FE 28/2 vs FE35/2.8

[Cojo]

Focal length aside, which do you think produces better images? Sharpness, Color, etc...

[Vivek]

I only have tried the 35/2.8 briefly did not like it never bought one to use.

 

I bought the 28/2, pretty much sight unseen (influenced by one online post and that was not a Sony tester) and am pleased with it.

 

IMO (and only mine) the Sony FE 28/2 is the best to date from Sony.

 

And I look forward to a similar set of Sony FE primes (21, 24, 35, 50 and 85).

[Chad Wadsworth]

Focal length aside, which do you think produces better images? Sharpness, Color, etc...

This question had been coming up frequently and it is a tough one to answer.

 

The 35mm has less uncorrected distortion, and CA may be better controlled, but that's always going to be easier at f/2.8. To my eye, the 28mm is perceptually sharper at web screen resolutions (haven't printed yet), when shooting both wide open and stopped down. In terms of color, I definitely enjoy working with the 28mm - there has always been something about the color transmission of the 35/2.8 that I find slightly challenging to work with in post.

 

So reading over my comments, I guess it would seem that the 28mm is my pick - but focal length is always part of the equation, no?

[brainchill]

I've used both and the output hasn't seemed terribly dissimilar. For me I chose to have both because the 35mm is just that much smaller than the 28mm to carry around. 

[JimmyD]

I agree with the others that the Sony 28mm f/2 is the better of the two lenses at about 1/2 the price (I have and use both frequently).

[kicia74]

I have both lenses and used them extensively. I like both, but the 35 is in my opinion a better glass. Homogenous sharpness is what makes this lens better in my opinion. Also, the 35 has more of so called Zeiss character. I use both but favor the 35 for the above mentioned qualities.

[tinplater]

I agree with the others that the Sony 28mm f/2 is the better of the two lenses at about 1/2 the price (I have and use both frequently).

 

I have both lenses and used them extensively. I like both, but the 35 is in my opinion a better glass. Homogenous sharpness is what makes this lens better in my opinion. Also, the 35 has more of so called Zeiss character. I use both but favor the 35 for the above mentioned qualities.

This is of great interest to me as my just purchased 28mm 2.0 ($365 on Ebay) arrives tomorrow to join my wonderful 35mm 2.8 Zeiss (one of the best lenses I have ever owned).  I plan to test/compare/use them extensively in the next few weeks and then decide whether to sell one or keep them both.

[dclark2171]

I have a Minolta 24 f2.8 that I cannot wait to try on my A&Rii as soon as I purchase an adaptor. I love it on my Maxxum 7000 for street photography.

[Taylormade]

Just used the 28/2 for a trip and after 1400 photos, will be returning it. It just doesn't have the pop or image quality of the 55/1.8.  None of the images wowed me, unlike the 55/1.8.

 

I have no experience with the 35/2.8, and because I also have the 45/2 Contax G lens, will be considering the Batis 25mm instead. I have a feeling that the images I get from the 55/1.8 should be comparable more to the Batis than the 28mm.

 

Loving the images from the Contax G 45 and 90 lenses by the way.

[bluearsefly67]

I have the 28/2 and really like it. I'm using my NEX-7 until I go FF early next year (2016) so it is a 42mm equivalent and excellent for street photography - with plenty of pop even with a crop sensor. 

[kona]

Is the focusing action on the FE 28/2 louder than other FE lenses? Or is this unique to the used copy I just purchased?

 

Focusing at f2.0, my copy is surprisingly loud with a bit of vibration. Its similar to screw drive lenses. Considerably less stealth than any of the other FE lenses I've used (55/1.8, 90/2.8, 28-70 kit). I'm considering returning it, but wonder if another copy would be similar.

 

Others have a similar impression? Any thoughts appreciated.

[pilsburypie]

I've no experience with the 28 f2, but have been using the 35 f2.8 for the last week. Not a bad lens at all even wide open.

[Johndizzo15]

The 28/2 is currently the only native lens I have as the 35/1.4 was not up to spec.

 

The 35/2.8 (aside from the focal length difference and distortion that comes with being wider) was not noticeably better than the 28/2. The main reason I no longer have the 35/2.8 is that I have decided to keep and adapt the Canon 35/2 IS and 40/2.8 pancake instead (as they are together, much more bang for the buck). Also, the 28/2 is just a much better value all around. The FE 35/2.8 is just way overpriced for what it is IMO. When I bought both of the said Canon lenses above, I paid less than the FE 35/2.8 new.

[kicia74]

Is the focusing action on the FE 28/2 louder than other FE lenses? Or is this unique to the used copy I just purchased?

 

Focusing at f2.0, my copy is surprisingly loud with a bit of vibration. Its similar to screw drive lenses. Considerably less stealth than any of the other FE lenses I've used (55/1.8, 90/2.8, 28-70 kit). I'm considering returning it, but wonder if another copy would be similar.

 

Others have a similar impression? Any thoughts appreciated.

My FE 28/2 is not louder at all. If you hear loud noise and a bit of vibration, I would say it is not normal.

[Lucille]

The 35mm is dull, boring, lifeless.

 

The 28mm has character.

[kicia74]

The 35mm is dull, boring, lifeless.

 

The 28mm has character.

Interesting...Is your statement in relation to the focal length or image characteristics?  

[Lucille]

Interesting...Is your statement in relation to the focal length or image characteristics?  

 

 

Image characteristics. The 28mm has character and the 35mm is lifeless,, dull, boring, uninspiring.

 

 

Here is a shot I took with the 28mm and A7R MII.

 

[pilsburypie]

Image characteristics. The 28mm has character and the 35mm is lifeless,, dull, boring, uninspiring.

 

 

Here is a shot I took with the 28mm and A7R MII.

 

 

Not to be antagonistic, but that photo looks heavily processed..... I'm sure the most boring lenses in the world could benefit from a bit of HDR

[pfogle]

Not to be antagonistic, but that photo looks heavily processed..... I'm sure the most boring lenses in the world could benefit from a bit of HDR

A boring lens is one that doesn't turn you on. PP has nothing to do with it, IMO.

[seb]

Not to be antagonistic, but that photo looks heavily processed..... I'm sure the most boring lenses in the world could benefit from a bit of HDR

 

Character has a lot to do with f-stop and bokeeh. Between FL of 25 to 85, a prime has to be f2 or faster otherwise it's just a good prime with a clean look.

 

Edit: I'm a big fan of the 28mm/f2 too.

[Lucille]

Sony A7R MII, 28mm f/2, ISO250, 1/80sec.

[Lucille]

Sony A7R MII, 28mm f/2, ISO1600, 1/40sec.

[Lucille]

Sony A7R MII, 28mm f/2, ISO640, 1/160sec.

[Soeren]

Hi Lucille. I did think that was you. How about linking to the thread over at Talkemount? Or is that inapropiate?

Best regards Søren

[Lucille]

Hi Lucille. I did think that was you. How about linking to the thread over at Talkemount? Or is that inapropiate?

Best regards Søren

 

 

Heh, I need to start saying the FE 35 f/2.8 is the best thing ever. Maybe then I will sell my copy..... $500 and it can be yours....... For that price it is more reasonable. Instead, I slam this lens, then show what the 28mm can do,, and my 35mm never sells.........