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
After reading some reviews I've bought the tiny 35mm together with my A7r. Most reviewers say something like "not as good as the 55mm, but a decent performer". Maybe I have a different opinion about the meaning of decent, but after using it for a while I've got a different conclusion about the lens. I see massive vignetting and not so sharp corners.

For example, I compared it to the Nikkor 24-70 zoom lens. At the price of 790€, it should be able to beat the zoom, shouldn't it? Look for yourself:



Unfortunately, I have no other well-performing 35mm lens to compare. So I took a look at photozone.de. They tested the lens and it got 3.5 of 5 possible stars.
I know it is problematic to compare MTF results across different camera systems, but I think it is safe to say that the same lens delivers higher numbers when mounted on a higher megapixel body. In reverse you can say that a different lens that produces the same numbers on a lower MP body is optically better. So lets take a look what the Sigma 35 1.4 delivers on a 24MP D3x, at F5.6:

Center: 3899
Border: 3625
Corner: 3425

The Sony FE 35 in comparison, at F5.6. On a camera body with 36MP:

Center: 4454
Border: 3552
Corner: 3297

Another lens, the Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm F2.0, also on a 24MP Nikon D3x:

Center: 3923
Border: 3398
Corner: 3417

All numbers by photozone.de.

I think it is safe to say that both lenses would massively outperform the FE35, when mounted on a 36MP body.

The real problem of the lens is the price. For 790€ (more than the Sigma!) I really expected a lot more. If Sony had priced it at 399€ I wouldn't have written any negative word about it.


On the other hand this is just pixel-peeping :)
A recent snapshot with the FE35:

 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Its why I sold mine. The corners just did not perform well at all. There also maybe some sample variance with them , hard to say but I was not thrilled with it and its a shame since it is very small. They really should make a 35 F2 anyway. 2.8 is just too slow for a prime to be useful to me. I have the Sigma 35 1.4 big, heavy and bulky but its the best there is.

A good option is a Zeiss 35mm F2 in either the Can/Nik mounts. Very good lens
 

philber

Member
I beg to differ. I have a FE35, and I have yet to miss a shot because of its "lack of performance". I love that lens' performance. Now, it is true that I don't shoot brick walls, so I can't comment on those aspects. But I do know that people who buy lenses "by the numbers" end up with Japanese lenses, because they have mastered that art to perfection. People who pay higher prices for Leica and Zeiss happen to think otherwise, meaning that such numbers don't tell the whole story, as far as they are concerned.
Regarding your sandbox shot, I agree with you that it sucks. Either you missed focus or your lens is off. There were some reports of decentered lenses. Check if your left side is as bad. If not, you know the source of your frustration. If it is, like you, I'd do something about it. But mine doesn't do it, not even close.
 

ThomasZ

Member
Regarding your sandbox shot, I agree with you that it sucks. Either you missed focus or your lens is off. There were some reports of decentered lenses. Check if your left side is as bad. If not, you know the source of your frustration. If it is, like you, I'd do something about it. But mine doesn't do it, not even close.
I focussed manually, with maximum magnification. So I don't think I've missed focus. But you are right, I have to repeat the test with the left side. Will do that tomorrow. Thanks for the hint.
 

ThomasZ

Member
The left side is a tiny bit better, but not as good as the Nikon. Maybe I have a bad copy.
Time to say goodbye.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Thomas, sorry about your bad copy and hopefully the next one is to your liking.
Very frustrating this and the main reason I decided to stay clear from FE-glass.

Kind regards.
 

ThomasZ

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 :)
 

philip_pj

New member
Mediocre is a bit harsh. 35mm is the focal length that must 'do it all', and makers struggle with the design trade-offs, even CZ and Leica. Going manual will pose some interesting challenges at this FL also. Maybe a CV would fit the bill?

The FE35 is a marvellous pictorial lens for shooters who want super sharpness in the centre, and whose compositions don't require super corners in the focal plane. Even anti-Sony Photozone acknowledge its centre performance.

Even so, the well-regarded Canon 35/2 IS has much worse corners at f2.8 than does the FE35, much worse CA and distortion also, vignetting a little better. And performance fall-off is gradual in the FE35. This lens, it must be remembered, is primarily a walk-around lens - even the Sony net page makes this clear. So it's a 120 gram answer to the MFT market...it has lovely colour and contrast..and is well-behaved in mid-field, unlike so many 35s.

For strong centre/corners, super micro-contrast and fine bokeh, I looked high and low for a lightish 35mm before buying a 'backup' 24Mp camera with a revolutionary 35/2 carefully placed very close to the sensor - the RX1. That lens performance in an ILC would be a runaway success even at $1200. I am sure Zeiss will see an FE mount 35mm lens as a quite high priority when their manual FE lenses come on stream.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Mediocre is a bit harsh. 35mm is the focal length that must 'do it all', and makers struggle with the design trade-offs, even CZ and Leica. Going manual will pose some interesting challenges at this FL also. Maybe a CV would fit the bill?

The FE35 is a marvellous pictorial lens for shooters who want super sharpness in the centre, and whose compositions don't require super corners in the focal plane. Even anti-Sony Photozone acknowledge its centre performance.

Even so, the well-regarded Canon 35/2 IS has much worse corners at f2.8 than does the FE35, much worse CA and distortion also, vignetting a little better. And performance fall-off is gradual in the FE35. This lens, it must be remembered, is primarily a walk-around lens - even the Sony net page makes this clear. So it's a 120 gram answer to the MFT market...it has lovely colour and contrast..and is well-behaved in mid-field, unlike so many 35s.

For strong centre/corners, super micro-contrast and fine bokeh, I looked high and low for a lightish 35mm before buying a 'backup' 24Mp camera with a revolutionary 35/2 carefully placed very close to the sensor - the RX1. That lens performance in an ILC would be a runaway success even at $1200. I am sure Zeiss will see an FE mount 35mm lens as a quite high priority when their manual FE lenses come on stream.
+1.

The only reason I added the FE35/2.8 lens was as a walk about while traveling, and for casual AF shooting with friends and family. It negates the need for a second "casual" camera with a smaller lens.

I seemed to have lucked out and gotten one that is decent. It is hardly what I'd call "mediocre". Nice color rendering, sharp enough for most applications … and small, making it super simple to grab and take with.

- Marc
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
+1.

The only reason I added the FE35/2.8 lens was as a walk about while traveling, and for casual AF shooting with friends and family. It negates the need for a second "casual" camera with a smaller lens.

I seemed to have lucked out and gotten one that is decent. It is hardly what I'd call "mediocre". Nice color rendering, sharp enough for most applications … and small, making it super simple to grab and take with.

- Marc

+1. IMHO it turns my A7R into an exceptional P&S camera. All good!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well guys it's maybe a great lens but when it's decentered it's a piece of crap. You have to look at it when you spend the money and it just does not perform. That's disheartening so we have to understand the Ops feeling in it as I have been there as well with it and just gave up on it. Of course if you get a good copy than obviously you feel good about. It's actually a nice lens but when's its bad it's bad.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Mine works good on my A7, I actually did a test with my Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 lens which I had changed the mount using the Leitex A mount.
Surprisingly the FE35 out performed my Zeiss 35/2

It seems the biggest nagging issue with Sony these days is there poor quality control
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Apples to apples? The Sony lens is tiny and light and has (if you get a good copy) very good performance. The Nikon lens is indeed pretty damned good at 35mm but is also pretty shoddy at 24mm and is very very much larger and more expensive.
 

ThomasZ

Member
Apples to apples? The Sony lens is tiny and light and has (if you get a good copy) very good performance. The Nikon lens is indeed pretty damned good at 35mm but is also pretty shoddy at 24mm and is very very much larger and more expensive.
Sorry, but I had the naive idea that a 800€ prime lens should be able to beat a zoom. I did not want to upset someone.

I've phoned a friend who has the same lens and he will borrow me his copy in a view days. I will repeat the test.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Sorry, but I had the naive idea that a 800€ prime lens should be able to beat a zoom. I did not want to upset someone.

I've phoned a friend who has the same lens and he will borrow me his copy in a view days. I will repeat the test.
Don't worry, I'm not upset: but these are both lenses I have reviewed in depth and I simply don't think it's a simple as zoom versus prime. Many, many people for example think that the Nikkor 14-24 is the best ultra wide there is for that mount, including primes. Back to Sony: the 35 f2.8 is smaller, lighter and more versatile and a good copy is not only 'good enough' but is often much much better than that. I prefer it, for example, to the Sigma 35mm ART lens because it has much more predictable shape of field of focus. The 24-70 is huge and heavy and more expensive and isn't as much of a zoom as you might expect because of its weakness at the wide end. Sure it's great at 35mm but then so is the Sony Zeiss 24-70 F4.

Horses for courses but apples to apples....
 
Top