Loxia 35mm VS 16-35 at 35mm test

[Guy Mancuso]

Some more , now I'm pretty close to subject and the closer you are the better especially when using wides.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Interesting at distance. Now folks I hope you know if i wanted to make these look good I can make them jump right off the screen, I'm doing nothing to these files. I don't even have clarity on just a basic sharpening setting for the whole shoot.

At distance its pretty hard to get wide open quality with many lenses . This is pretty good and I could even make it better if I wanted too.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Pretty much ends here the samples.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Oops one more.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

My end of day conclusion. Very much like a Zeiss 35mm ZE which I always loved , I should I had 4 of them over the years. Its sharp wide open has better contrast wide open than a lot of other fast lenses. The correction is very minor to get to the F2.8 or F4 contrast level. I consider the corners excellent as a lot of other 35mm lens have serious field curvature. If this does its very minor. You can get away 1 stop down in corners and 2 stops is excellent. Thats pretty big stuff. Its certainly a Zeiss lens both in look and character and the mechanics are wonderful on it. Manual focusing is a breeze. i find it far more satisfying on all levels over the 35 2.8 AF version and equal or better than 35 1.4 lenses of the past.

Not sure why there is not a lot more hoopla on it as its a damn good lens. They say the 50mm Planar is better well it should be 50mm is easy to design than 35mm lenses. i think people should seriously drop the Biogon of old attitude thats not valid in the slightest here. So get over that crap right now, its a damn good Zeiss 35mm Period is all that matters. Unless someone can prove to me the new 35mm 1.4 from Sony will eat it for breakfast Im keeping it. Now is the Sigma 35mm ART any better, sure I think at F2 it would be better centrally but not by much and this has better corners from memory is smaller lighter and no need for a adapter which sometimes would have a hard time focusing anyway on AF. I do think if you have a Sigma hanging out than it might be worth keeping it for 1.4 and AF. Its certainly cheap enough and hopefully wont break your bank account.

Guy likes it, My thumbs up to Zeiss . Now give me a 90 F2 , 24 F2 and a 15mm 3.5 to boot and than you have one serious 5 small lens travel kit.

Thanks for looking, Hope this made any decision help you as that certainly is the intent.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No review is complete without the RAWS to play with. You have 7 days until this expires and PLEASE only post any of the images here only. You don't want me to send my dogs after you. LOL

have fun

https://www.hightail.com/download/UlRRNHB3Mm11Yk85TE1UQw

 

[iiiNelson]

Those looks good and the bokeh actually cleans its self up a lot by f/4 it seems. Definitely an improvement over the ZM35/2. No doubt about that. I'm waiting to see the Distagon shots to decide if I want to buy this and pair with the Sigma or sell the Sigma and buy the Distagon.

 

[Steve P.]

There's something very appealing in the overall smoothness of the Loxia rendering. In post #23 the f8 examples are both sharp, with plenty of detail but the zoom looks a little brittle in comparison. The Loxia draws beautifully to my eyes. As for the bokeh, well lets just say that having happily shot with the Voigtlander 58mm sl II, I'll take the Loxia any day!
Thanks for your efforts here, Guy. Very useful and appreciated.

 

[thomas]

No review is complete without the RAWS to play with. You have 7 days until this expires and PLEASE only post any of the images here only. You don't want me to send my dogs after you. LOL

have fun

https://www.hightail.com/download/UlRRNHB3Mm11Yk85TE1UQw

Thanks for taking the time to provide these testshots!
The Loxia 2/35 definitely looks better at the very edges than the Sonnar FE 2.8/35 (at all apertures ... maybe except of f11). The Sonnar FE 2.8/35 is a bit cumbersome to focus manually, it shows quite some field curvature and the light-falloff is really heavy (leading to noisy edges when corrected in post). So I am definitely going to test the Loxia...
Thanks again!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks Guys appreciate your comments. The raws are there for you to play with and I did nothing to them here except a basic sharpening in C1. I usually would add a little clarity like 12 points and my bet would be the F2 shots would jump even more. To me its a lot like the Zeiss 35 F2 ZE and ZF.2 lenses which are rated very well. I actually think this is better. My gut feeling is Zeiss put some effort in designing this to the Sony A7 series. My only real negative is the aperture ring and focus ring are the same size and I wish the aperture ring was slightly bigger so it is easier to grab. But that's pretty minor quibble. Might throw a rubber band on the ring and see if that helps some.

I keep looking back at images and I really like what I'm seeing. The size of it is really nice. Now I'm going after the 50mm F2 as well as soon as I sell my Mitakon. Great lens but like to have the Loxia more.

They would clean up if they made a nice 85 or 90 since we really don't have much there to use. I seriously hope they come out with a nice 5 lens lineup like a 16,24 and a 90 . Now that would make a really nice kit to travel with.

 

[biglouis]

Thanks for such a thorough systematic test, Guy. I am surprised (and pleased to know) just how much sharper the 2/35 gets at f2.8.

I wax hot and cold about getting the 16-35. I already own the Loxia 2/35 (my review is here) which is now my number one lens and the 24-70 which for me performs better than expected. I also use an Ultron 21/1.8 which is fantastic on all alpha cameras and the Heliar 15/4.5 which has problems (not sure if the V3 is that much better in the samples I have seen).

The reason why I would like a 16-35 is that I want to be able to mount filters and the integrated lens hoods on the 21 and 15 prevent this.

However, I think it will be worth hanging in there to see if Zeiss will introduce a Loxia 21 or 18 (to mirror the ZM product line). For me that would be the best solution.

Thanks again, for an interesting comparison test.

LouisB

 

[CharlesK]

Guy, great work and review of the Loxia 35 compared to FE 16-35/4
I love the Loxia 35, but it is reassuring to see how it truly compares.

I have the Loxia 35 which I love on the A7II and I was fortunate to receive my copy of the FE 35/1.4 on Thursday. I really had my doubts about the FE 35/1.4 with respect to size and weight. In truth the FE 35/1.4 is same weight as my 50 Noct f/1.0 and it feels the same in the hand but with AF.

I am really pleased now having two great 35mm native mount lenses!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

There's something very appealing in the overall smoothness of the Loxia rendering. In post #23 the f8 examples are both sharp, with plenty of detail but the zoom looks a little brittle in comparison. The Loxia draws beautifully to my eyes. As for the bokeh, well lets just say that having happily shot with the Voigtlander 58mm sl II, I'll take the Loxia any day!
Thanks for your efforts here, Guy. Very useful and appreciated.

I totally agree it has a nice smooth transition or look to the file. Often times I see that brittle look with some other lenses but the Loxia reminds me of my MF back with regards to smoothness. That was the biggest difference between MF and 35 was the color tonality and smoothness. This lens looks very much like that.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

What I want to to do is go back out check my 28mm setting on the 16-35 zoom and do a equal focal view by moving camera of course to equal the focal point of view. I think it would be interesting to see how the zoom is truly at 28mm. I know wider is excellent. But I have not shot the zoom at 28 mm on a serious level, mostly wider when I was on my last workshop and those images are really good but I was mostly 24mm and below looking at the EXIF data now.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Btw I do appreciate all your comments folks. These do take time but it's the only real way to get to know a lens besides that I trust myself completely to give you a very neutral opinion as I'm only looking for the truth in these things. I have zero agenda and no affiliation with anyone. Lots of reviews out there but honestly I think there is some agendas going on. GetDPI has no agenda for more members. Its a free site. Lol

One thing I would not mind is getting samples to test from Sony ahead of release so we all can benefit from that in our buying decision. I know I tore my hair out on the decision for the 35 1.4 and I know a few members here are doing the same. If we knew this stuff before release it certainly would help people make a smart buying decision. Anyone knows anyone at Sony that can do that throw my name in the hat.

 

[Deleted member 7792]

Its a nice lens but it has very little character to it. I'm after character I said that numerous times with this Loxia. The Sigma is very nice but it is also without character.

Pardon me for being so stupid, but what the heck does that mean exactly? I'm an engineer and tend to gravitate to technical explanations of performance. Does this "character" you refer to have to do with sharpness, out-of-focus rendering (bokeh), micro-contrast, tonal gradation...? I'm not being critical, but would appreciate an explanation. Or is it an "I know it when I see it" quality?

Joe

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thank you for the work Guy! The results are very interesting. It seems like a decent lens, with a lot of contrast. That said, I am not impressed by it! The corners look quite soft wide open, and it does not look great on center either. Your last shot of the native american stature is particularly telling. There are several stops of vignetting in the corners and the white beam next to the statue is practically glowing at f/2! I can even see the softness in the door at left on the web-sized full picture. I am not particularly impressed with the 55mm f/1.8 FE that everyone raves about either...it's pretty good, but not great, even on the 12mp A7s. I recently added the A7s to do video and it is my only lens. It is sharp from about 2.5, but there are several stops of vignetting and soft corners wide open, even though it is only a 1.8 lens. It seems to me that Sony has a conundrum on their hands...the bodies clearly outpace the lenses. After spending most of my time shooting with the S2 and S in the past years, it is clearer to me than ever that manufacturers cannot design lenses that are good enough to truly meet the needs of 30+ megapixel cameras without either charging incredible amounts or making the lenses huge and heavy. I don't mean to be overly harsh in judgement, and I know it is not fair to compare multi-thousand dollar lenses to one that costs barely over 1000, but I would not be particularly happy to pay a premium to get a manual focus lens billed as being high resolution only to find it perform like this.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Actual a combination of all that you mention. Sharp yes but it must look smooth not as brittle as some lenses do, nice bokeh and 3d separation from focus to OOF areas. Sometimes lenses look no different from focus point to background they just blend in. Let's call another tonal graduation where in between colors it looks very smooth in transition. Softer edges let's say for clarity. Micro contrast that is smooth and does not look unnatural or brittle for in. Tonal graduation where a certain color has a nice blunt of saturation and fades out towards the edges. Hard to describe that one. But for example 256 colors versus 34 million. There are a lot of tonal graduations in the main colors.

You know it when you see it as it don't look so darn digital. Brittle or unnatural. Its and I hate to say it more film like. Joe its kind of like over sharpening a image if you know what I mean when they have no character. Also we can say character or look has more 3d rendition instead of 2d flatness. Real ate that to the rule of thirds somewhat where you see foreground , middle and background in a 3d movie type look. Again hard to describe in the written word. Some would say draws you in to the image

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thank you for the work Guy! The results are very interesting. It seems like a decent lens, with a lot of contrast. That said, I am not impressed by it! The corners look quite soft wide open, and it does not look great on center either. Your last shot of the native american stature is particularly telling. There are several stops of vignetting in the corners and the white beam next to the statue is practically glowing at f/2! I can even see the softness in the door at left on the web-sized full picture. I am not particularly impressed with the 55mm f/1.8 FE that everyone raves about either...it's pretty good, but not great, even on the 12mp A7s. I recently added the A7s to do video and it is my only lens. It is sharp from about 2.5, but there are several stops of vignetting and soft corners wide open, even though it is only a 1.8 lens. It seems to me that Sony has a conundrum on their hands...the bodies clearly outpace the lenses. After spending most of my time shooting with the S2 and S in the past years, it is clearer to me than ever that manufacturers cannot design lenses that are good enough to truly meet the needs of 30+ megapixel cameras without either charging incredible amounts or making the lenses huge and heavy. I don't mean to be overly harsh in judgement, and I know it is not fair to compare multi-thousand dollar lenses to one that costs barely over 1000, but I would not be particularly happy to pay a premium to get a manual focus lens billed as being high resolution only to find it perform like this.

Stuart there is not a lens on the planet that is fast and does not have some vignetting in it. This one is very little compared to the 35 2.8 which does not go away until F8. Also there is no lens wide open to the corners that does not need at least a stop down to pull the corners in at least nothing in 1.4, 2 or 2.8 lenses. You find one let me know as they do not exist in 35mm or wider. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. Even Leica glass has the same properties like this. They vignette and they are not sharp to the corners wide open. I owned a ton of them.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Btw ever lens I know wide open overexposes. I did not correct that download the raws and knock down the highlights but every and I mean every lens I have tested going from wide open to like F8 in a test the wide open shot is always a diffrent exposure to the high side. I knocked it down to match the 2.8 images for the test in the beginning but not the image you are referring too. Very very few lens have no wide open aberrations on the very wide side. Sure some have less and not to get any your going to have to buy OTUS level glass at 5k. No lens designer can design without lens aberrations at much lower costs, to correct they have to had special elements and more of them, so costs go way up