Click on the image to enlarge and read the details!
–
One month ago I told you that one of the four Full Frame E-mount lenses that Sony will announce soon is the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 lens. And finally we can be 100% sure it’s coming because the SEL35F28Z has been listed at Sony Germany (Click here). And there is a full PDF file (download here/ and in english here) that describes the lens (Thanks Eddy for finding this). The text says:
The Sonnar T FE 35mm F2.8 ZA is compatible with the range of a 35mm format image sensor. The other lenses are compatible with the range of an APS-C sized image sensor. A camera equipped with a 35mm format image sensor can be set to shoot at APS-C size. For details on how to set your camera, refer to its instruction manual.
The image on top shows the specs and the size of the lens. It’s quite small compared with the [shoplink 8450 ebay]Zeiss 24mm f/1.8[/shoplink] lens!
As I told you yesterday the E-mount FF camera (or better said cameras!) are one of the best keep Sony secrets. I know they are coming but I am still not 100% sure if they will be announced within 2013 or in January 2014. Stay tuned on SAR the next couple of days and weeks. Images are coming for sure and also many more camera and lens info. Working day and (sometimes) night lately to work on reliable rumors! And very important. Not Sony camera/lens owners should follow SAR. Canon and Nikon lens owners should follow us too! Spread the word guys!
Reminder: Zeiss once made the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon T* for the M-mount system (you can find the lens here at Amazon US or [shoplink 19913 ebay]eBay[/shoplink]).
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
187 Responses
Wait, did I read this right.
Did u write FF cameras as in plural ?
ops….yes 😉
P.S.: But I don’t know they will come all now. That is a rumor I am working on.
Do you already know if its going to be placed above or under the first NEX FF in terms of spec/price.
I am happy, but I must say this.
Since it is just f2.8 I hope this time they make it as a pancake.
Thats all.
don’t know the size. But I don’t think it’s a pancake.
from the pdf size comparisons it looks about half the size of the 50 and similar to the 16 pancake 😀
Dimensions (maximum diameter × height) = 61.5 × 36.5
EXCITING 😀
Anything else my Lord? Shall it strip for you too?
This is the kind of request that doesnt know the compromises that lens designers have to go through in order to deliver a pancake lens.
If the wish is granted, I am pretty sure the compromises made (aperture, sharpness, distortion, price) would still make him unhappy and not buy it anyways.
LOL, I know a lens cant strip for me! That’s impossible!
But you on the other hand…
You could post a pic or two of your abilities.
It’s been argued before, but Sony probably want to avoid releasing lenses and then getting them reviewed unfavorably with Leica, ZM Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses.
So instead Sony focuses on what it knows it can do well at f2.8 for it’s own lenses and then allow folks to adapt a 35Cron/lux, ZM 35 or VC35/1.2 for fast high-IQ.
pancake?!?! no RF lens of range 35mm was a pancake except the 35/3.5 elmar. even the 35/3.5 summaron is thicker than nex 16/2.8.
Yeah, 35mm 2.8 is quite unexciting. Heck, RX1 has 35mm 2.0 full frame.
they should have made it a f2 or 1.8 if its that small a little bigger would have been fine.
Here are the specs I guess, http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4290406121.pdf, thanks to google!
Nice. Its quite small compared to the 24 1.8 APS.
Indeed it does look small. If the camera body is reasonably small too (surely much smaller than FF DSLRs), then this sounds like a winner for me…
Thanks!
Nice! That is smaller than the SEL35F18, excellent!
And same number of elements/groups as the ZM Biogon.
The Sony 35 f/1.8 is faster (35/1,8 = 19,4 mm maximal aperture diameter compared to 12,5 mm at 2,8) and it has OSS!
– When using FF Sensor instead of APS-C you achieve at 35 mm focal length with f/2.8 the same DOF as on APS-C 24 mm and f/1.85, therefore the lens can be smaller because of smaller apterure diameter.
– If the FF E-mount cameras really have IBIS you could really save space at the lenses, because there has to be no floating lenses!
– If Sony uses in camera focusing systems (moving the sensor instead of adjusting the lens groups) you can save so much space in lenses! No electrical components needed except for aperture control!
I meant portability. I have the SEL35F18 and it makes for a very small package, so I simply use it as a reference. Iwasn’t comparing the glass.
“When using FF Sensor instead of APS-C you achieve at 35 mm focal length with f/2.8 the same DOF as on APS-C 24 mm and f/1.85, therefore the lens can be smaller because of smaller apterure diameter.”
Btw, that is incorrect. They will have the same aperture diameter.
Why would they? The f-number is calculated like this: N (f-number) = f (focal lenghth)/D (diameter of the entrance pupil (effective aperture))… therefore the diameter of the entrance pupil is smaller with the FF lens… From my understanding, it does not have to be bigger because it is Fullframe!
My bad, you are wright… Entrance pupil from 24 f/1.8 and 35 f/2.8 are nearly the same!
The lens you are mentioning does not concern any full frame camera but APS-C.
It is a sort of pancake lens.
Length: approx 3,5cm
Weight: 120g
Where do you see that it is for APS-C?
so why does it says “FE” 35/2.8 instead of “E” 35/2.8, like all APS-C lens, the F probably stands for fullframe
right!
It is very clear from the PDF link, that it is indeed a FF lens.
It sounds like a full compatibility system.. 😉
Keep up the great work Andrea! (Voglio la nex FF….)
looks good about half the size of the Zeiss 24mm 1.8
For 600-700US I’d buy it.
Is it just me or are a lot of these leaks coming from Sony Germany?
You dont mean a FF NEX in DSLT shape that can take Lenses from different manufacterers when you “accidentally” write cameras do you?
Translated =
The FE Sonnar T 35mm F2.8 ZA is compatible with the range of an image sensor in the small format (35 mm). The other lenses are compatible with the range of an image sensor in APS-C format. An image sensor with a small format (35 mm) equipped camera can be set to record in the APS-C format.
For details on setting your camera please refer to their instructions.
Can’t wait to get the new FF system.
i want one
There is clearly an APS-C lens … as they come out it’s a FF lens?
Download the pdf. It’s written in many languages that it is for FulL Frame 🙂 I will highlight the text in my next post.
Show the new stuff, it’s a rumour site. Please
So in the future any FF E-mount lens will have an ‘FE’ in its name. Now the remaining question is whether it will get the built-in stabilization or some other lens will provide it. Still sounds a bit too good to be true.
Wow, if it’s the same as the ZM C-Biogon it’ll be a top performer. Many Leica users regard che C-Biogon as the best 35mm for Leica.
It is the best Zeiss 35 mm for M Mount (though not a big difference to the f 2) but nowhere near the Summilux ( also pricewise)!
Last time I checked, the C-Biogon has more even resolution (the Lux FLE is a wild ride across the frame), much less focus shift, much better distortion control, smaller, and much cheaper. Don’t know what is your definition of better?
I guess for him Leica always equals better than anything else?
I’m a big Leica fan, I own a Noctilux f1 e60 which I consider being the best 50mm ever made, because of its character. Still, I wouldn’t dare call it better than a Zeiss Makro Planar, optically speaking.
The C-Biogon 35 is just extraordinary
No I think the best 50 mm is the new APO cron, but I don’t own it so I can’t really judge. I have the Summilux 50 though and it is hard for me to believe that there is anything better out there…
Leica is probably not always the best but it’s never the worst, actualy not even bad (when it comes to lenses, body is a different story). But I also agree that Zeiss has some excellent lenses and the 35 mm F2.8 is one of them!
Are we speaking of the same lens? Focus Shift? Distortion? I don’t know, if you really own one, send it back to Leica, that’s not normal. If you just judge based on internet reviews then that explains a lot…
Why would I want to own this lens when the value in my book is not great? I did rent it and some other interesting M lenses to test out. I know different people have different tolerance for things such as distortion, IQ and such… I didn’t say the Lux FLE has a lot of distortion, but the C-Biogon certainly has less. As for focus shift, I didn’t notice it that much during the rental period, but I shot mostly landscape. However, Sean Reid did a really good comparison to show that the FLE still has problem with focus shift. In all, if it’s a Leica doesn’t mean it would be the top in its FL. The only lens I want from the Leica M line-up is the 21 SEM. And if you think the 50AA is the best 50, you have to check the recent Erwin Putt comparison between that lens and the Distagon 55/1.4. I think the Distagon beat the 50AA quite handily while being cheaper and faster (admittedly much bigger and heavier).
But if you’re happy with your Leica lenses, then keep shooting with them. The FLE is a fine lens, but to say it’s way better than the C-biogon is just ignorance.
It says it’s a sonnar, but at least the 24/1.8 half-frame one looked nothing like a traditional sonnar, just some random design by sony.
This could be another one of them.
Again I don’t get the point of releasing such a low-specced lens as the first in a new lens line, they should’ve revived the planar 35/2.
Pressured by (seemingly) the mass, Sony needs to have a relatively small lens for the new system. People, with the obsession of pancake lenses, tend to voice it out more often. The perk is that it will be cheaper than if they are going for an f/2 or f/1.4. I’ll simply wait it out for the native lenses. Even now, the APS-C NEX system doesn’t even have one truly native high-speed lens.
My guess is, they believe that many people will use manual lenses on the NEXFF, so providing an even more expensive AF one won’t be a great idea. On the other hand, they also can’t pair it with some kit lens junk as it is supposed to be a high-end system. So they take the middle road for starters.
There would be too many alternatives if they release a 35/2.8, it’s still not cheap, but considering the price of lenses these days, nothing is, maybe except Sigma, but then Sigma still uses too much plastic…
Come to think of it, a 35/2.8 is too easy to focus even wide open, it doesn’t even need AF…maybe something like 85/1.4 would’ve been a better choice, anything with a DoF that could at least be called shallow.
Flip the desk of the 24/1.8 around and add some correcting elements and you get something closer to Sonnar. Same with the RX1.
shut up and TAKE MY MONEY!
They also have mine!
and mine!
+1
So it may be possible that an entry level full-frame NEX with no EVF and this lens to be the same size as the Sony RX1 ?
its possible, but i’m hoping it will have a EVF! i don’t care about built in flash and prefer not to have it in my RX1 also
I love the small size of the 35mm prime! Just what I want.
24mm, 35mm and 85mm primes is all I need. F2.8 if ok for me.
exchange the 24 with a 21 and it is also perfect for me! Would buy the entire system from day 1!
a 21/2.8 would not be small.
Why not? The Contax-G Biogon 21/2.8 is small indeed
Until you see what kind of steep angle you have to deal with…
don’t need 2.8 if the sensor can deal with high iso I would also take 4.5 like the C- Biogon, but also the Biogon 21 is not too big…
How Sony can maintain three products line without sacrify one ? A-mount, E-mount and now FF E-mount. Some people want new nex-7, others cheaper A99 and some A5000 and A7000. I think that soon, the A-mount will die.
Of course the A-mount will die. It’s just a matter of time. All DSRL -based mounts are left over from film age, and they will be slowly replaced by new mirrorless mounts, that give more freedom and flexibility for optical designing.
Yup, a matter of time. It’s just not going to happen anytime soon. Unless Canikon can somehow make the transition seamlessly, any other player is irrelevant. Sony is content with being the third biggest player on the market, so this is the right move. To me, A-mount still has that advantage of bigger throat size. If E-mount has a bigger throat size, all the corner color cast and smearing would be a thing of the past. How big? Well, it should easily accommodate that rear element of the 35/2 on RX1.
Another reason this is so exciting: if it starts selling well like other recent Sony cameras, it will really force Canon & Nikon to follow suit.
There may be a glut of mirrorless FF cameras on the market in a few years time.
Then again Canikon haven’t had a great showing in the mirrorless space so far…
i thought it had to do with the angle of light? leagcy rangefinder wide angle lenses usually let the light on to the sensor at a steep angle (they do that for portability and because they can, since there is no mirrorbox in rangefinder cameras either) which digital sensors have a hard time dealing with. or did i get that wrong?
Yup, it’s the ray angle. You can largely eliminate that with a big rear element to ensure most would be perpendicular to the sensor. The rear element of the Sonnar 35/2 is big because of that. So in short, the E-mount would be better off with a larger throat size. Even with a mirror-box design, a large mount ensures minimal mechanical cut-off (most commonly seen as cut-off bokeh in the corners). This can be easily observed from an image of a lens (let’s say a modern Zeiss) on a Nikon (quite small throat size) and a Canon (biggest DSLR throat).
YES!!!!! THIS IS IT!!! The FF NEX must be announced in September, especially when the lens is almost ready for launch!
It is clearly stated in the PDF that this is a full frame lens, both in German and Swedish 😉
On top of that it is dust and splash proof! This means that the FF NEX will be dust and splash proof, just like the next NEX-7 was rumoured to be. Good stuff!!!
I agree, it must be close to announcement. I cant wait really.
They chose to make a 2.8 using some (possibly) unknown design instead of a 1.4 double gauss, which has a completely acceptable size (see summilux 35), regardless of the body. I’ll be buying manual lenses until they change their mind and make something to really compliment the pro model of the NEX series.
But I’ll snatch the body as soon as I have the money!
Leica is always pushing the boundary with size. In that compact form factor, the freaking Lux ASPH has much more specialized glass to maintain good res. and keep the CA at bay. If you really want such a lens, buy one for the size. Zeiss is not going for size. They are going relatively accessible optics with good to excellent optical performance. Look at the Distagon 55/1.4 and the Leica 50/2 AA.
Zeiss only designed the Distagon because it was suitable for DSLRs, this now is not the case. Shorter flange range, much smaller standards/wides. Double gauss isn’t a hard design to copy, the old simpler Summilux was of similar size, Zeiss(Sony) should be able to make something with 80% the performance, 120% the size, plus autofocus, and Japs use asphericals/eds extensively, and make lenses with higher error tolerance, so they end up cheaper, either way it would end up somewhat smaller than the old kit zoom, small enough, and shouldn’t be anywhere near the Summilux’s pricing, I’m guessing if Sony doesn’t try to rip people off it should be around $800, considering the ease of design and manufacture that should be it, according to Sony’s usual pricing, it should be somewhere around $1400, still much cheaper than the Leica.
If you look to Leica’s R lens designs you’d know that it makes even larger and heavier lenses than Zeiss, it’s not always trying to reduce size.
The only problem I could think of is the small exit diameter of the E-mount,. I’m not sure if the mount is even big enough to fit a FF double gauss 35/1.4’s rear element.
Being designed for a DSLR system is irrelevant to the size of the current Distagon. Compared to a nominal DSLR 50ish 1.4, this Zeiss is at least twice the size and weight. On the other hand, the 50 AA is quite within the nominal size of an RF 50/2. BTW, I brought up these two lenses because both were touted for being the best normal lens. Leica R is a distant past, not the philosophy as today Leica. You can watch the interview from Leica regarding the making of the 50 AA (they do prioritize in size). Same go for Distagon (less specialty glass since size is not matter).
As for specialty glass element, you should realize that those advertised ASPH, APO, or ED are not always the same between brands. You can get APO, ED designation in a cheaply made zoom from Sigma/Tamron. By the way, the Distagon 55/1.4 doesn’t have the APO designation (since it doesn’t have one), but it has even better APO attribution (CA control) than the 50 AA.
Finally, I don’t think anyone would want only 80% performance of the Lux FLE. That would be a terrible piece of glass. The current Sigma is already better than the Lux. What I agree with you is that the throat size of the E-mount is too small to have an excellent, high-speed WA at small size. And I doubt Sony optical engineers have the know-how. The only company out there beside Leica that can possibly do this is Fuji. Too bad, they don’t have enough financial backup to come up with a mirrorless FF at the moment. And I sure hope it would not be that stupid Fuji matrix filter array.
The large rear corrective element common to Fuji mirrorless and Sony lenses (eg. RX1) and which ideally requires a wider mount than E for a fullframe image-circle is only needed until sensors tech improves. Backside illumination is another method to handle shallow angle-of-incidence issues with WA short rear-exit pupil lenses.
And how long can one expect to see such tech in a large sensor? Sony/Fuji/Zeiss can’t just build a WA with such steep ray of incident nowadays in hope that the future would bring a sensor that can cope well enough. At the same time, a large rear element lens would highly perform better on such sensor compared to a Biogon-like design. Only if Sony had made the E-mount bigger… This greatly contributes to the flexibility of the EF mount as well as highly regarded Leica S digital MF.
I don’t know how long, but there’s currently a race on, since BIL is also the next logical engineering step to improve iso/noise. It’s already standard in cellphones. Fuji partnered with panasonic to focus on backside + organics. Meanwhile Sony are using for RX100ii sensor which explains the model’s superior sensor characteristics.
Bigger mount would have been better, ok. But the E-Mount is already taller than the NEX-5x bodys…
Bigger than that would have been really strange. Otherwise they could have sacrified compacity of the NEX-5x.
How much bigger is bigger. The Nex mount is already bigger than Nikon, Leica and most everyone else except Canon. If you take a ruler and compare the NEX mount to the Sony Alpha mount on camerasize.com, it looks to have the same amount of space for the rear element:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,201
So how much bigger is bigger? Like the Sony FZ mount which also has an 18mm flange (but wider)?
http://www.gizmag.com/sony-f5-f55-cameras/25161/pictures#9
With a mirror box in the way, the throat size is not as critical. However, the principle is still the same. If the exit rays are always perpendicular to the sensor, you would have the best possible IQ. So now when you consider mirrorless and retrofocus WA design (mainly for compact size with good IQ), this principle is even more critical since the rear element is very close to the sensor. So to say that the E-mount (46mm) is already bigger than the F-mount (44mm) is irrelevant. Leica (44mm) has to resort to all kind of tricks since they’re stuck with such limited size.
Alpha mount is 49mm in diameter while the Canon EF is a whopping 54mm. How much bigger you ask? I would prefer the Canon size as it’s a proven size. Of course, there is an optimized throat size for each flange distance, but it’s too costly to build several lens and camera designs.
Given the issues you mentioned, the e-mount seems like a great design for aps-c lenses. In the NEX system, do you think the lenses designed for the APS-C sensor in the NEX system would work better than their equivalent in FF?
For example, would the 24mm f/1.8 for APS-C would work better than the 35mm f/2.8 in FF
And would equivalent lenses theoretically work better by using the wide throat for APS-C rather than the narrow throat for FF? If that’s the case, it just seem illogical that they would go forward with the FF NEX design.
Well, Sony was not confident about the FF possibility on NEX until recently. Until Sony just churns out fast f/1.4 lenses for this NEX FF with good performance, I don’t believe the current size is ideal. Slow lens can mask this flaw. I sure hope the 35/2.8 would perform better than the current 24/1.8. It’s a much easier lens to design
It’s big because it’s a retrofocus, it’s a retrofocus because of the long flange range, the flange range is long because it’s a DSLR system, I don’t see what part of this hasn’t been made clear.
Is there even a retrofocus 50/2? Not that I’ve heard of. Earlier in history lenses like this were triplet derivatives (including Sonnars), then everybody moved on to double gauss, an exception may be the 40/2 Skopagon, which I don’t see resemble any other design class.
The R system was discontinued within 10 years, I think most of Leica’s work has been done before that, and that does represent Leica’s strategy.
I know about that, everybody has different standards for what to call their elements, I just didn’t think it was relevent in the discussion.
By 80% I meant 80% overall, not MTF. Who was it that said it? Judging a lens by its MTF is about as useful as judging a headphone by its frequency response. I concur. As for flare and CA, German lenses are already good enough from the 80s on, further decreases don’t nessesarily contribute to better image rendition. I also suspect that Japanese lenses tend to cut part of the spectrum to decrease CA, surly the much lower transmission of shorter wave lengths in modern lead-free glass make it easier to control purple fringes. Of course this ruins the color making images rendered look plain, while easily performing better in lab tests.
Since you do own Contax lenses you’d probably know what I mean, while not as sharp as modern glass at 100% crop, some old fine glass have better microcontrast, and makes the subject in focus stand out better (when you put your attention to the entire picture)than modern glass, I don’t know if they have a way of detecting this difference but it probably doesn’t show on MTF charts.
Finally, why is Fuji’s matrix stupid? It does seem to do its job.
Have you wondered why Zeiss chose to go with a retrofocus design for a normal lens? Typically, retrofocus is only used for a wide-angle since as you said to avoid the mirror box (the conventional symmetrical design of a WA would have the rear element too close to the film/sensor plane). However, a normal 50ish focal don’t have such problem.
What we were debating so far is the philosophy behind Leica and Zeiss (and to some extent Sony Zeiss). Zeiss would avoid to use ASPH and APO elements as much as possible so to reach a certain performance goal, the size and weight would be sacrificed. As such, they feel that the conventional Planar schematic no longer sufficient; thus they go with the Distagon/retrofocus. Leica, on the other hand, would not hesitate to use any specialty elements in their design to reach the goal with the priority of size in mind. It’s not that they have any other choice since the only 135 format they have left at the moment is the M system (so that’s why I said the R philosophy is the thing of the past) which would demand the small size of the lens to not interfering with the RF.
So then come to another point since you think that Sony (and other Japanese lens makers) can just produce a much cheaper, similar performance lens (or 80% in your term seems like pretty darn close to between 55% and 60% MTF) with their own APO and ASPH formula/standard with a slight penalty in size. Well, it’s not that simple, since a Leica APO lens would be clearly superior than what a Japanese (e.g. Minolta/Sony) maker APO lens (I can produce tons of examples but simply look at the Minolta 200 APO HS and Leica 180 Elmarit APO). So I doubt that Sony (or even Canikon) would be able to come up with a lens that is slightly bigger than a top of the line Leica and still retains “somewhat” of the goodness.
And I use all of the resources out there before I make my purchase. MTF certainly would not tell the whole picture. But it is the most objective way to compare two lenses. Too bad, you can only compare the MTFs between Zeiss (measured) and Leica (calculated but factoring in the diffraction) since everybody else really like to inflate their numbers (Sony is no exception). And then I have to shoot with the lens myself to form a subjective evaluation. As such, I have not rushed out to get that Leica 50AA. The Distagon seems like a better option. But I sure will shoot with both in the future. It’s just like when I did the comparison between the latest ZA 50/1.4 and the Contax 55/1.2. As suspected, as brilliant as the ZA is for a Planar lens, it did not give me any advantage over a much more compromised Contax.
No I don’t wonder this, I could practically guess that it’s because the retrofocus design allows for more correction, given sufficient calculations.
You think modern Zeiss would avoid using ASPH and APO elements? Maybe Contax Zeiss…but Cosina Zeiss? Really? A simple comparison between the old Planar 135/2 and the APO-Sonnar 135/2 should tell you the exact opposite wouldn’t it? If you ask me I’d say that Zeiss is more and more relying on these elements just like Japanese manufacturers.
You seem to think that performance could only be achieved by special elements or an increase in size? I have no proof against it but I don’t think that’s the case either, maybe a comparison between OM lenses and other Japanese SLR lenses of the same period could say otherwise, but I’m familiar with neither. I’m currently trying to convert a Super Cinelux 35 for photography, if it works out as planned then it’ll do, if it doesn’t (image circle problem, Ultras and Premieres cover FF, but I’m not sure about Supers), I’ll be getting an OM 35/2.
Actually by 80% I mean better MTF curves but almost all loss of character, and worse colors, any merit that doesn’t show up in lab tests could be lost, after all this is what modern Japanese lenses tend to be, right? Better in tests but worse real life results, sharp indeed but not…pleasing, if you will.
Yeah, everybody inflates their numbers, but since I don’t care about MTFs this doesn’t concern me. I think the only actual way of getting a grasp of how a lens performs is by hundreds of real life shots, and fiddling with them in Lightroom( some aspects are revealed only through post processing, different rendition of color is sometimes exaggerated).
It’s good that we are on the same page with why Zeiss chose the Distagon design. But somehow, the idea that Zeiss is willing to sacrifice the size and weight eluded you. Zeiss can easily design something similar with APO to the Leica 50AA at the current DSLR 50 size.
As for the inclusion of APO element in the recent 135, that does not mean Zeiss is willing to use that all the time. Current Zeiss line-up has one lens in APO. Current Leica M line-up has 3 lenses in APO in relatively short focal lengths. Back in the day, Contax has one APO lens for anything below 200mm (the 200 Apo Sonnar); longer focal length is likely to have APO for much better performance and since they’re costly to make anyway. Leica R line-up has 4 below 200mm. I think you can see a pattern here. You have to read more in the history of Zeiss to understand that this is a common practice at Zeiss to avoid the use of specialty glass until it’s really needed (read the article on the history of the making of the two Contax Jahre 85 and 55 from Marco Cavina). Also read some interviews on the making of the Distagon 55 to understand.
And if you doubt by increasing size or employing specialty glasses to greatly enhance the lens performance to meet the goal, please read Dr. Nasse (from Zeiss) articles on MTFs to see that they are simply facts. In the end, if you hope Sony/Zeiss could come with a small, fast lens would perform as great as a top-of-the-line Leica (now you want to have similar MTF performance but lack the Leica characteristics), it would not be possible. Zeiss doesn’t have that philosophy and Sony optical engineers don’t have the know-how. Fuji is the only one would be able to do that at the moment. I shoot mainly landscape, so the Fuji matrix would incur some of the water color effect (not always but I know it will in hundreds of pictures I will take in a trip). Fuji way is for a niche market of high iso shooters. Sony camera can’t do as good, but it’s reliable for all purposes.
Good luck with the Super Cinelux conversion. I know it’s going to be a fun project.
It will be bit thicker (70mm vs. 80-85mm) but not by much and it will have usable grip = much better.
Why is the 24mm 1.8 on the comparison. Does it seems that it can be use with full frame Nex ?
Thanks to everyone can answer me 🙂
Because 24 mm on APS-C gives the same field of view like 35 mm on FF! 24*1,5=36
The APS-C 24 mm lens should show extreme vignetting on FF sensor… If you use it in crop mode tough you would get a 35 mm FOV and have many unused pixel…
Thank you Paul !!
So it is not recommend to use a lens which is not “made” for FF, because of vignetting issue.
Sad, I though I could have use all my Nex lenses 🙂
Unless you missed the obvious, you can still use your APS-C lens on this FF-NEX. But it will be in cropped mode. The current ZA 24/1.8 is passable in APS-C. Even if it’s usable in FF, I wouldn’t want to use it.
You have to build an big and expensive package for 24 f/1.8… You could achieve the same effect with a bigger sensor while using cheaper glass. You would not want to use that big 24 mm lens when you could use a smaller 35 mm FF lens 😉
True, unless 24 is the FL he wants.
“You could achieve the same effect with a bigger sensor while using cheaper glass.”
But you would be paying more for the body, so essentially you will pay the same for the same effect.
Well, whoever is thinking going for a FF system as a cheaper option would need to rethink.
Holy Moly I was about to turn off my PC and go to bed and BANG! A First FULL FRAME LENS FOR E Mount! Now I’m going to be up for a few hours. lol
lol 🙂
Thanks Andrea, you’re the Best~!
Whow, small 120g compared to my 430g bulky Summicron-R 2/35. This really starts to show the advantage of mirrorless E-Mount – and this awesome Lens Hood one can really have on this Lens when walking around instead of missing it laying at home. If the pricing won’t be too ugly FullFrame E-Mount should bring lots fo fun…
Why Summicron R instead of M? I just wonder.
That’s a Lens I’m having more than twenty years now and used it with a Leica R4 then. Really works very fine adapted to NEX, but is so damn heavy. That’s what I love so much about NEX that it’s so extremely size reduced compared to (D)SLR and the FullFrame-NEX even seems to improve this advantage…
My Zeiss Flektogon 35/2.4 cost me €10. Excellent contrast, colors and center sharpness wide open, stopped down to 2.8 probably not much worse than this new Zeiss lens. MFD (0.19m) superior than the new Sonnar (0.35m).
I guess I’ll stick to it…
The Flek is great value (and of course I would buy 20 at that price), but on the NEX it is not as good as the SEL35F18
This should be on an even greater level but it will also cost more than the SEL24F18Z so maybe 1000$ would be my guess.
And I also miscalculated the thickness as I forgot the mount so it should be closer to the RX1.
You can say the same thing with pretty much a lot of focal lengths when comparing a legacy lens to a native lens. Do you have AF? Do you have smaller overall package? Do you have a seamlessly aperture control? I guess if you don’t care, then just buy the cheapest legacy lens that you need.
You trade in better build quality, better MF operation, and manual aperture(in-body aperture control is confusing and useless unless you absolutely need shutter priority), and a lot more money for that.
You also lose rendition with more character.
Well, the point is that it’s useless to bring up such comparison. You will gain some, lose some either way. So it depends on your style. But to compare the flekto with this lens is just ridiculous. I have shot with both native and legacy on NEX so I see the merits of both sides. The current native E-mount and A-mount selection is not up to my standard so I end up with two Contax lenses.
I’m already setting aside money for this camera and some quality glass. I hope they make a 16-70 f2.8 for full frame emount. Thanks for keeping us in the loop Admin
Hey, Andrea. The PDF says “equivalent 35mm-format focal length” is 52.5mm for the FE 35mm.
So is it a 52.5mm lens usable on a FF sensor, or is it just another lens for the NEX crop sensor? Seems like even Zeiss is going to keep us guessing when it comes to this camera!
I’s 35mm on FF and 52.5mm on APS-C sensor.
Seriously? It’s written in the PDF, no guessing required.
Ciao Andrea, qui trovi il manuale della lente nella tua lingua (italiano e tedesco).
http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4290406121.pdf
Grazie!
I really start to consider selling my whole A-mount equipment to go with E-Mount only…
Hm.
I’m considering doing the same thing. I have been with the A mount since the a200…
Is the sensor AF theory still alive?
Do they say in the pdf if the lens have AF motor?
I am just reaching here…
The French and English one :
http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4290406041.pdf
🙂
That’s Chinese and French!!
Uggh my eyes, It’s English too. Thanks!
Unlike E24, this FE35 is not a retrofocal design! This means the new sensor is radically different, innit?
I just had a brief look at the document. The 30 mm macro, 24 mm zeiss and the 50 mm oss are included with this new lens. However, the 35 mm oss lens is missing. It also says copyright 2011.
Hm, that is very interesting.
The copyright 2011 seems to kill this rumor as being valid.
You mean the existence of the Zeiss 35F28?
Maybe I’m wrong. If the doc was written in 2011, perhaps Sony has been working on FF all this time. It’s even more telling if that’s the case because it means that they were intending on making a full frame camera using the mount when they introduced it back in 2010.
Agreed, that is the most interesting part, for sure.
That is nteresting, but didn’t admin also state that FF Nex was nearly canceled and revived a few times? I can’t read Japanese, but if you go all the way to last line in the bottom right corner of the English pdf document, it looks to me like a date of July 2013.
Exacty it reads “Publication Date: July 2013”
No DOF scale again? Sony keeps producing toys, not buying it even in case my Summilux 35 won’t work well with FF NEX sensor.
Haha, sounds like you have some first world problems leicaman! :p
Now I believe there is a NEX full frame camera
Great to see that these kind of lenses are coming. However, as a Zeiss it’s going to be priced too high. Given that it’s 35mm 2.8, it’s very close to the Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake. That lens is one of the sharpest lenses out there and retails for $150. There is now way this zeiss will be better, yet it will cost around $800-$1000.
While the 40mm is an excellent lens, there is definitely a way to do better. Whether it will be worth the price though, that’s a different story.
The 40mm is borderline perfection for sharpness at that focal length. There really is not much room for improvement at 2.8 (unless you hate the STM AF drive). And it’s $150 with image circles appropriate for a FF camera!
If you put vignetting aside (which can be corrected in-camera), at wide-open it’s sharper than the new Sigma 35mm f1.4 at 2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=810&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Same story with the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 at 2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=749&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=810&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Just go on flickr and check out all the amazing shots taken with FF canons and the 40mm. There is no reason a 2.8 pancake should exist that is cheaper than this lens.
Given that I am pretty much nitpicking, I’ll just stop and agree with you 😉
Exactly my thought! hard justifying this lens when lenses like the 40mm f2.8 perform so well.
Olympus, panasonic, fuji, and sigma have been releasing some outstanding lenses recently that really push the boundaries when it comes to value, optical performance, compactness, or all of the above.
What I’ve been seeing from Zeiss recently on the other hand is pretty underwhelming.. Nothing exceptionally fast, not particularly compact, and not even necessarily optically superior to the competition… but comes with a blue sticker & premium price.
You make a good point however this isn’t a new Canon thing. Pentax had a sharp 40mm f/2.8 pancake for decades (it even used to be inexpensive) and CV did/does as well (although there is a little bigger because it is manual focus). I believe the sharpness-to-size is because of the mirror box, speed, and close match of the focal length to sensor size. Given several samples of lenses with about the same size, the same speed, and the same focal length I don’t think this is Canon magic. Sadly, 40mm has never been a popular focal length.
I think Canon finally threw their weight behind it because they needed a cheap pancake to compete with these smaller, cheaper cameras that had better live view autofocus.
I do think the 40mm pancake is one instance where the short registration distance works against mirrorless cameras because to pull the same trick requires very steep angles of light in the corners which even film cameras struggle with (aka the Perar lenses)
ANDREA !!
Here pictures of the Zeiss 16-70 with lens hood on the Nex 7 and on the Nex 6
http://satouchi.com/alpha/nexlens/sel1670z-report.html
…
🙂
Thanks for finding that!
Is it 93 800 yen ?
That would mean : 723 euros and about 955 USD…
It is indeed 720€ in Japan, 740€ in the US, 820€ in China and sadly 999€ in Europe.
Makes me feel like a “vache à lait” 😉
they say the lens will be available on the 13 of september !
But it’s nothing when you compare it to the NEX-FF story !!!
It seems to be exciting times coming at Sony! with confirmation of two main points regard Sony’s upcoming, top-secret (sort of..) full frame NEX camera:
1) Sony and German lens maker, Zeiss, are increasingly working together in an alliance for near future release of compact, mirrorless, full frame sensor-equipped NEX cameras from Sony.
2) Sony most likely will drop the larger Alpha series A-mount and adopt E-mount in it’s place. This seems to be Sony’s answer for the full frame compact form factor by getting rid of the mirror/prism systems as well as the larger A-mount.
Together with a strategic alliance with Germany’s high quality lens maker, Carl Zeiss, it seems like we have some very interesting and exciting products coming from the Sony-Zeiss alliance in the near future. We’ll know soon enough with the purported full frame NEX announcement date of September 20th soon to come.
Add Olympus to that.
Yeah, the new Olympus E-M1 also seems to be an exciting design of a camera. But they are mf/3 are they not? Or, are they planning to go full frame?
olympus is enjoying success with their m43 line and going FF would go against the idea behind m43
but i think the rumors were that olympus is helping sony design some lenses if memory serves correctly
I meant that they will be collaborating with Sony.
“We also believe there are many potential opportunities for collaboration between Olympus and Sony’s digital camera businesses”
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/28/Olympus-and-Sony-confirm-yen31bn-397mdollar-collaboration
i hope to see more FF compact lenses coming from Sigma 😀
I’m crossing my fingers also. Sigma has been producing great lenses lately.
As far as we can see Sony has no intention of dropping A-mount.
No idea why NEX users keep on repeating that. You think that a lie repeated 1000 times becomes truth?
A-mount lens will still be produced and with wider variety. The professional market will not care much about a shorter flange distance.
Agreed!
A-mount = E-mount + 2cm
It makes no sense to keep producing standalong a-mount bodies.
Yeah what with the toy like handling on NEX bodies I’m sure users are dying to get those bodies!
There is no point making E Mount lenses full stop, it’s a market in decline it’s burst bubble went some time ago.
sounds like a weak argument on the same tunes of “digital imaging sensors will never catch on, they produce low qualities pictures and will never match images produced by film!” when the first digital sensors came out
if E-mount development continues and proves to excel in terms of performance (noise, AF, etc) then there isn’t much point in keeping A-mount if all A-mount lenses can be used on a DSLR shaped bodied E-mount camera (Axxxx series):D
“it’s a market in decline”
Oh, please, stop coming with that argument.
By your logic – it doesn’t make sense to keep on producing E-mount lenses.
not everyone who buys a camera is a professional!!! there exists a demand for small FF cameras in the market, just like how there is a existing demand for compact FF manual focus rangefinders in the market which is keeping Leica alive.
At last someone with commonsense…
This reply is for Padam.
I only need 85mm F1.4 and nothing else.
Isn’t ZA means A mount lens? E is represents Mirrorless, so FE means Full Frame mirrorless with A mount. Not E mount.
Zeiss have SLR lens and CSC(Compact System Cameras) lens. In SLR lens they have ZE (Zeiss EF-mount em X-mount); ZF (Zeiss F-mount); and ZA (Zeiss A-mount). In CSC they have Touit lens for E-Mount and x-mount and now… 2 new ZA (E-mount). They put after T* the letter E or FE to distinguish the other SLR ZA (Sonnar T* 1,8/135 ZA).
The question is now we are shure E-Mount is full-frame and for all kind of lens: good old Leitz/Leica M, good old Zeiss for contax, old Nikon F, etc…
“…E-mount FF camera…”
If new FF offers new f2.8 zoom with good
focus speed, stabilization, & sensor+lens
DxO ratings as high as RX1, I will easily
give up Canon after 20+ yrs…
& up to US$5K to Sony!
The size of this lens destroys the argument that a NEX-FF won’t have a benefit over the NEX-7 with the 24mm Zeiss. It’s almost a pancake! It makes the NEX-FF a carry-anywhere camera. If they can also make faster lenses smaller than the aps-c equivalents, then the system will be a hit.
Got my Sonnar, now I just need a 50mm 1.4 Planar. Will Zeiss deliver?
Happy it’s a 35 but a bit disappointed its a little slow. How are we supposed to get those beautiful bokeh that blurs out the unwanted backgrounds sometimes. At a close-up face shot the majority of their face will be in focus. Also you’ll be able to tell whats in the background. :(. We know that the zeiss 32mm was tested really sharp at f2.5. So at f2.8 its going to be even more sharper.i just hope its not to dark. I was test my sel35f1.8 vs 18-55 kit both at 35mm and f4.5 and the sel35f1.8 was sharper, but a stop down darker even though at the same f4.5. Still cant wait to see the real lens and some sample shots. Thank you so much andea for all your work. Im checking SAR multiple times a day! Just really excited. I can almost see the curtain dropping and everything we hwve been waiting and hoping for revealed before us on SAR. Thanks again.
Uh, an f2.8 on fullframe will have about the same depth of field as an f1.8 lens on aps-c.
Well, not everyone wants to pay for speed they don’t need. Personally, I don’t understand that fascination with super shallow DOF and bokeh walls. Also, this is obviously only the first lens for the upcoming system, so stop complaining.
Maybe sony will pull through with a sel35f1.4G. I wouldnt mind seeing a beautiful large glass in front of my future nex-9. Its just with a fast prime you can always slow it down, but you can’t speed up a slow lens(without a speed booster). I like having the ability to let more light in when I need it instead of increasing the iso above 400.
The fullframe VC 35/1.2 is what you’re looking for. It’s great even on a crop NEX!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7172/6444798409_44c27733ec_z.jpg
yeah but I don’t want to have the need for extra things like adapters or boosters to get the type of lens you want. everyone wants the “all in one package.” fast, sharp, affordable (reasonable price), durable, capable to perform the quality of your camera. A lens that doesn’t perform is like a computer with not enough ram and processor speed to run a good software/game. Sure it might be possible to run but slow, laggy, or even “good enough” isn’t what people want. People want 100/100 1:1 lens:camera quality. So the next shot you take and look at it later on. you can smile and tell yourself it couldn’t of been better because you have the best! Sony GIVE US THE BEST YOU GOT! AT THE BEST PRICE!
“GIVE US THE BEST YOU GOT! AT THE BEST PRICE!”
And there you go. Unrealistic demands.
““good enough” isn’t what people want”
I beg to differ.
“AT THE BEST PRICE” I didn’t mean it as the lowest price. Price = to quailty. Not under-priced and not overpriced.
would you be willing to pay leica prices on lenses then?
I’m with John here, except for AF the CV f/1.2 works very well on the VG900 with its video optimized, super-thick AA filter so it should work extremely well on the FF NEX. Sadly, CV hasn’t gotten into the e-mount business–probably because they don’t want to compete with Zeiss whom they OEM e-mount lenses for anyway.
Still an AF version of the CV f/1.2 would be great. Expensive and heavy, but very cool.
Do I understand correctly this is saying the 35 wont work for APS-C?
why not?
35mm is perfect. This will go nicely with Minolta 20/24/50 and Sony 85. All are plenty small even with adapter.
Both of those PDF documents are dated 2011, so I doubt we are looking at any lenses for FF NEX.
Are there many E-Mount FF cameras going to be announced? I thought it is only one!
The first one is not likely to be the last, unless sales are very disappointing.
That doesn’t mean there will be a flood of them in the immediate future. But one obvious possibility is a camera like the A3000 but with a higher specification, including an FF sensor.
many.
Is the smaller of those lens hoods for use when the lens is on an APS-C camera and the larger for use on full-frame?
the larger one is for the existing 24mm f1.8 lens, the smaller one is to get a more compact lens hood like the one on the 30 macro