Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2016 · Loxia 35 revisited

arduluth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Loxia 35 revisited

DavidBM wrote:
I might have some samples in a few days. But, love this lens though I do, I don't think it's what you need for concert photography. If you can find an OK copy of the ZA 35/1.4 you'd be better off - or the Sigma 35 with their new adapter.

I've no interest in a huge lens and would prefer MF. Also, probably too expensive for me. I'd prefer a small MF prime. I can live with a touch of softness wide open - the Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C (concave thorium) or Canon FDn 35mm f/2 are fine in this respect - but a strong SA glow would be a turn off.

Edit: the CV 35/1.7 is probably the runner up. The CV 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 aren't bad wide open, but the tiny size of the central sweet spot until f/4 are a turn off. I'd like something that can do OK focused anywhere in the center, out to the rule of thirds lines.

Edit2: any chance the Loxia improves quote a bit centrally 1/3 or 2/3 stopped down?

Aug 21, 2016 at 01:57 PM

jhinkey
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Loxia 35 revisited

Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree on the price. It should be the same as Lox 50/2.
From my experience it does not have poor wide open performance around the center area. It's actually quite good.
This lens has a classic biogon optical formula and is under-corrected for SA but imo, that adds to its character making it a great choice for environment portraits.
It draws differently compared side-by-side to the FE35/2.8, with better subject separation and smoother rendering. It may not match the 35/2.8 in terms of resolution at f/2.8 but there are other aspects of the lens to consider and appreciate. At f/8, astigmatism...Show more →

I mis-stated or you mis-read my above. Wide open in the center the 35/2 Loxia is excellent, but my experience was that the borders/corners only become decent until way stopped down (like f/8), which at that point the Sony 35/2.8 was just as good if not slightly better in the corners. The SA is clearly evident off the central 2/3 of the frame (however you want to define that). Maybe I had my hands on a sub-standard copy, but for the extra weight, cost, and not AF I didn't find it worth it. Also, at the same apertures the contrast, pop, etc. was just not apparent unless you pointed it into the sun, then the Lox was miles ahead.

Aug 21, 2016 at 05:21 PM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Loxia 35 revisited

Aug 21, 2016 at 05:29 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Loxia 35 revisited

arduluth wrote:
I've no interest in a huge lens and would prefer MF. Also, probably too expensive for me. I'd prefer a small MF prime. I can live with a touch of softness wide open - the Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C (concave thorium) or Canon FDn 35mm f/2 are fine in this respect - but a strong SA glow would be a turn off.

Edit: the CV 35/1.7 is probably the runner up. The CV 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 aren't bad wide open, but the tiny size of the central sweet spot until f/4 are a turn off. I'd like something that...Show more →

Ah well if you fine with the FD wide open performance you'll be fine with the Lox wide open: I haven't used either of those FDs for ages, but I'm pretty sure the Lox is better - and yes it does improve in the intermediate apertures before 2.8...back at work but I'll try to do samples. I think, though, the cv 1.7 might be better at f2, and maybe therefore better for your needs (maybe even better at 1.7). The strong field curvature of the cv will be no issue for the kind of shooting you are envisaging.

Aug 21, 2016 at 05:30 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Loxia 35 revisited

jhinkey wrote:
I mis-stated or you mis-read my above. Wide open in the center the 35/2 Loxia is excellent, but my experience was that the borders/corners only become decent until way stopped down (like f/8), which at that point the Sony 35/2.8 was just as good if not slightly better in the corners. The SA is clearly evident off the central 2/3 of the frame (however you want to define that). Maybe I had my hands on a sub-standard copy, but for the extra weight, cost, and not AF I didn't find it worth it. Also, at the same apertures the contrast,...Show more →

Our experience is not that different: my copy of the lox is better in the corners stopped down than the FE; but not masses and it does take a lot of stopping down to get there. I do think it's a bit contrastier stopped down than the FE but again not massively. I prefer the bokeh at f2.8 (though the FE has better corners at 2.8, not that I often care at that aperture. But the thing you noted: contrast against the light, is really important to me. As are the sunstars, which are great (and poor on the FE 2.8). They are better on the FE 1.4, though a very different shape, one which subjectively I don't like as much.

Aug 21, 2016 at 05:34 PM

arduluth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Loxia 35 revisited

DavidBM wrote:
Ah well if you fine with the FD wide open performance you'll be fine with the Lox wide open: I haven't used either of those FDs for ages, but I'm pretty sure the Lox is better - and yes it does improve in the intermediate apertures before 2.8...back at work but I'll try to do samples. I think, though, the cv 1.7 might be better at f2, and maybe therefore better for your needs (maybe even better at 1.7). The strong field curvature of the cv will be no issue for the kind of shooting you are envisaging.

Both the FD (concave thorium) and FDn are pretty good for SA wide open, though they do sharpen up centrally at f/2.8. I don't like the size and transmission loss caused by the yellowing of the FD (concave thorium) and don't like the veiling flare of the FDn. I can live with some field curvature, but do like a lens to be edge to edge sharp at f/4 or f/5.6 for landscapes. Corners arent usually a priority. For just concerts, the CV 35/1.7 wouldn't be an issue, unless the field curvature is so bad that the edges are back into focus.

If the Loxia 35mm is decent centrally wide open (decent contrast, resolution and without too much SA) I'm fine with needing f/5.6 or f/f9rna landscape. Just not keen on a fuzzy glow, tends to make the stage lighting look even worse than it already is.

Aug 21, 2016 at 06:26 PM

bjornthun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Loxia 35 revisited

I wonder, if we will see any new Voigtländer lenses with E mount or Loxias this autumn. Would the Voigtländer 35/1.7 or 50/1.5 or the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 be possible to modify to work well on stock Sony cameras at wider apertures without loosing their character? This is a Photokina year.

Aug 21, 2016 at 06:31 PM

stevesanacore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Loxia 35 revisited

I have been patiently waiting for a 35mm solution I am still using my Leica R35 f2, Nikon 35 2.8, along with two Canon zooms. I've stayed away from the Loxia as it's reputation is not great. My question would be if the 35 1.4 ZM is a better choice or not? Cost is not really an issue when searching for perfection. I have no interest in the large DSLR options in this case.

Aug 21, 2016 at 07:17 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Loxia 35 revisited

stevesanacore wrote:
I have been patiently waiting for a 35mm solution I am still using my Leica R35 f2, Nikon 35 2.8, along with two Canon zooms. I've stayed away from the Loxia as it's reputation is not great. My question would be if the 35 1.4 ZM is a better choice or not? Cost is not really an issue when searching for perfection. I have no interest in the large DSLR options in this case.

If you are looking for perfection it's not here yet.
Is the ZM 1.4 better than the Lox? Well it's faster, centrally sharper at f2, but has a little more field curvature on the stock sensor. It's great, but it's not perfection. It may be overall a better choice than the Loxia but it's not cheap and it's still a compromise. Maybe it's the basis of a future Loxua version which will play better with the Sony cover glass. But if you want perfection I'm afraid large is what you will have to put up with. Things like the FE 1.4 (a good copy) are not large because they are 'dslr versions' - it has elements right back to the e mount flange. They are large because that's what it takes (a degree of telecentricity) to get good peripheral performance at wide apertures. And that means limited size saving over a dslr lens.

Of course giving up on perfection to get smaller can make good sense.

Just one other point: reputations can misleading. They tend to be 'overall' reputations, and as such are about as useful as DXOs one number score. You need to know what the lens does well, and what it does less well, and which of those things you want if for. For some purposes the Lox is maybe the best available tool. For others not close.

Aug 21, 2016 at 08:37 PM

arduluth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Loxia 35 revisited

bjornthun wrote:
I wonder, if we will see any new Voigtländer lenses with E mount or Loxias this autumn. Would the Voigtländer 35/1.7 or 50/1.5 or the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 be possible to modify to work well on stock Sony cameras at wider apertures without loosing their character? This is a Photokina year.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Indeed, I think Zeiss proved this with the Loxia 35mm, as a Biogon (impossible!) that was made to work on E mount. Not that the Loxia 35mm is perfect, but I think it would fair to say the ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon was optimized for E mount and released as the Loxia 35mm, and retains the character of ZM.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the CV 50mm f/1.5, but that's mostly based on the already crowded ~50mm space in E mount. It'd be great to see the 35mm get a similar treatment as the Loxia or CV 15mm.

Aug 21, 2016 at 09:32 PM

stevesanacore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Loxia 35 revisited

I have no problem for large lenses when I really need them, but for travel, compact lenses are more desirable. So I may just pick up the Sony 35 2.8 until something really amazing shows up. I do need my images to be sharp to the corners as most of what i shoot when I travel is architecture and landscapes. The Leica R is excellent but heavy and the adapter is a pain.

Aug 22, 2016 at 10:26 AM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Loxia 35 revisited

stevesanacore wrote:
I have no problem for large lenses when I really need them, but for travel, compact lenses are more desirable. So I may just pick up the Sony 35 2.8 until something really amazing shows up. I do need my images to be sharp to the corners as most of what i shoot when I travel is architecture and landscapes. The Leica R is excellent but heavy and the adapter is a pain.

I use the Zony 2.8 as the lens on camera while hiking. It's very good wide open, though it doesn't imorive much stopping down. I've had a couple of badly skewed ones, though, so make sure you get it from somewhere with a good return policy.

Aug 22, 2016 at 04:39 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Loxia 35 revisited

Local Church. Spring. Slightly imperfect focus stacking if you look closely.

But it does show the nice bokeh even at f8 when you are up close, and good close focus performance.

Aug 22, 2016 at 08:40 PM

robgo2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Loxia 35 revisited

bjornthun wrote:
I wonder, if we will see any new Voigtländer lenses with E mount or Loxias this autumn. Would the Voigtländer 35/1.7 or 50/1.5 or the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 be possible to modify to work well on stock Sony cameras at wider apertures without loosing their character? This is a Photokina year.

Having recently purchased the 35/1.7 Ultron and the 50/1.5 Nokton, I would be loathe to trade them for E mount versions, unless the Ultron is modified to correct its deficiencies on A7x cameras. The Nokton is hands down the finest 50 that I have ever used, and that includes the Loxia. Also, with M mount lenses, one has the option of using a TechArt adapter directly for autofocus. A secondary adapter would not be necessary.

Rob

Edited on Aug 24, 2016 at 12:07 AM · View previous versions

Aug 22, 2016 at 09:39 PM

charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Loxia 35 revisited

Great work and examples David!

I have the FE 35/1.4 an excellent copy, so just in the last week I sold my Loxia 35. I still have my beloved Loxia 21 and 50 and they both have a permanent home

Aug 22, 2016 at 10:05 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Loxia 35 revisited

charles.K wrote:
Great work and examples David!

I have the FE 35/1.4 an excellent copy, so just in the last week I sold my Loxia 35. I still have my beloved Loxia 21 and 50 and they both have a permanent home

The Loxia 35 I have had for almost a year and I have only used it once. The lens character is very similar to my previous ZM 35/2 which I did not gel with either. The Loxia wide open it has a unique personality and I find it difficult to use for portraits unless I stopped it down to f/2.8....Show more →

Hi Charles

Yep I'm blessed with a centred copy of the FE 35/1.4 which is my go to lens for moderate wide portraits. I got the Lox primarily for landscape, and for it's contrast against the light and the ten pointed sunstars that I'd got addicted to from the other Loxias. (I do kind of enjoy the L35 funky bokeh wide open, but not for every day) I'm very happy with the pair. Though I am almost tempted to get the ZM distagon 1.4 with the Techart; which might combine the benefits: fast with AF for portraits, and contrasty with 10 blades for landscape...

Aug 22, 2016 at 10:12 PM

andersd
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Loxia 35 revisited

The negative optical effects of enabling the Electronic Front Curtain Shutter (EFCS) at high shutter speeds has previously been discussed on here to some length, especially with fast lenses with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 or more. However, I was curious to what extent the "harsh" bokeh of the Loxia 2/35 could be improved by disabling EFCS.

All images were taken with a tripod-mounted A7rII, where shutter speed and ISO were balanced to give even exposure. The lens was focused at minimum focusing distance with out-of-focus areas containing specular highlights and foliage.

Nov 24, 2016 at 01:42 PM

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Loxia 35 revisited

Huh! Difference at 1/8k is remarkable. I typically quite like the bokeh of the Lox; it's not a cream machine but the sructure is classic but not funky. But yes turn that efc off at high ss! I really hope that Sony gives us an option to auto switch between efc and mechanical fc based on shutter speed. Track record is that they won't unless a lot of people go on about it, but likely will if there's a lot of chatter. Petition anyone?

Nov 24, 2016 at 04:08 PM

andersd
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Loxia 35 revisited

Yes, let's make Sony hear what we would like to see improved. I just opened a support ticket at Sony eSupport.

Is there a better way of going about this?

Nov 24, 2016 at 04:15 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Loxia 35 revisited

DavidBM wrote:
Huh! Difference at 1/8k is remarkable. I typically quite like the bokeh of the Lox; it's not a cream machine but the sructure is classic but not funky. But yes turn that efc off at high ss! I really hope that Sony gives us an option to auto switch between efc and mechanical fc based on shutter speed. Track record is that they won't unless a lot of people go on about it, but likely will if there's a lot of chatter. Petition anyone?

I would be happy if I could just program it to a button so I didn't have to dive into the menu to switch it.

Nov 24, 2016 at 05:15 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

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