SLRgear tested the Zeiss 35mm FE lens and writes:
Optically, this lens is a stellar performer, as many Zeiss lenses are, with very sharp images on both the new full-frame cameras as well as sub-frame Sony cameras. Other factors like chromatic aberration and distortion are practically nonexistent with this lens, but there is some vignetting and a minor amount of corner softness, particularly on full-frame cameras at wider apertures — a pretty small price to pay for outstanding performance otherwise.
Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS T* Review at ePhotozine.
Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Lens Review at ePhotozine.
Zeiss 55mm lens tested at SonyAlphaLab.
Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens – First Impressions at Soundimagesplus.
P.S.: SLRgear title via Imaging Resources partner site.
Zeiss 35mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT,
Zeiss 55mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
0 Responses
I find it so surprising at how small the front element of this lens is.
not surprising if you look at the Zeiss biogon or comparable M-mount primes
You can screw a 49mm filter to it, and call it the new first element. Now that’s big!!
Nothing was told about famous “halo” effect?
apparently non apparent 🙂 , one of those flaws, only to be measured in very special laboratory circumstances, largely exaggerated and highly magnified by people who have interest in doing so: competitors, trolls… welcome to FUD-world!
Actually it’s probably because they tested on an a7r. My understanding is it’s only noticeable on the a7 at night…
Seen only on a full moon…At high tide…When Venus is in transit…and then only by blind Peruvian llamas…
Im not sure who observed this and how but very sharp lenses can show rings (airy disks) around bright points… happens with telescopes when looking at stars. All it means is that everything is really good.
I love this lens on the A7. Close focussing could be a bit better though, therefore I still love the E24mm F1.8 and also use it for lowlight. I’d only give up both lenses for a FE35mm F1.8 with closer focus capabilities 😉
+1
I miss how the 24/1,8 Sonnar could focus almost an inch away from the front element.
OTOH, I have discovered that the 30/2.8 DT Macro is actually quite usable on full frame – corners are slightly dark but reminds me of my 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA Vario-Sonnar at 16mm with a filter on.
To be fair creating a prime that starts at F2.8 is a lot less challenging than a faster alternative. If you look at the competition at F2.8 the Canon 35mm f2 with IS does better , and the Sigma 35mm F1.4 does better still.
The downside of the 35mm is its price it costs considerably more than the Canon which is faster and has IS built in , it is also about £70 more expensive than the Sigma F1.4. I am happy to pay a premium for a lens if its abilities justify it. I am delighted with my 55mm F1.8 { a real gem} ,pleased with my A7R but the 35mm and especially the 24-70 I am not so sure about.Though obviously the 35mm has size on its side.
You need IS on a 35mm lens? What is the world coming to? The camera has to do ALL the work?
Would you say the same when people put any lens on a in-body stabilised Sony DSLT or a Pentax?
The effectiveness of IS in the 35/2 IS is unbelievable… I have it as well as the much more compact FE 35/2.8 but prefer the Canon one on the a7r.
So… don’t talk about what you don’t know.
I have been using cameras since the 70s and I am amazed at how almost completely helpless modern photographers are.
Still you get to do what you want.
I don’t think you can make comparisons like that. Apples and oranges.
My feeling is that Sony will release two series of primes. I think there will be one set of f/1.8 primes similar to the 55/1.8, and then I think Sony will make a set of very compact f/2.8 primes similar to this 35/2.8.
f/2.8 lenses like the 35/2.8 are intended to compete with other compact mirrorless systems. Keep in mind this lens is equivalent with 17/1.4 on micro four thirds and 24/1.8 on Fuji X or other APS-C systems. The Sony lens blows the micro four thirds and APS-C lenses out of the water, while being roughly the same size if you look at an OM-D with 17/1.8 attached. The comparison with the Fuji 24/1.4 at Steve Huff Photo is quite mind boggling.
I sold my Olympus 17/1.8 for $500 and picked up the Sony for $570. The difference in IQ is spectacular. None of the Canon/Sigma lenses give me a package this compact.
Comparing it with the Fuji 23mm F/1.4 makes a lot of sense. It gives you the same FOV, about 1 stop better DOF capabilities, 2 stop better light gathering capabilities, and generally the same IQ. The 23mm F/1.4 is a phenomenal lens in terms of sharpness, the quality of the out of focus areas, and almost all characteristics, just like this Zeiss lens. The light gathering capability means that when you have enough DOF at F/1.4 (events shots, full body shots, etc.)you can shoot at two stops lower ISO.
What you’d shoot at ISO 12800 on the A7r, you could shoot at ISO 3200 on a Fuji body. This negates the full frame advantage of the A7r + 35mm Zeiss combo for low-light work (events, street photography). I shoot the Nikon d800 with is basically the same sensor, and I see about 1, 1.5 stop advantage in terms of low light capabilities than my d7000. The new Fujis have a better sensor than the aging (now close to 3 year old) SONY used in my d7000.
Disclaimer: I don’t own either Fuji or SONY bodies at the moment. Had a chance to play around with a NEX-6 which I likes, and a Fuji XE-2 (which I liked even more). But I don’t think I’m going to spend on a Nikon when the time comes to replace my d7000. I’m looking at both SONY and FUJI offerings, because I think they are quickly becoming each other’s main competitors. So far, FUJI seems to have a better package for my needs, mainly because of their stellar support and their more complete APS-C lens lineup. The 23mm F/1.4 is part of that, so don’t be surprised if others compare it with this new Zeiss. Price-wise, they are not that far, and in terms of capabilities (both lens vs lens and system vs system) the Fuji lens has the advantage.
SONY should have priced this lens around $600 to be more competitive.
The Fuji would give you about 1 stop better light gathering, assuming no transmission losses like the Zeiss (doubtful). We’re talking total amount of light here, not light per unit area, since the areas illuminated are differently sized.
I was giving you 2 stops from a practical perspective, when subject distance allows for enough DOF at F/1.4. In these cases, you can shoot at 2 stops lower ISO or better shutter speed. Most low-light event shooting would benefit from this. After all, in terms of DOF the Fuji at F/1.4 is the rough equivalent of F/2.2 in 35mm terms.
No, from a practical perspective, one of those two stops is lost due to extra noise, if we take overstated ISO’s and RAW smoothing into account (Fuji’x X-trans sensors are then roughly the equivalent of regular 16MP APS-C Sony Bayer sensors).
In the end it’s all about the amount of photons and that’s what I’m talking about.
“I’m looking at both SONY and FUJI offerings, because I think they are quickly becoming each other’s main competitors.”
I agree with this. I have been checking out Fuji, as well as the A7/R.
I actually like the A7/R body, but the lens offering is lame, and using screw-drive A-mount lenses on it via adapter is unacceptable to me.
So for me it’s FE body + FE lenses vs X body + X lenses.
Right now, it’s Fuji in the lead, and I don’t see Sony FE catching up any time soon–so it will be Fuji X vs Sony A-mount for me.
One thing, the Fuji lenses are essentially all metal, but I find them to be remarkably light–which for me isn’t desirable. I like the heavy old A-mount glass, it is more stable in my hands (I never use anything larger than the 200/2.8, and usually only 100 macro and below).
There are plenty excellent A mount lenses that are not screw driven, for example from Sigma.
Maybe, but they still require an adapter, whereas the Fuji lenses do not. Point for Fuji.
Plus, I have lots of excellent glass that IS screw-driven which requires an even more complex adapter, which is a second reason for me to not be interested in mounting A-mount lenses to the A7/R.
Well, if you do have so many excellent screw driven lenses, the Fujifilm isn’t going to do anything for them at all.
The net benefit to me of using A-mount glass on the A7/R would be minimal and certainly not worth the cost, both monetary and functional.
Sacrificing them if I go Fuji is an acceptable cost, considering that I could either save them to use with film kit or sell them, and considering also that there is reason to believe that the Fuji system has a future, whereas neither the A-mount nor FE can reasonably be considered to have anywhere near as promising a future.
Of course I don’t WANT to give it up, which is why I hold out hope for the coming native A-mount body. But this is the very last time I wait, I really want things like live view in my top kit, and I have waited too long for a Sony I find acceptable.
I have been using cameras since the 70s and I am amazed at how almost completely helpless modern photographers are.
Still you get to do what you want.
Hm, it looks ok, but looking at the results it doesn’t look like a stellar perfomer. Look at the Sigma at 2.8, that’s much better in the corners – of course the Sigma is much larger and heavier, so probably Sony/ Zeiss went for a compromise. But if I invest in a 36 MP camera, do I want such a compromise?
Are you looking at the Sigma tested on a Canon? That’s a lot less challenging for their type of test than a 36 MP sensor.
35mm f2.8 slow for a prime very slow actually. Not hard to make a sharp 35mm prime.
I agree the Sigma spanks this and is far faster, that’s the lens to get. Why anyone would want an f2.8 35mm lens for £700 is a mystery to me, you can bag the sigma for less.
Mr. Positive is here to brighten up SAR once again.
To use the Sigma with an A7(R) you need to attach the LA-EA4 adapter. By the time you have finished, it won’t be much smaller or lighter than a DSLR.
The Sigma and Sony 35s are very different lenses for a different set of requirements.
According to tests done by Roger Cicala, the FE 35mm easily outresolves the Sigma both in the center and in corners at f/2.8 on a 36MP sensor.
I googled for the lensrentals numbers and only found separate pages with 770 mtf50 for Sigma corners and on another page with 695 mtf50 for the Zeiss – also in the corner, both at f/2.8. However otherwise the Zeiss outresolved the Sigma considerably. But maybe the Sigma would also profit from the Zeiss sensor, the test I found seemed to predate the A7R.
According to the test he did on the D800, the Sigma scored at f/2.8:
1171 center, 575 corner average
The FE Zeiss scored at f/2.8:
1320 center, 695 corner average
You’re looking at a test on a Canon sensor, which is incomparable since the Canon sensors tend to yield better corner performance (and worse center performance for having lower absolute resolution).
OKi, thanks.
Price is high! canon 35mm f2 is f2 with Image stabilisator and probably faster af speed. Sharpeness is only one factor.
so we need 28 or 35mm f2 OSS
(Another Triumph of Sharpness for Sony)
Did you even read the review before you put up such a title?????
There’s some slight corner softness, however, at all apertures when used on a full-frame camera, but overall it’s fairly minor. Using this lens on a sub-frame body significantly reduces softer corners, which is to be expected.
I believe they’ve mentioned SOFTNESS at all apertures. And this is designed to be FF lens.
If have yet to see any outstanding photo that needed the corners to be critically sharp or was ruined by very soft corners. In fact many people add vignetting to increase the attention to the central performance.
It all depends on your type of photography. Why do you think the Otus is so large and heavy, they sacrificed everthing to make the perfect 55mm lens and sharp corner to corner.
and to answer you question: Architecture and Landscape photographers want that sharpness corner to corner.
Architecture and landscape photographers who are worth their salts won’t even shoot with these bodies. So no reason to make that an argument about the lenses. It’s like saying a stock prius won’t do well on the le man’s track but modding it here and there will improve it… who cares when it’s not going to the race any way? 🙂
You are right genotypewriter, I totally made a mistake by dumping my DSLR system and going for this system.
BTW my original point was that the title is absolutely misleading comparing to what’s written in the review. ANOTHER TRIUMPH OF SHARPNESS
@Ahmad: landscape and architectural photographers shoot stopped down so soft corners wide open isn’t really an issue. Besides, if you are a landscape or architectural photographer for a living, you wouldn’t be buying this lens – you’ll be either buying a PC or TS lens, or if you’re really serious, a bellows system to get full camera and lens movements.
Why react negatively to a positive news???
Price is simply rediculous….PASS
If it was a good perfomer price wouldn’t be an issue, so me too PASS
Price is definitely not outrageous!! For good glass I would say it was borderline cheap. Any really good glass under $1500 is a steal.
I’m willing to pay serious cash for good glass. I own mostly Zeiss lenses. As far as thing goes—-pass. It has obvious performance shortcomings and it isn’t fast- at least not in my book.
Those who claim there are “paid Canon trolls” who post FUD in Sony forums are just being silly. (/sarc)