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.

 

[csintexas]

I guess a 1 meg crop would be 1000x1000 pixels (which if saved uncompressed jpeg comes out to about 1mb)

but the pic in question was actually more like 1200x1200

also called 100% because it can usually be displayed on a typical 1920x1080 monitor full size with no scaling.

 

[AlphaPhotography]

I asked a few members about the lens and borrowed one to try.. Suggesting this is a "must have lens" for 500$ body is nuts....

1) This is a sony lens not a zeiss lens. There is a difference.

2) This is the BEST 24mm lens in e mount hands down. It is also the only one. 24mm on APSC is not really a wide angle lens.

3) IQ is okay wide open decent at 2.8 and excellent from then on. I would say this lens is a among the best performing lenses in E mount... Across the frame sharpness is okay but not amazing. The 16-50mm f/2.8 is actually better.

BUT

The price is very high. Does it perform 5x better than the sigma 30mm 2.8? I don't think so but it is a better lens. In sony land the loxia, batis and touit are all better optically. The touit is half the price. THe batis and touit are in the same price range and much better with the ability to go full frame if you feel like it later down the line.

Once we exit sony world.. check out lenses from other vendors. They are often as good or better at half the price. If this lens had a 500$ lens list price then i would probably reconsider. But this is not 2x or 3x the performance of a touit.

SO my final opinion is.. optically it is a good but not great lens with a good size at an unrealistic price. (FYI the sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is optically superior.. no really.)

The Touit may be slightly sharper and have better colors/contrast. However, it has numerous deficiencies such as harsh bokeh (subjective but well documented) and slow, loud AF. Supposedly it's better after the update, but still noisy and not up to the speed of the 24mm. The 32mm has a minimum focus distance of 1.21', compared to 6.2" for the 24mm. I didn't realize just how useful this was until I owned the 24mm. It allows for some incredible close-up shots and significantly increases the versatility of the lens. The 24mm is also the (only) classic ~35mm lens for E-mount. It shouldn't be directly compared to narrower focal lengths even if they are slightly sharper (Touit) or less expensive (Sigma). To ask if the Sony is 5x better isn't a fair comparison. The Sigma is over one stop slower. It is a narrower FoV. It isn't quite as sharp. Its bokeh is worse (subjective but widely agreed upon along with the Touit). The AF is not only slower, but also limited to very small section in the center of the lens. The build/finish quality is not at the same level. For the price the Sigma is an astounding lens. Especially the newer metal finish version. However, I don't think it's comparable and I think the Sony Zeiss 24mm is also reasonably priced considering its many qualities and (lack of) competition. I don't think it gets its hype purely from those trying to justify the cost. It receives only praise because it is about as good as it gets for E-mount.

The Sigma 18-35mm you mentioned is an incredible lens, and looks to be optically superior. However, it is also not comparable. Larger, heavier, worse MFD, needs an adapter to work, further increasing weight, slower AF, etc. I will say that if I was staying with E-mount I would definitely consider this lens even with the above cons. It is an anomaly along with the new 50-100mm f1.8 and its optical qualities are very intriguing.

 

[mcslsk]

Of course it should be compared, and the sharpness up to f4 is not as good as the A-mount 1650/2.8 or the Samyang 21. If the bokeh and the focusing distance was worth the price for you, it ain't for me anymore.

 

[Jerry R]

The "1 meg cop" is about 1k x 1k.

It was not cropped for image comparison, just a part of a group of pictures. I have at times posted 1/2 meg and 1/4 meg crops. I have found it useful that one can pull usable images by cropping when a longer focal length is not available. If I crop an image to 1.2k x 1k I can print a 4" x 6" picture at 200 pixels per inch. Sorry if my nomenclature is confusing.

I got use to this with the R1. In the manual Sony list the megabytes of an image based on the "Smart Zoom" mag. A 10x zoom was listed as a 1 meg image instead of a 100% crop.

It was easier to explain 1x, 3x, 7x, and 10x "Smart Zoom" in terms of megapixels instead of % crop.

 

[brilly]

I guess a 1 meg crop would be 1000x1000 pixels (which if saved uncompressed jpeg comes out to about 1mb)

but the pic in question was actually more like 1200x1200

also called 100% because it can usually be displayed on a typical 1920x1080 monitor full size with no scaling.

 

[brilly]

heh thanks for explanation but still not sure i get it

1k by 1k is the target end picture for 1meg (or 2k*0.5etc) ... sure .. i get that

but is it a crop of a section which is 1:1 of the original image?

your 16mp 24mp question suggests its not as the first thing i asked was if it was 100% crops

 

[AlphaPhotography]

Of course it should be compared, and the sharpness up to f4 is not as good as the A-mount 1650/2.8 or the Samyang 21. If the bokeh and the focusing distance was worth the price for you, it ain't for me anymore.

Why would you compare the 24mm to a larger non-native zoom that weighs almost 3x as much and is over one full stop slower? Not to mention that it needs an adapter, further adding to the size and weight, all while reducing AF performance. Or the Samyang 21mm which is also larger, heavier, and manual focus only. Compared to one of the fastest (if not the fastest) AF lenses for E-mount? I don't see how this can be useful for someone trying to maximize their small E-mount system with the "world's fastest AF". The only lenses I would realistically compare are similar FL E/FE lenses. The 28mm f2 is a great deal, but is slightly slower and a narrower FL. The Batis 25mm f2 is really the only lens I find directly comparable but it is also slightly slower, ~33% heavier, larger, and more expensive. It is $1,300 while the 24mm is currently $900. Do you also find the Batis overpriced?




24mm vs. 16-50mm (without adapter)



--
www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/

 

[dankwok]

Having owned for a period of time both the Sony 24mm (2.5 years) and the Touit 32mm (6 months), I think I can contribute a little from my own experience.

I really enjoy looking at the images taken with the Touit 32mm, so much that I have been using that most of the time now. The FL works very well for me, who mainly take photos of my family (mostly my young daughters). I can take half body portraits of them with a decent perspective (the 24mm sometimes creates unpleasant perspective when shooting too close) without having to be far away from them. It was necessary because at times I am the only person around watching them (imagine having two toddlers running around) in the public and I do not want to stand too far away. The AF was slow (below my acceptance level for shooting moving kids) when I was using it with the Nex-6. But it has all been resolved with the A6300. It is still not as fast as the 24mm, but close, which says a lot since the 24mm is lightning fast on the 6300. It is certainly more than enough for me to use AF-C. I have even used it to do tracking when my kids are on a fast swing and got decent result (as long as I have the shutter speed set to 1/500s or faster). There are some missed shots, but not too many. It is definitely a pleasure to use. Bokeh is harsher than the 24mm, but if I want bokeh I would go for a longer FL (50-85mm for example). It does require a bit more work to get photos to the way I want.

Sample of the Touit 32:

Having said that, the 24mm is at another level. It might not be optically superior than the Touit, but it is an extremely easy to use, very forgiving, and fool-proof lens. It is like comparing driving a sophisticated all-wheel-drive, well-balanced luxurious sport sedan to a all muscle high-power rear-wheel-drive car. While for the Touit, I have to work hard to get it work for me, the Sony 24mm does everything for me, and does it well. I don't get missed shots with the 24mm. I can mess up with my setting (not ideal setting) and it will still deliver. Just to give an example to illustrate:

This was shot at f/2.0, focus on my wife. It is still very sharp all around, very little CA (I did not fix any CA in post). I also found that with the 24mm, I need only very little post processing to make the photo look good and pop. So overall, I feel that the 24mm offers a lot of things, especially to beginners or those who do not want to fiddle with setting and post-processing. Other lens might do the same or better in one or some of those categories (e.g., sharper, optics, etc.). But there are also compromises, and what those other lenses are superior, they are not superior by a lot. On the other hand, the 24mm offers all of those in one single package (lightning fast AF, sharp all across, nice color and contrast, little CA, etc.). For people who knows what they are doing and do not mind more work, they can find "better deals" else where, but that does not mean the 24mm does not worth its cost.

--
-Daniel

 

[AlphaPhotography]

Having owned for a period of time both the Sony 24mm (2.5 years) and the Touit 32mm (6 months), I think I can contribute a little from my own experience.

I really enjoy looking at the images taken with the Touit 32mm, so much that I have been using that most of the time now. The FL works very well for me, who mainly take photos of my family (mostly my young daughters). I can take half body portraits of them with a decent perspective (the 24mm sometimes creates unpleasant perspective when shooting too close) without having to be far away from them. It was necessary because at times I am the only person around watching them (imagine having two toddlers running around) in the public and I do not want to stand too far away. The AF was slow (below my acceptance level for shooting moving kids) when I was using it with the Nex-6. But it has all been resolved with the A6300. It is still not as fast as the 24mm, but close, which says a lot since the 24mm is lightning fast on the 6300. It is certainly more than enough for me to use AF-C. I have even used it to do tracking when my kids are on a fast swing and got decent result (as long as I have the shutter speed set to 1/500s or faster). There are some missed shots, but not too many. It is definitely a pleasure to use. Bokeh is harsher than the 24mm, but if I want bokeh I would go for a longer FL (50-85mm for example). It does require a bit more work to get photos to the way I want.

Sample of the Touit 32:

Having said that, the 24mm is at another level. It might not be optically superior than the Touit, but it is an extremely easy to use, very forgiving, and fool-proof lens. It is like comparing driving a sophisticated all-wheel-drive, well-balanced luxurious sport sedan to a all muscle high-power rear-wheel-drive car. While for the Touit, I have to work hard to get it work for me, the Sony 24mm does everything for me, and does it well. I don't get missed shots with the 24mm. I can mess up with my setting (not ideal setting) and it will still deliver. Just to give an example to illustrate:

This was shot at f/2.0, focus on my wife. It is still very sharp all around, very little CA (I did not fix any CA in post). I also found that with the 24mm, I need only very little post processing to make the photo look good and pop. So overall, I feel that the 24mm offers a lot of things, especially to beginners or those who do not want to fiddle with setting and post-processing. Other lens might do the same or better in one or some of those categories (e.g., sharper, optics, etc.). But there are also compromises, and what those other lenses are superior, they are not superior by a lot. On the other hand, the 24mm offers all of those in one single package (lightning fast AF, sharp all across, nice color and contrast, little CA, etc.). For people who knows what they are doing and do not mind more work, they can find "better deals" else where, but that does not mean the 24mm does not worth its cost.

--
-Daniel

Very well put. Thank you for the excellent comparison and insight. Beautiful shots, love the 24mm one, lovely colors/contrast on the ceiling. Where is that building? I agree that the 32mm is a slightly better FL for people shots. I love using the 55mm on full frame for half body shots (similar to the Touit on APS-C). However, as you said, the 24mm is very forgiving and great all around with very few cons. I love mine and it is still the best lens I've used for E-mount. It will be missed when I move to full frame.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/

 

[dankwok]

Very well put. Thank you for the excellent comparison and insight. Beautiful shots, love the 24mm one, lovely colors/contrast on the ceiling. Where is that building? I agree that the 32mm is a slightly better FL for people shots. I love using the 55mm on full frame for half body shots (similar to the Touit on APS-C). However, as you said, the 24mm is very forgiving and great all around with very few cons. I love mine and it is still the best lens I've used for E-mount. It will be missed when I move to full frame.

 

[Jerry R]

It is the size I cropped or the image I wanted for a collection of pictures. Just posted it to show how well the lens resolves real world images.

 

[snapa]

It is the size I cropped or the image I wanted for a collection of pictures. Just posted it to show how well the lens resolves real world images.

 

[brilly]

It is the size I cropped or the image I wanted for a collection of pictures. Just posted it to show how well the lens resolves real world images.

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

yeah but that does actually mean anything

is it a 1:1 representation of the details aka a 100% crop or not?

 

[mcslsk]

I can only speak for the 28 and the 21. I would put the 28 ahead of the 24, and the 21 ahead of both. MF is not an issue for me. So even without the zoom, there are better options that make me sell my 24.

 

[JaviB]

I can only speak for the 28 and the 21. I would put the 28 ahead of the 24, and the 21 ahead of both. MF is not an issue for me. So even without the zoom, there are better options that make me sell my 24.

I choose the FE28 F2 and I'm happy with it, but have not tried the 24z. If you have owned both, could you say what makes the 28mm better than the 24 in your experience?

My opinion on the 28mm is that it is a very good lens without any weak points. It perform well in every situation. It is very sharp, the bokeh is nice, the colors and contrast are quite good, it is light and small. With the added bonus of being FF.

28mm on APS-C (like 42mm FOV on FF) is a focal length that always works for me. I think it is as wide as you can get without distorting perspective, so you can take pictures of people with it without taking care of not getting too close. I feel that with 24mm I would have to constantly stand back and then crop to get half body portraits. The 28 is not as good as the 24 for landscape, but better for people photography. And for landscape I usually go wider than 24mm anyway.

 

[mcslsk]

The 28 starts to be very good at 2.8. The 24 is not a bad lens at all. But looking at the price, I am not sure it is a must have. But I can understand that people want a 35mm equivalent with AF. Still, the Samyang 21 is a grat alterantive at a good price. My current line up is Samyang 12/16/21 for wide angle.

 

[AlphaPhotography]

I can only speak for the 28 and the 21. I would put the 28 ahead of the 24, and the 21 ahead of both. MF is not an issue for me. So even without the zoom, there are better options that make me sell my 24.

I choose the FE28 F2 and I'm happy with it, but have not tried the 24z. If you have owned both, could you say what makes the 28mm better than the 24 in your experience?

My opinion on the 28mm is that it is a very good lens without any weak points. It perform well in every situation. It is very sharp, the bokeh is nice, the colors and contrast are quite good, it is light and small. With the added bonus of being FF.

28mm on APS-C (like 42mm FOV on FF) is a focal length that always works for me. I think it is as wide as you can get without distorting perspective, so you can take pictures of people with it without taking care of not getting too close. I feel that with 24mm I would have to constantly stand back and then crop to get half body portraits. The 28 is not as good as the 24 for landscape, but better for people photography. And for landscape I usually go wider than 24mm anyway.

The 28mm is an excellent lens and a bargain. I have not used one personally but researched it extensively. I decided the 28mm focal length was just a bit odd on APS-C for me. I do like it for half body shots, but then again I prefer 35mm-40mm (52.5-60mm FF equivalent) even more for this. The 55mm on full frame is about perfect for half body. So the 28mm falls somewhere in the middle for me. If you haven't used a 35mm lens on full frame or the 24mm on APS-C I highly recommend renting one. Both the focal length and the Sony Zeiss are popular for a very good reason. It is just a joy to shoot with. Yes, it is a bit wide for close-up people shots, but it can actually make for some excellent environmental portraits and the distortion is minimal. It can pretty much cover every situation you'll encounter, in the case of the Sony Zeiss 24mm, even some macro. I'll post a few samples later today showing the versatility, including people shots and even headshots

 

[dankwok]

I have done plenty of people shots with the 24mm:

Was recognized in a photo competition for this one

--
-Daniel

 

[AlphaPhotography]

I have done plenty of people shots with the 24mm:

Was recognized in a photo competition for this one

--
-Daniel

Great shots

--
www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/

 

[Jerry R]

The image has not been resized. So by some definition it is a 100% crop.