Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

[ZoranC]

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 have a feeling number of posters in this thread wish they shared same opinion about copies they had experience with.

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.

You will trust lab results but are not talking about test charts? What exactly you think those labs use if not test charts? And what is wrong with "brick wall" method, or any variation there of, in your opinion? What is a test method you propose?

 

[dandrewk]

You will trust lab results but are not talking about test charts? What exactly you think those labs use if not test charts? And what is wrong with "brick wall" method, or any variation there of, in your opinion? What is a test method you propose?

It's pretty clear, and I've already spelled out my reasoning for not evaluating a lens using images I would never, ever take in the real world. Please read the thread.

You are real hyper sensitive on this subject, so how about we just DROP it?

 

[Annna T]

I have a feeling number of posters in this thread wish they shared same opinion about copies they had experience with.


You will trust lab results but are not talking about test charts? What exactly you think those labs use if not test charts? And what is wrong with "brick wall" method, or any variation there of, in your opinion? What is a test method you propose?

You have made your point, (in a great number of posts), we have all got it by now, no need to keep insisting on it. You should agree to disagree and be done with it.

 

[ZoranC]

It's pretty clear, and I've already spelled out my reasoning for not evaluating a lens using images I would never, ever take in the real world. Please read the thread.

I did read the thread and no, it's not clear what you expect _lab_ tests would be using if not _test_ charts. Please name one _lab_ that does not use test charts and let us know what they are using.

You are real hyper sensitive on this subject, so how about we just DROP it?

No, I am not sensitive on the topic, I actually encourage good discussion on it, but I do hate my time being wasted with discussion where it's obvious other side keeps inserting foot into their own mouth, like "I am surprised pros here are critical because casual users over on DPR are not complaining", or "yeah, I am aware of Roger Cicala's comment from 6 months ago" (when it was one month ago), or "I will accept lab tests if that lab is not using test charts for their tests". So yes, we should drop this discussion so my time is not further wasted and you don't further risk inserting your foot into your mouth again and embarrassing yourself with it.

 

[ZoranC]

You have made your point, (in a great number of posts), we have all got it by now, no need to keep insisting on it. You should agree to disagree and be done with it.

Anna, sorry that my recent posts are not up to your brevity requirements but please notice I don't tell others when to stop talking so you shouldn't tell me either. Respect starts by not doing to others what you would object done to you. That whole principle of equality, what goes for you goes for me, etc, I (maybe foolishly) strongly believe in and feel about. Thank you in advance for your understanding!

 

[dandrewk]

I did read the thread and no, it's not clear what you expect _lab_ tests would be using if not _test_ charts. Please name one _lab_ that does not use test charts and let us know what they are using.


No, I am not sensitive on the topic, I actually encourage good discussion on it, but I do hate my time being wasted with discussion where it's obvious other side keeps inserting foot into their own mouth, like "I am surprised pros here are critical because casual users over on DPR are not complaining", or "yeah, I am aware of Roger Cicala's comment from 6 months ago" (when it was one month ago), or "I will accept lab tests if that lab is not using test charts for their tests". So yes, we should drop this discussion so my time is not further wasted and you don't further risk inserting your foot into your mouth again and embarrassing yourself with it.

'nuff said. Your petty and unfounded attacks say it all. Feel free to continue with your straw man arguments, as you are now on my ignore list. I'm sure you'll get the last word.

Anna T, others: My apologies. I hope this thread can return to topic.

 

[ZoranC]

You're petty and unfounded attacks say it all.

Calling out repeated contradicting nonsense is called "pettiness and unfounded attack"? I'm sorry but it can be called that way only if one is making another statement that doesn't pass scrutiny of basic logic and facts in attempt to hide previous failures of same kind behind it.

 

[philip_pj]

All of them will be a compromise - the Sigma 35/1.4 ART looks great but it weighs five times as much and has double the number of elements. One of the Sigmas at 250 grams and the size of the FE55 would be terrific, but it won't happen - Sigma gains correction by adding more elements, so all of their lenses are heavyweights. They will need a powerful AF motor to shift it all back and forth too.

Design for FE lenses must concentrate on the trade-off of size/weight and image quality. And each designer looks for different characteristics in various lenses. As a guess, it will exercise the Zeiss team plenty to do a good job in a manual focus 35mm, probably f2; they have form in the well-received Touits.

Here is a more photographically-oriented review of the FE 35/2.8:

#184. The Zeiss Sonnar 2,8/35 ZA jewel in the A7r crown | DearSusan

[disclaimer is I write for these guys.]

 

[philip_pj]

On reviews - I read 'em all, can't help myself, lol.

Many of the review sites require caution in interpreting the results offered due to the uncritical (being kind) or unscrupulous (naughty of them) practice of using low Mp cameras for certain established lens makers - but they ensure all Sony FE lenses have to deal with the demanding a7r sensor.

Photozone uses a *2008 vintage* D3x for even recent Nikkor tests; but they stuck the poor little FE 35/2.8 on the heavy hitter 36Mp a7r; results would be very different using say, the two year old D800e for the Nikkors; and a7 for FE 35/2.8 respectively!

SLRgear similarly uses the strong a7r to work the Sony FE lenses as hard as possible, yet they plonked the new Sigma 50/1.4 ART on a *2007 vintage* Canon 1Ds III. They did however use the D800e for Nikon's new 58/1.4 - with very unflattering results, it looked horrible.

Now, why reputable review sites might engineer a seriously unfair comparison by the use of 21Mp and 24Mp Canon and Nikon antique cameras from 6-7 years back - an eternity in this industry - to test even the latest C/N lenses on in 2013-2014 - then give them glowing reviews based on Imatest results with no mention of this crucial issue - that might be a question with an unsavory answer.

The 24Mp a7 is, after all, several hundred $$ cheaper for them to buy than an a7r..and they are not hard to find, and are more representative of most users as that model outsells the a7r. Or maybe look for a well-used two year old D800..but then the playing field would be level..

 

[dandrewk]

All of them will be a compromise - the Sigma 35/1.4 ART looks great but it weighs five times as much and has double the number of elements. One of the Sigmas at 250 grams and the size of the FE55 would be terrific, but it won't happen - Sigma gains correction by adding more elements, so all of their lenses are heavyweights. They will need a powerful AF motor to shift it all back and forth too.

Design for FE lenses must concentrate on the trade-off of size/weight and image quality. And each designer looks for different characteristics in various lenses. As a guess, it will exercise the Zeiss team plenty to do a good job in a manual focus 35mm, probably f2; they have form in the well-received Touits.

Here is a more photographically-oriented review of the FE 35/2.8:

#184. The Zeiss Sonnar 2,8/35 ZA jewel in the A7r crown | DearSusan

[disclaimer is I write for these guys.]

Totally in agreement, although some posters here will have difficulty wrapping their head around a lens test based solely on real life shooting. Is that any way to judge a lens?

Seriously, CZ lenses have a certain, identifiable stamp on their color and contrast. The FE35 has it in spades, which is why it's my favorite walk around lens.

 

[ThomasZ]

Photozone uses a *2008 vintage* D3x for even recent Nikkor tests; but they stuck the poor little FE 35/2.8 on the heavy hitter 36Mp a7r; results would be very different using say, the two year old D800e for the Nikkors; and a7 for FE 35/2.8

I don't think that there is any bad intention. Instead they want to keep the results between Nikon lenses comparable as long as possible.

 

[fotografz]

Same here. I work hard for my money and I respect myself so I expect vendors that want my money to respect me. If somebody doesn't and fails to deliver their part of a deal I don't hesitate a second to vote with my feet and take my business to those that will. I don't care even a slightest about brands, all I care about is what I am getting for my money and how I am being treated. Years ago Ford showed to me they didn't seem to care about customers / my business by IMHO scr*wing me over on one issue which costed me a tons of money in the end. Prior to that I have given fair amount of business to Ford. Moment they did that I swore I will never again in my life buy Ford. Since then I have bought five Toyotas. If Toyota ever dares to behave like Ford toward me I won't even blink before they too lose me as a customer for life. Same goes for anything in my life, whether camera is Nikon, Canon, Sony, or whatever. If Kias / Hyundais / Samsungs of this world pick up balls others drop and run with them then so be it, survival of the fittest is the nature of the world and capitalism.

Hope you didn't buy one of the Toyotas that killed people, a flaw they denied until outed by the press. :ROTFL:

 

[Annna T]

I don't think that there is any bad intention. Instead they want to keep the results between Nikon lenses comparable as long as possible.

Exactly what I think, I like the way DXO test each lenses with several bodies and quite often publish an article on "the Best lenses with ..xy body"

Then the true question is how the scores differences between the lenses/sensor pairs will translate in real life. Sometimes what seems like a huge progress going by the scores results of the tests isn't that important in real life.

 

[fotografz]

Amen, amen, amen, amen and amen! (Do I hear Amen?)


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.

Producing a FE 55mm lens that works with this camera is a different issue than a 35mm lens that does. The Sigma is a monster in comparison, and you have to use an adapter.

Persistant Apples to Oranges comparisons.

You talk as if this was a total piece of crap lens, just because of a bad copies. Manufacturing issues are one thing, bad design is another. I had a horrible Leica 50/1.4 ASPH that cost 5.3X as much as this lens, and it took two looooooong trips to Germany to get it fixed properly. Didn't mean that the 50/1.4 ASPH was a crappy lens, just mine was.

I had to send back an A mount 24/2 because I had to use a major in-camera focus adjustment which was unacceptable for a $1,400 lens. The replacement was stellar, and I still use it, including on the A7R.

Either one is willing to deal with the reality that some gear needs to be checked over when buying, and if the manufacturing quality is repeatedly not to the design intent of the lens, then we punish the maker by not buying. However, mine's quite good. So, like many others, I'm happy with it for its intended use, and my expectations of an $800 small AF lens for this camera are full-filled. Sorry your's aren't.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

Exactly what I think, I like the way DXO test each lenses with several bodies and quite often publish an article on "the Best lenses with ..xy body"

Then the true question is how the scores differences between the lenses/sensor pairs will translate in real life. Sometimes what seems like a huge progress going by the scores results of the tests isn't that important in real life.

Also consider that "Real Life" can differ greatly depending on use, creative intent, and expectations.

I mostly shoot people, and frequently use a 35mm (or 45mm equivalent in MFD) for environmental type portraits. As such, I rarely if ever place ANY people at frame's edge due to distortion inherent with any WA lens (no one wants an "Alien" shaped head and pudgy body : -)

Whether a blade of grass at an extreme 200% corner is as razor sharp as the center blade of grass is the least of my concerns. Color rendering, tonal transitions, micro contrast, bokeh, AF accuracy, small lens on a small camera … all weigh in well ahead of such pixel peeping exercises.

For others it may be the total opposite.

"Real Life" is a moving target, and the different priorities we all evaluate leads to these sorts of endless debates. It is tantamount to saying my priority is superior to yours.

- Marc

 

[ZoranC]

You talk as if this was a total piece of crap lens, just because of a bad copies. Manufacturing issues are one thing, bad design is another.

Please notice I never called this lens piece of crap, period, I called copies that I tried in my opinion a pieces of a crap. How do you call copy that kept repeatedly severely missing focus on two out of three shots taken in a row of what were simple targets? I call it bad copy. How do you call it when that is case with more than one copy that you tried? I call it "pieces of ...".

And do you want to know how many copies I tried that had some issue, whether with alignment or focusing, before I gave up? Five! Five out of five I tried had issue of some sort. So that's why I feel that overall impression they gave me is very bad.

I don't care about how good design looks on paper, that design doesn't produce good final result if manufacturing gets in a way. Nobody looking at the photo / print will say "yeah, flaws are noticable but you took it with lens that has good design so here is my check". They will say "it bothers me, I am not buying it".

 

[Viramati]

For me FE35 is a very good lens with the only real downside being it's f2.8 aperture. I presume Sony could have quite easily produced a f2 model that wouldn't have been much bigger but then that would have competed with the RX1 so obviously it didn't happen. Fuji had the same issue when they brought out the X-pro1 after the X100 which was the 35mm equivelant so they introduced the 28mm equivalent lens and waited a couple of years to produce the 23/1.4 (35mm equivalent). Seeing that I prefer 28mm to 35 I wish sony had done the same!!! One can only presume that with time a 35/1.4 will appear. My copy of the FE35 performs very well and when I use it I am always surprised by the clarity of the images it produces

 

[ZoranC]

... some posters here will have difficulty wrapping their head around a lens test based solely on real life shooting. Is that any way to judge a lens?

... and some posters here having problem keeping their foot out of their mouth three times in a row on simple things yet they expect us to trust them they know what they are doing in more complex situation. There is nothing wrong with "real life evaluations", they are part of my test procedures, it is just that "real life scenarios" lot of the time hide what would have been otherwise immediately noticed flaw, "testers" don't realize misalignment get hidden by curvature of the field, etc, it takes certain skill level to do "real life tests" right.

 

[Godfrey]

What is this? DPReview?
Enjoy your discussion.

G

 

[stephengilbert]

So Zoran doesn't love this lens; is that the point?