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

Sonnar 24mm vs Touit 32mm

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by thait84, Jul 20, 2014.

  1. thait84

    thait84 New to TalkEmount

    4
    Jul 20, 2014
    I bought both of these lenses recently. While both perform really well, I am not sure if I should keep both. For reference, I use an a6000.

    The 24mm takes great pictures, but for indoor shots of my kids, sometimes I find it to be a little too wide. While it does focus fairly close, I also think it distorts some features when brought in really closely.

    The 32mm is really nice as well. It is a great focal length and takes nice pictures. The auto focus is a little bit slower (and noisy) and it doesn't focus as closely as the 24mm.

    I read a ton of discussion on which is better as the go-to prime lens (35mm vs 50mm). Now that I have both, I am a little undecided about which I like more. Does anyone else have both and can convince me if I should keep one or the other? Are they sufficiently different to keep both?

    My other lenses are the kit lens, the 50mm 1.8 Sony, and the 55-210 Sony. Does it make sense to sell the 24mm or 32mm to fund a 16-70 purchase? You only need a couple of good primes right? Even going on trips I don't like having to switch between too many lenses.
     
  2. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    I don't have the 32mm Touit, but I have the 24mm and the other two Touits. Judging from what I can say, the 24mm lens is a nicer walkaround lens. The silent and fast AF and the nearly perfect focus ring make this lens a dream to use. Plus, the maximum magnification of 1:4 is critical for me when it comes to a lens which potentially should be able to be my single walk around lens.

    Having that said, the most important factor is - which lens do you prefer? Look in your photo archives - with which lens did you take more pictures? Which lens gave you more keepers? And which lens did you prefer while using it?

    The optical quality should be relatively comparable, and the size and weight is not that far apart. The 32mm is smaller, while the 24mm has nicer AF. So in the end, it all comes down to personal preference. And that also applies to your question whether you should sell them for the 16-70. Do you need an aperture faster than f/4? If yes, then the question is answered - stay with a prime. If not, well, than ask yourself if you like zoom lenses as much or more than primes.


    That's because of the focal length, not the lens - every 24mm lens on an APS-C sensor will give you the same amount of perspective distortion. DxO Viewpoint can correct these.
     
  3. ddavi78

    ddavi78 TalkEmount Regular

    66
    Dec 28, 2013
    USA
    David
    I have both and I enjoy having them. I keep the 32mm on my Sony 5r (backup camera and for wife on trips etc) the 24mm on the a6000. If I had to keep one it would be the 24mm. I believe it is more versatile, can focus closer, I like the af more, and the feel of the focus ring better. The image quality is about the same but I give the slight edge to the Touit. It seems to have better contrast, colors, and a slight edge in sharpness. However, I wish it used the same af design as the 24mm. They are very close in focal length but I like having both as an option indoors and outdoors.


    Sent from my iPad using TalkEmount
     
  4. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    As the Touit uses a Zeiss-designed focusing motor as opposed to the Sony one in the 24mm lens, it's obvious that it has not been an option to use the same focus mechanism. And I'd say for the first AF module Zeiss ever designed, it's not too bad.

    But you can't go wrong either way, they're both fantastic lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. thait84

    thait84 New to TalkEmount

    4
    Jul 20, 2014
    Thanks for the great replies. I agree with all of your observations.

    I feel like the 24mm is definitely more versatile and it is on my camera most of the time. But if the 32mm was on the camera and I was indoors, I would be hard pressed to say "I better change the lens" versus just stepping slightly back.

    I think I will just spend more time with both. They each serve their own purpose and I can be like ddavi78 and just use one of them on a separate camera if I ever upgrade to a different e-mount body in the future.

    I really do like what I read about the 16-70 though. Maybe I will rent it one day.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    I would just add that I have and love the 50mm, but sometimes in close situations it is hard to get far enough back.
     
  7. thait84

    thait84 New to TalkEmount

    4
    Jul 20, 2014

    Yes, I love the 50mm. I paid $199 for it when I purchased my A6000 and I think it is a GREAT value. Pictures look great. Definitely a little tight sometimes, but it lets me take pictures without getting in everyone's face.
     
  8. ddavi78

    ddavi78 TalkEmount Regular

    66
    Dec 28, 2013
    USA
    David
    I agree, it is not too bad and it does work really well. It is not as noisy as I had read before I purchased the 32mm. I can say that it is really quick and accurate...I just wish it used the same design (Sony's) so that I could use it in video without the noise.


    Sent from my iPad using TalkEmount
     
  9. ddavi78

    ddavi78 TalkEmount Regular

    66
    Dec 28, 2013
    USA
    David
    I have that lens also and it is excellent. I like it for video because of the OSS - of course it is excellent for portraits too. That is the only lens I have with OSS besides the SEL1855. Which by the way is great for video if not still images. Sorry for going off topic!


    Sent from my iPad using TalkEmount