35mm recommendation for Sony A7II

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Hey Guys,</p>

<p>after long years of DSLR using i've decided to change for the Sony A7II. I've got a Carl Zeiss Planar 50 1.4 CY (which i like very much) and looking for a good 35mm manual focus lens. Leica M lenses would be nice of course, but budget is an issue. I've got 500 USD budget for this. f2.0 would be nice, but i'm more into the character of the lens. The Carl Zeiss CY version is with 2.8 aperture and would like to have the f2.0. What about Contax G lenses? Or old Olympus SLR lenses. There are a lot of out there and don't have experience with old analog lenses. <br>

What would you recommend? <br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Canon FDn 35mm f/2. This is the "new" FD mount with the bayonet mount, silver button, as opposed to the older breech, silver ring, mount. Light, fast and sharp. There is a good review of it on the A7 <a href="http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=4320">HERE</a>. Other good lenses for the A7 are also reviewed there. Take a look.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Well, the Carl Zeiss lenses from the Contax RTS series are great lenses and usually not too expensive but they're pretty heavy too. You might have trouble finding 35s since they get used to give APS cameras a normal lens but the 28mm f/28 is a possibility. I don't know about G's but since they don't have aperture rings, they will probably be trickier to adapt. I have adapted lenses from the Contax rangefinder era and they are also tricky to adapt but they do work and you can find Zeiss Opton (post war) 35s there. Beware though because the early ones project too far into the body. </p>

<p>Another possibility might be the Voigtlander (Cosina) lenses made for Leica M or screwmount cameras. They are pretty good in quality and light and they generally work well. The Zeiss ZM lenses are higher priced (also Cosina I think) but are very high in quality. An OLDER Leica Summicron 35/2 M lens is also a possibility. </p>

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Thanks for the help guys. The Canon seems to be fine, I've read the review and the others on that link Louis, thanks.<br>

I'll check your recommended lenses also David. Anyway, the Contax lenses are not too heavy, at least the 50mm is fairly light. (Currently I own the Sigma 50 Art, which is a deal breaker, so heavy). </p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Sony/Zeiss 35mm and 55mm ZA lenses are superb, and completely compatible with the A7ii, including auto-focus and exposure. They are f/2.8 and f/1.8 respectively. I'm not sure one stop makes much difference when you have such a wide ISO range.</p>

<p>If manual focus and aperture priority are okay, the Zeiss C T* Biogon 35mm comes in an f/2.8 and f/2.0 version, with about $200 difference. I have the f/2.8, and it is very sharp. The f/2 version is not quite as sharp, but has practically zero distortion (the f/2.8 is 0.5%, which is 1/3rd that of most DSLR lenses). Used 35mm Summicron lenses run between $800 (1970 version) and $2700 (latest ASPH version).</p>

<p>On the higher end, but less than Leica, are the manual Zeiss Loxia lenses, which communicate aperture and distance to the A7ii. So far, they are pre-order only.</p>

<p>There are cheaper lenses, but the A7ii is so good it would be a waste to use an inferior lens.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I used the <a href=" 35mm Color-Skopar 2.5 on the A7</a>. Incredible lens for the price and size. Super sharp.</p>

 

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Thanks for the recommendations Edward. Actually the native Sony/Zeiss 35 would be fine, but at the moment it's out of my budget and not speaking of the Leica lenses of course. I know it's more preferable to have a better lens for this body, but it will be later on:) <br>

And manual focusing is not a problem, it's the main reason i'm changing (after the size). On the 5d2 it was really difficult to manual focusing with my Planar. <br>

Thanks for your tip with the Voigtlander Ian, actually it seems to be the perfect fit for me at the moment. I checked your image and it seems really wonderful!</p>

[martin.huch]

<p>I own the A7 plus several Contax lenses (28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/2.8...). The wide ones cause some vignetting in the corners if fully open, they need to be stopped down by one or two steps. At full speed you loose about two steps in the corner. So the very fast lenses do not make too much sense.<br>

You can correct this with post processing, but forget the general purpose aperture correcting tools frequently offered - they never fit the vignette. <br>

I also get reflections if a bright object in the picture, e.g the sun in the center causes a 2nd sun nearby.<br>

But besides these disadvantages in special situations, the lenses do a great job on the camera. They totally outperform the original Sony lens.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mark_amos]

<p>I believe I have read that the Leica 35 M mount cron aspherical performance is notably compromised on the A7. I thought the same goes for the Zeiss/Cosina 35 biogon M? I'm chiming in because I have the M mount 35 cron aspherical, and if I thought it was going to be fine, I would probably be seriously targeting a reduced price a7 now that the a7II is out. I realize this is a bit subjective as an issue. By that I mean that even if a very close examination can reveal the "smearing" effect on the image edges, it may or may not be toooooo bad?<br>

I also have the Leica 40 cron-C, and I think that is supposed to be okay on the a7 and is extremely close to 35 and similar in design to the pre-aspherical 35s. Does anybody want to offer the latest word on that?</p>

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Thanks for the information Martin about the Contax lenses. Actually i don't use them much fully open, so it shouldn't be a problem. Is there any images of yours perhaps online with the 35mm and 50mm on the A7? I'd be greatly interested:) </p>

<p>I'm actually surprised on your opinion that they outperform the Sony lenses. At the moment the Voigtlander and the 35 Contax are on my shortlist.</p>

<p>Mark, Steve Huff has covered in his A7II review with some Leica M lenses with superb results<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/12/27/the-sony-a7ii-real-world-camera-review-my-camera-of-the-year-2014/</p>

[martin.huch]

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17934297<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17932514<br>

were taken with either 25/2.8 or 50/1.4 lens (I forgot which one I used for particular shots, that's one disadvantage of fully manual). The originals are 4000 x 6000 of course.<br>

The comparison was meant with the Sony Zoom FE 3,5-5,6/28-80 that was delivered as a kit with the camera, not the Zeiss ones. The Sony Zoom has heavy distortion at the edges in wide angle.</p>

 

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Thanks for the link. Very beautiful photos and wonderful places. Thanks again for your help. </p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I just read the Huff article. I hadn't seen that yet. I like the A7II a lot. It is fantastic. I just note that in the article he shoots a 50 noctilux and one shot with a 50 2.8 and also the unusual Voigtlander 40 2.8. He shows one shot with the Zeiss M 25 2.8 and says it is perfectly acceptable to him but not perfect. He is also clear to make the point that the A7II is still not the best choice for 28mm and wider Leica lenses, but he doesn't test any Leica 35 nor the Zeiss Biogon either. I am glad that he shows the one 25 2.8 shot, but I can't tell much from that. I would say that if a person doesn't have one of these Leica or Zeiss ZM 35s, then it is indeed a non-issue; just get the 35 2.8 ZA and be done or the Loxia 35. BUT, if you do have one of the 35s I've mentioned, I'm still not sure one should expect edge quality on par with the full fine reputation and cost of those lenses. I'm just trying to find out for myself still.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe I have read that the Leica 35 M mount cron aspherical performance is notably compromised on the A7.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it is - corner smearing but no color shift.</p>

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Mark, you can ask him in the thread, he replies to all of the comments (almost). And there are a lot of information in that review. </p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I enjoy Huff's reviews. I read his entire review of the A7II. As you say, it is very informative. I am confident that it is a great camera. I'm only responding further because you asked specifically about 35 mm lenses, and I'm interested in that subject. While writing this, I looked at the article again with what Dieter said in mind, and what I find is that perhaps when Huff says, "From my experience, anything less than 28mm will bring in some color distortions with the A7, A7r and yes, A7II" he is addressing only color shift and leaving the door open for the smearing being present with the 35s. He isn't denying it; he just isn't bringing attention to it and is implying that he is okay with the results with the 35 lenses regardless of smearing. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>@Mark, initially, I had thought the Summicron 35 ASPH was fine on the A7 - simply because I assumed that color shift and corner smearing "go together". Only when I took a few pictures of something flat did I realize that there is some amount of corner smearing. I needed to do some tests to exclude that it is caused by field curvature (like it is for the Ultron 21/1.8). The ultimate test came when I used a second copy on the A7 with the same result, while both copies did fine on a Leica M. It really is a pity that a $3200 lens is reduced below the level of a $200 kit lens by the thick sensor cover glass on the A7. </p>

<p>I am debating whether to keep the 35 ASPH at all - for the time being I got a Nokton 40/1.4 which doesn't seem to have any issues on the A7. I was debating the 35/1.2 - but if I want a lens that large on the A7 I might as well mount my Sigma 35/1.4 (Nikon mount). </p>

[mark_amos]

<p>@Dieter, I have the 35 asph cron but not an A7, so what you have said is very useful and enlightening to me. As usual, we read all we can and try to put a puzzle together to help us know what to expect and not be disappointed with a new purchase. I might write a separate thread on the following, but I recently bought the $199 Sigma 19 to use on my Sony 5n after a couple years of consideration. I asked for opinions in a thread I posted back then, and I got some good input, but I was on the fence. I've been using a Nikon 20 2.8 AIS with an adapter. I know the Nikon 20 is a very fine lens from quite a bit of film use, and on the 5n, the center of the Nikon 20 might be a tiny tiny bit sharper...maybe, but maybe not..., but at f2.8 moving outward the inexpensive Sigma becomes better, and when really pixel peeping, it is clear that even on the crop sensor 5n with a retrofocus Nikon 20, I clearly see what I can only assume is smearing on the edges with the 20. Either that, or it just isn't as good as the cheap Sigma.<br>

What I will say next could be the fodder for much further discussion, but here it is: If Sony's full frame cameras are not going to work well with my VC 28 1.9 Ultron, nor 35 cron aspherical and not even my 20 2.8 AIS (haven't tested myself on an A7) such that I would need to buy all new wide-normal angle lenses for an A7 then I might actually stick with APS and enjoy having very small telephoto lenses (50 cron makes for tiny 75 f2 etc..)<br>

BTW, I get the impression that my Leica 40 cron-C might work as well on an A7 as the Nokton 40 1.4 you say you've been using?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>@Mark: I never owned the Nikon 20/2.8 AiS - but I did have the 20/2.8 AF (which I believe has the same optical formula). I found the corner sharpness to be problematic on a DX sensor and certainly on FX; the lens was "usable" only stopped down to at least f/8. The 20/4 Ai did a lot better - albeit the vignetting - while tolerable on DX - was too strong on FX. Frustrated, I got rid of both - and use the VC Ultron 21/1.8 on the A7 now (I also have the VC Color Skopar 21/4P which shows pronounced color shift on the A7 (it also did on the NEX 6 - but easily correctable there). A bit of an issue with field curvature on the Ultron 21mm especially when shot wide open - but no or negligible color shift in the corners. No smearing either. As is usual with rangefinder WA lenses, vignetting is quite strong wide open but manageable when stopped down. Easy to forget with all the corrections Leica applies in their digital M cameras to make their lenses behave.<br>

I forgot what I read about the VC 28/1.9 - I was considering the newer version at some point - but believe it does OK on the A7. IIRC correctly, I had found one post that compared the two and found the older one to be better. It appears that Sony is about to release an inexpensive 28/2 providing another option for that focal length. I have tried the Nikon 28/2.8 AiS on the A7 and there are no issues (none beyond what the lens shows on a Nikon FX camera anyway). <br>

Can't comment on the Leica 40mm (but recall a couple of posts that claimed no issues) - the VC Nokton 40/1.4 does fine on the A7.</p>

<p>I certainly wish Sony had designed the sensor with an eye on adapting rangefinder lenses (in particular given their alliance with Zeiss). Since they had started from scratch, it certainly should have been doable.</p>

 

[mark_amos]

<p>I will continue here about the Nikon 20 just because it is hard to separate the evaluation of the lens from the evaluation of compatibility to digital sensors. Since we all know that adapting other lenses to these A7 bodies is one of notable benefits, it is worthwhile to really know which is which, and even now I'm not sure of the answer, so I will conclude my input on the topic. I appreciate what you are saying about your 20 2.8 AF Dieter. I need to go test my 20 more at smaller apertures on my 5n to figure out when I'm okay with it for sure because even though I was happy with it on film, I couldn't really pixel peep like I can and do now, and maybe my prior happiness with the lens is evidence that I shouldn't peep now. Bjorn Rorslett at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html gave the 20 AIS a 4.5 of 5 used on D200 and D2x, and Ken Rockwell praises it for Nikon FX here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20f28ais.htm. Both mentioned the benefit of stopping down, but I wouldn't think you could rate a lens so highly if you have to stop it down so much (f8? - I hope not), but I don't know. I realize that a lens has seldom if ever gotten in my way as the excuse for a bad picture. The topic remains for some of us I suppose because we have significant investment in lenses there were "proven" on film. I don't like selling gear, but my resources for new acquisitions are limited. Stay or go? This is particularly difficult because I like aperture rings and non-fly-by-wire focus rings with actual distance scale. Loxia is a/the great solution...., but only if you are committed fully to E mount. So to steer myself back to the topic specifically, if I didn't have other lenses, my choice for a new A7II would be the Loxia 35.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Csaba, I'll pass along a few recommendations based on my own experiences.</p>

<p>First is probably the oddest of the lot: the Vivitar 35mm f/1.9. Folks on eBay have fallen in love with this lens of late. Crazy high prices for a Vivitar prime. I have one I bought probably five years ago for about $40 -- way before it was discovered. Honestly, I'd just sort of stuck it in the back of my gear cabinet and forgotten about it. Until I started reading about the crazy high prices this lens gets nowadays. Also, mine's in Canon FD mount, which hasn't helped matters much digitally -- until just recently. I bought a NEX 7 a couple months ago, and so I've now had the opportunity to take this Vivitar 35/1.9 out and put it through its paces. It's actually an amazingly sharp lens with great contrast. I was quite surprised it behaved as well as it did. Totally on par with my Nikkor 35mm f/2. </p>

<p>Speaking of which, my Nikkor is an early pre-AI version that was AI'd by Nikon. Since my DSLR is an EOS, Nikon lenses are easy to mount with an adapter. So this Nikkor 35/2 has wound up being a sort of reasonably fast normal lenses with my 1.6x crop body camera. Because it's basically a normal focal length with my DSLR, it doesn't get as much use as if it were a true wide angle. But it is still an excellent lens with great sharpness and contrast.</p>

<p>I own both 35mm f/2.8s in Nikon and Canon brands, but because of their size on an APS-C format camera, they don't get used much. Or at all. If I'm gonna use a 35mm with my NEX, I'll reach for either the Vivitar or the Nikkor.</p>

<p>. . . Or the 35mm that I've had a soft spot in my heart for ever since buying my first copy about 30 years ago. The Canon FL 35mm f/2.5. I just love this lens on a 35mm camera. On the NEX 7 it does a respectable job, but it is more frequently my go-to 35mm optic when I'm shooting film. But since you're considering an A7, well, I can highly recommend it for full frame work also.</p>

<p>If you're into something more exotic, you might want to look at Samyang's offerings. Samyang has an entire product line now of very fast primes in all sorts of interesting focal lengths. Lenses like their 35mm f/1.4 or 24mm f/1.4 or 14mm f/2.8. Even an 8mm f/2.8 fisheye. And of course their 85mm f/1.4 is well known for its performance. Seems like they're adding a new lens to their product line every month. Check out this link over at DP Review:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/products/samyang</p>

[csaba_brindza]

<p>Thanks Michael for your contribution and for your experiences with the different lenses. At the moment I'm shortlisting several lenses. The body is still not in sales in my country, so I've got time to make a good decision. Size is a major factor for me (it's one of the main factor why i switch to Sony also). Vivitar seems interesting, Canon and Nikon could be also an option. As far as Samyang is concerned i don't trust those lenses that much, so i will skip it. But thanks for your input a lot!</p>

 

[john_ehman]

I have the Techart Contax G mark II adapter that worked very well on my A7R. I now have the A7II and the adapter does not

mount on it. I can't turn it past the first few contacts. Seems like it doesn't mesh. None of my E mount lenses have the problem.

The Meatabones EF to E AF adapter goes on with no problem. I'm assuming the problem is with the adapter but can't figure out

why it mounted on the A7R and not my new camera. A7Ii has the new all metal mount.

 

Has anyone else run into this? I'm tempted to buy the Techart mark III but wondering if that will have the same issue on the A7ii.

Has anyone mounted Techart II or III on A7II?