New Sony lens mockups. No thanks.

[bradhusick]

So Sony comes out with this nice full frame camera that's small and compact (A7II) and then shows off some upcoming lenses at CES...

Here's a photo of the mockup 35/1.4 Distagon without a hood. This monster is 4.5 to 5 inches long, about 2.5 to 3 inches in diameter, and probably weighs more than a pound. 72mm filter size!

The Leica 35/1.4 is 2.2" x 1.8" and weighs 320g. Yes, I know it's not autofocus. Yes I know I can adapt it to use on the Sony body, but I can use it on my M240 without an adapter.

These monster Sony lenses are why I gave up on the NEX 7 in the first place.

 

[MikeEvangelist]

Wow. That is indeed disappointing.

 

[Annna T]

Wow. That is indeed disappointing.

It doesn't fit well with the philosophy of the system and its smaller bodies, but that's what people have been asking ! Read this list : how many told they wanted fast lenses, at least 1.4 and that they didn't care if the size went bigger and became unbalanced on the body. They are even asking for fast wide lenses.

I think smaller max apertures and smaller lenses would suit the A7 bodies better. A 21-24-28 mm F2.8 would have made more sense before that monster IMO and should have had priority. But now Sony has also issued a bigger body with the A7mk2. This isn't very coherent with the system they have launched. Beware of what you wish, you may get it.. I'm glad that I have kept my E-M5 as well.
As for the comparison with the Leica lens : the sensors and the lens registers are different and this may impose some constraints explaining Sony's choices.

 

[jonoslack]

Wow. That is indeed disappointing.

But it isn't even slightly surprising. it's become perfectly clear that if you want quality, large aperture lenses with fast, silent AF and you want them fu frame, then they're going to be BIG. it isn't just Sony!

Fortunately, if you can do without AF there are a wealth of excellent options (my son just bought a 50 f1.4 for £67. Small and perfectly formed!

 

[Jonas]

The Leica lens also suffers from bad focus shift and a bad zone B dip (35 Lux-M ASPH non-FLE). They fixed the focus shift (current 35 Lux-M ASPH FLE) but instead introduced eye-scaring bokeh while keeping the zone B dip.
Now we have an M-mount Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 for about [currency] 2.000 which seem excellent except for strange things about the focus plane when used with the Sony A7(x) cameras. Exactly what's going on is too early to say.
There are also several 35/1.4 DSLR lenses available. They are all big and heavy. None of them is perfect. Which to chose is personal. I liked the C/Y Zeiss 35/1.4 best but comparing it to the RX1 made me just keep the RX1 (which comes with its own set of flaws).
What did you expect from Sony?

 

[mbroomfield]

I quite agree with Jono, disappointing perhaps but not surprising. The 28/2 on the other hand looks very nice
Beta Alphas: Sony shows mockups of upcoming FE lenses for Alpha 7 system: Digital Photography Review

Jonas, can you say more about the A7x/Distagon issue?

 

[philber]

The ever-increasing resolution of sensors, plus pixel-peaking, plus the priority given by tests to wide open sharpness, all point to lenses getting larger. Basically, the Otus 55 is an MF lens, with the corners of the image not used by an FF sensor.
If you are using a short register, you are making matters even more difficult.
Then how are Leica doing it? Well, obviously leaving AF out helps a bit. Then, it does have a few quirks of its own (see comment by the learned Jonas above). But mostly, there are 2 major differences. One is that Leica do quite a bit of in-camera processing to sort out some lens issues. And, even more, anybody notice the price? 3x more than the Sony, or thereabouts. With that much money in hand, designers can use very exotic glass and lens constructions. Not sure any of us would be really happy if Sony replicated that price, eh?

 

[Steve P.]

As each year passes high ISO performance improves slightly. Apart from razor thin depth of field, what you could only accomplish with a 1.4 aperture just a few years ago, you can now achieve with f2 or even 2.8 at higher ISO with little or no penalty to image quality. And how many times do we really need f1.4 depth of field anyway? Most of the time for what I shoot I tend to prefer f2-f4 for subject isolation, especially for portraits where I quite like getting whole faces in focus, not just eyelashes of a single eye.

 

[Rawfa]

Even the 28mm f2.0 is a beast, but I still take it over a big DSLR with a similar lens. Just put a grip on the camera and you get your balance back.

 

[MGrayson]

That's the 28 with a fisheye adapter on the front. The lens itself is not big.

Matt

 

[bradhusick]

A couple years ago I did a massive comparison test of 35mm RF lenses for Steve Huff's site. The winner? The Zeiss 35/2 Biogon. That's the one I kept. It was only outperformed by the Leica FLE at almost 6 times the price. The Biogon has a 43mm filter size - just over half of the Sony mockup, and weighs just 240g.

 

[jfirneno]

A couple years ago I did a massive comparison test of 35mm RF lenses for Steve Huff's site. The winner? The Zeiss 35/2 Biogon. That's the one I kept. It was only outperformed by the Leica FLE at almost 6 times the price. The Biogon has a 43mm filter size - just over half of the Sony mockup, and weighs just 240g.

Brad:

I wonder if you've had a chance to compare the Zeiss 35/2 against the Loxia 35/2. I recently rented the Loxia 50/2 and compared it to the FE 55/1.8 and found them very comparable. I've never used the Zeiss M but I'm sure it's much smaller than the Loxia. The trade-off is the convenience of automatically triggering the manual focus aids and the metadata being recorded. It would be interesting to see how it stacks up against the best 35 you've tested.

Regards,
John

 

[cam]

As each year passes high ISO performance improves slightly. Apart from razor thin depth of field, what you could only accomplish with a 1.4 aperture just a few years ago, you can now achieve with f2 or even 2.8 at higher ISO with little or no penalty to image quality. And how many times do we really need f1.4 depth of field anyway? Most of the time for what I shoot I tend to prefer f2-f4 for subject isolation, especially for portraits where I quite like getting whole faces in focus, not just eyelashes of a single eye.

Maybe you don't, but others do.

f/1.4 can give quite a bit more DOF than an eyelash if you're shooting from far enough away-- think night street shots, stage performances, low light party situations… Instances like this where, in many cases, keeping up shutter speed is more important.

To be honest, I still like to pull out my f/1 after dark. Shooting in impossible light, every bit helps.

 

[Steve P.]

Maybe you don't, but others do.

f/1.4 can give quite a bit more DOF than an eyelash if you're shooting from far enough away-- think night street shots, stage performances, low light party situations… Instances like this where, in many cases, keeping up shutter speed is more important.

To be honest, I still like to pull out my f/1 after dark. Shooting in impossible light, every bit helps.

Fair enough, Cam. I think using a fast aperture lens just because you like it is all the reason anyone needs to do just that. I do think the balance is shifting, though - even in low lit night street shots or stage performance, where f1.4 is useful but no longer quite so essential as once it was. I agree there will be times where nothing but speed will do, it's just that those times are fewer and further between nowadays.

 

[Vivek]

To be honest, I still like to pull out my f/1 after dark. Shooting in impossible light, every bit helps.

Yes and no. In impossible light, that 50/1 is even fuzzier. Heck, even in contrasty light it is full of "character".

It is namesake f/1 and is a fondler (or is it "Mandler") item. Hardly useful in practice.

 

[cam]

Yes and no. In impossible light, that 50/1 is even fuzzier. Heck, even in contrasty light it is full of "character".

It is namesake f/1 and is a fondler (or is it "Mandler") item. Hardly useful in practice.

Pfffffft!

It's a Mandler (one of the very first) and not a fondler -- though I do tend to fondle mine quite a bit

 

[Vivek]

Pfffffft!

It's a Mandler (one of the very first) and not a fondler -- though I do tend to fondle mine quite a bit

Is that your sample from a so called fast lens on the A7s, Cam? Totally invisible!

 

[ken_vs_ryu]

A couple years ago I did a massive comparison test of 35mm RF lenses for Steve Huff's site. The winner? The Zeiss 35/2 Biogon. That's the one I kept. It was only outperformed by the Leica FLE at almost 6 times the price. The Biogon has a 43mm filter size - just over half of the Sony mockup, and weighs just 240g.

Loxia 35 fits perfect then.

 

[cam]

Is that your sample from a so called fast lens on the A7s, Cam? Totally invisible!

Touché!

 

[Amin]

It's an impossible task for Sony. As Jonas pointed out, no one has done 35mm f/1.4, sharpness across the frame, flat focal plane, low distortion, nice bokeh, autofocus, and small size.

I personally would have preferred Sony make big sacrifices in terms of distortion and edge performance to make the lens smaller, but lots of people would have complained about that too.

I'm very happy with my Leica 35/1.4 on the M and moderately less happy with it on the Sony A7. Not sure if other Sony sensors do better than the A7 in terms of edge performance with this lens. Perhaps the next generation of Sony sensors will allow for smaller lenses with good performance.