Another informative, well-researched review Dustin, thank you! I had this Zeiss lens for about two years and came to similar conclusions that it’s a wonderfully built, relatively compact lens that produces outstanding color images with good sharpness for landscape and general use needs. However, I parted with mine after getting a good copy (second attempt) of the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA. Although the weight trade-off is substantial, I rarely miss focus with the latter, the resolution is outstanding, and when I do occasionally take portraits with the Sony, the eye AF performs magnificently. That said, I do occasionally miss having this beautiful Loxia 35mm in my quiver of lens. There is just something about the shooting experience and artistic renderings you can achieve with this optic that makes it unforgettable.
That's a solid summation. There is something special - organic - about crafting images with a good manual focus lens. Not always practical, but enjoyable.
This lens reminds me of my Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE. Similar rendering and sharpness profile. Great for travel and street photography if you dont mind manual focus.
Excellent and very useful review as always. Just want to mention an important factor you didn't talk about in the review. This is that the loxia 35 has got absolutely no distortion which is quite unique for a 35mm.
Thanks Dustin for the great review. This lens has a kinda strange behavior when it comes to bokeh rendering. There's some outlining wide open, but it becomes smoother as you stop down a little bit. F2.5 is actually smoother than f2.
The Loxias in general seem to have a very pronounced 3d effect, probably even more than the Milvus lenses. Many people say this is because the Loxias have fewer lens elements, like classic lenses from the early days. And if you think about it, the 50mm only has 6 elements. I own the 50 and I’m very satisfied! It’s not quite in the uberlens territory like the Otus, but it’s invaluable as a backup, travel and journalistic lens. When you put it in bam now you have a compact camera:-)
Great review, thanks! I find a bit unusual-looking the 50% fade-outs when you switch from various photos to the image of yourself (by the end of review, after 15:40 mark). Was it done with some purpose? To my opinion the plain switch between scenes without fade-out would serve well.
Hi great review as allways my question if you can answer is the zeiss loxia 35mm a improvement over the zony 35mm f2.8 just interested as zeiss are offering 180 pound cashback so it would be 589 pound but I already have the zony I also own the loxia 21mm which I am really impressed with keep up the great work
If you already have and like the Loxia 21mm, then I would strongly consider getting the Loxia 35. It's not super sharp in the corners wide open, but has beautiful rendering and would be sharper by F2.8 than the Zony.
I just purchased the Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO and I’m very excited to test it out once I receive it. I will also get the 110mm soon. But I’m not sure if I should go for the Loxia 21mm, Voigtländer 21mm or Sony 20mm and Loxia 35mm, Sony 35mm or Tamron 35mm. I mostly do landscapes and some architecture and streets. I mostly stop down a good bit. For this reason, I’m considering getting the two Loxias, but some sources claim that they aren’t resolving enough of the Sony a7R IV’s sensor, even stopped down to f/5.6 - f/8, whereas rhe Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 and Sony 20mm f/1.8 do a noticeably better job. Another example is that they claim that the Loxia 21mm is outstanding in the center when stopped down, but it never gets really sharp in the corners. And they claim that the Loxia is very good all around but that it’s a waste, as it doesn’t do any better than on the Sony a7R III, and that even the cheap Tamron 35mm f/2.8 is better stopped down. The site I’m refering to is ‘Sony Alpha Blog’ and their post ‘Which Lenses to maximise the potential of the Sony A7RIV’. They seem reliable, but they have only tested one copy of all the mentioned lenses, and it just seems questionable to me that some cheap Tamron f/2.8 lenses and cheap Samyangs and Kipons are excellent and outstanding, whereas several Zeiss and Art lenses are “just good”.
Hmmm, I would have some doubts about the Loxia 21mm not being up to the task. The 35mm is another story (particularly in the corners). I haven't tested the Sony 20mm F1.8 yet (end of the month), but from all reports I'm getting, that might be the lens you are looking for.
Dustin Abbott Hi Dustin. Thank you for your answer! I will decide between the Sony 20mm f/1.8 and Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4, I think. I’m getting the Sigma 14-24mm as well, so one of the 20-21mm lenses will compliment the Sigma for landscapes, whereas I will mostly use the Sigma for architecture and sometimes landscapes. That’s why I considered the Loxia and Voigtländer more over the Sony, as they usually resolve just a tiny bit more detail at “landscape” distances and I prefer the colours and handling. I will wait for your review, though. I’m not in a hurry, and I need to save up a bit anyway first, as I just bought a few lenses to compliment my Sony a7R IV, hehe. Do you plan on taking a look at the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4, and will you continue to test lenses on the Sony a7R IV as well or just the Sony a7R III? There can be a significant different when testing on the higher resolution camera body, especially for wide angle lenses and especially when it comes to corner performance.
I had the Loxia 35 and the resolution, color and contrast of this lens is much better than most I've seen. However it's not as special as the Loxia 21 in that respects. I had to eventually change it to the Sony 35 f1.4 because I use the 35mm focal length most of the time for tracking people in motion. Hence autofocus became more important than size. I am wondering, and thus looking forward to your Loxia 50mm review - if you compare them, discounting differences in focal length, which one creates a more 'distinctive' image? (I've not owned the Loxia50). I've read that these two are the least outstanding of the Loxia line up. Though we are talking here in relative terms, among the top of the heap of superlative lenses. In the future, I might consider re-owning the 35 or going to the 50 if the 50 is 'better' ... or I might not and only own the Loxia 21. I've also tried the Loxia 85 and I could see that it was as good as the 21. However, I use the 85mm focal length mostly for tracking moving people these days so I got the Batis 85 instead. In your future review of the Loxia 85, I will be interested in your take on 'who is this lens for' as I've not seen many people interested in this beautiful lens. Thanks for the balanced and informative review as always! Looking forward to the next ones!
I think the 2/50 is a little better optically in a number of ways, but in some ways it's also the least dramatic of the Loxia lineup. If they were a little cheaper I think they would be no-brainer lenses because of their unique qualities, but at the price they are a lot of stills shooter will bypass them for the practical reality of needing AF. Video is another story, though.
Thanks for the perspective. I may skip the 35 & the 50... which then brings me to the Voigt 40 f1.2 e-mount. Images I've seen are quite distinctive and some people have called it out as a one lens solution. Could be an idea for a future review since you had/have the Voigt 40 f2 for DSLR (?)
Thank you for the great review, how does it compare to the Milvus 35mm f2? Right now im using the Milvus 35mm with Sony A7r3 body and thinking of the Loxia lineup due to the size and weight. Also, Sony might add a GM version of the 35mm in the future which I think will be have better performance.
Another informative, well-researched review Dustin, thank you! I had this Zeiss lens for about two years and came to similar conclusions that it’s a wonderfully built, relatively compact lens that produces outstanding color images with good sharpness for landscape and general use needs. However, I parted with mine after getting a good copy (second attempt) of the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA. Although the weight trade-off is substantial, I rarely miss focus with the latter, the resolution is outstanding, and when I do occasionally take portraits with the Sony, the eye AF performs magnificently. That said, I do occasionally miss having this beautiful Loxia 35mm in my quiver of lens. There is just something about the shooting experience and artistic renderings you can achieve with this optic that makes it unforgettable.
That's a solid summation. There is something special - organic - about crafting images with a good manual focus lens. Not always practical, but enjoyable.
My favorite lens & Another great review! Thank you Mr Abbott. RUclips needs more channels like yours.
Thank you!
This lens reminds me of my Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE. Similar rendering and sharpness profile. Great for travel and street photography if you dont mind manual focus.
Exactly.
Yes! I just bought the 35 f2 ZE, I am sooo excited!
Excellent and very useful review as always. Just want to mention an important factor you didn't talk about in the review. This is that the loxia 35 has got absolutely no distortion which is quite unique for a 35mm.
I did mention it, but didn't linger there. That's a valid point, though.
This visual analysis was great, allays my fears from what I had read regarding edge sharpness on this lens. Thanks so much.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks Dustin for the great review. This lens has a kinda strange behavior when it comes to bokeh rendering. There's some outlining wide open, but it becomes smoother as you stop down a little bit. F2.5 is actually smoother than f2.
That's interesting.
sort of like sonnar 50/1.5, that sings on A7 series...
Thank you Mr Abbott
Good review as per usual. Personally, I prefer the voigtlander 35/1.7
I would say the Loxia series makes most sense to those that do hybrid stills/video work.
The Loxias in general seem to have a very pronounced 3d effect, probably even more than the Milvus lenses. Many people say this is because the Loxias have fewer lens elements, like classic lenses from the early days. And if you think about it, the 50mm only has 6 elements.
I own the 50 and I’m very satisfied! It’s not quite in the uberlens territory like the Otus, but it’s invaluable as a backup, travel and journalistic lens. When you put it in bam now you have a compact camera:-)
The Loxia 50 is a pretty strong optical performer, for sure, and I agree about the 3D effect of Loxia series.
Great review, thanks!
I find a bit unusual-looking the 50% fade-outs when you switch from various photos to the image of yourself (by the end of review, after 15:40 mark). Was it done with some purpose? To my opinion the plain switch between scenes without fade-out would serve well.
Hi great review as allways my question if you can answer is the zeiss loxia 35mm a improvement over the zony 35mm f2.8 just interested as zeiss are offering 180 pound cashback so it would be 589 pound but I already have the zony I also own the loxia 21mm which I am really impressed with keep up the great work
If you already have and like the Loxia 21mm, then I would strongly consider getting the Loxia 35. It's not super sharp in the corners wide open, but has beautiful rendering and would be sharper by F2.8 than the Zony.
Thank you for the reply and thoughts always good to see your reviews big thumbs up
Another great video.
Thank you!
I just purchased the Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO and I’m very excited to test it out once I receive it. I will also get the 110mm soon. But I’m not sure if I should go for the Loxia 21mm, Voigtländer 21mm or Sony 20mm and Loxia 35mm, Sony 35mm or Tamron 35mm. I mostly do landscapes and some architecture and streets. I mostly stop down a good bit. For this reason, I’m considering getting the two Loxias, but some sources claim that they aren’t resolving enough of the Sony a7R IV’s sensor, even stopped down to f/5.6 - f/8, whereas rhe Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 and Sony 20mm f/1.8 do a noticeably better job. Another example is that they claim that the Loxia 21mm is outstanding in the center when stopped down, but it never gets really sharp in the corners. And they claim that the Loxia is very good all around but that it’s a waste, as it doesn’t do any better than on the Sony a7R III, and that even the cheap Tamron 35mm f/2.8 is better stopped down. The site I’m refering to is ‘Sony Alpha Blog’ and their post ‘Which Lenses to maximise the potential of the Sony A7RIV’. They seem reliable, but they have only tested one copy of all the mentioned lenses, and it just seems questionable to me that some cheap Tamron f/2.8 lenses and cheap Samyangs and Kipons are excellent and outstanding, whereas several Zeiss and Art lenses are “just good”.
Hmmm, I would have some doubts about the Loxia 21mm not being up to the task. The 35mm is another story (particularly in the corners). I haven't tested the Sony 20mm F1.8 yet (end of the month), but from all reports I'm getting, that might be the lens you are looking for.
Dustin Abbott
Hi Dustin.
Thank you for your answer! I will decide between the Sony 20mm f/1.8 and Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4, I think. I’m getting the Sigma 14-24mm as well, so one of the 20-21mm lenses will compliment the Sigma for landscapes, whereas I will mostly use the Sigma for architecture and sometimes landscapes. That’s why I considered the Loxia and Voigtländer more over the Sony, as they usually resolve just a tiny bit more detail at “landscape” distances and I prefer the colours and handling. I will wait for your review, though. I’m not in a hurry, and I need to save up a bit anyway first, as I just bought a few lenses to compliment my Sony a7R IV, hehe. Do you plan on taking a look at the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4, and will you continue to test lenses on the Sony a7R IV as well or just the Sony a7R III? There can be a significant different when testing on the higher resolution camera body, especially for wide angle lenses and especially when it comes to corner performance.
I had the Loxia 35 and the resolution, color and contrast of this lens is much better than most I've seen. However it's not as special as the Loxia 21 in that respects. I had to eventually change it to the Sony 35 f1.4 because I use the 35mm focal length most of the time for tracking people in motion. Hence autofocus became more important than size.
I am wondering, and thus looking forward to your Loxia 50mm review - if you compare them, discounting differences in focal length, which one creates a more 'distinctive' image? (I've not owned the Loxia50). I've read that these two are the least outstanding of the Loxia line up. Though we are talking here in relative terms, among the top of the heap of superlative lenses.
In the future, I might consider re-owning the 35 or going to the 50 if the 50 is 'better' ... or I might not and only own the Loxia 21.
I've also tried the Loxia 85 and I could see that it was as good as the 21. However, I use the 85mm focal length mostly for tracking moving people these days so I got the Batis 85 instead. In your future review of the Loxia 85, I will be interested in your take on 'who is this lens for' as I've not seen many people interested in this beautiful lens.
Thanks for the balanced and informative review as always! Looking forward to the next ones!
I think the 2/50 is a little better optically in a number of ways, but in some ways it's also the least dramatic of the Loxia lineup. If they were a little cheaper I think they would be no-brainer lenses because of their unique qualities, but at the price they are a lot of stills shooter will bypass them for the practical reality of needing AF. Video is another story, though.
Thanks for the perspective. I may skip the 35 & the 50... which then brings me to the Voigt 40 f1.2 e-mount. Images I've seen are quite distinctive and some people have called it out as a one lens solution. Could be an idea for a future review since you had/have the Voigt 40 f2 for DSLR (?)
I do plan to take a look at it, but at the moment I've got gear piled up to review.
That's great! Thanks for the reply!
Thank you for the great review, how does it compare to the Milvus 35mm f2? Right now im using the Milvus 35mm with Sony A7r3 body and thinking of the Loxia lineup due to the size and weight. Also, Sony might add a GM version of the 35mm in the future which I think will be have better performance.
I've used the Milvus 1.4/35, but not the 2/35, so I can't really comment.
Great video.
Thank you
Hi~~
Is this loxia lens sharper than sigma lens?
Not sharper. Better color, yes.
Almost € 1000,-- here in Holland. No deal.
The price is steeper in some markets than others, for sure.
Am I the only one thinking this lens isn't worth the price?
I'm sure you're not the only one, but the user reviews are also universally positive on it, too.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Then it must be, and it is many times, a matter of taste.
Which sometimes overrule the pure technical specifications.
That's exactly right.