The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Sony Zeiss 24mm f1.8 Sonnar available at B and H
- Thread starter iskaII
- Start date
Enjoy your new lens! Let us know how you like it.
Why?
Its good protection but too big for my taste.How does everyone like that lens shade?
I am not one to look for extreme corer sharpness wide open and such performance, which only affects part of a picture and not all pictures. I am very sensitive to colours, contrast, shadings, detail, rendering style, all of which affect 100% of all my pics. I set up a comparison between 3 alt lenses, the ZA 24 and the Sony kit zoom. Not only did I rate the ZA less than the 3 alt, but I felt it was closer to the zoom than to the alt trio. Only my personal opinion, of course, others are free to feel otherwise.
I assume you mean the ZE (rather than ZA) 24mm designed for the NEX E mount and not the ZA 24mm f/2?
Graham
I only know I like it better than the zoom at 24mm, and did some "quick & dirty" between the M9 with a 35SummiluxFLE and the 24/1.8 on the 5n and found the Nex combo to perform pretty good.
All first impression anyways.
The other thing is that compared to a 20/1.7 lens on a G3 the size difference is very big..
Had a chance to take a few test shots today with the 24 on my 5N. My impression is that it's sharp across the frame right from F1.8. The photos are pretty mundane (townscape shots in dreary New England winter) so it's hard to get very excited about the photos but from what I see, the lens is excellent. I'm guessing that some of the highly creative folks on this site will be able to produce some splendid pictures when they get this lens. And I'll be able to improve my wide angle shots a little bit too.
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
Hi philippe, very interested to hear your thoughts on the new 24mm E Sonnar. I share your photographic priorities, and if you visit again, I would be interested to know more - which alts did better for you, and what shortcomings did you find in the 24/1.8? I do believe that CZ are tuning lenses to markets, and especially with 'collaborator' Sony.
Hi Philip,
Overall, the best alt I tried was the Leica Elmar 24mm f:3.5. Despite the modest specification, a fantastic lens IMHO. This was confirmed by Boris (bobu) who says it is the best Leica WA ever, except for the 21 Super Elmar, and Lloyd Chambers wrote pretty much the same.
Marginally less remarkable, my Contax G 45 and then the G 28. One very small step below those, a Leica 35 Summicron. That was the top bunch.
The next bunch consisted of a Contax C/Y 25 and a Leica 28 pre-Asph Summicron.
The Zeiss ZM 25 presented some compatibility issues with the NEX 5N, so was ruled out despite its formidable reputation.
The kit zoom did remarkably well, considering the competition it was up against, confirming my very positive opinion of it.
The ZA 24 (and I tried two copies, which performed identically) showed only one problem, that of CA. But that can be corrected in PP, so that is not the issue. My first impression was that this lens underexposed, which is technically impossible with a LiveView camera, at least to my understanding. Hence the desire to compare, which I don't usually do. This showed that the ZA 24's pictures were indeed darker than those of other lenses, a darkness that I couldn't correct to my satisfaction in PP. They have some kind of darkish hue, not unlike, for want of a better description, of a grey and gloomy day with low clouds and rain in late autumn.
The other and main issue is that what I saw was just not good enough. Neither the colours, the contrast the rendering made the picture appealing enough. I posted them on another forum and members concurred, some being even much more severe than I and claiming that I was being too Neiss with Zeiss.
Hence I did not buy it, and ordered the Leica 24.
To be complete, I should add that the two ZA lenses I tried but did not buy were since purchased by people who are happy with them, and that there are other ZA 24 owners reporting their satisfaction on the Net, including here. It may be that my being used to seeing shots from superlative lenses with my 5N (Contax G, ZM 18, Leica R Makro) has made me more sensitive/demanding/intolerant than is good for me. Or maybe the ZA 24 is particularly well tuned for the NEX 7. Or...
Hope this helps...
Overall, the best alt I tried was the Leica Elmar 24mm f:3.5. Despite the modest specification, a fantastic lens IMHO. This was confirmed by Boris (bobu) who says it is the best Leica WA ever, except for the 21 Super Elmar, and Lloyd Chambers wrote pretty much the same.
Marginally less remarkable, my Contax G 45 and then the G 28. One very small step below those, a Leica 35 Summicron. That was the top bunch.
The next bunch consisted of a Contax C/Y 25 and a Leica 28 pre-Asph Summicron.
The Zeiss ZM 25 presented some compatibility issues with the NEX 5N, so was ruled out despite its formidable reputation.
The kit zoom did remarkably well, considering the competition it was up against, confirming my very positive opinion of it.
The ZA 24 (and I tried two copies, which performed identically) showed only one problem, that of CA. But that can be corrected in PP, so that is not the issue. My first impression was that this lens underexposed, which is technically impossible with a LiveView camera, at least to my understanding. Hence the desire to compare, which I don't usually do. This showed that the ZA 24's pictures were indeed darker than those of other lenses, a darkness that I couldn't correct to my satisfaction in PP. They have some kind of darkish hue, not unlike, for want of a better description, of a grey and gloomy day with low clouds and rain in late autumn.
The other and main issue is that what I saw was just not good enough. Neither the colours, the contrast the rendering made the picture appealing enough. I posted them on another forum and members concurred, some being even much more severe than I and claiming that I was being too Neiss with Zeiss.
Hence I did not buy it, and ordered the Leica 24.
To be complete, I should add that the two ZA lenses I tried but did not buy were since purchased by people who are happy with them, and that there are other ZA 24 owners reporting their satisfaction on the Net, including here. It may be that my being used to seeing shots from superlative lenses with my 5N (Contax G, ZM 18, Leica R Makro) has made me more sensitive/demanding/intolerant than is good for me. Or maybe the ZA 24 is particularly well tuned for the NEX 7. Or...
Hope this helps...
V
Vivek
Guest
Would care to expand on what you use your lenses for? Obviously, the f/3.5 Elmar is a very slow compared to the E-Sonnar 24/1.8. What sort of comparisons you make?
Detailing this (make a separate thread if you care) would help spare the redundant posts starting with, "I am sorry.. " and ending with "...ZA is no good".
BTW, what is an "alt"?
PeterA
Well-known member
I picked up a copy of this lens this afternoon and will make some shots.
However I can already confirm that the auto focus + focus peeking + magnified manual focusing capability with this lens attached is better and easier than the only focus peeking capability of the camera when using adapted lenses. It is a surprisingly large lens on the Nex body longer than my Leica M lenses - but it isn't as heavy as a Leica. It is also an incredibly close focusing lens.
However I can already confirm that the auto focus + focus peeking + magnified manual focusing capability with this lens attached is better and easier than the only focus peeking capability of the camera when using adapted lenses. It is a surprisingly large lens on the Nex body longer than my Leica M lenses - but it isn't as heavy as a Leica. It is also an incredibly close focusing lens.