Prime Lenses will always be the sharpest of all lenses. Prime lenses like the older 35 f/2, 28 f/2, 50 f/1.7 and 50 f/1.4 are week in the Sony lineup now. The Sony 35 is a nice wide-angle lens but the 85 wide open at 1.4 is sharper. It’s the cost of manufacturing these lenses that make them so expensive and the fact that Sony has put more research and development into zoom lenses than the primes. In the future I think we will see some really nice prime lenses come out of Zeiss/Sony. Just on a note: in my personal oppinion the older Minolta 28 f/2.0 is much,much sharper than the Sony 35/ f1.4 wide open. And the Old Minolta 100 f/2 is sharper at f/2 than the 85 f1.4. The old Minolta 100 f/2 delivers one of the best bokeh of any camera lens. The only exception to this would be the Old Minolta 85 f/1.4 Limited Edition. The Minolta or Sony 50 f1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses made and bokeh is amazing. You just cant go wrong with the 50 1.4 or the 50 f1.7.
Thanks for letting me share,
AJ

On the prices-

The 35mm G is hand built, and its build quality is one of the finest I've ever seen or held. It feels like a grenade in your hand, it is heavy and all steel and glass with the focus ring being rubber of course.

The Zeiss is also extremely rugged and well built. Theres some name expenditure there as well.

Performance is going to vary a little but not by much. I've heard that the 35mm can be soft a bit, but that its a good thing (portraits and the like).

Sony knows best, but those are my best educated guesses.

Carl

Based on your advise I bought the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and love it. It's small, light weight and takes a sharp picture, even in low light.

Dave

and you will see a sharpness gain, without much of a loss in light performance :)

just a small tipper

I've been thinking about this same issue and decided to go with the 85mm, but not the ziess lens.

I'll be going with the older G series lens, unless the the CZ drops below $1k.

I already have the 50mm f/2.8 macro, so the fast 50 wouldn't make much sense.

Jason, I find that large f stop lens are most useful in "normal" conditions like when you want to take a photo of friends indoors with low light. They are also good if you want to capture the feeling of the inside of a church and not use a flash. I find that a wider to "normal" angle lens is the most useful. If you buy that 85mm lens and want to take a picture of some friends in a small, dim room, you might find it hard to back far enough away to get everyone in the picture. For low light photography, I think you will find a 35mm or 50mm lens to be much more useful. I find that most times you can get closer to your subject but frequently it's impossible to back away.

BTW the old Konica lens I mentioned above was 57mm f1.2 not 1.4 as I had stated. I was a BIG chunk of glass and I loved it but even at 57 mm on a full frame camera, I found that I had to frequently back up to capture what I wanted.

If you photograph a lot of weddings the 85mm f/1.4 might prove ideal. You will not need to be on the alter with the couple getting married.

I would like to get my hands on one of the old Minolta 35mm f/1.4 lenses but they are asking too much money for them.

Dave

I rarely take shots indoors. If it's an indoor photo session, its usually macro's, or pictures of the dog sleeping. That was my main reason for getting the 50mm macro instead of the 100mm (next to price). I don't know how to justify having very little money, but at the same time owning 2 lenses with the same focal length. I guess I just avoid low light situations, or pop up that harsh flash unit.

A friend of mine works at Sonystyle in the mall near my school, so I'd go there and play around with their lenses on occasion. I'd have to admit that image quality of the 35mm 1.4 wasn't as sharp or as clean as with the 85mm 1.4. Maybe it was inexperience, or my eyes were still blurry from shock of the price of the 35mm. I just did not see this amazing quality I've heard so much about from the 35mm, but it was there in the 85mm regardless of what body I used it on.

If I had a pot of cash sitting in my room, I'd go get both. But on a grad student's budget, it'll just have to wait. :)

I've actually looked for an older 35mm and have never been able to find them.

Since Sony obviously has had some problems with the Auto Focus systems in some of there cameras, I am not surprised to see so many different opinions on lenses. A good test for sharpness on any lens would be to use it on a film camera w/ tripod and shoot some transparencies (slide film) like Kodak PKR 135-35 Kodacrome 64 Pro film or Fujicrome Velvia 50 RVP 135-35.
Just my thoughts.
AJ