For me it was worth getting for the way it handles extreme contrast. (Flare and ghosting has been a real nuisance with the legacy 35s I've used...) Great (not just "usable") all the way from wide open, pleasing BOKEH, EXIF data, virtually weightless, uniquely unobtrusive hood - all very good things.I wish someone would make a case to fully exploit the compact dimensions on the A7. (The Sony leather ZOOM case, I don't $&@% think so - I just go with the Tamrac padded bag I use with bigger primes.)I really wish the AF were just a bit snappier and more reliable - particularly in low light. (Perhaps on a newer body?) As is, I notice a better hit rate with the faster 55/1.8. (When focus is on, I quite like the character and could probably live without f/2 or f/1.4.)I do occasionally miss the way the old SEL24 could get in so close. The FE35 feels just a bit less versatile in that regard. (Ditto the FE55 - spectacular at what it does but not so much of an "all purpose" piece.)For what I paid ($400 used) and for what I mostly use a 35/2.8 for (landscapes) I have no major complaints.

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)Well i have not got a A7ii as yet..still on the fence, i also will use it with old glass but want one fast to focus AF lens around 35mm so i have researched the 35mm f2.8 ..all reports are its a nice sharp lens and you will be happy(as long as you don't expect it to come close to your G45 as it has Ziess on it)..However...their is always a however...my research showed the bargain basement £100GBP canon 40mm f2.8 is little better which also means this ziess prime is not as sharp as the canon 24-70 f2.8Lii Zoom(on my shopping list) as the canon 40mm f2.8 is not....So that makes me feel i am paying way over the odds..or maybe the canon is a bargain, but as i find the same thing comparing the ziess 24mm f1.8 with the canon 24mm f2.8 stm i think its the former.sharpness is not the only resin to buy a lensPS if a sony fanboy wants to know wear is this blasphemes info ..go and look for it yourself if it bothers you as i can not be bothered repeating my facts ......almost as bad as Apple forums

Absolutely yes. It is a great lens. -- http://www.14fps.tv- My YouTube channel with a focus on Sony cameras.

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)Basically:yes,yes.Regards

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?If I had to choose, I'd have to go with the 35 (but that's based on what I like to shoot)Nightscapes: 28mm & 35mm are both goodUrBex: 28mm & 35mm are both goodModel Shoot and other Portrait style: 28mm definitely too wide (OK for a few specialized portraits but not for general use). Even 35mm is a bit wide for my taste here, but work-able.That makes the 35mm more versatile (for me)Compositionally... the wider the lens, the more 'stray elements' to account for, making it more difficult to get a strong composition for almost anything other than landscapes.

lokiminion wrote: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.What in your mind makes them mediocre for astrophotography? Are we talking about fixed tripod, or tracked? The aperture requirements are different between the two, so you can make different trade offs when you aren't being asked to shoot wide open 100% of the time. And again, for me, a lens at this FL needs to be multi-purpose, but it needs to suit my purposes. Not the purposes of the street photographer, who will make different trade offs than me for their photography.And you actually kinda prove my point by trying to make the argument that they are both mediocre for astrophotography. That implies there are trade offs made that make them unsuitable, which further implies that what makes a lens better than another is the purpose for which you want to use them. And the purpose, goals, etc are a more subjective thing. You cannot build objectivity on top of something subjective, sorry.

SparkleHedgehog wrote: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 SEL2870I'm a fan of the 2870 as well.  Very under-rated.

What I actually want - and what I feel should have been introduced instead of these two lenses - is an F1.8 Distagon, but in a form factor that's at most slightly larger than the 2.8.