That lens is certainly the lesser lens - a lot less expemsive, a lot less enormous!
10 years later you would expect it to be better, even if they remade the 18-35 for apsc. That lens' Achilles heal was the auto focus. For the price and possible use cases, getting that right is surely a must.
But the point is, it may be new for FF, it's not a world's first standard constant f1.8 zoom though.
thank you
the RF 28-70 is also big 😉
Canon 28-70 F2 .. I really prefer 70mm instead of 45mm..
Just buy an updated 35mm f1.4 and zoom with your feet. Much better quality and so much lighter.
Different lens options work better for different people…
A stack up of primes.
Thanks Tony and Chelsea, i wish more photographers would use Zoom lenses. This Sigma lens looks very impressive and modern, great job Sigma. Cheers 😊
Sony is allegedly about to release 24-70/F2 which, if true, is much more useful that a very limited 28-45 range.
I have a feeling that lens will be a lot more expensive than 1350, though. This is still a fantastic lens if it suits your needs
Yeah… if the GMaster 24-70 2.8 is $2400, the F2 will be at least $3k.
That large of an aperture, for only 1350 is amazing.
Thanks for your videos, they are informative and have really helped me!
I’ve been debating an a7cR since that’s probably the best that hyper autistic Sony brand can probably muster for a retro look. This lens makes me want it more. Hope canon opens full frame mounts soon. And makes a retro Zf answer
Awesome!!!
The lens looks nice but I don't see the purpose for it , at least make it a 24 - 70 or a 17 - 50 1.8
Not to be the "ehrm acsually" guy, but, they made f1.7 zooms, so it is technically not the festest zoom overall, just in full frame. But I mean, whatever ahah
Too big and heavy for me. But great price tho!
I don’t know why I watch a lens review when I know I will never buy.
1 kg = high risk to remain at home after honeymoon testing... I had that with my RF 28-70 f2: gorgeous lens, but pretty much left it home all the time due to size and weight, finally sold it.
Why not just buy a 35 and 50 mm 1.4 or 1.2gm?
Less likely to get dust and for event photography in low light not allowed to use flash
You then need also two bodies.
Why not get a 35mm and press the crop button?
@@benjamindover4337 You do realize you can crop the image on the zoom lens as well, right? That argument makes zero sense.
It is just like having a 35mm f1.8 lens, just do 2-3 steps backward and 2-3 steps forward lol... not for me.. I'd rather have a 20-35mm f1.8 FF lens.
Perspective, background control
Id get 35mm f1.8
And 85mm f1.8
This lens won't make you a better event photographer.
The f1.8's depth of field is SO shallow that if you have more than one subject in the frame, someone will always be out of focus.
In the real world, an actually usable aperture is around f4.5. There are relatively few opportunities for f2.8 and wider.
I would rather have a couple of small and light primes. I don't see what the zoom advantage is when it only has a 17mm zoom range.
A 12-24 has a 12mm zoom range. The Sigma 14-24 only has 10mm! They're still very useful though
"This is beyond professional?"
I'd pass on this, I would rather get a Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
I was super impressed with this lens not gunna lie!
28-45 is barely a zoom, cmon now… I bet some manufacturers could do a 28 - 32 f1.4 lens if they wanted to.
Exactly what I thought. 18-50mm? I’d be all in.
It’s F1 .8
It's less of a zoom and more like a prime replacement for 28, 35 and 40, kind of feels like the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 where it's taking on a specific range for like wedding or event photographers.
@@DoubleTheDomSigma released a 24-35mm f2 almost 10 years ago and Tony didn't go as crazy as he going about this lens
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI Well, not surprised to hear that. But perhaps it’s the last 0.2 stops that makes Tony go into party mode? 😂
I like it but I’m not there yet fir this much money I’ll stick to my sigma primes
Panny Leica 10-25 1.7 is technically superior.
Yes, I am looking for war.
4mm difference will go a long way
Unfortunalety this is not true! For FF it`s true.
Yep, plenty of f1.8 or even f1.2 zoom lenses made by Fujinon, Canon and the like for years. Plus we have had a handful of f2 Full Frame zooms like the Sigma 24-35mm F2 and the like
Wake me up when someone releases 20-105mm f 1.8
Honestly I'd rather use high quality primes than this limited focal range zoom.
Sigma… why no Z mount?
Its ok, the MegaDap E-Z adapter works very well. So I would just grab that and slap any E Mount lens on my Z Body and your golden, Pony boy
Why is 28 45 f1.8 better without 28 70 f 2.?
You can't tell 1.8 vs 2, plus you have up to 70mm.
I think the only advantage is that you can put it on Sony and Nikon, but as for the specifications, I don't think they did anything special
1/3 of a stop isn't nothing, and the Sigma is half the price. I definitely wish it were both longer and wider, but then it would be bigger and more expensive, too.
@@TonyAndChelsea You're right. I did not take into account the price and weight. I missed it, I'm glad you answered me. I wish you best of luck!
Too small and lightweight 😂. Should have been bigger.
T/1.8
I can easily achieve the same 28-45 focal length with a faster 35f1.4 by moving forward and backward 😂
Focal length isn't just subject magnification but control over perspective and background.
Why? Who is this for? Just get a 35 and zoom with your feet.
Useless for most types of photography, imo. Not wide enough for Astro photography, real estate photography, definitely not for street photography, travel…
Not long enough for a decent portraits…
So at events it would not be that useful either.
Not always possible in event photography...
@@bingbong4848true but if that's the case, it's definitely not going to be wide enough, or long enough either. And with that weight… Not seeing it being a very event friendly lens for long.
Ultimately useless zoom lens. Any zoom with 1.6x factor is useless as it can be easily replaced with a single prime, which would be better in every respect.
You posted a similar comment on every review of this lens I’ve seen. Obsess much? I’m guessing you’re a salesman for a competitor. If not, just another lousy troll. If you feel so strongly, why not rent this lens and put it up against your 35 1.4 in your own video?
Too heavy for me.
Look at the ridiculous size, it`s still just a zoom. Take 35mm prime instead for a fraction of the price and weight.
Useless advertise. You can get the same with a 35 prime.