It’s a fantastic lense for what it is at what it costs.
If it’s holding you back from achieving international renown get the GM. I have both. Shoot the 1.8 more often.
Kamuran Akkor
April 14, 2024 1:53 am
This is a good non-G lens but is also too expensive for what it is. Nikon Z 35mm f1.8 is probably the worst Z f1.8 lens. Canon’s macro 35mm is the best in all systems for its price and capabilities (macro and IS). The older SonyZeiss 35mm F2.8 has a huge waviness in focal plane, otherwise it is a nice lens (for price I’d go with Samyang 35mm f2.8 though).
Rage
April 10, 2024 12:20 pm
I enjoy the stressed comments from Sony users :-))) Thx Spencer for this review.
You’re welcome for the review! Although that honestly wasn’t my impression from the comments so far. This is a good lens, about the same level as Nikon and Canon’s 35mm f/1.8 lenses, with some strengths and weaknesses. (Strengths: portability, good controls. Weaknesses: harder-to-correct chromatic aberration and vignetting.)
P Gordon
April 10, 2024 12:05 pm
Spencer- Comparison with Zeiss Sony 35mm 2.8? Thanks
I would like to! It feels like it would complement this review well.
Right now, the three leading Sony lenses in our Gold Member poll are the 20-70mm f/4, 16-35mm f/2.8 II, and 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3. I expect that I’ll do at least those three reviews first before getting to the 35mm f/2.8, but it’s absolutely on my list.
I may end up testing it relatively soon anyway, since we’ve done mostly wide-angle Sony reviews so far. It would be nice to wrap up that category of lens sooner rather than later. Though, the poll winners will take priority.
Long term reader but new member at this great website, so this is my first post. I see that your planning to test the Sony 200-600 and I hope that is possible to for you to do soon. Would be great to see a comparing against Nikon 180-600 and Tamron 150-500 as you have already tested these. Keep up the good work!
Right now, it’s looking like that will be the next Sony lens we review! Although I have a few Nikon lens reviews in the pipeline to finish first.
AndyB
April 10, 2024 10:22 am
I’m curious. Would this lens make a good “50mm” for my a6700? It comes with a few quality of life features – af/mf switch and focus hold button – but obviously costs a lot more than their APSC version. Is it worth the extra money to go this route?
Not really, no. Even not having tested it yet, I would be more in favor of using the Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS for that purpose, saving the roughly $300. I don’t believe the sharpness will be meaningfully worse, if at all. The addition of image stabilization may give you a hair better stability in combination with the camera’s IBIS, too. Though vignetting will be better and the switches are nice, I don’t think it’s worth the price difference.
Flo
April 10, 2024 9:25 am
Hey Spencer,
Thank you for the detailed review.
Regarding the testing methodology, I’d find it very useful to have an additional chart: sharpness measurements from focusing in the the mid-frame, borders and corners. If the current chart and this additional one show similar resolution, it indicates a very low field curvature. If there is a huge discrepancy, then it means severe field curvature. Also, the current chart doesn’t show the lens’ true sharpness in the corners/borders which is a shame. It would be nice to know how sharp it is, say if the subject is off-centered.
It would be very interesting to see how the Samyang 35 f1.8 and Sigma 35 f2 would compare to the Sony. Do you plan on testing either or both in the near future?
Thanks again for your efforts, photographylife is a great website :-)
Thanks, Flo! We test each lens by taking a sequence of photos per focal length and aperture, focused at slightly different distances to find the optimal sharpness. This methodology shows me field curvature firsthand, since the sharpest focusing distance for the center is not always the sharpest for the midframes and corners.
I always report those findings in the sharpness section, but usually the amount is minimal enough that it is not necessary to display a separate chart. This Sony lens definitely doesn’t reach that threshold. If field curvature is massive, however, we will do so. It hasn’t happened in a while, but I remember doing so in our Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art review: photographylife.com/revie…dg-hsm-art and a related, but not identical issue, in our Viltrox 24mm f/1.8 review: photographylife.com/revie…24mm-f-1-8
I can post such charts more often if that’s what people are interested in, but I don’t think it will be as helpful as you’re envisioning. For the small differences that would show up in the charts, the extra work on my end and much longer explanations necessary for the review to make sense would not be worth it. Plus, half the comments under each review would then be asking about the issue because it was given so much attention in the review. It’s all pretty excessive for something like field curvature that is rather unimportant to the overall image quality and real-world sharpness of a particular lens.
Thanks for the detailed explanation of your rationale, Spencer. I’d still be interested in seeing the sharpness after focusing in the different areas, but if the difference is minimal I understand why you don’t do it as it’s time consuming.
Do you plan on testing the Samyang 35 f1.8 and Sigma 35 f2 as well? It would be very interesting to see how these 2 compare to the other 35mm. The Sigma in particular seems to be very good with nice bokeh.
Yes! My goal ultimately is to test every mainstream lens we can get our hands on, including the Samyang 35mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 35mm f/2. We’re at a pace of about one lens review per week right now, so it’s just a matter of which ones to test next.
Glenn
April 10, 2024 8:22 am
I find it a bit odd that neither Sony or Nikon went all in on their 35mm f/1.8 lenses. When Sony’s was released, I was expecting at least a little low-dispersion or other special glass to be included to deal with CA. Nikon’s 35mm S is a nice lens, but it’s clearly not the best of Nikon’s f/1.8 efforts. This focal length should be easy to nail. This is why I use the Voigtländer 35mm f/2.0 Apo Lanthar for landscape work. I would prefer to have autofocus for focus stacking, but don’t want to deal with the extra cost/size/weight of the Sony G Master f/1.4.
I feel the same – I haven’t been able to give any of the mirrorless 35mm f/1.8 primes so far more than about a 4.5/5 star rating. That’s true not just of Sony and Nikon but also Canon. Looking forward to testing the Voigtlander, however!
“Cheaper-feeling plastic and a little less weather sealing than Sony G or GM lenses” I find the reasoning behind this “con” very odd. It’s a cheaper lens so it’s natural that it won’t have the same feel in materials used, and the same goes for weather sealing.
That is known as “product segmentation” and has been used in well EVERYTHING since we started producing stuff on planet Earth. I never read a Nikkor review from Spencer where he mentioned “cheaper feeling plastics compared to Nikon S lenses” as a “con”.
This happens when review writer is left to his own devices when writing a review summary. Every single reviewer has their own “preference” for what is a “con”. Please treat all lens companies in a same manner thank you.
Not sure what you expect – if something strikes me as a positive or negative about a lens’s build quality, shouldn’t I mention it? The plastic used on this lens simply feels a little cheaper and less durable than expected. This is compared to other lenses of a similar price, like Sony’s FE 20mm f/1.8 G ($800).
I get that it’s not the most expensive lens out there, but $750 is still not cheap. And just because a lens is inexpensive shouldn’t prevent me from discussing its flaws. I’ve mentioned low-quality feeling plastic in other lens reviews before, and I don’t believe I’m being inconsistent by bringing it up here.
“Never argue with an idiot. You’ll never convince the idiot that you’re correct, and bystanders won’t be able to tell who’s who.” — (ascribed to) Mark Twain
I like that quote but definitely don’t think he’s an idiot, it’s fair to keep us vigilant about not having favoritism toward any manufacturer. I don’t think it applies in this case but am not bothered by having to justify any of my claims in any particular review.
I had several S lenses in my personal possession. They are tactile and incredible in design. Even the zooms. It is impossible to criticize them for their materials. You have to be completely inadequate. Sony tends to make a serious mark-up on its products. In the suburban case, Sony sells 35 1.8 at an inadequate price. They have the right. But even Chinese manufacturers sell analogues for significantly less money and at the same time use higher-quality materials. About the evaluation of materials. All people conditionally tend to focus their attention on sensations: visual, sound and tactile. As a rule, photography is done by those who are prone to visual perception. But there are very few pure visuals. Most have a mixture. And so. For those who have a lot of kinesthetics, tactile sensations are important. That is, the assessment of the value of objects goes through their tactile sensations. Accordingly, for such people, how tactile the lens is perceived is very important. For me personally, how the lens feels in my hands is important. I am not engaged in commercial photography and I want to get the most out of the process of photographing. For this reason, the quality of plastic and its texture are important for me. And for this reason, for me personally, Spencer’s assessment of his perception of materials is important.
Dmitry
April 10, 2024 12:58 am
Spencer, thanks for the review. And there is a suggestion. Test the Nikon 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor for comparison with modern lenses.
That would be fascinating! My guess is that it would be well behind these modern lenses – maybe at the level of the Viltrox 35mm if we’re lucky, but perhaps even worse. Lens design has leaped forward dramatically in the last few decades.
It’s a fantastic lense for what it is at what it costs.
If it’s holding you back from achieving international renown get the GM. I have both. Shoot the 1.8 more often.
This is a good non-G lens but is also too expensive for what it is. Nikon Z 35mm f1.8 is probably the worst Z f1.8 lens. Canon’s macro 35mm is the best in all systems for its price and capabilities (macro and IS).
The older SonyZeiss 35mm F2.8 has a huge waviness in focal plane, otherwise it is a nice lens (for price I’d go with Samyang 35mm f2.8 though).
I enjoy the stressed comments from Sony users :-))) Thx Spencer for this review.
You’re welcome for the review! Although that honestly wasn’t my impression from the comments so far. This is a good lens, about the same level as Nikon and Canon’s 35mm f/1.8 lenses, with some strengths and weaknesses. (Strengths: portability, good controls. Weaknesses: harder-to-correct chromatic aberration and vignetting.)
Spencer- Comparison with Zeiss Sony 35mm 2.8? Thanks
I would like to! It feels like it would complement this review well.
Right now, the three leading Sony lenses in our Gold Member poll are the 20-70mm f/4, 16-35mm f/2.8 II, and 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3. I expect that I’ll do at least those three reviews first before getting to the 35mm f/2.8, but it’s absolutely on my list.
I am a bit bummed that the 12-24/4 is doing so poorly in that poll. :D
I may end up testing it relatively soon anyway, since we’ve done mostly wide-angle Sony reviews so far. It would be nice to wrap up that category of lens sooner rather than later. Though, the poll winners will take priority.
I have been dying to see the 200-600 results ;) ….
Long term reader but new member at this great website, so this is my first post. I see that your planning to test the Sony 200-600 and I hope that is possible to for you to do soon. Would be great to see a comparing against Nikon 180-600 and Tamron 150-500 as you have already tested these.
Keep up the good work!
Right now, it’s looking like that will be the next Sony lens we review! Although I have a few Nikon lens reviews in the pipeline to finish first.
I’m curious. Would this lens make a good “50mm” for my a6700? It comes with a few quality of life features – af/mf switch and focus hold button – but obviously costs a lot more than their APSC version. Is it worth the extra money to go this route?
Not really, no. Even not having tested it yet, I would be more in favor of using the Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS for that purpose, saving the roughly $300. I don’t believe the sharpness will be meaningfully worse, if at all. The addition of image stabilization may give you a hair better stability in combination with the camera’s IBIS, too. Though vignetting will be better and the switches are nice, I don’t think it’s worth the price difference.
Hey Spencer,
Thank you for the detailed review.
Regarding the testing methodology, I’d find it very useful to have an additional chart: sharpness measurements from focusing in the the mid-frame, borders and corners.
If the current chart and this additional one show similar resolution, it indicates a very low field curvature. If there is a huge discrepancy, then it means severe field curvature.
Also, the current chart doesn’t show the lens’ true sharpness in the corners/borders which is a shame. It would be nice to know how sharp it is, say if the subject is off-centered.
It would be very interesting to see how the Samyang 35 f1.8 and Sigma 35 f2 would compare to the Sony.
Do you plan on testing either or both in the near future?
Thanks again for your efforts, photographylife is a great website :-)
Thanks, Flo! We test each lens by taking a sequence of photos per focal length and aperture, focused at slightly different distances to find the optimal sharpness. This methodology shows me field curvature firsthand, since the sharpest focusing distance for the center is not always the sharpest for the midframes and corners.
I always report those findings in the sharpness section, but usually the amount is minimal enough that it is not necessary to display a separate chart. This Sony lens definitely doesn’t reach that threshold. If field curvature is massive, however, we will do so. It hasn’t happened in a while, but I remember doing so in our Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art review: photographylife.com/revie…dg-hsm-art and a related, but not identical issue, in our Viltrox 24mm f/1.8 review: photographylife.com/revie…24mm-f-1-8
I can post such charts more often if that’s what people are interested in, but I don’t think it will be as helpful as you’re envisioning. For the small differences that would show up in the charts, the extra work on my end and much longer explanations necessary for the review to make sense would not be worth it. Plus, half the comments under each review would then be asking about the issue because it was given so much attention in the review. It’s all pretty excessive for something like field curvature that is rather unimportant to the overall image quality and real-world sharpness of a particular lens.
Thanks for the detailed explanation of your rationale, Spencer.
I’d still be interested in seeing the sharpness after focusing in the different areas, but if the difference is minimal I understand why you don’t do it as it’s time consuming.
Do you plan on testing the Samyang 35 f1.8 and Sigma 35 f2 as well?
It would be very interesting to see how these 2 compare to the other 35mm.
The Sigma in particular seems to be very good with nice bokeh.
Thanks!
Yes! My goal ultimately is to test every mainstream lens we can get our hands on, including the Samyang 35mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 35mm f/2. We’re at a pace of about one lens review per week right now, so it’s just a matter of which ones to test next.
I find it a bit odd that neither Sony or Nikon went all in on their 35mm f/1.8 lenses. When Sony’s was released, I was expecting at least a little low-dispersion or other special glass to be included to deal with CA. Nikon’s 35mm S is a nice lens, but it’s clearly not the best of Nikon’s f/1.8 efforts. This focal length should be easy to nail. This is why I use the Voigtländer 35mm f/2.0 Apo Lanthar for landscape work. I would prefer to have autofocus for focus stacking, but don’t want to deal with the extra cost/size/weight of the Sony G Master f/1.4.
I feel the same – I haven’t been able to give any of the mirrorless 35mm f/1.8 primes so far more than about a 4.5/5 star rating. That’s true not just of Sony and Nikon but also Canon. Looking forward to testing the Voigtlander, however!
Wait until the 35 1.2.
The 50mm f2.8 macro also has a 55mm filter thread.
Thanks for the correction, just fixed it!
“Cheaper-feeling plastic and a little less weather sealing than Sony G or GM lenses”
I find the reasoning behind this “con” very odd. It’s a cheaper lens so it’s natural that it won’t have the same feel in materials used, and the same goes for weather sealing.
That is known as “product segmentation” and has been used in well EVERYTHING since we started producing stuff on planet Earth.
I never read a Nikkor review from Spencer where he mentioned “cheaper feeling plastics compared to Nikon S lenses” as a “con”.
This happens when review writer is left to his own devices when writing a review summary. Every single reviewer has their own “preference” for what is a “con”.
Please treat all lens companies in a same manner thank you.
Not sure what you expect – if something strikes me as a positive or negative about a lens’s build quality, shouldn’t I mention it? The plastic used on this lens simply feels a little cheaper and less durable than expected. This is compared to other lenses of a similar price, like Sony’s FE 20mm f/1.8 G ($800).
I get that it’s not the most expensive lens out there, but $750 is still not cheap. And just because a lens is inexpensive shouldn’t prevent me from discussing its flaws. I’ve mentioned low-quality feeling plastic in other lens reviews before, and I don’t believe I’m being inconsistent by bringing it up here.
“Never argue with an idiot. You’ll never convince the idiot that you’re correct, and bystanders won’t be able to tell who’s who.”
— (ascribed to) Mark Twain
I like that quote but definitely don’t think he’s an idiot, it’s fair to keep us vigilant about not having favoritism toward any manufacturer. I don’t think it applies in this case but am not bothered by having to justify any of my claims in any particular review.
I had several S lenses in my personal possession. They are tactile and incredible in design. Even the zooms. It is impossible to criticize them for their materials. You have to be completely inadequate.
Sony tends to make a serious mark-up on its products. In the suburban case, Sony sells 35 1.8 at an inadequate price. They have the right. But even Chinese manufacturers sell analogues for significantly less money and at the same time use higher-quality materials.
About the evaluation of materials. All people conditionally tend to focus their attention on sensations: visual, sound and tactile. As a rule, photography is done by those who are prone to visual perception. But there are very few pure visuals. Most have a mixture. And so. For those who have a lot of kinesthetics, tactile sensations are important. That is, the assessment of the value of objects goes through their tactile sensations. Accordingly, for such people, how tactile the lens is perceived is very important. For me personally, how the lens feels in my hands is important. I am not engaged in commercial photography and I want to get the most out of the process of photographing. For this reason, the quality of plastic and its texture are important for me. And for this reason, for me personally, Spencer’s assessment of his perception of materials is important.
Spencer, thanks for the review. And there is a suggestion. Test the Nikon 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor for comparison with modern lenses.
That would be fascinating! My guess is that it would be well behind these modern lenses – maybe at the level of the Viltrox 35mm if we’re lucky, but perhaps even worse. Lens design has leaped forward dramatically in the last few decades.