The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Yeah I take Digillyod and many metrics based reviewers with somewhat of a grain of salt. Their reviews are useful to quantify lenses as that aspect is certainly needed but showing me 50-100 meaningful "real world" photos (to see what a lens is capable of and in what conditions) tells me more than a review probably ever will.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The Sony hate club is getting really interesting and really stretching things a weeeeeeeee bit to far. Im seeing it here as well with a lot of unfounded comments.

Time for a spring break for me.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Yeah. I guess they must be doing something correctly to shake up the status quo for so many who refuse to own the systems to be so concerned with what they're doing. I mean look at the huge flip flop Sigma made in about 6 months or so from saying fast lenses can't be designed to now saying Sony FE is their #3 priority after Canon/Nikon.

I think the important take away is that Sony is shaking up the industry even if mirrorless isn't technically there yet for AF speed and accuracy... or a complete lens lineup. They are shaking up the industry in a good way and that's needed otherwise we get the market leaders not trying as hard.

I do agree that it's a little annoying to hear people essentially tell you that you're "stupid" for choosing the camera you chose as it was the best available fit for what you wanted to accomplish... As if you didn't cross shop.
 

philip_pj

New member
Don't be too tough on Lloyd. He and his kind are seeing the seismic shift in the high end of 35mm photography ad they don't like it one little bit, so it's essentially just a paradigm shift with winners and losers, early (smart) adopters and late (laggard) adopters. He is also not averse to walking both sides of the barbed wire fence, to gain the appearance of impartiality - so you see some muted criticisms of C/N. Nothing on the scale of their user base however!

The smart people got on board with FE early because they are very savvy about lenses and associated processes (profiles, corner fix, etc.) then they developed some level of respect for Sony as the enabler of small, light cameras which allowed them to use the best optics in the business. There is also nothing mediocre about Sony's EVF system, nor its sensors.

Lloyd's business model involves chasing headlines - if it ruffles feathers while doing so, he can count that as great success - publicity is priceless. Yes, it's unjustified and rather puerile, but the man's got to make a living. Speaking of which, has anyone done a back of the envelope calculation multiplying LC's annual subscription fee by various plucked from the air numbers? You know, round figures like 1,000, 3,000, perhaps 5,000. ;-)
 

cam

Active member
I'm happy with the Loxia for now. It turns out to be a excellent lens but you know me maybe I'll upgrade to this in the fall or something. I'm kind of waiting on announcements of cams and such. I will get the 50 Planar as well and maybe the 28. It's my long stuff or more to the point my 85. The Minolta 200 goes nowhere, like that way too much. I also want to see what Zeiss announces next. Kind of a dream kit would be 5 Loxia type lenses for the high mpx body and a trio of zooms for the PR stuff. That maybe kind of fun. This lens looks good and Sony under there brand name is going in the right direction. I think Sony realized after a period with the A7 series that serious shooters are moving in. They need to support that change.
Guy, waiting for you to buy this so I can swoop up your Loxia :D

Seriously, the lens looks stunning! Trying to decide if I get a second 35mm whether it will be the Loxia or this... Yeah, yeah, yeah, both of those would be optimum, but I can't help but be happy with the 35/2.8 FE when small and light is needed... sigh.
 

jfirneno

Member
Speaking of which, has anyone done a back of the envelope calculation multiplying LC's annual subscription fee by various plucked from the air numbers? You know, round figures like 1,000, 3,000, perhaps 5,000. ;-)
How much does he charge for his subscription. Or is it more complicated than one annual price?
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Guy, waiting for you to buy this so I can swoop up your Loxia :D

Seriously, the lens looks stunning! Trying to decide if I get a second 35mm whether it will be the Loxia or this... Yeah, yeah, yeah, both of those would be optimum, but I can't help but be happy with the 35/2.8 FE when small and light is needed... sigh.
So I'll be the enabler that says get the 35 Loxia since it's small enough to take wherever and you get an extra stop of light as a bonus... then buy the Distagon for the rendering or when you want AF. It makes too much sense.

- Enabler
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
How much does he charge for his subscription. Or is it more complicated than one annual price?
I'm not sure about the pricing model now but in the past you could do a subscription or buy one of his lens guides if you didn't want access to the whole site. I skimmed some of his ZM lens reviews. They seemed well written and pretty honest BUT he did seem to have an unequivocal heavy bias towards Zeiss lenses over Leica lenses (which is subjective in every way.)

I took his reviews with a grain of salt while ingesting the info nonetheless. This isn't a knock on him but rather my skeptical nature towards most things. Like others say when your eyes don't believe what you read - sometimes it's best to believe your eyes.
 

tn1krr

New member
I'm not sure about the pricing model now but in the past you could do a subscription or buy one of his lens guides if you didn't want access to the whole site. I skimmed some of his ZM lens reviews. They seemed well written and pretty honest BUT he did seem to have an unequivocal heavy bias towards Zeiss lenses over Leica lenses (which is subjective in every way.)

I took his reviews with a grain of salt while ingesting the info nonetheless. This isn't a knock on him but rather my skeptical nature towards most things. Like others say when your eyes don't believe what you read - sometimes it's best to believe your eyes.
A Sony FE shooter if propably most interested in his "Mirrorless" section, you can access table of contents here. Priced $59.99 a year. Pretty much all Sony FE lenses and Loxias are covered

diglloyd - Guide to Mirrorless Cameras

I subscribe to Mirrrorless and Zeiss sections; good thing about his reviews is I do not have to believe his words, pretty much every word is backed up by high res images/crops etc. on different apertures. At least I have not seen anyone analyzing field curvature/focus shift/diffraction/CA etc. effects with detail/visualization (real world shots) LLoyd has. So instead of usual "we did not notice much CA" stuff I get crop showing if there is any and how much and often how it visually compares to other similar lenses.

IMO he has not that much bias, he "hates" everyone equally and usually for pretty good reason :)
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I do not need the Zeiss FE 35 mm f1.4 lens. I do not need it. I do not need it.

In an effort to convince myself, today I compared my FE 16-35 against my FE 24-70, both at 35 mm, full aperture. As you might expect the FE 24-70 edged out the wider zoom. It's sweet spot is around 40 mm whereas the wider zoom is at it's extreme. The FE 24-70 performance at F8 is excellent.

I do not need f1.4. I shoot outdoor subjects generally in good light. I do not need another 35 mm lens.

But by golly, it looks good, the pix I've seen look great and I AM a gear slut.

What should I do? (Please don't answer that unless you can pan the lens.)
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Hey look at the bright side - you can use the same filters that you may or may not have for the 16-35 on the 35 Distagon... So go 72mm filter crazy!!!
 
I do not need the Zeiss FE 35 mm f1.4 lens. I do not need it. I do not need it.
I heard a rumor that a guy who has never seen one of these lenses is considering writing a review and will likely say it's no good.

So, you definitely would not want to buy one. :)

Plus, I've heard that lens exhibits aperture shock unless secured by a 2000 pound counterbalance. It's doubtful you could ever get a decent shot from it.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Hey look at the bright side - you can use the same filters that you may or may not have for the 16-35 on the 35 Distagon... So go 72mm filter crazy!!!
You're not helping. I already have a set of 72 mm filters for my MF gear. You don't think I'd buy this lens just because I have the filters for it, do you?

Do you?

(Might be a good excuse with my wife though..."Dear, I had to buy it so I could get maximum use of the filters I already own".)
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I heard a rumor that a guy who has never seen one of these lenses is considering writing a review and will likely say it's no good.

So, you definitely would not want to buy one. :)

Plus, I've heard that lens exhibits aperture shock unless secured by a 2000 pound counterbalance. It's doubtful you could ever get a decent shot from it.
Thank heavens. Now all I have to do is counter your very cogent argument against the fact that I have filters for the lens. I wonder if they might, theoretically, weigh enough to provide a counterbalance?
 
Top