To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context:  I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)

Very happy. It's as sharp as a tack across the field wide open (great for cityscapes) and doesn't improve much as you stop down, because it doesn't need to.It has glorious contrast. Handles contra jour like a champ (much better than any legacy lenses, some of which are as sharp or sharper stopped down)It's tiny and light, it autofocuses (and handles c-eye af on the a7rII)Every lens has downsides of course (including or especially Otuses for whom it's size and weight and cost)(1) The small size necessitates quite a bit of vignetting. Well worth it given the benefit of having a lens this small and light, and correctable easily at the price of a touch of DR and noise loss in the peripheral field. Ditto barrel distortion. Don't let your camera bake in the correction though: for some images it's best left uncorrected on both counts.(2) It's pretty expensive for a 35 2.8.  You can sometimes get them at a better price though.All in all I don't foresee parting with mine! I don't mind some big lenses when the purpose they serve can't be served otherwise; but I also love it that I can have a tiny kit with this lens and have astonishing image quality.

Yes, I am. It is sharp as hell, and small. Perfect walkaround lens, if - as stated by others - a tad expensive.With that being said, I wish there was something between the f2.8 and the f1.4 lenses.

AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)It is a nice little package... but for a 35mm prime it's not very fast. Most systems have zooms that go to 2.8. If you're going to invest in a prime, I think the Loxia 35/2 is a much better choice and much more expensive. It wasn't available when I bought mine or I wouldn't have bought it.

I have had it for a couple of months and I am very happy with this lensIt is very sharp, compact, light. I pick it up everytime I go walkaround without carrying anything else.Here is my A7r+FE 35 F2.8 in a front pocket of a slim fit size M jacket:

AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)Absolutely. Compact. Sharp. Weather Sealed.The 28mm f2.0, 35mm f2.8, and 55mm f1.8 is all you need.

..

KwhyChang wrote:AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)It is a nice little package... but for a 35mm prime it's not very fast. Most systems have zooms that go to 2.8. If you're going to invest in a prime, I think the Loxia 35/2 is a much better choice and much more expensive. It wasn't available when I bought mine or I wouldn't have bought it.I would agree that the Loxia might be a more versatile lens, but it isn't better in an objective sense. The biogon design has some drawbacks that make it less than ideal for some types of shooting. Coma in particular is an issue with the Loxia, and my targets, which include astrophotography suffer badly when coma is present. Having to step down a ton is not a great answer either, since I can shoot wider with the Sonnar design and vignetting is easier to correct than coma.

I have fallen in love with it. IQ is virtually as good as the 55 but the size and weight gives it an edge to me. Best lens for the money in my opinion -- Sony A7ii SEL55F18Z SEL35F28Z SEL2870

AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)Yes. Yes. Yes. terrific lens. shoot tv commercials with thing. outperforms canon lenses on a red dragon.

I've been very pleasantly surprised with this lens, the image quality is quite a bit better than I had expected given its tiny size.It's very sharp, even on an A7rII, and my copy seems pretty even across the frame. The colors and contrast are great.As others have said, vignetting is somewhat an issue. I also have mixed feelings on the bokeh -- it can be pretty good, or it can be a tad busy, depending on the type of shot.Some have said that this lens can be a little clinical, and I'd agree, that's probably a function of the bokeh (and maybe just the fact that it's an f/2.8 lens). It doesn't quite have the magic of the 24/1.8 I was using on my NEX-7. I think that's why some people are still holding out hope for a Batis 35/2.But overall I think this is a pretty solid lens.

Im happy with mine! Perfect when traveling. I stumbled on the city orienteering competition in Venice when I was on there on a trip there. Waited for the right moment to capture one

BurntAsh wrote:KwhyChang wrote:AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)It is a nice little package... but for a 35mm prime it's not very fast. Most systems have zooms that go to 2.8. If you're going to invest in a prime, I think the Loxia 35/2 is a much better choice and much more expensive. It wasn't available when I bought mine or I wouldn't have bought it.I would agree that the Loxia might be a more versatile lens, but it isn't better in an objective sense. The biogon design has some drawbacks that make it less than ideal for some types of shooting. Coma in particular is an issue with the Loxia, and my targets, which include astrophotography suffer badly when coma is present. Having to step down a ton is not a great answer either, since I can shoot wider with the Sonnar design and vignetting is easier to correct than coma.I have the Loxia 35 and would suggest it is better in an objective senseThe Loxia has higher peak sharpness  - take a look at the lenscore and photographylife mtf measurements - although it's corners are weaker relative to the center but it's still sharp. The lenscore ratings also rate the Loxia on other characteristics such as chromatic aberration, color and etc. too.On coma, agree it's an issue for Astro at f2 but by f2.8, it's a lot better although there's no advantage here vs the 35mm f2.8. Both lenses are probably not the best choices for Astro.The Loxia also has a lot better distortions handling than the 35mm f2.8 (yes there's software but that's still an issue) and personally I like the colors more. I don't think the Loxia 35 is 2x the money better on image quality alone but it's certainly a great lens especially once you factor in build quality. That said, I am constantly tempted to buy a used 35mm f2.8 just for the compactness, autofocus and the iq it delivers when you consider the whole package.

I used to own it and it was a good lightweight lens for the A7 cameras.I then purchased the RX1R and i never used the 35/2.8 again as it was easier to put this in my bag and not have to change lens when i needed 35mm focal length. I also think it rendering is so much nicer than the 2.8 but obviously more expensive too even though you get a free body

lokiminion wrote:I have the Loxia 35 and would suggest it is better in an objective senseThe Loxia has higher peak sharpness - take a look at the lenscore and photographylife mtf measurements - although it's corners are weaker relative to the center but it's still sharp. The lenscore ratings also rate the Loxia on other characteristics such as chromatic aberration, color and etc. too.Sure, and that peak sharpness helps when you don't care about the field outside of the center as much. But not all photography is like that. I'll trade a bit of center sharpness for an even frame, which is one of the reasons I actually like Sonnars for AP.On coma, agree it's an issue for Astro at f2 but by f2.8, it's a lot better although there's no advantage here vs the 35mm f2.8. Both lenses are probably not the best choices for Astro.I have to disagree here on this comment. The example comparison of the Loxia and 2.8 (http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-loxia-biogon-352-review/4/) shows that in terms of Coma, the 2.8 is still ahead when both are at 2.8 And they both peak at f/4, while I'd have no real trouble shooting the 2.8 at 2.8 or 3.2 if I had to. In particular because of the Loxia's weakness outside of the center, it isn't really a great contest.The Loxia also has a lot better distortions handling than the 35mm f2.8 (yes there's software but that's still an issue) and personally I like the colors more. I don't think the Loxia 35 is 2x the money better on image quality alone but it's certainly a great lens especially once you factor in build quality. That said, I am constantly tempted to buy a used 35mm f2.8 just for the compactness, autofocus and the iq it delivers when you consider the whole package.For AP, so long as the distortion isn't objectionable, it isn't worth trading better distortion in favor of a worse whole field. Not unless I'm going to crop heavily. In general, for my subjects, the 2.8's distortion is not the problem I run into. Flatter field and better coma win for me here, and the CA between the two are comparable enough.So no, I still don't buy that it is a better lens in an objective sense. Because it still assumes certain uses of the lens, and targets that favor the trade offs made in the Loxia. The FE made different trade offs, that to me, are utterly more valuable when using this lens for Landscape + AP.

AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)I find the FE35Z a wonderful small lens for compactness, and it has very high IQ, but ....the f/2.8 max aperture and the 35mm FOV just don't work for me.I prefer grabbing the FE28 and FE55Z, and make do with those. The FE28 has a (signifcantly) wider FOV, and comes with f/2.0. It turns out to be more practical, especially indoors.The FE35Z has become somewhat of a daytime lens for me - great for sharp 35mm FOV images, and much sharper than the FE1635Z or FE2870 (on A7ii), but it is not a night-time lens for me.I do like the 35mm FOV for e.g. model shoots, it works very well, and, stopped down, the sharpness is just amazing.The size of the lens is also very compact, and it keeps the camera very compact when mounted as well.On my last travel, I took the A5100+E1650 zoom, the A7ii+FE28+FE35Z+FE55Z, and, surely, the FE35Z got the least amount of shots.The FE55Z is your go-to lens for bokeh, creative shots, nighttime shots.The FE28 is your go-to lens for low light, indoor group shots, overview shots.The FE35Z is a 'middle-of-the-road' and would possibly have become a favorite at f/2.0, but not at f/2.8. It just doesn't cut it for me at f/2.8.Disclaimer, I have other lenses such as the OM35/2.8, ZM35/2.0, CV35/1.4, and, to me, the FE35Z didn't add much to already available setups.Also, the FE1635Z and FE2870 yield around f/4.0 at 35mm, and, aside from edge sharpness, they are 'make do' lenses. They add OSS (on A7) and yield similar noise, or lesser, than the FE35Z does by itself.Lastly, the FE35Z renders nearly identical to the E24Z on the A6000, especially in daytime, whereas the FE28 and FE55Z do not have a clear counterpart on the A6000, hence making them more interesting to use.Of course, the E24Z is one of the best lenses on the A6000, so I do not want to short the FE35Z, but, in my context, it is not my go-to lens.I did have shoots where I exclusively used the FE35Z, so I still like the lens.If you are building a collection, I would start with the FE28 and FE55Z. If you really like the 35mm, I would consider the (MF) Loxia 35/2.0 instead, or go for the bulky FE35Z/1.4.

BurntAsh wrote:lokiminion wrote:I have the Loxia 35 and would suggest it is better in an objective senseThe Loxia has higher peak sharpness - take a look at the lenscore and photographylife mtf measurements - although it's corners are weaker relative to the center but it's still sharp. The lenscore ratings also rate the Loxia on other characteristics such as chromatic aberration, color and etc. too.Sure, and that peak sharpness helps when you don't care about the field outside of the center as much. But not all photography is like that. I'll trade a bit of center sharpness for an even frame, which is one of the reasons I actually like Sonnars for AP.On coma, agree it's an issue for Astro at f2 but by f2.8, it's a lot better although there's no advantage here vs the 35mm f2.8. Both lenses are probably not the best choices for Astro.I have to disagree here on this comment. The example comparison of the Loxia and 2.8 (http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-loxia-biogon-352-review/4/) shows that in terms of Coma, the 2.8 is still ahead when both are at 2.8 And they both peak at f/4, while I'd have no real trouble shooting the 2.8 at 2.8 or 3.2 if I had to. In particular because of the Loxia's weakness outside of the center, it isn't really a great contest.The Loxia also has a lot better distortions handling than the 35mm f2.8 (yes there's software but that's still an issue) and personally I like the colors more. I don't think the Loxia 35 is 2x the money better on image quality alone but it's certainly a great lens especially once you factor in build quality. That said, I am constantly tempted to buy a used 35mm f2.8 just for the compactness, autofocus and the iq it delivers when you consider the whole package.For AP, so long as the distortion isn't objectionable, it isn't worth trading better distortion in favor of a worse whole field. Not unless I'm going to crop heavily. In general, for my subjects, the 2.8's distortion is not the problem I run into. Flatter field and better coma win for me here, and the CA between the two are comparable enough.So no, I still don't buy that it is a better lens in an objective sense. Because it still assumes certain uses of the lens, and targets that favor the trade offs made in the Loxia. The FE made different trade offs, that to me, are utterly more valuable when using this lens for Landscape + AP.Not going to bother responding to the whole thread but would point out that both the 35mm f2.8 and the loxia 35 are mediocre for astrophotography so this whole discussion is a waste of time. For landscape and regular use, the Loxia is a better lens - see the scoring sources I referenced on the specific measurements. Yes, across the frame sharpness is an issue but it's not the only thing that matters when the lens is more than sharp enough across the field.You can start talking about "character" but that's a subjective discussion.

AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)Absolutely. Compact. Sharp. Weather Sealed.The 28mm f2.0, 35mm f2.8, and 55mm f1.8 is all you need.But if you had to choose between the 28mm F2 and the 35mm F2.8, which one would you take?

trainerKEN wrote:AEndrs wrote:To all of you that have the FE 35mm f/2.8, are you happy with it?is it worth it?(context: I have the A7 and manual lenses, contax g45, g90, CY28mm)Absolutely. Compact. Sharp. Weather Sealed.The 28mm f2.0, 35mm f2.8, and 55mm f1.8 is all you need.But if you had to choose between the 28mm F2 and the 35mm F2.8, which one would you take?I had the 28/2, didn't like the OOF areas and it never got as sharp as the 35/2.8, at least my sample(s). There's an ugly doubling of bokeh areas like sticks or leaf edges I dislike. Colors are fair, contrast is also fair. The Zeiss has a lot more pop.

Thrilled! It's as good as my Summilux 35mm f1.4 at f2.8. It's AF on my A7 is terrific. Because the A7 high ISO performance is so good, I don't miss the fact that it's so "slow."