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 FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

ThomasZ

Member
I just wanted to point out that I am not a pixel peeper for the sake of it. I print often in this size:



This one is 180x120cm and at that size you clearly see any lens faults (and it has ones, it was shot with a D800 and the 17-35). Of course, people should watch such a big print from a distance, but in reality they come closer and closer. I really like it when they adore the sharpness.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Georg I would not argue your point here. What one issue is most Lenses hit the corners starting about 2 stops maybe down from max. When you start at F2.8 than we are now talking 5.6 and F 8 to hit all the corners. Great if you can do that but here is a case as you said size is what they built. What we need is both types of glass. Hate to say it this way but it makes sense for clarification it's not considered a Professional lens but a Prosumer lens intended for that type of travel compact crowd. Not the guy shooting low light concert or stage work that needs speed. Here is where Sony in this line the FE line is putting most of the thrust is on the Prosumer lens market. There slow and small. That's okay but I have had to reach into the A line to get the speed for one and the quality. The 55 is the exception on IQ it's got it but it's also let's face it a slow normal lens when most are making 1.4 glass. Sony needs to produce both if they want to attract more of the Pro level type shooter.

Now I hate those words Pro in this discussion but understand its just a word to describe higher expectations with regard to speed of glass higher IQ and not so much emphasize on size. We all know having speed and small size is next to impossible to produce at lower costs. But we need both types in the lineup
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I just wanted to point out that I am not a pixel peeper for the sake of it. I print often in this size:



This one is 180x120cm and at that size you clearly see any lens faults (and it has ones, it was shot with a D800 and the 17-35). Of course, people should watch such a big print from a distance, but in reality they come closer and closer. I really like it when they adore the sharpness.
IMO, that is a sickness that is infecting photography like a virulent, pandemic disease.

We take beautiful, and inspiring images so people can check how sharp the fern leaf in the extreme corner is? Really? Not that it shouldn't be sharp, but is that the objective?

What do you call a hundred landscape photographers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

- William Wallowitz
 

Annna T

Active member
"Are we buying size or IQ? That is a good question Guy. To that I'd add price to the "tripod of buying". Evidence so far seems to support the design reality that you can pick two, but so far can't have all three. Both Leica and Zeiss have been quite clear that this is the case.

Personally, I do not need ALL of my lenses to be super-duper IQ … IF, as a result, the optic is bigger that the camera it mounts to … and I sure the hell do NOT want to pay $4,000 for a walk about lens … I have other ways of accomplishing eye watering IQ when I need it.

My point is, that we need choices so we can fit our lens selections to level of need. To this end, Sony needs to slow down on the "Cavalcade of Cameras" and get the damned lenses out the door so we have those choices. The poor little FE35/2.8 is taking all the heat because there is no AF FE35/1.8 that delivers like the FE55/1.8 … albeit most likely much larger and more expensive.


Dear Sony:

We need lenses that maximize what your sensor division is producing! We need them NOW, not a year to two years after the camera comes to market.
Not sure to which three you are thinking, for me there are four elements to consider :
- weight and size,
- max aperture, aka how fast the lens can be,
- IQ, mainly sharpness and no coma, little flare and CA,
- price.

Given the diminutive size of the body, I'm expecting smaller lenses to fit with its philosophy, say the size of the film range finder lenses, not the Summilux, rather the Elmarit size or like the Zeiss Contax G lenses (they were very light). In exchange, I'm willing to give up fastest speed. For me, F2.8 is enough for longer and wider fixed lenses (and F4 for zooms). I love the 55mm F1.8 for its sharpness, but one fast normal lens to have for low light situation is enough. However, given the high performance of the sensor, the lenses have to offer top IQ. For performing lenses I'm ready to pay a little more than usual.

What pushes people to ask more heavy and fast lenses right now has to do with the fact that apart of the Nikon D800s no other body is offering the same sensor performance and thus this attract new DSLRs customers who don't care for size to the A7. But IMO heavy fast lenses just don't really make sense on this body. DSLRs users bought the A7r first and foremost to get the sensor and thinking they would just adapt their actual lenses... Then they see the A7 series work better with native lenses and begun asking for the type of lenses they are accustomed to use, but that type of lenses just don't really make sense on this diminutive body.

Let Sony keep the philosophy of the system and become the digital Leica Ms of our times (small and light but high IQ) . Don't ask for lenses that fit better on DSLRs. I understand that those not having a D800 are using the A7r as a digital back for the moment, but that should only be a transient state : until Canon catch up with its sensors and Sony add a 36mp DSLR..
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
... higher expectations with regard to speed of glass higher IQ and not so much emphasize on size. We all know having speed and small size is next to impossible to produce at lower costs. But we need both types in the lineup
Hi Guy,

Agreed! Honestly, I am excited about and have a lot of hope for the curved sensor/lense that might see the light of the day earlier than one thinks.

Meanwhile, there remains a gap of Pro Glass in the lineup.
 

ThomasZ

Member
Let Sony keep the philosophy of the system and become the digital Leica Ms of our times (small and light but high IQ) . Don't ask for lenses that fit better on DSLRs.
I can't agree more! The last thing I want to mount to my A7r is something like the 14-24 Nikkor.
 

ZoranC

New member
No, I never intended to call any criticisms "exaggerated". That implies overstated or inherently embellished to the point of being false. I just pointed I've read more about his issue here than elsewhere.
For some reason way you presented your observation was, obviously, easily interpreted as comment on people that posted in this thread.

Again I point out, in other forums they don't CARE about pixel peeping lens tests. That doesn't make them any less a photographer, but it also means they are not likely making a living off of photography.
So why use reference to feelings of non-demanding average consumer owners to comment on feelings of demanding professionals / strong enthusiasts? It is easily interpreted as downplay of feelings of the later ones.

And you shouldn't make generalized assumptions about what I have and have not seen for myself. I've seen the tests and results, and I will stand by -my own- definition of "marginal". That's just me, and it is purely subjective.
Do you own 35/2.8? If yes have you tested it and how? How many copies you tested? What is your definition of "marginal" / "non-marginal"? Can you quantify it? Can you describe it in words that something can be wrapped around, like "At aperture X 15% of the frame toward lower right turns into mush even though subject distance is such that curvature of the field shouldn't cause it and all other corners are not that bad"?

Even more importantly have you seen and tested copies me and other forum members had in our hands? I know you hadn't. So how then you can make generalized statements about "marginal" decentering of implied all copies, period?

Please understand I am not debating the severity, prevalence or importance of the decentering issue.
For some reason your words were leaving me with different impression. In any case I think both sides have expressed their standpoint enough and we can leave it at that.
 

ZoranC

New member
ANY lens will be mediocre with severe decentering, or any other design or manufacturing flaw.
...
Sony has gone on record regarding wanting to capture the higher end photographer, but to do that they will need to step up their game at every level. Part of that is honest feed back with enough vigor in the collective voice that they hear us. Getting a well made lens should NOT be akin to winning the lottery.
...
IMO, to accomplish that goal they also need to jettison their consumer category mind-set with video game interfaces and semi useless no-brainer settings in favor of understanding how more serious photographers work.
...
My point is, that we need choices so we can fit our lens selections to level of need. To this end, Sony needs to slow down on the "Cavalcade of Cameras" and get the damned lenses out the door so we have those choices.
...
Dear Sony:

We need lenses that maximize what your sensor division is producing! We need them NOW, not a year to two years after the camera comes to market.
Amen, amen, amen, amen and amen! (Do I hear Amen?)

The poor little FE35/2.8 is taking all the heat because there is no AF FE35/1.8 that delivers like the FE55/1.8 …
That might be part of it but another part of it might be because there is a built-in expectation that when you pay decent amount of money for lens that performance will be in same ballpark. 35/2.8 is close in price to 55/1.8 and say Sigma 35/1.4. Is it's performance in same (close) ballpark as those two?

I don't mind paying for quality, and I will not complain if I get Yugo performance when I paid Yugo price, but if I paid more I expect more and in the same performance ballpark as my money could have bought elsewhere.
 

jfirneno

Member
Hurrah! Everyone can sigh with relief. Here I am to add my two cents to this love-fest.

Okay, I'm sure no one is swayed in either direction and basically this is a big old relief valve of frustration over quality (or quality control) issues for the FE 35. I consider that the one I got in December is very good but I would be the last one to claim that I've done exhaustive testing on it or that much worse examples don't exist. Let's assume they do for the sake of argument.

My first thought is a question. How does Sony QC compare to Nikon/Canon/Sigma? I've bought a few Sigmas and from what I remember their QC used to be legendarily hit and miss. I haven't bought any Canon or Nikon lately but Mr. Ciccala seems to think they also have issues. So it would be interesting to get an opinion from a Nikon and or Cannon shooter to compare Sony to them.

My second thought is a statement. Buying into a new lens mount is necessarily an exercise in waiting. You just can't launch enough lenses fast enough to satisfy anyone. People have talked about three or four factors that define products. Well in design (of any kind) there is the pick two rule, schedule, cost and quality. So you can have it fast cheap and bad, slow cheap and good, or fast, expensive and good. So if quality is really what you want then you either have to pay a ton right away or wait a century to get it at a good price. Now these are best case scenarios. So a company can try to give quality and still screw it up so I think you can assume that the only thing you can guarantee is that you won't get any low cost lenses from Sony any time soon. And that also means that if they try to push too many lenses through the system the chance of them having high quality becomes small. From my point of view waiting for thorough review is important. That way if you get a bad copy you'll know it's worthwhile to go around on another copy.

Regards,
John
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
John

No difference with Nikon, Canon and name everyone of them . They all have a dog in the shed and they all have sample variation. This is nothing new and unless everything is hand tested put through QC on every lens made than we will always have the same issues. The Sony 35mm FE 2.8 just follows the same pattern. But any lens and let me repeat myself any lens that fails a photographers expectations and has a decentering issue is a a piece of crap, send it back get another copy try again and if not move on to something else. The sun will come up in the morning and will set somewhere on this planet. These forums are meant for discussions and bringing up good and bad in products they should never be a place for blind loyalty to brand and ignoring issues. I see far to much brand loyalty and ignoring value, quality and just plane common sense. As I said befoe and as quoted in the movie Heat.

Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.

Simply put don't attach yourself to any brand. If it sucks walk away
 

dandrewk

New member
So why use reference to feelings of non-demanding average consumer owners to comment on feelings of demanding professionals / strong enthusiasts? It is easily interpreted as downplay of feelings of the later ones.
The reference was clear and reiterated more than once. But you chose to make it something it wasn't, despite my repeated attempt to clarify. How many more times do I have to state the issue with the lens is real, but not universal or (to some), not that important? Yet somehow -you- interpreted this as "downplay".

Do you own 35/2.8? If yes have you tested it and how? How many copies you tested? What is your definition of "marginal" / "non-marginal"? Can you quantify it? Can you describe it in words that something can be wrapped around, like "At aperture X 15% of the frame toward lower right turns into mush even though subject distance is such that curvature of the field shouldn't cause it and all other corners are not that bad"?

Even more importantly have you seen and tested copies me and other forum members had in our hands? I know you hadn't. So how then you can make generalized statements about "marginal" decentering of implied all copies, period?
Is this a serious question/challenge, or an attempt to inflame? I had originally included a sentence about the impossibility of objectifying something that is "obviously" subjective.

But to answer your question: If you have actually read my posts in this thread, you would know that I own this lens. How do I test it? Like I do with all my new lenses - and NOT shooting test charts or brick walls. I choose real life situations. The location varies, but always with plenty of fine detail edge to edge and corner to corner. I have done so in this forum and posted results (linked to another forum) of the FE70-200.

If I have another lens with a similar focal length that I know is sharp, I'll compare the two. The new lens gets individual scrutiny to test for decentering and general sharpness.

For some reason your words were leaving me with different impression. In any case I think both sides have expressed their standpoint enough and we can leave it at that.
Looking over the discussion, I am clueless as to what that "some reason" must be. You seem to be arguing with the proverbial straw man, so hopefully all standpoints have now been expressed.
 

dandrewk

New member
John

No difference with Nikon, Canon and name everyone of them . They all have a dog in the shed and they all have sample variation. This is nothing new and unless everything is hand tested put through QC on every lens made than we will always have the same issues. The Sony 35mm FE 2.8 just follows the same pattern. But any lens and let me repeat myself any lens that fails a photographers expectations and has a decentering issue is a a piece of crap, send it back get another copy try again and if not move on to something else. The sun will come up in the morning and will set somewhere on this planet. These forums are meant for discussions and bringing up good and bad in products they should never be a place for blind loyalty to brand and ignoring issues. I see far to much brand loyalty and ignoring value, quality and just plane common sense. As I said befoe and as quoted in the movie Heat.

Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.

Simply put don't attach yourself to any brand. If it sucks walk away
I couldn't agree more. From my own and observed experience with Nikon, they have had their successes and failures. Some have been flat-out duds. Most of their lenses, though, have been a success for the intended user base. Some are "legendary". It will take several years, but let's hope Sony can establish that same reputation.
 

Saxbike

Active member
I actually have four 35mm lenses all FF: Sony FE 35mm f2.8, Minolta Maxxum 35mm f2, Nikkor 35mm f2.8, and a PC-Nikkor 35mm f2.8. When I first purchased the a7 and the LA-AE4 adapter I thought the Minolta would be my favorite lens and the initial results were excellent. It is truly a wonderful lens. I borrowed the Sony 35mm from my local camera store so I could test it against the Minolta. They were very, very close but the Zeiss seemed to render the images with a bit more resolution of detail and contrast. Instead of returning the lens, I wrote them a check and have been very pleased with it ever since. The size and weight are perfect on the camera. The old Nikkor lenses are very good, and the advantage of the PC has led me to keep that lens, but neither matches the Minolta or Sony for resolution and contrast.

FE 35mm f2.8 @ f2.8

sec (1/50)
ISO: 200

Minolta 35mm f2 @ f2.8


Hydraulics

Date Taken: 2014-02-16 15:48:43
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: FE 35mm F2.8 ZA
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure Time: 0.017 sec (1/60)
ISO: 320


Date Taken: 2014-01-09 10:29:07
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: 35mm F2
Aperture: f/9.0
Exposure Time: 0.003 sec (1/320)
ISO: 320


Date Taken: 2014-01-01 17:39:38
Camera Make: SONY
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: 35mm F2
Focal Length: 35 mm
Mode: Aperture-priority AE
Aperture: f/4.0
Exposure Time: 0.017 sec (1/60)
ISO: 200
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I will not try another one. I have two classic manual lenses that work really well, the Nikkors 105/2.5 and 180/2.8. I have so much fun using them, I've just decided to go all manual with the A7r. I will sell the 24-70f4 and the 35/2.8.
Now I am on the epic quest to find the best manual lenses for me. Seems to be a lot of fun :)
I already had some of the lenses I wanted to use, I bought the A7 for them not the other way around. I have no intent of buying any native lenses for this camera—all Leica R and Nikkors for me. :)

G
 

ZoranC

New member
The reference was clear and reiterated more than once. But you chose to make it something it wasn't, despite my repeated attempt to clarify.
Obviously your initial post was not clear and was open to be interpreted in manner I interpreted it. Also, we are obviously unlikely to be on same wavelength about that but let me do one final try to illustrate to you how your words looked through hypothetical discussion:

Number of posters in Sports Car Racer Forum: "We were not happy with performance of car XYZ."

You: "I haven't seen such a criticism about XYZ anywhere else but here, everybody else calls it very good"

Sports Car Racer Forum poster: "And who exactly called it very good?"

You: "Some folks on Driving Very Slow From Point A to Point B Forum"

You wouldn't interpret that as putting us down / downplaying?

Is this a serious question/challenge, or an attempt to inflame? I had originally included a sentence about the impossibility of objectifying something that is "obviously" subjective.

But to answer your question: If you have actually read my posts in this thread, you would know that I own this lens. How do I test it? Like I do with all my new lenses - and NOT shooting test charts or brick walls. I choose real life situations. The location varies, but always with plenty of fine detail edge to edge and corner to corner. I have done so in this forum and posted results (linked to another forum) of the FE70-200.

If I have another lens with a similar focal length that I know is sharp, I'll compare the two. The new lens gets individual scrutiny to test for decentering and general sharpness.
It was a serious question and thank you for answering it, even if not completely. Most important part that was not answered was how you can sight unseen imply that copies of unhappy owners that posted here were were having only "marginally soft corners which will only be noticed at 100 percent magnification".

Looking over the discussion, I am clueless as to what that "some reason" must be.
I don't think you should be clueless about it, I think that reason is obvious: It was how you put your words together. See that hypothetical discussion I posted above if that will help you.
 

dandrewk

New member
It was a serious question and thank you for answering it, even if not completely. Most important part that was not answered was how you can sight unseen imply that copies of unhappy owners that posted here were were having only "marginally soft corners which will only be noticed at 100 percent magnification".
I did answer that. See the part about trying to precisely define a subjective term.

But in an attempt to (further) clarify: I've yet to see images of decentered FE35 images that were anything more than "marginally" (my term) soft at one edge/corner or the other. I am NOT talking about test charts or brick walls. I don't look at those, but will trust the objective criteria of lab results.

To repeat, at the expense of being pedantic - this does not mean the problem isn't real or critically important for many, nor does this absolve Sony of serious QC issues.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I already had some of the lenses I wanted to use, I bought the A7 for them not the other way around. I have no intent of buying any native lenses for this camera—all Leica R and Nikkors for me. :)

G
Well, I started with the same intention, namely using my Leica M, R, V and Nikkor lenses.

However, I was so impressed by Michiel Schierbeek's images, in particular http://www.getdpi.com/forum/551181-post3444.html taken with the A7R | Minolta MD 24-35/3.5, that I got that lens as well. Very inexpensively I should add.

I am also happy with my copy of the Sony FE 35/2.8. It's so bitingly sharp on my A7R that I have to use large negative values for contrast to let portrait shots appear nice and pleasant. But that combination nails focus reliably on the closest eye every time! :D
 
Top