Review on 📷 Sony Carl ZEISS Sonnar T E 24mm F1.8 ZA E-Mount Prime Lens: Superior Image Quality and Versatile Performance by Chris Kirby

This is a tough review, but let's get started. 18105f4 and a 16-50 kit lens. I've learned a lot on the NEX5T and am still learning on my A6300, and while I'm not exactly a beginner, I'm far from a seasoned photographer. I was arguing about whether to get this lens or the 1670 Zeiss. I like having universal lenses to reduce the number of lens changes and I like that about the 18105. The only problem is that the lens is quite large, but I'd say it's very sharp for my needs. The study of the 1670 lens generated much controversy, focusing on the lottery factor of obtaining a good version of this lens, as well as the decentralized nature of many copies. I know a lot of people who like the 1670, but given the price (which is currently the same as the $900 24f1.8) and the fact that I have the 18105, I thought I'd go with the 24 Zeiss. While the improvement in image quality was a factor in purchasing the 24 Zeiss, I also understand the nature of diminishing returns when purchasing such an expensive lens. У меня есть 35f1.8, и он достаточно резкий с отличным качеством изображения, и потраченные на него деньги дали мне гораздо лучшие результаты, чем объектив из комплекта, но я знал, что не увижу такого же скачка улучшения в 24 с 35, если вообще a lot of. I'd say overall picture quality is noticeably better than 35, but most people won't need it. I don't want to go through the full spectrum of wide aperture, corner sharpness and center sharpness. If you're looking for the many resources available for this test, this test is intended for advanced users, but you should know that you can expect excellent image quality, generally at all apertures, as well as sharpness in the corners and in the center. So why a lens? What I really liked more than any of the image quality improvements over the 35 was the longer focal length and the ability to focus to just 6 inches from the lens. Combine these two features with improved image quality and do I find this $500 lens to be worth more than $35? I honestly don't know yet. I know I really like the longer focal length because it means I don't have to back up against a wall or corner to get everything I want in one frame when shooting indoors, especially since I can focus much closer than with 35 I know these qualities also make it a great running glass. I know the lens construction is great and the focus ring is perfectly smooth and comfortable to use, especially compared to the 35. Also, like the 35mm, f1.8 on this lens opens up opportunities for great low light photography. . There's no need to use a flash to get good shots in a dimly lit restaurant or in the low light conditions you typically have indoors, especially if you're using the A6000 and up, which performs great at ISO 6400 . no exactly that, but the shallow depth of field creates a very good bokeh. The bokeh spheres aren't perfectly round, but the blur is smooth and definitely one of the best I've seen from a lens in this price range. If you're on the borderline between this lens and 35, there are a couple of things. you have to consider. price and use. The 24 is currently around $900 and the 35 is around $400. While 35 is a definite improvement over a kit lens, you won't see as much of an improvement with this lens. If you go straight from a kit lens to a 24, you'll see a significant improvement in image quality and you'll definitely appreciate the F1.8 and close focus capabilities. Aside from the price and the ratio of improved image quality to cost, the most important difference for many people will be the fact that the 24 lacks any kind of image stabilization. If you're shooting with an A6300 or lower, that means there's no image stabilization. It doesn't matter if you're just taking photos and since it's f1.8 you can usually increase your shutter speed to reduce movement if needed due to the lack of image stabilization. If you plan on shooting video then the difference between this lens and the 35 can be day and night and I would suggest 35 if video is a priority with this lens. Shooting movies wasn't my top priority with this lens, the lack of image stabilization doesn't bother me too much, although you can tell it didn't come from the lens that had it. If Sony released a 24mm lens with their $500 OSS, I probably wouldn't bother with that lens. My images would be more than sharp enough, my focal length would be great, and I would have the added benefit of OSS for less shaky footage and video. I am happy with my purchase. The lens offers excellent image quality, amazing build quality, long focal length and excellent close-up focus. If the price was around $600 I would happily and easily recommend it. Despite my 4* rating (only 4* due to price) because it's a great lens, I only recommend it if price is not an issue and you understand what you're getting. There are options from Sigma that will give you your focal length at a much lower price and the 35 is a great lens for the price with the OSS added. Additionally, the 18105 is a fantastic lens with a lot more versatility, from a longer focal length to a fixed f4 telephoto for around $600 with OSS at the expense of close focus and f1.8. If you've read all this and still want this lens, then it's definitely a great lens. However, if you're really hesitant and worried about the price, there are other options that are more versatile and even better in other ways. I will update my review if I come across any issues or positives. I'll add photos of the lens on camera if people want, but I don't see much point in attaching photos taken with the lens on Revain considering the loss in quality and size.