Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA / NEX-7 samples

By dpreview staff on Sep 16, 2011 at 09:00 GMT

Just Posted: Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA preview samples gallery. At the press launch we've had a chance to shoot with Sony's latest E-mount prime lens: the Zeiss-branded 36mm equivalent 24mm F1.8 ZA. We've been shooting the lens on a pre-production NEX-7 to show its performance in front of a 24MP sensor. As usual we've tried to shoot the lens in a variety of conditions and at a variety of apertures to give an idea about how it behaves.

Samples gallery

There are 20 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Sony E 24mm F1.8 ZA Preview Samples - Posted 14th September 2011
467
I own it
206
I want it
91
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 153
12
cosmonaut
By cosmonaut (Jan 19, 2012)

I wonder will the wide angle and fisheye adapters will work on this lens?

0 upvotes
peakin
By peakin (Nov 18, 2011)

These shots look very soft on my computer. Maybe it's because it's a pre-production model Nex 7.

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Oct 21, 2011)

When Sony?

0 upvotes
Steven
By Steven (Oct 2, 2011)

I know this is likely a dumb question, but: What makes the Sony image look like a Sony image? Is it the sensor or the lens? Which is to ask, if you put a Leica lens on this Nex-7 body, will it take on the look of a Leica image or will it continue to have the almost clinical coldness of the way a Sony image typically looks?

0 upvotes
newcameraguy2821
By newcameraguy2821 (Sep 22, 2011)

Some video demos of the lens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8CJqptL4w0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWWotGmDAHo

0 upvotes
Wenetu
By Wenetu (Sep 19, 2011)

For me there is just a back focus problem (that could be fixed by nex-7 function), at f/1.8 and 24Mpx a little amount of BF will smear every detail, just wait for a production camera and lens to make your sentences.

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Sep 20, 2011)

I didn't think mirrorless contrast detect AF cameras could have BF ... ?

2 upvotes
wuEric77
By wuEric77 (Sep 18, 2011)

Those shots are not sharp !

0 upvotes
elhp
By elhp (Sep 18, 2011)

I agree with James, thank you for taking the time.

1 upvote
James63
By James63 (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanks, dpreview for taking the time to post pre-production pictures!

4 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Sep 18, 2011)

Not being a optical expert at all, I'm trying to understand the DOF we can expect with this lens at, let's say' 1m distance and f2.0, given

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

so that pictures look tack sharp when pixel peeping?

Anyone?

1 upvote
Donglei
By Donglei (Sep 18, 2011)

This gallery seems no better than what greatly surprised me just a few days ago, a Samsung NX200 with a 30mm/f2.0 pancake. Comparing their portrait shots, I think Samsung gives sharper center and nicer bokeh. Come on Sony, your Korean competitor is half priced, and it is a PANCAKE.

4 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 18, 2011)

I like to NX200. 20 MP in an APS-C sensor seems to be sweet spot in terms of the resolution to dynamic range of the sensor. Maybe Sony felt it needed to cram in 24 MP just to one up Samsung. However, I do wish that the NX200 had a swivel screen and digital viewfinder.

1 upvote
Sosua
By Sosua (Sep 18, 2011)

The Samsung 30mm F2 is a great lens, yes - cheap, compact and high quality.

The reason for the size difference however is the longer registration distance which also makes the NZ cams incompatible with most rangefinder lenses...

1 upvote
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 22, 2011)

NX cameras are not incompatible with 'most rangefinder lenses'. If you're talking specifically about Leica M, there's a mount swap kit. Not as convenient as an external mount adapter, but it's out there and not terribly expensive.

0 upvotes
Dutchtreat
By Dutchtreat (Sep 17, 2011)

dpreview rocks! Thank you so much for your great reviews and for sharing your knowledge with us all. The last posts make me laugh. Grow up you guys! Bullied at home by the wife??

3 upvotes
pedromeyer
By pedromeyer (Sep 17, 2011)

Depending on what your intention was, of asking the worst possible photographer to test drive the camera and lens, I would think it was a gross mistake to be so careless and uninterested in what you offer your readers. Absolute lack of professionalism, I might think. Unless you of course wanted to make SONY and Zeiss appear in the worst possible light intentionally. I think an apology to your readers is merited.

3 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 17, 2011)

This is a small gallery of JPEGs (at default settings) intended to allow pixel-level interpretation of the performance of a new lens. It was shot quickly, with the aim of getting images on the site, and to our readers, as soon as possible. I have many, many more images from the lens, taken at more leisure, which I intend to process and publish next week. How about an apology for your extraordinary rudeness?

16 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 17, 2011)

I agree with the original poster. There is no professionalism conveyed in the photoshoot. Look at the DPReview employee taking the time to feed the giraffe and pose for a picture. This is not sometime you would do if your goal is to get pictures out as fast as possible.

I've also seen professional photographers at work, scene selection and composition is intuitive to them - they know how to frame a good shot and can do so with amazing speed.

3 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (Sep 17, 2011)

Using the name of the great Mexican photographer Pedro Meyer to post bull, eh? An offense worthy of banishment.

5 upvotes
bbbinohio
By bbbinohio (Sep 18, 2011)

How far away do you think you are from a full review of the NEX-7 camera (and possibly the lens also)?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 18, 2011)

Impossible to say at the moment, sadly. I've been told we will get a production (ie reviewable) NEX-7 'soon' so watch this space. In the meantime, I've got some more samples prepared, which I'll be adding to the samples gallery as soon as I can.

1 upvote
Neoasphalt
By Neoasphalt (Sep 17, 2011)

Too much noise for ISO 100 in the skytones - obviously there is too much megapixels squeezed in the NEX7 sensor, but overall quality is OK.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Sep 17, 2011)

I think we have to blame a mediocre photgrapher for taking some aweful instead of what the fanbois expect awesome shots. Not impressed.

But as several fanbois state : you can maybe save sony with hours in LR3 or photoshop on those massive raw files, which is what we all really want to do, with $3000 monitors....right...

1 upvote
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 17, 2011)

I get a headache sometimes with the post processing of Canon 18mp raw files from a day's photoshoot...don't want to even imagine what it would be like with Sony 24mp raw. As it looks now, the bland jpegs from the NEX-7 necessitates using the raw files.

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Sep 18, 2011)

Hours in Lightroom? Clearly you have no idea about RAW processing - its easily automated.

Why leave image quality on the table if you are clearly so anal about it?

1 upvote
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm not talking about batch conversion of raw files in Lightroom 3, I'm talking about editing the camera raw files directly in CS5, anyone can do a batch conversion but it takes a true digital artist to edit the raw files directly. Even though I created over 100 timesaving photoshop actions and saved them in my library, I find that I do need to make many unique adjustments to raw files. And yes I am very analytical. Currently I am an Adobe Certified Associate and I expect to receive my Adobe Certified Expert credential by the end of this year.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Sep 17, 2011)

Is there a special reason why DPReview gave this combo to such a bad photographer ? There is not a single picture that I consider to be a "photo".

To be honest ... I call these samples a real shame for this site.
Sorry to say this.

6 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 17, 2011)

Wait you have me confused ... are these photos or samples ?

3 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 17, 2011)

I hope that's not Barney Britton the photographer feeding the giraffe in one of the pictures, it seems like he handed the camera off to the guide while he has a jolly good time giving it leaves for lunch. The tag on his shirt even says DPReview. It seems like he has 2 cameras around his neck and he handed the third off so he could get in the shot.

...unless of course DPReview photographers work in pairs. DPReview, please hire professionals, these shots seem to be taken by amateurs

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Sep 17, 2011)

gee harry, bet you still burn witches at your homeplace.

just joking my man :)

nevertheless if you want i write a recommendation letter
to DP and then you make light from darkness and (nicer)
wine from water.

a relentless HUG 4 ya

gashô

0 upvotes
aaanouel
By aaanouel (Sep 17, 2011)

I'm sorry to say that I agree with you (gl2k) and with Camp Freddy: Terrible shots, terrible examples.

If by these shots I'd never buy any camera, but obviously the fault of the photographer.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 17, 2011)

Maybe they only have a few hours to handle the NEX-7 and Zeiss 24mm. Why dont you wait for a full review before barking like a mad dog.

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Sep 17, 2011)

hey aaanouel, don't be sorry ;)

0 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (Sep 17, 2011)

Wasn't too impressed with these Sony shots. Seems like every shot that had a person or action was very soft. I thought that this was the camera that was going to bridge warring countries?

That said, do Bidyut, you can't judge a company on product failure, as every company is going to have them. What you grade them on is how well they take care of the customer after something does happen. In past repairs, my experience is that Nikon has been slow at times getting my camera back to me, but it was fixed properly, so I really have no qualms or bash its reputation.

1 upvote
Kenneth Margulies
By Kenneth Margulies (Sep 17, 2011)

I hate Sony!!!--did you notice the purple fringing in that picture of a drink in the wine glass? Not just fringing, but purple bleeding everywhere!
Oh....wait....it's a glass of wine...
Seriously, I love these Canonikoniacs who push their noses against CRT monitors and pronounce their verdict on the picture samples.
How about waiting a bit until dpreview can review the pictures?
They got the originals and I trust that they will give the camera an objective review. Right now, you could substitute these shots for a lot of dSLRs and no one could identify the brand of lens or camera. In fact, I would bet that some dSLR shots could be switched for a decent P&S and no one here could guess which comes from what with any certainty.
So...let's all take a breath and stop being fan-boys and haters. The pros at dpreview will soon speak with authority on the picture quality, etc.

3 upvotes
Eric Calabros
By Eric Calabros (Sep 17, 2011)

let alone Tamron guys who cheer for Zeiss here

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 17, 2011)

I agree. Let's wait and see.

1 upvote
mediman30
By mediman30 (Sep 17, 2011)

Very well said!

1 upvote
mervis50
By mervis50 (Sep 17, 2011)

Well, if we're waiting for the review, why bother posting ho-hum pictures. These sample galleries are just filler, IMO.

0 upvotes
bbbinohio
By bbbinohio (Sep 17, 2011)

PHENOMENAL !!!

I don't know what's wrong with the rest of your eyesight, but that lens is amazing on the NEX-7!! It produces better photos than ANY of the Nikon DSLR's (with the possible exception of the D3x)!!! And just so that you know, I owned a D700 and a 24-70mm and a 14-24mm.

In my opinion, there is nothing close to this combo.

I am buying it FOR SURE. (and getting rid of the rest of my equipment).

This is the way to go.

I am already planning my trips!!!

Bob from Ohio

3 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (Sep 17, 2011)

Let's see, 8 people say the NEX 7's pictures have issues, and you say its 'amazing'. I'd be checking either my monitor or eyesight if I were you. If you think these photos rival that of a D700, then your demands for a good photo must be sub ground level. Good luck with this POS.

1 upvote
putomax
By putomax (Sep 17, 2011)

ha ha ha ha ha

you're funny :D

here d700 and 28-70 f2.8 and NO WAY bob!!!
not in DR, not about sharpness and surely not
in color rendition or high iso performance.
I'd love to engage carlitos with nik and have
pretty babies... but (again; pre production jpegs an all)
this combo shows both, sony flaws (APS-C overfeed
sensor being the mortal sin) and CZ peculiarities.

anyway if you've switched to a 5d mark II this can be
your second body (where the dust will settle) :P

best regards

gôsha

1 upvote
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 17, 2011)

Carl Zeiss would be rolling over in his grave if he found out what Sony was doing to his name.

I bought my first digital Sony camera, the highly anticipated revolutionary 8mp DSC-828 because it had a Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* lens. This was probably the worst digital camera lens ever produced, more complaints about purple fringing/chromatic aberration than any other lens.

Fast forward eight years later... Sony produces yet another Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* lens for the highly anticipated revolutionary 24mp NEX-7.

It's beginning to feel like deja vu.

5 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 17, 2011)

Except that the biggest issue with the F828 wasn't so much the lens, aswell as the sensor. All cameras using that 8MP sensor showed huge amounts of purple fringing (and noise..). Being a fast lens as it was, that didn't help much at wider apertures ofcourse.

0 upvotes
OzK
By OzK (Sep 27, 2011)

OK - the dsc-f828 was bad, but the straight after that came the DSC-R1. I don't think that even Carl Zeiss could have imagined such an amazing piecee of glass thanks to only a 2mm gap from the sensor! All of the Alpha CZ lenses (for full frame) are also amazing, much better than many of there nikon and canon counterparts

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Sep 16, 2011)

C'mon team!

All these samples show is that the NEX-7 plus JPEG isn't the best combo to pixel peep on.

That and the Zeiss may be a bit overpriced. Who knows.

Heck, even the exalted Oly jpegs look like crud if you pixel peep and they have half the pixels.

Reserve judgement for RAW.

2 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 17, 2011)

Oly JPEGs look a better than this, even with a smaller sensor. They don't look like 'crud' - and neither do these, but there are telltale issues that point to poor metering, under-par glass (at this price point that's ridiculous) and a sensor that can't deal with bright highlight transitions.

The RAW samples will be cleaner, less noise and possibly sharper if the optics aren't the culprit, but the transitions and fringing will remain, I suspect.

1 upvote
sensibill
By sensibill (Sep 16, 2011)

Unimpressed. I see the same purple fringing of highlight transitions that you get from the first NEX models, as well as the poor metering and clipping. The bad DR may be due to JPEGs, but the fringing/transitions are classic NEX issues that I disliked from the very beginning.

Glass-wise, bokeh seems fine (though others are calling it nervous) but even at 2.2 the output is soft, nothing my 14MP NX100 with old adapted 57mm 1.4 can't do as well or better.

One thing the NEX-7 seems to do better is color saturation, but again these are JPEGs so it's somewhat relative.

0 upvotes
SydneyHarbourBridge
By SydneyHarbourBridge (Sep 16, 2011)

These test photos are seriously worrying.

Because the photographs themselves are so bad it makes it harder to judge the lens/camera but if you try hard and imagine that the photos were any good you come away extremely disappointed.

Disappointed enough in my case to consider cancelling a pre-order on the camera.

It is a Zeiss lens but shows absolutely no character. Bland would be the kindest word that you could use. The dynamic range is average.

This glass just can't make up its mind about anything. It is struggling.

Unlike the photos posted here if you look at photos taken with classic Zeiss lenses, say those for Hasselblad, there is no comparison. It is just not possible to take a bad photo with Hasselblad lenses. There is some voodoo magic in there that says 'we have given you a lens created by the hand of god, step up to the mark.'

This lens says 'Sony paid us a lot of money to put our name on this. We are really sorry'.

5 upvotes
DPNick
By DPNick (Sep 16, 2011)

Please cancel your order and leave this camera lens combo to someone who will be able to take good pictures with it, because that won't be you.

1 upvote
SydneyHarbourBridge
By SydneyHarbourBridge (Sep 17, 2011)

I realise that it is low resolution and I am only looking at it on a computer monitor but your response exhibits pronounced purple fringing and unpleasant bokeh.

This is typical of a cheap point-'n'-shoot.

3 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 16, 2011)

Agree, this lens does not provide amazing photos at f1.8. The subject in the photos are borderline blurry and just do not pop at you. The photos do get better when the lens is stopped down. But what is the point of buying this lens at $1000 when it only provides the best pictures when it is stopped down.

The Lumix 20mm f1.7 lens provides much better photos wide open when paired with a Lumix G3 body- the photos just pop at you and have amazing contrast and sharpness. The larger aperture 20mm f1.7 is 1/3 the price of this Sony f1.8 lens.

Perhaps that is why the Micro 4/3 system has big advantage over the NEX system, the 4/3 system has amazing lenses that have better sharpness and contrast when used wide open.

4 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Sep 16, 2011)

The background blur wide open (DSC00820 lizard) seems to be a bit nervous, so one has to stop down...
-
...and the sharpness isn't that convincing, probably due to the JPG engine (noise reduction) and maybe also a tad to strong AA-filter in front of the sensor, but without having RAWs it is hard to judge...
-
...especially if the pictures were not taken on tripod and not at F5.6,
where this combination could have it's sweet spot.

-

Never the less - the camera is a pre production unit,
with room for improvements... ;)
-
...and the lens is not perfect, but promising (without looking at the price...), if stopped down a bit.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Sep 16, 2011)

DP review should be able to put together a better run of test shots from what must be a $2000 combination. The choice of shallow depth of field on many shots is ill adivsed if they are tyring to show the sharpness of the lens. It also would appear from exposure and contrast that sony have put their bucks on pixels over dynamic range.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

How do you judge a camera's DR based on out of camera jpegs?
You realize that every sensor this size far exceeds the DR capablities that can he shown in a single jpeg, let alone on your computer screen?
The large aperture is one of the mainassets of this lens and bokeh one of the properties that many will want to be able to judge too.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 16, 2011)

What is this, do people come here just to complaint ? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. They've covered all angles and distances with landscape, close-up, fast and slow apertures, bright sun, and shadows, there's people with nicely colored shirts, there's bokeh, foods, a giraffe, a lizard, a rhino and a flying motorcyclist, but nooo they could have put together a better run, the photos are crooked, and yes the depth of field what poor choices ... what the heck people.

10 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Sep 16, 2011)

Here is the thing....this is a wildly anticipated camera & lens combination. People with M9's are interested in seeing what this duo can do....but this is the sorriest group of photos I have ever seen here.
If you were running down a point and shoot ..it wouldn't really matter.
This is just below par. Based on these images the camera and lens are completely lackluster and a GIANT disappointment...
Somehow I think this equipment could be shown in a much better light. If that makes me a complainer..than I am a complainer. This website has done MUCH better in the past for important equipment.
If I was Sony & Zeiss...I would think that this is a disgrace.
The truth is the truth.

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 16, 2011)

The 24MP pre-production JPGs from this are sub-par yes, and the advanced user which this kit would be aimed at shouldn't have that much trouble to look past that for the moment, and see that the lens does indeed have superb potential once the output is properly optimized, or RAWs. Tho that is beside the point, the thing that bothered me is that so many of these complaints aimed at DPreview for the most idiotic things one can think of, as noted. They offer these very informative samples before the release basically on a silver plate, but only get shouted at. And your argument is that a M9 user wouldn't like this kind of photos?

2 upvotes
Eric Calabros
By Eric Calabros (Sep 16, 2011)

Look at lizard picture.. It means: forget corners at f/1.8
Why should I pay $1000 for this? Just because of that blue icon on it? To prove I am in elite part of photographer community? Looks funny for me

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

Award for smartest post as of yet.
Ever heard of depth of field? Large aperture, close distance to subject.

5 upvotes
Eric Calabros
By Eric Calabros (Sep 17, 2011)

depth of field on the ground? I know whats DOF... but you fanbois believe it or not, this lens is softer in corners than expected
award your Blue Elite company for assuming people Dumb

0 upvotes
Eric Calabros
By Eric Calabros (Sep 17, 2011)

lol...yes, but its so fun to tease you Made in Germany zealots. even with silly statement :-)

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 17, 2011)

haha depth of field on the ground that is so weird, next thing you know they'll tell you that santa doesn't actually live on the north pole.

0 upvotes
Mattoid
By Mattoid (Sep 17, 2011)

The depth of field is razor thin in that lizard shot. You can see it going across the picture. The ground would only be fully in focus if you were shooting directly down.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Sep 16, 2011)

Zeiss lenses are excellent but not perfect. I have had Zeiss lenses fail under pro use. I have a Hassy 150/f4 that has been unusable for a decade now. Zeiss has a great rep, but for the money... they are not a good value. Nerdy photographers love to express their undying love for the product line, but in the end, most great photos today are taken using Japanese lenses.

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (Sep 16, 2011)

Hmmm, I must be the only one who is disappointed a bit.

1 upvote
clarence hk
By clarence hk (Sep 17, 2011)

You are not alone. The present samples show the camera/lens combo performs much less than its price tag !

2 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Sep 16, 2011)

nice lens, though I don't like the artificial look of Sony, I have to admit they are poised to do well with their NEX line.

0 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (Sep 16, 2011)

These appear to be better than the A77 samples. So, Sony seems to be tweaking it's algorithm soup. The focusing is impressive as well. The lizard is split by the focus.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 16, 2011)

This is the BEST mirrorless lens of ALL TIME. Look at the smooth bokeh and sharpness. I want my NEX7 now!

0 upvotes
patcam7122
By patcam7122 (Sep 16, 2011)

photos seem decent but apart from the 24mm vs 35mm factor the 35 1.8 Nikon mounted on my D40 can produce shots at least as good and only cost $200 Can. Too many people instantly assume a $1000 lens must be better than a lesser-priced one, they believe the advertising hype without questioning for themselves. Collect several lenses of similar specification, shoot various photos and 99% of the time any differences will be attributable to photographic skills [or lack of]. There are very few "bad" lenses produced by reputable manufacturers these days, the size of your bank account is not the determining factor in how good your photos look, you are.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

You'd have to compare a 24mm on your D40.

1 upvote
patcam7122
By patcam7122 (Sep 16, 2011)

OK, my Nikon 24mm F2 still does better at a fraction of the cost

0 upvotes
3dreal
By 3dreal (Sep 16, 2011)

He has never tested a zeiss-lens on an analogue cam. Otherwise he had not written such a ..I...!

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

A bit better, based on tests on a 6MP D40? Upsample your D40 pictures taken with that lens to 6000x4000, then tell me they look better. In other words, I don't think you have a good basis to judge that yet.

1 upvote
patcam7122
By patcam7122 (Sep 16, 2011)

still much better IQ from photos taken with my D7000 and 24 F2, I was just using the D40 as an example. I don't understand why people seem to want to defend a giant conglomerate offering dubious quality and performance in lenses that command an exorbitant price.

0 upvotes
patcam7122
By patcam7122 (Sep 16, 2011)

by the way 3dreal, what is an "analogue cam"?

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 17, 2011)

It's dubious and unsupported claims like yours that warrant such a reply.

0 upvotes
pandaleo
By pandaleo (Sep 16, 2011)

This lens and the camera are good. The sharpness is good in F1.8, and in F2.8 it is excellent. And the boken and colour is nice.

Don't know why there are always complaints about the lens. See the sample picture of the lizard. It is shoot with F1.8, and the lizard iis full of detail when you view the full size of the image. Can "any other modern compact camera" do this? Don't make nonsense statement here please.

"At the press launch we've had a chance to shoot with Sony's latest E-mount prime lens". They didn't say they can take away the camera, so fewer low light sample is understandable.

4 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Sep 16, 2011)

Wouldn't the lizard look just as good with an F2.8 50mm prime? The question here is not the camera body, but the advantages afforded by an F1.8 24mm lens.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

You'd have to shoot more than a stop higher ISO's to achieve similar shutterspeed and that 50mm wouldn't do landscapes or other wider scenes as well. Not really comparable.

1 upvote
DecisiveMoment
By DecisiveMoment (Sep 16, 2011)

In my experience with over 45 years as a photographer THE best lens manufacturers are Carl Zeiss, Leica and Fujinon. For years I used Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad and was never disappointed, only impressed. The build quality is unsurpassed and yes you pay for quality. Twenty years ago I always paid over $1,000 dollars and more for the Zeiss lenses. In todays value of the US dollar a $1,000 for this 24 mm f1.8 is a very fair price. I have found that to evaluate any images on DPReview I download the image and bring it into Photoshop to do critical analysis. What is not stated is whether any in-camera sharpening was set. When DPReview gives us some RAW images from the Sony NEX-7 is when the real fun begins. Everyone should take serious note that the NEX-7 is a "preproduction" unit. Sony innovation with the NEX-7 has caused a paradigm shift in camera design and I'm sure shock waves in the industry.

9 upvotes
dc_photo
By dc_photo (Sep 16, 2011)

Sony please lower the automatic noise reduction in the final release. Many of the samples here and in the NEX-7 gallery suffer from that plastic, gradation-less look that noise reduction produces. A more natural look can be attained replacing plastic noiseless gradations with more noisy but more natural gradations which also happen to preserve detail...

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Sep 16, 2011)

Am I ill-informed to think that the only reason to sacrifice big wampum for a F1.8 lens is to improve low light results? If so, then why are the test shots almost entirely taken in sunlight bright enough for F8.0 or even a ND filter? Only the lizard and stout photos come any where close to low light. Hand-held shots, taken at night or in a dim indoor setting, would be the relevant measures. True or false?

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Sep 16, 2011)

Large apertures are also useful for depth of field control

1 upvote
putomax
By putomax (Sep 16, 2011)

<... to improve low light results?>
too much black or white, don't U think?

<Hand-held shots, taken at night or in a dim indoor setting>
+ 1 (naked lawyers would be nice, not joking)
+ tripod shots of rhino fighting giraf, or at least giraf eating
Kelcey badge
+ Raw

BTW the dark beverage in branded glass, where did it go?
nice word "wampum"

gashô

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Sep 16, 2011)

Andy Crowe
>Large apertures are also useful for depth of field control

Maybe OK for the beer glass or (better) two of them. But too narrow DOF is begging trouble for action scenes. I'm still reluctant to be wowed by the bright daylight shots, only to find that the F1.8 not deliver when needed most, in low light, or that exagerated street light lens flare make it too ghostly.

0 upvotes
BogdanSandulescu
By BogdanSandulescu (Sep 16, 2011)

Well dpreview; think a little: who cares about f/8 with such a lens? We need more sample wide open, and please, try fo shot people or objecs with the same size, with a decent background. This sample are 0 for me. Zero... :(

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Sep 16, 2011)

There are plenty of samples there taken between f1.8 and 2.2

3 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Sep 16, 2011)

This has to be the most over hyped lens to date.

2 upvotes
darkref
By darkref (Sep 16, 2011)

it wasn't over hyped at all -.- everyone has been critical right from the start

3 upvotes
Knallberto
By Knallberto (Sep 16, 2011)

Iiiiiii do not need such a lens - not better than others ... but much higher price :-(
Some people think "this lens makes my success" - but they produce same bad pictures like with other lenses.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 16, 2011)

Meaning the value is justified by the person using it, for skill, passion and budget. Not by a single bloke's lacking insight.

1 upvote
VadymA
By VadymA (Sep 16, 2011)

Too P&S-ish in my opinion. Can not see any difference from any other modern compact camera (other than the image size of course). I was expecting more DSLR-like quality.

2 upvotes
keith Bennett
By keith Bennett (Sep 16, 2011)

good and useful shots dprev, thank you ….
… and dare i say, the pictures are looking good ….
…. and, the shower of commentators above …. well, seems a fairly normal dp comedy show ...

6 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 16, 2011)

lol, at least someone gets it :)

2 upvotes
citrontokyo
By citrontokyo (Sep 16, 2011)

Yeah, these pictures look very nice. I now want a camera/lens combo I don't need/can't afford.

Still, very nice indeed.

1 upvote
Jon Stock
By Jon Stock (Sep 16, 2011)

Is there a chance to test this lens on a 5N? Thank you.

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Sep 16, 2011)

Fantastic lens! Would like to have one, but can't use it on a Nikon.

4 upvotes
EvanZ
By EvanZ (Sep 16, 2011)

Wake me up when Zeiss makes a fast 16 mm prime for the NEX.

0 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (Sep 16, 2011)

dissapoointed by lack of perpixel sharpness at %100....it's blotchy far away from 5N sharpness.. too bad.

0 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Sep 16, 2011)

if u want 100% pixel sharpness u are looking the wrong direction, look at the sigma Dps and SD15, if u want bigger resolution and yet 100% sharp look at SD1.

2 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Sep 16, 2011)

You should get a camera with 4 pixels, then at 100% it will be perfectly sharp! Seriously though, try reducing the image to 12Mpx (1/2 resolution) then call your eye doc to stop your bleeding eyes. OK, maybe not THAT sharp but still. Stop looking at 100%, even the most attractive models look darned ugly if you are looking at their pores.

5 upvotes
citrontokyo
By citrontokyo (Sep 16, 2011)

My kids look damned good at 100% and anybody who says they don't is looking at fisticuffs. The K-5 plus 40mm ltd certainly doesn't hurt their cause either...;)

0 upvotes
rvalle
By rvalle (Sep 16, 2011)

Well, as expected 24Mpixel is too much. I tried resizing some of the samples to 12Mpixel and then back to 24Mpixel, comparing side to side to the original image... and guess what? No difference.
24Mpixel is ridiculous on a crop sensor.

6 upvotes
Griffo 155
By Griffo 155 (Sep 16, 2011)

What is the image like when printed to say A3 using 24Mpixel compared to 12Mpixel? serious question...

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Sep 16, 2011)

no se aguanta, NO SE AGUANTA!!!!

can't take it, CAN'T TAKE IT!!!

for me (pre production camera and all that) Carlito Zeus shows
that this strategic race for Mpx is no use for image quality sake.
my dog, just look at the giraf (f8). bet the sensor is good but the
make up (lets call it jpeg engine) just smears everything.
don't mind to be burned in the fire, nevertheless 12 Mpx would
suffice and, at the same time, be the limit... in this pretty toy : )

agrghh!!! llévense esas motos (DSC00634).

gashô

4 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 16, 2011)

it has the same pixel density as the G3 and GH2, fyi

3 upvotes
Anadrol
By Anadrol (Sep 16, 2011)

Carlito Zeus, hahahahaha

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Sep 16, 2011)

i switched from 4.65 to 8.45µm pixel pitch (3,75 on the G3)
and now i'm more than happy with those 118 litle guys/mm.

http://home.globalcrossing.net/~zilch0/images/Digispecs_Chart_20100101.jpg

gashô

0 upvotes
ecka84
By ecka84 (Sep 16, 2011)

Just did the same thing - resized to 12mp (4256x2837) and back to 24mp (6000x4000). There is almost no difference compared to the original image, even at pixel level. However, if you take any original 12mp APS-C sensor JPG image and compare it to the one from this 24mp sensor image resized to 12mp, the 24mp sensor image will look better (sharper with nicer details at 100%), IF you don't use small apertures like f/16.
I'm not drawing any conclusions until I see RAW images from the production model and I suggest you do the same.

2 upvotes
cjhacker23
By cjhacker23 (Sep 16, 2011)

Oh good lord, I really wish people would stop clamoring for fewer megapixels already. A 24 megapixel sensor will capture more detail than a 12 megapixel sensor. Period. Yes, if you slap a kit lens on the body or shoot in candlelit exteriors, you won't see the difference, and in fact may want better ISO performance over megapixels--but not everybody cares about high ISO performance, which, thanks to the likes of those who kept clamoring for the end to the megapixel race, camera manufacturers are now using as the new proving ground, boasting ever more preposterous ISO numbers, color fidelity be damned.

Some of us actually shoot with primes at base ISO and manage to keep camera shake to a minimum.

I would welcome a 40 megapixel full frame sensor. Bring it on!

3 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (Sep 16, 2011)

Welcome to 24Mpx of INTERPOLATED UP Bayer Sensor technology. The REAL resolution is closer to (24Mpx / Num colors sensors per site). The Bayer interpolation adds very little to the image when sized up. So if the sensor is R,G,B (not sure what it is) real resolution is 24/3 = 8Mpx. You should be able to reduce to that and back up to 24Mpx with no real loss of detail.

With fancier de-interlacing and interpolation methods in programs like Lightroom, you can pull more detail out of the Bayer array, but in-camera the energy and time is not spent scratching out a tad more detail. FPS is a selling number, not pixel detail.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 16, 2011)

why are the horizons crooked in so many of the photos?

2 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 16, 2011)

because Sony did not want to put an electronic level in the NEX-7 ?

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

It does have an electronic level gauge.

3 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 16, 2011)

Then it must not be very good since the shots do appear to be crooked.

1 upvote
Tim in upstate NY
By Tim in upstate NY (Sep 16, 2011)

Typical forum expert nonsense. These are samples to offer some idea of the IQ capabilities of this lens and camera but all you think of to say is that the photographer didn't know how to compose a level shot? Whew!

17 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 16, 2011)

Harry, did it occur to you that maybe the gauge wasn't used and/or the photographer is at fault?

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Sep 16, 2011)

look at 8, its so obvious that its crooked, no need for a level, it would take half a second to correct that.. is this a photography forum or what, geez

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Sep 16, 2011)

^ Yes because obviously it's absolutely forbidden to take a photo at anything other than completely level

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Sep 16, 2011)

somebody has a very narrow definition of what makes a good photo...

1 upvote
h00ligan
By h00ligan (Sep 16, 2011)

Really Simon, do you think the 45 degree ones are good photos? Honestly?

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (Sep 16, 2011)

1,3,4,7,8

What does the angle add aside from making it look..well...worse? It's an honest question, what am I missing...I'm all for angles that accomplish something but these mostly look like they were just shot in a hurry by someone who is new..and I know you guys are good...so I'm curious what I must be missing.

0 upvotes
Sekura Drops
By Sekura Drops (Sep 16, 2011)

I would expect some night shots when we are talking about a fast prime lens. For the shiny day photos I actually am not impressed. It just does not give you the feeling when a 600 euro D5100 attached to 35/1.8 with a total amount of 800 euros, but its just my amateur photographer idea.

1 upvote
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 16, 2011)

24mp in an APS-C sensor just doesn't capture low light pictures well, hence the reason for all the bright day shots. I'm with you on this, what is the purpose of a f1.8 lens? To capture shots in low light.

0 upvotes
darkref
By darkref (Sep 16, 2011)

They didn't have a choice. It's some kind of press outing, they had to go here at this time of day.

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 16, 2011)

Hary Lane is a Canon fanboy who posting such crap in previous Nex-7 thread too. The 14 MP sensor has much better low-light performance than Canon 7D.

And by the way, since Canon APSC is a little smaller, the pixel density isn't that different than this sensor.

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Sep 16, 2011)

ops for the typos. Thanks DPR for not giving us option to edit

Hary Lane is a Canon fanboy who was posting such crap in previous Nex-7 thread too. The 24 MP sensor has much better low-light performance than Canon 7D.

And by the way, since Canon's APSC is a little smaller, the pixel density isn't that different than this sensor.

0 upvotes
Harry Lane
By Harry Lane (Sep 16, 2011)

I see purple fringing in #690 top center column of metal bread stand - not very good for such an expensive fixed focus lens

2 upvotes
pandaleo
By pandaleo (Sep 16, 2011)

Considering the picture taken at F2.0 and at the edge, it is not really a problem. Even a much expensive canon 24L have a little purple fringing at this aperture and at the corner of the frame.

12 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 16, 2011)

Damnit Sony-Zeiss what are you doing to me, why do you gotta make such a great lens for the Sony system, now i really want one ...

3 upvotes
Total comments: 153
12