1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

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

Discussion in 'Open Gear Talk' started by Amin Sabet, Oct 15, 2013.

  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    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 :tongue:.

    I wonder how the size difference will pan out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    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...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Pixl10

    Pixl10 SC Regular

    29
    Sep 16, 2012
    The Sony A7 looks great but the size of lenses is a bit disturbing!
     
  4. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    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
     
  5. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    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...
     
  6. jloden

    jloden SC Veteran

    266
    Jun 30, 2012
    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:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    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...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. snkenai

    snkenai SC All-Pro

    Oct 5, 2010
    kenai, AK
    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. :smile:
     
  9. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    RX1 and Fuji...

     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    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
     
  11. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    A7+35 is cheaper than RX1, which doesn't have a built in EVF. I guess the pricing isn't too bad then!
     
  12. retow

    retow SC All-Pro

    Jul 24, 2010
    The RX1 sensor - Sonnar lens combo rendering can not be touched by anything Fuji, I`m afraid.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. SC All-Pro

    Nov 8, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    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.
     
  14. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    and which one of those has an integrated vf and costs less than my car? just kiddin' around...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    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. ):
     
  16. Pixl10

    Pixl10 SC Regular

    29
    Sep 16, 2012
    Itching to preorder, must resist ....
     
  17. zapatista

    zapatista SC Regular

    132
    Jul 28, 2012
    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.
     
  18. retow

    retow SC All-Pro

    Jul 24, 2010
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    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.
     
  20. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1