Sony Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA real-world samples gallery posted

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/03/03/hands-on-the-sony-fe-35-1-4-lens-samples-and-my-1st-thoughts/

Steve Huff managed to shoot some decent samples with this lens that are critically focused and quite clean:

Also, Philip Ryan at Popphoto managed a similar thing:

http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/sample-image-gallery-zeiss-distagon-t-fe-35mm-f14-za?i=530353&s=2

So clearly, this lens is quite capable and I think given the nearly non-existent CAs and very natural out of focus treatment, it's going to be a great lens.

Mar 8, 2015*permalink

John Summers

Looks good. I want to see how it fairs next to the
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A

Mar 7, 2015permalink

babart

Especially given the difference in prices. I understand Zeiss's well-deserved reputation, but I'm being priced out of the market. So I welcome Sigma's art series as offering high quality images for the rest of us who really can't afford to keep up.

Mar 8, 2015permalink

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/the-paranormal-how-to-talk-to-the-dead-my-experience-and-evidence-with-evp-spirit-boxes-ghost-boxes-and-spirit-communication/

@stevo23
Hey, that is not fair. Steve Huff has super natural powers, so of course he can make sharp images at f/1.4 😉

Mar 29, 2015permalink

bill bull

sharpness look good and all that. however, it's way to pricy.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

brendon1000

Not really Sony has no competition in this market so they are milking their customers. That said this lens is priced around the same as the 35mm f1.4 L and the Nikon 35mm f1.4 G.

Don't compare it with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 since that is a third party lens and comes with its own set of problems

Mar 8, 2015permalink

Lassoni

Wouldn't a Sigma 35 Art lens with some adapter do the same thing? It's not like sony lenses are smaller than sigma.

Mar 8, 2015*permalink

brendon1000

You have got to understand that 3rd party lenses have compatibility issues. Some at the start and some in future.

Sigma had a major issue when Sony launched their SLT line of cameras where most Sigma lenses stopped working.

After Sigma fixed a few lenses by paying one way shipping they had another issue with Sony updated the mount.

So honestly paying $900 for a lens that may fail you in future is IMO not worth it.

My friend went through 5 Sigma 35mm f1.4 lenses to try and find a perfectly working copy but they all had some AF issue at infinity focus at f1.4.

Stopped down the DOF is large enough not to notice but wide open it was off.

Ultimately he had to pony up more cash for the optically inferior Canon version but at least that lens works perfectly.

Mar 8, 2015permalink

Thermidor

@brendon1000, could it be because it's wide open, and shooting at infinity AND using the LA-EA 4 to boot? I've used/am using a number of Sigma lenses, both on DSLR bodies as well as the smaller mirrorless Art lenses, and I've never encountered compatibility and focusing issues. However, I have tried using a Minolta Maxxum 24-50 f4 on the LA-EA4, and it was having trouble focusing right. As in, none of the shots I took came out 100% correctly focused, though I still had enough sharpness, and none of the shots were critical, so it was fine. But I wouldn't trust the lens for work shoots.

The only time I notice misfocusing issues is when I tried the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art on my Canon 650D. It very slightly front focuses when shot wider than f2.5. It's not a big deal for me, but it would matter in some cases, which is what kept me from buying that lens otherwise. I have tried the 50mm and 35mm Art lenses on the same Canon, and even wide open I didn't face the same issues your friend did.

Mar 9, 2015*permalink

brendon1000

^^ I haven't tried using it on a Sony body. My friend used it on his 5d mk 3.

It fails in a very specific situation so its higly possible no one has noticed the issue before.

Another friend who uses a 35mm f1.4 told me his copy was fine but when I tried it on his camera it gave me the same issue.

In any case my point is 3rd party is no guarantee of working. Not saying first party is always better but your chances of getting something that will work perfectly are far higher.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

Thermidor

@breandon1000, that's not necessarily true. As I've mentioned, I've used a number of Sigma lenses and haven't had any problems with them. In contrast, my Canon 85mm has a significant front focusing problem. And unfortunately that was a problem that didn't materialize when I was testing in-store as the lighting was fairly easy. But once there's stage lights and a smoke machine, the problem is very prevalent.

Since I'm using a consumer level 650D, I can't set micro adjustments, and it's infuriating because I'm getting slightly out of focus shots like 50% of the time whenever I need to use it wide open. It's not so bad as to be unusable for print, and I don't pixel peep, but it put me in a dilemma when it comes to commercial work, and diminshes what would otherwise be a fantastic photo.

On the other hand, my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 has never had such reliability issues, and it remains my workhorse for commercial shoots. Though I imagine it's also because the lens is f2.8 and not any faster.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

Mike Sandman

The photos are artfully-composed and they show the lens's capabilities at f/1.4, an aperture where you'd expect a shallow depth of field. I much prefer this sort of samples gallery than pictures of Yokohama from a hotel hoom, even though it's easier to discern corner sharpness from bland rectangular buildings than it is from these.

And FE lenses are particularly interesting because I'm think of jumping from Canon FF to Sony FF. Thanks for posting, and please give us the"shooting experience" page of the Alpha 7ii review soon.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

AstroStan

Maybe browser issues are to blame for some of the disparaging comments but I suspect it may be due to APS (or smaller) expectations for FF content. In particular, the f/1.4 portrait reveals the miniscule focus zone of a FF 1.4 lens - the eyelashes and mouth show fine detail while the nose tip is outside of the focus zone! So of course most of the image is "soft"...

DOF issues manifest even at f/16 where the full tree fails to fall within the critical focus zone (btw, the lack of color fringing in that shot is notable).

Mar 7, 2015permalink

I'm really disappointed in these samples - grainy, noisy, poorly focused. This has to be one of the most useless "real world sample" pages I've ever seen. Do these guys actually know how to use this camera? I make better images with a small sensor point and shoot.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

Did you check the MTF curves for this?

Did you note that we shot mostly at F1.4?

Might I suggest you try and correlate the two, now? :)

Mar 7, 2015permalink

The images are still disappointing at f/1.4, because even at the focus point the images not very sharp.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

I second that. My old super multi coated takumar makes sharper images with f1.4 on Nex7. It is also showing much less noise.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

Mar 7, 2015*permalink

@Rishi - I've seen better from worse cameras and lenses at 1.4. Why don't you go re-shoot them and perhaps also don't shoot everything wide open? Seriously, these are REALLY bad. Either something was done wrong, or this particular lens/camera really has issues. Maybe try more positive compensation - the amount of noise is ridiculous. I will say that the amount of CA seems low for so much wide open-ness, but I don't think these are very challenging in that respect either. But even that first f/8 shot is so soft it's disturbing.

Mar 7, 2015*permalink

To Stevo23, you are showing your ignorance here. I see no objectionable noise for a 36 MP camera. I could care less what the A7 II does. In the scenes shot from the Amazon offices (I assume this since Group Health is on the next block) with the A7r, the f1.4 shot tells a great story. And in case you haven't gotten the memo yet, the new paradigm for modern lenses is sharp across the frame wide open. Canon got the memo and has at least, updated their zooms. Nikon hasn't yet. Plenty of photographers care about wide open performance. In the series from the Amazon office building, I noticed several images a bit softer than the others. I assumed this was from the infamous shutter shock issue that plagues the A7r.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

@Rick: The A7II images with this lens look bad, as simple as that. The noise and the grain are disturbing. It may not be the lens fault but they look bad.

The portrait with the face in the center looks good aside from the poor composition.

@Rishi: I could not care less how the MTF curves look.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

To JACS, the issues with the A7r camera are well documented and not worth continued trolling. Again, I could care less about the A7 II. This post is about a lens and if you can't extrapolate, then maybe a P&S would be yours & Stevo best bet anyway.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

A gentleman as always... All I am saying that most of the samples are bad, for whatever reason...

Mar 7, 2015permalink

"@Rishi: I could not care less how the MTF curves look."

OP was complaining about nothing looking in focus. The MTF curves show somewhere between 55%-65% contrast for high resolution content across the frame wide open. Even our rooftop city shots confirm that: field is uniform, but nothing is tack sharp.

My point was that our samples pretty much correlate with what you'd expect given those MTF curves.

In other words, it'd be silly to say 'I don't care about the MTF curves' & then also tell us 'your images look soft wide open, why don't you learn how to use a camera?'. I mean, you could say it, but all it'd do is highlight the poster's ignorance.

As for the images being noisy & grainy, I have no idea what the OP is talking about, so I'm not going to bother commenting.

As for the OP's assertion that we should take a hefty 35/1.4 prime & shoot it at f/8, well, I'm going to let that comment marinade a bit longer with our audience.

Mar 7, 2015*permalink

I did not say 'your images look soft wide open, why don't you learn how to use a camera?' and you put it in the same sentence where my comment was.

I am not complaining about softness, actually.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

jerry1

I agree. I was hoping to see more landscape samples.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

@ Rick Knepper - I can always count on you to be unpleasant and unkind. Thanks for being consistent. Infamous shutter shock - you show your ignorance by even mentioning it. @Rishi - I find it hard to believe that you don't know hot to get a clean, noise free image from these cameras. I've done better with much less. Again, you should consider what you're doing wrong and try to re-shoot these. I don't know why you complain about my f/8 comment, you shot at least two images at f/8, but they were also problematic.

Mar 7, 2015*permalink

To Stevo23, it is amazing to me that you have the audacity to turn this around and accuse me of being unpleasant. Here's your comments below. This isn't unpleasant? You are treating Rishi like he is a waiter that has displeased you.

"I'm really disappointed in these samples - grainy, noisy, poorly focused. This has to be one of the most useless "real world sample" pages I've ever seen. Do these guys actually know how to use this camera? I make better images with a small sensor point and shoot."

Mar 8, 2015permalink

So you don't deny it then?

I'd prefer to stay on topic which as unpleasant as your comments were, they were on topic. But if you want to get into a "Canon is the best" rant, I'm not interested.

Mar 8, 2015*permalink

nycgazelle

These are absolutely horrid sample images that don't inspire the imagination and make photographers WANT to buy these lenses. If you are going to have the privilege of shooting one of these lenses before everyone else, please do it properly. Shoot at the right time of day..shoot a beautiful portrait thats well lit....shoot some landscapes stopped down and wide open, and just INSPIRE. No inspiration whatsoever in these images here.

Mar 9, 2015permalink

@nycgazelle - exactly! Some of us are interested in buying one of these. For what it's worth, some others have also had some time with the lens and posted some decent images - it's going to be a great lens.

Mar 9, 2015permalink

" it's going to be a great lens" Then, you and I agree though I was able to see that from the samples Rishi posted.

Mar 9, 2015permalink

@Rick - great!

Mar 10, 2015permalink

@stevo23 - No I didn't. I only shot the rooftop images & the last two in the gallery, & the rooftop image was b/c it was an aperture series comparing sharpness. Dan shot the rest, & did a fine job, I might add.

Also, when you shoot in low light, you don't get noise-free images. Imagine that!

Wait, do you know this?

Mar 10, 2015permalink

I think people in general don't quite understand one thing: a couple (many?) of you assume we have the luxury of just taking off & going out & just being photographers in the middle of the work week as soon as we get a new lens or camera into our offices.

But this is not the case. Perhaps it should be? The reality is, we are constrained by multiple other tasks. Dan, e.g., is working on a number of other camera reviews simultaneously, and was gracious enough to try & shoot some samples with this lens in his very limited free time outside of the office on a couple weeknights. Furthermore, he did so in a manner that might give you an idea of sharpness, bokeh, distortion, etc.

Then I did some rooftop shots for a shootout against other lenses, again, so you could get an idea of sharpness.

That's why we were able to get this out fast.

So despite not getting the world's best photos to you with this lens, we hope it served some purpose to those considering it.

We're sorry if it didn't.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

@J A C S: "I did not say 'your images look soft wide open, why don't you learn how to use a camera?' and you put it in the same sentence where my comment was.

I am not complaining about softness, actually."

Right, but someone else did, & my MTF comment was responding to him, not you, yet you still felt some compelling reason to publicly declare 'Rishi: I could care less about MTF curves.'

What was the point, then, of that statement? I addressed the OP's statement by pointing out that the MTF curves themselves indicate softness wide open as an explanation of why the images appear somewhat soft, & you effectively tell me 'Rishi: I don't care about the reason why they're soft.'

It's strange, really. I guess I was particularly baffled b/c I've found previous discussions with you to be pretty reasonable.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

I just do not pay attention to MTF curves, that's all. The way I said it, was rude, sorry. Different manufacturers have different standards for those curves; and there is much more to performance than MTF at two values, etc. BTW, I am a mathematician, and I should be mesmerized by such curves - but I am not.

I find that lens sharp enough wide open, BTW. I am looking for very different qualities - bokeh, color (that also depends on the camera and the processing), "pop", that "je ne sais quoi", and I do not see it here. I do not know why, and I do not necessarily blame the lens. I am just not impressed by what I see; and I expected to be, given Zeiss' reputation and other Zeiss images I have seen.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

@Rishi - So you're saying that MTF curves, low light and rushed schedules are to blame for these results. But I don't believe low light and MTF curves can explain it since blogsters other then DPR are getting stellar images from this lens.

So I'm glad you explained the rushed schedules, hopefully you guys can get out there again and make some better images with this lens! It's no fun to be rushed.

And yes, I know that low light can be a challenge for noise, especially if you don't know how to shoot for low light. But trust me, the A7 is more capable than that.

Mar 10, 2015*permalink

You have an interesting definition of 'stellar images'.

Also, in case you weren't aware: we limit ourselves to simple adjustments, with no cropping, rotation, sharpening, masked sharpening, or noise reduction whatsoever.

So, be reasonable.

I still have no idea what point you're trying to make about the images being grainy, noisy, etc. For one, they're not. Two, you shoot in low light, you get noise, it's a simple truth (unless you use flash, or shoot static subjects with a tripod). It's not like we stupidly stopped down to f/8 in low light. Third, since you do bring up the A7's low light capabilities, it's one of the underperformers when it comes to ISO performance compared to its full-frame peers.

@J A C S: Got it.

Mar 10, 2015*permalink

@Rishi -

Granted, I'm painting with a broad stroke here. I am impressed that I can't find CAs anywhere in these images.

On the one hand, you defend the shots and yet you turn around and blame the hardware - its the MTF of the lens or it's the poor low light performance of the A7 etc. I don't think it has anything to do with the MTF of the lens because I've seen better results already. I know it's not the camera because I have one and I don't see anything that could be blamed on the A7.

But the reason I'm hard on these results is because I expect more from DPR. If this forum can't produce better results, we're no longer the place where people go for making decisions.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1115167469/creativelive-gear-day-2015?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Minute 34:30 View it and learn

Mar 22, 2015permalink

What did you learn?

Mar 22, 2015permalink

stevo23: "I don't think it has anything to do with the MTF of the lens because I've seen better results already."

You've seen better results from people who've applied sharpening to their photos? After I've already told you we, by principle, don't apply sharpening to our gallery photos? Which, incidentally, is why I referred you to the MTF curves to explain the relative softness of the lens at F1.4.

Please, think on that for a bit before you respond.

Mar 26, 2015permalink

Rishi: I think an answer would require a discussion about specific photographs in the series.

Mar 26, 2015permalink

Photonergy

I was having very high expectations about this lens but was baffled about the blurriness of the images in general. It certainly helped to download the images and use a decent viewer. I am using Windows 8.1 and saw blurred images in both Internet Explorer and Firefox. Then I realized that I recently did change the desktop items size to 125% and that makes Internet Explorer/Firefox resize the images 125% (not very well!). I guess users using 3k or 4k monitors are experiencing this issue much emphasized. Maybe I am the last forum / Windows 8 user to discover this "feature", but I like the lens much more now.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Everlast66

This is very good to know.
Software issues like this, as well as un-calibrated monitors, hava caused many fierce arguments on this site :)

Mar 7, 2015permalink

KarateChop

Hmmm, what's going on at f/1.4? I'm looking at the comparative cityscape images in Photoshop (original sized images) and f/1.4 is very different. The difference is so obvious, I wonder if the photographer didn't have the lens hood on for that specific aperture setting. There is an obvious amount of chromatic aberration at f/1.4, but then virtually disappears at f/2.0. Can the image quality really be that different from just adjusting the aperture?

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Everythingis1

It's like this on pretty much every single f 1.4 lens I've ever used. Why do you think this is odd? Stopping down one stop on a 1.4 lens always has a largely positive effect on image quality. In fact this is the case with pretty much every lens ever made, not just f1.4 lenses...

Mar 7, 2015*permalink

DaveCS

This lens is going to be worth the cash they're asking based on what I see so far. Well done Sony & Zeiss!!

Mar 6, 2015permalink

mrmut

Stunning lens. I have had Contact distagon T* 25mm F2.8, and that was a great lens too, however this one is brilliant. Flare handling, OOF, SHARPNESS, etc. - WOW.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

You did not challenge the bokeh enough. Only a few such shots, focused too close.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Dazzer8888

Probably because pro photographers are not too concerned with bokeh, more with composition and light..........

Mar 6, 2015permalink

You must be a pro?

Mar 6, 2015permalink

PaulDavis

I'm a professional portrait photographer and am interests in lenses no bokah. Composition and light are my responsibility, not the lenses.

Side note: auto correct added the word oral in between professional and portrait. Lol good thing I caught that.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

Forgive me for expressing interest in the bokeh of a fast lens. As an amateur, I do not know what fast lenses are used for.

At least we have test shots with great composition, like a portrait with the face in the center, and with the great Seattle light.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

ChuckTa

Boken is a very important part of composition (as least for me), and to me is the main reason for buying a large aperture lens.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

TristanW

f1.4 /F2 sharpness looks a little bit soft. Can any one help to comment that?

it seem not as sharp as my 50/1.4ZA @f1.4, but MTF shows should be a lot better.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

HFLM

Did you download and open in LR? It's tack sharp at 1.4 (women eyes, for example). Looks to be at least as good as my Sigma 35 Art lens.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

TristanW

Yes, the 'close up'shot is ok, the eyelash looks good. Just when i check the landscape shots, especially the later ones with F1.4/F2.0, i expected them sharper.

Maybe i expected too much.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

If you check the MTF curves, the field is quite uniform wide open, but it's not very sharp wide open (contrast for high resolution lines is between 55-65% across the frame).

The Sigma Art is considerably higher more centrally, but drops off more at corners.

The reason the eyelashes still look sharp is b/c they're comparatively sharp to everything else that's blurred. They're likely not as sharp as they would be shot with a Sigma Art wide open. The shots do sharpen up nicely though with additional sharpening.

We've already done a real world infinity shootout that confirms all this, & hope to post it soon.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

HFLM

Possibily. It is difficult to compare MTF across platforms since standards are different. The Sigma 30lp/mm is around 75% in the center, the Sony gives you only the 20 and 40lp/mm curves. The 30lp/mm curve could be similar in the center (in between 20lp/mm and 40lp/mm). The corners are different, of course. Zeiss gives measurements for MTF curves (Sony/Zeiss leinses, too?), Sigma is a simulated curve as far as I know.

Mar 7, 2015*permalink

dbm305

@rishi
Are you basing your view about the sharnpess centrally of the Sigma and the Zony on your tests or published MTF?

The problem with published MTF is that Sigma publishes 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm, whereas Sony publishes 10, 20 and 40. The Sigma at 30 is better centrally than the Sony at 40, but the Sony at 20 is better than the Sigma at 30. So Sigma and Sony might be very similar at 30....but we have no published data for Sony at 30. And the Sony is indeed very uniform...

Mar 9, 2015permalink

paul simon king

I have never got over the names Zeiss uses: "Distagon' sounds like some primary school nomenclaure - and just has me making up comic alternatives in my head: "distawent', 'wideolux', 'scopizoomitoff', 'yondergon', splenomegaly - oh no sorry don't know how that last one crept in there
;)

Mar 6, 2015permalink

mgrum

"Distagon" is a portmanteau of the words "distance" and "gonia" which is Greek for "angle". "Angle" emphasises the wide angle of view and "distance" refers to the backfocus distance, which is greater for Distagon designs (which are all retrofocal) than for example the symmetrical Biogon designs.

There is some consistency with the naming schemes, all of the names with suffix "gon" are generally wide angle designs, Distagon, Hypergon, Hologon, Biogon.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

I like the Zeiss names better than the Leica ones (Noctilux, Summilux, Summicron, Elmarit, etc.), which I like better than the Voigtlander ones (Nokton, Ultron), which really does sound like you're getting into 1970s JapAnime territory.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

mgrum

Zeiss terms refer to the optical design, whereas Leica terms just reflect the maximum aperture, which is already part of the lens name: "Oh the 50mm f/2 Summicron is an f/2"!

"The Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 is a Distagon, that's an unusual design for a lens of that focal length, I know something more about it now".

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

Well yes, the problem with Leica's convention is when you get to things like Angulon vs Telyt vs Elmar (which all have f/4ish lenses in their stable). Zeiss names are more obscure, but very consistent.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

paul simon king

I do know, but it still makes me laugh
:)

(i.e .I'm not saying it IS childish, just it SOUNDS it)

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

Michiel953

@Paul Simon King: I've never found any lens nomenclature "childish"; it's a connection I would never make. Maybe I'm too old for that.

Zeiss is one of the oldest, most mature namens in the business. Just thought you would want to know.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

paul simon king

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, in which case the humour is appreciated, but in case not - it's just humour - please don't take it too seriously - the whole point of humour is to see things in a lighthearted way
;)

Mar 7, 2015permalink

Michiel953

Well Paul Simon, there's irony, there's sarcasm and there's cynicism; all can be humorous, depending on your outlook on life.
I tend to take a lighthearted view. I also tend not not to give a toss about the names of the lenses I own ("Nikkor"? is that all there is?) as long as they do what I want reliably.

I will admit the Zeiss name and their lens nomenclature have a certain (nostalgic? childish?) attraction to me. I have owned quite some ZF.2's, but reverted to AF only at the end of 2013, when I traded in my excellent 50 Makro-Planar (that name!) for the new 58.

Mar 12, 2015*permalink

radissimo

the key question is:
ZA Distagon or ZM Distagon 35/1.4?

-my prediction is:
ZA: sharper in corners and less CA, BIG
ZM: smaller, more character or "mojo" :) in OOF areas, still plenty sharp (I own one and is superb on A7 and A7s), if price of ZA falls I am eager to compare.
Any thoughts?

Mar 6, 2015permalink

hiepphotog

Au contraire, I would say the ZA has much more characters than the ZM. The ZM excels at all distance, while the ZA trumps it in mid to short distance from what I have seen so far: phenomenal even sharpness at this distance, smooth bokeh, point-light OOF is more consistently rounded (ZM can have diamond shaped), and very low coma at WO. If only the ZA have the infinity stopped down performance of the ZM, it would be a no brainer.

However, my assessment is based on what I see from Lloyd Chamber's field tests and various users' shots on FM of the ZM, and what is presented so far of the ZA. The ZA portrait shot is among the best in this focal from what I have seen. But technically, the ZM is just plain better.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

BobYIL

If the published MTF charts are true, especially the 90mm macro, then Zeiss have accomplished an incredible job.. (I have 35mm Art Sigma, perfectly sharp but the new Distagon has better bokeh..)

Mar 6, 2015permalink

BobYIL

(Sony too.. the 90mm lens was desşgned by Sony..)

Mar 6, 2015permalink

hiepphotog

This is a Sony lens. From the look of it, the MTF chart is pretty accurate in term of field curvature. Very even sharpness wide open and smooth bokeh. However, quite a dip mid-frame (astigmatism) that you can easily observe in the infinity aperture series test. Not an excellent landscape lens, but a decent one. Phenomenal portrait/street/environmental stuff lens though.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

JacquesBalthazar

That Sony FE range sure has some very attractive features, and most of the recent lenses are clearly best in class. Well done to all involved! That said, I do wish the Sony body designs and user interfaces were not what they are. I just do not like them. Would love that range to have the Fuji xt1 design for example. One day maybe. Part of the pleasure of photography is the interaction with the tools. I think they are getting the lens designs right, the body features are great, but the body design.....

Mar 6, 2015permalink

I think the the body design is really attractive on the A7 series and to me it looks a lot better than the Fuji design.
I'm also a Nikon shooter, but I think usability is really good on the Sony with plenty of configurable buttons. Maybe the menu system could be better, but I got used to it quite fast.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

badi

I didn't try it, but ii understood that the A7 II has a lot of "usability" issues solved, and i a far more user friendly camera.
However, everybody has his own preferences...

Mar 6, 2015permalink

The Lotus Eater

I think menu designs are simply a case of being used to what you know. Give me a Canon DSLR and I haven't a clue what's going on!

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Zorak

I think it has one of the best user interface you can have for the price. It has 3 dials, a lot of customizable buttons, a customizable quick menu, everything is on the right side, the only thing that bothers me is the menu button on the left, quite stupid.
But as soon as you begin to have the hang on it, it's an awesome camera, and the A7m2 seems to improve on that.
You should try one if you can, at the end of the day I think you won't let it go ! :P

Mar 6, 2015permalink

JacquesBalthazar

@Zorak That is a big risk indeed! ;-)

Mar 6, 2015permalink

cheetah43

Alpha 7 body design is bad; RX designs are fine.

Mar 8, 2015permalink

Lassoni

Most of the shots look a bit underexposed or something? Maybe could benefit from better light.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/03/03/hands-on-the-sony-fe-35-1-4-lens-samples-and-my-1st-thoughts/

Nah, they were shot in Seattle...

Mar 6, 2015permalink

bluevellet

F1.4 not enough for broad daylight Seattle

Mar 7, 2015permalink

wayne ker

Looking at the photos, this lens is worth it

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Aur

"I have seen no distortion with this lens, I have seen no CA. This is the best lens I ever used. It doesn't get any better than this."

thought the distortion was low looking at the pictures

the MTF chart on the Sony site is ridiculous, I think it's because Carl Zeiss their work in lithography, they are forced to make lenses with a maximum of 10 atom off-set range, that MTF chart is insane

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

The Lotus Eater

Now go look at the new 90mm macro's MTF. It's insane.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

My NEX7 paired with SEL 50mm f1.8 or Sigma 60mm gives MUCH BETTER images. Sharper, less CA, nicer colors.

What´s going on here?

And why does high ISO image of FF A7II look no better than those I get from my NEX7?

Isn't FF supposed to be much much better than APS-C?!

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

Timbukto

First none of the images had full-blown PPing in regards to sharpness, clarity, CA, etc. Only exposure pulls. Second if you are comparing head and shoulder portraits made with a 35mm vs a 75mm equivalent, you may very well prefer the latter. Lastly the amount of people willing to give subjective judgments and impressions vastly outweighs the amount of people willing to put full-size images in their galleries or posts. This lack of objectivity and abundance of emotions ends up making Dpreview read more like an audiophile website at times.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

Mrrowe8

Bet you pant are on fire or you monitor is Outta whack

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Mrrowe8

Bet your pants are on fire .. Cough BS cough

Mar 6, 2015permalink

"This lack of objectivity and abundance of emotions ends up making Dpreview read more like an audiophile website at times."

That is probably one of the most money comments I've read on our site in quite some time.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

zxaar

@Rishi, Happy Holi.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Mike99999

Why are you comparing portrait/tele lenses to a wide angle lens? Slap an 85mm Otus on a full frame body and it will make your NEX7 images look like they were taken with a cell phone.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

https://www.flickr.com/gp/95921786@N05/oZ6A0z

Here are some examples:

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm f1.4:

Sony 50mm f1.8:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/95921786@N05/355A12

Sigma 60mm f2.8:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/95921786@N05/4240k0

Helios 44m-4 55mm f2.0:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/95921786@N05/Lx9k77

I didn't see anything better from A7II and fe35.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

Timbukto

Those are all 2048 long images and they look fine but you can't make any determination. Besides you should be rather specific if you are going to critique. I am a fan of 35mm equivalent focal length and use my EOS-M 22mm f2 which I like very much. My critique of the CZ 35mm 1.4 is that this copy goes from sharp to some random mid-frame softness, to sharp to the corners from wide open to even peak apertures on the aperture bracketed shot. Mid frame softness will be the yelllow crane + unfinished building in upper right, and the Christian Science campus area on the left. To my eye it seems to effect all quadrants in outer-midframe area but the lower left and lower right happen to contain roofing without a lot of detail. I am picky enough with optics that for the $ I would consider finding a better copy than this test sample (it did fine for the non-infinity shots as far I can tell). My EOS-M 22mm wide open does not have mid-frame softness issues, just DR ones ;p

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

mgrum

What's going on is you're comparing an ultrafast wideangle lens to a short telephoto.

Full frame is 1.6 times better than APS-C. In each direction.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Damn, I thought Flickr offers originals!

How to share an original? :)

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Nice work—and can i make one small request. When testing wide angles, could you please include one shot done on a tripod where the camera is dead level on all axes and straight on to something geometric like a modernist building. It would be extremely helpful. Or maybe you already do that, and if you do, maybe indicate it in the file name. Its just hard to judge how rectilinear a lens is when you don't know how the shot went down. And the shots of your big chart somehow don't help me see the distortions.
Thanks and keep pushing the frontiers of photo journalism.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Aur

I wonder if in those pictures any barrel distorton was fixed in post

because those lines in the architecture shots are crazy straight and just look so right

even though I prefer optical viewfinder, I am so jealous of the shorter flange distance of mirrorless, none of the 35mm seem to suffer from barrel distortion

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

Dan Bracaglia

No barrel distortion was fixed in post, it's just a mighty nice lens.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Aur

thank you

Mar 6, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Great news that they took care of of this so the photographer doesn't have to. But looking at #24, I'm not so sure those lines are straight.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

#8 and #12 show very noticeable distortion.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

D200_4me

Nice samples. They should let you do all the sample galleries from now on ;-)

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Good, any chance of getting any of these samples as raws for download?

Mar 5, 2015permalink

The Raws for the rooftop shots will be available when we publish our shootout widget.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Meaning "shootout widget" for comparing more than 1 camera?

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Akpinxit

Sony cameras can only shine if pared with Zeiss lens .
Nice lens , but it's bulk might will make it hard to compete with 55mm f1.8 Zeiss Sonar .

Mar 5, 2015permalink

70-200/4 G and 90/2.8 G Macro are not Zeiss. The former has received stellar reviews and the latter has one of the best MTF charts ever seen (it's going to be a showstopper, even among macro lenses).

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Have you used either of the G lenses?

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Obviously I haven't used the 90/2.8 G since it's not shipping yet. I have used the 70-200/4.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

ttran88

Lots of people mount Leica lenses. I especially like to use my A7 with my Pentax M42 50mm f1.4. Another favorite is my Nikon 105 f2.5. I would even argue that they work better on the A7 than their native mount cameras.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Okay, the reference to charts made me think that it was out.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

This chart: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bildschirmfoto-2015-03-04-um-08.00.55.png

Compare with 105 Micro-Nikkor: https://www.estiasis.com/sites/estiasis.com/files/totalid/lenses/mtf/nikkor_afs_105mm_micro_f2.8-mtf.jpg

Or Tamron 90: http://www.tamron-usa.com/F004special/lineup/f004/images/mtf/img_mtfchart.gif

Mar 5, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

My A7 series Sony cameras work well with all the lenses I use.

In fact, what cameras currently work better with Canon TS-E lenses?

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Thanks. I guess I was hoping for some party that had used it. SonyAlphaRumors seems ambiguous.

Mar 5, 2015*permalink

Please let's not let the world know what how awesome the Nikkor 105 is. We do not want a repeat of the skyrocketing prices for the 28 1.4 and the 58 1.4 Noct.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Haha rfsIII.

Folks should remember tho that telephoto focal lengths tend to have better MTF across the frame.

Sonyalpharumors posted some MTF figures for the 35mm F1.4 FE lens (though I can't seem to find them on the Sony site), & I think our rooftop shots mirror these MTF curves.

The field's incredibly uniform, even at F1.4- it's just not really tack sharp anywhere (40 lp/mm just hovers around 55-65% across the frame). By F8, there's some severe astigmatism, & tangential resolution fluctuates wildly, although sagittal resolution is nothing short of stunning.

Some odd MTF graphs there.

A Sigma 35 F1.4 outresolves (w/ higher microcontrast) the Sony in the areas where it's sharpest (based on our shootout), but doesn't hold up to the field uniformity of the Sony. Not even close.

Just depends on what you prioritize. Personally I'd prefer the Sigma, but the Sony's a solid option.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

@Rishi Sanyal, I noted the same at f/1.4. Not really sharp anywhere. Quite disappointing for such an expensive lens in my opinion.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

steelhead3

Seems if the micro contrast of the Zeiss T* coating is evident in these photos. Congratulations to the photographer for capturing images to test flare, distortion and CA.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Nobody will be able to tell the Zeiss micro contrast on those shots without being told that it is Zeiss...

Mar 6, 2015permalink

DanMichael

Nice shots. About time Sony made more lenses for the A7, but really what I don't understand, is why so big? The whole point of mirrorless is size - might as well get a D750/ D810 and have more lens choice!

Mar 5, 2015*permalink

Becksvart

This comment is like an amoeba, appears once, then "fooof" and it appears everywhere. I wish the universe could be fair so that there'd be a couple of threads where this one and "f/4? Come on Sony, I'd buy it if it were at least f/2! How is this ever going to compete with dSLRs otherwise?" could battle it out in a couple of tight and closed-to-the-rest-of-humanity loops.

The Point is 126.9 x 94.4 x 48.2 mm (A7) 416g vs 140.5 x 113.0 x 78.0 mm 750g (D750), the rest of the Point is that you can choose between faster and larger lenses and slower and smaller lenses, and this together with a camera body that is smalle rand lighter gives you more choice.

Additionally their sensors are much more reachable and easier to clean.

DPR: Nice shots. That female portrait is particularly so the way the focus and light drops off.

Mar 5, 2015*permalink

ttran88

there's so much more to size and weight to mirrorless cameras.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

DanMichael

"their sensors are much more reachable and easier to clean" is probably the last reason on the list to buy a mirror less system. Lightness is closer to the top of the list. Seeing these cameras use pretty much the same sensors as the latest Nikons, and have more disadvantages (12-bit RAW anyone?). I would say size and weight are where the Sony's advantages lie :p

Mar 5, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Well, it's true that a piece of dust trying to reach the sensor won't have to worry about a mirror getting in the way.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

PazinBoise

Yes size and weight is typically the primary advantage of mirrorless systems but making fast high quality lenses for full frame sensors still requires a lot of glass. Overall the a7 system does offer size and weight advantages. For example, if you take a Sony a7ii+ 24-70 f/4 + 55mm f/1.8 + 70-200mm f/4 and compare it to a Nikon D610/750 or a Canon 6D with their equivalent lenses the a7 package is certainly smaller and lighter.

Mar 6, 2015*permalink

halfwaythere

The good news for DSLR owners is you can always go for F/2.8 lenses while on the Sony side....

Also on the lenses you mentioned you're not even saving half a kilo compared to a DSLR system. How big of a weight weenie are you?

Mar 6, 2015permalink

PazinBoise

The f/2.8s will be coming and in regards to weight the savings may not be massive but they are there. For those that have to pack/carry 3-6 lenses all the time (which isn't me) the size/weight savings are a benefit and many pros have stated as much when they explain why they switched to the FE system. Personally I carry an a7ii with 3 lenses (a prime and 2 zooms) in my day bag and when I want to go light I will carry 1 prime and 1 prime in a smaller bag. Compared to the 70D I sold to get my A7II my set up is a lot less bulky.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

halfwaythere

I keep hearing about all these pros shooting Sony but so far all I've seen is just a couple of paid corporate shills. Who and where are these pros?

In my book not even half a kilo in saving, while giving up shooting anything that moves in less than perfect light, is a definite no-go.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Dazzer8888

At last, DPR sends out a pro photography to take some great shots!

Mar 5, 2015permalink

kodos

It is nice to see some good looking photos in a preview! Keep it up, DPR!

Mar 5, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

Dan - your mum's back on here commenting on your sample galleries again.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

I think the point is that the rest of the staff is going to have to step up their game because there are a couple of real photographers on your staff now.
There's an old saying that paper and pencil are cheaper than film and printing, so start by doing a little previsualization—and make sketches— before going out to take photos. I would also recommend that you all head down to Seattle Central College for a semester or two on composition and drawing because that's generally the weakest aspect of staff shots.
A typical DPR picture is done from standing eye level with flat lighting and the main subject in the center of the frame. Also frequently seen are grab shots of fellow staffers with hair askew glaring into the lens. I'm sure Richard Butler is a fine fellow, but you always shoot him when he is looking acutely dyspeptic. Try bringing out the best in subjects, not revealing their weaknesses.
Bottom line: It's time to stop sliding by with record shots.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

Thank you - I think we got the point.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

You're a dyspeptic!

Mar 6, 2015permalink

@rfsIII: I would not be so harsh, and while it would be nice to have more artful shots, this is not really needed. On the other hand, experience with a lens of that type is essential, and I do not see it here (obviously, I am not Dan's mum - I must be his mother in law :) ). Portrait #6 is bad, for example, for obvious reasons. The last two portraits are good as test shots bit all of them shot from a close distance. A quick look a Flickr would reveal many more creative uses of a 35/1.4 lens, which I do not see here. Half-body or full-body portraits, environmental ones, etc.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Close-up is how I see loved ones, and so is what I typically appreciate in portraits. There's a certain level of intimacy in this type of portraiture, even when I see it in others' work (of unfamiliar faces).

Also, I quite like the central composition of Dan's photo (#6), even though generally I'm not a fan of central composition (unless you're at 24mm). It just works in this particular one.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

I agree w/ you on the baby shot though (which, for the record, I'd never call 'portraiture' or anything more than a snapshot really) - I have a more interesting comp of that shot that is angled yet has the mum & her friend on opposite top corners, which frames the baby more in context.

Just couldn't use it b/c it was a faster shutter speed that hiked up the ISO - and we try to include cleaner shots in lens galleries to better discern lens characteristics.

Mar 7, 2015permalink

I just re-read my comment and thought "what kind of douchebag would write something like that?" and then realized it was me.
But Rishi, it is you, Dan, and one or two others who are setting a very high bar for the others on the staff to meet, as noted by kodos and Dazzer 8888.
So, please accept my apology for my tactless remarks; time for this old troll to retire to his cave and practice his manners before he lets himself back out.

Mar 10, 2015permalink

ttran88

im an admitted bokeh whore I need this lens.

Mar 5, 2015permalink

I know how you feel.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

Zeisschen

this bokeh is definitely bokehlicious!

Mar 6, 2015permalink

I must say I'm not the least impressed by those images, but maybe it is just the images, because the lens should be fine I guess. I would definitely go for the 28mm f/2 instead and save a lot of money and maybe lose a little in IQ: http://www.dailycameranews.com/2015/03/sony-fe-28mm-f2-lens-sample-images/

Mar 5, 2015*permalink

Because 35/1.4 and 28/2 lenses are essentially the same thing...

Mar 6, 2015permalink

They are not exactly the same thing as the 28mm loses a full stop compared to the 35mm and has a wider focal length and not least, it is a lot smaller.

Mar 6, 2015permalink

macjonny1

He was being sarcastic

Mar 6, 2015permalink