All images via Pantip.
Those are the first image samples that have been taken with the new Sony FE 28mm f/2.0 lens that will be announced within the next few hours (5-6am London time). They have been posted by Pantip and the resolution of the images is low. But you can still get a very raw first impression of a sharp lens with pleasant bokeh.
Preorders:
In USA at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
Sony 24-240mm FE at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here).
Sony Fisheye Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here).
Sony Ultra-Wide Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 Adorama (Click here).
Sony Fisheye Converter for E 16mm F/2.8 and E 20mm F/2.8 Adorama (Click here).
Sony Ultra-Wide Fisheye Converter for E 16mm F2.8 and E 20mm F2.8 Adorama (Click here).
In Europe at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony FR, Sony IT, Sony ES, Sony NL, Sony BE, Sony AT, Sony CH, Sony SE, Sony FI, Sony NO, Sony PT.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony FR, Sony IT, Sony ES, Sony NL, Sony BE, Sony AT, Sony CH, Sony SE, Sony FI, Sony NO, Sony PT.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony FR, Sony IT, Sony ES, Sony NL, Sony BE, Sony AT, Sony CH, Sony SE, Sony FI, Sony NO, Sony PT.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony FR, Sony IT, Sony ES, Sony NL, Sony BE, Sony AT, Sony CH, Sony SE, Sony FI, Sony NO, Sony PT.
104 Responses
LOL Tamrong@siammirrorless.com, probably family of Tamron.
Looking good
28/2 + ultra wide = ? mm
21 mm
thanks
The Amazon links are no longer working. Looks like Amazon has taken them down, until tomorrow.
Well, bokeh looks somewhat nervous and harsh :-/
pleasant…for a 28mm lens. I’m not sure that any lens this wide have particularly pleasant bokeh. It always varies dramatically based on the background and the distance between the subject and the background.
Yeah, you could be right about (u)wide/fisheye lenses. Still, it doesn’t change the fact. I even looked at the site, and wherever there is noticeable bokeh on the pics, it is distractingly ugly.
that is simply a subjective perspective, IMHO me Gusta, reminds me much of my canon fd 24mm
The bokeh looks fine for a wide angle lens, keep in mind that these images were shot in the real world. Not nagi’s fantasy land.
ive always loved the usage of the term “nervous bokeh” its like what haters say when they cant find anything wrong with the image quality, but they just cant say anything nice and still must find somehting to bitch about or their head will explode, so they bitch about the blur of the background. 🙂
If you follow the link to the original story, there are additional photos on the bottom with the 21mm ultra-wide converter (not the fish-eye). They are surprisingly free of distortion in one of the architecture shots. Don’t know if in-camera or post corrections were made but the images show promise.
Overall, the 28/2 is looking very good. Sharp with nice bokeh for a 28mm. Reminiscent of the Minolta AF 28/2 maybe?
The bokeh is very rough, which can be hard to tell on these small images, but, it’s very much expected for a lens with so many aspherical elements. Asphericals just wreck bokeh.
However, it’s a good sign it will be relatively sharp. I do think it will be a good lens for the money and size.
Also, the photographer says the images are camera JPEGs.
I wouldn’t call it rough, not for a wide angle but we will soon know more when more samples arrive. Definitely not a cream machine but did anyone expect it to be? What I do like is the lack of outlining within the bokeh in the last shot – there is some but I have seen much worse in much more expensive lenses.
I am definetely not a nikon fanboy and own only sony camera a rx 100III but the bokeh of the nikkor 28 1.8 @ f2 looks much better less rough and harsh…..its strange even the new nikkor 35 1.8 ed fx cannot compete with the nikkor 28s bokeh (which is surprisingly good) and is worser despite being a slightly longer focal length…but maybe some more samples of sonys 28 2 fe lens as raw files will clarify the situation…..
I wouldn’t draw conclusions yet – although my early personal take on it is very positive. I was looking through Flickr and saw some less than impressive bokeh shots from the Nikkor 28/1.8 in similar dark conditions with specular highlights. They were downright nasty. Now does that mean that this new Sony will be better @ f2? There is no way we can make that determination with a handful of samples in a dark temple so we’ll just have to wait.
For its design and price, I think it’s acceptable, but, that doesn’t make it good. No point in grading on a curve. The biggest issue (besides the roughness from the aspherical elements) is that the background bokeh “splits” and in the candle sample image it’s very apparent and ugly. But, whether this shows will depend on the content. Anyway, I would probably not buy this lens for its blur, but, would buy it for its price and size.
It’s not a given. The RX1 has a pretty complicated design with asphericals, and it has some of the best bokeh of any 35mm I’ve seen.
Does’t seems very good, especially with the converter. Let we wait for better photos…
The only photos that look questionable to me are the fish-eye converted ones, but I’m not a fan of fish-eyes.
The standard 28/2 and the 21mm converted shots look great, given the lighting conditions and heavy specular highlights in some of the photos (usually challenging for 28mm). Anxious to see more samples in good light but this is already a pre-order for me.
regarding the fish eye stuff – raw data + a proper lens correction profile would result in much better images i guess.
Lens correction for a fisheye?
Browsing through the report I found the images looked very good, some excellent.
Brick wall samples or don’t bother!
And cats.
Lol, they added them on the official page! Brick wall seems a little close, though.
“with pleasant bokeh.”
The author has serious eye problems
Yeah, bokeh is pretty busy. Still I’m yet to encounter wide lens with reliably good bokeh and other optical parametres at the same time. Zeiss 24/2 for A-mount has decent (not great) bokeh often (not always), but sometime fails to deliver optical results I expect; comparing to Minolta 200mm HS APO and Minolta 85/1.4 G D which are consistently outstanding (on a900). Outstanding except focusing on 85 🙂
I think this is more suited for a video use. An autofocus with big aperture wide angle lens will be very nice for gliding on A7S/A7II! For stills… the contrast quality and bokeh rendering is not that good but for its price I think it’s OK.
There’s really nothing like Zeiss quality lenses. I hope Sony will just stick with making high quality lenses for their full frame E-mount.
I agree with you ! This bokeh is not great at all ! And it does not look that sharp either ! Just contrasty and saturated color, that’s it !
The back bokeh looks better than the front bokeh. If this was a G lens I would be disappointed.
Bokeh is a result of the lens, not the sensor, and should therefore not be considered when looking at a photo.
I like my bokeh just like I like my women- harsh and nasty.
Nothing will ever come close to Nikon’s 28mm F2.8 AIS lens. That thing is perfection. Not a bad attempt from Sony though.
Isnt there a Zeiss 28mm? 🙂
i hope your wrong i want to replace it with this one.
you can´t tell anything from resized image…. and teh boke looks meh.
Based on the lens design, it’s definitely going to be “meh” but, the lens is likely fairly sharp for such a small lens otherwise. Since it’s only 28mm f/2, you’re not going to get all that much bokeh during normal use, only these unusually close up shots, in which case you can always stop down a bit 🙂
I think overall this will be a very good lens for portability’s sake. Brighter than the Zeiss 35/2.8 and half the price. I’ll probably pick one up one day when it’s on sale.
‘Based on the lens design, it’s definitely going to be “meh”‘
Perhaps you could explain how you came to that conclusion?
Sure. The lens has many aspherical elements which are known for adding the “onion” effect into bokeh circles. The way this manifests in actual images depends on the content, but, it generally gives a roughness to the bokeh. Since it’s not a zoom lens, the impact won’t be horrible, but, it will be there.
In reality, it’s often the lenses with less corrective optical elements that have the best bokeh, for better or worse. Unless you get into much more expensive lens designs, that is.
Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning.
I’m holding judgement on this lens until there’s some decent high res examples to have a look at.
55 1.8 has that funky onion affect going on which is why I pass.
Bokeh=Boring
Is the FishEye Converter compatible with the FE 1,8/55mm?
No. It is built for this one lens only.
God no! Dont tell me you wanna ruin that great lens with a cr@ppy converter.
What??
If the bayonets are the same then it would work, but you’ll just get a heavily distorted 55…one stop slower.
28/2 = 28 + 2 = 30 – 0 = 3 = Half Life 3 confirmed!
TIL; 30 – 0 = 3
with your maths I am sure you can get from 28/2 to 666 as well …
I can get from 28 to 666, if that’s okay:
28 = 2+8 = 3+7 = 37
37 x (11+7) = 37 x 18 = 666
So if we divide it by 2, because you only used 28
666/2 = 333 so we are safe 🙂
Those pictures look good, nevertheless it is too expensive (with converters) and no OSS for APS user
Yeah right, and if it had OSS someone else would say its too large.
So… he uses the pre-production model with the shiny plastic ring on front… right? I guess optically they haven’t changed anything though.
I don’t like the fish eye at all (the effect itself). And I don’t think the 21 will be very sharp… but I think the 28mm is a nice buy for anyone on a budget.
I’m more interested in the 35mm focal length though… looking forward to some serious raw samples of the Distagon!
they should have made it 24mm, then the converters would make sense. now you just get 21mm, which is not that wide. better on the aps-c line, where you get 18mm equiv. with converter.
but still, allone the 28mm seems a good choice. f/2 is good and it’s small.
Yup, if the converter maintained the aperture, or stayed the same diameter as the 28 (either would be fine), I’d be satisfied, but now I’d probably only get the 28 and not the UW converter.
I think you got 19 with the half frame, besides it’s probably actually close to 20 in terms of actual focal length.
That said this 21 would probably end up a 22 if we’re lucky, and 23-24 if we’re unlucky.
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy-oh boy!!
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy-oh boy!! … I wonder what are you complaining about …
Is he complaining? I don’t think so.
You cannot call that a ” creamy ” bokeh for sure !
Well, I disagree that these samples show nervous bokeh “for a 28mm” but I don’t agree with your statement. Bokeh is a subjective component of IQ but you can be objective in your assessment of the type of bokeh. Nervous vs. creamy or smooth, bokeh fringing, bokeh shape, quality of transition zones – front and back etc. If you don’t want to be a bokeh nerd that’s fine but bokeh is something with variance that can be evaluated and appreciated in various forms.
aww i was just ballbustin. no harm meant. i felt the images looked pretty sharp and clean. to me, the couple shots shown are not the best circumstances to pass to much judgement for bokeh, yet. im just trying to stay positive until we get some more samples.
Yup. Haters gonna hate around here.
The wine tasters have their bouquet, we have our bokeh. Subjective, but still possible to discuss with the use of a common terminology.
true
I have 55/1.8 with A7II and want to add only one wide lens for nature / general photography. Should I buy Fe 35/2.8 or 16-35/4 or this new 28/2? While having 55/1.8, does it make sense to add 35/2.8?
Try this focal length simulator and then decide for yourself:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/
There is a similar one on the Fuji site as well.
I guess CaNikon are still useful 😉
P.s.: I’m a “prime lenses” kind of guy, so if I were you I’ll get the 28; I often take off with only a 24 or 28mm and a 50 or 85mm. BUT I’m not you so I don’t know how and what you take pictures of, and more importantly your preferences.
Thanks for the link, that was helpful. But I am not sure which one is a better long term investment: 35/2.8 or 16-35/4. I mean which one a pro use more often.
There is no such a thing as a lens “a pro use more often”. It all boils down to the kind of photography you’re into: it’s not the same to shoot weddings or reportages (probably, but not necessarily, better a zoom), instead of fine art or architecture (probably better a prime).
Even in the same genre different photographers shoot with vastly different kits (again, personal preferences and experience).
Honestly, given that you don’t seem too clear on this yourself, if I were you I would buy the cheapest of the two and learn how to use it. A good lens is (almost) never wasted anyway.
Thanks for the advice. “A good lens is (almost) never wasted anyway” I agree. If I am not happy with the purchase, I will sell/exchange it.
The 16-35 is obviously more flexible, if you want a prime, my opinion is that you get the 28 instead.
Renting both would give you a huge leg up in deciding which one to purchase. Some stores even subtract the rental fee from your purchase if you do decide to buy one after.
My two cents:
The 16-35/4 is a fantastic lens for landscape and closeup ultrawide shots. Shallow DOF won’t be as important to you if you’re taking these kinds of photos. I like to use this lens when I know that there is going to be a lot of environment that I want to capture along with my subject (including if the environment is the subject itself).
The 35/2.8 is great for capturing photos that immerse the view into your subject as it’s a slightly more discrete lens, and has the shallower DOF. I like to use this lens as a walk around when people and specific things are the subject. While this lens isn’t super wide, it’s wide enough to capture your surroundings and does so equivalent to what your eyes see.
Neither. Buy 17mm Tokina RMC 3.5. Then grab yourself 28mm 2.8 Celtic Minolta 2.8 MD for 40 bucks.
thanks, i will research those. I nee to buy an adapter too.
17mm Tokina will get the job done. It’s good but has been going now for about 150.00 on ebay- not to bad on the corner’s either. As far as the 28mm 2.8 Minolta- I’m dead serious. I’ve been shooting with it now for awhile and I swear its a sin what I paid for it. Great lens and even can hold it’s own in direct sunlight. I shot it this weekend next to my 50mm 1.4 Sony Zeiss- needless to say- it held it’s own.
@disqus_f3NNTjExpP:disqus: What adapter do you use for the MD lenses?
I use the fotodiox adapter. They seem the best made for the sub 50 dollar ones.
Cool, thanks for the info.
The Nikon P900 has just rendered this obsolete. It’s the leader of the pack!
That camera looks like that f’d up kid from that 80’s movie—Mask.
Lol.
Please, no lens on lens attachments. It suck then and it sucks now.
Don’t moaning. Go sucking bottled milk or go reading the original at http://pantip.com/topic/33317215, choose.
There’re a lot of images from lens per se. The attachment is not window-glass optics, but directly from sony as the lens compliment. Once you mount it on the lens’s FRONT, the EXIF changed according to the attachment.
Woah. How does the exif change? Is there electrical contacts to transmit info??
There has to be if it really does, but the 16 pancake’s converter’s connection was pure mechanical.
The fe and uwa converters for the 16/2.8 pancake were fantastic. Some say it even improved sharpness over the original lens. How is that sucking? I bet you haven’t even used them and just being negative based on nothing
Really?? I have the 16 pancake with the UW converter and it’s practically unusable in the corners.
The center is sufficiently sharp though, so if it’s not for landscape it does suffice.
I really wish the uwa converter made it 18mm and not 21mm.
I LOVE THESE ADS!
Why isn’t anyone complaining about the lackluster creativity in these sample photos… like they roasted Dierk a few days ago when he posted test of Canon TS lenses?
Poor Dierk… SAR really treated him poorly.
This is art ( when compared to dPreview samples) 🙂
That’s why I only post pictures of my cat. No one can roast a picture of a dudes cat right?
The one with the converter sucks?
Hehe yeah. I want my photos to look like they were taken on a $100 go pro rather than a $2500+ professional camera…. I think ill buy the fisheye lens!
Lol yeah they look similar
My heart just fluttered. Then again, I just bought the minolta 28mm 2.8 MD…and my heart skipped a beat. Yeah I know, I have issues.
28mm is the new 35mm. I called it first!
LOL.
How about some infinity shots, something to see what the corners are like.
I hope it’s super flare resistant. My 28mm 2.8 MD- let’s just say- not so much.