There is a lot of money tied up for me in this combination. I'm trying to decide if it's worth it.
I know there's also a lot of interest in this combo as well so I thought I would share my experiences.
From reviews on sites and forums, it seems to me that people are thinking that the lens is optimized for close range use and sucks for landscapes.
I'm inclined to agree.
On this first day of shooting, I notice quite A lot of purple fringing and chromatic abberation wide open even in the center if there are bright highlight edges with a strong contrasting background. When Stopped down to F5+, center CA improves a lot but the corners remain somewhat softer and CA never goes away completely.
From my initial impressions though, this lens has the Zeiss look. Think of it as a weaker smaller autofocus Zeiss 35mm F2 Zx. The wide open center rendering is remarkably similar, high contrast with high saturation. Actual resolution is above average but not spectacular. That improves when stopping down but the contrast is really rather exceptional.
AF is fast enough but not ZA 24-70 SSM fast. I'm still a little confused on how NEX does autofocusing, should read the manual. It seems to sometimes to go huge screen box and sometimes small boxes...?
Center sharpness and contrast is good even wide open. It only improves slightly when stopping down. Objects have high saturation and have a dimensionality to them.
Files out of the camera feel like they need very little post besides fixing the CA if you had branches against a white sky.
I can't wait to shoot it more. Tomorrow is the New York Public Library.
Great test shots. Used mine over the weekend in NOLA for Mardi Gras but most were just snaps. I alo got the Tamron 18-200 as a walk around lens. Trying to decide if I really need this kit over my M 4/3 system. I haven't really noticed much better performance IQ wise over the 5N but the UI seems much better as I wasn't a fan of the touch screen. I too have noticed though that the 24 doesn't seem that good at landscape. Are you shooting raw or jpg? I have no way of shooting raw so was planning on waiting till I have that availability before I make a decision though.
Images look nice but how did you feel about the size ?
Pretty close to the 18-55 correct ? On my NEX5 I always found that lens made the camera a bit more bulky than I really wanted to walk around with, which is one thing that made me get an adapter to use my ZM glass. I could fit the NEX with ZM 35Cfor example into my jacket pocket.
This has nothing to do with your skills (I'm a fan), but I see nothing in those images particularly worth what they're asking for that lens (aside from the fact that it's currently one of the few native options for NEX).
Jae, your evaluation pretty much coincides with mine. I also thought that the colours from the ZA 24 weren't particularly elegant, which is unfortunate for a cam like like the NEX, which can do so much better in this respect.
Yeah, it's not a spectacular lens, but at least it has some character,
visible in the close-up shots. The landscape/infinity shots do s@ck, no doubt.
The new Sony E 50 f1.8 has absolutely no character at all,
so it's not that bad Kind of s@cks it has that much CA wide open,
because it goes against its strength, but most Zeiss lenses do that...
I don't agree about the Zeiss 35 f2 Z*, I think it is great
and this 24 is nowhere close.
It seems like NEX system is really shaping up as alt lens only.
I guess if you want a small AF system with some decent lenses,
you have to look at OMD or Fuji... Unless the new G zoom delivers.
Actually, I think the Sony lenses are fine "for the price". They are inexpensive, and, for the money, the kit zoom, the macro, the 50, the 18-200 are fine. They are just not "what we want", and clearly not as good as the camera bodies can handle. The forthcoming Fuji primes will cost significantly more. Only the Zeiss is a disappointment, because, at that price point, it ought to be a lot more than a close-up lens.
These are interesting, and come at the viewer similar to the new 25/2. It plays well with the NEX7, as it should. I like the soft focus but very well shaped bokeh as seen on buildings in the background. It's good at this subject matter, and will deliver a classy image for the NEX7, not highest resolution but excellent colour and contrast with sufficient definition and good bokeh.
What I am seeing in the NEX7 images generally is a very high level of control in the middle of the tonal range, from light shadows upwards. This behaviour could be expected to work well with a high contrast Zeiss, and it definitely helps the lens's colour performance.
I'll reserve final judgement for another week or so but your observation that it's similar to the new 25 I think is spot on in terms of weak corner characteristics, only amplified.
In the back of my head I can't help but maybe think this is a $600 lens not a $1000 one. If it didn't have the CA, I think the price would be a lot more acceptable.
I don't think this lens lives up to its price tag unfortunately. Do you guys have any better options in the 35mm FOV that you are using? There doesn't seem to be much alternative, maybe the ZM 25mm but it is a 2.8 correct?
FlyPenFly wrote:
In the back of my head I can't help but maybe think this is a $600 lens not a $1000 one. If it didn't have the CA, I think the price would be a lot more acceptable.
That is exactly the impression I have had from everything I have seen from this lens. Your experience seems to confirm this. For the price, it should not show the CA and it should perform much better in the corners stopped down for landscapes.
The Canon FD 24/1.4 is an alternative, I posted a couple of shots in the NEX file. And of course the OM 24/2. On FF I don't think it's that great until it's stopped down to 5.6-8. I should take another look on NEX as it's going to be cropped.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I'll reserve final judgement for another week or so but your observation that it's similar to the new 25 I think is spot on in terms of weak corner characteristics, only amplified.
In the back of my head I can't help but maybe think this is a $600 lens not a $1000 one. If it didn't have the CA, I think the price would be a lot more acceptable.
If you need something for NEX around this focal length faster than F2, however, it doesn't seem like there are a whole lot of options under $1K. The new Samyang 24/1.4 seems to be getting lukewarm reviews as well. SLR Magic is supposed to be introducing a 23/1.7, but their record is pretty spotty. The full-frame Leica/Canon/Nikon options are at another price point.
And to be honest, I really like having contrast detect Autofocus. For a street shooting lens, it just makes life so much easier.
I think a greater sin for this lens would have been if it didn't have any character in mid to close distance objects. However, it does seem to have a bit of zeiss pixy dust in this regard so that corner and CA performance might have been a very secondary concern to the designers.
That's exactly how I felt about it, too. Add to that the two-piece hood on mine fell apart completely, and it gave me a bad feeling about build quality (hopefully it's just the hood that has issues!).
I miss having it at times, but it was too much $$ for what it was.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I'll reserve final judgement for another week or so but your observation that it's similar to the new 25 I think is spot on in terms of weak corner characteristics, only amplified.
In the back of my head I can't help but maybe think this is a $600 lens not a $1000 one. If it didn't have the CA, I think the price would be a lot more acceptable.
I'm beginning to think more and more this is a keeper.
THESE ARE UNPROCESSED UNEDITED PHOTOS.
Well, except for the two that has obvious B&W and Sepia conversions.
I haven't enhanced contrast or black levels or even removed any CA at all.
I'm a little bit astonished at standard settings and wide open the files are this good. No noise reduction was applied either.
I'm sure once I actually go through my process with them they'll be about 40% better but I just wanted to share what you might see straight out of the camera!
Kind of s@cks it has that much CA wide open,
