Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA

[Paratom]

my opinion: instead of a big big f1.4 lens and a f2.8 lens Sony should rather offer a good compromise, lets say a 35/2.0 in reasonable sie with good IQ.

Of course its possible and "ok" to put huge lenses on an a7II body, but I would assume that handling of such a big lens would be much better on a DSLR sized body.

 

[iiiNelson]

my opinion: instead of a big big f1.4 lens and a f2.8 lens Sony should rather offer a good compromise, lets say a 35/2.0 in reasonable sie with good IQ.

Of course its possible and "ok" to put huge lenses on an a7II body, but I would assume that handling of such a big lens would be much better on a DSLR sized body.

I thought that's exactly what they did in giving us all three choices in 35mm... Now I'd like to see them do that for all focal lengths in time to be honest but Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[ptomsu]

I owned the Zeiss 1.4/35 ZF.2 lens for my D800E. Even on this camera, which is remarkably bigger than the A7 series cameras this lens was just huge and heavy.

The new 1.4/35 FE lens seems to be at least same size and weight, if not a tad bigger ..... for my taste this is too huge and kills almost all advantages of a small mirrorless body.

Same is BTW true for the new 2.8/90 Macro, which is huge, Huge,....

Not sure who is responsible at Sony for these designs and developments, cannot think of huge success here, but who knows .....

At least Steve Huff is praising it!

 

[Vivek]

I thought that's exactly what they did in giving us all three choices in 35mm... Now I'd like to see them do that for all focal lengths in time to be honest but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Tre, If you are referring to the Loxia (Cosina made and sold by Zeiss), it has nothing to do with Sony.

 

[Vivek]

At least Steve Huff is praising it!

A ringing endorsement, for sure.

 

[iiiNelson]

Tre, If you are referring to the Loxia (Cosina made and sold by Zeiss), it has nothing to do with Sony.

Sure it does. It's made for and designed for Sony FE bodies. It kinda has everything to do with Sony.

It is what it is. If you don't like it don't buy it. I plan on buying the 90 Macro (based on early press shots) as well because optically it seems great from the bit I've seen of it. My 35 Distagon is already paid for and it seems to be everything I personally wanted in a native 35mm. I own the Sigma Art 35 and I love it but the AF points are clustered in the middle 1/3 of the frame. I owned the 35/2.8... hated it. This seems like the best compromise for me although I would've bought a manual focus ZM 35/1.4 Distagon given the Loxia treatment if it would've been released first.

 

[jfirneno]

Sony and Zeiss:

Listen up. This is what your customers want:

1) Lenses in all focal lengths.

2) Lenses at smaller maximum apertures (f4, f2.8 and f2) because these lenses need to be smaller!

3) Lenses at larger maximum aperture (f1.8, f1.4, f1.2 and even f1.0) because these lenses are not fast enough!

2) Lenses as sharp as Leica but without the required software corrections.

3) Much better auto-focus.

4) Much better stabilization.

5) Much lower priced.

Now get busy or we'll buy a cheap large sigma lens and a $10,000 manual focus Leica lens, blend them together and produce the magic Sigmeica lens. Cheap, small, sharp and with an auto-rangefinder focus system that can't be described. (Edit, actually I can describe it. It's autofocus where the camera itself gets to experience the rangefinder focus experience instead of the photographer).

Regards,
John

 

[Vivek]

Tre, The point is Sony did not make the 35/2 as you said. No.

Of course, I am not buying the lens. I suppose I can't say anything about it size because you are buying it?

Don't forget that these are the same guys who have been churning out crap year after year since the NEX-5 with a plastic mount. It took them many years since NEX-5 to change that habit.

 

[Viramati]

Well looking at the size and weight of this lens I think I will stick with my CV 35/1.2 VII which is another hefty piece of glass but performs well when I need a wide aperture and for the rest I'll stick with my oh so small and light 35/2.8

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Don't you GUYs know SIZE counts. It just had to be said. LOL

 

[JorisV]

I owned the Zeiss 1.4/35 ZF.2 lens for my D800E. Even on this camera, which is remarkably bigger than the A7 series cameras this lens was just huge and heavy.

The new 1.4/35 FE lens seems to be at least same size and weight, if not a tad bigger ..... for my taste this is too huge and kills almost all advantages of a small mirrorless body.

Same is BTW true for the new 2.8/90 Macro, which is huge, Huge,....

Not sure who is responsible at Sony for these designs and developments, cannot think of huge success here, but who knows .....

+1. I own a Leica M9, a Sony A7s and Fuji X-T1/X-Pro1.

When looking at the latest offerings from Sony and Fuji I am more inclined to invest in additional Leica glass than in Sony or Fuji glass.

For me personally the Fuji 56mm (405g) is about as far as I want to go with a mirrorless body. The 650 grams of the Sony 35mm/f1.4 is too much.

Obviously, everybody's mileage will differ.

 

[Show Performance]

Obviously, everybody's mileage will differ.

Yeah, there's the rub and the challenge for a new platform.

Everyone has different needs - enthusiasts, pros, travel, action, landscape, street, etc.

I just can't find it in me to be too critical of what Sony is doing - not because I am a fanboy but because I think it is a waste of time being critical of something that doesn't meet my ideal when it may well suite someone else perfectly.

If anything, it seems like Sony is offering a fairly wide range of options within the still young (and small) lineup.

There really shouldn't be any complaints about the 35mm focal length as it is an embarrassment of riches on the A7 platform - given how early in development we are:

Zeiss FE 35/1.4 (AF)
Loxia 35/2 (MF)
Zeiss FE 35/2.8 (AF)

Add to that adapted M-mount from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander...

 

[Vivek]

Zeiss FE 35/1.4 (AF)
Loxia 35/2 (MF)
Zeiss FE 35/2.8 (AF)

Add to that adapted M-mount from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander...

Nothing about Sony, eh?

Zeiis have no clue what an "advanced aspherical", as claimed by Sony (in some of their Zeiis labelled lenses) is!

 

[uhoh7]

I'm still waiting for Sony to wake up to the need to produce optically stellar compact and slow lenses for landscape shooters. They will be able to provide excellent performance for a lower price and ensure that the small size of the A7 etc is sustained via appropriate lens options. All I am seeing is increasingly large lenses, or in the case of the 28mm f2, one that may not quite convince.

Personally, I would like to see Sony take the approach of Leica (and Canon with the new 11-24mm f4) and produce f4 (ish) lenses (primes in this case).

18mm and 24mm would be the 'must haves', or 16, 21,28.

They have made this goal much harder than it needs to be with the thick CG over their sensors. There are so many versions of the A7, make a "film glass special" with a .7mm cover glass, move the sensor forward so AF works right, and "you are in business" with all M and LTM glass. The "buzz" aka free advertising alone would be worth doing it.

Kolarivision has proved this can be easily done aftermarket for 400 a copy, although they are more like 1mm thickness.

Supposedly we will see a nex-5 sized FF body soon. That camera with a thin CG would be a climber's dream.

This is a real market niche, which is crying to be addressed, as the M bodies are too big and heavy also (yes I love my M9), while the old M6 is so nice and even smaller would be better----and doable today.

Eventually somebody will address the opportunity.

 

[Vivek]

T making a "film glass special" with a .7mm cover glass, move the sensor forward so AF works right, and "you are in business" with all M and LTM glass.

Kolarivision has proved this can be easily done aftermarket for 400 a copy, although they are more like 1mm thickness.

The Sensors have a 0.5mm thick (clear) cover glass already(hermetically sealed). What you have from Kolari is ~1.5mm total (as opposed to the 2.5mm of the stock).

 

[iiiNelson]

Tre, The point is Sony did not make the 35/2 as you said. No.

Of course, I am not buying the lens. I suppose I can't say anything about it size because you are buying it?

Don't forget that these are the same guys who have been churning out crap year after year since the NEX-5 with a plastic mount. It took them many years since NEX-5 to change that habit.

No you're free to say whatever about you want about it buddy. I won't try to stop you.

On another level though you have to give credit where credit is due. It's not like they're still churning out multiple versions of the same 18-2XX superzooms or putting out the same 55-2XX in multiple colors and calling it a new lens anymore. They're putting out premium quality lenses and while I have no use for all of them (and some of them I downright don't like personally) I'm happy they are at least filling the desires of people.

In about 18 months they and their 3rd party vendors announced/released 20 lenses in FE mount. That's progress compared to what they were doing within the first 3 years of E-mount for APS-C sensors. Even if all of the lenses we want aren't out yet or in production you have to like the support and effort they're throwing out there.

 

[dandrewk]

Apparently, the 35/2.8 was made by Tamron for Sony and they slapped the Zeiss tag on it to make it look good. I think less and less of this "Zeiss". They do not seem to make any lenses anymore just rent out their name for lenses made by others.

That's a pretty heady accusation/condemnation. I doubt many will agree with you. Why do you think Tamron manufactured the 35/2.8?

 

[iiiNelson]

That's a pretty heady accusation/condemnation. I doubt many will agree with you. Why do you think Tamron manufactured the 35/2.8?

In fairness to Tamron they seem to be taking a Sigma Art approach lately and getting serious about premium lenses. There 15-30/2.8 looks pretty amazing for resolution in most of the shots I've seen.

I hadn't heard that rumor either though regarding the Zeiss 35/2.8. Even if Zeiss isn't manufacturing the lenses I'm sure they are still designing their branded lenses to be outsourced for manufacturing. I'm sure they did that with some of their Hasselblad lenses in the past too. It's really not that big of a deal if it performs. TheZeiss designed and Cosina manufactured ZM50/2 Planar was full of optical quality. Some people developed issues with focus wobble but I never experienced it with my copy that's now 7 years old.

 

[Slingers]

That's a pretty heady accusation/condemnation. I doubt many will agree with you. Why do you think Tamron manufactured the 35/2.8?

I have seen that the sel50f18 (aps-c version) leads to tamron patents. There is also the tamron 18-200 e mount lens that was rebadged as a sony. With the 18-200 there is a pic somewhere of a sony lens with a tamron front plate. I've read rumors about the sel35f18 (aps-c version again) being a tamron but seen no evidence of this. I have not seen about the Zeiss fe 35 being a tamron design ever before.

 

[Vivek]

That's a pretty heady accusation/condemnation. I doubt many will agree with you. Why do you think Tamron manufactured the 35/2.8?

I picked up a rumor floating around and said "apparently". If you know for sure if Zeiis do anything for Sony/Zeiss branded lenses, feel free to post any evidence. I would like to know other than just the label that is slapped on by Sony.

We know for sure that the Loxias, Touits and Otii are made in Japan with Zeiss not owning any manufacturing facilities there.