Retro1976: I don't know why there is so much hype over the Sony A series bodies and lenses. Look at these samples: The rich color, skin tones, contrast and detail - the images are lovely, superb. Sony doesn't come close to Canon in this regard, and yet time and time again people talk about the superiority of Sony sensors, yet my eyes don't see it.
You're joking right? The colors are incredibly harsh in these examples, like from a micro four thirds sensor.
Calvin Chann: I own the 25 and 85. I won't buy the 18. If they had come out with a 35 or 50, instant buy.
I like the design of the Batis.
There is currently a hole for a mid priced 35mm at around f2, or a 50mm now that Sony will release their own nifty fifty.
I believe the 50mm Batis will be f/1.4, but indeed, a 35mm Batis is more critical.
Wild Light: 18??? Why not 35 or 50??????
Perhaps Rishi got a bad copy. The FE35/1.4 is quite decent in terms of sharpness wide open and rendering. I agree with the onion ring bokeh though. My biggest gripe is the ridiculous size. I would much rather see a Loxia version of the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. In the meantime, I think the Loxia 35/2 is pretty stellar and very small.
MF is pretty cool through a good EVF.
Retro1976: Sony makes remarkable cameras: class leading sensors, features galore, I mean it's everything one could want right ? Yet I go back and forth and buy one of these bodies and always end up dissapointed, I know it's purely subjective but I often find myself happier with Fuji, Olympus or Canon. Its not just me, friends and fellow photogs always end up switching back. I think Sony is close to arriving at the right formula, but still have some work to do.
Nikon tried with the Df to go the "pure photography" route. I was underwhelmed. The faux-Leica strategy of Fuji also disappoints with the crop sensors and style-over-function design.
The Sony A7 series with Zeiss Loxia glass has been the closest to "pure photography" I've been able to afford in the digital realm. The first day I laid hands on a Loxia lens I have never looked back.
sgoldswo: I don't see how you can rate a camera which has a clumsy user interface with a gold award. It makes the review irrelevant if you don't consider the user experience.
I always have this problem with high ratings for Sony and Panasonic cameras (which both have their moments of clunkyness in the user interface). If they require extensive customization, they simply aren't as much fun to use, however capable they are.
All major brands have clumsy UIs. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, all have sub par menu systems. Canon is so bad it is a joke. Yet people buy these cameras....
It would be nice if companies would fix this for once and for all, but I find the Sony UI quite decent compared to Canon.
LandonT87: My biggest issue is with the lack of good zoom lenses. I'd be willing to pay for the 16-70mm f/4 lens but for $1000, the performance is unacceptable. I know sharpness isn't everything but it got a DXO Mark score for sharpness of 8 (8!) on a 24 MP camera. Further, I have a picture from a friend using a NEX 7 and the 16-70mm and it is noticeably soft around the edges.
Zoom kit for A6x00Sony 10-18Sony 28-70Sony 70-200
Prime kit for A6x00:Zeiss Touit 12/2.8Sigma 19/2.8Sony 28/2Sony Zeiss 55/1.8Zeiss Batis 85/1.8
Smaug01: Also ugly, just like the Lumix GX-8. If I'm gonna put down that kind of coin for a camera, it has to LOOK good too. (Like Fuji X100T, Olympus OM-D, etc.) It's not too much to ask.
This is a computer box with a lump for the grip and a lens mount; really uninspired.
Nothing worse than these ugly Fuji and Olympus retro cameras.
Sony please copy this lens for the A7 series !!!!!
This post shows that even the most expensive gear will not save a bad photographer. All of these images are literally composed for 85mm and shot with 28mm. It's terrible. I wonder who screens these entries.
Cytokine: Most of these samples are at 5.6, f4, or 2.8, and at these apertures almost all the good 85's are sharp.
The Bokeh is so bad I cant believe a Japanese company made this lens, it looks like Nissan Bokeh. Sony even made a machine to predict the bokeh?????
Why so few 1.4 samples? Is it that bad that the reviewers cant or dare not post any.
I am no Zeiss fan, but they would never put their name on something so bad.
There are plenty of lenses as sharp as this one, with better bokeh at a fraction of the price.
Did Zeiss refuse to put their name on this lens design? Maybe it should be called the Grand Mess.
Could the simplest explanation indeed be the correct one? That in the wake of test chart sharpness obsession, Sony went the Sigma route with lenses only optimized for sharpness, ignoring all other characteristics, and Zeiss said NO?
Flashback: I hate to differ here, but where is the pop?
I can see plenty of detail, but not absolute sharpness. Maybe it's a due to lack of contrast. I was expecting more from this combination.
False. 3D "pop" comes from a combination of:- amount of bokeh- field curvature- drop in contrast in OOF areas- color tonality (this is coating and sensor related)
The field curvature part is important, and generally lenses with field curvature score poorly on flat test charts.
Hugo King: FuhTeng has the best post so far.
Sony is out for money but still doesn't get Photography. Sharpness is nice, but their colors are still off, and ergonomics and function lag behind most everyone else. Some of the pictures I've see from their latest cameras are not good at all. A terrible picture can't be improved by 'sharpness', but this electronics company plans on making money by selling that idea to tech geeks.
This is senseless brand hating without factual basis.
As an Olympus/Nikon/Sony user, I prefer Sony because the colors look less processed, more organic. Nikon is alright, and almost identical in RAW. Olympus is too harsh on the color processing, even in RAW somehow.
RidgeRunner22: Ha! for some reason I got a real kick out of this one. Looks like s lovely lens! Wish they would make one equally sharp a few stops slower, and way smaller. When do you use an 85 at 1.4? sounds hard to deal with, from a DOF stand point.
I'd like a 85/2.8 which is as good as the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. I would prefer it with Zeiss coatings and none of this GM nonsense.
PeterTom: When I sum the weight and price of these 3 lenses:Canon 50mm 1.8 STMCanon 85mm 1.8 USMCanon 100mm 2.0 USMThen I get 1044 grams and 880.24 Euro (looking at cheapest prices in reliable on-line shops around me).The Sigma is 1490 grams and 1249 Euro.It is about 40% more in both numbers...Can the lens have that much better IQ (compared to the above listed ones) that you will not mind carrying 400 more grams (another lens' weight, and I usually leave the 85mm at home, 50mm and 100mm are usually enough to carry) and pay 40% more? For me the answer is "no", but if flexibility of a zoom is highest priority, then your opinion may differ.
Beating the Canon 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 isn't that hard...
Siobhan A: "Most of what I shot using the 16-70mm was up at ISO 6400 or beyond and frankly, looked pretty noisy and unappealing."
Sony is still a long way behind where no defunct Samsung was 2 years ago. With no affordable F/2.8 zooms, and no sub-$1000 F/1.4 native lenses, they can't compete with a cheaper Nikon, Pentax, or even a higher resolution NX500 in low light. The $1000 A6300 body with those native F/4 zooms is comparable to cheaper M43 bodies with much smaller F/2.8 primes.
From what I have seen from unbiased reviewers so far the A6300 is still behind the NX1 and GH4 for action and not close do a decent Nikon.
Which móron uses f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on APS-C!?!?
The point of APS-C is a) budget and b) reach. None of these f/2.8 zooms / f/1.4 primes have reach.
If you want bang for buck, getting f/4 zooms and f/2 primes on full frame is far more effective than getting f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on APS-C, both budget and IQ.
Camera Newton: I am in agreement with everyone else. picture quality is a few steps behind competitors. Even the 1 inch sensor cameras and M43 cameras despite smaller sensors are producing more pleasing pictures most of the time, so the benefit of occasional less noise or higher DR (killed by small aperture native lenses) are virtually meaningless. Those weird colors and mushy details are good reasons to avoid this camera. The A6000 is a better all around deal.
I am a M43 shooter and I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. IQ of this cam is top notch.
Dave Oddie: 60mm f.ov. equivalent on 4/3? Can't think of a more useless focal length.
It's not a standard lens giving a natural field of view and it's not short tele either.
On aps-c at 45mm equivalent it is almost the ideal standard lens focal length to give that natural viewpoint so makes much more sense.
Adding a 4/3 version seems like an afterthought. If I were a 4/3 user I'd get something like the Oly 45mm F1.8. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is minimal and not worth the compromise in my opinion.
Must be sad being so narrow minded.
Nikon 58mm and Sony Zeiss 55mm are fantastic portrait lenses. Nice and versatile.
Angrymagpie: Thanks for the review. I was wondering what the rationale is for shooting it with an A7Rii in crop mode instead of testing it on, say, a6300/6000?
A7Rii is arguably the best APS-C camera on the market.
Noorar: now we need a direct comparison to the FE 28mm F2 !
The transmission of Sigma's previous 30/1.4 is T/1.8. The transmission of the 28/2 is T/2.
So in terms of low light performance I doubt there will be a big difference. Both have terrible distortion. From the examples, the 28/2 has better bokeh.
For Sony users the Sony seems like a wiser buy.
Caerolle: If they ever made some good fast APS-C primes I might be interested. I think the chances of that happening rank up there with an A7000 ever being made, maybe they will drop them at the same time, like a whole new system (or a reboot to the E-mount system).
Your comment makes no sense. You can get the following set of excellent primes for your A6x00:
- Zeiss Touit 12/2.8- Sigma 19/2.8- Sony Zeiss 24/1.8- Zeiss Touit 32/1.8- Sony Zeiss 55/1.8- Zeiss Batis 85/1.8