Sony A7 and Zeiss 35/2.8 vs Fuji X-E2 and Fuji 23/1.4

Amin Sabet

Administrator Emeritus
Jul 3, 2010
124
These should both be great options for those of us who like the 35mm equivalent.

The Sony sensor is a little over a stop better in terms of light collecting area, but the Fuji lens is two stops faster.

Meanwhile the Sony combo will be about two stops more expensive :p.

I wonder how the size difference will pan out.
 

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
124
NYC
I recommend highly RX1 if you can get a deal esp w/ Sony A7 upgraders... So far it is the smallest fast lens option (maybe the slowest AF of these but it af even in very low light at night):

Size wise RX1 35mm f/2 ~ Sony A7+35 2.8 ~ M43 + Oly 17mm 1.8 are smaller then Fuji + 23 1.4...

Also so far smallest 90mm combo is m43 + 45mm 1.8... It is hard to beat m43 sizes, it will stay as my tele lens system...
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
123
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
The Sony A7 looks great but the size of lenses is a bit disturbing!
The 55 and the zooms look pretty big, but the 35 f2.8 looks as small or smaller than the RX1 lens. And there are some nice legacy wide angles that could work really well with this camera that aren't all that large at all...

-Ray
 

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
124
NYC
55mm 1.8 Sonar is similar size & price to Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8 Sonnar. Sony 50mm 1.8 oss is also similar size but much cheaper. I don't know if 50mm can be modified to be used in FF...
 

jloden

All-Pro
Jun 30, 2012
88
Jay
I wish they'd gone the other route with the A7, and came out with a 35mm f/1.4 that's a stop *faster* than the RX1 instead of a stop slower 35mm f/2.8. I'm assuming they did that in a desire to make a small lens. Unfortunately, for a general use camera, f/2.8 is not fast enough for me.

If there was a good fast 28mm or 35mm lens available I think I'd be interested in an A7 to replace my RX1 if for no other reason than the viewfinder is built in *and* doesn't eat up the hot shoe. :2thumbs:
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
May 14, 2013
88
NY Mtns
which is the one that allows aperture to be set on the lens vs fumbling around with buttons & dials? ): fuji has really spoiled me for 'pro' gear with their back to the future system of analogue controls...
 

S Noel

All-Pro
Oct 5, 2010
124
Casey County, KY (Liberty)
Stephen Noel
Sorry. At first look, it just doesn't ring my bell. And if looks weren't put-off enough, the price is so far out of my mental reach, to be ..... Oh well, back to the E-p. :)
 

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
124
NYC
Pricing wise A7+35mm will cost around $2500:
- The A7 body only costs $1698 as leaked on Samys.
- The Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 prime lens will cost 800 Euro and in US $800
 

retow

All-Pro
Jul 24, 2010
123
The RX1 sensor - Sonnar lens combo rendering can not be touched by anything Fuji, I`m afraid.
 

Lawrence A.

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2012
124
New Mexico
Larry
Also so far smallest 90mm combo is m43 + 45mm 1.8... It is hard to beat m43 sizes, it will stay as my tele lens system...
I'm thinking of using my E-M5 the same way, keeping the 12-50 kit and the telephoto lenses an macro setup, but getting rid of my PL25mm to help finance a DP2 Merrill. I haven't quite made the decision, and the 25 is one of my favorite lenses, but it's something I've thought of. The other items mentioned are not presently on my short list, but that can change rather rapidly.
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
May 14, 2013
88
NY Mtns
The RX1 sensor - Sonnar lens combo rendering can not be touched by anything Fuji, I`m afraid.
maybe, but photography is more than a 'sensor and lens'. we're at a point on the technology curve where a whole bunch of gear from different manufacturers in different formats affords IQ no one couldve dreamt about 5 years ago. for me its no longer about squeezing ever more amounts of IQ out of gear. its also about user experience, the fun of photography. and for me personally, i couldnt get that out of a camera without a viewfinder, esp when that camera costs three times more than my dog, whom i love very very much. ):
 

zapatista

Veteran
Jul 28, 2012
28
Denver, Colorado
Mike
I can't resist here, but the 22mm f2 from Canon is less than $100 and is a great 35mm eq. lens. I know it's not in the same league as an RX1 w/the spectacular Zeiss lens, but it is a very good lens--haven't read anything yet about the Fuji 23mm yet, but I'm sure it's awesome too if as good as the 35mm.
 

retow

All-Pro
Jul 24, 2010
123
maybe, but photography is more than a 'sensor and lens'. we're at a point on the technology curve where a whole bunch of gear from different manufacturers in different formats affords IQ no one couldve dreamt about 5 years ago. for me its no longer about squeezing ever more amounts of IQ out of gear. its also about user experience, the fun of photography. and for me personally, i couldnt get that out of a camera without a viewfinder, esp when that camera costs three times more than my dog, whom i love very very much. ):
I agree, there are many capable cameras these days producing good enough files. But then there are the Sony RX1(r) and the Sigma Merrills which outshine anything else as far as file quality and rendering is concerned. Evident without pixel peeping, and easily visible even on relatively small web page uploads.
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
May 14, 2013
88
NY Mtns
i can agree with you on the IQ of those cameras and also at the same time conclude that the IQ difference does not make up for the deficiencies of those cameras in 'user experience'. i can, and do, also conclude that for me, after some baseline IQ, user experience is more important than extra IQ. bonding with your camera, enjoying the process of photography, putting a smile on your face when you pick up your gear--all that, imo leads to better photographs, though they might have a few less lines of resolution than another. i'm glad you like the rx1 and support you reaching a different conclusion than i.
 

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
123
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
I agree, there are many capable cameras these days producing good enough files. But then there are the Sony RX1(r) and the Sigma Merrills which outshine anything else as far as file quality and rendering is concerned. Evident without pixel peeping, and easily visible even on relatively small web page uploads.
I just don't think that this is consistently the case, and not at web resolutions such as 1024 or 1600 pixels. The Sigma Merrills in particular are cameras that I have researched with the thought of owning one myself.

One of the big realisations relating to cameras that has formed in my mind is that once a certain level of technical competency is reached the differences in output from one camera to another are subtle at best and are more subject to personal taste than an extra half stop of DR or some extra lines/mm of resolution. The problem with technical image quality is that it isn't linearly proportional to aesthetic image quality.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom