Emount: 24mm Zeiss or 35mm Sony? - Review from ePhotozine!!

Started Nov 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,541
Re: Emount: 24mm Zeiss or 35mm Sony? - Review from ePhotozine!!

blue_skies wrote:

sjredo wrote:

Hi all,

Just read an awesome review of the Sony 35mm Emount, and now I'm wondering which one to choose between these two lenses.

Is there too much FOV difference between a 24mm and 35mm on APSC?

I'm finding hard to pay over 1k for the Zeiss, and I'm wondering if the 35mm would be a similar option.

Here's the review on the 35mm



The 35mm is smaller, cheaper, has OSS, and gets great reviews. What's not to like?

35mm angle?

Like Eric says, check the FL first with the kit lens. The difference between 24mm and 35mm is significant, but not so vast that you cannot work with just one FL.

24mm is good for near-wide, such as indoor people shots, group shots and some architecture. But a 20mm or wider is often preferred.

35mm is good for shots of individuals, headshots, general 'walk-about' shots and so on. A 50mm or longer works best for portraits. The 35mm also gives you better DoF than the 24mm, but not as great as the 50mm.

At 24mm you begin to notice distortion (stretching of the edges), and parallel lines may begin to converge.

Consider other combinations too, e.g. The Sigma 19mm plus the Sony 35mm, or the Sony 24mm with the Sony 50mm. Or start with both Sigmas first.

I like the f/1.8 in a standard prime, it does make a a difference. My bet is on the Sony 35mm as the long term favorite for most of us.The Zeiss 32mm will cost double and lack OSS. Perhaps the 'perfect' lens, with the perfect FoV, but only to some.

Set your kit lens to 35mm and tape it down. Shoot like this for a week - you will improve a lot. Once you get used to 35mm, 24mm seems too wide, lacking detail. The inverse also works, but to a lesser extent. But try to crop some of those 24mm shots. Do they improve?

I have a couple of  zooms and primes that I played with on my DSLR a few years ago.  I found that if I used a 35-xx lens, I was often frustrated that I couldn't go wider.  I wish I liked that FL, I would have found more legacy lenses to enjoy.  Now, I have taken the occasional portrait with it and it works well in some situations, but for a general-purpose lens, it just doesn't seem wide enough.

When  I used 28mm (prime or 28-xx zoom), it was really good most of the time, but occasionally, I still wanted  wider.  However, I could probably live with a 28 as a walkaround.

Rather than taping, just analyze your current photos and see where you usually end up.  There was a free utility somewhere that would scan your files for EXIF and make charts.  It's kind of interesting.

Lately,  I have been enjoying the 16mm.  Usually, it's wide enough.    I guess I can always crop if needed, but I rarely do.

While f1.8 is great, I could live with an f2.8.

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow