Great mini-review/education on this lens.
I just tried to order it for an A7x platform and B&H was closed.
I'll try again as soon as they open the 'doors'.
Ordered this one set for delivery tomorrow. Going to use on an a6000 until the a7r2 is shipped. Got a great deal on an a6000 with kit lens from the B&S and definitely going to need a faster lens for indoors. Since the a6000 is going to be a backup camera as much as I like the 24CZ, getting the 28 f2 seems like a better deal since it's cheaper and can used on my a7r2 later on. Also like the fact that the 21 is an option later on. From what I can tell the 28 is similar in size to the 24CZ.
I think I'm going to get the UWA as well. I don't do a lot of UWA work and can't really justify the 16-35 that high in the priority when I want to get the 24-70, the 90, and possibly the 70-200 again. I'm not expecting the performance to be as strong as the 16-35, but if it's acceptable, then for $250 or so, it may be worth it.
TMaG82 wrote:
I think I'm going to get the UWA as well. I don't do a lot of UWA work and can't really justify the 16-35 that high in the priority when I want to get the 24-70, the 90, and possibly the 70-200 again. I'm not expecting the performance to be as strong as the 16-35, but if it's acceptable, then for $250 or so, it may be worth it.
It works pretty well, especially stopped down a little. Very quick on/off design as well. Kind of heavy, but certainly lighter than carrying a second wide angle lens around. Can't take filters though which is kind of a shame, but again, for the money its pretty darn good.
I mean, I paid near 4x as much for the VC 21/1.8 and it really wasn't optically that much better. Likewise, my Zuiko 21/3.5 cost twice as much and wasn't near as usable except if you were shooting it stopped way down. Same story for my Canon Fd 20/2.8.... needs f8 or so minimum to be usable (then its quite good) but still..
If you think of it as a native AF 21mm f2.8 lens for $250 the performance bang for the buck is quite good
millsart wrote:
It works pretty well, especially stopped down a little. Very quick on/off design as well. Kind of heavy, but certainly lighter than carrying a second wide angle lens around. Can't take filters though which is kind of a shame, but again, for the money its pretty darn good.
I mean, I paid near 4x as much for the VC 21/1.8 and it really wasn't optically that much better. Likewise, my Zuiko 21/3.5 cost twice as much and wasn't near as usable except if you were shooting it stopped way down. Same story for my Canon Fd 20/2.8.... needs f8 or so minimum to be usable (then its quite good) but still..
If you think of it as a native AF 21mm f2.8 lens for $250 the performance bang for the buck is quite good...Show more →
Thanks for that mills, you know I really respect your opinion. If I shot a lot of wide angle I would look into the 16-35, but with so many things ahead of it on the priority scale, including the Nissin Di700a, I can't justify the $1,200 for a lens that's not in my comfort zone. Maybe if I start shooting more wide angle stuff I will change.
My experience with this lens has borne out my prediction: This is EXACTLY the sort of lens Sony should be producing across a range of focal lengths to solidify the A7-series size/weight advantages over a DSLR. That might not be why you bought an A7, but it's incredible to have the option of such high IQ in a small package.
I want more of these small, reasonably prices, high-performance medium-fast aperture primes! Let's start with a 35mm f/2 and 85mm or 100mm f/2.
When you put the Sony 28mm against the Nikon 28mm f1.8G, I believe it might be the best proof yet that there still could be something to draw from shorter flange distances (and therefore a competitive advantage for the FE system). Because I don't think Nikon will ever be able to make a F mount 28mm f2 pancake (to keep the overall lens + flange distance similar) as good as the Sony.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great samples guys. I just ordered this lens.
Good to hear! I've found it not only to have good IQ, but also to be small enough to enable the camera to be thrown in a backpack or purse at times when I DSLR wouldn't have been able to.
Also- I picked up off the B&S boards the 16mm fisheye screw-on for the 28mm. Surprised at the results. Not as good as my 8-15L, but not bad...and it was only $150. Might be worth considering the 21mm or 16mm add-on if you can find one for a good price. Cool option IMO.
I'll chime in with a little bit less enthusiasm albeit an overall positive opinion. First, I had to go through three copies before I found a copy that was good from edge to edge. The first copy appeared to have a tilted focal plane, as either one edge or the other could be sharp, but never at the same time. The second copy just had a bad left edge that no amount of stopping down could fix, as if it was smeared with vaseline, causing all kinds of CA and blurriness. Fortunately my local shop had multiple copies and was very accommodating and the third copy was very well centered with even edges and corners all around.
Secondly, it optical qualities, while good, are not as stellar as some people are making out to be. I am shooting on an A7rII, so any weakness will be amplified. The center is sharp, stopped down its very sharp. Once you get into zones b and c, it's just decently sharp. It doesn't maintain that crisp sharpness that the FE 55 or Loxia 35 that I use do (although the later does have some severe field curvature.) I have a Nikon 28 1.8G that I used quite a bit on my former D810 and now use on the A7rII with a Novoflex adapter, and while the Sony can compete quite well in the center with this lens, the Nikon beats it going towards the edges. Also, as I believe is already common knowledge for this lens, the distortion is quite shocking uncorrected...you can actually see it when you first turn on the camera for the first split second before its corrected by the camera. The CA is also quite heavy uncorrected.
All of the above being said, it is still a fun lens to use...it's small, fast, and delivers the goods, as can be see throughout these pages, its just not quite as stellar this thread makes it out to be IMO.
Evangelos wrote:
All of the above being said, it is still a fun lens to use...it's small, fast, and delivers the goods, as can be see throughout these pages, its just not quite as stellar this thread makes it out to be IMO.
I guess we each have different benchmarks for what makes a lens "stellar" but if its fun, small, fast, cheap(ish) and delivers the goods does the rest really matter ?
I mean, if I had an Otus I don't think I'd have much fun with it, its certainly not cheap, nor small, I probably would leave it at home most of the time I actually go anywhere, and all I'd really do with it is take "test shots" at home to look at how optically amazing it is.
At the end of the day though, is that a lens I'd want to own ? No
The most "stellar" lenses I've bought are ones that I actually go out and shoot with it. I've bought and sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of lenses over my lifetime, having GAS as bad if not worse than most here, but while many of those lenses are optically excellent, they didn't stick around, or they sit in the closest being dust gathering perfection.
Again, to each his or her own, but small, fun and fast sure equals a fantastic lens in my book
millsart wrote:
I guess we each have different benchmarks for what makes a lens "stellar" but if its fun, small, fast, cheap(ish) and delivers the goods does the rest really matter ?
I mean, if I had an Otus I don't think I'd have much fun with it, its certainly not cheap, nor small, I probably would leave it at home most of the time I actually go anywhere, and all I'd really do with it is take "test shots" at home to look at how optically amazing it is.
At the end of the day though, is that a lens I'd want to own ? No
The most "stellar" lenses I've bought are ones that I actually go out and shoot with it. I've bought and sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of lenses over my lifetime, having GAS as bad if not worse than most here, but while many of those lenses are optically excellent, they didn't stick around, or they sit in the closest being dust gathering perfection.
Again, to each his or her own, but small, fun and fast sure equals a fantastic lens in my book...Show more →
I completely agree with you on all counts! I have just finished my painstaking back and forth to the local camera shop returning the previous bad copies of this lens and have only had this lens for a couple of days, I haven't even taken it out for an expedition yet, as I've recently purchased the Loxia 35 to fill my hunger for a native MF lens, and have been smitten with it. Having read through this thread, I was under the impression this lens was a true knockout for the price. It's not really a knockout though, but as I get to know it, I'm sure it will impress. I too would never own an Otus for the same reasons. My favorite lens while I was a Canon shooter was the EF 35 F2, my current favorite lens on my Fuji is the 27 2.8 (outstandingly sharp right from 2.8) and when I had the DF it was the 35 F2D. All of these lenses won a place on my cameras because of the reasons you mention. I just think that a sober analysis of this lens will help balance the expectations of those still on the fence. One would think, after reading this thread, that outside of the distortion this lens performs as well as the 55 1.8 when stopped down...it does not, not even close. This is not to say it's not a good lens, it is. I just wanted to give a realistic appraisal for those in the clutches of GAS with this lens in the crosshairs.
Evangelos wrote:
Having read through this thread, I was under the impression this lens was a true knockout for the price.
For me (also A7rII), it is a knock-out for the price. I'd be disappointed if it was double the price. Interestingly I never found the Canon 35mm f/2 IS--let alone the non-IS-- or Fuji 27mm f/2.8 all that compelling-- definitely not at the value of this lens. My primary setup before was a 5D2 + 35L.
But for a 28mm f/2 FF lens to be so small/light, focus so quickly, and put up such good resolution wide-open in the center of the frame, and what I'd call very good to excellent across the frame stopped down, for $450 (despite some CA and lots of barrel distortion)-- that's squarely in "knockout for the price" in my book.
What more-- at this price range-- would it take to make this thing a knock-out? In sum-total, I'd call the value of this far better than the Canon 35mm f/2 IS even if both were $450-- let alone when the Canon is $599 at B&H and Amazon to the FE's $450.
Honestly, I can't off the top of my head think of other lenses in this price range (comparing new to new or used to used) that I think have a better value.
Only aquired this lens about a few weeks a go but so far I'm happy with it... Wasn't planning on purchasing one as I use my RX1R (32mm) but got one on offer for only £245 so would say it's an absolute bargain!
JLim wrote:
Has anyone tried the 21mm wide angle conversion lens for this 28mm?
I think Jman (Jordan) tested this when he reviewed the FE28. I think it did what one would expect: Distortion, corners less sharp, but functions well, and stopped down the issues attenuate.
My main beef with this (I've thought about it) is that if I'm going to carry and attach an adapter I'd rather just have a stand-alone lens that's smaller and shorter and won't require fiddling with hoods/CPL/whatever. On the other hand, the adapter is cheaper than any other AF solution...
