Image courtesy: DSLRmagazine
The Zeiss Loxia 50mm is now shipping in some countries ([shoplink 29858 ebay]like in here in Germany[/shoplink]) and first reviewers are testing it:
Diglloyd writes:
I now have the 35/2 and 50/2 Zeiss Loxia lenses in hand. From an ergonomics standpoint alone they are terrific, and these are the lenses I would choose as a Sony A7s/A7/A7R shooter for many purposes. The Loxia lenses are extremely well built, an entirely better feel in the hand than the plasticky Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 designs.
Verybiglobo also tested the lens and writes:
While Sony FE 55/1.8 is optimized for high resolution and contrast at wide apertures, Loxia is rather oriented to smooth rendering wide open. But stopped down, to f/5.6 and smaller, Loxia probably even surpass Sonnar FE 55 in terms of sharpness. In fact, you have too lenses in one – nice portrait lens where due to some coma and bit of SA, you can notice characteristic bokeh and unique subject isolation, while stopped down it is great multipurpose and landscape lens.
Spanish DSLRmagazine (translation here) writes about the 50mm Loxia:
We can at least confirm that this Planar 50mm f/2 performs as well as expected, a nice optical use, simple in concept and convincing results.
UPDATE: Real-world comparison between the new Zeiss Loxia 2/50, the ‘old’ Sony Zeiss FE 1.8/55 and the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 at Backgroundblur.
There is also a Japanese Loxia 50mm review at Kasayapa (translation here). Overall the lens looks to be more interesting than expected. A great alternative of the 55mm FE if you want to focus…on manual focusing 🙂
Zeiss Loxia preorders:
Zeiss Loxia 50mm f/2 Planar T* Lens for Sony E Mount at BHphoto, Adorama., WexUK, CameraPro.
Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens for Sony E Mount at BHphoto, Adorama, WexUK, CameraPro.
Zeiss Lens Hood for Loxia 50mm f/2 Planar T* Lens at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss Lens Hood for Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss 52mm Front Lens Cap for Touit and Loxia Lenses at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss De-Click Key for Loxia Lenses (5-Piece Set) at BHphoto and Adorama.
Zeiss Rear Lens Cap for Loxia E-Mount Lenses at BHphoto and Adorama.
0 Responses
More E-mount, yawn.
Missed the last post with an E-Mount on the cover of an “Alpha universe” magazine?
For f****’s sake, even Wikipedia now refers to “the legacy Minolta A-mount.”
Give up, man, “Sony Alpha” means E-Mount now.
I can explain it. In the next few years the entire DSLR market will refocus to action/sports/pro oriented cameras (fast AF, fps, solid handling, fast big pro lenses). There will be less and less low-end DSLRs and cheap consumer lenses. That means Sony will have to compete exclusively with top-end cameras (D4, 7D, 1Dx) and lenses (2.8 zooms, fast telephoto primes etc) in the eyes of professionals and amateurs who’re already heavily tied to their camera systems and don’t migrate easily. That’s why Sony will focus on a different market and establish E-mount instead.
This is business thinking and I completely agree with Sony. For example, I’m keeping my DSLR to use exclusively with 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 (or 400/4.0 or 500/4.0). Why would I choose Sony over Canon? Yep. That’s an easy one. E-mount, however, is a completely different story.
>Why would I choose Sony over Canon? Yep. That’s an easy one.
SLT design. Easy one indeed.
Both are good reasons.
SLT lol. what a deal breaker 😀 who needs an overall more complete and pro-oriented system when you have SLT…..
Of course they need to develop the system further. They already introduced the Pro support program and produced the best AF on the market. Out of all the lenses you mentioned, only the 400 f/4 is missing. And all other things being equal, SLT can give Sony competitive edge.
Okay, let’s see. Out of all professional lenses only Sony ZA primes are superior (good 24/2, very good 85/1.4, excellent 135/1.8). Everything else is arguably just as good or worse (16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 80-400, 300/2.8, 500/4) than competitors. They also often are more expensive. In the current situation, the entire Sony A system must be significantly better (not just comparable or slightly worse) to simply gain market share. Otherwise there’s no incentive for pros to move away from Canon or Nikon systems.
So unless Sony comes up with a bunch of unique cameras and lenses (or cuts the prices by half) they stand no chance in a pro market. And they clearly show they aren’t interested in it as much anymore.
When everything else is “arguably just as good” – that’s when the SLT advantage kicks in.
And Sony A7r + LA-EA4 is a solid A-mount camera btw
Nope. People keep repeating it, but it doesn’t get any more true.
With A7r + LA-EA4 you get an uncomfortably small camera with a clumsy adapter, no image stabilization, A65’s AF points all in the centre and tiny battery.
Only drawback being lack of IBIS on longer lenses…
That all being true, it doesn’t make Sony’s decision to bring two completely different systems under a single “Alpha” moniker any less weird and confusing.
Actually from a marketing perspective, it does make sense… They keep the alpha legacy but move the majority of their photography business into a field where they can compete.
They can perfectly well compete in DSLR as well.
A77-II is easily better than 7D-II.
You can’t take one camera or one feature and compare it. It’s only the entire system that matters for customers like that.
They have FF Zeiss and G lenses, flashes etc.
The only thing missing is a pro-grade line of FF bodies, since A99 doesn’t cut it. And Sony has already developed the new AF.
That’s kind of my point. The a77ii is the better camera by far, but it’s a foregone conclusion that the 7Dii will still massively outsell it… We already know Sony’s disappointed in the sales as is
I am sorry for Sony then…
“entirely better feel in the hand than the plasticky Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8 and 55/1.8”
surely he doesn’t have the same Zeiss 55mm 1.8 i purchased because its anything but plasitcky in hand.
totally inaccurate remark, any review on diglloyd is pure bush league after a stupid comment like that.
Yah that’s funny because FE55 and FE35 are full metal outside. They aren’t as heavy and don’t feel as well damped as manual lenses, but not plasticky for sure. Lloyd has a partnership with Zeiss, and he even gets all their new lenses to review before anyone else does. That’s why he says things like that. His technical reviews, however, are very accurate. Indeed, he’s been praising many top tier Zeiss lenses (21/2.8, 135/2, Otus 55&85, ZM 35/1.4 etc) but frankly all of those lenses deserve it and he proves it.
Please, even the E16 pancake is “full metal outside”. All plasticy E-mount lenses are not completely without metal, but they still feel plasticy. It’s how Sony’s decided to have it.
Your brain feels plasticy, and renders more organically. In other words you are full of $hit.
You’re $hit in its most glorious incarnation lol
My 55 feels plastic when I manual focus. Now, this comment must be taken as a personal evaluation relative to my past experience. Most of my photographic experience involves shooting with manual focus Zeiss, Leica and M-Hexanon lenses. Also, lighter lenses appeal to those purchasing a smaller body, but those adapted to the weight of heavier lenses might feel like the lens is plastic.
If you have an FE body you ought to try out some legacy OM, Contax, Konica AR, or if you’re willing to live with some compromises, DKL lenses. They tell you how metal is supposed to be used.
Can’t agree more. Just because some lenses are lighter don’t mean they’re plasticy. This statement definitely adds dickllloyd to my “rubbish” photographer along with Ken Cockwell, and Pho-blographer.
I think they’re called purists.
I did my own real-world comparison between the Loxia and the 55, and also included the Mitakon: http://backgroundblur.com/post/100239673053/zeiss-loxia-2-50-vs-sony-zeiss-fe-1-8-55-vs-mitakon
thanks you ^_^
Nice review.
Awesome review. Random thought here….ever used the 50mm 1.4 Sony Zeiss? Man, I wish someone would compare that to the 55mm.
I like you site. In one of your posts you mention: “My opinion is that equivalent* lenses have equivalent sizes.” I’m fully with you here and often discuss that with friends using m43 lenses who don’t believe this (best example: fuji 56/1.2 and my 85/1.8G, pretty similar). I personally prefer the autofocus and therefore would chose the 55/1.8. I don’t want to get rid of my Nikon DSLRs yet, but if a 135/2 or 85/1.4 with autofocus would be produced, this would be a possible turning point for me.
Great review. Really well done.
Mike: even Sony’s excellent focus peaking couldn’t help nail focus on the Mitakon? How come? Thanks again!
It is not the magnification or the focus peaking that is the problem, it is moving the camera a few mm between focusing and pressing the shutter. Just breathing is enough to move the camera a mm and miss focus.
This is why my cameras live on tripods. I have not kept anything other than family memorabilia, shot off tripod, for many years.
Yeah go ahead be artistic. 😉 I want the shot.
Thanks for sharing the link.
I do have one comment, however. Can anyone here really describe me the “Zeiss 3D pop” and how does the Loxia have it better than the Sony or the Mitakon? Steve Huff mentions this (in regards to many lenses) a lot as well as well as other reviewers.
The way I see it, any lens that has a softer bokeh without onion rings and has a faster fallout between sharpness and blur would appear to be described as having a 3D pop. However, I often think that this is more in the eye of beholder partly biased by the branding on the lens in question.
The eternal question. As far as I can see, it does exist, but is not limited to Zeiss lenses, although they tend to produce it more often and/or more easily. I believe it is the result of quite a few things, including the light, the subject, the OOF transition, the quality of the bokeh, the sharpness of the lens etc. In the case of Zeiss, I think, what stands out from other brands is the micro contrast, making the in-focus area look even sharper, maybe some quicker OOF transition (where micro contrast is also gradually lost) and some field curvature. Of course, these are just assumptions based on what I’ve seen, not proper comparisons, and there’s still the issue of defining what this 3D pop actually is.
That’s what I thought as well. Obviously, Zeiss lenses tend to delivery great images and the brand prestige didn’t come out of nothing. I guess to each their own.
Yawn.
For me it’s more of a micro vs. macro contrast thing, and the colors also make a difference.
Thanks for your impression on it. I guess it is also kind of what Vlad describes below, so everyone would have their own “sense” about it.
I am starting to follow your blog. Very concise writing.
I have a lens that has a ton of secondary axial CA, it has pretty low perceivable sharpness (mostly because the focal plane is unusually thin) but really high micro-contrast, and exceptional subject separation. Funny how sometimes when lenses are better corrected they get actually harder to use. It’s probably true that less computer assistance could result in a design that renders more organically.
By “more organically” you mean more blurry, not what most photographers are looking for in a lens.
I mean blurry at 100%, which isn’t always where people are looking at, and stronger subject separation zoomed out. Read what I wrote. It’s fine if you don’t agree, go buy your sigma or tamron then.
Is anyone really looking for “a smooth rendering wide open” that gets sharp at f5.6?
Kinda like “the review had many gaps and distortions, but makes you feel good if you don’t read into them.”
Sounds like lots of faint praise for glass with such a legendary pedigree and still carrying a Zeiss price. But they look beautiful, small, and sound well made, so I’m looking forward to more forthcoming and objective reviews.
These reviews (or what is summarized here) are not very encouraging.
Absolutely.
Yeah, I like my scotch smooth- as far as my lens reviews, I prefer more meat when referring to optical performance.
Looks like a nice lens (the 50mm one). Prices have to come down by ~200-250 Euros before I would consider buying one.
Anything with E mount is just atrociously priced (barring the Mitakon).
Zeiss this is something what is pushing me in Sony system . Sony is making good job as well that why I jumped from nikon to Sony with all zeiss zf lens . Zeiss Loxia seems perfect , there are smaller with good optic , no adapter . I hope to see more lens 21,85,100 macro ,135 . I need all line just exactly like zeiss zf .
Many decades ago (okay, since 2011) I was in the same boat.
I was shooting with a Leica M8 with outstanding Leica super primes but I was
tired of strictly MF with no AF option.
In December of 2011 the A900 was nearing its end of production while The Nikon 700 and Canon 5D II were discounted quite a bit, but I really liked the reviews of the Sony’s large VF and overall simplicity. In fact I still do vs. the Swiss-Army knife features of most everything else today.
Up until now I wasn’t considering the A7 series but the Loxia has me reconsidering this option.
i wonder what the T value of these lenses are
Not a clue but for air travel and street shooting I would gladly give up some
light. After all, the A7s is already a nocturnal king so it really wouldn’t matter to me.
Typically, 1/3 stop lower, in Zeiss case.
I notice the FE55 has more highlight~
Good point but since I want my cake and eat it too, I would opt for the Loxia 35 and FE 55 as my dream travel kit.
FE55 is simply better lens. It’s not much bigger than 50/2.0, but is faster, have AF, and better IQ.
I agree. Looking at the pics I’d pic the 55mm 1.8. I thought it was pretty obvious looking at the comparisions online with bokeh.
Agreed, but there is still the issue of that manual focus ring. The day Sony puts something similar to the “snap focus” on the Ricohs, it might not matter as much, but right now..
Many comparisons at verybiglobo, including CV 50. Loxia is admittedly nice but unimpressive lens. One can get similar results for much less.
Mike’s real world test nails it, for photographers who actually shoot or plan to shoot with these lenses rather then examine extreme edges. Very conclusive and reflects my experience over the years with large aperture 50mm lenses. For example, a 50mm f1.2 is almost impossible to focus wide open, you can imagine how hard it is with the 0.95. This year, I have been shooting all my assignments with the “plastic” FE 55mm and I absolutely love that lens. I can’t imagine shooting a campaign wide open with one of the other two, or any other 50mm for that matter, I just posted a shot from a 2015 product launch, shot wide open with the 55mm and the a7r, the model moving the whole time
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=11986
Great pics Mike – well done!
Thanks Otus!
Well I am CERTAINLY glad I have yet another 50mm lens choice for the A7 series. It’s a shame I never use the 55mm I have because my fav length is an 85mm (which there is absolutely NO native choice for). Maybe in a year? Any guesses?
Probably less. Sony and Zeiss seem to be doing a good job at releasing lenses for the time being. Meanwhile, just adapt something. The ZA 85 1.4 feels quite well on the a7 and the 2.8 is very well balanced. If you can stand MF, there are a multitude of choices.
I’m currently shooting with the ZA’s 24, 50 & 135 with good results but the ZA 50 is my most used street lens with an after market Heilopan hood combo. While I’m still not sold on the A7 series, the FE55 does appeal to me quite a bit. Since I seldom shoot at the widest f-stop I find it easier with ZA’s than most other options.
What’s this fancy hood you speak of? How much better is it than that god aweful plastic disgrace of garbage. I didn’t know about this, but if similar size I’ll buy it.
Based on observations I think we’ll see an updated ZA85 w/SSM before an 85 in FE.
I will place order for both of them as soon as I can get them.
These lenses remind me “old era” of solid products …
So new era is all about sh%tty products, huh?
Why would you need to place an order _after_ you get the lenses?
Have you just got the 50mm or is it still coming? You need to stop smoking crack and make up your mind, you probably have no idea what are you talking about.
My apologies … English is my third language out of five I speak and you right it doesn’t make any sence what I have wrote … The bottom line is that one of those two lenses has been purchased.
Otherwise trust me I am not on drugs and I never was. As far if do understand photography? Hmmm maybe not however in past thirty years shooting for ad agencies worldwide I made close to five mill. How about you how you been if may ask …
Ps. I would definitely not identify Sony as sh… Product even if I don’t know anything about photography as you may think.
Manual focus! Yak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak
Why anyone would care about loxia if otus exists? I bet next year we’ll see the 35mm one.
Why anyone would buy a Fiat when there is the Ferrari?
Becouse of the price difference?
Well, I must admin the question was incomplete. Why would you buy a Loxia if there are Otus 55 *** and SEL55F18 ***? If you like rock solid Zeiss “Zeiss” glass and manual focus and really want the best – Otus is your friend. If you like a small, reasonably fast and sharp lens with AF – here you go – the 55mm Sony is to help.
But it’s hard to define a person that would buy the Loxia 50mm. Not as sharp wide open as the 55mm Sony, MF [sic!], 1/3 of a stop slower and almost the same price.
Sharp @ 5.6 I can say about pretty much any cheapo-lens in a $200 range.
BTW Ferrari is a 90% Fiat – RTFM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari 😉
For one, the Otus only has two versions: One that doesn’t have an aperture ring, and one that focuses backwards.
“BTW Ferrari is a 90% Fiat – RTFM”
UYFB (Use Your F… Brain)
I picked Ferrari and Fiat becouse they are basicaly the same company, same as Otus and Loxia, Loxia is also 90% Zeiss but manufactured in Japan.
This is why the comparison with Ferrari and Fiat is valid but you just did not understand…
Looks like you don’t understand sh_t, buddy. It’s not about Fiat vs Ferrari, it’s about the variety of existing options that surpass Loxia in terms of quality or the price. If you cannot afford the Otus and you can’t figure out the SEL55F18Z is a better choice than Loxia, well, then you probably watch NASCAR too much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_and_Stupid.
… asked the Otus.
Even if they would cost the same I would still pick the Loxia. I didn’t buy an A7 to use lenses the size and weight of a small car… For just one stop of light? No thanks.
Even if they would cost the same I would still pick the Loxia. I didn’t buy an A7 to use lenses the size and weight of a small car… For just one stop of light? No thanks…
The only thing I’ll say is that, after a year of shooting with the 35 and 55 Sony/Zeiss lenses, in a variety of extreme conditions, I would never even come close to considering calling them “plasticky.” Far from it. Lloyd needs to settle down, sometimes.
Or maybe, you need to rack up your standards. They cost money you know?
I think he knows.
Also you seem to know a lot. A lot of squat. Keep posting, you may learn something from the corrections you receive. Otherwise, you could switch off that pc and learn shooting in the field, which is also fun.
Haven’t seen a single correction; just some troll to whom I am very important.
Hey now, no reason to get personal. However, as a working pro in the industry for 18 years, my standards are pretty well defined and one of those standards is what qualifies as a “cheaply built” or “plasticky” lens. The 35 and 55 Sony FE lenses do not fall under that umbrella in either their build quality or their image potential. I have also shot the Touit lenses plenty and find that they match the Sony pieces well, if a little sketchy on the AF, especially in AF-C, for whatever reason.
I will have the pleasure of working with the Loxia lenses at the end of this month and I have every expectation that I’ll love them as much as others have… But I do not believe for a moment that they’ll singlehandedly relegate the Zeiss label Sony lenses to the “plastic” bin, no.
It isn’t about money. Otherwise Leica would be the gold standard in pure imaging and Pagani would be the highest quality car in history. Neither is accurate. They merely have their place.