Sony FE 1.8/55 ZA Sonnar T* – Long-Term Review

For this independent review I bought the Sony Sonnar FE 1.8/55 ZA T* and used it for a period of several months during which I performed many tests and used it in a wide range of applications.

Sample Images



Diameter 64 mm
Length 70.5 mm
Filter Diameter 49 mm
Weight 281g / 324g with hood
Max. Magnification 0.14
Close Focusing Distance from the sensor 50 cm
Number of aperture blades 9 (circular)
Elements/ Groups 7 / 5
$898 at or B&H photo,  848€ at (affiliate links). If you purchase the lens through one of these affiliate-links I get a small compensation with no additional cost to you. 


I wouldn’t call the rather light FE 1.8/55 a small lens but it is still very manageable and very well balanced on my a7II.

Built Quality

The Sony FE 1.8/55 feels nice since it has a metal hull and a nice, wide focus ring with zero play. Most markings are engraved and filled with paint. The serial number though isn’t engraved which I find a bit annoying for a $1k lens.

While having a metal hull (inside it is made from plastics) feels nice it comes with a downside: The FE55 (and all the other ZA lenses) easily attract scratches in the rather soft aluminium. I think the premium feeling was prioritized over actual premium longevity. Canon’s L series and Sony’s GM series which use less metal are more durable.

I asked Roger Cicala of about the FE55’s reliability and he told me that “It’s really not problematic at all for a Sony. Good in-service rate and no obviously recurring problems. Like all Sony’s when it breaks it costs a fortune to repair, but no more likely to break than the average lens.”

Although Sony claims that the design is “dust and moisture resistant”  the lens has no gasket around the lens mount, so weather resistance will be limited. Personally I wouldn’t dare to expose it to much humidity since Sony has a rather weak track record in that regard.

The lens hood is made from thick, high quality plastics and attaches firmly. It is rather large and increases the volume of the lens a lot. The upside is that it protects the front of the lens very well.



AF-performance depends a lot on the camera you use the FE 1.8/55. On my Sony a7II it is usually quick enough in good light but it leaves quite a bit to be desired in lowlight. On a camera with a more advanced AF-system like the a6500 or a7rIII the FE 1.8/55 can focus super fast though.

The FE 1.8/55 focuses internally and is nearly noiseless.

Manual Focus

As mentioned before, the focusing ring feels nice nice, what I don’t like too much is the focus by wire implementation.

One problem here is that it matters how fast you turn the focusing ring,  if I turn it by 45 degrees very fast the focus changes from 50cm to infinity. If I turn it slowly it takes more than 360 degrees (one full turn) to change focus from the close focusing distance to infinity. In theory this sounds like a great idea because focusing should be either super precise or very quick, depending on what you need. But so far I have failed to get to a point were my I am able to use this subconsciously, and I have used manual focus with this lens and the FE 2/28 a lot.

The other problem is that there is a small lag between the moment when you turn the focusing ring and when the lens reacts. It is only a small fraction of a second but noticeable.

Another problem I noticed when shooting my sharpness test was that focusing happened in small steps and it was quite hard to focus exactly at infinity. That was on my a7II. Bastian on his a7rII found it impossible to focus exactly.

I am used to manual lenses where the focusing ring is coupled directly to the focusing helicoid and I am faster and as precise with them. So manual focus works okay but it isn’t very enjoyable (says a hardcore manual lens user).

Optical Performance

Flare resistance

Zeiss has a reputation for very effective coatings and it is justified in this case, the lens does not loose contrast even in very demanding situations.

no contrast loss in the most demanding scenario I could come up with

I could provoke minor ghosting under extreme conditions but still I would call the FE 1.8/55 an excellent performer in this regard.

Chromatic Aberrations

The CV 2/65 APO demonstrates the weakness of the Sony in this aspect.

While lateral CA are very well corrected longitual CA correction is one of the few weaknesses the lens has. This is a torture test but with high local contrast you can easily run into issues. Most classic normal lenses are no better here but some modern lenses like the Sigma Art 1.4/50 or Sony 1.4/50 ZA correct axial CA a lot better.


The FE 1.8/55 shows minor barrel distortion which can easily be corrected by profile in your Raw-converter of choice.


The FE 1.8/55 has pretty smooth bokeh while most normal lenses are rather busy. Oof highlights are rendered with very little definition and smooth transitions.

Since the FE55 uses three aspherical surfaces it is no surprise that it can show distracting onion rings. We also se rather strong cat-eyes. Thanks to 9 rounded aperture blades oof-highlights are rendered more or less round at smaller apertures.

In this series we see a rather smooth transition zone.

There are situations where cat-eyes or onion rings can be an issue but all in all I would rate the bokeh very positively.


Vignetting of the Sony FE 1.8/55 ZA is pretty strong. Even if you set vignetting correction to off a correction is automatically applied in LR. Here are my measurements (before and then after correction):

  • f/1.8 – 2.3 stops | 1.4 stops
  • f/2.8 – 1.4 stops | 0.5 stops
  • f/4 – 1.1 stops | 0.4 stops
  • f/5.6 – 0.8 stops | 0.3 stops

In reality these won’t often cause issues but especially at f/1.8 you might notice increased noise off center.


Sony_FE_55mmf1p8 f/1.8: very good to excellent in the center, very good in the midframe region and good to very good in the corners where some coma is visible.
f/2.8: Excellent to the corners with a minor drop in the far corners. f/4 to f/8: Excellent across the frame.
f/11: Some softening due to diffraction.

This is a pretty remarkable performance.

Of course I can only test one copy but my results seem to agree with Roger Cicala’s average MTF. Also note the above average variance of the FE 1.8/55.

Compared to other Lenses

  • The Zeiss Loxia 2/50 is a more traditional design with not as smooth bokeh and not as sharp corners at faster apertures but it has no onion rings and less LoCA. Since it has a little higher contrasts, very nice sunstars and is a joy to focus manually it is preferred by many landscape photographers.
  • The Sony FE 1.4/50 ZA: I have never used this 800 g behemoth but from other people’s comparisons I know that the 1.4/50 offers significantly better CA-correction and higher central sharpness. Downsides are the price and a bit worse off-center sharpness. An excellent choice for environmental portraits.
  • The Sony FE 2.8/50 Macro is nearly as slow focusing as the 1.8/50 so not for action but for landscape and nature photography it can be an interesting alternative since it is easier to focus manually and as good as the FE55 stopped down with excellent flare resistance.
  • Voigtlander 2/65 APO: Twice as heavy and fully manual the macro outperforms the Sony with even higher sharpness and excellent CA correction. This is the lens I personally chose as my “normal lens” since it is a joy to use and such an exceptional performer.
  • The Samyang 1.4/50 is less sharp with an inferior AF drive and quite a bit bigger but more affordable and with even smoother bokeh.
  • The Mitakon 0.95/50 is much faster and bigger special lens. It performs quite well at f/0.95 but it is not as sharp as the FE55 and I wouldn’t want to carry it around as a general purpose lens but it delivers when shallow depth of field is called for.
  • The Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 is not as sharp at wider apertures, especially in the corners and bokeh is a lot less smooth (for most scenarios). Flare of the FE55 is also superior but for landscape photography I would prefer the Planar none the less because of the superior handling and because the differences in sharpness are minor at typical settings.
  • The Minolta MC 1.7/55 has less smooth bokeh, is much less sharp at f/1.7 and much more susceptible to flare. When I compared it to the FE55 I was surprised to see that there is very little difference between them at f/8.
  • The Canon nFD 1.4/50 is nearly as sharp in the center at f/1.8 but it is much less sharp in the corners. Bokeh is also inferior but it is much more affordable and still a very good lens.



  • Sharp across the frame from f/1.8
  • Pretty smooth bokeh
  • High contrast and excellent flare resistance
  • Small Size
  • Build Quality

  • Value
  • Sunstars
not good

  • Manual Focus Experience
  • LoCA
  • Onion rings
  • Vignetting

The list of the FE 1.8/55’s achievements is quite respectable. It’s one of the sharpest normal lenses around. You can use any aperture and put your subject everywhere in the frame never worry about sharpness. At the same time you get smoother bokeh than with most other normal lenses. Cat-eyes and onion rings can be a bit distracting at times though. Another thing you don’t need to worry about is flare which is very well controlled. Handling of the smallish lens is pleasant with quick AF and a very good balance.

Is it a perfect lens? No it isn’t. I found the manual focusing experience unpleasant so if you prefer manual focus this lens is probably not for you. The only aberration which can be really bothersome is LoCA. I should also mention the strong vignetting even though it has fewer practical consequences.

I would recommend the FE 1.8/55 to most FE-shooters since you can cover a very wide range of applications with great results while keeping your kit small and light. Only a 1.8/35 would be more universal but we have no good native option there. Only those who prefer to focus manually or are chasing after quality without any compromise will be served better by the alternatives.

All in all the Sony FE 1.8/55 ZA T* is a very well balanced lens which is both a very good performer in about any discipline and yet it is so portable that you don’t have to think twice about putting it into your bag. Few lenses manage this balance as well. In light of this performance the rather high price seems to be justified.

The FE 1.8/55 costs $898 at or B&H photo,  848€ at (affiliate links). You can buy the lens used at ($650-700) or (600-700€).
If you purchase the lens through one of these affiliate-links I get a small compensation with no additional cost to you. 

More Sample Images

More samples in this set: Sony FE 1.8/55 on flickr

edge of the forest

Sony FE 1.8/55 | f/8

Related Articles

This site contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase using any of the links marked as affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of future content.

The following two tabs change content below.
I have two hobbies: Photography and photographic gear. Both are related only to a small degree.

Latest posts by Phillip Reeve (see all)

90 thoughts on “Sony FE 1.8/55 ZA Sonnar T* – Long-Term Review”

  1. Great review once again. Thanks for sharing all these tests and information. Personally I am most interested in the comparison of new lenses with old manual lenses. This gives good insides how good the old lenses are, but why it’s worth buying premium lenses.

    Great work, keep it going!

      1. Thank you – very interesting. I would have been curious to hear how it compares to the CY Planar 1.7/50
        Best regards and keep up the good work – always inspiring

  2. Thanks again for your review! Your site continues to be the killer A7* user site for users of native AND legacy lenses
    I would love to see a similar review and discussion of legacy manual tele zooms (and primes) vs the FE 70-200 F4, though my sense is you don’t do a whole lot with telephoto zooms.

    For your style/process, what is the single native lens you find to be most worthwhile over legacy options?

    1. I own a few tele lenses but as you said I don’t use them that much. Right now I have little inclination to test the 4/70-200. I will probably shift my focus back to manual lenses for the next few blog posts.

      About the most worthwhile lens: thats a tough question but I guess it is the 2/28 FE because it is both smaller and better than my manual 28mm lenses.

  3. Good afternoon. Thank you for your blog. A lot of useful information. Often I come to you to check out the new articles.
    In this photo i can see a small speck in the sky
    This dust on the sensor? On my camera I observe the same spot on the f > 8.

    Can you tell me how often do you clean the camera’s sensor, and how do you do it?
    Thank you.

    1. Glad to hear that you come hear regularly 😉

      thats definitely dust. I use a dust blower similar to this: and it works very well. I am often not that bothered by dust so I forget to clean the sensor. How much cleaning it needs depens a lot on the conditions. Normally I am fine with cleaning it once or twice a month which takes about 30 seconds.

      1. Thanks for the answer. Dust blower does not help me. Recommended to use wet cleaning to me. With the help of this tool:
        Which is called Eclipse. You do not have to use it?

        P.S. Sorry for the English, i am use a translator 🙂

  4. I just got my hands on the FE 55mm 1.8 on a good deal I found locally. I am planning some massive testing against my FD 50mm 1.4 but I noticed you mentioned the Mitakon .95 which was the lens I REALLY wanted to buy instead.
    I am not in need of AF although playing with it yesterday it was an interesting feeling to have AF again lol
    I just feel that a .95 lens, when stopped down should be able to match or get close to this 1.8 lens plus I get the .95 options which could create some interesting images…and these days, you need every tool at hand to be different from the rest I think.
    What are your thoughts? Have you personally tested the .95 mitakon? I can get it for $630 shipped.

    1. I haven’t personally used it, only read a few tests. I am very certain that it has a much worse corner performance than the 1.8/55. And it weights about three times as much.

  5. “The FE 1.8/55 has smoother bokeh than any classic normal lens I have ever used.”
    That’s what I feel about the Voigtlander 58/1.4 Nokton SLII, my favourite standard, very closely shared with the MC 58/1.2
    Like you, the AF and focus-by-wire would put me off this, though the rendering does look good.

    1. I also have the Voigt 58 and the Sony 55, and hugely prefer the Voigtlander. It just seems to have much more character to my eyes. Perhaps the 55 is worth revisiting as it hasn’t been used in a few years but it always seems a bit flat, a bit plain.

  6. After more comparisons to my FD 50mm 1.4 (best copy of 3 I tried and also other brand 50s I tested against it) I can say that at 1.8 the FD is close but move a little away from that center focus and its a no contest right away…not even in the same universe.
    There is one interesting thing though…at 5.6 the FD gives the 55mm a run for its money and at F8 it seems to keep improving where the 55mm does not seem to get the same benefits from stopping down any more over all. Heck, I could swear that there are some areas on the frame where the FD actually looks a tad sharper at F8. 😀
    Then again, the so called microcontrast etc and overeall rendering its all for the FE55mm but I found it interesting on how the FD seems to improve more at F8.

    1. Modern lenses seem to be designed to reach their peak performance wider open (often around F/5.6), than older designs. Maybe because of the “fashion” for out of focus/bokeh backgrounds guiding designers, where in the past, sharp front to back was the desired look, and F/8-11 the sweet point designers aimed for.

  7. Hi! Great review indeed…
    Since 2 years I had been slogging with Canon APSC 70D+(10-18)+(18-55)+50/1.8+(55-250) with tripod & flash. Felt it was too heavy and cumbersome. Such a relief it was when I switched to Sony A7R2 + FE1.8/55 recently. Need to increase the focal range now – mostly for the stills of landscapes, family, travel & portraits.
    Kindly advise whether to go by primes or zooms. Do you think making use of APSC mode on A7R2 (thus adhering to a limited number of primes) is a good-enough strategy to eliminate zooms altogether? If so, I will add a FE2/28 immediately, instead of the FE4/16-35. Possible to add the 21mm converter later (slightly contrary to your views though) if needed…
    While meeting the tele-side, adding at least 1 heavy lens becomes inevitable…. How about Samyang manual lens – say 135 manual-cine?
    Appreciate your kind advice. Many thanks in advance.

    1. I think the zoom vs prime decision is up to your taste. If you prefer faster and smaller lenses a prime is probably the better solution. If you value flexibility a zoom will suit you better. The FE 2/28 and 4/16-35 are my only FE lenses and I pack the 2/28 wen I want to travel lightly. The 16-35 when weight doesn’t matter too much.

      The Samyang 2/135 is a phantsatic lens optically and very affordable for what it does. One reason why it is so cheap is that Samyang has lousy quality control. Thats the reason why haven’t bought one yet.

    2. PS
      By reading elsewhere in your web-pages, now I realize of a recommendation of yours (Minolta manual 135mm). I am yet to read further about this lens. Probably needs an LEA3/4 adaptor to suit A7R2 mount???

          1. Kurt Munger reviews a different lens.
            On my Minolta Site I mention the Minolta MD Rokkor 2.8/135. It is important that all three words, Minolta, MD and Rokkor are in the name

      1. If you look after a good 135mm check out the Contax/Zeiss 135/2.8!
        It’s bigger and heavier as the Minolta (have both), but also sharper & better corrected. It has the Zeiss signature and fits fine to modern Zony lenses – I use it with the 1635 and 55mm.

  8. Regarding the Mitakon 0.95/50mm, why do you consider it not a general purpose lens? What makes it worse off than your other manual lenses? The size/weight? The lens flare? Or is it because you see no point in carrying it around if you stop it down to f2 ( or something slower than f0.95)? I am currently in the process of deciding if I could use the Mitakon for my photography and I see some people saying it isn’t a general purpose lens (and its been a love hate relationship from online reviewers). Thank you so much if you could answer everything!

    Or do a review of the Mitakon 😛

    1. Well it is mostly about the weight. Stopped down to f/2 it become an average performing f/2 lens which weights about 5 times as much as other 2/50 lenses. So if you want to shoot at f/0.95 half the time it is probably a decent general purpose lens for you but I wouldn_t.

      1. Thank you very much for your input!

        Keep up the amazing work on your photography and the reviews! They really help out a lot 😀

  9. Hi Phillip, firstly thanks for your reviews, keep up the nice work.
    I am in market for 50mm, i had three options in mind, the one on this page, i.e zeiss 55/1.8, the slr magic 50/1.1 and the new fe 50/1.8 sony just released, any suggestions as to which is good?

  10. I’ve found that with the latest firmware as long as there is enough light for PDAF to be active the FE55 is quite fast on my A7. Rarely have a problem unless my subject is moving very quickly (and no lens on the A7 does well with that!) but then I use AF-C and back button AF so maybe its partly an AF technique?

  11. Can you please tell me which adapter you use for your Minolta MC 55 mm / f1,7 lens to mount it on a Sony A7 body? Thanks!

  12. Thank you for reviewing this lens; it is likely the single most widely used lens on the A7 series, at least if one considers “normal” focal length lenses.

    I’ve found it to be easy to use and quite capable, as well (LOCA notwithstanding). The photos I’ve taken feature very good IQ–especially when the aperture is stopped down.

    It is very nice, of course, to have the little bit of extra speed that f/1.8 gives you in low-light conditions.

    Highly recommended.

  13. Thanks for the update Phillip, a realy interesting review!
    You decribed the sunstars of the loxia as nicer… Could you be more precise for the FE55?…
    Do you plan on doing a Loxia 50 VS FE55 article?… It’s really hard to make a choice 😉
    thanks again for all the work done on this site!

    1. I don’t have a single sample of a sunstar for the FE55, will try to add that later but it is 18-pointed and not nearly as well defined as that of the Loxia.
      No, I won’t do a comparison.

  14. “Although Sony claims that the design is “dust and moisture resistant” the lens has no gasket around the lens mount, so weather resistance will be limited. ”

    –> I can confirm that one. My copy is nearly 4 years old. Altough I haven’t used it quite often (maybe once per week) it sucked in 4 particles which become visible only by closing the aperture to f4.0.
    Sometimes it’s a pain in the ass, especially when I do landscape with it and have to remove particles in the sky afterwards. But most time I use this lens from f1.8 to f.2.5, since it’s results are really stunning.

    I although have the FE 50 f1.4. The background melts more smoothly away, pictures out of it have a more special and eye-catching look than out of the FE55. Since I do not have problems with weight, I prefer the FE50. I still kept the FE55 because I can’t sell it anymore due to dust 🙁
    My opinion is, that the FE55 fits perfectly to first generation A7 (perfect small quality package to take everywhere). While FE50F14 is perfect on larger A7R3 and A9 bodies.

  15. Thanks for review, Phillip!
    I own this lens since 2015. And I disagree with one thing – I do not like bokeh 55/1.8. Bokeh is not “smooth” and not “pretty”. It average and not interesting bokeh. Personally, I found bokeh 55/1.8 some nervous and harsh, or “dirty”.
    55/1,8 – it is fast, accurate lens. Good for those, who like 50mm distance. But after 3 year with this lens, personally, I do not like it image character, mainly because bokeh.
    Some my images from this lens here:

    1. I am not the greatest fan of the 55mm 1.8 bokeh either, but I think it depends a lot on the distance.
      For head or head and shoulder portrait I was fine with it, but for full body I really disliked it.

  16. Very good review, thanks a lot.
    It’s the lens I use the most. I do prefer it to 35mm as a walk around. You are absolutely right about manual focus. A pain.
    Use the 55mm on a A6300, A7S and over 3 month on Tha A7R.

  17. Hi Phillip,
    in June 2016 you have tested the Carl Zeiss Planar 2/45 T* for Contax G with the Techart TA-GA3 Adapter.
    Comparing the Planar 45 and the Sonnar 55 what is your conclusion?

  18. Your reviews are excellent and I learn much from them. I have just ordered the new A7iii. As you’ve mentioned multiple times, you really like the Voigtlander 2/65 as one of your favorite lenses and I really would like to become adept at manual. Although somewhat inexperienced with manual (with minor tremors in my hands), would you recommend the 2/65 or the Sonnar 1.8/55? In your opinion would the in-camera stabilization likely compensate (I currently have no problems with my Olympus OM-D M-5 Mark II when shooting manual with my Voigtlander .95/10.5)? I am planning to round out my kit with the Batis 2/25 and the Batis 2.8/1355.

  19. Always appreciate the content and photos Phillip!

    Under the summary, you don’t mention how well corrected this ZA 55 is for astro WO, which really distinguishes it from other 50mm’s. Just an observation. This and the smooth Bokeh WO are the biggest selling points to me 🙂

    1. I compared Loxia 2/50 and 1.8/55 for that purpose and I didn’t see the 55 that much ahead. The coma was slightly smaller on the 55 but also more colorful and contrasty. Not something to rave about imho, especially as I struggled to focus the 55 properly at infinity because of the subpar focus by wire implementation.
      You can have a look at our Loxia 2/50 Review where I added that comparison.

      1. Yeah I saw that. The focus absolutely stinks, agreed. Is there a 50mm that does better than the 55 ZA at same aperture in terms of coma?

        1. Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 has better coma performance and less vignetting, which are both very favourable for that application, but unfortunately it is heavy as a brick.

          1. Ahh—too bad. I haven’t owned it because of the size. I’d love another light 50mm option with decent coma correction at f2 and lower but so it goes.

  20. I was thinking of getting the Zeiss 55 1.8 for my Sony a7ii. This is mainly because of the autofocus And the microcontrast that it produces.
    Another option i am looking at is the Voigtlander 58 1.8, it kinda gave me goosebumps. The image it produce was just amazing.
    My question is, comparing the Zeiss 55mm, is there a big difference with the 3d pop that the Voigt produces? Have you done a side by side comparison of the 2 lens?

  21. Hey there!
    Your blog is pretty good and helpful to me.
    However, I have to ask u which 50mm lens u would recommend for the Sony a7 ii. Important for me is sharpness, no onion rings, smooth bokeh.


  22. Hi,

    when looking at the barrel distortion image I see in the right hand corner a Canon lense being stated.

    What’s wrong? The image or the data shown?


    1. Hi Hubert,
      thanks for pointing out my mistake.
      It was the wrong image. The way I write a review is that I usually take an old review and step by step replace everything. This time I forgot to update the distortion image. I took the test image though and now replaced the old one with the correct one. The conclusion remains.


  23. Thanks. Really enjoy your review. I have this lens, a canon nFD 50 f1.4 and Sony 16-35 f4. I tried to do some comparison and found, just subjectively, that this 55mm has more saturated colors than 16-35 f4. The Sony 55m is fun to shoot kids with excellent bokeh and excellent color. The 16-35 f4 is sharp but the color is on the dull and cold side. The canon nFD 50 f 1.4 is pleasant to shoot. I bought it after reading your review. When using tripod and small aperture, I did not see much different between this $900 Sony 55 and $50 canon 50, which is bitterly sweet. I will use Sony 55 to shoot my kids as they run around all the time and autofocusing is critical, but I shoot my wife with canon.

          1. Not silly if you can afford it. I have multiple fifties, including the 1.8/55, and i plan to add the Apo Lanthar to my kit.

            And even if I weren’t a bit crazy on the having too many lenses front, I think the 2/50 and 1.8/55, despite being close is both speed and focal length, make a sensible pairing. If you can do without anything really fast – and they tend not to focus well for kid photos.

  24. Hi Phillipe is there a way to use the voigtlander 65 on a canon ? Eos R. Does it come in m42 or Nikon mount. I have contax 50 1.7 as my landscape normal lens. But prefer a more multifunctional lens with macro.

    1. There is a Sony E to Nikon Z adapter using difference of diameter of each mount. Techart made Sony E-mount to Nikon Z-mount AF adapter, TZE-01. So, Nikon mirrorless body(Z6, Z7, Z50 maybe?) can use (not guaranteed all) E-mount lenses with electronic contacts.
      Theoretically, the diameter of Canon R mount is bigger than that of Sony E, so Sony lenses can be adapted on Canon R as well. I’m not sure about smart adapters like TZE-01, but at least dumb adapters can be made. And Voigtlaender E mount lenses can be used without electronic contacts(aperture ring is just mechanically coupled), so if you can design the adapter and made it with CNC machine or 3D printer, you can technically use E mount lenses on EOS-R. … But it will be a hard way.
      I hardly think any adapter making company would make R to E adapter, though.

  25. Thinking of getting a lens for panorama astrophotography, and this lens is my current favorite. Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and Sony FE 1.4/50 ZA – which are superior quality-wise, are just way too heavy.
    Bastian compared it to Loxia 2/50 and apparently they are very close. I am still tending towards the 1.8/55, but am concerned about the strong vignetting mentioned, which can be an issue for panoramas. Can I still shoot it wide open for panos or is downstopping a must?

    Are there any other comparable lenses on the market for this particular use case at present?

  26. Hi guys,

    I own a Tamron 28-200mm for sony. I am looking for something sharper for landscapes and portraits. Any suggestions between trading it for Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or adding on 55mm/1.8.
    Any other suggestions ? Thanks a ton!

  27. Please keep up the good work
    A little late to the party on this but here is my observation for the Sony FE 1.8/55 ZA Sonnar T*.

    I use it on an IR converted A7III. It is super sharp as you say, but the killer is the total lack of any hotspot. Independent testers confirm this.
    Every other Sony lens is terrible for IR and I use modified old glass. Modern lenses are generally poor for IR probably because of MC but for some fluky reason this is top notch.

  28. Hey. I have a question. I am using the lens above + Voigt 35 mm APO. The Voigt is my favorite for sure. Now to the real question. Using an old A7R. Its special in some ways. Kind of like the mechanical shutter etc. But, do you think the image quality will improve significally upgrading to say an A7IV? I don’t really care about video. I just want to get the best quality possible out of my camera. I know about better AF etc. But only regarding image quality. Sharpness, colors, micro contrast. Is it worth upgrading? I am not sure. But thinking you will know – Christian

    1. If all you care about is IQ there will be very little difference between A74 and A7r. At some shutter speeds, shutter shock will reduce the resolution at the A7r a little. It’s neither a disaster, nor nothing, think of it as being a bit like an AA filter, which at the affected shutter speeds (1/30 to 1/500 maybe?) reduces sharpness to the equivalent of 24MP. But I wouldn’t worry about that if none of the other factors matter to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *