Sony Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lens review – for Sony Alpha 7 cameras
So far according to Amazon Lens sales ranking the new Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is the “less” preordered of the four new lenses. It may have to do with the high price tag and with the fact that there are only very few tests seen with this lens yet. So let’s sum up what we know so far:
1) On top you see the video review from Whatdigitalcamera. They like the lens although they say it’s not perfect as it has some vignetting at wider aperture (but that may be something people likes to have).
2) Steve Huff (Click here) previewed the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens and writes:
For me, this is TRULY the 1st native “WOW” lens for the Sony full frame FE system. It easily surpasses the 55 1.8 for me as well as the 35 2.8 that I have been using since the launch of the A7 system, and those are both beautiful lenses when it comes to image quality. The 35 1.4 has such a beautiful character and rich rendering.
3) Amateur Photographer (Click here) tested the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens and writes:
Optically it isn’t perfect, but the chromatic aberration is slight and I would actually rate the vignetting as a nice feature. In terms of resolution this lens is difficult to fault, and it is certainly one of the sharpness lenses we have tested for the Alpha 7 series, although the 90mm f/2.8 macro lens looks like it may well offer some competition on that front.
Having used the Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lens for a few days, I am left with the impression that this is a lens with character. From the resolution and bokeh to the build quality and aperture ring, this lens has a certain something about it that makes it stand out from the generic 35mm lenses that roll off production lines.
4) MTF graph and image samples can be seen on that SonyAlphaRumors post. And full size image samples at Dpreview.
The lens certainly has a very good optical performance. My only drawback is the size. But that’s because I personally prefer smaller and less intrusive lenses when doing street photography. If you do landscape, wedding or studio shooting this will certainly not be an issue.
All new FE lens preorder links:
In USA at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, 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 at:
Sony 24-240mm FE lens at Digitalrev.
70 Responses
Are there any sony lens that Steve Huff doesn’t like at all?
Are there any posts where you don’t sound like an idiot?
Actually, ironically – he is no big fan of the 55/1.8 (calls it too clinical).
Not a big fan is relative though… he did call it a superb and fantastic lens when reviewing the A7 and A7r… I do agree that within the context of Sony he usually uses more otherworldly superlatives 🙂
I agree, it is a superb and fantastic lens. Unless you are looking for a vintage character lens. For what it claims to be, it delivers the goods.
It’s got cat eyes bokeh wide open. It’s got razor sharp bokeh in the corners. I prefer the planar design, but it’s all about taste. The Huffster has that fancy Leica glass stuff- I think it affects his judgement.
Yes, I think it’s definitely the price that’s keeping it from being a top seller. In fact, I wouldn’t ever expect sales of this lens to be high… but having a fast 35 is something that will help draw people to the system.
For example, there are probably lots of people who dream of owning the Nikon 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 85 f1.4. (or Canon’s f1.2 trinity). It might take them a long time to buy/afford those lenses (if they ever do) but simply knowing that ‘they’re out there’ is a reason for some to consider buying into the system.
Looks like a very good lens, on par with the best competition. However, it’s huge size and weight ( well, also the price… ) make it a no-no for me!
I think one would have to REALLY need that f/1.4 for the lens to be worth it for many. It certainly looks to be an outstanding lens that undoubtedly creates nice, sharp images. However, so does the 35mm f/2.8, and for half the price (and size). For shooters that can get by with the f/2.8, it’s a no-brainer.
that would explain the lack of an executioner in a hood with a giant axe standing at your door forcing you to buy the 1.4 if the 2.8 is sufficent for you.
I know you were trying really hard to be witty there, and kudos to you for the attempt. However, you seem to be dismissing a complaint that was never made. I never suggested that the 1.4 was overpriced/sized, only that it would be for someone who doesn’t really need that 1.4 aperture, as the 2.8 is also a stellar lens for much less. For those who do need/want it, it will surely be well worth the money. But please, do explain how complimenting both lenses makes me a whiner; I eagerly await your reply.
i dont know, the comment practically typed it self. it was realy more of a you understood, than just a plain old you. perhaps i perceived what you typed as redundant asfafas who should and shouldnt buy it, and i just made a what i found to be a comical jab? i for one GREATLY welcome the 1.4 as the 35 2.8 cant even see my cat inside the house and she gets very impatient with me holding her poses. just the other day she got very prissy because it was taking me to long to release the shutter and she knocked my statue into the brick wall, (which now, thanks to the sharp but slow 2.8, has a chip taken out of it and i dont even know if i can accurately measure real world pincushion distortion anymore..)
strongly agree. a satisfied owner of the f35/2.8, I am in no rush whatever to pick up one of these babies. Then again, if I wanted a fast 35, there’s always the Rokinon (although being manual focus, that one isn’t for everybody) for like a *quarter* of the price…
then again, as our smart ass friend here pointed out, choice is a good thing, for sure..
I’ll grab the 35mm 2.8 at some point. Seems like a sweet lens at a decent price. Size is a throw in.
Definitely happy with mine – every time I use it I’m wowed it (sharpness and rendering). For the size and price, it’s easy to just throw it in your camera bag.
Shot a lot of nice pics today with my Nikon F1.4, it cost me $150 including the novoflex adapter. It is 1/3 the size of the Sony even with adapter, will be fun to compare the two.
“cost me $150,… 1/3 the size” Are you talking about the 50mm AFS NIKKOR? Why are you comparing a 35mm to a 50mm?
Why have you never heard of a 35mm F1.4 from Nikon?
???
this is the current nikor 35/1.4
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-35mm-f14G—Specifications
you forgot to add one 0 to the price. The weight/size is quite similar
He is probably referring to an older Nikon lens (possibly MF) available used for around $150. The vintage ones tend to be small.
so I bothered to look a bit, and the vintage nikon MF lens goes for around 400$. An in no universe is the lens 1/3 the size (400g, 70mm long, so app. 2/3 the size)
Yes, 1/3 smaller is 2/3 of the size? I don’t see your problem?
ok, another misread from me 😀 I shouldnt write comments in the middle of the night 🙂
I will try to write less cryptic posts next time and explain more detail 🙂
Nice fact checking, LVW what is your rebuttal?
The dumbest comparison ever, if you’re happy with your POS cheap lens that’s fine. Stop with the absurd comparisons.
Great, another uninformed abusive commenter. I guess I got lucky getting the lens for $100 I see it listed on ebay for $800 these days. Maybe next time you use this google thing before trying to sound like you know something.
As for comparison, like I said: looking forward to a chance to actually compare the two. I know it’s hard to read more then 140 char. but you know, I’m oldskool, I do whole sentences.
Your comments are disgusting, please learn how to use proper grammar.
Maybe you should learn that international websites come with international users? Does your comment imply you are back to the abusive nasty crap comments? If you have a problem with people not writing perfect English grammar, you might start complaining to Admin first.
Not really. Fast expensive glass like this is great for critical work. It increases a pro’s work flow by cutting the time down in PP. However, it’s suprising how close or even how often you can match much cheaper options out there. That’s if you are willing to put the work in. Just depends. This is a beast of a lens though.
Very true, it is why I have a selection of 50’s and 35’s with specific “moods”. But I tend to use the nikon the most, which is why I used it as an example. The new 35 looks really good but I’m not sure I want to be stuck with anything e-mount only at the moment until the Sony roadmap is clearer. (a9 / pro body& A7SII)
Agreed, it’d be a fun comparison, but we all know how it will look. The Sony will be easily better, mostly at the widest settings, but at the same time it won’t be ten times better. I also find adapting to be a great solution.
Perhaps it will be technically better but the look of this old AI-s 35 is so nice I sold my funky Canon 35, 2.0IS and 16-35 because of this lens.
AI S is 400g and 70mm long. So 1/3 is nonsence…its 2/3 of the sony size. Furthermore, the lens goes for around 400$, you should get your fats right before posting….
Are you trying to tell me I didn’t pay $100 for the lens, because that would be really weird.
now its 100, not 150 anymore? Anyway, sorry I misread your post, I took it like youre trying to say that the general lens price is 150. It obviously isnt.
Anyway what about the 1/3 size nonsense? No comment to that?
$50 is for the novoflex adapter, I said exactly this: “Shot a lot of nice pics today with my Nikon F1.4, it cost me $150 including the novoflex adapter.”
Yes I got lucky with that lens, but I bought it 8 years ago.
It makes me wonder whether Sony has a certain strategy for their lenses, like F4 zooms, F2.8 primes, F1.8 primes, F1.4 primes and Macro lenses, or are they just randomly making 28/2, 35/1.4, 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 90/2.8.
The F4 zooms seem like a purposefully built lens range from UWA to Telephoto. I hope that there will be a 2.8 prime range as well, to keep size down, as well as expensive 1.4s and cheap 1.8s, just like other brands have. At least having these in 24 to 85 range would be great.
Right now it looks random.
Next year will be the special edition DSLR sized A7 and a lens roadmap of nothing but huge .95’s and 1.4’s as far as the eye can see.
The DPreview samples are somewhat short of impressive. I would actually call them disappointing…..
So far we have no clue of the lens performance and given the super steep price I see no reason to even consider that lens ahead of the Sigma 35/1.4 that is already proven
Let me give you the reasons.
1. LA-EA4 adapter. It slows AF down to a crawl in low light. Kinda defeats shooting a fast prime in low light. Added weight and volume of the adapter means heavier and more bulky than the new Zeiss.
2. AF Speed – see above. Add to that, the ability to shoot AF natively with 4D tracking on models that support it (The A7II doesn’t officially but it performs similar to the A6000 within the PDAF zone)
3. More AF points with the native Zeiss
4. Clickless aperture for video
5. Aperture ring on lens for those that approve
That list doesn’t even speak to image quality. Based on the shallow DOF images on Huff, I clearly prefer the bokeh and overall rendering of the Zeiss to the Sigma. My preference is of course subjective but there are plenty of samples on his site that make an evaluation possible – whether you care for his “enthusiasm” or photography.
Sigma + LA-EA4 = 825g 4.7″ Length
Sony SAL 35mm 1.4 G + LA-EA4 = 670g 4″ Length
Sony Zeiss FE = 630g 4.4 Length
The Sigma combination would be a beast even compared to the new Zeiss. The relatively small SAL 35mm 1.4 G lens that I use is even heavier than the Zeiss when paired with the adapter.
Being very comfortable with the size and weight of the 35 G on my A7s and A7II, the new Zeiss is going to be an improvement.
seriously, why does he have to spell out the whole word “zeiss distagon T-star FE 35mm f/1.4 lens” like ten times in this short review. like we would’nt know which 35 lens he was refering to otherwise.. jeez..
i want all new FE lenses DXOmarked and photozoned. all other “reviews” are total bullsiht… or simply paid/fens bullsiht.
I find Diglloyd more useful, and he recently announced be reviewing the lenses once he gets his hands on them. Possibly the only site I trust to give a meaningful technical lens review backed by practical knowledge of photography. Every other site I’ve found just looks at MTF across a flat plane at a set distance and leaves you to guess at how a lens actually performs in practice.
Please send me a free lens to review: I will give it a very good non-technical review saying it has beautiful character and is the “best thing” since the last “best thing” that you sent me.
Did anyone watch that What Digital Camera video? Is it just me or does it seem like that guy has no idea what he’s talking about…? “The reason for all of this glass is that there’s a short distance between the back of the lens and the sensor.” What? Also, “It’s the first lens for a7 that has a built-in aperture ring.” Seems like he’s forgotten the Loxia range? And he clearly has no idea why clickless aperture control is useful. How is this guy deputy editor??
Its not just you 🙂
I am not an expert in optics, this short flange distance confuses me also. I thought it supposed to be better choice for compact wide angle lenses, with no retrofocal elements? Yet, all WA lenses for E mount are retrofocal design and big. The Sigma CEO or something also said that e mount itself is complicating the process of lens making….
About aperture ring, its clear he is clueless.
I don’t think you clearly understand what he’s saying. Short distance need more telecentric design (more glass and longer lens) so you have a more digital-friendly angle of incident (close to vertical). And yes, this is the first Sony FE lens with clickless aperture design. And the guys did a demonstration as to why clickless aperture is useful for video. It seems to me he understands it better than you.
I think that if they had released this before the 28-135 f4, it would be selling much better. The speed, aperture ring, and “new actuators” don’t seem to outshine the added size, weight, price, and cost especially since there’s a 35 2.8 out there already.
Selling much better? It’s not even out yet!
Impressive, but only reason I won’t buy it is because no mechanical manual focus ability
You won’t get that with af e mount sony
PZ28-135 G has it for example, but yeah I understand – different market consumer profile.
Pretty sure the macro is mechanical focus
You get a aperature control. You get amazing performance. Soon all these lenses will be fly by wire.
Oh boy, this lens needs full manual focus control. Focus pulling is a pain in the ass with these lenses.
Why doesn’t Sony make a 24-240 prime? It would work great on my A6000 professional Sony camera. You NikComicon boys and your stoopid SLDRs should go somewhere elses.
FE 35 2.8
FE 55 1.8
wasn’t the next one supposed to be FE 85 1.8 ??
And then after good portrait prime 21 or 24 f2
And then 135 f2.8
agree with you on the list.
1. 21mm f2.8 OSS
2. 35mm f2.8 or f2
3. 55mm f1.8
4. 85mm f1.8
5. 135mm f2.8 OSS
I like your thinking. HOw about a 17mm 2.8 in there.
Sure milkyway photographers will love you if sony listened to you 🙂 but I have no problem at all if it was 17 f4
just wondering. I think I will risk it with having one oversized beast in my E-lineup
Anyway, weighwise its identical to my 85/1.4 A mount, which is the ONE lens giving me the WOW pictures..so might be a sign to go for it 😀
If you want the one lens giving you that WOW factor look no further. Drum roll please….curtains up……135mm 1.8!
It looks worthy.
I think this lens…..when the history books are written….will go down as the final nail that sealed the A mount coffin. It should have been an A mount. It shocked everyone when- suprise- it’s FE. DONE.
Sony’s stated it will update all of the ZA and G-Series lenses for the A-Mount. I’d rather get the 35mm G2 for my A-Mount. The “Minolta Blue” color rendition is superior on the 35mm G.
previous 35G is inherited from Minolta. high end short lens will be branded by Zeiss.