Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA

[Speedgraphic]

Well now I don't want to be laughed out of the room but...

Any reason why I should abandon the excellent 35mm 1.4 Sigmalux which currently simply fights for time against my favored 58/1.4G on the D750?

This could sit on the other shoulder with A7 at my weddings...

 

[iiiNelson]

If you're referring to the Sigma Art 35/1.4 then it's a subjective choice as the 35 Distagon FE is a pricier choice. For me it came down to being able to AF across the whole frame and me having a consistent look with my other Zeiss lenses. Really the only con was the price and the large size for some. The IQ makes up for any negative ticks on my checklist.

That may not be worth the extra $3-400 to you. The Sigma Art is an excellent lens and if it were a native one I probably wouldn't have bothered with this one to be honest. There's not a difference worth 2X the cost to be honest although I do believe the 35 Distagon is the better lens. I don't know if the extra 10% of overall subjective performance (the Sigma is as sharp if not sharper but lacks the extra character IMO) is worth it to everyone. When you factor in the cost of the LA-E4.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The new FE will focus far better and more accurate than the Sigma. Sometimes the Sigma may hunt. Actually Tre has my Sigma that one is a good copy but I have had 2 bad ones with my Nikons. The key is the native lenses that can use all those AF point outside the cl enteral cluster. I fight this when I use A mount lenses. One reason why I sold the 85 ZA was for people especially that lens it was a real pain to work with. Bottom line Sony before they do anything need a far better A to E adapter, it works but it's not taken advantage of the A7 series capabilities. I only have one A mount left the Minolta 200 and that's a out of my dead cold hands lens.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

So publicly I will put this out there if someone buys the 35 1.4 and finds it to big or whatever and wants the Loxia 35 plus cash, I can make that trade. But I'm fine for now also as I do like the Loxia quite a lot. My issue is knowing something maybe better. Hate that in my head. LOL

The thing is the 35mm FOV is my lens cap lens

 

[Speedgraphic]

If you're referring to the Sigma Art 35/1.4 then it's a subjective choice as the 35 Distagon FE is a pricier choice. For me it came down to being able to AF across the whole frame and me having a consistent look with my other Zeiss lenses. Really the only con was the price and the large size for some. The IQ makes up for any negative ticks on my checklist.

That may not be worth the extra $3-400 to you. The Sigma Art is an excellent lens and if it were a native one I probably wouldn't have bothered with this one to be honest. There's not a difference worth 2X the cost to be honest although I do believe the 35 Distagon is the better lens. I don't know if the extra 10% of overall subjective performance (the Sigma is as sharp if not sharper but lacks the extra character IMO) is worth it to everyone. When you factor in the cost of the LA-E4.

Thanks! I actually have the Siggy for my D750. All my lenses for my A7 so far are adapted. 50/1.4 & 2.8/2.8 from CY Contax and a the 40/1.4 from Voigtlander. My thinking would be that I'd have a my Nikon with my 58/1.4 on one shoulder and the A7 with the 35/1.4 on the other shoulder. I'm not sure how well the AF would keep up at receptions though...

 

[iiiNelson]

To be honest I'd say you'd be better off with two identical cameras to do weddings. The FE cameras would be great for your travel or personal camera.

 

[Speedgraphic]

To be honest I'd say you'd be better off with two identical cameras to do weddings. The FE cameras would be great for your travel or personal camera.

I already do work now with a Rolleiflex, D750 and F100. There is a lot of camera switching haha. I've never totally gone the conventional route.

 

[Speedgraphic]

I guess 35mm is a Tamron design comes from this:
Xitek - FE 35mm F2.8 ZA- designed by TAMRON

Tamron owns a factory(s) that are capable of making lenses. When you own a factory like this you can be hired to make lenses to pretty much any specification given the resources involved. It's very, very stupid to think less of a lens just because it was made in the Tamron factory. Tamron themselves probably could hire some designers to come up with some Otus like lenses, but guess what, that's not their market. They make affordable lenses that beat Canikon on price and they do very well in that sphere. It's not all about know how, it's about manufacturing and branding. Lenses are designed based on practicality and price. Zeiss has their design techniques and they can hire any factory they want that can bring their designs to life. Same with Sony, Canon and Nikon. The reason why Zeiss lenses are relatively priced competitively vs Leica (the closest other premium brand) is because they have chosen to use outside contractors to make their line ups. This is a smart move and it's to the benefit of all of us. Leica on the other hand does most things in house, in smaller scale, and the prices are higher. Guess what, Sigma could probably put together something like the APO Summicron if they want, but nobody would buy it. It would be massively expensive and large due to AF. So, they made something 'like' an Otus lens, and are doing remarkably well! I should add that while Leica does most things in house, that has not exempted them from all kinds of QC and design issues.

My basic point is, if a Tamron factory manufactures the lens, it doesn't mean they're swapping plastic elements from the rows of 18-55s they're producing for Rebels, and it's ignorant to assume it's a mark of poor quality. Japanese manufacturing is some of the best in the world.

 

[Vivek]

Quite a few dumped the 35/2.8 for various reasons none (AFAIK) because it may be a Tamron designed/made and Zeiss labelled lens sold by Sony.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Big mistake. I'm in NY and stopped in the Sony store. They had the 1.4 on display and of course I made them let me play with it. First it's not heavy and it's not big. What a myth that is. It's a 35 1.4 lens like anyone else that has a 1.4 lens. It's a freaking beauty that's what it is. Pretty simple

I'll wait till after getting my Batis glass and A7r but it's really nice. I'm happy with my Loxia right now and shot it quite a bit this trip. I have both Loxia lenses with me and the 16-35 which I have not even shot yet.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Quite a few dumped the 35/2.8 for various reasons none (AFAIK) because it may be a Tamron designed/made and Zeiss labelled lens sold by Sony.

So, what's wrong with the 35/2.8?

 

[Vivek]

So, what's wrong with the 35/2.8?

Haven't you seen Tim Ashley's review? It was posted here.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

It's a freaking beauty that's what it is. Pretty simple

Told you so - weeks ago!

 

[iiiNelson]

Big mistake. I'm in NY and stopped in the Sony store. They had the 1.4 on display and of course I made them let me play with it. First it's not heavy and it's not big. What a myth that is. It's a 35 1.4 lens like anyone else that has a 1.4 lens. It's a freaking beauty that's what it is. Pretty simple

I'll wait till after getting my Batis glass and A7r but it's really nice. I'm happy with my Loxia right now and shot it quite a bit this trip. I have both Loxia lenses with me and the 16-35 which I have not even shot yet.

Yup. Pretty much in line with what Chad and all other owners have reiterated. Ashwin noted the same this past weekend when I handed him mine. Definitely is large compared to some but heavy it is not.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Haven't you seen Tim Ashley's review? It was posted here.

Thanks Vivek. Yup, I remember having read his article at the time.

I recall there was a lot of discussion about lens manufacturing variances, de-centering, etc. For what I am using my 35/2.8 for it seems fine.

It's the only lens so far I bought that is native to FE cameras. I'll wait and see if and when the A7R II materializes before considering getting more native AF lenses for the FE mount. So far, I have mainly used various Leica R and M lenses on the A7R anyway, of course, avoiding the problematic M lenses. But I am well covered from 14 to 280 mm with Leica lenses, so I am in no hurry.

 

[pegelli]

Here's Tim's review of the 35/2.8: Sony FE 35mm f2.8 ZA

Pretty positive I would say, and for me not a reason to dump the lens if it behaves like the sample Tim tested.

 

[Vivek]

Not many have the patience of Tim or Michael (? another review that mirrors Tim's) to discover the "right sample". The whole point of the blue label was supposedly a quality control check (or so is the myth).

 

[turtle]

Very true, but if you have a good copy, you have a very good and extremely small and light lens.

I have no intention to get rid of mine and, knowing it as I do now, there are no impediments to stunning image quality.

I can see why people prefer other 35mm solutions, but if f2.8 works and a person has a good copy, there is not much to complain about with the 35mm FE Sonnar IMHO. There are a great many very positive reviews and very happy users out there, so the notion of 'dumping the lens' surprises me. After all, many lauded it as a 'gem' not long ago!

Quality control was shocking, however.... never seen anything like it.

Not many have the patience of Tim or Michael (? another review that mirrors Tim's) to discover the "right sample". The whole point of the blue label was supposedly a quality control check (or so is the myth).

 

[Vivek]

Very true, but if you have a good copy, you have a very good and extremely small and light lens.

I have no intention to get rid of mine and, knowing it as I do now, there are no impediments to stunning image quality.

I can see why people prefer other 35mm solutions, but if f2.8 works and a person has a good copy, there is not much to complain about with the 35mm FE Sonnar IMHO. There are a great many very positive reviews and very happy users out there, so the notion of 'dumping the lens' surprises me. After all, many lauded it as a 'gem' not long ago!

Quality control was shocking, however.... never seen anything like it.

That is 2 people discarding 2 each and if you include my 2 samples (never went for that "gem" 3rd sample) that is 6. That is exactly what I refer to.

OTOH, I am pretty happy with the one (used) sample of a Summarit M 35/2.5. Colors are simply the best.

 

[algrove]

OTOH, I am pretty happy with the one (used) sample of a Summarit M 35/2.5. Colors are simply the best.

That's because it's a Leica lens. No?