Have a good Sunday. One shot, Sony A7II, Zeiss Loxia f/2

Have a good Sunday. One shot, Sony A7II, Zeiss Loxia f/2

Been shooting with the Sony A7II (and A7s) along with the Zeiss Loxia 35 f/2 and 50 f/2. These are fantastic lenses from what I have seen so far (see my 1st look video here) and for me and my tastes I prefer the 50 to the Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 for color, detail, build and overall joy of use on the A7 series.

I’m taking the day off but figured I would post my A7II setup, which I must admit, looks pretty nice 🙂 My A7II is set up with the Gariz Half Case which fits perfect (unlike the case they make for the A7, A7R and A7s) and it is beautiful. The ONA Presidio strap also is a nice fit for this camera. The camera feels hefty but not heavy, the improved build and feel of the II is so nice in the hand and after months of use, I prefer the new body design to the old  – no contest. Take a look below:


One shot, taken at f/2 with the 50 Loxia. This one is from RAW. Nice Bokeh, color and detail. Teeny bit of CA on the shoulder but my CA torture test shows this lens has less CA than even the Leica 50 Summilux, TONS less than the $11,000 50 Noctilux, and even less than the Leica standard 50 cron. All fast glass has some CA – Nikon, Canon, Leica, Sony, Zeiss, etc. This one less than most.

Have a great rest of your weekend, will be back tomorrow with new posts!



  1. Sweet Gariz case. Your affiliate link refers to the brown version, meanwhile yours on the camera looks rather like the camel brown one. Which one is yours – want it too 😉

  2. I agree with Huss. I have experience of Summicron 35 and 50 plus Summarit 75 but have not encountered CA except in against the sky kind of shots ? Shoot Leica in B+W mostly so don’t have vast knowledge.

    I’m really not sure this is CA -it is noticeable though but probably not CA.
    A7 and Loxia what a combination ! – people using manual focus again -now that is priceless !


    • Worst Leica offenders are the fast glass f/1.4 to f/2. 50 Summicron, 50 Summilux (loads of CA), 35 Summlilux (even more CA) and 50 Noct (the most CA of any fast lens I have used). Not just in the sky either. Anything metal, anything with a sharp edge with sun behind it..

  3. I’m not an expert on lens technology and light waves but I wonder, considering the side the CA shows up on, if it isn’t some “reflection” of the woman’s shirt behind the subject?

    I think we automatically assume CA because of the tone of what is shown on the subject’s shoulder, but the woman’s shirt behind the subect is pretty much the same color. Again, no expert here, but might it explain the location of the “aberrition”?

  4. I am very interested in the Loxia 35/2 for my A7ii, but then what will I do with my RX1? How about comparing the Loxia and the RX1? I would love to see that.

  5. The combination with the Gariz case looks sweet. How do you like the case so far? Would you recommend it?

  6. I would like to see in the final review how does the Loxia 50 f/2 compare to the Sony 55 f/1.8 in terms of bokeh. other reviewers [including 2 guest posts on your site] found the bokeh of the Loxia to ba quite busy and not as smooth and creamy as the Somy 55mm.

    • Hmm, somehow instead of using the term busy bokeh for this lens, I find using the term drawing bokeh is more appropriate as it seem to draw the OOF areas which works very well with architecture/people/street shots, but not too well when it comes for nature shots with lots of foliage.

  7. Looking forward to your full review of this lens since it interests me down the digital road. Though the “teeny bit of CA on the shoulder” is hardly teeny. Actually it disturbs the image (In B&W maybe no big deal?) as it’s quite obvious while the other shoulder area is fine. Is this from the lens, or the sensor, or their combination? Regardless, for this amount of hard-earned cash, one would think that this much CA shouldn’t exist and thus have to be cleaned up in post. Other gear, e.g. newer Olympuses, correct this from the get-go OOC in jpeg so why can’t Sony’s?

    • $900 is not a lot for this lens for what it is, even the $11,000 Leica Noct has CA, and LOADS of it. This lens has much less CA than the $4000 Leica 50 Lux and $5500 35 Summilux. ALL fast glass has CA, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Zeiss, Leica, etc.

      • Good point about fast glass & CA, usually wide open or close to wide open. Couldn’t Sony, like Oly, put CA correction into its jpeg software though? That would be a simple fix for folks like me who don’t (yet) do much post-processing, preferring instead Oly’s decent jpeg engine. Just a thought …

        • Steve said that this was a raw capture. How would correcting CA for jpegs have helped in this case or be of any use to those who shoot exclusively in raw?

      • The only time I’ve seen CA with Luxes or Crons is in the typical back lit branches against sky shots.
        I’ve never seen it like this, indoors against a shoulder in subdued lighting.
        It’s really bad.

    • I am absolutely sure, the color artefacts on the shoulders are defocus effects (which look a little distracting due to the hight contrast edge), but they have nothing to do with CA. I can’t see the slightest trace of CA in that image! (At least at this resolution.) Look at the reflections at the frame of his glasses. Absolutely clean.

      BTW: Nice shot, Steve!

      • The ‘CA’ is very noticeable. I put ‘CA’ in quotes because I wonder if Uli is right, and something else is going on. Regarding CA only in backlit scenes, the window in the background perhaps added the back-light(?). However, the ‘CA’ in the folds, as mentioned by Uli, DOES make me wonder if the ‘CA’ is something else. It sure looks like CA. I don’t know what ‘defocus effects’ are. Steve, is something else possible??

    • every fast glass has CA. There’s optical limitations of lenses. Also the CA in the photo is almost negligible, most people woulnt notice had steve not mentioned it.

      • “Most people would not have noticed it [the left-shoulder CA].” Not. I noticed it right away. It jumps out since the whole top line of his shirt and even some of the folds on that side are bluish. Hardly “negligible.” On the contrary, it’s quite pronounced.

Leave a Reply to Brian Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.