FE Distagon by SLRclub.
Note for US readers: A couple of Distagon lenses are in Stock at Amazon US (Click here). Refurbished 55mm FE for $749 on [shoplink 35281 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
Many bloggers and photographers are testing the new FE lenses. Time for a new roundup:
Diglloyd is testing the new Zeiss Distagon FE 35mm lens.
A camera system needs at least one outstanding lens that makes owning that system worthwhile. Or rather, a lens that is so appealing that the camera body becomes an accessory.
Until now, that Sony A7 series platform has been a study in “good enough”. That system mediocrity ends now with the Sony/Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. The question is whether lens siblings of similar quality will emerge to complete the nucleus of a complete system that demanding photographers hunger for.
Dang, where is that 50 or 80 megapixel Sony A9 with real 14-bit files?
Just a note for Digglloyd. Do not forget there is an excellent 55mm FE lens in the line up 🙂
Steve Huff tested the FE 28mm lens:
As for this 28mm, it is to me, a no brainer at $450. You will not find a better new production 28mm for full frame for this price, period. While not perfect due to the distortion that is present without correction or using a lens profile, it is easily overcome. Shoot JPEG and they are perfect out of the camera. Shoot RAW and you will need to apply the camera lens profile to fix the distortion, but when it is fixed the images will be gorgeous.
Amateur Photographer also tested the 28mm lens:
This 28mm lens may not be quite as optically stunning as the Zeiss-branded 55mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2.8, but it’s still pretty sharp wide open, and once it’s stopped down to normal working apertures of, say, f/5.6 to f/11, it’s very good indeed. It’s also small and light enough to slip into your bag and carry around, where larger lenses may be left behind.
Mark Galer is testing the 90mm macro lens:
This is sharpest lens I have tested since the original 55 and 35 mm primes. It is sharp at maximum aperture and stacks up well with the 55 F1.8. I like the fact that the Focus ring, when put in Manual Focus, has definite stops and was surprised that it was not as heavy as it looks. It is well balanced lens on the A7R. Sony’s Eye AF was quick and accurate – even with such a narrow depth of field. I posted two full size JPEGs to a Flickr album so Alpha users can pixel peep.
Amateur Photographer reviewed the 24-240mm lens:
In essence, the 24-240mm has the quality of a good kit lens, but with a focal length that can’t be equalled without a significant financial, and backbreaking, investment in extra glass. Those who demand the best image quality already know the downside to travel-zoom lenses, and this Sony 24-240mm optic certainly won’t be for them, but as a travel companion I think this will form a good partnership, especially with the Alpha 7 II and its advanced image stabilisation system.
More tests:
Sony FE 28mm f/2 Samples Gallery (Dpreview).
Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS real-world samples posted (Dpreview).
28mm FE review at SLRclub.
35mm f/1.4 FE review at SLRclub.
Distagon image samples by Paulferzoco.
All new FE lens preorder links:
In USA at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, FocusCamera, Sony US.
Sony Fisheye Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Fisheye Converter for E 16mm F/2.8 and E 20mm F/2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Converter for E 16mm F2.8 and E 20mm F2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
In Europe at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide Angle converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
In Asia/Australia at:
Sony 24-240mm FE lens at Digitalrev, CameraPRO, Sony Australia.
Sony 28mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Sony 90mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
117 Responses
“Dang, where is that 50 or 80 megapixel Sony A9 with real 14-bit files?”
We sould invite him to the wonderful world of SAR. 😀
I’ve suspected he and others have already visited to stir the pot. LOL
Plot twist! He comments as Anton here on SAR.
Who is registered as: Katsu Nakamara here on Discus.
It’s definitely sounding like a stuck record lately.
“The (FE) system mediocrity ends now with the Sony/Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 Distagon”.
And so does the size and weight advantage of a mirrorless set up…
I like that guy Diglloyd
“That system mediocrity”. When I’m looking to all the Nikon’s problems (D610/D800/D750) and the outdated Canon’s cameras. How can we call them ?
Agreed, selective reporting equals bias.
Those would be the epitome of mediocrity. Although you can’t really say that because the issues you mention aren’t severe enough to call a system mediocre. Personally, I would call those systems “incompatible photographic solutions” because for me the solution those systems offer is not compatible with my shooting needs, habits and comfort.
Emount system mediocrity ends when…
Fly-by-wire focus ends…
Battery system upgrades to Amount batteries…
Fully articulating LCD is available…
Complete matching set of vertical controls is available…
(stop treating vert togs like second class citizens, no high end Alpha should do that.)
Ability to shoot RELEASE priority instead of always AF priority…
A capable strobist solution is available…
Rear LCD can be completely turned off, instead of black pixels…
Mediocrity continues as long as Emount emphasizes small size over functional ergonomics. My fingers have a permanent ridge impressed into them because the space between grip and Metabones adapter prevents comfortable holding.
“A camera system needs at least one outstanding lens that makes owning that system worthwhile. Or rather, a lens that is so appealing that the camera body becomes an accessory.”
This is so true! The only reason why I’m using the A99 is because of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/1.8. And the two have been glued together since the first day of their purchase lol
Maybe a day will come when the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 will get an upgrade w/ Direct Drive SSM, more than one focus hold buttons and this time it will be on the better E-Mount system? It’s just a dream but who knows lol
The Zeiss 35f2.8 and the 55 f1.8 are good lenses. It was obvious that a new mount could not appear with all the high end lenses for ultimate extra pro photographers. But It’s not a reason to call it “System mediocrity”. It was not just adapted to all photographers. As time went the system is enriched with new lens/accessories that fit for a larger panel of profiles. The Samsung NX1 as a poorer park of lenses but it’s still a very good camera.
Great — if you like 35 and 55mm. The series really needs a great wide angle lens that’s suitable for the a7r. The 28 doesn’t seem to be a killer lens unfortunately.
To be fair, anything without a Zeiss/G logo was going to be a compromise. The 16-35 is good, but the system really is crying out for a good WA prime.
Yeah, but why buy the a7r if one combines it with something like the 16-35? It’s like buying a body that craves quality primes and couple it with something that doesn’t deliver that.
Is 16-35mm bad lens? I am reading positive reviews. Asking because i am considering it for interior shots.
No, it’s a lens that’s comparable with other 16-35’s. It’s good, but it isn’t the lens to have for other then good IQ on the A7r.
True – the system is crying out for a Zeiss wa
You get what you pay for the 28 is a budget conscious lens. Eventually there will be a Zeiss or a G for double the price that is far better. On the other hand I look forward to something in a 17 or an 18. A lens that wide doesn’t need AF so I’d be fine with a Loxia if offered.
The FE 55 1.8 and 35 2.8 are excellent lenses to me and are compact which is consistent with the A7 series cameras. The FE 35 1.4 is as large as a zoom… which defeats the system’s idea of compactness.
Well for my usage the 55 is a better lens than this 35mm by virtue of not being massive and being at a focal length I prefer. *It* was actually the reason that I bought into the A7 series.
It’s good though, that the 35mm folks have their killer lens on the FE mount, I’m just not sure that this digilloyd fellow speaks for all of us.
I definitely wouldn’t categorise my 55/1.8 as mediocre. For that matter, even the 35/2.8 is anything but mediocre. You might get away with classifying the zooms as good enough (although owners of the 16-35 and 70-200 might take issue)…
Why so big!!! It looks like a 70-200 zoom. I do street photography and I’d scare the birds and children away. Plus that loud double click, click!!
A7 and A7s can do without double-click, A7s even completely silent. The reason for the large lens: Physics. Same reason why the Zeiss 55 F1.4 Otus is so big, this lens design is optimized for highest possible quality, not compactness. For smalllens streetphotography go for either Sony Zeiss 35 F2.8 or the Zeiss Loxia 35 F2.0 manual focus.
No it doesnt, it is ca. the size of 16-35 f/4 at 24mm or so, plus 100g. On the A7II its quite good balanced and has a great feel, especially thanks to the aperture ring. IQ is stellar.
For street, I recommend FE35/2.8 or Loxia and A7s.
You have the choice between 3 differents 35mm lenses, do people always have to whine about something? You sound like a French 🙂
I can second the comments on the 35mm. I played with one in my local shop and it is painfully sharp. Absolutely beautiful. Mark my words, not only will it go down as the sharpest lens to date for the A7 series, but one of the sharpest lenses of all time. Its a little big and heavey for my taste though.
Agreed. This 35mm (along with the 55mm) will tempt many CaNikon shooters… and maybe even some Leicaphiles. Prime shooters delight!
Not Leica shooters – look at the size of Summilux ?
Yeah, but the (FE) system compactness ends now, too, it seems 😉
Well, one just has to weight what they need more: compactness, or large aperture. For those who need compact, there’s the 35mm f/2.8.
Yes, but for those who don’t need compact there already are quite a few excellent DSLRs, the lenses for which tend to be less expensive for similar performance.
Physical lens size is affected by lens speed and the size of the image circle needed. You can have a fast lens or a small lens but not both at the same time. If you want physically smaller it needs to be slower or a smaller format like aps-c or 4/3. A good example is medium format vs FF. An 80mm/2.8 is huge in MF but not so much in FF.
Which is why the full-frame image circle Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/1.4 is only a quarter of the size of the new Sony lens?
you can choose:
a) Sony/Zeiss put some weight and length on the lens to sell us a lighter/smaller one in a year.
b) Sony/Zeiss don’t know the secrets of lensbuilding that Leica knows.
c) There are other specs than focal length and f-stop that makes the difference.
AF motor lens design constrictions along with market price viability are what makes certain lenses bigger, smaller, faster, slower, etc.
None of the things you mention are real, especially not the one about “secrets” Leica doesnt know.
AF motor alone designs are something that you cannot counter with “magic”
sorry, a) + b) were ironic.
You are not comparing apples to apples. Now add the AF and all associated parts. If you want to make it apples to apples then wait for a Loxia 35
Right, but AF and electronics alone are no sufficient explanation for the Distagon’s huge size. Even the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for DSLRs is smaller, while in all probability delivering similar performance, too. So where has that mirrorless advantage gone, which, by theory, ought to be most significant for focal lengths like that (below the DSLR’s flangeback distance, but above the mirrorless flangeback distance)? People will ask themselves, why should they buy a mirrorless camera, if that promise isn’t fulfilled anymore as soon as lenses get really fast and really good? And I’m not even speaking about the difference in price between the Distagon and the Sigma, here.
I think sometimes people forget that size isn’t the only advantage attached to mirrorless. I also like the fact that there are fewer parts and more important fewer moving parts. I believe this could be considered a reliability point since there is less to go wrong. The fewer wear items for parts the better. I really look forward to a global shutter as well. In all honesty I haven’t considered or researched the sigma since it is not native to e-mount. The other possible reason for the Zeiss being so big is that they threw size consideration out the window in favor of image quality. I can see the logic in it since there is already the 2.8 version available.
I, for one, don’t forget that size isn’t the only advantage of mirrorless, which is why I’ve gone mirrorless myself while still using rather bulky DSLR lenses, and own or owned, at some time, several Micro Four Thirds and NEX cameras, and why I applaud Sony on what they achieved with the A7 series.
Reliability is not one of my reasons, though, since it never was an issue with any of the digital (or analog, for that matter) SLRs I used to own. If, rare as it was, something broke, it usually was no mechanical part. I’ve never had a mirror or shutter fail in, literally, decades of use. How much better can reliability get than that of the current semi-pro and pro DSLRs?
I still see a problem in the size and weight of mirrorless lenses like the 35mm f/1.4 Distagon, though, even if I don’t buy a mirrorless camera only to minimize size and weight. With the mirrorless flange back distance advantage, one would think it should have become smaller, instead of possibly being the biggest 35mm f/1.4 that ever existed for formats of 35mm and below, DSLR mounts included. Of course it has something to do with the increased demands of 36MP and soon 50MP sensors, and it may have something to do with the fact that digital sensors still demand more telecentric designs than film used to.
And, still: if a mirrorless lens can’t be very fast and very good and at least significantly more compact than an equally specified and similarly capable DSLR lens, manufacturers have to face questions about their compactness claims, whether some customer wants and needs it or not.
all fair and valid points. I just figure it’s big for a reason. I’m sure they could have made it smaller but they didn’t. There is a piece of the puzzle still missing here.
The moving parts aspect implies more potential reliability issues but that is just in theory. Given that the flipping mirror has been a proven technology for years it is not anymore an issue to consider. I still have an Olympus OM2 dating from the mid 70ies which was used quite extensively around the world in so many conditions without ANY issues… It has moving parts but had zero failures… In fact I do not care wether my camera has a flipping mirror or not even though solid state should be more reliable. The thing I am interested in is its compactness & lightweight given it is a full frame which can deliver top image quality.
I believe that the reason why some manufacturers try to remove the flipping mirrors is that it reduces manufacturing costs. If they managed to get the same results as DSLRs i.e. AF , IQ, etc… without the flipping mirrors whilst being more compact, lighter, etc… Then they’d be able to sell at a lower price vs competition whilst boosting margins = more profits… Sony started it with the fixed semi-transparent mirrors then with the NEX and A7 lines. A good strategic move to my view point assuming DSLR performance is met at some point.
Ok point taken but how does the Loxia 35 f2 compares with a Leica M equivalent ? I bet it is still much larger…
I just spent the weekend shooting with it on A7ii, IQ (which is as good as it gets at this FL now) and the handling just feels right. Smaller is not always better, the build quality, the focus ring, AF, all make for a very usable and practical package.
Few run-n-gun samples: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3824087
I believe you and your shots are nice, and if I had a A7xy I would be tempted, too. It’s just that the more big lenses I buy, the less size and weight advantage is left compared to the DSLR.
Exact ! You are spot on but it seems no one has yet replied to this. The mirrorless system advantage of compactness, lightweight, etc… vs DSLR is all gone. For some people like me travelling most of the time small size and lightweight does matter a lot…
Do not forget the Zeiss Loxia …
I have the 50mm. A killer !!!
35mm F2 is as well. Just did a big review on it
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/54251-loxia-35mm-vs-16-35-35mm-test.html
Thinking about this one, do you have any experience in the Loxia 50 vs the FE55?
I’m not a lens geek. Would someone please explain why this ‘prime’ (i.e. single focal length ) lens is so huge?
f 1.4. Large aperture, lots of light.
There are lots of other f/1.4 lens that are not nearly so portly. Nice lens, but with it the question has to be asked, where went the advantage of a mirrorless camera?
It lets in lots of light and it makes sure the light falls on the right spot on the sensor (aberrations are well controlled).
Back in the film days I had a 50mm for my Nikon, I think it went to 1.8, and it wasn’t 1/4 the size of this thing. I’m still not getting it.
As apertures get wider in an autofocus lens, you need to be able to channel the extra light streaming towards the sensor properly. They do this by adding extra glass elements to the lens. These elements make sure that the image projected on the sensor are as correct as possible in comparison to what we see.
It’s a Distagon. I assume they are trying to achieve something similar to the Zeiss Otus lenses. If you consider the size compared to the 50mm Otus, and consider that the Sony has AF, it is actually quite small.
If you need a small prime the Loxia 35/2 and Sony 35/2.8 are spectacularly small.
While the size is big, I can now use this system for paid shoots. It still beats lugging around my 5d3 and L glass. I’m confident with the a7ii, 28, 35 (1.4) and 55 FE’s to get the shots I need.
I’ve been using NEX 7 and 5n for paid work for years.
I don’t understand what was so needed then that is matched now.
They have always been excellent systems.
I charge upwards of 5k per wedding because these clients look for a specific style of portraiture that only full frame fast glass can do. Does that make more sense to you? I’m not saying other systems can’t do a job for certain people, I was speaking on behalf of my line of work.
I do my weddings with the 50 and 135 zeiss. This 35 though, might have to add that to my routine.
That lack of completely uncompressed RAW really upsets a lot of the autistic userbase.
I’ve argued with people who prefers APS-C camera with uncompressed RAW, over a Full Frame camera with slightly compressed RAW.
Even if the compressed RAW ends up looking better, their autism won’t let go of the fact that it’s been slightly compressed.
Image quality doesn’t matter to them, they want that check box which gives them a peace of mind that something hasn’t been compressed.
LMFAO. Brilliant. I couldn’t have said that any better!
A lot of people suffer from the tragedy of autism, and it affects their families.
Your use of it as a synonym for people whom you simply disagree with is out of line.
Haha. That’s a great summary. Even if there was a choice I would still choose the setting that matched te current file as I’ve never ever seen a problem in any picture.
In my experience, the raw files from an a99 have noticeably more latitude in post than those out of a canon 1d-x particularly when bringing recovering overexposed shots. It’s a tad overblown and as the processors get better, no doubt 14bit will trickle over to all shooting modes and models.
Still, I prefer uncompressed RAW, because it’s obviously compressed (so to speak just “slight” compression”). Wish Sony gives us firmware update for this feature.
That is nicely written and captures the feeling that you can have for a lens that is unique in your eyes. I certainly felt that everything was an accessory to the Zeiss 135/1.8. I might transition out of the Sony system at one point but think that I’ll pretty much always have a 135/1.8 and whatever A-mount body just for it.
This.
CZ 135/1.8 is an absolute jewel. it’s amazing on A99… and it sings on A77II, 200mm at f2 on this crop body is just phenomenal with that new AF, even for moving subjects it’s such a joy to use. Portrait photog’s dream.
A real winner would have been a consistent design philosophy encompassing both the bodies and the lenses. I think this lens looks ridiculous. I wish they went for something similar to the 35mm summilux/summicron in terms of form factor.
I agree. There seems to be a randomness to the release of the full frame e-mount lenses. I have the 35mm/2.8 and it is a quality lens. Why would Sony then introduce another bigger 35mm lens instead of a good ultra-wide prime lens? Why not a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter for the fine 70-200 f4? Why the Rube Goldberg 28mm with the fisheye and ultra-wide attachments? The lenses will make or break the A7. Sony should have introduced an affordable small adapter to allow their full frame a-mount lenses to be used on the full frame e-mount cameras until they had a larger stable of native lenses available. The rollout has been too slow also.
this lens looks huge on a mirrorless, and so does the 16-35 and 24-70 f4. It makes me wonder perhaps APSC sensor size may be the right balance for the size of the camera and lens in the mirrorless system. I am not surprise if this lens is very good given the price Sony is asking.
Sony does really much to convince me to keep my hands far from its FF. 35mm prime is my all time favourite lens but I would never take this big fat hippo for shooting photoreports of people! I would scare away all creatures around.
What an idiot! Calling FE55 mediocre? That mediocre lens stands next to Otus, which wipes the floor with all your “excellent” lenses you can imagine.
For the price the lenses should be perfect, glad that they are
It’s about the same price as the Canon and Nikon 35 f1.4
It may be optically perfect or near perfect. But the huge size is not perfect.
Leica M lenses combine camparable optical perfection with compactness. However, they (e.g. Summilux 35 ASPH) cost tree times as much as the Zeiss.
BTW: What is called perfect today, is often called mediocre tomorrow.
Sony can make the lens half the size if it didn’t have auto focus.
Agreed but they could try better… This is HUGE !!!
AF usually adds to the diameter. The length is almost completely a result of the optical design. This lens would be a little less in diameter but the same length, which is still huge.
Look at the huge front element of this lens. I even doubt that the diameter would be smaller considering that huge front glass.
The Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM is indeed much smaller, almost Leica size. But what I read so far, it is very good but in no way at the same level of perfection (optically) as this huge FE version or the Summilux FLE.
me like my new Zeiss 35mm f4 that has bonus 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 and 34mm and all of them has f4 🙂
now it’s time for my next Zeiss: 35-105 f4.. can’t wait 🙂 come on Zony! give me 35-105 f4 ! 🙂
You’ll be waiting a long time.
I’m confused. I thought mediocrity ended with the velvety 56mm 1.6.
He must be speaking to his own mediocrity. Good for him, it’s finally over.
Speak for yourself, this guy has worked to achieve a lot of respect from many.
For the price and weight, I sure hope it ends…
Has anyone seen tests of Loxia 35mm vs. this Sony/Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4?
The size and the price suggests the f/1.4 should be better. But that Lozia lens is crazy good for its size, I really have a lot of respect for it, so I don’t know how they measure up to each other.
The Loxia is good but also only MF. A deal breaker for many people. I use MF a lot these days but I like the option of AF at times especially if I am going to be spending so much money.
I have both. Will try to post a comparison test soon.
From my initial impressions the Loxia holds up well, and its size is a huge plus. But in low light the 35/1.4 is just so much better.
I think they are very different lenses. The Loxia is a most convenient walk around lens with stunning IQ in a tiny package. The Sony 35/1.4 is a tool for a specific job, without compromises. It is a lens for when you need maximum sharpness, fast AF, and bright optics, as bright as possible. I can imagine using it all the time for shooting events and such, but I cannot imagine taking it with me on a holiday.
The 35mm and 55mm Sonnars are certainly not mediocre in anyone’s book. There are some full sized samples here that make that very clear:
http://thephotofundamentalist.com/?p=1103
I have yet to see a shot from the 55mm standard lens on the Pentax 645z that can match what the A7R and 55mm Sonnar can do right into the corners from near to far.
The 28mm f2 also looks to be a very good lens and even better value for money. While I am excited by this new Distagon, I hope Sony re-remembers what early adopters bought in: low weight and bulk. We need more compact lenses and I kindly request them to finish the job they began: developing lightweight, extremely high quality system for landscape, travel and documentary photographers.
I wouldn’t bother about some of his statements. Lloyd uses the same tricks like Ken Rockwell. Making overdone, biased, highly controversial statements that are even untrue sometimes (like this mediocrity BS), just to gain attention. To be fair, I have to admit, that Lloyd is much tamer than KR in that respect.
When he calls the lens perfect because of a real world shoot, it seems to me he confuses the lens capabilities with the perfection of the light and the subject (yes I’m talking about that hot girl). In other words the, shown portrait wouldn’t be less perfect if he would have used the FE 35/f2.8 or Loxia 35/f2. The background would be a liitle less blured, but otherwise it would be the same quality level.
Overall, I like Lloyd’s reviews, but from time to time you have to filter out some ridicolous statements in your brain.
You’re talking about his daughter. Creepy.
Every girl is someones daughter.
But maybe you are right. Who knows. She is still hot. LOL. But to be honest, I don’t care that much if someone calls me creepy for that. No big deal in my book.
Cheers!
She’s 11 years old last I heard.
What????? No way! Look at the 2nd image.
But nevertheless I didn’t know that. She looks way way older. So, what now? Does that make me creepy or not?
I’m confused. Very confused.
You spoke your mind. Someone else decided to make it creepy, which makes them the creep in my book.
Right, it’s just that male look upon the world, judging everything it observes by whether it might be a sex object or not. Nothing to worry about here, everything is perfectly normal, and who does worry is, of course, a ‘creep’, in the book of the normals. Thanks for confirming what is still my impression of the world in the 21st century.
Tom, I very much agree with your statement regarding compactness, lightweight, extremely high quality system for landscape, travel and documentary photographers. The new lenses are so heavy and bulky that I am wondering if this has not been forgotten…
I find the most fascinating aspect that there are so many criticisms of many of these lenses while huge plaudits from other quarters!
Indeed, you can read they are pin sharp, but very soft, perfect size, but huge, very expensive, but a bargain in comparison, etc.!
Very, very odd, but if there is anything to the old adage, ‘Don’t worry if people are talking about you, it’s when they’re not that you should be concerned!’ then Sony should be delighted.
Where is the uncompressed RAW? This is major con for not taking A7 to new high. I wish Sony gives us that by firmware update.
Cameras that support interchangeable lenses are systems. If the lens is superior and the camera has some fundamental flaws then the potential of the lens will never be realized. There are now two very good lenses for Sony’s mirrorless system, the 55mm and now this 35mm. It’s a shame that there’s not a Sony camera worthy of putting these lenses on at this time.
Excuse me, all people who have used these two lenses say, they are optically perfect, or at least, like you said, very good, BUT all of them used or tested these lenses on Sony cameras. How can you, or anyone else, know that these lenses are good/perfect if the camera is not?
Seriously, all praise the 55/1.8 and the new 35/1.4 and show tons of beautiful photos with flawless technical quality. With unworthy cameras? Sorry, it doesn’t make any sense.
The two best lenses in the world are the 55 and 85mm Otii. These lenses resolve 20% more detail on a Nikon D810 than a Sony A7r. There is also 10x the discrete color information in a Nikon file vs a Sony file. These 2 alone make a massive difference in Image Quality with the Nikon files vastly superior to the Sony in apples to apples testing.
Then why are you even here?
WOW…. so the sony system finally has 3 good lenses.
all others get two star ratings or less on photozone and other websites.
what a breakthrough sony!!!
35mm is your favorit? 1.4 too big? You are lucky, Sony has 3 more options for you to chose from! Tiny 2.8, handy 2.0 Zeiss Loxia, Sexy Sonar 2.0 RX1. Who knows, maybe curved 1.8 35mm RX2 coming soon for you? All FF of course. But if you don’t want, there are other daughters too..
50mm is standard focal length, 1.8 is slower, it wasn’t an autofocus. Even the old manual Nikkor 35mm 1.4 is already bigger than that 1.8 standard lens.
I get that. But even allowing for those factors – this thing is HUGE.
The lens is HUGE. Defeats the purpose of being a compact system
Too large and bulky for a compact system…
Gracie mille !!!!
As soon as I have a bit of cash I take it !!!
No. I never used the FE 55.
But if you need not autofocus, the Loxia is beautiful !
I created this account just to tell you I could not agree with you more. That lens is humongous
I agree. Solid state should be the goal wherever possible. I eagerly await a global shutter with flash sync at any speed. Losing the mirror and eventually the shutter should reduce weight and manufacturing costs while improving reliability. Quite simply solid state should be more durable than mechanical.
What he said wasn’t great, and he’d have been wise to keep it to himself, but he clearly didn’t know her age or relationship to the photographer. We differ only on what our definition of creep is.
Well, I didn’t want to endorse calling him a creep, that might have been a bit strong, but I wouldn’t go as far as calling the one who did a creep, either.