Previous page Next page

Sony FE 35mm F2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lab Test Review

February 2014 | By Andy Westlake
Buy on GearShop$798.00

The FE 35mm F2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* is one of the first three lenses available for Sony's full-frame E-mount system, having been announced alongside the Alpha 7 and 7R camera bodies. It offers a classic moderate wideangle view that's well-suited to a wide range of subjects, including such things as reportage or street photography. It uses a 7-element, 5-group optical design, which includes three aspherical elements to minimise aberrations.

The 35mm is a pretty compact lens (it's 37mm / 1.5" long, and weighs just 120g / 4.2 oz) which makes for a very portable combination when used with the A7 or A7R. The flipside of this, though, is its relatively slow maximum aperture; F2.8 is distinctly pedestrian for a modern prime. Despite this, it still commands premium pricing, doubtless as a result of that blue Zeiss badge. It costs about $800 / £680 / €800 at the time of writing, meaning it's significantly more pricey than other full frame 35mm lenses like the Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM (which is a stop faster, and includes image stabilisation) or the recently-launched Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G.

The FE 35mm F2.8 can also be used on Sony's APS-C E-mount bodies, on which it will behave as a 'normal' prime with a 53mm equivalent angle of view. But we think that the faster, cheaper and image-stabilised E 35mm F1.8 OSS is a much better choice if you're not planning on buying into a full frame system. However the little 35mm F2.8 does look like a very natural companion to the A7 twins.

Headline features

  • 35mm focal length
  • F2.8 maximum aperture
  • FE lens for full frame Sony E-mount cameras (also works on APS-C E-mount models)

Lens test data

The 35mm F2.8 returns excellent test results on the Alpha 7R. It's very sharp, exhibits relatively low chromatic aberration and distortion, and has acceptable levels of vignetting. In fact it's very close indeed to the benchmark Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM, which is one of the sharpest lenses we've tested.

Sharpness Sharpness is excellent. The 35mm is extremely sharp in the centre of the frame wide open at F2.8, and while it's not quite so good towards the edges, it's still pretty impressive. The best results overall across the frame come from F5.6-F11, much as we'd expect on full frame. Indeed at F5.6 the central sharpness is literally off the charts here (helped by being tested on the AA-filterless 36MP A7R). Naturally diffraction causes some softening at f22, but it's not excessive, meaning this setting should be entirely usable when depth of field is a priority.
Chromatic Aberration Chromatic aberration is pretty low. There's a little blue/yellow fringing towards the corners of the frame, but this type tends to be relatively unobjectionable visually. It'll be automatically corrected by the camera's JPEG processing too.
Vignetting Vignetting is the nearest thing the 35mm has to a weak point. It reaches 1.8 stops in the corners wide open, although to be fair this is pretty typical for a compact F2.8 prime. However the vignetting never quite goes away on stopping down; even at F8 there's still 1.3 stops falloff. The good news is that the falloff profile is quite gradual, which makes vignetting less noticeable, and the camera can correct for it automatically too.
Distortion The 35mm shows an unusual distortion profile, with somewhat pronounced barrel distortion that appears only towards the corners of the frame (a 1:1 crop from the centre would look near-perfectly corrected). This distortion will be visible in geometrical compositions such as architectural shots, and require profiled corrections in post-processing.

The 35mm F2.8 generally compares favourably to other recently-designed full frame 35mm primes. It pretty much matches the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM for sharpness, but loses out on distortion and vignetting (the latter a consequence of its small optical unit). It's much the same story when we look at the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM; the Sony's measured central sharpness is higher, but this substantially reflects the fact that it's tested on a much higher resolution sensor. However if we look at edge sharpness, the two lenses are a pretty close match, and again the Canon has rather lower vignetting and more-tractable distortion characteristics.

Summary

From the lab test results, the Sony FE 35mm F2.8 ZA is a pretty impressive little lens. It doesn't quite attain the same heights as the FE 55mm F1.8, but it's still impressively sharp. It's also very small and portable, but this does come with some trade-offs, particularly in terms of vignetting. Overall it's a good match for both the Alpha 7 and Alpha 7R both physically and optically, but we do feel it's somewhat over-priced given its relatively slow maximum aperture.

Sony FE 35mm F2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format size35mm FF
Focal length35 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountSony E (NEX)
Aperture
Maximum apertureF2.8
Minimum apertureF22.0
Aperture ringNo
Number of diaphragm blades7
Optics
Elements7
Groups5
Special elements / coatings3 aspheric elements
Focus
Minimum focus0.35 m (13.78)
Maximum magnification0.12×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeStepper motor
Full time manualUnknown
Focus methodInternal
Distance scaleNo
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight120 g (0.26 lb)
Diameter62 mm (2.44)
Length37 mm (1.46)
MaterialsMetal barrel, metal mount
SealingYes
ColourBlack
Filter thread49 mm
Filter notesLens hood accepts 40.5mm filters
Hood suppliedYes
Hood product codeALC-SH129


This lens review uses DxOMark data thanks to a partnership between dpreview.com and DxO Labs (read more about DxOMark and our partnership with DxO Labs). DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for independent image quality measurements and ratings. DxOMark has established this reputation with its rigorous hardware testing, industry-grade laboratory tools, and database of thousands of camera, lens and mobile test results. Full test results for this lens can be found at www.dxomark.com.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
241
I own it
43
I want it
6
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 350
12
Niala2
By Niala2 (3 months ago)

Any place to find an actual comparison (on an 7r) between this sony-zeiss 35 mm and a z-zeiss 35mm f1.4 (on a metabone-adapter) ?

0 upvotes
siggo
By siggo (4 months ago)

Found this..http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/
Sorry for all this off topic. Cheers

0 upvotes
siggo
By siggo (4 months ago)

Am I the only one who thinks that a LENS test should test the LENS and it's optical properties? Then we can choose LENSES . These tests include the CAMERA as well. Sony offer adaptors for other lenses. How can we choose those lenses when their sharpness was determined on a different (possibly inferior) sensor. Sony will be delighted that their lenses appear fantastic here, in part due to their 36Mpix sensor.
Obviously as a Lens/camera combination checking sharpness etc these tests have an important role, but perhaps Sony has opened up the need for camera independent lens tests to be included on sites like this. Apologies for long post and maybe it belongs in forum section

0 upvotes
siggo
By siggo (4 months ago)

Can't see edit button now.My comment may be wrong, need to check how MTF 50 is found. Apologies. However reviewer himself said good result partly due to sensor.

0 upvotes
barry reid
By barry reid (4 months ago)

An OK lens, Super sharp but with bad purple fringing CA - which is a very un-Zeiss trait.

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (4 months ago)

PLUS: New ZEISS glass with AF! CONS: That because it fits Sony so few people will ever buy one.

0 upvotes
Andy Dan
By Andy Dan (4 months ago)

A very nice lens. Yes, it's more expenisve than the Canon 35 f2 IS USM and than the Nikon 35 f1.8 G but on the other hand it's much more well bult, like L lenses. So the price is not that dramatic and after all is a Zeiss :-)

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (4 months ago)

+ Very Sharp!
- Slow-ish, expensive and 1.8 stops vignetting wide open?
In fact, that's neanderthal - it never betters a stop at any aperture..

My 17mm/f1.8 has 0.7 stops vignetting wide open and I sometimes complain about THAT!

These : -
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Behind-the-scenes-with-ABC-loc/
were taken with it, the morning I unboxed it.

The other sony lens the reviewer mentions sounds like a much better deal.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

SLRGear got bad copy of that lens. DxO got good copy. Now that mean the quality control is bad there in Sony. Something is fishy.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

I think is not safe to buy that lens since quality control issue problem. So I rather not buy that until Sony better sort it out themselves what to do with flaws design of that lens. Probably better off wait until Sigma make lens for FE mount hopefully soon this year. They show a lot of promising in it but I feel too scare to buy lens cos I am worry about I might get a bad lens too, its too much time consuming to return and replace.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

I found more review website. So there are a mix bag in it. Looks like some have good copy and few have bad copy it seems. Maybe thats not too bad really. If I were to buy 35mm then I am hoping I get a good copy one. If it is not, I return immediately to avoid delay in exchange though so its not bad.

1 upvote
Max Savin
By Max Savin (4 months ago)

I bought one and it is perfect.

1 upvote
Frank Rizzo
By Frank Rizzo (3 months ago)

I bought a new 35MM and it was a BAD lens, had to be sent to Sony Repair straight from being unboxed. April 03. 2014. Poor Quality Control.

1 upvote
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (4 months ago)

Hmmm ....

Is this "shape" a new lens (external) design fashion on the way? The Sigma "Art" lenses look strikingly similar.

0 upvotes
Seeky
By Seeky (4 months ago)

Sony and Zeiss apply this external design already for a long time, just look at the A and E-mount ZA lenses. The 2/24, 1.8/24, 1.4/85, 1.8/135 etc all have straight cylindrical barrels with sharp angular width transitions. IMO the most attractive modern design available.

0 upvotes
Dtech
By Dtech (5 months ago)

The vignetting is a bit too much for my taste.

Vignetting is visible at nearly every F-Stop. Corner smearing is very noticeable wide-open.

I have countless shots like the one below. Don't pay attention to the graininess; I shot it at ISO 6400. This shot was taken at F/5.6 - F/2.8 is a lot worse.

https://copy.com/lTP9lKYFgn6ndht4

Sony needs to go back to the drawing board with this lens. When comparing it to my RX1 with the Zeiss F2.0 there is no comparison.

2 upvotes
ambercool
By ambercool (5 months ago)

That's strange. I had to actually add vignetting on this shot here and it's still indiscernible. http://ambercool.smugmug.com/Events/Katsucon-2014/i-VprPJwG

I even added vignetting on here too and it's very light. http://ambercool.smugmug.com/Events/Katsucon-2014/i-hcKVCX2

3 upvotes
Dtech
By Dtech (5 months ago)

I suspect (I've never tested this) the biggest difference between your shots and mine is that I am using an A7R and your using an A7.

First off, nice photos! I'd love to see more non-cropped A7 photos at F/2.8-F/8 with less than optimum lighting.

Have you ever done a wall shot with the 35mm on the A7? I'd love to see that. I do a lot of textiles and stock photography and my RX1 rules in that arena. I was hoping the A7R without the AA filer would do even better than the RX1 but I was sadly mistaken.

Stock and textiles photos are subjected to pixel-peeping customers and editors so anything that produces less than acceptable corners/edges will not fly.

It wouldn't take much for me to trade in my A7R for an A7 if I could get relatively clean edge shots with my 35mm at F/5/6-F/16.

0 upvotes
ambercool
By ambercool (4 months ago)

Well I'm not much of a tester really, and my tastes for vignetting are always positive. Maybe you should try one of the manual wide angle lenses. I honestly didn't go in buying the 35mm thinking it would be straight or free of non-acceptable vignetting.

I would think if that's the case then you should just stick with the RX1 and switch out for a different lens for different work or a super wide that's superb to be honest.

Thank you for your kind words by the way. :)

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

Sigma f1.4 for Nikon: 23.46 oz (1.466 pounds)

A7r camera: 14.36 oz
35mm Sony FE f2.8: 4.23 oz.

Backpacking 20-30 miles on rough trails and overland. Which would you carry?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

weight is no issue here. whatever gives best image quality.

0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

"very close to sigma 35 f1.4"

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

I'd like to give you an example of the Japanese Army during the WW2. they were much shorter than average Japanese men today, 5'5" at 128 lbs. the standard combat load was 62 lbs including 30 lbs of weapon (rifle and ammunition plus helmet and gas mask, etc.). these should be able to be replaced with camera equipment.

usually one doesn't have to worry about weight of cameras/lenses till they become heavier than half of that (say 16 lbs, or 1/8 of body weight).

a healthy person (that does fail conscription check) should be able to carry 1/3 of body weight and dash reasonably fast.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

Actually, the 35mm f/2.8 probably give better image quality than Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for backpacking trips. You probably aren't needing f/1.4 aperture in those situations, but rather using f/8 or something. So I would rather have flare resistance of the small element prime.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

I won't say which is better over which. I'm only saying that image quality is everything and weight is nothing, until it reaches about 1/8 of body weight, then one can be picky.

0 upvotes
TN Args
By TN Args (5 months ago)

The importance of weight is a personal priority. You cannot speak for everyone.

3 upvotes
nickthetasmaniac
By nickthetasmaniac (5 months ago)

"a healthy person (that does fail conscription check) should be able to carry 1/3 of body weight and dash reasonably fast."

As a professional hiking guide, this is a complete and utter load of crap...

7 upvotes
shishdim
By shishdim (5 months ago)

yabbokkie, I used to think this way too until I got D600 with Sigma 35mm f1.4 and carried it around it for a while. Took it to Colorado, took some beautiful shots, but I can tell you 4 extra pounds make A LOT of difference in the mountains. Even though, of course it really depends on how dedicated one is to the quality of his or her pictures. I am totally ready to swap my D600 + Sigma for A7 + 35 mm Zeiss.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

there is no line that divides good and bad. but if photographing is the purpose of travel, the upper limit is quite high for weight (48 lbs for soldiers, firefighters, and disaster relief workers, and the weight could be doubled. malnutrited Japanese soldiers used to carry over 120 lbs into mountains).

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

I can squat/deadlift/press a lot of weight, and I still worry about camera weight. I prefer lighter every time.

Bottom line is what good is a cameras image quality if I won't carry it with me? And f/1.4 lenses and f/1.8 to 2.8 zooms tend to have really poor flare characteristics.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

a real example may be the "Wyoming Wildscapes" published here on 2014/01/15. Wegner says he carries 75-80 lbs (5D2, 1Ds3, 16-35/2.8L2, and 70-200/4, tripod, slider, ...).

0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

Is that written somewhere in stone? I'm 75 and sold my super telephotos 5 years ago because of wt. Have not used my 1DSMK3 in the field for 2 years. So to me wt. matters.

0 upvotes
ventur
By ventur (5 months ago)

ok, you can carry weight, but you'll travel slower, make shorter distances, and it will be harder to walk/climb on difficult terrain!

and every mile you make the heavier it feels, and more energy you'll spend and more water youll have to carry...

weight always matter, unless you photograph at home!

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

If you guys are that concerned about weight on long treks, just bring a Sony RX100 or Nokia Lumia 1020 instead. Real cameras with optics can also take up space which, once again, will either slow you down and/or force you to leave stuff behind.

0 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (5 months ago)

I'd take the one that gives more shots per battery charge.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

Bradley Manning carried about the same weight (50-80 lbs) in Afghanistan and I think most of us are stronger than her.

camera gears that I carry weigh about 16 lbs at most. I think this is about the maximum that most people will carry, maybe less than 10 lbs. why I say weight is no issue. it won't go wild.

btw, some people bring with them pruning scissors that weigh as two FE35/2.8s.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

@yabokkie if image quality is the *only* consideration then why aren't you carrying round a 48"x48" glass plate large format view camera?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

Andy Crowe, I answered your question already. just kindly read my post above yours or you could ask another question.

actually I'm ready to say that A7R looks like a good camera for some applications including hiking for good image quality. I'm only saying that it's not wise to justify a conclusion with rubbish reasoning.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w846UcmIo5o
175 lbs naked,
95 lbs fighting load as a light machine gunner,
37 lbs two day pack (quite small rucksack),
132 lbs = 60 kg total combat load.

132 lbs is very heavy but 32 lbs sounds a reasonable load for mountains (two or three days from spring to autumn) for inexperienced people, including 8 lbs camera gear for casual shooting, + 8 lbs for hobby, + another 8 lbs for professional, + yet another 8 lbs for enthusiast, ...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

@yabokkie no you haven't, you've just been saying we should be happy to carry 50lbs around, and I'm also pointing out how silly your "image quality is everything" statement is because that's also leaving out other performance characteristics as well as weight.

So, can you answer why you don't carry a large format camera around if image quality is the only thing important for you? Or is image quality actually not the only thing that matters?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

> no you haven't,

please kindly ready my post again.

> I'm also pointing out how silly your

you have shown us already you are a well educated gentleman. you don't have to show us again and again do you?

btw, I'd like to recommend (to everyone) that for camera/lenses, one pount weight translates to about 1 litre volume (including cushions) so for example, for 8 lbs gear, choose a backpack that's 8 litres larger than it's needed without camera.

I use a tripod about 4-5 lbs include the head which is also about average that I see others use (maybe 70% use lighter ones but some use much heavier gear like 20+ lbs, the bottom line is never bring any gear that will fail you).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
David Smith - Photographer
By David Smith - Photographer (5 months ago)

I really don't care about how much weight soldiers carried in some war long ago. I don't like to carry a behemoth camera and lenses if I can get the same or better quality from a compact lightweight kitt. There is a name for it; evolution. Things change. Soon there will only be electronic cameras. No more optical viewfinders and mirrors, everything super high resolution electronic small and lightweight.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

I'd prefer nobody go military in this world. I only give the numbers as capabilities and limitations imposed by human, that I think most women today are better fed than small Japanese men 70 years ago.

I don't see it a big issue to carry 8 or 16 lbs of camera equipment into mountains unless one already has 60 lbs on back.

some people carry more than 30 lbs of camera gears for over night travels. 60 lbs or more for a couple of hours from vehicle (but most won't have to worry about 60 lbs for they don't work for Discovery Channel).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Eric Peltzer
By Eric Peltzer (5 months ago)

I would be VERY interested in a A7 or A7R with superb fast primes - I don't own a zoom - and I could justify the cost of a $1000 lens or two. Also 35mm is my favorite angle of view. I'm pretty much exactly Sony's target market. However. The main point of buying an FF camera over an APS-C to me is to have extremely shallow DOF on call, even at wider angles. An equivalent consideration with superb sharpness.

So the fact that this is a 2.8 and not a 2.0 or 1.8 is just a big letdown. I get that this a very compact lens, still, if I want a compact travel lens it seems a less expensive pancake makes more sense.

My setup now is an NEX5n with usually a Nikkor 28mm f2 on an adapter. This gives some shallow DOF, but only middling sharpness. I've been shopping for a superb fast prime, ideally a 24mm for the NEX. You could buy Sony's own Zeiss 24mm f1.8 and get similar DOF while saving $2k not buying a new body.

Sony took this 98 yards down the field and punted just short of the goal line.

2 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

As soon as the A7-A7r became available I dumped my NX7. Lenses that worked poorly on it (zeiss biogon 35 f2.8 and my nikor 28 f2 ai) work perfectly on my new bodies. With useable ISO to at least 3200 a fast lens is irrelevant.

2 upvotes
hip2
By hip2 (5 months ago)

@Eric,
if you get shallow enough DOF with a f/2 lens on aps-c, i think you will get just as shallow, if not more, DOF with a f/2.8 on full frame.

the main point of FF is mostly low light and image quality, over APS-C, and to get a wider field of view. i think most of us can work around the sensor size difference if it was only about shallow DOF.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (5 months ago)

If you haven't held this lens in your hands and used it on an A7/A7R, please, don't comment on it.

The lens is amazingly well built and delivers excellent image quality for an extremely compact size.

Is it overpriced? That is up to the prospective buyers to decide.

7 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

Well said but some here are just jealous and can't help it...I love the combo of my A7 and 35 F2.8

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Lancefurr
By Lancefurr (5 months ago)

I agree, I use the a7/35F2.8 combo and plan on sticking with it for a long time.

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (5 months ago)

I have been into photography long enough to remember when serious 35mm primes were expected to be f2.0. Making a sharp 35mm f2.8 prime is cheap and easy. Too bad Sony took the low road and made this consumer grade lens a full stop slower than the excellent Minolta 35mm f2.0 legacy lens of yesteryear, and adds insult to injury by pricing it like a pro f2.0 lens. I just don't see how Sony's new FE mount camera system will be successful without a full set of pro quality FE lenses, and in terms of maximum aperture, this lens does not qualify as such.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
Glina
By Glina (5 months ago)

I happen to own both the famous Minolta 35/2.0 RS (the latest version) and now the new Sony Zeiss 35/2.8.
You might be interested to know, that the actual exposure time needed with the Zeiss 35mm/F2.8 @ F2.8 is identical to the Minolta 35mm/F2.0 @ F2.0 when tested on an A7 with the LA-EA4. The adapter however takes away 1/2 of a stop, so the real transmission difference between these two lenses is around 1/2 of a stop.
Obviously, the Zeiss is sharper @ F2.8 than the Minolta @ F2.0, but it is also slighty sharper than Minolta @ F2.8.

The Sony 35mm/F2.8 is 1/3rd the size of an adapted Minolta and costs roughly the same. I'm keeping mine!

8 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

don't try to confuse with actual, hands on experience. I tried and it doesn't seem to work. I'm enjoying mine (A7r-35 f2.8) too.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

a very low cost lens sold at a very high price,
I think many others want to do it, too.

0 upvotes
Glina
By Glina (5 months ago)

How much did you pay for your jeans? I bet they cost no more than 5$ to make.

0 upvotes
Glina
By Glina (5 months ago)

In case you are wondering why would anyone chose an A7+35/2.8 instead of a full frame DSLR + 35/2.0:
http://imageshack.com/a/img542/2492/fd58.jpg

Keep in mind the Minolta 35/2.0 is already a very compact and lightweight lens (~250gram).

1 upvote
EcoR1
By EcoR1 (5 months ago)

Again you are bluntly comparing only focal length and aperture aspects in the lens. If you look at the optical design you can notice that Sony 35mm have 3 aspherical lenses. These lens elements help to reduce spherical aberrations, increase the overall sharpness and reduce the size of the optical design. Best aspherical lenses are partly hand made and very expensive compared to normal spherical lenses. Typical 35mm lenses for example from Canon or Nikon have 0-1 aspherical elements. You get what you pay for, but it's a pity that some people don't understand that.

3 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

Original price of Minolta 35mm F2.0 was $850 manufactured in the 1980s. It is year 2014, everything had gone up since then in regards to cost to build lens!

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

How do Canon, Nikon and Sigma do it? Sell some of their 35s cheaper than Minolta did 30 years ago, even managing to make them faster in the process? Must be black magic because if Sony can't do it, no one else should either.

0 upvotes
ambercool
By ambercool (5 months ago)

Doesn't a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Manual focus for other mounts cost ~$1k? How is this lens priced at the same value? Wouldn't it be more than $1k with AF?

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (5 months ago)

For everyone who is comparing this tiny lens (the size and weight of an Olympus 17/1.8) to the Sigma 35/1.4... the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming next month.

3 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

Using the fake roadmap? lol. Wait until Sony announces something.

No such lens is coming. Even if it were, Sony would probably charge 1600 bucks for it. No thanks.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

it's a good rule of thumb that one should be careful with any maker who has a roadmap, which usually means it has few good products if any. I don't like the idea but it's ture and easy to understand if one can have a look at the market.

0 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

Which in the roadmap that the Sony did not accomplish?

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (5 months ago)

@yabokkie like Intel they have had hardly any successful products year on year

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

price should linearly scale with size in this case ;-)

1 upvote
David Smith - Photographer
By David Smith - Photographer (5 months ago)

O man, I can't wait for Sony to release the new lenses. The 35mm is awesome and the 55mm is even better! Sony really hit a home run with this A7 system!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

In the age of excellent high ISO performance the need for fast lenses is diminished. As a landscape photographer 90% of my pictures are shot at f8-11, ISO 2-400 at 250-320sec. Light wt., small size, excellent construction and above all superb files are what it's about. And did I mention that I can use my large collection of Leica-M mount, Canon and Nikon lenses on this body? You can sit at home and compare resolution charts all day, and complain about the price while I am out shooting pictures today with A7 and A7r, 35 and 55.

11 upvotes
Overmars
By Overmars (5 months ago)

Totally agree. I've wanted to argue with several posts but in the end it comes down to: "Hey! I can put that lens on MY camera and see for myself!"

The freedom to choose. Bliss.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

it's great that good results can be got through cheap lenses.

0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

Changed my mind and took the 55, and my 35 summicron asph and 24 elmarit asph.. So cheap doesn't factor in.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

it's still very cheap for makers, may be not for users.

0 upvotes
David Smith - Photographer
By David Smith - Photographer (5 months ago)

Hey, we all have to make some money right? If you keep looking at the economy thinking how expensive everything is, you'll have a hard time on this planet ha, ha. Get a job.

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (5 months ago)

It's honestly a little hard to compare this lens with any other .. unless it's mounted on a A7R via adapter,etc.

1) sony raw is certainly manipulated ahead of output (rightly or wrongly) and this will change the MTF numbers as compared to other brands.

while the lens looks fantastic and a great low weight small prime option for the FE mount, care should be given to comparisons across brands - and even across cameras in the sony line (ie: NEX)

2 upvotes
fuji P
By fuji P (5 months ago)

It would be good if DPR could evaluate some Fuji lenses with the DXO graphic information - PLEASE.

1 upvote
ThorstenMUC
By ThorstenMUC (5 months ago)

Wasn't there an issue with DXO not being able to process Fujifilm RAW-data, cause there system is tailored toward Bayer-patterns?

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

That is unfortunately correct.

Its also the reason why the image tests from the fuji's here on DPreview look pretty bad. DPreview should definately change their workflow and RAW processing if they want to be 'independant' and fair towards all brands.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

it's not possible to mount a Fuji X lens on Sony E camera.

0 upvotes
Overmars
By Overmars (5 months ago)

YES IT IS possible to mount a Fuji X lens on Sony E camera.

Please stop giving out wrong information.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

okay it's possible to mount Fuji SLR lenses on Sony mirrorless bodies but I think the OP meant Fuji mirrorless lenses.

both Fuji and Sony are climbing their learning curves to make good lenses so let's relax for a while.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
David Smith - Photographer
By David Smith - Photographer (5 months ago)

Hey Yabokkie, I think YOU should relax. Get out and make some nice photos. You worry too much about charts, prices and cameras :-)

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (5 months ago)

Very uneven resolution, at the borders scarcely ever lifting above 1500lpm- This is LESS than an 8MP sensor. OK, at f5.6 in the middle its OK, but as the sensor resolves 4000lpm, and this is an f2.8 lens it is a disappointing one. Compare to Samyang 35/f1.4...We buy wides to get more in at closer distances and to grasp situations. Now, I don't know about you, but if I had to display prints from an A7R I would be very unhappy to with this lens, since only the central area will be sharp until at least F8. Not only that, but the step down into mush at wider apertures outside the central area renders it useless as a wide-angle prime. It is under-designed- it should be equally sharp allover at this stage in optical history- it is a 78rpm in the age of Blu-ray, and there are many sharper consumer f3.5-4.5-5.6 zooms at a fraction of the price.And check the Sigma 35mm f1.4

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Cool story, but according to DXOmark, the FE 35mm outresolves the Samyang fitted on a 36MP sensor from f/2.8 to f/22. The corners are usually better, never worse, the center is better. Most tests shows its similar to or even better than the Sigma throughout it's apertures, which is the benchmark right now.

Which means that if you'd be unhappy with the results this lens would give you, what's your reference really? Because there would be little to no improvement to be found elsewhere.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Correction, the corners are only slightly behind the Samyang at f/2.8 and f/5.6, centers a tad better and the corner gap narrows as you close down further. Point stands, if you'd be unhappy with these 35mm results (especially considering the lens is >6 times smaller and >5 times lighter), its hard to imagine you being happy with marginally better corner performance at some apertures. Unless you're that easily swayed from happy to unhappy of course. ;)

6 upvotes
DaveCS
By DaveCS (5 months ago)

How many of those consumer zooms can natively fit the Sony A7/A7r mount?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

I'd say the corners of FE35/2.8 are okay, quite acceptable
for a cheap handy lens.

since a peanut beats most lenses in compactness and lightweight (maybe except some mobile phones) size isn't something we should care unless it's too big or heavy.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

If you have to carry it all day or on a 15-20 mile treak over rough terrain it sure does.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

average 40-60 lbs for Japanese hikers (compact 25L pack plus 10-20 lbs worn for example, 60L for 2 nights for people with some experience) many seniors in their 60s or 70s.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (5 months ago)

I am not sure DXO is always truthful. I was going to buy a 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor for a D7100 until I looked at its test. The specific resolution test shows that effectively this £1000+ (new) Nikkor lens is unable to better a 6 MP resolution except at shorter focal lengths and appears on the chart far worse than my battered scratched 18-70mm. Looking at independent testers (and note Photozone hasn't done theirs yet at all) we all appear victims of sample variation. That said all f2.8 35mm lenses are poor compared to f1.4 and f2.0 varieties. The old 35f1.4 Nikkor is better than any others I have used wide open yet has uneven resolution stopped down- areas that are not sharp at all-due to its design. Better to use a zoom!! And wait till Sony make one without an AA filter (the 7100 is AS good as the D800 resolution-wise due to this- though noise is bad).Lighter gear IS better as it reduces your reaction times, and old people with bad hearts know this-it does matter.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

these new Sony lenses are quite standard performers among similar lenses, with typical characteristics that we expect from similar designs.

why the readings are higher is because a different ruler with different measurement unit was used (Roger Cicala 2013/12/15 "Sony A7R: A Rising Tide Lifts All the Boats?" and FE35/2.8 is just one boat among many).

I'd appreciate if the reviewer had stressed it in the review, that every camera is a unique measure with unique units of its own, to avoid (honest or intentional) misreadings and keep DPReview a better place.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

Just rent the camera and lenses and do your own independent testing...you don't need to post everywhere with your daily whining and trolling...if you don't like the camera then let it be. No need to troll!

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

isn't it great that Sony can make lenses as good as others?

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (5 months ago)

Troll. According to the DP Review measurements, the Sony lens seems to be an incredible amount sharper than the Canon 40/2.8 and significantly sharper than the Canon 35/2 IS. Both are recent releases.

Every normal person will use a Canon lens on a Canon body and a Sony lens on a Sony body. The Sony-combo is obviously wiping the floor with the mediocre Canon setups.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

you read one measurement 1 inch and another 2.54 cm, you say 2.54 is a larger number and that's correct.

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (5 months ago)

lol Mike, do you even know what you are looking at?

1 upvote
dynaxx
By dynaxx (5 months ago)

The expectations and buying power of the average enthusiast photographer are growing rapidly with the globalisation of wealth and mobility. Sony are just responding to these greater expectations by moving up-market and anyone that complains that a particular product is overpriced means they are looking at the wrong product sector.

The senseless jibes at Leica/Hasselblad that you always get in here for their products aimed at the image conscious are rooted in envy. Why shouldn't someone buy a camera as a public display of what they think is good design ( and covet the Zeiss blue dot ) ? I don't see this reaction when someone buys Tag Heuer watch over a Seiko.

If value for money is a concern, why is no one bringing re-sale value into this discussion ? You can't give away used, budget Canikon lenses but the Sony Zeiss will always raise a nice few quid, if you take care of it. When you upgrade to a Sony Medium Format mirrorless system you'll need to raise all the cash you can !

5 upvotes
McJ
By McJ (5 months ago)

It's obvious that Sony is trying to make the A7 cameras a "premium" choise as all the FE lenses so far are Zeiss and much more expensive than the competition.

I think many see the A7 cameras as an addition to their existing dslr system. Canon and Nikon as well as Zeiss F lenses work great with adapters.

So in that light, the FE lenses (so far) seems like poor value for money, they aren't any better optically, but are priced 3 or 4 times higher.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

the FE lenses are not something we should care much. after all the value comes from a good high resolution sensor behind a mount that takes all photographic lenses and can AF.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (5 months ago)

This is a good lens better than the Sigma as the Sigma is too big for street photography where 35mm is an ideal focal length IMHO the additional speed and edge performance are not important to me and not much anyway.

however because it says Zeiss on it an it's 700+ quid it going to meet with a hail of brand snobbery, and well let's face it is rather expensive for simple formulation.

Nikon surprisingly are doing quite well in this sort of space, their more recent 1.8 G lenses 85, 35 50 mm come in at often well under this price and offer decent performance. If you want to shoot primes on full frame. I doubt you will get a better value rig than a D610 with the aforementioned lens line up. shame their SLR line up at this level makes people so angry

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (5 months ago)

"it going to meet with a hail of brand snobbery"
Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 says hello.

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

My 5DMKIII+sigma 35/1.4 are a wonderful combo for street photography! I am not sure what you are talking about . Gear does not need to be tiny for good street photography

0 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

People who are complaining about the price of this awesome premium lens should find a new hobby, passion or business...

13 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

Or a new camera system where the lenses are not laughably expensive? It's a good thing to have choices. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

the OP didn't mention camera but A7R is overpriced, too, compared with D800. the lens is about the same (may be sharper at the center and softer off center) as Canon 40/2.8 which is now sold for about 100 US after cashback in Japan.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

blue and yabokkie, sorry that you two cannot afford the camera and lenses. Better luck next time...

2 upvotes
balios
By balios (5 months ago)

People who get defensive over a lens should probably look at their priorities in life.

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

Paid the same price for the Sigma. Hope you enjoy limiting yourself at f2.8 because shooting at f1.4 will make you believe heaven is for real. No need for clunky adapters either.

3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (5 months ago)

What are you guys talking about? Premium? I guess the USA is getting a bad deal here. The Sony 35/2.8 costs $550 in Japan, which is around the same price as an Olympus 17/1.8 and far less than a Fuji 24/1.4. This lens is well priced for what it delivers.

And how is it similar to the Canon 40/2.8? That Canon lens is soft and a far easier focal length to design for.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

You should be able to check prices yourself with the internet.

Amazon.co.uk
(FE 35mm = 600 pounds, Zuiko 17mm = 370 pounds, Canon 40mm = 110 pounds)

Amazon.com
(FE 35mm = 800 dollars, Zuiko 17mm = 430 dollars, Canon 40mm = 155 dollars)

Amazon.jp
(FE 35mm = 68000 yen, Zuiko 17mm = 42000 yen, Canon 40mm = 17800 yen)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

it's not having money or not. I don't think anyone will want to be ripped-off and look stupid.

btw, I think mZD17/1.8 is a bit slower and lower resolution. m4/3" lenses are designed and built to a lower standard than old SLR lenses.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

I agree with yabokkie here. I just spent a fortune yesterday on a 500f/4, nevertheless I would not spend the money sony is asking for a 35/2.8. They can have it gold plated if they like, still not buying it. I think it is also bad for the new system introduction. They could cripple the success of such a revolutionary camera system because people will start thinking they have to spend and arm and a leg for an average lens for a brand new system with limited options. Sharp as you like, built as you like, but creative as average. I though photographers are supposed to be creative, not sharpness slaves....

1 upvote
TN Args
By TN Args (5 months ago)

Let's say Sigma released a 35mm f/2.8 for $150 and its optics were the same. Everyone would say "well la di da, I expect no less, 35mm and f/2.8 is hardly a challenge."

And they would be right.

8 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

I agree, I have the sigma 35/1.4 and it is astounding! and look at the price! Sure people here can argument too "look at canon and nikon 1.4 options, so overpriced!"
But how many years ago these lenses were first released? Let's see how the next generation canikon 35/1.4 are going to be optically

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

The next CaNikon will have lots of character like the Nikkor 58mm. And worthy of the price tag well over 1K, regardless of size and corner sharpness. Because that's how these arguments work.

6 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

the new budget canon option is a 35/2.0 with IS, more attractive and cheaper that this already. Canon has a new 35/1.4L in the pipeline, and I bet it will match sigma's lens.
35/2.8 is a joke, in inexpensive pancake is the only value for that.

2 upvotes
Nectar D Or
By Nectar D Or (5 months ago)

actually when Canon introduced the excellent 40/2.8 at dirt cheap prices people were not impressed.
honestly I see no reason to get excited about this expensive slow Sony lens.

5 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

The Sigma 35mm f1.4 is the main reason why I bought a Nikon D610. Stellar performance for the price and puts to shame more expensive alternatives.

The Nikkor 85mm f1.8 is also a reasonably priced prime, though not as useful as a 35mm (for my style of shooting anyway).

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

an underpowered sport car... wonderful corner handling, craftsmanship style, and PRICE, forget the adrenaline of the acceleration though.

3 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (5 months ago)

Complaining that Zeis lenses are expensive is like complaining that Mercedes are expensive and that you can get an equally well made car for cheaper. To that Zeis will reply, "Yeah, so"

10 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (5 months ago)

Mercedes had some quality problems in the last few years, not even starting with the 1997 A-class test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test
Zeiss must be careful. It is no luxury brand like Hermes or Prada, it is a quality brand. If for a high price level they do not provide more than Sigma for a quarter of the price, they have problems!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 57 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (5 months ago)

Zeiss offers an excellent little FF 35mm lens for the A7? Does Sigma offer that? Where?

8 upvotes
CameraGuru
By CameraGuru (5 months ago)

People seem to forget the small size of this lens. From those lab results I don't see what people are talking about. Compared to most of the other lens on the lab test the 35 FE seems to be doing pretty well.

Only issue I can see is vignetting, but even that is fixed in software for those shooting raw.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (5 months ago)

Sigma maybe a bit bigger but for IQ, it is more than a match to the Zeiss 35mm f2.8

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

Zeiss is a marketing service provider. lens quality isn't something they can help.

2 upvotes
balios
By balios (5 months ago)

The Zeiss Otus is a Zeiss lens. Regardless of whether its manufactured at a Zeiss plant, its sold under the Zeiss name.

The *Sony* FE 35mm F1.4 Carl Zeiss is a Sony lens (hence the "Sony" at the front). It's like taking a Honda Civic and releasing a "Enzo Ferrari Edition". Honda might pay Ferrari to use the logo, but it'd still be a Honda.

And I'm not saying that to knock the lens, I don't care either way because the value of lens isn't determined by the branding. I would happily pay more for a Sony lens that meets my needs over a similarly priced Zeiss lens that does not. Its just that calling this a Zeiss 35/2.8 is incorrect.

1 upvote
Akusai
By Akusai (5 months ago)

Admittedly, it seems to be a very nice lens.
But still - it looks a bit oversized on the a7r.
And concerning the price - if I compare it to the only lens in this weight-class I could find - the Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 (nearly same field of view) - I have to admit, it seems like quite a bargain. Especially considering the Sony is for a much larger lensmount.
Now, if someone (Sigma, Tamron) could provide something like the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 for Sony FE mount - that really would make my mouth water.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PaulDavis
By PaulDavis (5 months ago)

This Lens is quite small on the a7. I just might need to see it in person.

0 upvotes
Runi
By Runi (5 months ago)

Olympus OMD's will be compared to the SONY A7 and A7R by some. However comparing an OMD with A7, with these lens combos is difficult. The A7 + Zeiss 35 mm is twice the price of OMD5 and Zuiko 35 mm 1.8. The Zuiko is faster, so there is almost no advantage of the bigger sensor with respect to dept of field or low-light capacity, only the extra resolution. The SONY combo will have no image stabilizer at all, making OMD5 maybe 4-5 stops superior in shooting hand held in low light and the OMD will not make a very high shutter noise making a7 unusable in quiet environments. Therefore in my opinion and for my usage, the cheaper Olympus will be a far superior system with these two lens combos. I would like an A7(R) but not with this lens, no way.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (5 months ago)

@Runi. I own the Olympus 17/1.8 and the Sony 35/2.8, I shoot them side by side. The Olympus is by no means a superior system. It gets the job done, but the IQ coming out of the Sony is simply two leagues higher.

0 upvotes
Runi
By Runi (5 months ago)

@Mike99999 I believe that you are right, and the higher price should give extra image quality. Have not tried the Sony, but really are tempted to buy it. But I like to take pictures in low light, and would not consider paying 2500 $ (7A+35 mm) and not having stabilization and only 2.8. So I wait for more lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Hwirt
By Hwirt (5 months ago)

Excellent lens that is ideally suited to the compact A7/A7r, not cheap but as usual you get what you pay for.

7 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Except if you want real swallow DOF then f2.8 is still not enough...

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (5 months ago)

F2.8 on FF has same DOF as F2.0 on APSC and F1.4 on M4/3. It's pretty shallow

1 upvote
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

then get a Leica summilux?

0 upvotes
Viramati
By Viramati (5 months ago)

no get the CV 35/1.2 V2 which works very well on the A7 unlike the summilux

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (5 months ago)

Seems like there are a lot of b*tt-hurt folks on here.. Sony must be doing something right :D

15 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (5 months ago)

There are always B*tt-hurt folks under Sony reviews. Since 2006 if not earlier.
You must be new here, I guess.

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

There are negative comments in all major reviews and articles. You guys should just get used to it already.

1 upvote
balios
By balios (5 months ago)

I'm seeing a lot of people saying "all metal construction". But I read reviews on the Sony Store (and some other sites) and people are saying a metal/plastic construction with plastic filter threads. Which is it?

0 upvotes
dynaxx
By dynaxx (5 months ago)

I've seen "metal barrelled" ( because I wrote it ) but not "all metal" from my hazy recollections of 183 posts with the trolls contributing far more than their fair share

2 upvotes
Kipplemaster
By Kipplemaster (5 months ago)

Dpreview say "all metal construction" in the specifications table. I am not Convinced...

0 upvotes
hip2
By hip2 (5 months ago)

it's a little more complicated than that.
i have it here.
if you mount a filter on the hood, then it is plastic filter threads, but if you put the filter on the lens directly (why prevents you from using the hood) then you mount it on the metal threads :)

0 upvotes
balios
By balios (5 months ago)

@ hip2

Thank you. I was questioning why plastic threads wouldn't be mentioned, but if its just the hood, that's pretty reasonable.

0 upvotes
nstam
By nstam (5 months ago)

im comparing two quite different lenses here, but reading a lot of the complaints about the sigma compared to the sony; the sony apparently walks over sigma because of size. nonetheless, the sony lens seems pretty sharp through out but does drop slightly on the corners.

I thought this absurd idea to compare it to something that I found light and easy to use within my bank of lenses; 40 pancake on FF. So now the price drops significantly with of course faults on pancake side. but if you check out dxomark they arent off by many ball parks. of course, sharpness, lfo and when stopped down the canon drops significantly... but having said that this lens has taking a beating whilst traveling, produces great sharpness and at close to 25% the cost!

call me a troll or canikon biased person, but reading what everyone was talking about I think these two lenses (40 STM and 35 Sonnar) are very close within relation to each other on paper. Sonnar does beat STM in many factions, but at that cost?

2 upvotes
Kipplemaster
By Kipplemaster (5 months ago)

If there was sufficient interest I could do a comparison test between Canon 40mm and Sony 35mm f2.8s. Without rigorous tests my feeling is they are about the same having used both on A7r. (Obviously 35mm Sony focuses faster than 40mm Canon on a no-brand adapter).

1 upvote
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

Should have been f/1.8 at least. If Nikon can do it for $200, I'm sure Zeiss should be able to do it for $400. $700 for an f/2.8 lens with vignetting and less than ideal sharpness is ridiculous, no matter how you slice it.

4 upvotes
EthanP99
By EthanP99 (5 months ago)

do you even know how to read charts?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=sony_zeiss_fe_35_2p8_za&cameraId=sony_a7r&version=0&fl=35&av=2.8&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=nikon_35_1p4g_afs&cameraId2=nikon_d3x&version2=0&fl2=35&av2=2.8

11 upvotes
McJ
By McJ (5 months ago)

@EthanP99

Not sure what you are trying to show in the above comparison, the vignetting is clearly worse as photogeek says. 24mp vs 36mp for resolution, so that can't be compared other than the trend of weaker corners on the zeiss.

Other than that, I think the lens itself looks pretty good, compact and sharp enough for me. Just wish it was cheaper.

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (5 months ago)

Oh no, not possible. You need additional size and weight to mitigate vignetting and improve resolution.

In terms of price, there's no competition for a compact prime lens for the FE mount, yet.

0 upvotes
McJ
By McJ (5 months ago)

True, but as someone mentioned the tiny pancake Canon 40/2.8 STM is $199.

5 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (5 months ago)

@zodiacfml: not by much. Nikkor is only 67g heavier, and looking at the actual glass components in it, it should be possible to make it much smaller without changing the optical formula. Canon 50mm f/1.8 is only 10g heavier, and only very slightly larger.

4 upvotes
MrTintin
By MrTintin (5 months ago)

Photogeek,

Are you getting a bit confused? You cannot compare a crop lens to a full frame lens. The nikon 35mm 1.8 for full frame that just launched costs $599 and weighs 305g.

0 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

the tiny Canon 40mm f2.8 requires a heavy, $400 Metabones adapter to work on a Sony a7(r). Why would you use a 35mm lens to do isolation studies? I would think that a fast 85-135 would be a proper lens for that. Also no one here has discussed the Leica 35mm Summilux which only costs $6000? As a landscape photographer I have found the Sony 3 FE to be a perfect lens for my work on both A7 and A7r. I chose it over my 35mm f2.8 biogon-m, f1.4 Canon, and 35 leica 35 summicron asph.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

subject isolation in the wide range has a unique look! Have you ever seen shots with a 35 or a 24 mm at 1.4? My sigma 35/1.4 replaced the 24-105 for walk around lens about one year ago. Why? Subject isolation! The same shot at 2.8 is boring, at 1.4 is WOW!

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (5 months ago)

Photozone.de review says what I figured, that the lens is terrific in the centre but not that great at the edges, there are other issues as well like vignetting. Great build quality though.

4 upvotes
EthanP99
By EthanP99 (5 months ago)

its terrific in the center, and good on the corners, just like the 35mm sigma. difference is, stopped down to 5.6, the 35 zeiss is sharper

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=sony_zeiss_fe_35_2p8_za&cameraId=sony_a7r&version=0&fl=35&av=2.8&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=sigma_35_1p4&cameraId2=canon_eos5dmkii&version2=0&fl2=35&av2=2.8

1 upvote
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (5 months ago)

You mean, the A7R sensor is sharper?

2 upvotes
EthanP99
By EthanP99 (5 months ago)

I forgot that I could use this HUGE ass Sigma lens with adapter on my small camera, because thats what I wanted. Silly me.

7 upvotes
Zorak
By Zorak (5 months ago)

Put some moderation seriously, it's unreadable with all the trolls you got there. Ban some, do something !

10 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

Gift from the Olympian gods. Super fast aperture at a discount price. All metal construction. Tack shack across the frame, optically perfect, used by NASA to calibrate the Hubble telescope.

The above comment is approved by the Zorakian Ministry of Information.

3 upvotes
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (5 months ago)

there are some serious anti Sony trolls here. Wouldn't wonder if they actually worl for the competitors. It makes me woner why so many people get upset because Sony can deliver nice products.

13 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

I'm paid by Sony to be an agent provocateur, to discredit the few people who criticize products of the company. Whiners and fanboys are from another department of Sony marketing, under stricter NDAs than we are. You can always ask quezra, daveE or heaven is for real, but it's doubtful they'll admit anything.

The worst thing about this job is you can't really tell who is bought or who is not. We often end up undermining each other because of a lack of communication between Sony employees.

Oh no I said too much.

5 upvotes
Zorak
By Zorak (5 months ago)

@bluevellet : that was funny :)
But honestly, when trying to read the comments, most of them are totally stupid, any way you try to turn it.

7 upvotes
EricCul
By EricCul (5 months ago)

@ bluevellet. You're terrible at trolling. But you are even worse at humour.

7 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

Sarcasm tends to go over the head of those targeted. Even worse if they already have an axe to grind.

1 upvote
Daniel from Bavaria
By Daniel from Bavaria (5 months ago)

Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good.
Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.

I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony.
Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - .
If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well.
Very interesting times for all of us!

Daniel

27 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (5 months ago)

If it was F2 even at this price I think you would see far less complaints.

Sony seems to be shying away from fast lenses for this series of camera. The new 70-200 zoom is F4 but priced as an F2.8 ought to be (The A series F2.8 is also overpriced).

If they want to keep things compact by selling slower lenses fair enough but don't charge the same price as faster glass.

1 upvote
Zeisschen
By Zeisschen (5 months ago)

Some people need to learn that not only fast lenses are "good" lenses. And so not only the fast lenses are expensive lenses.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (5 months ago)

"Some people need to learn that not only fast lenses are "good" lenses. And so not only the fast lenses are expensive lenses."

What has that got to do with anything posted above?
I certainly don't need to "learn" that this Sony is optically good. I used to use an Olympus Zuiko F2.8 35mm in my film days as my standard lens.

It was optically superb. It was also a lot cheaper than its faster F2 counterpart, which is the point.

I see no reason for this Sony lens to be priced as it is.

0 upvotes
DaveCS
By DaveCS (5 months ago)

@Dave - perhaps you don't see the reason because there are no other lenses (native autofocus lenses to the camera itself) available currently made by other manufacturers.. Sigma, Tamron, or Samyang have not (or have not) made any lenses for this new Sony mount yet. So, this lens sits on its own and, ergo, Sony can charge whatever they want for it. There is no stipulation that you (or anyone for that matter) has to buy it though.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (5 months ago)

@Dave Oddie: "Sony seems to be shying away from fast lenses for this series of camera."

What are you talking about? The Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming out next month...

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (5 months ago)

Stop saying it, mike. Post an image, some press release, anything. Next month is actually next week. Only 7 days left in the month, there must be some place to pre-order this thing so close to release.

You can't? Of course, because no such lens exist. In the real Sony roadmap, there's a vague commitment to some kind of fast wide prime for sometime in 2014. Could be a lot of things in terms of focal lenght and actual aperture. No guarantee it will actually come out at this point.

Now stop spreading BS.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (5 months ago)

Any expensive lens has to justify its price tag, so its fair to ask why this 35/2.8 costs $800 considering what is available on the market today across all lens mounts.

The concern is that Sony is holding FE users hostage, over-charging on lenses to offset the low price of the cameras.

Sony's argument would be that this lens is expensive as it had to be made exceptionally sharp to match the 36 MP of the a7R, and they've all the while kept it amazingly small and light, too.

My gut reading is that its a little bit of both.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (5 months ago)

Even so, at that price the complex distortion is a head-scratcher.

The vignetting is the natural cost of having such a small lens. I suppose they justify the distortion with the same reasoned trade-off, but it's not a natural cost. I don't think it should be there.

Having said that, if the camera's firmware update automatically corrects it then it's a non issue.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

but $80 may be too cheap at least not from start.
$180 sounds a reasonably high price.

1 upvote
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

For those haters or don't anything about Sony/Zeiss Partnership...

"Sony is the brand of choice for people looking for great design and high quality. In 1996, Sony came out with its first camcorder with a Carl Zeiss lens. Since then, Carl Zeiss and Sony’s cooperation has expanded to include compact digital cameras and camcorders, high-quality bridge cameras and interchangeable lenses for the Sony Alpha DSLR camera. Sony and Carl Zeiss develop Lenses for Sonys digital cameras together. Then the manufacturing takes place in Sony facilities according to Carl Zeiss specifications. It’s a partnership that combines premium-quality electronics and sensor technology with the best-possible optics for film and video cameras."

So please stop spreading wrong information!

16 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (5 months ago)

I am not sure who is the one spreading false information -- I suspect Sony. They keep referring to "Carl Zeiss-this" and "Carl Zeiss-that." I guess they never did get the memo that there is no more "CARL ZEISS" anything as of 2013, period.

Company changed its name, is what has happened -- you really did not get that memo, Sony?

Of course, they could be still sourcing some "Carl Zeiss" lenses -- left-over stuff from a heady time when there was a business called "Carl Zeiss." Alas, no more, definitely not in 2014.

It would be sweet for Sony to know the proper business name of the company they are co-partnering with, one would think.

0 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

Correction: ...don't "know" anything...

@Francis: FROM the official Zeiss homepage

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/camera_lenses/partner/sony.html

PRINT IT so you will never look uninformed in the future.

12 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (5 months ago)

You have to love those Sony, Nokia and Logitech propaganda texts on Zeiss' page. I wonder how much those 3 companies have to pay for Zeiss' advertising service. :) But maybe that's all their partnerships are about.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

Ageha, Zeiss makes lens too for Canon cameras so what do you say now?

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

Zeiss is just a promotional website, a marketing service provider for third-class Japanese makers who lack confidence in their own products.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (5 months ago)

yabokkie - door is this way: ----->

3 upvotes
pew pew
By pew pew (5 months ago)

Dear Sony haters:

Just another Canon shooter
Just a Photographer
yabokkie

Idk if you guys are intimidated or frustrated with your own camera, but I´m sure theres more productive things to do with your time, then dissing sony in every review.

Bottom line is that diversity, innovation and competition is ultimately better for us consumers.

24 upvotes
dynaxx
By dynaxx (5 months ago)

@yabokkie is a worthless clogger-up of this forum and any responses to his/her posts are a waste of your time. He/she recently reported that Leica/Zeiss had gone out of business !

We need a moderator in here !

13 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (5 months ago)

There's no need for that since I wrote a userscript inspired by the fellow himself:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/344311

7 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (5 months ago)

@itastickup: beautiful. I installed it and configured it and it works perfectly. No more yabokkie. DPReview article comments just got a bit more useful.

4 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (5 months ago)

Marvellous!! :)

2 upvotes
Kipplemaster
By Kipplemaster (5 months ago)

I have this lens. (And the A7r). Ironically the combination is so good it leaves me disappointed Sony didn't do more. The glass inside this 35mm is tiny and should easily be able to retract into the lens/camera body making the A7r with this lens pocketable. There is also tons of space for an integrated lens-cap, RX100 style. Interestingly all the negative comments seem to be directed at aspects which are already excellent (sharpness, for example).

15 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (5 months ago)

Nothing to write home about for that price. They took the "Sigma" path, making the lens sharp in the centre but not so much the edges. Also, why does the body have to be as large as it is when the elements are so small (35mm f/2.8 only needs elements about 15mm across)?

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Can you point me to a 35mm lens that is clearly/significantly sharper at the edges on FF?

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

some Nikon and Sigma lenses have quite good border sharpness due to good aspherical design/make. though we don't have data for direct comparison, it looks that Canon EF40/2.8 may have better border resolution than FE35/2.8 (but may not be as sharp at center).

the performance of FE35/2.8 is quite typical among lenses that can be called good, except relatively smaller aperture than popular 35/2 or 35/1.4 primes.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (5 months ago)

Not sharp in the edges? What are you basing that on? You're just comparing the insane center sharpness to the excellent edge sharpness and calling it "not so good".

13 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (5 months ago)

"Can you point me to a 35mm lens that is clearly/significantly sharper at the edges on FF?"

Sigma 35/1.4 is sharper at the edges. And 2 stops faster - for the same price. It is not even funny.

4 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

According to tests done by Roger Cicala, the Sigma is quite a bit softer at the edges at f/2.8. According to DXOmark, they are similar.

The Sigma is also about 6.6 times the volume, 5.5 times the weight and not weather sealed.

Still waiting for a valid example.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
20 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (5 months ago)

Just curious, the Sigma 35mm F1.4 same size as Zeiss 35mm F2.8?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (5 months ago)

According to dxomark, sigma is sharper. I hope you are are comparing at least on D800. D800E would be sharper yet.

0 upvotes
Alex Velasco
By Alex Velasco (5 months ago)

Phenomenal lens. With lenses like these, Sony is indeed setting its stall out.

17 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

I believe this lens is made by Carl Zeiss not Sony.
So you should worship Zeiss instead of Sony.

Without this partnership Sony would not have been much to look for.

4 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (5 months ago)

@photography

in agreement.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

I don't think Sony has to outsource to Zeiss for cost saving.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (5 months ago)

@Just a Photographer - AFAIK all of the E-mount Zeiss-branded lenses are manufactured by Sony up to Zeiss specifications.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

but does Zeiss know the specifications? does Sony tell them?

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

@Just, stop spreading lies...

0 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (5 months ago)

"Off the charts" Yes indeed, it is pretty sharp. I love it its size and sharpness!

"Sharpness is excellent. The 35mm is extremely sharp in the centre of the frame wide open at F2.8, and while it's not quite so good towards the edges, it's still pretty impressive. The best results overall across the frame come from F5.6-F11, much as we'd expect on full frame. Indeed at F5.6 the central sharpness is literally off the charts here (helped by being tested on the AA-filterless 36MP A7R). Naturally diffraction causes some softening at f22, but it's not excessive, meaning this setting should be entirely usable when depth of field is a priority."

7 upvotes
James First 007
By James First 007 (5 months ago)

Not a great lens. The DxoMark review got it right…
When compare to the 55mm, it is very disappointing…

In fact, the reason why I am staying away from the A7R is because there is no 35mm capable of performing well on this 36 mg camera !

However, the 55MM is an outstanding lens…worthy of its price tag !

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (5 months ago)

Got it right? I gather they're impressed. Did you actually read the words? How many lenses get this kind of glowing conclusion? Do you actually have a lens that's anywhere close to this? Geez, I'm really wondering who the DPreview members are!

"t's very sharp, exhibits relatively low chromatic aberration and distortion, and has acceptable levels of vignetting. In fact it's very close indeed to the benchmark Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM, which is one of the sharpest lenses we've tested."

16 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (5 months ago)

James wrote: "Not a great lens". Did you even read the review?

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (5 months ago)

Comparing a slow lens to a fast lens.
An f/2.8 lens should be noticeably sharper than any f/1.4 lens at any aperture.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Typical non sequitur.

0 upvotes
Gary Dean Mercer Clark
By Gary Dean Mercer Clark (5 months ago)

Makes the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A lens look like a bargain comparing the optical tests. Zeiss lenses are overrated and overpriced in my humble opinion.

9 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Horses for courses. The Sigma looks like a truck next to a classic Mini, side by side with the FE.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Not all of them,
The otus is the sharpest lens in the world by an fair margin.
The za 55mm f1.8 is also stellar and worthy of it's premium. This is unfortunately not as good as those

5 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (5 months ago)

I don't understand who you people are. Do you actually read the reports? Do you not get what's going on here? Really amazing how dense everyone is. We get a report that basically praises the lens and people are acting like it's getting panned!

8 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (5 months ago)

Most likely, any reasonably capable Japanese optical company can make today a virtually perfect 35mm lens, especially if the aperture is a modest F2.8. Indeed, except for the high price, this "Zeiss" lens does not seem to be an authentic Zeiss, but a Japan-made lens with a Zeiss tag.

The question is, why Sony charges a reasonable price for the cameras, but so much for these faked Zeiss lenses?

In the near future, the prices of FF entry-level models should fall below $1000. Then, it will be clear to everyone that today's prices of most prime lenses are too high.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

an important reason why we should go mirrorless is the lenses can be made better at lower cost.

I think Sony insults everyone, lens designers, factory workers, and all the users by calling its lens Zeiss.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Looks like yatrolly is hungry.

20 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (5 months ago)

Don't you think you are the one being insulting yab?

6 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (5 months ago)

So which one do you have in mind? The overpriced, heavy, underperforming Nikon 35mm 1.4 or the so so Canon 35mm f/2? Or how about the good old Nikon 35mm AF f2? The fact is, only a few 35mm lenses are outstanding. How about the Sigma 35mm 1.4? It's great, but it weighs nearly 2 lbs and isn't really cheap either.

6 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (5 months ago)

The sigma is a 1.4 lens. How large and heavy do you think an excellent Zeiss autofocus lens with an aperture of 1.4 should be?
The 2.8 is excellent, but its only 2.8 and sells for 800 euros, the Sigma 1.4 which is similarly performing for 700 Euros. The 55 is excellent, but is 850Euros more expensive than a Nikon 50/1.8G. However it is not more than 6 times better. It's hard to see even a difference besides at 100%. You will sure get great quality with Sony+Zeiss. But Sony needs to earn money and I doubt many amateurs will spend this much. All my friends owning the Sony rely on adaptors and wait for a long term commitment of Sony to the system. I think it's more important to Sony to have success in the NEX successor to get cash, being then able to support the A7(r) system in the long run. I choose a D610 over the A7, it works better for me and gives similar image quality. But I'm open to a A8(?) in the future if Sony continues on this track.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

Since when was increased quality ever reflected in a linear increase in price..... in any product category for that matter?

4 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (5 months ago)

Some strange gear heads infest these forums.

Lets get some facts clear. These Sony /Zeiss lenses are quite clearly very, very good. All the tests confirm this. And although not cheap, they are certainly cheaper than Zeiss or Leica glass. And they also appear to outperform high end Canon and Nikon glass - although you never get people complaining about how much they cost...

There really is nothing to criticise here. Yet somehow, people creep out of the dark and troll anyway. Must be because it is Sony.

Yep, there are strange gear heads on these forums. Yabokkie - I am talking about you. Nothing you say makes any sense.
:)

34 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

I think we have to learn how to read test results to avoid unnecessary fights. the center resolution of this lens is good.

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (5 months ago)

Well. The results of this lens are good but not stellar. Sigma makes some great apsc 2.8 primes for mirrorless. And they are dirt cheap.

So there is no denying that the resolution of this lens is good. But f2.8 is just a bit too slow for this price. The Sony za 55mm f1.8 also got this rage. That was an baby Otus though and demands respect. It actually outperformed the brilliant 35mm art.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (5 months ago)

@ BarnET - you can't really compare the Sigma APSC 2.8 primes - they're not the same animal, not for the same use. The bottom line of this lens is that it's performance is really unmatched until you look at another Zeiss or the newer Sigma 35mm 1.4. APSC lenses from Sigma don't really count - they don't cover the full image circle and are therefore look like crap on full frame sensors.

@topstuff - I don't get it, you've hit the nail on the head. These little comment sessions are certainly not inhabited by very many people who are capable of reading plain text reports. It looks like people just like to emote without any knowledge.

@yabokkie - learn to think before you speak.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

> Sigma makes some great apsc 2.8 primes for mirrorless.
> And they are dirt cheap.

those lenses don't look very good to me (even taken into account low resolution m4/3" sensors) and I don't think they are cheap, though the cost performance may be better than other mirrorless lenses.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (5 months ago)

Very good lens, congrats to Sony users.

2 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

I have compared this lens on both A7 and A7r and for actual picture taking it is at least as good as my Leica 35 Summicron and Zeiss 35 F2.8 Biogon M mount. Both of them are much more expensive than the Sony. Do any of you people actually take pictures or do you just study line resolution charts?

14 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (5 months ago)

That's a consolation. And we all know of course that it is not the camera that matters, but the photographer ... Yawn.
By the way: who said it is a bad lens?

1 upvote
Cameracist
By Cameracist (5 months ago)

Nice! Poor yabokkie, really must try hard to insult such a lens...

11 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (5 months ago)

f/2.0 would have made it a home run.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

quite standard performance if sold at 150 US.

4 upvotes
EcoR1
By EcoR1 (5 months ago)

Note that transmission for this lens according to dxomark is still T2.8, while for example Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 have T2.4 transmission when mounted on Nikon D800.
-> And high transmission for Sony-lens is possible because the lens is designed for mirroless cameras and uses very few lens elements compared to typical DSLR 35mm lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Max Savin
By Max Savin (5 months ago)

A triple is rarer and just as useful when iso 3200 yields very good results.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (5 months ago)

T-number at DxOMark has large error and cannot be trusted.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

But Yabokkie can be trusted instead.

24 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (5 months ago)

With the massive vignetting even at f/22 (!), the T number (measured where?) is misleading.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 350
12