Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 105

Thread: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    What do you call a hundred landscape photographers at the bottom of the ocean?

    A good start.
    (ZoranC <- not a landscape photographer) Phew!

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Hurrah! Everyone can sigh with relief. Here I am to add my two cents to this love-fest.

    Okay, I'm sure no one is swayed in either direction and basically this is a big old relief valve of frustration over quality (or quality control) issues for the FE 35. I consider that the one I got in December is very good but I would be the last one to claim that I've done exhaustive testing on it or that much worse examples don't exist. Let's assume they do for the sake of argument.

    My first thought is a question. How does Sony QC compare to Nikon/Canon/Sigma? I've bought a few Sigmas and from what I remember their QC used to be legendarily hit and miss. I haven't bought any Canon or Nikon lately but Mr. Ciccala seems to think they also have issues. So it would be interesting to get an opinion from a Nikon and or Cannon shooter to compare Sony to them.

    My second thought is a statement. Buying into a new lens mount is necessarily an exercise in waiting. You just can't launch enough lenses fast enough to satisfy anyone. People have talked about three or four factors that define products. Well in design (of any kind) there is the pick two rule, schedule, cost and quality. So you can have it fast cheap and bad, slow cheap and good, or fast, expensive and good. So if quality is really what you want then you either have to pay a ton right away or wait a century to get it at a good price. Now these are best case scenarios. So a company can try to give quality and still screw it up so I think you can assume that the only thing you can guarantee is that you won't get any low cost lenses from Sony any time soon. And that also means that if they try to push too many lenses through the system the chance of them having high quality becomes small. From my point of view waiting for thorough review is important. That way if you get a bad copy you'll know it's worthwhile to go around on another copy.

    Regards,
    John

  3. #53
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    John

    No difference with Nikon, Canon and name everyone of them . They all have a dog in the shed and they all have sample variation. This is nothing new and unless everything is hand tested put through QC on every lens made than we will always have the same issues. The Sony 35mm FE 2.8 just follows the same pattern. But any lens and let me repeat myself any lens that fails a photographers expectations and has a decentering issue is a a piece of crap, send it back get another copy try again and if not move on to something else. The sun will come up in the morning and will set somewhere on this planet. These forums are meant for discussions and bringing up good and bad in products they should never be a place for blind loyalty to brand and ignoring issues. I see far to much brand loyalty and ignoring value, quality and just plane common sense. As I said befoe and as quoted in the movie Heat.

    Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.

    Simply put don't attach yourself to any brand. If it sucks walk away
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post

    So why use reference to feelings of non-demanding average consumer owners to comment on feelings of demanding professionals / strong enthusiasts? It is easily interpreted as downplay of feelings of the later ones.
    The reference was clear and reiterated more than once. But you chose to make it something it wasn't, despite my repeated attempt to clarify. How many more times do I have to state the issue with the lens is real, but not universal or (to some), not that important? Yet somehow -you- interpreted this as "downplay".

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post

    Do you own 35/2.8? If yes have you tested it and how? How many copies you tested? What is your definition of "marginal" / "non-marginal"? Can you quantify it? Can you describe it in words that something can be wrapped around, like "At aperture X 15% of the frame toward lower right turns into mush even though subject distance is such that curvature of the field shouldn't cause it and all other corners are not that bad"?

    Even more importantly have you seen and tested copies me and other forum members had in our hands? I know you hadn't. So how then you can make generalized statements about "marginal" decentering of implied all copies, period?
    Is this a serious question/challenge, or an attempt to inflame? I had originally included a sentence about the impossibility of objectifying something that is "obviously" subjective.

    But to answer your question: If you have actually read my posts in this thread, you would know that I own this lens. How do I test it? Like I do with all my new lenses - and NOT shooting test charts or brick walls. I choose real life situations. The location varies, but always with plenty of fine detail edge to edge and corner to corner. I have done so in this forum and posted results (linked to another forum) of the FE70-200.

    If I have another lens with a similar focal length that I know is sharp, I'll compare the two. The new lens gets individual scrutiny to test for decentering and general sharpness.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post

    For some reason your words were leaving me with different impression. In any case I think both sides have expressed their standpoint enough and we can leave it at that.
    Looking over the discussion, I am clueless as to what that "some reason" must be. You seem to be arguing with the proverbial straw man, so hopefully all standpoints have now been expressed.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    John

    No difference with Nikon, Canon and name everyone of them . They all have a dog in the shed and they all have sample variation. This is nothing new and unless everything is hand tested put through QC on every lens made than we will always have the same issues. The Sony 35mm FE 2.8 just follows the same pattern. But any lens and let me repeat myself any lens that fails a photographers expectations and has a decentering issue is a a piece of crap, send it back get another copy try again and if not move on to something else. The sun will come up in the morning and will set somewhere on this planet. These forums are meant for discussions and bringing up good and bad in products they should never be a place for blind loyalty to brand and ignoring issues. I see far to much brand loyalty and ignoring value, quality and just plane common sense. As I said befoe and as quoted in the movie Heat.

    Don’t let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.

    Simply put don't attach yourself to any brand. If it sucks walk away
    I couldn't agree more. From my own and observed experience with Nikon, they have had their successes and failures. Some have been flat-out duds. Most of their lenses, though, have been a success for the intended user base. Some are "legendary". It will take several years, but let's hope Sony can establish that same reputation.

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    I actually have four 35mm lenses all FF: Sony FE 35mm f2.8, Minolta Maxxum 35mm f2, Nikkor 35mm f2.8, and a PC-Nikkor 35mm f2.8. When I first purchased the a7 and the LA-AE4 adapter I thought the Minolta would be my favorite lens and the initial results were excellent. It is truly a wonderful lens. I borrowed the Sony 35mm from my local camera store so I could test it against the Minolta. They were very, very close but the Zeiss seemed to render the images with a bit more resolution of detail and contrast. Instead of returning the lens, I wrote them a check and have been very pleased with it ever since. The size and weight are perfect on the camera. The old Nikkor lenses are very good, and the advantage of the PC has led me to keep that lens, but neither matches the Minolta or Sony for resolution and contrast.

    FE 35mm f2.8 @ f2.8

    sec (1/50)
    ISO: 200

    Minolta 35mm f2 @ f2.8


    Hydraulics

    Date Taken: 2014-02-16 15:48:43
    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: FE 35mm F2.8 ZA
    Aperture: f/6.3
    Exposure Time: 0.017 sec (1/60)
    ISO: 320


    Date Taken: 2014-01-09 10:29:07
    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: 35mm F2
    Aperture: f/9.0
    Exposure Time: 0.003 sec (1/320)
    ISO: 320


    Date Taken: 2014-01-01 17:39:38
    Camera Make: SONY
    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: 35mm F2
    Focal Length: 35 mm
    Mode: Aperture-priority AE
    Aperture: f/4.0
    Exposure Time: 0.017 sec (1/60)
    ISO: 200
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasZ View Post
    I will not try another one. I have two classic manual lenses that work really well, the Nikkors 105/2.5 and 180/2.8. I have so much fun using them, I've just decided to go all manual with the A7r. I will sell the 24-70f4 and the 35/2.8.
    Now I am on the epic quest to find the best manual lenses for me. Seems to be a lot of fun
    I already had some of the lenses I wanted to use, I bought the A7 for them not the other way around. I have no intent of buying any native lenses for this camera—all Leica R and Nikkors for me. :-)

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    The reference was clear and reiterated more than once. But you chose to make it something it wasn't, despite my repeated attempt to clarify.
    Obviously your initial post was not clear and was open to be interpreted in manner I interpreted it. Also, we are obviously unlikely to be on same wavelength about that but let me do one final try to illustrate to you how your words looked through hypothetical discussion:

    Number of posters in Sports Car Racer Forum: "We were not happy with performance of car XYZ."

    You: "I haven't seen such a criticism about XYZ anywhere else but here, everybody else calls it very good"

    Sports Car Racer Forum poster: "And who exactly called it very good?"

    You: "Some folks on Driving Very Slow From Point A to Point B Forum"

    You wouldn't interpret that as putting us down / downplaying?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    Is this a serious question/challenge, or an attempt to inflame? I had originally included a sentence about the impossibility of objectifying something that is "obviously" subjective.

    But to answer your question: If you have actually read my posts in this thread, you would know that I own this lens. How do I test it? Like I do with all my new lenses - and NOT shooting test charts or brick walls. I choose real life situations. The location varies, but always with plenty of fine detail edge to edge and corner to corner. I have done so in this forum and posted results (linked to another forum) of the FE70-200.

    If I have another lens with a similar focal length that I know is sharp, I'll compare the two. The new lens gets individual scrutiny to test for decentering and general sharpness.
    It was a serious question and thank you for answering it, even if not completely. Most important part that was not answered was how you can sight unseen imply that copies of unhappy owners that posted here were were having only "marginally soft corners which will only be noticed at 100 percent magnification".

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    Looking over the discussion, I am clueless as to what that "some reason" must be.
    I don't think you should be clueless about it, I think that reason is obvious: It was how you put your words together. See that hypothetical discussion I posted above if that will help you.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post

    It was a serious question and thank you for answering it, even if not completely. Most important part that was not answered was how you can sight unseen imply that copies of unhappy owners that posted here were were having only "marginally soft corners which will only be noticed at 100 percent magnification".
    I did answer that. See the part about trying to precisely define a subjective term.

    But in an attempt to (further) clarify: 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 am NOT talking about test charts or brick walls. I don't look at those, but will trust the objective criteria of lab results.

    To repeat, at the expense of being pedantic - this does not mean the problem isn't real or critically important for many, nor does this absolve Sony of serious QC issues.

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I already had some of the lenses I wanted to use, I bought the A7 for them not the other way around. I have no intent of buying any native lenses for this camera—all Leica R and Nikkors for me. :-)

    G
    Well, I started with the same intention, namely using my Leica M, R, V and Nikkor lenses.

    However, I was so impressed by Michiel Schierbeek's images, in particular http://www.getdpi.com/forum/551181-post3444.html taken with the A7R | Minolta MD 24-35/3.5, that I got that lens as well. Very inexpensively I should add.

    I am also happy with my copy of the Sony FE 35/2.8. It's so bitingly sharp on my A7R that I have to use large negative values for contrast to let portrait shots appear nice and pleasant. But that combination nails focus reliably on the closest eye every time!
    With best regards, K-H.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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?

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post
    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?

  13. #63
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post
    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.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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.

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    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!

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post
    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.

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    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.]
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    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..

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by philip_pj View Post
    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.

  21. #71
    Member ThomasZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by philip_pj View Post
    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.
    http://500px.com/ThomasZ
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #72
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post
    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.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #73
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasZ View Post
    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.

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post
    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
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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".

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    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

  28. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    ... 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.

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    What is this? DPReview?
    Enjoy your discussion.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #80
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

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

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Again I apologize to the forum for being silly enough to being drawn into that one way "discussion".

    Back on topic (again). I think the thread title is drawing a lot of discussion. The FE35 is a lot of things, not the least of which are issues with quality control. That's not unusual amongst lenses. But assuming you have a good copy (I'm betting that's the majority of them), I don't see how the lens could be called "mediocre". It's not outstanding, but still my favorite walk around lens. It has never disappointed me.

  32. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by stephengilbert View Post
    So Zoran doesn't love this lens; is that the point?
    Count number of posters in this thread that shared same feeling as me, I was not the first one that did it, and you might realize what is the real point.

  33. #83
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northumbria
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Completely agree ;
    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    ...Getting a well made lens should NOT be akin to winning the lottery.
    and yet it IS, and it's not going to change since it seems based upon the (observed by deduction, not definite) practice of no-testing-at-all coming out of the factory.
    I miss those oval golden stickers ...
    When you know of a modern lens that almost every owner is happy with : that's luck, that is.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Senior Member Slingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    I wonder why Zeiss never specified that a Sony Zeiss should have the certificate. I also found it interesting that with the FE 55 you get the pouch so it feels like Sony treats it as a more higher end lens. I had the FE 35 before I received the FE 55 and when the 55 came I thought its box was bigger and better packaged than the 35.

  35. #85
    Senior Member CharlesK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    730
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    I fully appreciate a lot of different perspectives, and I have been fortunate that my copy of the FE 35 is excellent.

    Is it acceptable as a serious prime lens, on a FF A7r with 36MP?? IMO, no on the initial launch of a FF interchangeable lens designed system. The FE 55 is excellent, and this should have been a f/1.5 at least. But a f/2.8 for a major workhorse of a 35mm lens, should be f/2.0!!! I don't think most of would have minded a lens marginally larger, if it meant it formed the basis for a great lens.

    Then the question of whether we as the consumer decide to use a smaller/slower MF 35mm lens via an adapter is our choice.

    I really feel very frustrated waiting and hoping Sony will deliver some serious work horse FE primes! A 21/24/28 mm, a faster 35mm and 85/105 mm for portrait work. I think the FE 55 is excellent for now. Don't get me wrong, I love the A7r sensor/IQ, but I am having to use a select few expensive M/R lenses to fill in the gaps for now.

    Sony may produce excellent sensors, and complex bodies, but they do need to follow through with a serious road map for FE prime lenses, and at least one serious FE zoom.
    Charles Kalnins
    Tallai, Queensland Australia.

    http://kalnins.zenfolio.com

  36. #86
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    I've read this thread fully with great interest. As I look toward either a RX1 or A7 with 35 I am now wondering if the RX1 is the better choice. I may just stick to my DP2M.

    May I suggest to anyone with poor output from the FE35, that they send it back for repair or adjustment rather than play a lotto game of hoping to buy or loan better example.
    You won't know if the second, third lens etc is also dodgy or not and if you test two bad samples then have learnt nothing.

    If the Sony tech's are fully informed of the fault and are challenged to make it work as best it should a further re-test should finally yield if the lens is a keeper or not.
    Please of course let us know your findings.
    If the fixed one comes out great then you'll know you have the best FE35 possible.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Some more solid lens news would be very good. I'd like Sony to basically fill in what you might call the Leica M range - from 21mm to 100mm, approx. Leave the DSLR replacement lenses until later please.

    There is a good chance this will happen - as they will soon have done the second stage of the three zooms after stage one of the FE35 and FE55. They will also be looking hard at what is selling from the start-up they have. Here is hoping.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    I've read this thread fully with great interest. As I look toward either a RX1 or A7 with 35 I am now wondering if the RX1 is the better choice.
    Personally after my experiences with 35/2.8 I walked away with a feeling that if I want great performing 35mm FOV lens I should get an RX1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    May I suggest to anyone with poor output from the FE35, that they send it back for repair or adjustment rather than play a lotto game of hoping to buy or loan better example. ... If the Sony tech's are fully informed of the fault and are challenged to make it work as best it should a further re-test should finally yield if the lens is a keeper or not.
    From what I have heard about Sony's service centers majority of them doesn't repair lens, they just replace them with copies that have been refurbished. So a) it is still likely you would be playing lottery, b) you would be getting refurbished lens when you purchased brand new one, I don't see why anyone would want to do that, c) you would be wasting your time and money to deal with something that is not your problem in the first place, I don't see why anyone would want to do that.

  39. #89
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Well, I am so far quite happy with my copy of the FE 35/2.8.
    I posted two images here http://www.getdpi.com/forum/585921-post217.html and here http://www.getdpi.com/forum/585931-post218.html.

    According to Roger Cicala from lensrentals there are no perfect lenses, and no lens is as good off-axis as on-axis.
    I don't have the know-how or proper tools to assess and actively correct any de-centering or other optical misalignments.

    Roger Cicala however has lately made substantial investments in just such tools and written about them.
    Starting at the newest article and going back in time, here they are:

    LensRentals.com - Introducing the Optical Bench
    LensRentals.com - OLAF’s Lens Art
    LensRentals.com - I Sing of OLAF . . .
    LensRentals.com - Roger’s New Toy Needs a Name

    This last, oldest article is particularly enlightening about the effort it takes to actively adjust a de-centered lens.
    In one of the articles Roger Cicala is also discussing his impression of how some manufacturers deal with this issue.
    Maybe Roger should consider going into the business of adjusting lenses for a fee if a manufacturer can't get it right.

    I certainly hope that over time manufacturers will improve their QA outcome.
    But I would also welcome third party efforts to offer such services.
    The latter service could be particularly useful when purchasing used and severely misaligned lenses.

    I have bought quite a few used Leica lenses and am comfortable of budgeting a certain amount of money for CLA and repair.
    1956 50/2 & 1959 90/2.8 after Repair & CLA - Leica User Forum

    Of course, a new lens from the usual manufacturers should simply work according to specs.
    But, apparently, life isn't always that easy.
    Last edited by k-hawinkler; 31st May 2014 at 23:32.
    With best regards, K-H.

  40. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    31

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    no one wants an "Alien" shaped head and pudgy body : -)
    Marc
    Some of us don't have a choice!

  41. #91
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZoranC View Post
    Personally after my experiences with 35/2.8 I walked away with a feeling that if I want great performing 35mm FOV lens I should get an RX1.


    From what I have heard about Sony's service centers majority of them doesn't repair lens, they just replace them with copies that have been refurbished. So a) it is still likely you would be playing lottery, b) you would be getting refurbished lens when you purchased brand new one, I don't see why anyone would want to do that, c) you would be wasting your time and money to deal with something that is not your problem in the first place, I don't see why anyone would want to do that.

    Well, comparing a fixed lens camera to an interchangeable one is … once again … comparing apples to oranges.

    As far as how Sony service centers work, hear-say and rumors are one thing, facts are another.

    I asked about Sony service on another thread … I'd tend to place credibility of our members above some vague sort of innuendo with zero proof.

    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/507...periences.html

    BTW, in context to this thread, I believe that swapping new items in need of repair for used ones is illegal. Easy enough to check since each lens has a serial number. I've not heard of one single incidence that backs up this assertion.


    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #92
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    I find this thread interesting because I have been having bad thoughts about my FE 35/2.8 for some time.

    I have been disappointed with the FE 35/2.8 not because of sharpness, or decentering, or any kind of pixel-peeping related stuff.

    I've been disappointed because marvellously sharp, quick and compact as it is: it totally lacks character as far as I am concerned.

    I thought it would be equally as good as the 35/2 on the RX1 and it is not. The 35/2 on the RX1 drew beautifully at all apertures. This does not. It draws sharp, colourful and clinical and as a recording tool it is first class. It just lacks any kind of 'artistic' feel, imho.

    I am seriously thinking of selling it and obtaining a Leica 35/2 ASPH. Am I mad to think of forgoing the benefit of AF and in-body corrections to go with a (albeit excellent optically) manual lens?

    LouisB

  43. #93
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    I find this thread interesting because I have been having bad thoughts about my FE 35/2.8 for some time.

    I have been disappointed with the FE 35/2.8 not because of sharpness, or decentering, or any kind of pixel-peeping related stuff.

    I've been disappointed because marvellously sharp, quick and compact as it is: it totally lacks character as far as I am concerned.

    I thought it would be equally as good as the 35/2 on the RX1 and it is not. The 35/2 on the RX1 drew beautifully at all apertures. This does not. It draws sharp, colourful and clinical and as a recording tool it is first class. It just lacks any kind of 'artistic' feel, imho.

    I am seriously thinking of selling it and obtaining a Leica 35/2 ASPH. Am I mad to think of forgoing the benefit of AF and in-body corrections to go with a (albeit excellent optically) manual lens?

    LouisB
    That is a very legitimate observation IMHO.

    Despite the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH being "publicly trashed" when used on this camera, I still use it because I prefer its character over anything from Zeiss, Sony, Nikon or Canon. I do not know how a Leica 35/2 ASPH would do, since there seems to be issues with many W/A M lenses, but it'd be worth a try.

    I simply place the FE35//2.8 in the category of being a very good general lens for AF walk-about, semi-no brainer family stuff, and obligatory vacation pics that otherwise would be taken on a cell phone If it had been bigger, I would not have even given it a second thought.

    - Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #94
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    One reason I went with the Sigma ART 35mm was its look or character but its big. I have thought of something else maybe in Leica as well. I know the R glass works but was not sure what does in the M at a reasonable cost. But I agree the Sony 35 is a little sterile looking. I thing it is wise to have lenses that give a nice look as to me they are more interesting renderings of your images. One reason I like my ZA fast glass like the 85 and 135 and just recently picked up the 24 f2 which looks to have a nice look to it. Now the 55 is a laser but its look is a little sterile as well but I do like having one or two lenses that are lasers for when you want that look. But I tend to agree with Big Loius the 35 is a little clinical. My biggest issue with the lens outside of issues is its just too slow for a mid wide prime. Great for travel style work but this takes me back to what I said earlier its a Prosumer style lens , small, light and acceptable speed. I much rather see them come out with all F2 style primes in the wides.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  45. #95
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Okay folks I see a lot of dart throwing comments. If we could cool that a little and stay with the discussion at hand that would be far nicer to everyone. Thanks
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #96
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    One reason I went with the Sigma ART 35mm was its look or character but its big.
    Price is not too bad either. Did you post a few examples somewhere here Guy?

  47. #97
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Just be glad you all live in countries where you can buy, test and return. I would like to buy a couple of lenses which are two week order items with no return where I live, when you're dealing with $2500 in total, that's a lot of gamble even with a manufacturer who rarely gets it wrong.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #98
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    That is a very legitimate observation IMHO.

    Despite the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH being "publicly trashed" when used on this camera, I still use it because I prefer its character over anything from Zeiss, Sony, Nikon or Canon. I do not know how a Leica 35/2 ASPH would do, since there seems to be issues with many W/A M lenses, but it'd be worth a try.

    I simply place the FE35//2.8 in the category of being a very good general lens for AF walk-about, semi-no brainer family stuff, and obligatory vacation pics that otherwise would be taken on a cell phone If it had been bigger, I would not have even given it a second thought.

    - Marc
    Marc

    I think you have put your finger on what it is about the FE 35/2.8 I don't like.

    You are absolutely right that as a walkabout lens it is first class. It will capture the scene, in focus and in wonderful clarity.

    I'm after a look which will jump out at you as you develop the raw file in LR. The FE 35/2.8 rarely does that for me.

    Incidentally, the FE 55/1.8 does it in spades! Amazing lens at f1.8.

    Pondering whether to punt it on and just rely on my C-40 Summicron.

    LouisB

  49. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,033
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    I am seriously thinking of selling it and obtaining a Leica 35/2 ASPH. Am I mad to think of forgoing the benefit of AF and in-body corrections to go with a (albeit excellent optically) manual lens?

    LouisB
    I have the Leica 35 f2 Asph and found it unusable on the A7r. Sides, not just edges, were completely out of focus..... just doesn't work on the Sony.

    Victor
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #100
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Sony FE 35 F2.8 - mediocre?

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    I have the Leica 35 f2 Asph and found it unusable on the A7r. Sides, not just edges, were completely out of focus..... just doesn't work on the Sony.

    Victor
    +1

    I was very disappointed with the 21mm SEM, 35mm FLE and 50mm 'Lux on the a7R. Not sharp. Focus smearing. And not the fault of the Novoflex adapter. I'll take my sharp "low character" FE 35mm any day of the week. Maybe my photos are "walk-about, semi-no brainer family stuff, and obligatory vacation pics that otherwise would be taken on a cell phone". If so, I'll stop boring you with 'em. Thanks for the heads-up, Marc.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •