Image courtesy: Lensrentals.
Roger from Lensrentals (Click here) tested the new Zeiss Touit lens and compared it with the cheaper Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens. It is certainly not a surprise to see the Zeiss being the winner of the contest but the Sony performance is quite close! He writes:
The Sony 35mm OSS gives you slightly better performance optically, a wider aperture, and image stabilization for $449. At f/1.8 it’s pretty equal to the Touit in resolution and has less distortion. Stopped down just a bit, to f/2.2, though, the Touit gives much better optical performance than any of the other lenses. Worth $900? To some people certainly. To others, not at all. For me, taking actual pictures with it confirmed what the numbers suggested. The center resolution is probably the best I’ve seen from any lens on an NEX camera. That’s enough to make it a future purchase for me.
Roger also writes that the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is the best bargain. But of course it’s maximum aperture is f/2.8 “Only”. If you need a faster lens the Sony my be the best bet. But if you want to have the ultimate image quality you better go for the Zeiss. In short…it’s up to you 🙂
Sigma 30mm f/2.8 at [shopcountry 7044].
Sony 35mm f/1.8 at [shopcountry 14169].
32mm f/1.8 at BHphoto, Adorama and Uniquephoto. In Europe at [shoplink 18498 ebay]CameraCenter UK[/shoplink] and FotoMundus.
—
12mm f/2.8 at BHphoto, Adorama and Uniquephoto. In Europe at [shoplink 18497 ebay]CameraCenter UK[/shoplink] and FotoMundus.
29 Responses
I plan to get the Sony 35mm. I’d love to get the Zeiss, but it’s not in my budget. I have the Sigma 19mm, and while the sharpness is acceptable, I’m not crazy about the color reproduction.
1) Almost identical performance wide open.(1.8)
2) Astonishing boost for the Touit at 2.2
3) OSS has to help the SEL35F18 in handheld situations.
Getting both?
The only real difference is the centre performance at f/2.2. I personally would not mind. Mostly, I would use this lens at f/4+ anyway, and if I want small aperture, I would set it to f/1.8 and only that. Given that the actual limiting factor is the LCD display or the printer, the Sony lens is the winner for me. Not only cheaper but also smaller.
A Zeiss counterpart for the 35mm/1.4 X-mount lens (even at $900) would have been interesting. But here, I don’t see the niche for the Zeiss lens, apart from pixel peeping.
I meant “wide aperture”.
what wider aperture? same 1.8
oh wider aperture compared to the SIGMA. bad quotation.
Now how does this compare to the 35mm SAM for A-mount?
My SEL35 is slightly better than the SAL35, so there you have it.
There is absolutely no question that the Sigma 30/2.8 trumps everything in every department!
It certainly doesn’t trump french fries and a blockbuster.
Totally OT. Stay with cameras and lenses. 😉
Not everyone wants a ‘slow’ f2.8 lens. I use my SAL35mm at f2/2.2 very often and sometimes wished for f1.4.
True. I have a Speed Booster (Metabones, EOS) that I can use with an EF 50/1.8 or a Summicron R 50/2 or an Olmypus OM 50/1.2. 🙂
Yeah the Speedbooster is one amazing device. Who would have thought some Chinese manufacturer would think of something like this. 😛
Only issue is the rather bulky contraption with a DSLR sized lens. Not too bad but not ideal either
Especially that Metabones is a UK company. (as far as I know) They manufacture the speedbooster in China for cost reason.Plus other chinese companies have already tried to copy the idea hence the “Lens Turbo”…
I agree with Torsten, the Zeiss 32mm would’ve been more tempting at F1.4. Then the NEX lens line up in the normal FL would be near perfect. Cheap and sharp F2.8, Compact and very nice OSS lens at F1.8 and a TOP performer at F1.4. Question is though, is the diff. between F1.8 and 1.4 worth the extra cost and bulk?
Agreed. The f1.8 is a bit of a disappointment to me – especially considering that Fuji is making some very good f1.4 lenses for their mirrorless system, and has an f1.2 on the way.
While the difference in the amount of light collected may be small it’s a matter of bokeh, and with the smaller-than-full-frame APS-C sensor you need all the help you can get, so .2 difference in f-stop is more significant than a .2 difference on a full frame.
Difference in fstop between 1.8 and 1.4 is 2/3rds a stop.
Agreed. Not that I think larger lenses is such a great fit for a MILC, but right now there is not enough upward differentiation from the SEL35F18… which makes it really hard to justify the >2x upcharge.
Sony comes out the total winner. They are now in the middle between Sigma and the Zeiss, this is just going to boost the sales of the 35mm which up until now seemed quite overpriced.
I am happy about this test because I paid about 300.00 for my sony 35mm and was considering the cz but it looks like the difference is not big enough to pay 3 times the price I paid for the sony. All I really need now is a nice 85mm and maybe the 50mm 1.8 and I will be good for a while.
How did you pay 300.00 for this lens? It retails for $450.
I agree too. This test is a wonderful ad for Sony’s 35mm lens. The difference in the test chart is so small. And widest aperture 1.8 has same results.
Sony has OSS, smaller, lighter and half the price.
Listen. I just rented the metabones EF-NEX adapter with canon’s 35mm f/2 IS USM.
I have been comparing results with my sel35 f/1.8 on my nex6.
And I got to tell you. Sony is the winner there too. Corner sharpness is better than the canon+metabones combo. Center sharpness is a little less but canon+speedbooster combo more than 3 times heavy, at least twice bigger and costs you $1400 as a combo.
Right on SONY. I am very happy with it.
Sony 35 magnification 1:6 , zeiss 35 magnification 1:9 I am fan boy of zeiss ,but I am very disappointing . Why zeiss did not make 35 magnification 1:4 like 24 has ?
I do not care to have little bigger lens and little more expensive . Zeiss why you did not make right job ? And the worse zeiss 50mm macro is coming with just f2.8 . Why not f2 ?
Not many people would pay more in terms of size, weight and money just to get a better maximum magnification. There’s the 24mm Sonnar, which is a great all round lens, and there’s the 32mm Touit, which is a good standard lens. Making a Planar design focus this close would be quite hard to do without at least one extra lens element.
As for the 50mm macro – there are, as far as I know, faster macro lenses that feature a 1:1 maximum magnification. The Makro-Planars for ZE and ZF.2 mounts only feature a 1:2 maximum magnification. And if that’s what you want, I no longer get it. Better maximum magnification for a normal lens, but worse for a macro lens?
See? This is why we need Sony to make 36 + mega pixel sensors….so these lenses will look even sharper and resolve more resolution lines. Yeah!…Sony go 36mp!!!
Most of us know this is total crap. But some around here actually swear its true!
😉
i agree with you..i was at a Zeiss booth and tried their 135mm f2 with my d800..AT ISO 1000 at f2 it made my 24-70 and 105mm look like a toy..it was soooooo sharp it made me appreciate my d800 that’s why i am selling my 24-70 and 105 and getting zeiss 100 makro f2 and their 21mm..bye bye Nikon
I don’t know about the Sony 35mm lens but all the samples I’ve seen with the Zeiss lens are really nice.
I tried both in the shop on a Sony FS700 and settled for the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS.
The autofocus on the Touit does not work on a Sony FS700 and the manual focus felt wrong (subjective) whilst all auto functions are supported on the Sony. I would choose a high end manual only prime lens if I had the money to spare and sharpness was the primary need, but then I would be shooting on an F5, F55, F65 as well.