Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8

  
 
ecarlino
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


Lloyd Chambers just posted his comparison of the Loxia 35/2 Biogon vs. the Sony 35/2.8 Sonnar (subscription required).

I have a huge amount of respect for Lloyd and his extremely deliberate and methodical comparisons - and as such don't want to pass out freely what he has on his subscription site.

But I was pleased to see that the much under-appreciated 35/2.8 Sonnar held its own as far as IQ.

I wasn't interested in the Loxia because 35 mm isn't something I'd want to manually focus all of the time. I'm really looking forward to evaluating the upcoming 35/1.4 next year. But, frankly, I really thought the 35/2.8 was a sharp little lens and the 35/1.4 will really need to shine to make up for it's size/weight.



Nov 03, 2014 at 07:07 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


The 35/2.8 is a very sharp lens, and for the $600 or so you can get it for these days, a great value.

Only issue for me is that it really doesn't have the best rendering. It takes a nice sharp photo, but when I shoot it side by side with the 35 Sonnar on my RX1, the difference in rendering, at equal aperture, is pretty pronounced. The RX1's 35 Sonnar has such a smooth bokeh quality to it, while the 35/2.8 is just kind of there...not super jittery or annoying, but nothing unique or exciting either.

Great lens for a compact walk around AF option though. Just never produces any "wow" moments.

I would hope for essentially double the price, more weight, lack of AF etc that the Loxia brings a lot more to the table than just 1 extra stop.

I personally don't have an interest in how it compares to the 35/2.8 though, instead I want to see how it compares to the RX1 Sonnar.

If it can match the Sonnar, then I might just get rid of my RX1, a camera I mostly own right now just because I love it's lens so much



Nov 03, 2014 at 07:28 PM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


I'm a little nervous about the Loxia line, it looks like the 50 has busy bokeh.


Nov 03, 2014 at 08:08 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


Sensor tech will eventually get there at which time the new ZM 35/1.4 may turn out to be THE lens to have long term at this focal length.


Nov 03, 2014 at 08:18 PM
pdmphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


Sony should have produced a 35/2 for the A7 series, not a 35/2.8. They knew better (and did a great job) for the RX1. When it comes to rendering I think its hard to beat the original Rollei or C/Y 35/1.4 for the A7r. It's not the smallest or lightest lens, but it is much less of both compared to the ZE/F versions.


Nov 03, 2014 at 08:55 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


At this point the Loxia line is aimed more at video users than photographers. That's why they came out with these focal lengths first.


Nov 03, 2014 at 09:06 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


pdmphoto wrote:
Sony should have produced a 35/2 for the A7 series, not a 35/2.8. They knew better (and did a great job) for the RX1. When it comes to rendering I think its hard to beat the original Rollei or C/Y 35/1.4 for the A7r. It's not the smallest or lightest lens, but it is much less of both compared to the ZE/F versions.



I think it depends on the target market. Obviously most FM regulars would 1) prefer f2 over f2.8 and 2) not bat an eye at something like a $1500 price tag, BUT.... do mainstream consumers feel the same ?

I read a lot of reviews where people complained about the 35/2.8's $800 price tag as outrageous, along with the $1000 55/1.8.

Sony had to have price points, in addition to size/weight, that would have fairly broad appeal.

Sony likely will sell 100 35/2.8's for every 1 35/2 Loxia that Zeiss sells, even if the Loxia is by all accounts a better lens.

We need to remember that what appeals to Alt forum enthusiast may not be quite as marketable to the general public.

You have to achieve a nice balance between stuff the masses will buy and stuff for the enthusiast.

Fuji does a nice job with this with the X lens lineup. They have $1000 lens for the enthusiast that wants a 56/1.2, but they also have some lower priced, but still decent quality, zooms, and compact primes.

Makes their system appeal to a wide variety of potential buyers. The one that wants a $900 23mm f1.4, and also the one that wants a $300 27mm f2.8

If Sony's lens lineup is just seen as all super expensive, they miss out on a lot of camera sales, just as if they only had slower consumer glass, then enthusiast wouldn't buy

I think its tough to balance the two until you get to the size of CaNikon and have such a vast range of options there is something for everyone.



Nov 03, 2014 at 09:28 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8




Lee Saxon wrote:
I'm a little nervous about the Loxia line, it looks like the 50 has busy bokeh.

I agree, but then so does the Contax G 45 f /2. Stopped down and at a bit of distance the bokeh will be fine or at least that is what I suspect and it will be great stopped down for landscapes.



Nov 03, 2014 at 09:39 PM
Uncle Mike
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


millsart wrote:
I read a lot of reviews where people complained about the 35/2.8's $800 price tag as outrageous, along with the $1000 55/1.8.


Well Canon has an image stabilized 35mm f/2 for only $600, so a f/2.8 lens for $800 WITHOUT image-stabilization seems kind of overpriced, don't you think?

Canon offers a 40mm f/2.8, no IS, for only $200. (Although personally I prefer the wider 35.)



Nov 03, 2014 at 10:54 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · DigiLloyd: Loxia 35 vs 35/2.8


Uncle Mike wrote:
Well Canon has an image stabilized 35mm f/2 for only $600, so a f/2.8 lens for $800 WITHOUT image-stabilization seems kind of overpriced, don't you think?

Canon offers a 40mm f/2.8, no IS, for only $200. (Although personally I prefer the wider 35.)


Sony could be faulted for not making the FE 35/2.8 better and for releasing it at such a high price, but not really for making it in the first place. Canon's and Nikon's new 35's are far larger and heavier, and the whole system is significantly larger and heavier.



Nov 04, 2014 at 12:07 AM





FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.