The Spanish website DSLRmagazine (google translation here) is the first website posting a full lens review of the new Zeiss Touit lenses!
Zeiss 12mm f/2.8:
The graph on top shows the sharpness of the lens. And the tester says that “the performance, both in the center and in the corners is spectacular“. Also the distortion and vignetting are very well controlled and almost non visible.
Zeiss 32mm f/1.8:
Also in that case we have an absolute stellar performance: “The center and corner performance is very high from the positive maximum aperture and in fact “the curve” response reminds us of the extraordinary Carl Zeiss Sonnar T * 35mm f / 2 riding the Sony RX1.”
In short “The optical performance is the highest level we ever tested. You could say that at the moment are “state of the art” optics for CSC.”
Zeiss preorder links:
12mm f/2.8 at BHphoto (Click here), Adorama (Click here) and Uniquephoto (Click here). In Europe at FotoMundus.
32mm f/1.8 at BHphoto (Click here), Adorama (Click here) and Uniquephoto (Click here). In Europe at FotoMundus.
40 Responses
The 12 f/2.8 looks good but the 32 f/1.8 is not impressed.
lol, did you not read the comments about the performance of the 32mm perhaps you should just head back to the mFT forum
In short “The optical performance is the highest level we ever tested. You could say that at the moment are “state of the art” optics for CSC.”
It doesn’t matter. It is not impressed whatever comment they have. I judge the test result not their conclusions/comments/opinions.
I’d be very surprised if the lens -was- impressed by what someone says about it.
who can still say there is no good lense for E-Mount?
There have always been good lenses for E mount. The problem for many is that most of them aren’t really cheap. New Zeiss lenses won’t solve this problem. For instance, even though Fuji is a more expensive system in general, getting lenses of similar performance is actually cheaper than for NEX.
Those who have already been investing so much for m43 system
Because? What does it matter for a m4/3 user if the NEX system gets some great lenses, or the EF or F mount?
OMFG!!!
I have to win in a lottery or i don’t know get a got bunch of money…
I know what Zeiss is capable of as I’m owning the Sel-24f18z. It’s not the “test results”, it’s the color, the look of the pictures, everything!!!
I wonder how IQ compares to the Olympus 75mm f1.8 as it too received similar accolades – looking forward to some objective data 🙂
well designing a short tele is dramatically easier than designing an ultra wide lens perhaps how it compares to the wide angle offerings would be more appropriate .Anyway a lens is only part of the equation as can be demonstrated by how easily the far cheaper Nikon 85mm f1.8g on the D7100 outperforms the 75 mm on the E-M5, lens plus sensor is what matters
Well unless the 7100 is some sort of revolution in sensor tech it will be marginally better than the OM-D/75 1.8 combo
The Nikon 85 1.8 combined with a D7100 gets a DXO score of 25 vs 23 for a GH2 & 75 1.8 combination.
I imagine that the 7100 and OM-D being thrown into the mix would slightly improve both scores but they are fairly close in performance.
typo above, the Nikon camera in the dxo test was the 7000, not the 7100
I assume Bob’s point is the ease which designing a short tele has compared to wide angle , the 85 mm F1.8g is half the price of the Olympus 75mm and yes it will score higher on the D7100 which is a better sensor compared to the D7000 which itself is already better than the best mFT sensor,
sensor scores E-M5 D7000 D7100
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/865|0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/793|0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/680|0/(brand3)/Nikon
Agree that the 7100 has a great sensor 🙂 I use a D800 now but I used to own the prior model to the 7100, the 7000.
I am just surprised by how close the OM-D with the 75 1.8 comes to a D7000 with the 85 1.8
Not just on DXO scores but actual use.
Oh and on comparing the 75 with the shorter FL Zeiss’, im not looking for some sort of stand-off between the two, just to see how two recent lenses that got good reviews compare IQ wise (perceptive pix, etc)
Perceptive resolution will be always higher with a telephoto given they are in the same optical generation.
As for the test, it seems that they just used JPEGs. Comparing the Touit 12 to the Fuji 14, the 14 is better in every aspect. However, the low vignette in the 14 really shows a questionable result from this site.
“… as can be demonstrated by how easily the far cheaper Nikon 85mm f1.8g on the D7100 outperforms the …” Good luck carrying that combo around all day. I’ll take my NEX-7 with Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 over a Nikon D-something any day. And what’s with all the the pixel peeping nowadays? Good is good. Even the cheap Sigma 30mm f/2.8 performs great.
comparing IQ between a 32mm and a 75mm sounds like absolute nonsense
Maybe it is nonsense if you are just looking to argue about which is better.
Unlike you, I’m not wanting to argue, just curious as to what the IQ difference between to well reviewed lenses is.
I wonder how close you can focus 32 f1.8 . I have zeiss 24 f1.8 and you can come up very close subject . Of course it is not macro lens but any way it is very useful .
alonzo> thanks, this is the question that I would want to ask too! Which makes me consider which lenses I should get.
Just have a look at the Zeiss spech.
The minimum focus distance is 37 cm for the 32mm (so not very close…) and 18 cm for the 12mm
Thanks Alain> 37cm is as bad as sony SEL50F1.8. Sigh! Which means that if I wanted to take a photo of my plate of food on the table. I still need to stand up. Furthermore for 32mm focal length at 37mm the plate will appear very small in the photo. : (
Then stand up and be thankful that you can do so. Be thankful you can afford all of these toys, boys!
Your welcome Mart.
In my opinion the 24 mm is a more versatile lens than the 32mm. But the 32 mm is very probably the sharpest. And as Poki noticed it, the maximum magnification is better on the 24mm. It is still a really wonderful lens.
The perfect kit for me (as it is recommended to double the focal length) :
12mm -> 24mm -> 50mm
But I will take the sony 50mm which is better on aperture and has stabilization.
I missed now a great zoom lens !!
Maximum magnification for both the 1.8/32 and the 2.8/12 is 1:9. For comparison, the Sonnar T* E 1.8/24 goes all the way close to 1:4.
Interestingly,same lenses on fuji and sony CSC, giving different comments..
Yeah I don’t know…
I’m not even going to judge anything we’ve seen from these lenses until trusted reviewers using proper RAW workflows get their hands on them.
State-of-the Art-lenses in focal lengths I don’t use doesn’t do me any good. Where are the short-tele primes??? No 90mm f/1.8 = no sale.
You want a good WA lens? Go buy a Nikon 14-24… Oh! Get an adapter for Sony to use it or perhaps a D800, maybe a D4, and don’t ever worry about charts or reviews and opinions.
Wait … After Trey Ratcliff switched from his D800 and 14-24 to a NEX-7 and Sony 10-18 we should do the opposite switch? I don’t know. Generally I’d say if it’s good enough for Trey, it’s good enough for me. Don’t you think?
LPR have no clue who Trey Ratcliff is! Or, is he? 🙂
Who is this guy?
What about zeiss 50mm ? Is it f2.8 ? Is it true 1:1 macro or like zf 50,100 line 1:2 magnification ?
Zeiss, please make :
f2 and 1:1 macro
I have one question, are these FF lenses? Can they be used when the NEX FF comes out?
no man, you will have to purchase more lenses
That sounds disappointing 🙁
No, I’m assuming they can be used in crop mode. Not ideal, but still usable.
With the exception of a good 16mm lens, I think we’re now done with wide to normal lenses. Let’s start working on those teles.
I agree!!! A small 85mm f2 from Zeiss would do the trick, that’s something I’d pay a grand for!!