Sony Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA - Your Mechanical Experience?

[abe4652]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

 

[Johnsonson]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

The AF motor has a high rate of failure due to how it was designed. More info here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

Other parts of the body shouldn't be too different from other Sony lenses.

 

[ISO 1 Million]

Thanks for finding that article. I read it a year ago but couldn't find it.

I have the 55 f1.8 and it arrived damaged out if the box. It sounds like a beluga whale when focusing in both AF and MF. I have no clue why I was so dumb to not return it but it's way too late for me now. I hate the fact that it's held together by a dab of glue. I'll likely end up selling it because I just don't trust it.

 

[Mathieu18]

Why not send it to Precision and see what a repair would cost?

Thanks for finding that article. I read it a year ago but couldn't find it.

I have the 55 f1.8 and it arrived damaged out if the box. It sounds like a beluga whale when focusing in both AF and MF. I have no clue why I was so dumb to not return it but it's way too late for me now. I hate the fact that it's held together by a dab of glue. I'll likely end up selling it because I just don't trust it.

 

[SilvanBromide]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

Despite that, mine was purchased used, worked flawlessly while I owned it, produced some very nice images in its time with me, and sold - for about the same amount I paid for it - to a buyer who was very happy with it.

Not saying there is no basis at all for such reports, but it pays to keep them in perspective. It's a fine and very useable lens.

 

[abe4652]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

The AF motor has a high rate of failure due to how it was designed. More info here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

Other parts of the body shouldn't be too different from other Sony lenses.

And Sony is*still* making this $1,000 lens the same way?

By the way, is this why the Canon 50mm 1.4 stopped focusing?

 

[abe4652]

So is the Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 35mm F2.8 ZA?

Hopefully not built the same way?

So besides the $250 55mm 1.8, what is the best higher level lens if I don't need 1.4?

 

[Seeky]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

The experience has been good, own the lens since the original A7.

Every product has critical reviews and failures. If that would stop you buying something there’s very little left to buy.

Mechanically, there is one commonly perceived issue, namely the aperture adjustment noise.

Ergonomically, it is a lovely lens which needs to be handled with care. It is made of metal, including the focus ring and has a very good feel.

 

[Dsnoir]

I have been using this lens a lot for a couple of years, as a walk around lens in London, it's not been abused but no special care has been given too it either. I have had no problems at all. Having recently acquired the 24-105, I can see the 55 being used less, but only on a sheer convenience level

 

[Tristimulus]

Several 1.8/55mm lenses out there, but still no reports about broken lenses floating around on the net (guess this would be a hot topic if there were real issues with this lens).

Mine is fine despite beeing one of the first such lenses sold - no worry here...

 

[ISO 1 Million]

Why not send it to Precision and see what a repair would cost?

Thanks for finding that article. I read it a year ago but couldn't find it.

I have the 55 f1.8 and it arrived damaged out if the box. It sounds like a beluga whale when focusing in both AF and MF. I have no clue why I was so dumb to not return it but it's way too late for me now. I hate the fact that it's held together by a dab of glue. I'll likely end up selling it because I just don't trust it.

 

[Mathieu18]

Okay, but what do you think you'll get for it by selling it since it sounds like a Beluga Whale? Roger refers to it as the "buzzing autofocus death", if it's making noise, I'm going to assume it's about to break, and due to uncertainty probably pay even less than $250 below its' going price. Not saying you won't find a sucker, but... seems like you're probably going to be out about $300 regardless.

Why not send it to Precision and see what a repair would cost?

Thanks for finding that article. I read it a year ago but couldn't find it.

I have the 55 f1.8 and it arrived damaged out if the box. It sounds like a beluga whale when focusing in both AF and MF. I have no clue why I was so dumb to not return it but it's way too late for me now. I hate the fact that it's held together by a dab of glue. I'll likely end up selling it because I just don't trust it.

 

[JohnWick4001]

One person I know describes the sound it makes like an Aardvaark, not a Beluga whale.

 

[ISO 1 Million]

You make a good point but at this point in time I just don't want to pay over $250 to repair a lens I don't use that often. I will likely just keep using it the way it is until it fails completely.

 

[Jefenator]

It's good to know there is at least some service available out there should my Sony/Zeiss 55mm ever experience that issue.

I recently had to pay about $200 to restore a Canon zoom lens to proper working order. (Aperture mechanism just quit working.) I was glad to see there was some official recourse (exchanged via Canon's service dept). On the other hand, the $200 did sting somewhat, especially given that the whole lens only costs $400 brand new.

$250 to get my $1000 prime working again, that's a repair I would go ahead and do.

(I do wish they made them just a little more like they used to. My old Leica R mount primes were ridiculously rugged and durable. No AF or EXIF though, and the coatings were showing their age. I don't think I used the Summicron-R 50mm once after getting the Sony/Zeiss.)

 

[bpatient]

If you're the worrying type, you might want to avoid travel since your lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident is somewhere around one in one hundred. Although the risk that your 55mm f/1.8 lens will fail is uncertain (I don’t recall that Roger’s interesting article included quantitative risk estimates) it’s likely much less than that—Roger's point, I think, was that that the failure rate for that lens was somewhat higher than for other, more modern designs.

My sister-in-law drove her kids from California to Florida for a brief vacation, disregarding their real danger but worrying all the while that her sons might be fatally attacked by sharks during the few hours that they planned to spend at the beach. YMMV. But: bathtubs.

 

[biza43]

no problem.

 

[CYIU23]

Honestly this has been my go to lens for portraits and street photography until recently. I have owned this lens for over 6 months and taken more than 10K shots. Oh, and I am very rough on my equipment, I've shot in the rain and the cold. I have never had any problems with this lens at all, it the quickest and most quiet AF from all my lens. The AF motor on all the Zeiss are the best, no searching or hunting. And I forgot, the IQ is extremely good too. I can honestly keep going on and on. Seriously this a great lens, even if it's $1,000.

 

[Manfred Bachmann]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

The AF motor has a high rate of failure due to how it was designed. More info here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

Other parts of the body shouldn't be too different from other Sony lenses.

I have never heard a single report of a failure in terms of the AF-system, but thousands reports how great the AF works ! He was also the only guy which totaly talked down the 70-200GM, in the meantime 20 other tester higly recommended the lens.

 

[ISO 1 Million]

I've read one highly critical review that said that while the lens is optically excellent, its mechanical construction is poor, and it breaks down fairly easily even in normal use.

I normally consider one-off reviews like that with a jaundiced eye, but at the same time this is a very expensive lens.

What has been the experience of people who have been using this lens for some time (as it has been out for some time), both good and bad, as far as its construction?

The AF motor has a high rate of failure due to how it was designed. More info here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

Other parts of the body shouldn't be too different from other Sony lenses.

I have never heard a single report of a failure in terms of the AF-system, but thousands reports how great the AF works ! He was also the only guy which totaly talked down the 70-200GM, in the meantime 20 other tester higly recommended the lens.

Thousands reported how great the AF works because none of them tore the lens apart to see how it works. Only one guy did. The AF is very quick, silent, and accurate for the vast majority of people. That doesn't negate the fact that it's held together by a dab of glue. It also doesn't negate the fact that I'm not the only person that has reported AF noise.

There have been numerous other reports of the 70-200 GM not being as sharp as the competition. Both review sites and actual consumers on forums have reported this. It is perhaps yet another victim of sample variation but nonetheless he's not the only person on planet earth who felt the lens was less than sharp.