Sony lens questions

Hey folks. Looking to get a A7ii for a trip to Europe. Currently have canon glass, and was planning on an adapter in the beginning to use the existing lenses. So, GAS has struck and I was wondering for those of you in the know, is there THAT big of a difference between the Ziess lenses and the sony ones? Given the extreme cost of the Batis lenses I was wondering if you can really tell that big of a difference for the $$. Coming from the medrium format days and knowing of Ziess quality, that is not a concern, but I was just wondering about the difference between the sony versions of the same lenses. Also, for those who have the adapters, is the Metabones IV the best one to get?

thanks in advance

is it a vacation or a pro-outing? For a vacation i would rather bring the smallest lenses i can get with preferred parameters like autofocus or filter size etc (this is very personal)

general claims though and not entirely my own
1) Sony Zeiss 55 (i own this) is fantastic!! I own other 50s like the contax 50 1.7, helios, CV 40mm (close to 50). I bought the 55 because of the AF. There is a 50 1.8 but i have no experience with that lens. The 55 though is widely well regarded so i dont think youll regret it

2) the new 85 1.8 from the multitude of batis comparison reviews seems to be 90% the batis for way less - this will actually be my next purchase. note though that there is a slight difference in field of view - i saw it in an earlier video from jason lanier.

3) The 28 f2 Sony vs the batis 25 - again the 28 seems to be very close to the batis - the batis of course is better at some items but is it worth the money - it might be down to your personal preference. the 28mm is so small and so light - for me it is a great travel lens

4) i use 16-35 most when i travel - i can actually travel just with this 1 lens and get more than 90% of the shots i want. the other 10% would be in the 70-300 range but i rarely cry over missing those.

When i travel i usually carry the 16-35, 55 1.8 and 28f2. The28f2 is actually redundant for me but i just throw it in the bag because it is very small. I usually use my 16-35 for upwards of 90% of my shots. I whip out the the other 2 if i am in very dark places and really want to capture the shot. otherwise i just crank up the iso since i am using an a7s.

for me travel means seeing the environment - capturing my subject in the locale/place and showing the sights - this is why i can travel just with the 16-35 - my mental workflow just naturally go to the wide shots rather than the detail shots. When i was in South Korea for example - i shot 95% of my shots with the 16-35 - the only real time my 55 got some action was in Nami island where i wanted some compression on the trees because the beautiful ladies i was with wanted some good looking portraits and the trees looked better compressed - yes i would have used the 85 if i had one but the point is the lens came out because of a very very very specific reason otherwise i would have still used the 16-35.

Thanks for the reply-I am assuming you are using an adapter on the A7 to be able to use the 16-35. Which one do you have and are there others that are recommended? I have seen the meatbones but at 400+ I was not really looking to add that cost to the equation. However, some have said the fotodix (?) does really well. Any issues with focusing with this combination? There are so many threads and youtube videos about how these lenses function on the sony system. As much as I don't want to spend the extra money I am almost ready to throw out everything and upgrade to the 5d4! Also, when you travel how many batteries do you take, as I have to factor extra batteries into the equation as compared to my canon.

sorry i meant to say the sony 16-35. I do have a viltrox adapter for my canon but i bought it originally to be used on my canon 100 macro. Sony didnt have the 90mm macro back then.

The sony 16-35 is great but a lot of people are reporting good things using the canon 17-40 on the a7 series. the viltrox i have is ok but nothing beats native for me if af is an issue. if it isnt then better to get a dumb adapter.

batteries - i actually have 7 on me but to tell you the truth going around and taking shots i used 3 max (3rd isnt used up) and when i get to the hotel i put them in the charger and then read up on things - i can get 2 charged and it just cycles from there. never had an issue on battery

I only recently learned that a difference between the Sony 'inexpensive' and 'expensive' lens lines is that the inexpensive ones have more corrections done in-camera, rather than corrections taking place via the optics themselves. The Zeiss Sonnar is like the Sony expensive lenses, the performance is not as heavily augmented by software correction to address signficant shortcomings. But they do depend upon software corrections. For example, Zeiss Vario-Tessar is reported by photozone.de :

"In auto-corrected mode, there is, unsurprisingly, nothing to worry about. The distortions stay at less than 0.5% which is negligible. However, the situation changes completely when looking at the original characteristic of the lens. It shows a hefty ~3.8% barrel distortion at 24mm and a 3% pincushion distortion towards the long end of the zoom range. This is hardly impressive for such a pricey lens."

In reading a few test reports, the Zeiss lenses as a group do not seem to create spectacularly smooth looking bokeh, and vignetting control is left to software corrections. One test summarized the bokeh, "The quality of the bokeh is generally very good except for the rendition of out-of-focus highlights."

Pick up the FE 28 f2 and have fun with your native-focusing, lightweight combo.

The Batis 25 f2 is fantastic, but if you can live with the 3mm difference you will save yourself some bulk and coin.

Mostly from what I have read online and some limited comparisons I have done myself, there is no general formula like 'Zeiss lenses are better than Sony Zeiss lenses or/and Sony GM lenses'. It is a case by case scenario. It also depends what aspect of the lens matters most to you (sharpness, bokeh, color rendition, distortion, vignetting, CA, etc.).

I tested a Batis 25mm alongside my Sony Sonnar 24mm f1.8 on A6000 and the Sonnar was superior though the Batis wasn't bad at all (sharpness and color). I didn't have a FF camera at the time so my comparison was limited to APSC format.

Right now, I am myself in the rather hard decision of choosing between Sony Sonnar 55mm and Planar 50mm lenses. They are both amazing lenses. I find the Planar is ever so better than the Sonnar even though slightly. The advantage may be apparent depending on the nature of the scene and the present colors, etc.. Sometimes there is no visible advantage and sometimes, it is slight but overall, it is definitely there. The Planar is however much heavier and bulkier and make the camera + lens front heavy. On the other hand, it also has superior build quality. I feel like it can last way longer than the Sonnar. So I am puzzled.

People rave about that Sonnar 24 to the point where you have to wonder why Sony couldn't have figured out a way to make it an FE lens. I use the 24/2 ssm on my A77ii and with an la-ea3 on my a7r and it certainly does a really nice job.

Photo from mickeyb105's gallery.

Photo from mickeyb105's gallery.

OP I would advise you to avoid adapting if you can. Whilst it works native lenses just work better, focus quicker and focus bettter in low light.

FE28 - awesome lens and one of the cheapest native full frame lenses. I sold my batis 25 and kept this. The batis was amazing and the superior lens but the FE28 is fantastic value. It has distortion but the Lightroom profile sorts it (distortion is not as bad as the non-owners repeat online)

FE35 2.8 - bit more expensive as it's sony zeiss but a stellar performer and sharp wide open. Only 2.8 though

FE55 1.8 - again sony zeiss so not as cheap as others but one of the best lenses I've ever owned. Amazing smoothness in the out of focus areas and nice transition from in to out of focus

FE85 1.8 - I own the batis 85 but if this lens had been available at the time I would have got it instead as it's very close to the zeiss. Under certain backlit conditions the batis bokeh is not great but 95% of the time it's nice and smooth

FE16-35 f/4 - great wide angle zoom if you like that sort of thing

Wilt wrote in post #18343464
I only recently learned that a difference between the Sony 'inexpensive' and 'expensive' lens lines is that the inexpensive ones have more corrections done in-camera, rather than corrections taking place via the optics themselves. The Zeiss Sonnar is like the Sony expensive lenses, the performance is not as heavily augmented by software correction to address signficant shortcomings. But they do depend upon software corrections. For example, Zeiss Vario-Tessar is reported by photozone.de :

"In auto-corrected mode, there is, unsurprisingly, nothing to worry about. The distortions stay at less than 0.5% which is negligible. However, the situation changes completely when looking at the original characteristic of the lens. It shows a hefty ~3.8% barrel distortion at 24mm and a 3% pincushion distortion towards the long end of the zoom range. This is hardly impressive for such a pricey lens."

Yup. But this is better than the alternative corner cut to keep the cost of lenses down.....poor sharpness wide open, as is typical of budget lenses from the likes of Canon. The cheaper Sony lenses punch way above their weight class in terms of pure, measurable, resolving power. Distortion can be corrected...softness cannot.

Wilt wrote in post #18343464
In reading a few test reports, the Zeiss lenses as a group do not seem to create spectacularly smooth looking bokeh, and vignetting control is left to software corrections. One test summarized the bokeh, "The quality of the bokeh is generally very good except for the rendition of out-of-focus highlights."

Very generally, there is an inverse relationship between micro-contrast and the quality of bokeh that exists is all lens lines, from Zeiss, to Sony, to Canon, to Sigma. Sigma and Zeiss rendering are more weighted towards the contrasty side of things.....so lots of pop, but harsh OOF highlights. I'm not a fan of Sigma bokeh at all.

Sony GM lenses lean more towards the bokeh side of the spectrum, and have a flatter type rendering. Canon lenses are sort of all of over the board, and IMO, not very consistent. (i.e. 24L renders like a Sigma, 50L has beautiful glow and my favorite bokeh in a 50, but has a correspondingly very flat rendering).