35mm focal length weakness in Sony FE lens lineup

I have the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8, the Zeiss Batis 25mm f2, and the Sony 90mm f2.8 macro  for my A7RII.  Each if these lenses meets all expectations and fully utilizes the Sony sensors amazing resolution. I was hoping to fill in the wide angle side with a compact fixed focal length lens of equal quality.

I own the Sony 35mm f2.8.  This lens is very compact, but not sharp at the edges even when stopped down.  When compared to the (monster) Sony 24-70 F2.8 the fixed focal length 35mm lens is not competitive with the zoom in edge sharpness at any f-stop.  Maybe I have a bad copy, but I don't think so.

The Loxia 35mm f2 is the obvious candidate for a superior 35mm lens.  I'm sure that the handling of the manual focus Loxia would be a joy.  But, a number of critical reviews indicate that this lens is disappointing in sharpness for such an expensive lens.  I am reluctant to purchase this lens as I suspect it is an expensive lateral move from the Sony f2.8.  Spending so much money, just for the joy of superior operation, may make no sense.  I guess I will currently carry the heavy zoom to fill in the gap.

Am I missing something?  Are new choices for redesigned wide angle lenses coming?  Is the Loxia 35mm better than the reviews indicate?  Why is 35mm the weak spot in the lineup?

The Loxia 21mm and the Batis 18mm both seem to get much better reviews than the Loxia 35mm.

Thanks for any insight.

The Loxia 35mm is my primary 35mm on the a7R Mk II and I have no complaints at all about the sharpness - even at f/2 it is useable, at f/2.8 it's excellent and by f/4 it's fantastic.  You will find reviews of virtually any lens that says it isn't sharp.  There's a lot of bad testing technique out there - for example a short lens like a 35 if tested on an ISO 12233 chart has a significantly longer distance from camera to the corner of the test chart than the center so edges will appear to be soft but it's because of improper testing technique as the corners are falling out of the DOF for the large aperture,  If the lens isn't refocused for the corners, it will always give erroneous results.  At normal shooting distances this isn't an issue since the shooting distance is greater so that there is virtually no difference in corner to sensor distance compared to center to sensor distance.  Just because it is written doesn't mean it's true

As an aside, macro lenses are usually flat field designs and are optically designed to account for the difference in distance that I described above to insure corner to corner sharpness even though the sensor to corner distance can be much greater than the sensor to center distance.

You may want to check out the rankings on DXO (the only comparison I know of)
https://www.dxomark.com/lenses#hideAdva ... ype=global

E. J. and Mike thanks for your replies.

I appreciate E. J.'s direct experience and favorable opinion.

As far as I know, DXO has not provided a proper review. This trustworthy source would have helped.

The review below provides 35mm Loxia Imatest numbers that seem to mimic the numbers for Sony 35mm f2.8. Both lenses look much weaker at the edge at both F5.6 and F8. I have a copy of the Sony lens and this mimics what disappoints me in my informal tests (muddy foreground grass). This review and a few others seemed to indicate that caution is warranted before purchasing the Loxia.

https://photographylife.com/zeiss-loxia ... performers

Adorama has a two lens Loxia bundle (e.g. 21 & 35) for 5% off. I am tempted.

I have had the 35/2 Loxia for a little over a year now and it's one of the two most employed lenses on my a7 II. I read the review you linked to and cannot confirm what it states regarding softness and focus shift. I always focus at f/4, regardless of what aperture I will actually use. Unless I make a focusing mistake I always get tack sharp images.

Corner sharpness does slightly drop off when using apertures wider than f/4, but you have to be a compulsive pixel peeper to be annoyed by it. It's not even enough to be considered a creative tool, IMHO.

This lens is worth every penny spent on it.

I agree that the 35 Loxia is a great lens; the 50 is even better. Rendition of both is gorgeous. I don't yet have the 21, but I'm planning to sell my ZE mount 21 Distagon soon and will replace it with the 21.

Jens and Danny,

Thanks for the helpful input.

I have now purchased a used 35mm Loxia on ebay. The transaction was not perfect. The cap was missing. The hood was bent. But, the lens body and optics seems perfect. I did an amateur pixel peeping test between the Loxia 35mm f2, the Sony 35mm f2.8, and the Sony 24-70 f2.8 G. I was happy to see that the expensive Loxia did outperform the tiny Sony 35mm f2.8. It was sharper off center, it had far more contrast, and it showed better color. I will definitely enjoy using this lens.

But, Loxia's extreme corners were far from perfect even when stopped down to f11. The massive Sony 24-70 G easily outperforms the Loxia in the image corners at 35mm. This big zoom lens is excellent at 35mm. I guess all that heavy glass can cover the field of view more uniformly.

Agreed, extreme corners can be a touch softer, but normally it hasn't made a difference in my compositions. In another forum, there's a guy who stacks two shots, one focused normally and one for the edges, and says it gives terrific results. I haven't had need to try it yet, but I'm keeping it in mind.

Danny Burk wrote:Agreed, extreme corners can be a touch softer, but normally it hasn't made a difference in my compositions. In another forum, there's a guy who stacks two shots, one focused normally and one for the edges, and says it gives terrific results. I haven't had need to try it yet, but I'm keeping it in mind.

That would imply some field curvature.  You could use software like Helicon focus or Zerene to put the two shots together for spectacular results...

Danny,

I understand refocusing and stacking for limited depth of field. But, for a $1300 lens, refocusing to solve a lens limitation such as excessive field curvature would be pretty disappointing. Also, this would be almost impossible when capturing multiple shots for a panorama. Here, I am worried that soft corners will degrade the image edge (not just the corner) of the final panorama.

I will experiment with refocusing the lens for the far corners to learn more about the optics.

Thanks,
Mike.