MrT-Man

The quality control issues are especially frustrating, given that this lens has amazing bokeh and rendering. It's the king of environmental portraits. If you like the 35mm focal length, it IS worth ...

To each their own. I value image quality and I value portability, much more than whether the lens body is plastic or metal. The Batis 18 and 25 have impeccable image quality, as does the 135. I've ...

I disagree with the choice of the 35/1.8 over the Touit 32. There's comparative reviews showing that the Touit has noticeably better color, contrast and sharpness at larger apertures than the Sony ...

I think ultimately the focal length matters above all else. So if you've got the B18 and the 35/2.8, the B25 would fit in better between those two.

There's a comparative review of the B18 and Loxia 21 here: http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-batis-182-8-review/ I don't see a big difference between the 18 and the 21. MTF charts are maybe a touch ...

They're admittedly different lenses. The 21 is a modern design while the 35 is an updated version of an older design. I believe that's true of the 50, as well, but there's really not much to ...

If you're referring to the Sony 35/2.8 and 55/1.8, I can confirm that the Loxia 35 and 50 are a very worthwhile upgrade.

You're pointing to just two examples and inferring that this is "a common problem"...?

I've owned the 35/2.8, Loxia 35 and 35/1.4. The 35/2.8 is fine for landscapes, but I really didn't like the rendering for other purposes. The 35/1.4 is really phenomenal for environmental ...

There's no right answer, it depends on personal preference and shooting style. But personally I would find the 16-35GM by itself to be too limiting, and I would also find the Batis 25 + 55 to be ...

I'm thinking of the Batis 135. On an A7rII it'll be a very compact and light 135-200m equivalent (given the cropability).

Batis 18 is pricey, but stellar.

The top shot is useless because you're not shooting a flat scene. You've got two walls, a close one and a far one, and the close one doesn't fill the edges of the frame. The second one seems pretty ...

He means that you're confirming all the stuff people have said earlier in this thread and elsewhere on this forum about improper lens testing.... You should use a tripod, make sure that the camera ...

My favorite is how Sony includes (or used to include? I don't know if they still do) a "quality assurance" card with someone's signature in blue, as if it were hand-signed in ink. Except that the ...

The test subject is too close. And I'm assuming you're taking a shot of your floor with the camera pointed downwards, which makes alignment all the more difficult. As per the earlier messages in ...

I think many people who call the 55 a "must own" simply haven't shot the Loxia. I could be wrong but I think the consensus among people that have shot both is that the Loxia is better. But we're ...

I never shot with the A7R, but the A7rII has huge latitude with respect to dynamic range once you bring the RAWs into Lightroom or another editor. So I doubt you'd have any complaints if you were ...

I've owned both (as well as the 50/1.4). It's a matter of personal preference but I much prefer the Loxia. It has better color and contrast, and as you pointed out, less CA and no onion rings. The ...

That  sort of misses the point. Yes, it's a tilted field of focus rather than decentering, and I agree it's not as serious of an issue. The point, however, is that a) a tilted field of focus is ...