Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA

[iiiNelson]

Hmmmm... Completely different take for me despite the write up.

Even at thumbnail sizes on an iPad the Distagon is clearly better than the Sonnar to me. It has more character which is what the Sonnar is missing. How it stands up to the Sigma Art is of relevance to me since I already own that lens but ultimate sharpness across the frame isn't everything for me. How it stacks up against the Loxia is also of interest to me.

 

[turtle]

I agree on character, in that the 35mm Sonnar is not a character lens, but that's partly because it is scores highly in almost every technical parameter (aside from vignetting). Its the same with a Leica 35mm Summicron asph, or 24mm Elmar-M. Neither would be considered character lenses, like some of their predecessors or faster contemporaries. Could it be that the new Zony (my new abbreviation for Zeiss designed by Sony ) is trying to cut a fine balance between good enough technical performance to impress, but not so much as to be sterile?

Most manufacturers are reluctant to design in character, because that means are measurable flaws (spherical aberration etc) that looks bad in reviews. I understand Zeiss got burnt with this when designing the 85mm f1.4 Planar ZE/ZF. They wanted to make it gentle and good for portraits wide open and despite some singing its praises for this purpose (and its great sharpness only slightly stopped down), far more slated it for failing to resolve the bacteria on people's faces

I wonder if we are trapped by numbers and the bear pit that all lenses have to fight it out in?

Hmmmm... Completely different take for me despite the write up.

Even at thumbnail sizes on an iPad the Distagon is clearly better than the Sonnar to me. It has more character which is what the Sonnar is missing. How it stands up to the Sigma Art is of relevance to me since I already own that lens but ultimate sharpness across the frame isn't everything for me. How it stacks up against the Loxia is also of interest to me.

 

[Steve P.]

How it stacks up against the Loxia is also of interest to me.

HiredArm, I suspect that, sooner or later, you're gonna get Loxiated!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

To me you buy the 1.4 for the speed and the look at 1.4 or 2. But when stopped down it should equal the F2 and 2.8 lenses in resolving power. What your really buying is what 1.4 does for you. Now having said that there has been a change in the tech with 1.4 glass as the designers are trying to eliminate the aberrations wide open because people bitch about them but that's what makes the look of the lens is those aberrations. We will never see a modern Leica R 80 1.4 summilux ever again in a modern design. That lens has more wide open aberrations than you can count but that's what gave it that Mandler design look to it. He is gone folks will never see lenses like that anymore with modern designs. Even the Sony ZA 85 1.4 is a older design and it does have lens aberrations wide open why a lot of folks like it but look at the Sigma ART series the 35 and 50 they get away from that with stellar performance wide open , look at the OTus series the same thing. So now Sony and all the others are trying to get great wide open performance at the cost of look sometimes. The sigma 35mm lens that I had and now Tre has is a brilliant lens but ask either one of us on the look and we will both say it is a little sterile and that folks is the new pattern in lens design. This lens actually looks pretty nice and the test is good but it's not so much a head to head review it covers some basics. Which I expected it to be. Bottom line you need speed you need speed and the look nowadays takes a second role in the design. Designers don't want to look like idiots putting out 1.4 lenses with serious aberrations which in effect causes some really nice look or character to a lens. We have to remember character in a lens in the best description of it technically is not a perfect lens in design. The best character lenses are loaded with aberrations usually.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

HiredArm, I suspect that, sooner or later, you're gonna get Loxiated!

I think it maybe the best compromise. At least that is what I am planning on. I just need to get out and prove it to myself. Okay hopping in the shower and going to get my *** out and test it. Lol I cheated and played golf yesterday.

 

[iiiNelson]

HiredArm, I suspect that, sooner or later, you're gonna get Loxiated!

I'm not so sure yet... Five years ago I passed on the ZM35/2 (the ZM35/2.8 C-Biogon had great character by comparison but lacked speed) and bought the 35 Cron ASPH because it had more character. Lord knows I wanted to save $2K.

I am PRETTY sure that I will get Loxiated by the Loxia 50/2 Planar though. It's based on my favorite 50 of all time. Sort of a great balance between sharpness and character and paired well with the 35 Cron ASPH in the past although they give a bit of a different signature. One is VERY modern Leica and the other VERY modern Zeiss.

 

[iiiNelson]

I agree on character, in that the 35mm Sonnar is not a character lens, but that's partly because it is scores highly in almost every technical parameter (aside from vignetting). Its the same with a Leica 35mm Summicron asph, or 24mm Elmar-M. Neither would be considered character lenses, like some of their predecessors or faster contemporaries. Could it be that the new Zony (my new abbreviation for Zeiss designed by Sony ) is trying to cut a fine balance between good enough technical performance to impress, but not so much as to be sterile?

Most manufacturers are reluctant to design in character, because that means are measurable flaws (spherical aberration etc) that looks bad in reviews. I understand Zeiss got burnt with this when designing the 85mm f1.4 Planar ZE/ZF. They wanted to make it gentle and good for portraits wide open and despite some singing its praises for this purpose (and its great sharpness only slightly stopped down), far more slated it for failing to resolve the bacteria on people's faces

I wonder if we are trapped by numbers and the bear pit that all lenses have to fight it out in?

The 24 Elmar has SOME character but the fact that it's a wide and lacks speed doesn't contribute well to displaying it. Close up the 24 Elmar has the same 3D rendering that the 24 Elmarit has stopped down but it isn't quite as warm in the rendering as the 24 Elmarit.

The 35 Cron ASPH is the 35mm that I compare all other 35's to. I haven't used anything except the Sigma Art 35 that even remotely comes close to it. Yes it lacks SOME character compared to say the "Bokeh King" (v.4) and even the version 3 (which many actually believe is a bit better than the fabled Bokeh King.) The color, rendering, and tone is perfect. Not what I'd call sterile to be honest... Especially when shooting B&W on an M8/M9 based body.

The next part is my issue what happens when engineers and marketing departments don't bother to work closely enough with operators. Sadly this isn't a Sony exclusive problem but a by product of industry norms in developed countries around the world.

As for the desire of perfect lenses - I'm all for working out extreme aberrations and minimizing time sitting at a computer. I don't know if I'm willing to give up character completely for the pixel peepers and corner freaks to be honest. I'm definitely am not willing to give up speed to ISO - simply put if people don't care much about shallow DoF as a component of the look sometimes then they would be better serviced by smaller sensors with smaller lenses than tend to be extremely well corrected through software.

 

[Steve P.]

I think it maybe the best compromise. At least that is what I am planning on. I just need to get out and prove it to myself. Okay hopping in the shower and going to get my *** out and test it. Lol I cheated and played golf yesterday.

The forum relies on you getting out there and doing the heavy lifting with all these new lenses, so's we don't have to.
You can tell your wife we said so!

 

[iiiNelson]

To me you buy the 1.4 for the speed and the look at 1.4 or 2. But when stopped down it should equal the F2 and 2.8 lenses in resolving power. What your really buying is what 1.4 does for you. Now having said that there has been a change in the tech with 1.4 glass as the designers are trying to eliminate the aberrations wide open because people bitch about them but that's what makes the look of the lens is those aberrations. We will never see a modern Leica R 80 1.4 summilux ever again in a modern design. That lens has more wide open aberrations than you can count but that's what gave it that Mandler design look to it. He is gone folks will never see lenses like that anymore with modern designs. Even the Sony ZA 85 1.4 is a older design and it does have lens aberrations wide open why a lot of folks like it but look at the Sigma ART series the 35 and 50 they get away from that with stellar performance wide open , look at the OTus series the same thing. So now Sony and all the others are trying to get great wide open performance at the cost of look sometimes. The sigma 35mm lens that I had and now Tre has is a brilliant lens but ask either one of us on the look and we will both say it is a little sterile and that folks is the new pattern in lens design. This lens actually looks pretty nice and the test is good but it's not so much a head to head review it covers some basics. Which I expected it to be. Bottom line you need speed you need speed and the look nowadays takes a second role in the design. Designers don't want to look like idiots putting out 1.4 lenses with serious aberrations which in effect causes some really nice look or character to a lens. We have to remember character in a lens in the best description of it technically is not a perfect lens in design. The best character lenses are loaded with aberrations usually.

Agree 100% and even as nice as the Sigma Arts are (it's really amazing what they are doing optically at the cost they're doing it at) most love them because it's somewhat of an introduction for the masses to truly excellent glass. Most aren't willing to spend $2K+ on the top glass from Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, or pick a MF manufacturer. So the Sigma's look THAT much better but many complain about size which isn't much of an issue to me personally being a larger person - but I can see how it would be for some. Heavier glass and more complex designs equal weight exponentially. I mean compare an old Leica 50 Elmar to a new Noctilux. The same can be said if you compare a CV Skopar to a Nokton or ne of those Canon Nifty 50/1.8 $150 polycarbonate lenses to the Canon 50/1.2 with exotic glass elements.

The truth is that while the 35 Distagon is twice as expensive a lot of that has to do with the fact few people will buy it and it's more of a specialty lens for a very specific audience - that audience will probably love it once they get it in their hands.

I still don't get why so many are negative/adverse to others about having the choice between faster lenses when there are slower choices out there. We get it some of you will never buy anything that weighs more than a handful of feathers for fear of collapsing from the exorbitant weight but give it a rest please. I swear it's like people have never seen the inside of a gym/health club crying over a few ounces here or there.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

My theory is you want sharp wide open regardless of size, weight and such and you want to save money to boot is get all three Sigma Art lenses 24,35 and 50 regardless if your shooting canon, Nikon or Sony. But if you have diffrent goals in a lens these may not be what you buy. Personally when it comes to my high end Mpx beast than I'm looking more for character. For other things that require very sharp wide open than these maybe it but they are a little more generic in look. Depends on need here and if we all had it our way we would have a huge assortment to fit any need. Myself I can't afford that luxury.

I think this new Zeiss will have a better look over the Sigma Art 35 but wide open is my bet the Sigma will resolve more. Now I'm partial to Zeiss glass and always have been regardless of system I always bought Zeiss glass in the end.

 

[ryc]

I put up a short narrative here A day with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZA | JORGE TORRALBA with soe samples

 

[jfirneno]

I put up a short arrative here A day with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZA | JORGE TORRALBA with soe samples

Jorge:
I saw your review before but really appreciate it now that I'm evaluating the lens myself. Love the bokeh in the bartender shot.

 

[Barry Haines]

I put up a short arrative here A day with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZA | JORGE TORRALBA with soe samples

I liked your review Jorge...many thanks for the link.
I'm considering changing my 35mm CV f1.2 for the 35mm FE Distagon as I prefer the creamy soft Bokeh look to the slightly nervous Loxias...Although I love the size and weight of the Loxias...It's a tough call between them...thanks again.
Also...
Many thanks to Guy and John for your images...most appreciated.
Cheers Barry

 

[Slingers]

Thanks Jorge, that's a great showcase of the lens.

 

[darrellc]

I put up a short narrative here A day with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZA | JORGE TORRALBA with soe samples

Love the b&w pic of the back of the person seated in the window.

 

[CharlesK]

Jorge,
Thank for the excellent review and shots!!

Shot with the FE 35/1.4 and A7II yesterday afternoon.

The rest of my shots from the first day with my FE 35/1.4

Charles Kalnins Photography | Sony FE 35/1.4 with A7II

 

[ryc]

Great shot Charles. Love the way the reds stand out on this one.

 

[iiiNelson]

Wow... As good as the Loxia look I think there may be something special in the rendering of the Distagon shots.

 

[ryc]

 

[Vivek]

Onion rings in the OOF highlights.