FE 35 2.8 on NEX-6

I was planning to buy the new 16-70 zoom for my NEX-6, but with everyone praising the new FE 35, I was wondering if it's more worth it getting the new FE 35 on the NEX-6.

Forget for a moment that one is a zoom and one is a prime, which of these two lens will be worth getting from your standpoint?

I already own an E 35 1.8, and the smaller aperture doesn't really concern me, only image quality.

I also have a question, as this is my first time planning to buy a full frame lens for a APS-C sensor.

Does FE 35 2.8 on a full frame lens also mean 35 2.8 on an APS-C? (not counting the crop factor)

If so, that means FE 35 = E 35, is this correct? Because as far as I know, APS-C lens are also using 35mm full-frame references.

Both lenses will give the exact same field of view on a NEX6. The E-mount 35mm 1.8 is a really good lens. Personally speaking, I do not see any need to buy the FE 35mm 2.8 if you do not plan to buy an A7 of A7r in the future.

I'm also considering getting the FE 35 2.8 for my NEX 5R.

My understanding is that on the APS-C sensors, the FE 35 will have an FF equivalent focal length of 52.5mm but will still have the light gathering ability of f2.8. Comparing the FE 35 2.8 to the E 35 1.8, you get the same focal length but 1.3 stops more light coming in through the E35 than the FE35. You can also get thinner DOF on the E35 compared to the FE.

Having said that, the increased sharpness of the FE35 will probably make it worthwhile. Not to mention that you'd only be using the sharpest area in the centre of the FE lens on APS-C.

xinn3r said:

I was planning to buy the new 16-70 zoom for my NEX-6, but with everyone praising the new FE 35, I was wondering if it's more worth it getting the new FE 35 on the NEX-6.

Forget for a moment that one is a zoom and one is a prime, which of these two lens will be worth getting from your standpoint?

I already own an E 35 1.8, and the smaller aperture doesn't really concern me, only image quality.

Click to expand...

Well start by looking at the pictrures you took with your 35mm lens. Are you happy with them IQ wise? (if yes, buy the zoom) Do you want them to be sharper? (If yes then the 35mm f2.8 may be the right choice, when the lack of sharpness is due to the lens and not other factors) Do you take a lot pictures in low light (indoor, at the evening etc) if so remember that the OIS and larger apperture will help there. Are you taking movies with this lens? If so the OIS is very important. Are you planning to buy the A7? Then that is the only reason you could have to buy the 35mm f2.8 lens.

The Zoom lens is more versatile, for having a very effective range, from WA to short tele. It has OIS and is a nice lens, but it is not as fast, it may be a bit less sharp etc.

xinn3r said:

I also have a question, as this is my first time planning to buy a full frame lens for a APS-C sensor.

Does FE 35 2.8 on a full frame lens also mean 35 2.8 on an APS-C? (not counting the crop factor)

Click to expand...

The FL lies in the physics of the optics, not in the immage circle. So 35mm of the APS lens is exact the same as that on the FF lens. There is no difference, both have a 52.5mm FF eq. on the Nex 6

xinn3r said:

If so, that means FE 35 = E 35, is this correct? Because as far as I know, APS-C lens are also using 35mm full-frame references.

Click to expand...

Correct.

The 35mm FF lens will only use the centre of the immage circle, so it will not vignet on the APS camera and it will use the sharpest part of the imagecircle.

E 35/1.8 and FE 35/2.8 will be redundant. The E 35/1.8 advantages are 1+ stop larger aperture (so a better choice for low light and also for more background blur). It also has OSS so that adds additional benefits in low light when photographing stationary subjects.

The FE 35 is slightly smaller and lighter and sharper and a FF lens. It would make sense if you are looking for more sharpness and possibility to move to an FE body later, above the advantages of E35.

With E 35 on hand (an excellent lens), I would recommend looking at FE 55/1.8 instead as a portrait lens (it will give you the 85mm equiv FOV), esp if you don't have E50. It is supposed to be a very nice lens.

xinn3r said:

I was planning to buy the new 16-70 zoom for my NEX-6, but with everyone praising the new FE 35, I was wondering if it's more worth it getting the new FE 35 on the NEX-6.

Forget for a moment that one is a zoom and one is a prime, which of these two lens will be worth getting from your standpoint?

Click to expand...

For APS-C the zoom will be nice since it covers a wider range.

xinn3r said:

I already own an E 35 1.8, and the smaller aperture doesn't really concern me, only image quality.

Click to expand...

The 35mm f/1.8 is very good, especially when stepped down to f/2.8 or higher. For APS-C users I see no reason to get the new ZEISS 35mm f/2.8 unless you plan on getting a full frame in the near future.

xinn3r said:

I also have a question, as this is my first time planning to buy a full frame lens for a APS-C sensor.

Does FE 35 2.8 on a full frame lens also mean 35 2.8 on an APS-C? (not counting the crop factor)

Click to expand...

Focal length is focal length and aperture is aperture. These don't change on different sensors. The lenses are both 35mm, they will look the same on APS-C vs Full Frame, only issue is if you use the SEL 35mm f/1.8 on full frame the image circle won't cover the sensor and you get black corners, so you need to use the 35mm f/2.8.

The only other thing is that the field of view for a 35mm on full frame is wider than a 35mm on APS-C.

As for field of view, the ZEISS lens is actually slightly tighter field of view since it is more like 38mm, and I think the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is closer to 35mm. These difference are very slight, but noticeable if you compare the two lenses side by side.

Eric

The FE 35 is a wonderful lens but I doubt you will see much benefit of using it on the NEX-6 versus your E 35 1.8. I compared it on the A7R against the excellent Sigma 30mm f2.8 and while the FE 35 is sharper and has better microcontrast it really isn't a significant enough difference to justify the price. You have to be pixel peeping at 100% with a 36 MP image to tell the difference. On a NEX-6 I doubt you could tell the difference between the two lenses. Never having used the E 35 1.8 I can't comment on that.

xinn3r said:

I was planning to buy the new 16-70 zoom for my NEX-6, but with everyone praising the new FE 35, I was wondering if it's more worth it getting the new FE 35 on the NEX-6.

Forget for a moment that one is a zoom and one is a prime, which of these two lens will be worth getting from your standpoint?

I already own an E 35 1.8, and the smaller aperture doesn't really concern me, only image quality.

I also have a question, as this is my first time planning to buy a full frame lens for a APS-C sensor.

Does FE 35 2.8 on a full frame lens also mean 35 2.8 on an APS-C? (not counting the crop factor)

If so, that means FE 35 = E 35, is this correct? Because as far as I know, APS-C lens are also using 35mm full-frame references.

Click to expand...

tietheknot said:

I'm also considering getting the FE 35 2.8 for my NEX 5R.

My understanding is that on the APS-C sensors, the FE 35 will have an FF equivalent focal length of 52.5mm but will still have the light gathering ability of f2.8. Comparing the FE 35 2.8 to the E 35 1.8, you get the same focal length but 1.3 stops more light coming in through the E35 than the FE35. You can also get thinner DOF on the E35 compared to the FE.

Having said that, the increased sharpness of the FE35 will probably make it worthwhile. Not to mention that you'd only be using the sharpest area in the centre of the FE lens on APS-C.

Click to expand...

I do have FE 35mm on my NEX5R. But I also have Sony A7, and pre-ordered FE 24-70/f4.

To me, FE 35mm + A7 will serve me well as light-weight kit when hiking/biking

I'll have FE24-70/f4 on A7 as the main traveling camera, and FE 35mm on my NEX5R as a spare camera and use it for some portraits due to its "50mm" on APSC.

However, I can't think of any situation I would bring NEX5R alone with FE 35mm. So I agree with other comments that it make more sense to buy FE 35mm only if you have or plan to buy A7/R.

Actually, if FE24-70/f4 turn to be pretty good, I may even consider sell my NEX5R and get a RX100II due to its better portability.

xinn3r said:

I was planning to buy the new 16-70 zoom for my NEX-6, but with everyone praising the new FE 35, I was wondering if it's more worth it getting the new FE 35 on the NEX-6.

Forget for a moment that one is a zoom and one is a prime, which of these two lens will be worth getting from your standpoint?

I already own an E 35 1.8, and the smaller aperture doesn't really concern me, only image quality.

I also have a question, as this is my first time planning to buy a full frame lens for a APS-C sensor.

Does FE 35 2.8 on a full frame lens also mean 35 2.8 on an APS-C? (not counting the crop factor)

If so, that means FE 35 = E 35, is this correct? Because as far as I know, APS-C lens are also using 35mm full-frame references.

Click to expand...

I've got the FE 35 on my NEX 5R. Since I got it, it has barely left the camera. It is the sharpest lens I own by a good margin, and has wonderful color rendition.

The only annoying thing I've noticed is that DMF doesn't work with it on the 5R, I'm guessing that will be fixed in a future firmware update.

I've got the FE 35 on my NEX 5R. Since I got it, it has barely left the camera. It is the sharpest lens I own by a good margin, and has wonderful color rendition.

The only annoying thing I've noticed is that DMF doesn't work with it on the 5R, I'm guessing that will be fixed in a future firmware update.

>>>>>

I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for a firmware update from Sony. They are notoriously bad about updating their camera's firmware after they have been introduced.

So far I'm very impressed by the FE 35 on either my A7 or NEX7! If you want a lens that can deliver the sense of being able to count every blade of grass, this could be your lens. It's relatively small, lightweight, and the cone-shaped lens hood doesn't add a lot of bulk. It doesn't seem to have much optical distortion, chromatic aberration is a fraction of what I saw with the 24/1.8Z. Some light falloff in corners.