at this range, it's pretty good--you tell me. purple fringe is evident.
However I am unable to get really good long range performance at infinity.
it looks alright, i've never been too impressed by what i've seen from it. i'm much more interested in a 400/4.5 (or f4), but they're aren't many of them.
uhoh7 wrote:
After a week, it seems to be the best lens at the most normal EFL you can possibly put on the camera. And it slips right into your coat pocket NP
That's theory only of course, and something we all knew before you bought it, no?
I'm more of a 50mm sort of photographer so for me it is a 35 on the Nex. From time to time you can read that normal lenses are the most boring ones. (But I wish the SMC-P FA31/1.8 Limited had been a notch better optically, I think that would be the perfect normal FL for me.) I say it is a little wonder when you find a good prime of the "right" focal length, it opens up for great images. Congratulations!
I've really been liking most of the Zeiss 24/1.8 images that I've seen. Looks good. My only concern is the longitudinal CA, which has been an issue with every fast Sony lens that I've owned. It was particularly bad on my ZA 85/1.4. I think I can see it even in these web sized images, but I have to see more. Overall, I think it looks to be a great 35mm equiv.
Jacob D wrote:
So, Jonas, what is your 35 of choice? (apologies if I missed this somewhere above)
Heh. That's a question keeping my economy at the edge for the moment. I have a CV35/1.2, the FA31/1.8, a 35Lux ASPH (pre.FLE as the current FLE version has a scary bokeh) at home and then, finally?, a ZM Biogon 35/2 on order. I hope to be able to sell at least two of them in a not too distant future...
If you know of a super well performing 35mm not slower than f/2 please let me know. When I am at it I can as well try another one at the same time. I do however think I got the top contenders gathered now.
(I have ruled out the Zeiss C/Y Distagon 35/1.4, the Nikon offers, the Sony/Minolta 35/1.4, the CV 35/1.4 and 35/1.7, the SMC-P 35/2 and a couple more, all for more or less rational reasons.) No need for an apology Jacob...
Yes it is. I have owned the 35/2 ASPH earlier but used it with film only (an old Leica M5). As the 35/2 ASPH MTF-wise is very similar to the 35Lux I don't think I need to compare it again in a direct shoot-out - and that's good for my wallet.
douglasf13 wrote:
I've really been liking most of the Zeiss 24/1.8 images that I've seen. Looks good. My only concern is the longitudinal CA, which has been an issue with every fast Sony lens that I've owned. It was particularly bad on my ZA 85/1.4. I think I can see it even in these web sized images, but I have to see more. Overall, I think it looks to be a great 35mm equiv.
agreed, i'm very tempted to just order it right now, but i'd really rather get a chance to hold the lens and see how i feel about manual focus on it first. with regard to the loCA, it is noticeable, but seems about in line with what i've seen from other fast zeiss lenses. i can live with it in most situations. bokeh looks much more promising than what i was seeing in the first preproduction reviews.
Yeah, it's too early to form an opinion about the loca, yet. I will say that, from what I've seen, the loca on ZA 85/1.4 was more than just about any other lens I've seen, so it worries me a little that I can see it in these small images.
People would probably call me crazy, but another possible minus for me is auto aperture. I like having a separate aperture ring and being able to shoot in S mode with auto ISO, which simulates M mode with auto ISO. This drives me crazy when occasionally using the native lenses, and I don't know if I want to go back.
That is a cafe inside the National Museum of Art of Catalonia (MNAC) in Barcelona, Spain.
Cropped at the top mainly, and then a bit at the sides to keep the image sharp. So it works...
