Conclusion
Pros:
- Solidly built lens with a beautiful fit and finish
- Fast and very accurate autofocus
- Truly excellent cross-frame sharpness at any aperture
- Beautiful color and contrast
- Smooth bokeh with evenly illuminated specular highlights
- Good flare control
- Excellent control of lateral chromatic aberration
- Minimal distortion
Cons
- Vignetting is strong at wide apertures and is present stopped down
- Some longitudinal CA at wide apertures
- Expensive
I have to be honest. When the FE 55mm f/1.8 was first announced, I was incredulous. I couldn’t believe Sony and Zeiss would have the audacity to charge $1,000 for a normal lens that was only f/1.8. I mean, Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 is just over $100, and Nikon’s is still 1/4 the cost of the Zeiss 55mm. However, after using the lens for several weeks, I can say that while the price is still a little high, it’s not outrageous considering the quality of the optics. The lens is very sharp, even in the corners at f/1.8, with great bokeh, excellent contrast and color and few lens aberrations. It also is relatively compact and has quick, quiet and accurate autofocus. There’s extremely little to complain about. If you want a normal lens for your A7 series camera, you really can’t go wrong with the lens.
However, it’s much harder to recommend if you are exclusively an APS-C shooter. It’s not that it doesn’t perform well on APS-C; it performs brilliantly. The thing is, there are other lenses that offer far better value, so you really need to evaluate your needs in this area. For instance, the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 is just as good optically on my a6000 at less than 1/4 the cost of the 55mm f/1.8, though it’s a bit more than a stop slower. That extra stop and a third will cost you nearly $800. However, the lens gains value if you own both full-frame and APS-C E-mount cameras, as it pulls double duty as a normal lens and a short telephoto and does so brilliantly.
So, yes, the lens is expensive, but great glass often costs greatly. Make no mistake, the FE 55mm f/1.8 is a great lens. It has quickly become one of my absolute favorite lenses.
Purchasing your gear (or anything) through the B&H link below helps support Admiring Light at no additional cost to you.
Image Samples
Click on an image to enlarge
the cz ultron for the icarex system from the early 70s had a concave front element. that lens is supposedly very well regarded. i wonder if these lenses share similar designs. here is a link to that particular lens.
http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/carl-zeiss-ultron-50mm-1-8/
Thanks for your review! How would you compare this one to Sigma 60 2.8 DN on A7II ? Does it really 4x better as price ? How much slower is the AF on Sigma?
Thanks
Well, the Sigma is an APS-C only lens, so on the A7 II, it’s not a competitor.
Thanks for your response, Jordan. APS-C only ? But it can be mounted onto A7II, and shot in FF mode too, with some vignetting. People also reported removing baffle and reducing vignetting, with further processing in LR for even more vignetting reduction.
It will mount, and the lens is excellent. You have to decide whether saving the cash is worth losing some resolution, having to crop every image manually, having a notably longer focal length (once cropped, it’ll be closer to a 70mm FOV), and over a stop slower aperture. I view something like a manual focus 50/1.4 or 55/1.2 to be a much stronger ‘competitor’ than dealing with that regularly.
The Sigma 60 is an amazing optic, and the choice is much tougher if you’re an APS-C shooter (and where I think it makes more sense to shoot the 60.) The 55 sings on full frame.
Jordan, excellent comprehensive assessment of the virtues of the Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar T. So much so that I have opted to purchase the lens coupled with the A7II and a Metabones adapter (for my Nikon lenses). Thank you.
Your “Morning in Columbus” shot is exceptional.
What is your impression of the focusing speed differences between the Sigma 60 2.8 and the FE 55 1.8 on the A6000? I’ve read that the Sigma 60 2.8 never received a firmware update to take full advantage of the A6000’s improved focusing, but does this translate to a meaningful difference in focusing speed?
Thanks, Jordan, for a great review of a great lens. I currently own an A6000 with a Sigma 60 mm 2.8 DN. I am extremely impressed with the images that I am getting from this system. Even so, I am looking at the Sony 55 mm 1.8 ZA for a number of reasons: (1) the Zeiss lens can take full advantage of the A6000 hybrid autofocus, the Sigma can not; (2) the extra 1.3 stops, (3) the Zeiss lens will make for a smooth transition to full-frame, when I do upgrade.
My question for you is how the Sigma and Zeiss compare in terms of sharpness, both center and corners, and contrast on the A6000? Thanks.
I haven’t tested them side by side on the a6000, but my impression from using them is that there’s very little to distinguish them at similar apertures on APS-C, with regards to sharpness.
I recently bought the Sony A7II and thought about this lens. In the end, I decided to reuse the old Contax Carl Zeiss Tessar f2.8/45mm:
example
Nice review! Where did you get the wrist strap on this photo:
https://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/fe55_table.jpg
🙂
Gordy’s camera straps. http://gordyscamerastraps.com
Great review…Great images.
Hey Jordan, I was just wondering if the lens hood that your lens came with has a little play. I can wiggle mine 1-2mm (rotating) when it’s mounted in any orientation. Just wanted to know if this is normal since the rest of the lens seems to have a perfect fit and finish.