I've been watching for availability. Last Wednesday Jan 4, I saw one on Amazon at list price so I jumped. I got it in less than 48 hrs on standard shipping. Go Amazon!!
I have an NEX 5 from 2010. With all the firmware upgrades, this has become a great system. As to lenses, I started with the 18-55. It's OK but often disappointing.... I got the 16mm with the wide converter. I use it for up close perspective photos. It works very well for that purpose.... Late 2010 I got the 18-200. It is certainly a beautiful lens. But it's like carrying a brick. It's a barrier to taking photos.... Before the NEX, I had a full size DSLR. The kit lenses were terrible. I got a 24mm 1.8 Sigma lens. That really was a wonderful lens, though a brick for sure. But I find for me, that's a good focal length for what I like. So that made me want to take the $1,000 Zeiss plunge. I've been out with it once and it really seems to be delivering. Photos really pop: very sharp and strong color. Bokeh is so creamy wide open. Now that I'm shooting RAW, the results seems to be great. I've just begun posting to Flickr (TNex). I'm not sophisticated enough to give a detailed review. But I know when I'm happy and when I'm not. So far I'm very happy. And the physical part is good as well. It's just slightly larger and heavier than the 18-55. It really seems to fit the NEX very well, and the black combination looks great.... I carry a very small camera bag. Since the Zeiss and the 16mm with converter are the same size, the fit is perfect and easy to manage. Fewer barriers means more photos.
For sure the Zeiss is expensive, but seems to be worth it for those who can afford it. If not, the 18-55 shot RAW would be the best bet for great photos.
Addendum: I remain very supportive of this lens, but there is a small issue that I reported to Sony and was appalled by the response. The lens hood is two parts glued together. I've read that this comes apart, and it happened to me. Rotating the hood into position breaks the glue points. Not what one would expect on a $1000 lens. I had an on-line chat with Sony. They said my only option is to return the lens for evaluation. The lens is perfect- no evaluation needed. I've spoken to Sony reps before and have the feeling that they don't know their products. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but the solution seems very simple- do a better glue job. Provide a replacement or solution for those that fail.
Addendum #2: I called Sony to speak to a real person. They agreed to send me a replacement lens hood that wouldn't come apart. When it arrived, what greeted me was a hood made from one piece of plastic. BUT, it was for the wrong lens- way didn't fit! C'mon Sony!! So I called again, and again they said another is on the way... Stay tuned.
Addendun #3: The Zeiss is now happily connected to an NEX-7. Really great results, though I think the NEX-7 makes everything look great... Still no replacement lens hood from Sony. I've super glued the one I have, but it doesn't hold.
Add to your order
-
Coverage for accidental damage including drops, spills, and broken parts, as well as breakdowns (plans vary) -
24/7 support when you need it. -
Quick, easy, and frustration-free claims.
Cover this product:
Sony 2-year Accident Protection & Annual Preventative Maintenance $89.99
Sony 2-year Accident Protection & Annual Preventative Maintenance $89.99
Cover all of your eligible devices:
Asurion Complete Protect: One plan covers all eligible past and future purchases (Renews Monthly Until Cancelled) $16.99/month
Select a plan
Add to your order
- Coverage for accidental damage including drops, spills, and broken parts, as well as breakdowns (plans vary)
- 24/7 support when you need it.
- Quick, easy, and frustration-free claims.
Cover this product:
Select a plan
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Buy this product as Renewed and save $99.00 off the current New price.
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T E 24mm F1.8 ZA E-mount Prime Lens (Renewed) $699.00 & FREE Shipping
Works and looks like new and backed by the Amazon Renewed Guarantee
Works and looks like new and backed by the Amazon Renewed Guarantee
Consider a similar item
$215.00
Climate Pledge Friendly Frequently bought together
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Compare with similar items
This Item  Sony Carl ZEISS Sonnar T E 24mm F1.8 ZA E-Mount Prime Lens |  |  |  |  |  | |
| Price | -22% $798.00 List: $1,021.57 | $598.00 | $549.00 | $64.00 | $348.00 | $298.00 |
| Delivery | Get it as soon as Friday, May 3 | Get it as soon as Friday, May 3 | Get it as soon as Friday, May 3 | Get it as soon as Friday, May 3 | Get it as soon as Friday, May 3 | Get it as soon as Friday, May 3 |
| Customer Ratings | ||||||
| Picture quality | ||||||
| Image stabilization | ||||||
| Versatility | ||||||
| Auto focus | ||||||
| Value for money | ||||||
| Sold By | Amazon.com | Amazon.com | Sunshine Photo & Electronics | FotoPal | Amazon.com | Amazon.com |
| lens type | Fisheye | Wide Angle | Standard | — | Telephoto | Telephoto |
| compatible mountings | Sony E | Sony E | Sony E | Sony E | Sony E | Sony E |
| lens design | Prime | Prime | Prime | Prime | Prime | Zoom |
| focus type | Micromotor | Auto/Manual | Auto Focus | Manual Focus | Stepper motor | Stepper motor |
| minimum focal length | 24 millimeters | — | — | 25 millimeters | 50 millimeters | 55 millimeters |
| max focal length | 24 millimeters | — | — | 25 millimeters | 50 millimeters | 210 millimeters |
Videos
Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1
Videos for this product
0:53
Click to play video
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Lens
DPReview
Reviews with images
Great Lens but Price and other Options Should be Considered
This is a tricky review to do but here we go.I'm using this on an A6300 and came from using the NEX5T with the 35f1.8, 18105f4, as well as the 16-50 kit lens. I learned quite a bit on the NEX5T and am still learning on my A6300 and while I'm not quite a beginner I am far from an experienced photographer.I debated over getting this lens or the 1670 Zeiss. I like having all around lenses to reduce the amount of lens changes I have to do which is what I like about the 18105. The only issue there is the lens is fairly large but I'd say very sharp for my needs. Researching the 1670 garnered a lot of mixed reviews that focused on the lottery factor for getting a good version of this lens regarding the decentered nature of many peoples copies. I know a lot of people like the 1670 but considering the price point(which currently is the same as the 24f1.8 at ~$900) as well as the fact that I have the 18105, I decided I wanted to go with the 24 Zeiss.While improved image quality was a factor for buying the 24 Zeiss, I also understand the nature of diminishing returns when it comes to buying a high priced lens like this. I have the 35f1.8 and it is plenty sharp with great image quality and spending money on it got me far better results than the kit lens but I knew I wouldn't see that same leap of improvement going to the 24 from the 35 if much at all. I'd say the image quality overall is actually noticeably better than the 35 but most people won't need it. I don't want to go through the spectrum of reviewing wide open, stopped down, and corner and center sharpness. If you're looking for that there are plenty of resources available for that review, this review is for the middle ground people but just know that you can expect great image quality at generally all apertures as well as corner and center sharpness.So why this lens? What I really liked about it more than any improvements in image quality above the 35 was the wider focal length and the ability to find focus a mere 6 inches from the lens. Combine these two features with improved image quality and do I find $500 of value in this lens over the 35? I honestly don't know yet. I know that I really like the wider focal length because it means I'm not squeezing against a wall or in a corner to get everything I want in frame when shooting indoors, especially considering I can focus far closer than I could with the 35. I know that those attributes also make it a great walk around lens as well. I know that the construction of the lens feels great and the focus ring as utterly smooth and great to use, especially compared to the 35. Also, like the 35mm, the f1.8 on this lens opens up the use for excellent low light photography. There is no need to use a flash to get good pictures in a dimly lit restaurant or some of the poorer lighting conditions that you would normally have indoors, especially if you're using the A6000 and up which have great performance at ISO 6400. Not only that but the shallow depth of field produced makes a very nice bokeh. The bokeh balls aren't perfectly round but the blur is smooth and definitely some of the better I have seen in a lens at around this price range.If you're on the fence between this lens and the 35 there are a couple of things you need to consider. Price and use. Currently the 24 is running for about $900USD while the 35 is going for about $400USD. While the 35 is a major improvement over the kit lens you will not see that type of improvement going to this lens. If you're going straight from a kit lens to the 24, you will see major improvement in image quality and will definitely appreciate the f1.8 and close focus abilities. Moving past the price and ratio of improved image quality to value, the most major difference for a lot of people will be the fact that the 24 does not have any type of image stabilization in lens. If you're shooting with A6300 or lower, this means no image stabilization. It is not a huge deal if you're only shooting stills and since it is f1.8 you can usually up your shutter speed to reduce any movement from lack of image stabilization if needed. If you're planning to shoot video, the difference between this lens and the 35 can be night and day and I would suggest the 35 if video is going to be a priority with this lens.Considering video was not a major priority for me with this lens, the lack of image stabilization doesn't really bother me too much although you do notice not having it coming from a lens that did. If Sony released a 24mm lens with their OSS for ~$500, I probably wouldn't have bothered with this lens. My images would have been more than sharp enough, my focal length would be great, and I'd have the added benefit of OSS for less shaky shots and video.I'm happy with my purchase. The lens offers great image quality, terrific build quality, great focal length, and great close focusing. If the price was around $600 I would happily and easily recommend it. Despite my 4*(which is only 4* because the price) review because it is a great lens, I only recommend it if the price isn't an issue and you understand what you're getting here. There are options from Sigma that will get your focal length at a much much lower cost and the 35 is a great lens for the price with the added OSS. Also, the 18105 is a fantastic lens with far more versatility from wider focal length to telephoto zoom with constant f4 at around $600 with OSS at the sacrifice of close focus and f1.8.If you've read all of that and still want this lens, then by all means it is a great lens. However, if you're really on the fence and the price is bothering you, there are other options that are more versatile and even better in other ways. I'll update my review should I come across any issues or positive things to add. I'll add pictures of the lens on the camera if people want but I don't see much reason in attaching pictures taken with the lens on Amazon considering the loss of quality and size.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on May 11, 2016
I'm using this on an A6300 and came from using the NEX5T with the 35f1.8, 18105f4, as well as the 16-50 kit lens. I learned quite a bit on the NEX5T and am still learning on my A6300 and while I'm not quite a beginner I am far from an experienced photographer.
I debated over getting this lens or the 1670 Zeiss. I like having all around lenses to reduce the amount of lens changes I have to do which is what I like about the 18105. The only issue there is the lens is fairly large but I'd say very sharp for my needs. Researching the 1670 garnered a lot of mixed reviews that focused on the lottery factor for getting a good version of this lens regarding the decentered nature of many peoples copies. I know a lot of people like the 1670 but considering the price point(which currently is the same as the 24f1.8 at ~$900) as well as the fact that I have the 18105, I decided I wanted to go with the 24 Zeiss.
While improved image quality was a factor for buying the 24 Zeiss, I also understand the nature of diminishing returns when it comes to buying a high priced lens like this. I have the 35f1.8 and it is plenty sharp with great image quality and spending money on it got me far better results than the kit lens but I knew I wouldn't see that same leap of improvement going to the 24 from the 35 if much at all. I'd say the image quality overall is actually noticeably better than the 35 but most people won't need it. I don't want to go through the spectrum of reviewing wide open, stopped down, and corner and center sharpness. If you're looking for that there are plenty of resources available for that review, this review is for the middle ground people but just know that you can expect great image quality at generally all apertures as well as corner and center sharpness.
So why this lens? What I really liked about it more than any improvements in image quality above the 35 was the wider focal length and the ability to find focus a mere 6 inches from the lens. Combine these two features with improved image quality and do I find $500 of value in this lens over the 35? I honestly don't know yet. I know that I really like the wider focal length because it means I'm not squeezing against a wall or in a corner to get everything I want in frame when shooting indoors, especially considering I can focus far closer than I could with the 35. I know that those attributes also make it a great walk around lens as well. I know that the construction of the lens feels great and the focus ring as utterly smooth and great to use, especially compared to the 35. Also, like the 35mm, the f1.8 on this lens opens up the use for excellent low light photography. There is no need to use a flash to get good pictures in a dimly lit restaurant or some of the poorer lighting conditions that you would normally have indoors, especially if you're using the A6000 and up which have great performance at ISO 6400. Not only that but the shallow depth of field produced makes a very nice bokeh. The bokeh balls aren't perfectly round but the blur is smooth and definitely some of the better I have seen in a lens at around this price range.
If you're on the fence between this lens and the 35 there are a couple of things you need to consider. Price and use. Currently the 24 is running for about $900USD while the 35 is going for about $400USD. While the 35 is a major improvement over the kit lens you will not see that type of improvement going to this lens. If you're going straight from a kit lens to the 24, you will see major improvement in image quality and will definitely appreciate the f1.8 and close focus abilities. Moving past the price and ratio of improved image quality to value, the most major difference for a lot of people will be the fact that the 24 does not have any type of image stabilization in lens. If you're shooting with A6300 or lower, this means no image stabilization. It is not a huge deal if you're only shooting stills and since it is f1.8 you can usually up your shutter speed to reduce any movement from lack of image stabilization if needed. If you're planning to shoot video, the difference between this lens and the 35 can be night and day and I would suggest the 35 if video is going to be a priority with this lens.
Considering video was not a major priority for me with this lens, the lack of image stabilization doesn't really bother me too much although you do notice not having it coming from a lens that did. If Sony released a 24mm lens with their OSS for ~$500, I probably wouldn't have bothered with this lens. My images would have been more than sharp enough, my focal length would be great, and I'd have the added benefit of OSS for less shaky shots and video.
I'm happy with my purchase. The lens offers great image quality, terrific build quality, great focal length, and great close focusing. If the price was around $600 I would happily and easily recommend it. Despite my 4*(which is only 4* because the price) review because it is a great lens, I only recommend it if the price isn't an issue and you understand what you're getting here. There are options from Sigma that will get your focal length at a much much lower cost and the 35 is a great lens for the price with the added OSS. Also, the 18105 is a fantastic lens with far more versatility from wider focal length to telephoto zoom with constant f4 at around $600 with OSS at the sacrifice of close focus and f1.8.
If you've read all of that and still want this lens, then by all means it is a great lens. However, if you're really on the fence and the price is bothering you, there are other options that are more versatile and even better in other ways. I'll update my review should I come across any issues or positive things to add. I'll add pictures of the lens on the camera if people want but I don't see much reason in attaching pictures taken with the lens on Amazon considering the loss of quality and size.
Style: SEL24F18ZVerified Purchase
Great Lens but Price and other Options Should be Considered
Reviewed in the United States on May 11, 2016
This is a tricky review to do but here we go.Reviewed in the United States on May 11, 2016
I'm using this on an A6300 and came from using the NEX5T with the 35f1.8, 18105f4, as well as the 16-50 kit lens. I learned quite a bit on the NEX5T and am still learning on my A6300 and while I'm not quite a beginner I am far from an experienced photographer.
I debated over getting this lens or the 1670 Zeiss. I like having all around lenses to reduce the amount of lens changes I have to do which is what I like about the 18105. The only issue there is the lens is fairly large but I'd say very sharp for my needs. Researching the 1670 garnered a lot of mixed reviews that focused on the lottery factor for getting a good version of this lens regarding the decentered nature of many peoples copies. I know a lot of people like the 1670 but considering the price point(which currently is the same as the 24f1.8 at ~$900) as well as the fact that I have the 18105, I decided I wanted to go with the 24 Zeiss.
While improved image quality was a factor for buying the 24 Zeiss, I also understand the nature of diminishing returns when it comes to buying a high priced lens like this. I have the 35f1.8 and it is plenty sharp with great image quality and spending money on it got me far better results than the kit lens but I knew I wouldn't see that same leap of improvement going to the 24 from the 35 if much at all. I'd say the image quality overall is actually noticeably better than the 35 but most people won't need it. I don't want to go through the spectrum of reviewing wide open, stopped down, and corner and center sharpness. If you're looking for that there are plenty of resources available for that review, this review is for the middle ground people but just know that you can expect great image quality at generally all apertures as well as corner and center sharpness.
So why this lens? What I really liked about it more than any improvements in image quality above the 35 was the wider focal length and the ability to find focus a mere 6 inches from the lens. Combine these two features with improved image quality and do I find $500 of value in this lens over the 35? I honestly don't know yet. I know that I really like the wider focal length because it means I'm not squeezing against a wall or in a corner to get everything I want in frame when shooting indoors, especially considering I can focus far closer than I could with the 35. I know that those attributes also make it a great walk around lens as well. I know that the construction of the lens feels great and the focus ring as utterly smooth and great to use, especially compared to the 35. Also, like the 35mm, the f1.8 on this lens opens up the use for excellent low light photography. There is no need to use a flash to get good pictures in a dimly lit restaurant or some of the poorer lighting conditions that you would normally have indoors, especially if you're using the A6000 and up which have great performance at ISO 6400. Not only that but the shallow depth of field produced makes a very nice bokeh. The bokeh balls aren't perfectly round but the blur is smooth and definitely some of the better I have seen in a lens at around this price range.
If you're on the fence between this lens and the 35 there are a couple of things you need to consider. Price and use. Currently the 24 is running for about $900USD while the 35 is going for about $400USD. While the 35 is a major improvement over the kit lens you will not see that type of improvement going to this lens. If you're going straight from a kit lens to the 24, you will see major improvement in image quality and will definitely appreciate the f1.8 and close focus abilities. Moving past the price and ratio of improved image quality to value, the most major difference for a lot of people will be the fact that the 24 does not have any type of image stabilization in lens. If you're shooting with A6300 or lower, this means no image stabilization. It is not a huge deal if you're only shooting stills and since it is f1.8 you can usually up your shutter speed to reduce any movement from lack of image stabilization if needed. If you're planning to shoot video, the difference between this lens and the 35 can be night and day and I would suggest the 35 if video is going to be a priority with this lens.
Considering video was not a major priority for me with this lens, the lack of image stabilization doesn't really bother me too much although you do notice not having it coming from a lens that did. If Sony released a 24mm lens with their OSS for ~$500, I probably wouldn't have bothered with this lens. My images would have been more than sharp enough, my focal length would be great, and I'd have the added benefit of OSS for less shaky shots and video.
I'm happy with my purchase. The lens offers great image quality, terrific build quality, great focal length, and great close focusing. If the price was around $600 I would happily and easily recommend it. Despite my 4*(which is only 4* because the price) review because it is a great lens, I only recommend it if the price isn't an issue and you understand what you're getting here. There are options from Sigma that will get your focal length at a much much lower cost and the 35 is a great lens for the price with the added OSS. Also, the 18105 is a fantastic lens with far more versatility from wider focal length to telephoto zoom with constant f4 at around $600 with OSS at the sacrifice of close focus and f1.8.
If you've read all of that and still want this lens, then by all means it is a great lens. However, if you're really on the fence and the price is bothering you, there are other options that are more versatile and even better in other ways. I'll update my review should I come across any issues or positive things to add. I'll add pictures of the lens on the camera if people want but I don't see much reason in attaching pictures taken with the lens on Amazon considering the loss of quality and size.
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Skankhunt42
Great lens paired with an a6500
Reviewed in Canada on July 14, 2018Style: SEL24F18ZVerified Purchase
