Best bet for a Zeiss 35 that I can afford (the Distagon 1.4 is off the table.)Looking at the C/Y f/2.8, the G f/2 or possibly the FE f/2.8 Looking for the best color and microcontrast, all three are sharp enough for my needs (landscape and street, but not printing large so all will be fine.)I don't really care much about AF, but unless the G f/2 is significantly better I'd probably take AF over the f/2. C/Y seems to be the least expensive by almost half.Already have a C/Y adapter for a Planar 50 1.7 and have a Metabones G adapter on it's way with a G 90.I see these lenses come up in discussion, but they're usually mentioned as "decent, but not the best of this series, blah blah blah..." but it's the focal length I like and never see comparisons of the various models.Any input appreciated.

Mathieu18 wrote:Best bet for a Zeiss 35 that I can afford (the Distagon 1.4 is off the table.)Looking at the C/Y f/2.8, the G f/2 or possibly the FE f/2.8 Looking for the best color and microcontrast, all three are sharp enough for my needs (landscape and street, but not printing large so all will be fine.)I don't really care much about AF, but unless the G f/2 is significantly better I'd probably take AF over the f/2. C/Y seems to be the least expensive by almost half.Already have a C/Y adapter for a Planar 50 1.7 and have a Metabones G adapter on it's way with a G 90.I see these lenses come up in discussion, but they're usually mentioned as "decent, but not the best of this series, blah blah blah..." but it's the focal length I like and never see comparisons of the various models.Any input appreciated.The 35mm 2.8 is an amazing little lens. I loved mine. Good autofocus too.You can find it used for 500$-550$

The new Tamron 35mm f/1.8 is a better choice. look at this threadhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3897202Its selling at $599 now but may be cheaper soon for black FridayIt focuses to .2 metersIt has ISLenstip did a full review and its a winner, high resolution, little vignetting vs. competition.It weighs just a little over one pound, and is much more compact than Zeiss or Sigma Art.

Zenjitsuman wrote:The new Tamron 35mm f/1.8 is a better choice. look at this threadhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3897202Its selling at $599 now but may be cheaper soon for black FridayIt focuses to .2 metersIt has ISLenstip did a full review and its a winner, high resolution, little vignetting vs. competition.It weighs just a little over one pound, and is much more compact than Zeiss or Sigma Art.Sure but its not emount.. its A mount... you'll need an adapter. making the price jump by 200-400$Also the sony version wont be out for another 3 months.

Someone has one with a nick in the outer edge for $475 right now! I had been looking at the G 35 f/2 but considering that's nearly the same price it did give a moment of pause.juvx wrote:Mathieu18 wrote:Best bet for a Zeiss 35 that I can afford (the Distagon 1.4 is off the table.)Looking at the C/Y f/2.8, the G f/2 or possibly the FE f/2.8 Looking for the best color and microcontrast, all three are sharp enough for my needs (landscape and street, but not printing large so all will be fine.)I don't really care much about AF, but unless the G f/2 is significantly better I'd probably take AF over the f/2. C/Y seems to be the least expensive by almost half.Already have a C/Y adapter for a Planar 50 1.7 and have a Metabones G adapter on it's way with a G 90.I see these lenses come up in discussion, but they're usually mentioned as "decent, but not the best of this series, blah blah blah..." but it's the focal length I like and never see comparisons of the various models.Any input appreciated.The 35mm 2.8 is an amazing little lens. I loved mine. Good autofocus too.You can find it used for 500$-550$

Thanks, but I'd need an LA-EA3 or 4, so now we're up to $750-$850. And some of those lenses may be sharper, but having shot a lot of decent lenses, I just thoroughly enjoy the way the Zeiss glass and coatings draw.

The sony adapter you seek is $129 on ebay and $149 on B&H used.

I assume the Loxia 35 f2 is out?

Yea, it would be nice but price is getting up there. FE 35 2.8 is probably the highest I'm willing to go, or the G if IQ is substantially better.

Lenstip review of the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 with AF and IS and close focusinghttp://www.lenstip.com/455.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_35_mm_f_1.8_Di_VC_USD.htmlAlso, I would get the Canon version not the A mount version since that version does not offer Image stabilization, and adapters for Canon are usually available for cheaper $$$.

The 35/2.8 is a little clinical and it has some vignetting, but it's very sharp and it does have the zeiss color. I'd also recommend it.

Mathieu18 wrote:Yea, it would be nice but price is getting up there. FE 35 2.8 is probably the highest I'm willing to go, or the G if IQ is substantially better.Would get the 35mm f2.8 given your budget constraint. I have a fotodiox adapter that's in the same style as the metabones adapter for my g90 and it is impossible to take off. You will not enjoy switching lenses and adapters out in the field.Additionally, a quick google search would show you that the g35 is weaker than the g45 and will probably be weaker than the 35mm f2.8. The reviews of the g45 (I considered getting one) showed good center performance but poor edge on the sony a7 wide open relative to modern lenses like the 35mm f2.8.

Thanks, I have seen that the G35 is weaker than the G45, but comparisons have generally ended there. Since the G45 was said by some to be one of the greatest lenses ever (over the top I'm sure, but...) worse could still be excellent. Haven't messed with adapters yet, but good point, haven't heard anyone say it's easy either. That said, I'd likely throw it on and leave it, but looking more and more like it's C/Y 35 2.8 as a budget option or spring for a FE 35 2.8 if I'm going to spend more. I guess no one misses the f/2 on the G version?lokiminion wrote:Mathieu18 wrote:Yea, it would be nice but price is getting up there. FE 35 2.8 is probably the highest I'm willing to go, or the G if IQ is substantially better.Would get the 35mm f2.8 given your budget constraint. I have a fotodiox adapter that's in the same style as the metabones adapter for my g90 and it is impossible to take off. You will not enjoy switching lenses and adapters out in the field.Additionally, a quick google search would show you that the g35 is weaker than the g45 and will probably be weaker than the 35mm f2.8. The reviews of the g45 (I considered getting one) showed good center performance but poor edge on the sony a7 wide open relative to modern lenses like the 35mm f2.8.

Mathieu18 wrote:Best bet for a Zeiss 35 that I can afford (the Distagon 1.4 is off the table.)Looking at the C/Y f/2.8, the G f/2 or possibly the FE f/2.8 Looking for the best color and microcontrast, all three are sharp enough for my needs (landscape and street, but not printing large so all will be fine.)I don't really care much about AF, but unless the G f/2 is significantly better I'd probably take AF over the f/2. C/Y seems to be the least expensive by almost half.Already have a C/Y adapter for a Planar 50 1.7 and have a Metabones G adapter on it's way with a G 90.I see these lenses come up in discussion, but they're usually mentioned as "decent, but not the best of this series, blah blah blah..." but it's the focal length I like and never see comparisons of the various models.Any input appreciated.The G was problematic I understand - smearing and color shifting. Maybe someone can confirm.Of the ones you mention, there's nothing really better than the little FE 35mm 2.8. It's so light and small but takes great photos.

Mathieu18 wrote:Thanks, I have seen that the G35 is weaker than the G45, but comparisons have generally ended there. Since the G45 was said by some to be one of the greatest lenses ever (over the top I'm sure, but...) worse could still be excellent. Haven't messed with adapters yet, but good point, haven't heard anyone say it's easy either. That said, I'd likely throw it on and leave it, but looking more and more like it's C/Y 35 2.8 as a budget option or spring for a FE 35 2.8 if I'm going to spend more. I guess no one misses the f/2 on the G version?lokiminion wrote:Mathieu18 wrote:Yea, it would be nice but price is getting up there. FE 35 2.8 is probably the highest I'm willing to go, or the G if IQ is substantially better.Would get the 35mm f2.8 given your budget constraint. I have a fotodiox adapter that's in the same style as the metabones adapter for my g90 and it is impossible to take off. You will not enjoy switching lenses and adapters out in the field.Additionally, a quick google search would show you that the g35 is weaker than the g45 and will probably be weaker than the 35mm f2.8. The reviews of the g45 (I considered getting one) showed good center performance but poor edge on the sony a7 wide open relative to modern lenses like the 35mm f2.8.Here's a comparison between the G45 vs the Loxia 50 and the Sony 55mm FE.https://beautifullenses.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/45-50-or-55mm/I thought about trading to a G45 from the 55mm fe (ultimately got a great deal on a loxia 50 to free up some cash since it's not a focal length I use as much) until I saw the poor corner performance. If this is the g45, I have to believe the g35 is likely to be even worse.I don't think the f2 is meaningful unless you are obsessed with bokeh (I'm not). Haven't tried the C/Y 35mm f2.8 but price differential between that and a 35mm f2.8 makes it worth considering although I personally would rather just pay up and get the native e-mount lens.

Why not native? I sold my CY 35/1.4 in mint condition for almost as much as the new one from Zeiss now sells for. In fact, I sold all my CY lenses (with the exception of 28/2.8, the jury is still out versus the Sony 28/2.0) - it's nice to have autofocus, it's nice to have instead view magnifier when turning the manual focus ring, it is nice to have EXIF.Having said that, you may also want to check out offerings from Takumar. Their SMC (super multi coated) lenses just before Pentax took over the company are superb. Hand assembled in Japan to Leica quality standards.

I don't think thinks smeared as much on the A7 (which I have) vs the A7R. Saw that the G28 fared better as well. All that said, yea we can take the G35 off the list. Still not sold on passing on the C/Y for half the price of the FE. I enjoy MF, and actually shooting close focus shallow DOF, I think it's quicker to MF and recompose rather than trying to move the focal point around.

Not opposed to FE lenses, but CY 2.8 is about half the price of FE 2.8 and I don't need MF. Also really enjoy the drawing at least of the Planar 50 1.7. Does the FE draw similarly being Zeiss design? Same pop and color? Seems to be mixed reviews in that regard. Had the Zeiss 24 1.8 on an A6000 and it was excellent, but I wouldn't say it had the same Zeiss character as the Planar does.

These are beautiful lenses, no doubt, to me the cons outweighted the pluses, but I see the attraction of the original CY, especially if you do only MF.I have both CY28/2.8 and Sony 28/2, still "debating with myself". The Sony is sharper, especially in the edges and much lighter, plus AF, EXIF etc. and better bokeh (2.0 versus 2.8) wide open. There is however something about the rendering of the CY that makes me hesitant to sell it. I think I will keep bothPS: The advantage of adapters of course, you can get them with inbuilt helicoid for close-ups or with tilt-ability for landscapes.

Zenjitsuman wrote:The sony adapter you seek is $129 on ebay and $149 on B&H used.Its not. its 200 for a new one.I checked this morning. The B&H link is out of date. Its 200.