It is the must have lense for SonyNEX user

[Sutlore]

I have to say I have never be disappointed from using this lense. It is brilliant. I can shot everything from this lense, a bit of landscaping, a bit of distance shot that I can crop to an actual image size and use it right away. The colour and the sharpness from this lense is the top of the range. Never regret of buying this one.

 

[PC Wheeler]

Agreed. Many of those here have it and will agree. Of course, I have several "must have" lenses

 

[snapa]

I have to say I have never be disappointed from using this lense. It is brilliant. I can shot everything from this lense, a bit of landscaping, a bit of distance shot that I can crop to an actual image size and use it right away. The colour and the sharpness from this lense is the top of the range. Never regret of buying this one.

It seems like a very good lens, but not not as sharp as the ~$200 Sigma 30 mm. If I want more color, contrast or sharpness, etc... (which is not needed), you can always add that later in post processing. You can also crop images on the Sigma 30 mm to get excellent IQ and resolution.

If you get the the Sigma 30 mm instead, you can also get the Sony 50 mm and 55-210 for the same price. To me, getting those three lenses gives you a lot more bang for the buck with more versatility and focal lengths for the same price.

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

 

[hector69]

I have to say I have never be disappointed from using this lense. It is brilliant. I can shot everything from this lense, a bit of landscaping, a bit of distance shot that I can crop to an actual image size and use it right away. The colour and the sharpness from this lense is the top of the range. Never regret of buying this one.

It seems like a very good lens, but not not as sharp as the ~$200 Sigma 30 mm. If I want more color, contrast or sharpness (which is not needed), you can always add that later in post processing. You can also crop images on the Sigma 30 mm to get excellent IQ and resolution.

If you get the the Sigma 30 mm instead, you can also get the Sony 50 mm and 55-210 for the same price. To me, getting those three lenses gives you a lot more bang for the buck with more versatility and focal lengths for the same price.

 

[Pixel Pooper]

The Sony has several advantages over the Sigma that may or may not be worth the extra. Most notably it is faster, wider, and has full AF compatibility. The Sigma is cheaper though.

 

[tas2112]

+1

I agree 100% - there is something about this lens that is special. I am hard pressed to believe the Sigma 30 is sharper in away the translates to better images. Although I have no experience with the new version.

 

[ntikos]

Had and sold the Sigma 30 after I got the 24. Sigma bokeh was too harsh and lens is not as versitle as the Zony 24. Not sure which is sharper but I do know the 24 is sharp at 1.8 and very sharp by the time you get to f/4.

Sigma is a bit above average lens at a great price. The Zony 24 is a great lens at a fair price.

 

[Vermont3133]

I've weighed into this discussion before and while the 24Z is a very nice lens it's a moot point that it's worth the large chunk of money Sony asks for it.

I bought it...liked it...but decided my dough could be invested elsewhere...so I now have the Sigma 30...which I like unreservedly and the 18105 which I find, subjectively, as sharp as the the 24Z and which offers a heap of other benefits.

The renowned colour, contrast and *pop* of the Zeiss underwhelmed me and these things can be added in PP anyway.

If I had heaps of money to throw at lenses I certainly would have kept the 24Z but I'm not particularly missing it.

 

[MXC]

Spending over 1000$ on a lens for apsc system is overkill..

 

[NetSlob]

I have 14 E-Mount lenses (including several FE lenses). The 24Z is the best of the bunch. I personally like it better than the FE55 and FE35.

It's about more than just sharpness (though it is sharp). I find that the Zeiss Sonnar color and bokeh are noticeably better than the rest. If I had to get by with only one lens, it would be the 24Z. Sony charges a lot of money for it because they know it's that good.

 

[nin2thevoid]

I have 14 E-Mount lenses (including several FE lenses). The 24Z is the best of the bunch. I personally like it better than the FE55 and FE35.

It's about more than just sharpness (though it is sharp). I find that the Zeiss Sonnar color and bokeh are noticeably better than the rest. If I had to get by with only one lens, it would be the 24Z. Sony charges a lot of money for it because they know it's that good.

Should be said more often.

Sharpness is a tool for inexperienced photographers to help selecting gear and feeling good about their choices. May sound harsh, but ask any very experienced photographer (DXO isn't a photographer) and they'll most likely agree somewhat or entirely. Bar some extreme examples, pretty much any lens/camera system these days is sharp enough for what you'll use it for.

The out of focus rendering of the 24Z is fantastic. Even better than incredibly expensive lenses such as the Leica 35mm 1.4, look up some comparisons if you like. It is what makes the difference between feeling like you can touch the subject on the photo, or not. It is what makes the image feel 3D and a large part of what people refer to when they say "Zeiss pop". It is what all three of the Sigma lenses lack, by comparison. The only aspect I dislike about the Sigma 60, bar its handling and rattling. If one cannot or does not want (thinking I probably "drank the coolaid") to see the difference, e.g. because they only shoot 100% sharp landscape and cityscape images or because one lacks the experience to judge out of focus rendering, by all means, don't waste money on the 24Z. It will not be worth it.

Based on personal experience, I'd advise to stop looking at sharpness and contrast. It will allow one to shift their focus to elements of the image that do make it compelling. And then select the appropriate lens for their needs.

 

[tas2112]

I have 14 E-Mount lenses (including several FE lenses). The 24Z is the best of the bunch. I personally like it better than the FE55 and FE35.

It's about more than just sharpness (though it is sharp). I find that the Zeiss Sonnar color and bokeh are noticeably better than the rest. If I had to get by with only one lens, it would be the 24Z. Sony charges a lot of money for it because they know it's that good.

I agree with this 100% and this

>>>>>>>>

Sigma is a bit above average lens at a great price. The Zony 24 is a great lens at a fair price.

>>>>>>>>>

1000%

 

[Jerry R]

Well the nay sayers are at it again. This lens has excellent color contrast and resolution. Below is a 1 meg crop taken with this lens and is unmatched by anything I have seen from the Sigma lens people are pushing in response to your thread.







--
Sony R1, NEX C3 & 5R + Zeiss 24mm, 16-70, & FE 70-200 Lenses, Nikon V1 + 10-30 & 30-110 lenses.

 

[Jerry R]

Well said. The Zeiss lenses have excellent contrast resolution across the visible spectrum that produces beautiful results. Some call this micro-contrast. Its how well a lens resolves spatial content at low contrast across the visible spectrum.

 

[Si019]

How about the 10-18mm f4? Fantastic lenes on the a6000.

 

[csintexas]

Oh OK, now I know. Its the micro contrast, spatial content and color rendering.



Maybe Zeiss sprinkles a bit of Pixie dust into their packaging for that extra $700.

--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

 

[dohdoh]

I have to say I have never be disappointed from using this lense. It is brilliant. I can shot everything from this lense, a bit of landscaping, a bit of distance shot that I can crop to an actual image size and use it right away. The colour and the sharpness from this lense is the top of the range. Never regret of buying this one.

I agree. I didn't start loving my a6000 until I got this lens.

I know a number have commented that you can just post process but there's just something about the color rendering and contrast that I can't reproduce in PP. I do agree that the price is steep and I wouldn't buy it at retail price. I picked up a used one from eBay for less than $600 shipped.

It's definitely a personal choice but I thought it was well worth the money.

 

[mcslsk]

It's a good lens. But for the price I would have expected more. The FE28 and 35 are both sharper, and so is the Samyang 21. Will sell mine.

 

[odonto]

Had and sold the Sigma 30 after I got the 24. Sigma bokeh was too harsh and lens is not as versitle as the Zony 24. Not sure which is sharper but I do know the 24 is sharp at 1.8 and very sharp by the time you get to f/4.

Sigma is a bit above average lens at a great price. The Zony 24 is a great lens at a fair price.

can anyone post OOC comparison pictures of color/contrast between zeiss 24 lens and sigma 30 1.4 ?

 

[JaviB]

Had and sold the Sigma 30 after I got the 24. Sigma bokeh was too harsh and lens is not as versitle as the Zony 24. Not sure which is sharper but I do know the 24 is sharp at 1.8 and very sharp by the time you get to f/4.

Sigma is a bit above average lens at a great price. The Zony 24 is a great lens at a fair price.

can anyone post OOC comparison pictures of color/contrast between zeiss 24 lens and sigma 30 1.4 ?

+1, or comparison with any other good lens, to see the difference in color, contrast, and out of focus areas (Sigma 30f2.8, FE28 F2, zeiss 16-70 f4 at 24mm...).

The color/contrast of the 24f18z is always said to be in another level and, while pictures of it look good to me, I've never seen a direct comparison with other good lenses.