More Sony 35mm 1.4 issues

I just received my brand new 35mm 1.4 lens from B&H and was excited to try it out.....well, that was before the whole optical bench thread. While the lens was being shipped, that thread popped up in my feed and dashed my hopes of getting something I would love to take pictures with. It was almost as if the lens was damaged goods before it even came out of the box.

I don't have any brick walls to test the lens on so I shot my stucco on the garage. Mind you, this is the first time I have ever tested a lens on something as technical as a wall, and I have purchased and used a lot of lenses in my 15 year photography history. I usually just slapped them on my Canon, shot something interesting and evaluated the images that way. Now, I know a stucco wall might not be totally flat, but I was seeing a soft lower right edge at 1.4. Flipped the camera over and low and behold, the upper right corner was soft. Softness did disappear by 5.6, but it was already apparent that my excitement for this lens was waning.

Now I was starting to wonder how many of my other lenses were defective?? My beloved Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II, how about my 85 1.2, or my 55mm 1.8, are they off? Should I test them? I rather not know to be honest. I packaged up the Sony 35mm and put it back in the box ready to ship it back. Since it seems that the lens isn't built well (based on the lens rentals report), I had visions of it getting worse with use.

Later on that day, I decided to give it a real world test (like I usually do) and I took the kids to the park. I pulled it out of the box and began shooting at 1.4, the reason why I bought the lens in the first place. I noticed with all of my canon gear I usually shot 2.0 or below, for my fast lenses, and 2.8 to 3.5 for my 2.8 zooms (that's why I wanted the Sony 1.4 as opposed to the Loxia or the 35 2.8).

I was blown away. I have never seen shots from my 5d Mark III and Canon 35 1.4 like this. My hit rate was un-freaking-real with fast moving subjects at 1.4 and eye autofocus enabled. Look at this photo here....Owen was already in motion down the slide, because we were playing chase, and somehow I got a useable shot while I was running after him! I am floored.



Also, this lens is definitely sharper than what I am used to with my Canon combo. Even though you can't tell on DPReview.... check the photos on Flikr and you will get a better feel for the clarity.

So, I shot a few hundred photos and got results that were consistently better than what I was achieving before. My 1.4 hit percentage used to be 30-40% at best....yesterday it was at 90%. Now I am thinking, how can I return this lens based off of one test? If I return it, how many photo opportunities will I miss out on? Do I even care that the corner is soft or it might be decentered if I never shoot above 3.5? This is not a landscape lens for me. I always want the extreme corners in a beautiful, creamy, bokeh. My subjects for this lens will be my children 99% of the time. Is the other 95% of the lens sharp? Blazingly so, even at 1.4 which my Canon is not.

So here is the issue....I don't think I can return it. I had way too much fun, my results were way better than expected, and I absolutely loved having the aperture ring...even though I only adjusted it from 2.8 to 1.4...still handy and fast! For my needs, it's perfect. Do I wish there was a better report on build quality, yup! If I can get years of photos like the ones I took yesterday, I will be a happy man (not saying they are the best artistically, but for lens testing they were phenomenal).

Here are a few more all shot at 1.4. I really loved holding the camera away and not having to peer through a viewfinder, like my DSLR, to get unique and different angles. I am going to shoot the crap out of this lens. Hopefully it holds up!









--
Steve

If the soft corner moved from lower right to upper right, it seems rather an issue of how you aligned to camera with wall. Anyway, the lens seems to work fine for your intended use.

I love my 35 1.4 and will NOT be testing it against anything except my own real world images! I would say you have a winner.

Each lens has its pros and its cons. You buy the f1.4 for the speed and the bokeh and the color, contract, etc.

If you consider the lens has its cons, such as the weight, the price, the bulk, now you add a softness on one of the corners.

Knowing its pros and cons and the way you take pics, these info likely would be more useful than any of the reviews, tests and what people are talking about. Mind you some of these topics would draw your attention to an area that you may otherwise missed.

It is just a tools to take the pics that you want to take, as long as you enjoy it(the process) and the way the pics turn out, I am not sure anything else is more important.

Sorry, I meant the upper left.

Great story. The images from this lens wide open look amazing.

Current lens tests are good for getting an idea for the way a lens will perform in a very narrow set of applications. They don't test lenses for the way you or I use them. Congratulations on navigating your way through the click-bait sham.

Haruo Sato, a designer of two of the most controversial NIKKOR lenses, is hoping to usher in a new era of lens testing where a three-dimensional world is part of the consideration when testing lenses.

Very nice shots. They are making me reconsider my Loxia purchase a little!

The 35/1.4 is the best interchangeable 35mm lens I have used to date.

Glad you have found the magic.

Lovely images.

-Bill

Recall that Rishi used this lens when he tested auto focus between Nikon, Canon and Sony and he was impressed at low light focusing. I noticed it too and it focuses faster and more accurately than any other e-mount lens IMO.

Great post and good for you! I've owned the FE 35 F1.4 since it first came out. I wanted a fast native lens for my Sony mirrorless system and am happy with what I have been able to produce with this lens so far.

I don't quite agree. Yes, this lens has really great rendering, with very fast and accurate focusing on an A7rII, as shown by your pics. I also bought this lens primarily for taking pictures of my toddler, and it's a really amazing lens for that purpose. With f/1.4 I've been able to take great low-light shots, e.g. of her settling down for the night in her crib. And personally I don't find the size and weight to be as much of an issue as some make it out to be.

But given the price of the lens, aren't you entitled to have as good a copy as possible?

The issue is that a) if you decide to sell it some day, your ability to sell it, and the price you'd be able to get for it, could significantly be affected by any flaws; b) what if you decide to use it more frequently for landscapes and other types of shots in the future?

We shouldn't necessarily obsess over test charts, but the copy I had showed flaws that were evident even in real-world pictures.

Kudos to Sony (or whoever deserves the credit) for coming up with a lens with such gorgeous rendering. But we shouldn't let them off the hook for their quality control problems.

MrT-Man said:

Kudos to Sony (or whoever deserves the credit) for coming up with a lens with such gorgeous rendering. But we shouldn't let them off the hook for their quality control problems.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned it's precisely because I'm seeing a lot of very pretty shots from this lens (or most FE primes for that matter) that I find the QC / repair issues on some FE lenses (not all have been measured, and the 55mm doesn't seem particularly bad at all in measured tests, despite quite a lot of reports of tilted 55mm) really sad. If the 35mm f1.4 were soft, with bad bokeh, aggressive rendering, ridiculously slow AF, and painted in bright yellow, I couldn't care less. Unfortunately, in many ways it looks terrific. Heck, taking QC aside, I even wonder if I would, in the case it were feasible (or I were interested in a 35mm f1.4 ), pick the Sony 35 f1.4 over Canon's sharper and measurably better corrected 35mm f1.4 II.

I wonder, how bad are the worst samples? Acceptable for most use, or just unacceptable? Does the problem vary with focusing distance used? And how close to perfect are the best ones. Also, are there more good than bad lenses out there? And most important: What is to be expected for a lens in this class and price range?

We don't quite know. But we for sure know that if there are differences, not everybody will end up with a lens that is close to perfect.

When I get a new lens I always run a pretty quick check to find out how the lens performs at different apertures and close, medium and i finity focus distance. During my test procedure I also will find if the lens is decentered. I don't expect my lenses to be perfect. After such a test run I know the strengths of all my lenses and how to compensate for flaws. The most important for me is the look & feel of the final result, the pictures.

As an previous A-mount user, from the KonicaMinolta D7 and later Sony from the A100 with a lot of bright Sony and Zeiss lenses, and now an E/FE mount user with G and Zeiss lenses, I have never had to return any lens. I might have had some good and some bad ones, I don't know, but they have all been within what is acceptable for real world use to earn my income.

When many read about sample variations, they might think that there are huge differences and that they have to test many lenses before getting a good one. Sadly, not all even know how to run a good test procedure and what to look for. And whenI look at the peictures some are posting to prove that their lenses are almost unuseable, I can't help myself thinking: Oh gosh, they should care much more about content than minor optical flaws! That would really mean a giant leap for their photography! ;-)

[No message]

Magnar W said:

I wonder, how bad are the worst samples? Acceptable for most use, or just unacceptable? Does the problem vary with focusing distance used? And how close to perfect are the best ones. Also, are there more good than bad lenses out there? And most important: What is to be expected for a lens in this class and price range?

We don't quite know. But we for sure know that if there are differences, not everybody will end up with a lens that is close to perfect.

When I get a new lens I always run a pretty quick check to find out how the lens performs at different apertures and close, medium and i finity focus distance. During my test procedure I also will find if the lens is decentered. I don't expect my lenses to be perfect. After such a test run I know the strengths of all my lenses and how to compensate for flaws. The most important for me is the look & feel of the final result, the pictures.

As an previous A-mount user, from the KonicaMinolta D7 and later Sony from the A100 with a lot of bright Sony and Zeiss lenses, and now an E/FE mount user with G and Zeiss lenses, I have never had to return any lens. I might have had some good and some bad ones, I don't know, but they have all been within what is acceptable for real world use to earn my income.

When many read about sample variations, they might think that there are huge differences and that they have to test many lenses before getting a good one. Sadly, not all even know how to run a good test procedure and what to look for. And whenI look at the peictures some are posting to prove that their lenses are almost unuseable, I can't help myself thinking: Oh gosh, they should care much more about content than minor optical flaws! That would really mean a giant leap for their photography! ;-)

Click to expand...

"I don't expect my lenses to be perfect. After such a test run I know the strengths of all my lenses and how to compensate for flaws. The most important for me is the look & feel of the final result, the pictures."

Magnar W said:

I wonder, how bad are the worst samples? Acceptable for most use, or just unacceptable? Does the problem vary with focusing distance used? And how close to perfect are the best ones. Also, are there more good than bad lenses out there? And most important: What is to be expected for a lens in this class and price range?

We don't quite know. But we for sure know that if there are differences, not everybody will end up with a lens that is close to perfect.

Click to expand...

The indefensible aspect of the ZA 35mm f/1.4: if one does receive a "bad" lens, there's no way to return the lens to specifications. That should also be a concern to the user that has a "good" lens now. If the lens takes a spill, and requires re-alignment, what does one do?

Sony can replace the lens under warranty, and a 3rd party extended warranty often lasts 4 years, but what does one do after that? Many of my lenses are older than 4 years, and have many good years left. Can you imagine the buyer's reply after reading the sellers description of the lens after several years of use? "The exterior's in perfect shape, and that corner softness that can't be fixed is only character".

I'm delighted that some Sony users are happy with the images taken with their less than perfect lenses. Sony shouldn't take that as a "pass". Redesign your top shelf glass to the standards employed by other top shelf glass.

Shooting close subjects at f1.4 produces such shallow DOF that soft corners are completely irrelevant. And when you do want sharpness across the frame (e.g. landscapes or architecture), you will almost always stop down to f8-f16, where corner softness goes away. So unless a lens has major decentering issues or is generally soft, it's not terribly important in terms of actual usage, IMO.

Robgo2 said:

Shooting close subjects at f1.4 produces such shallow DOF that soft corners are completely irrelevant. And when you do want sharpness across the frame (e.g. landscapes or architecture), you will almost always stop down to f8-f16, where corner softness goes away. So unless a lens has major decentering issues or is generally soft, it's not terribly important in terms of actual usage, IMO.

Click to expand...

On a FF camera I suppose this is true to some extent if the issue is minor, particularly if you aren't, for example, into astrophotography.

But it's not always the case and some forms of decentering will affect the picture beyond just questions of sharpness.

For example, if the decentering is caused by a tilt of the focal plane, it can affect bokeh if it's particularly severe, which is I suppose one of the reasons you'd like a f1.4 lens in the first place . The following picture is a good example of that :

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248/791#12945448

In addition it may even affect colour rendition ! Here's two shots from an Olympus 25mm f1.8 @f1.8. One is with the camera straight up (left picture), the other with the camera upside down (right). Notice the green tinge on the left side in the picture on the left ? Well it moves to the right side in the upside down picture. That's because this whole side is front focusing - severely (if the right side was focused at around 10m, the opposite left side would focus at around 2-3m).



In the case of this Olympus lens, I didn't even need to take a shot, nor even magnify the view to know that it was decentered. Looking through the 2.3mp EVF was enough ! I was able to try seven copies of those, and four of them were just as bad as this one (tested on two or three different bodies). Particularly on a smaller sensor with extended DOF, I find this issue very problematic as I'll spend a lot of time shooting wide open.

In addition, Photographyblog's copy has the same tilted focal plane issue (sample with the tables and chairs) :


Another example : if a lens has some rather visible field curvature, and has a tilted focal plane, you are very likely to have to close it down further than necessary to have what you want in focus.

These are just examples, there could be other potential issues as well.

So, I suppose one can deal with a softer corner, particularly with a f1.4 lens on FF... but not always, and if it's severe enough you might encounter other issues than just a loss of sharpness.

And anyway, this 35 FE has too good a rendering in my opinion (even with its copious bokeh CA), and is too expensive, to deserve random QC and poor repairability. Come on Sony !

Yes, I do expect more from a top tier lens and hope that Sony steps up their game, but at the same time, I don't want to be without this lens. It's a tough call for sure.
--
Steve

Graham Best said:

Magnar W said:

I wonder, how bad are the worst samples? Acceptable for most use, or just unacceptable? Does the problem vary with focusing distance used? And how close to perfect are the best ones. Also, are there more good than bad lenses out there? And most important: What is to be expected for a lens in this class and price range?

We don't quite know. But we for sure know that if there are differences, not everybody will end up with a lens that is close to perfect.

Click to expand...

The indefensible aspect of the ZA 35mm f/1.4: if one does receive a "bad" lens, there's no way to return the lens to specifications. That should also be a concern to the user that has a "good" lens now. If the lens takes a spill, and requires re-alignment, what does one do?

Sony can replace the lens under warranty, and a 3rd party extended warranty often lasts 4 years, but what does one do after that? Many of my lenses are older than 4 years, and have many good years left. Can you imagine the buyer's reply after reading the sellers description of the lens after several years of use? "The exterior's in perfect shape, and that corner softness that can't be fixed is only character".

I'm delighted that some Sony users are happy with the images taken with their less than perfect lenses. Sony shouldn't take that as a "pass". Redesign your top shelf glass to the standards employed by other top shelf glass.

Click to expand...

Canon produces good and mediocre copies too.

The difference is that the Canon lenses can be corrected.

Even more reassuring is that Canon has the technicians in place to correct that which is correctable.

Sony would appear to have neither in the context of this piece of equipment and that will be a legitimate source of concern for many.