Zeiss managers told at BestMirrorlessCameraReviews that there are lots of things you’d like to do, but you have limited resources and power so you need to concentrate on one thing:
At the moment, the MFT system is quite valued, but as for the willingness to spend big money on lenses, to see this as an investment as you do on a SLR, we are not 100% sure it is there. On a full frame SLR system, the lens is really the investment part. The camera is what you change, and people are used to this. In the case of less-than full frame systems, we still don’t understand.
No MFT lenses for now 🙁
190 Responses
There are enough m43 lenses to choose from. Cheap, small, large, bright, expensive. Whatever you want. No offense against Zeiss, but in my opinion there lenses are very good! but also overpriced.
totally agree, I think Zeiss would have a hard time competing with the very good and compartively inexpensive MFT primes.
For example the $720 for Fuji X Zeiss Touit 32mm f1.8 would need to compete head to head with the $349 Olympus M. Zuiko 25mm f1.8 and the $599 Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4. On the Olympus side you could buy the 25/1.8 and the 45/1.8 for less than the Zeiss or if go with the PL 25 and get an extra half stop plus $120 to spend elsewhere.
Yeah, and I’m not sure the Touit macro would stand up to either of the native options, either….
And the Zeiss Touit’s are not known for being good AF performers either. Whereas the Oly 25 is blazingly fast and the Panasonic is fast as well.
Zeiss would also be competing with Voigtlander in this space, since Zeiss mainly makes MF lenses. I think the Voigt’s sell ok because they have their niche as a superbright lens (f0.95).
Not enough prime wide angles. There are no 9mm or 10.5mm (18mm & 21mm FF FOV) in mFT that are AF and auto diaphram. I would love to see a 10.5mm Distagon AF in mFT.
I think that’s a fair assessment, 4/3 isn’t exactly the best system to sell $1000 lenses for. They wouldn’t be able to get away with just changing the mounts on their APSC and 35mm lenses, so they’d need to invest pretty heavily to do it right. Once there’s a truly high-end market for 4/3, they’ll turn up.
It’s OK. Zeiss makes superb lenses but also asks for superb prices, which make no sense on m43. Small and cheap(-ish) is the way to go in my view.
As a working MFT pro, I think small and high-performing is the way to go. Panny’s 7-14, 12-35 and 35-200 form a pro’s holy trinity of top-flight glass at half the price of FF.
Actually they cost more than the FF equivalents. But if you like them, go for it!
Simply there are many really good native lenses already, will be difficult for them to justify the price tag. Like they did for sony nex, certainly good lenses, but not exactly exceptional.
for mft there are already enough expensive to very expensive lenses (for their respective image circle and aperture) so we certainly don’t need more very expensive and big lenses, what mft need is small and fast primes (lets say a 50/1.8 eqivalent for $50-100, that should be possible if it is possible to make a 50/1.8 for ff for $100)
There are 2 things working against the idea of a $100 nifty fifty that are easily overcome on a DSLR:
1) Marketshare moves more units, allows larger production. Though m43’s is solidifying and growing its niche, it doesn’t have the 40+ years of market like a full frame SLR (and later full frame DSLR) has.
2) Lens design: The nifty 50 is a slightly tweaked formula, though not really different from their hay day of film. They are rather simplistic in design. This keeps costs down further. A good lens for mft has to have one of two things, either it is overbuilt in size to accomodate an APS-C sensor to make it perform well (see Sigma’s Art lenses for m43’s), or it needs more specialized glass elements. Look at the difference between even Canon’s f1.4 vs. either Oly’s 25 or Panny’s 25 in terms of design complexity (scroll down till you see the diagrams):
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/02/olympus-mzuiko-25mm-f18-lens-review.html
There are more lens elements, and the Canon f1.4 is already a $300 lens.
That’s definitely possible if you amortize all the R&D and tooling costs over 25 years and millions of lenses, as Canon and Nikon have with their film vintage thrifty 50s. Not sure m43 is in that position…
Do you even know how long Olympus and Panasonic-Leica has been in business doing objectives?
You do not build one production line to polish lenses or have stock for tons of same glass to be used next few decades.
All lenses are done in batches, one week you start polishing specific series of specific lens, then you jump to another lens required for the objective and finally after longer period you have large amount of lenses to build hundreds/thousands of one objective.
Remember that Olympus did not initially want to produce an adapter for OM mount to 4/3 mount for foreign use, they at first intended it only for use in Japan. That changed when they saw user demand worldwide. Next there were a reasonable number of adapters for other mounts, which also sold well, though as 3rd party products. When the mFT mount was introduced, adapter offerings and sales exploded with all of the fine glass from many manufacturers and sitting on enthusiasts’ shelves, now available to use. Lots and lots of good existing Zuiko glass and all of the other varieties!
The Zeiss FE 24-70 F4 is a real let down in terms of performance, I hope they weren’t trying to make a big splash in the mirrorless market with that one. They can keep their FF/APS-C exclusivity as far as I’m concerned.
Really? And I guess some mft toy blows it out of the water, right? Tell us about your astonishing tests.
HAPPY CAPSLOCK DAY 😉
AND PERSONALLY I DONT MIND THAT ZEISS HAS NO M43 GEAR YET, I AM ALREADY BROKE. AND I STILL HAVE TO BUY A F2.8 ZOOM, A UWA. AND A FAST PORTRAIT LENS.
MACRO HAS NO PRIORITY FOR ME.
Dear Zeiss, I am (and I am sure pretty much everyone who comes to this site is) completely invested in this system, and yes, the lenses are the investment, just like any other interchangeable lens system. I have voigtlander and panasonic/leica lenses that I have had from my GH2 to my GH3 to my GH4, and I will keep using the same lenses, and keep adding variety to my lens selection when I upgrade to a GH5 (or Olympus if it brings out a camera with better video capabilities). If you make good glass for MFT, people will invest in the glass and the system – the only system that is open to multiple brands of cameras. the better the lens selection, the more stable the system is and MFT is pretty darn stable with great companies producing great innovative lenses that can produce incredible results, so jump on this awesome band wagon and add to the competition and variety.
Thank god for me I never invested in a system, as I basicly do all with one FL
Means what ?
APSC + FF + m4/3 = 1 focal length .
Interesting , what FL is that ?
85mm or 90mm or 150mm ?
most of my shoots the last 10 years are done just with a single prime in my posession, since 2008 i do most with fov of 24 degrees (classic 85mm). the working distance of such suits me the most.
Yes , 85mm to 90mm are lovely FL for portraits .
The ideal portrait lens is between 85-180mm FL according to an famous articles I read few years back .
Since I owned the 45mm & 75mm lenses & try the Nocticron several times , it really depend on what type of portrait you want to shoot & from there you will know what FL lens to pick to give the effect that you want .
agree, its a personal matter of taste, I made my first modelportraits in 2004 with a 28 mm on an aps-c body,and in 2006 with an aps-h one. I think we just adapt ourselves when just one prime is available.
It would be so nice if you could share your pics, you wrote a lot in this forum and I am sure they are great.
Why me & not the rest ?
Definitely will share mine when is the right time to do so .
I see a lot of great portraits from the world of DSLR in my earlier time & from there I start to pick up & do mine with m4/3 stuffs , till now I can say I still consider satisfy with my m4/3 gears .
Funny how two ‘less-than full frame’ systems are pictured above with Zeiss lenses anyway.
same lens, different mounts though.
And zero innovation.
Dear Zeiss
I don’t believe you make better lenses than Olympus’ premium lenses so I don’t care.
Yeah, I’m not sure they would be able to make a lens that so surpasses say the 75mm f1.8 that it would be worth it. Though, maybe they could find a way to make a better 17mm, or wider focal lengths. and a 135mm equiv macro 😉
I doubt they could better the 12-40mm f2.8 either, and certainly not the 40-150mm f2.8, which would have to be a contender for the best zoom ever made.
I’m a fan of Zeiss from my Contax G days. Not so long ago I compared my adapted G-mount 45mm with the Oly 45mm. Big difference – the Oly was actually much better to my eyes. Better color, sharper. I was shocked!
And that’s a cheap lens!
Still Zeiss glass on a FF seems a bit more natural to me, maybe sharpness comes from in camera PP even in RAW. But, as a part of a system, the m43 glass is very very good. It is so good, that overall, I get more good keepers from my e-m10/25mm combo than from my FF/1.4,50mmPlanar. It is ridiculously good that m43 and it only gets better! I am trying to be patient. But if the next generation of m43 sensors will become even better, then my FF stuff will have a hard time (unless CaNikon will overcome its pride and bring a OM-D E-M1 alike mirrorless camera… :-), this GAS will never end…)
Haha, I like the enthusiasm about m43 you state in your comment. Enjoy your system!
Can’t compare an old lens to a new one; the new Zeiss lenses are very good as well, just overpriced.
Of course some of them are made by the Japanese anyway (the SLR series by Cosina) so it’s not like Zeiss is that magical anyway. 😉
Definitely .
Don’t ask about spending , talk about performance first .
Can Zeiss come up a lens in m4/3 sense that beat the high regarded LEICA DG lens or the great Zuiko 75mm lens ?
I doubt about it .
Probably they can; but at 4k (and I mean dollars, euros, and pounds, not pixels, or lines), 1200 grams, and manual focus only (like Otus) they are unlikely to sell many of them. That’s what they said in so many words, and I think they are right.
Dear Madam,
we constantly come up with excellent products for first and second tier manufacturers. However, we’d rather not get involved with the third tier.
Superiorly yours
Carl
That’s OK with me…(I did LOVE the Zeiss FF 21mm I just sold from my FF system)…we are doing just fine without them. Actually, if Sigma started to make some MFT AF lenses…I would be a LOT more excited. The 35mm and 50mm Art Lenses I have for my FF though quirky, are unbelievably incredible.
If Sigma would start making native m4/3 objectives it would be huge impact to Canon and Nikon if they would cover range 10-67.5mm, fast autofocus and some have a weather seal.
Then Samyang should make more native m4/3 objectives like their 7.5mm f/3.5. If Samyang would cover 7-12mm range with two objectives, a prime and zoom, they would not need to be autofocused at all if at same price range as their fisheye and quality as well top notch.
Then we would need few more 200-500mm range at f2.8 or f3.5 scale with autofocus but primes. Like 200mm, 350mm and 500mm. It would be there.
500mm f3.5 for m43? Interesting. Sigh.
Sigma already makes 19, 30 and 60/2.8 ART series for m43. They’re not expensive (~170€ each) and tests are quite good. Maybe they could expand the line and/or provide some zooms.
I should have been more clear…I realized right after I hit the post button hat I meant Sigma should make small, “native’ to MFT lenses…not lenses made for APS-C and then have an adapter slapped on the back. I believe the lenses you mention above are just adapted lenses aren’t they? I am not sure….
No, they aren’t, they’re native MFT lenses. That said, they do have the same specs and optical design as the APS-C versions, making them slightly less interesting than these. The focal lengths probably were chosen for APS-C rather than MFT. Nevertheless, they’re three nice additions to the MFT lens lineup.
At the price they are I guess that they are fine….what I would REALLY like to see Sigma do….is make some fast AF lenses specifically for MFT like my 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 Art Lenses that I own for my FF. I would like the lenses to be super fast apertures and super fast AF…they can be pricey…it’s OK….and since I am in fantasy land …I would like Sigma to make an adapter so that I could hook them up to my Sigma Lens Dock!
I get it though..it probably is just not worth the investment to create such lenses as the market is smaller and we don’t know how stable the MFT market is to have some time to get ROI.
Sure is great to be a photographer these days the choices are just dizzying!!!!! LOL!
I don’t know if the ROI for the DN line is good for Sigma. I believe it is (descent quality/low price). My hope is they’ll go on and bring more descent quality and affordable lenses to the system, even if those lenses are designed with APSc crop factor in mind.
But I wonder if Sigma can produce mft versions of the high quality AF lenses you’re talking about for a better quality/price ratio than existing products from Olympus or Panasonic.
Exactly. Those 3 lenses belong to their DN lineup designed for mirrorless cameras: http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/
I agree. Miniaturised Sigma Art 1.4 primes — with 46mm or 52mm filters instead of 77mm! — would be superb additions (maybe that would force Olympus to drop the pricing on their 1.8 offerings heh). Their existing f2.8 lenses are nice but should be even cheaper, in my opinion. Mini Art zooms would be nice, too.
Show us Zeiss
Demonstrate it to us if you can come up a m4/3 lens that can edge the Nocticron .
Is F1.2 lens , Mr Zeiss !
That’s HERR Zeiss to you. 😉
We cannot, we are too weak to compete with crapasonic. You cleverly dumbfounded us Yun!
Zeiss doesn’t have the skill and knowledge to make a smaller objective with sharp and characteristic lenses in it.
The m4/3 system already is that you invest to objectives, it has always been and always will be, unless you buy cheapest mirror lenses or such that you replace then later with superior quality from Olympus or Panasonic-Leica.
What? The Zeiss Luminar lenses in 16mm and 25mm are still highly sought after today as they are extremely sharp.
Sure, and I am always impressed by the skill and knowledge exuding from such comments…
Oh my goodness, 26 comments and no trolls – is Admin working some magic? It’s nice to read these reflections on news/rumours and not come out dripping of negativity – thanks =) (although couldn’t help but laugh at the paid shills in terrified mode when Olympus announced their new 40-150 lol)
Hey, there are trolls in the article 🙂
Read their diplomatic statement carefully to see it… LOL
Yes, it’s funny how posts on big Oly glass tend to bring out the entire troll army. I think their insecurity goes into overdrive whenever m43 edges too close to the Pro segment.
I’ve noticed that articles on third-party lenses or accessories have significantly less trolling. My theory is that the shills only get paid for posting in articles about Olympus or Panasonic products 🙂
IMO they are aware that they can in no way offer the same optical quality, software support at the prices m43 top lenses are going for.
So they have limited they resources on even thinking about it.
Schneider already over-calculated themselves and underestimated Panasonic and Olympus.
On the other hand I would like to see Sigma enter the field with their improved designs and ideas.
Yep, I’d like to see Sigma stir up the m4/3 pond a bit. They do have those three cheap f/2.8 primes (19/30/60), but those are designed for APS-C. And they’re not all that interesting. I’ve got the 19mm one and it’s OK, but nothing to write home about. I hear the 30 and 60 are better, but still. And on m4/3 bodies they are a bit on the big side compared to native glass.
But frankly, I have little hope for native m4/3 lenses by Sigma. They are even smaller company than Zeiss I think. Even Sony and Pentax users must usually wait some time for Sigma to make lenses for their mounts. So I just don’t see them expending their limited resources to make lenses designed specifically for m4/3.
Interestingly, I heard that the famous Oly 75/1.8 was actually designed by Sigma 🙂
Zeiss is one of the companies (like Canon, Pentax, and Nikon) that smaller sensor mirrorless is the trend.
OK, Canon and Nikon have offerings, but they are not competitive and more a “fig leaf” than a serious commitment.
I’m fine with the current lens selection, Zeiss or not, doesn’t matter.
But it would be great if some other sensor exists for the M43.
Makes some sense, I suppose Zeiss lenses are expensive and I suppose they see full frame owners as the customers most likely to be prepared to spend their $£ and buy Zeiss glass
yes when they are selling every lens for over $1000 then sales are not going to be all that great –
how about if Sony started producing more lenses for the E and FE mount –
seems like there have been more Zeiss –
There is demand for those mounts as Sony is not producing much – and when they do their lenses are very expensive as well – like the 70-200mm F.4 – while Tamron and Sigma can produce a F2.8 for Nikon and Canon for same and less – also why are Tamron and Sigma not producing anything for the FE mount – Tamron did produce the 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 which is ok but really so close in price point to the Sony’s version that most have opted for the Sony – so then it just seems like Tamron has lost interest – yet most E and FE mount owners are asking for a better selection
the only benefit of premium producers like zeiss or schneider for MFT users is that maybe ..the OLY/PANA lenses will drop a bit…. if the premium producer deliver top notch IQ for their price.
That’s kinda true. I mean Oly/Pana glass is very competitive in my eyes, so even entering that market it’s going to be highly competitive. How much more will Zeiss have to put into their lenses just to edge out Oly/Pana, and are the users willing to pay for that edge. As it concerns Sony, Sony needs Zeiss glass. Even Zeiss producing at sub-par might still arguably be a need for that high quality.
I hope they drop it like its hot. For 1100 dollars I’d pick it up without hesitation. That’s my limit and I’m sticking to it.
When I look at my bank account I also see limited resources. So it’s okay for me that Zeiss stay where they are.
Want to use Zeiss lenses on your M4/3 cameras?
But their rangefinder lenses and adapt.
Don’t SLR lenses stand up better to M4/3’s thick optical stack?
“We would really like to make lenses for you, but you MFT folks don’t spend enough on your lenses to make it worth our while.” As others have noted, we can get some of their older products and use an adapter. That won’t make any extra money for Zeiss at all. 🙁
In other words, we want to rip you off but it’s almost impossible……
More likely, Zeiss are focused on Sony FE because Sony have a groundbreaking lineup of bodies and very little native glass (and are paying them), while M43 has excellent glass in a wide range of focal lengths that would be hard to beat, even at Zeiss prices.
That’s a good point. Add to it the fact that Sony is maybe the third largest seller of photo products, whereas micro 4/3 combined make up, what, ~5% of the interchangeable lens photo market? (Last numbers I saw, feel free to post a link to more recent breakdowns).
Maybe. Has Sony’s A7 FE lineup exceeded M43 market share? That would be impressive. The lineup is very hot but I can’t imagine they’ve sold more cameras than Panny and Oly combined with a few years head start. If you add the original, DSLR Alpha lineup, perhaps.
The recent Zeiss FE releases seem pricy, not very fast, and are fully manual focus. Definitely not a mainstream offering.
I don’t blame Zeiss at all for focusing on Sony. They have that entire market virtually to themselves.
Plus, I have a feeling Leica lenses produced by Panasonic have something to do with it also. Maybe the m43 playground is not big enough yet for two heavy hitters? Especially since PanaLeicas have auto-focus yet are still as small as modern Leica manual lenses (46mm filters). On the Sony FE platform, Zeiss lenses (yes, all three of them!) have AF, too, but only the 35mm and 55mm have 49mm filters; the zoom is a honking chunk of glass.
If this is the case with Full-Frame why the hell do they make lenses for Sony’s E-Mount? That isn’t full frame.
M43 is going down the drain. Zeiss and everybody else exept m43 lovers now it. M43 is nice and should focus at lower end of the market. M43 can not compete with APSC or FF.
What on earth are you on about? m43 _is_ on the lower end of the market! I don’t see any m43 camera other than the M1 and GH4 going for the price of a D610 or D810; do you? The M1 has full weather sealing and targeted at users who might be considering, say, a Pentax K5-IIs or Nikon D7200. The GH4 is a different category all by itself, being a pro-level 4K hybrid device. The other cameras by Olympus and Panasonic are in the same price bracket as entry level DSLRs.
You haven’t met the site’s resident cockroach. He goes by a variety of handles here and posts specifically to get the sort of reaction you just gave him. When he’s not posting here he’s on one of the Trek fan sites arguing with other basement dwellers about warp field equations. 😉
Hmmm funny and smart. Lady killer much fanny boy?
“Funny?” “Smart?” “Lady killer?”
Aw, shucks, Mr. Cockroach, you flatter me. But could you please remove your lips from my derriere … you’re embarrassing yourself.
I see, ignorant and dim, and I thought funny and smart… Fanny boy seems appropriate though. Look it up, so you know what that means.
What’s da matter, Mr. Cockroach, getting rattled? lol
I understand you like “getting rattled”. Well, I prefer ladies. Real ladies, not vulgar boys with a fanny LOL.
Unfortunately, “real ladies” don’t go for cockroaches living in their parents’ basement suites.
Keep trying, though. Perhaps one day you’ll actually outwit me. 😉
Yes, yes a vulgar boy with a fanny you are… Did you get it this time? We were just not created equal.
Because you are refined instead? Tell us all about that… Wait, the Robert idiot is way worse. I’ll spare you this time.
Tsk tsk tsk. Did someone make you angry fanny boy? There, there is your favourite tosspot…
Geeks are untermenschen…
Spock by the way shoots M43.
M43 is the lower end, I agree. However, the prices are often mid-high end. This relegates it to a niche of aficionados with money to waste (ie dorks and company promoters).
Reported as Inappropriate.
True. For some reason, some get angry when pointing out that obvious fact.
You’re too late, troll. The interesting discussions have been done and the adults have moved on. Wake up earlier next time, there’s a good boy.
Oh sorry, butthurt much? Fauxtographers hurt when one offends their toys.
Reported as Inappropriate
Nerds are untermenschen…
I take “troll” as a compliment, fanboy…
Harry, Djikjiijck and Tom say so too, so it must be true.
How do you all fit in the same bed?
Would you really like to know? I know you would bad boy.
Reported as Inappropriate.
Not to worry, as promised Schneider is going to be rolling out their line of M 4/3rds lenses any decade now! 🙂
Oh and those Touit lenses shown above…not the greatest. I tried that lens on my fuji and the fuji 35mm kind of smoked it and at half the price. Ditto the Fuji 14mm vs the Zeiss 12mm. Zeiss doesn’t always hit home runs either, though they want power-hitter pay.
That said the Sonnar 50mm 1.5 is a funky lens but one of my favorites.
Agree with the Sonnar on EM5. I used Zeiss ZM lenses on the EM5 when I still had that camera. In my experience, ZMs work better on the m43 sensor than Leica M lenses, for some reason. Leica lenses look boring on the EM5 — sharp but flat — while the ZMs retain their character — gorgeous colours and 3D pop. I guess you really need a full frame or M8 sensor to do the LM lenses justice.
Totally agree.
For those who think that the Cosina-manufactured Zeiss lenses from Japan are any better than the high-end Zuiko, Nikkor, or Canon L lenses, also made in Japan, then you’ve been drinking the Kool Aid. Particularly in this digital world where there is so much software correction at capture … and the ability to tweak at the pixel level in post.
Now, Zeiss’ Otus series? Different ball game; those lenses absolutely are top-notch (but you pay for it).
I have several Japanese Zeiss and they are all excellent, easily better than many (not all) Canon or Nikon lenses and worlds apart from Olympus with its tiny sensors (as you know, tiny sensors require much better lenses than larger ones to deliver comparable quality).
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and to drink as much Kool Aid as you like 🙂
MR. COCKROACH … YOU’RE BACK!
What a surprise.
Sadly, as usual, most of your statements are just the measurebating fantasies of a fauxtographer.
Pardon? Can you translate that from inferior lingo? All I got is that you play with yourself a lot.
If you need me to translate something from “inferior” lingo, then I guess you’re not very bright, Mr. Cockroach. lol
And why are you obsessed with me playing with myself? Wanna watch?
Trying to pull huh? Sorry I am not in that camp. But go ahead fanny boy, entertain us with more profanity.
Profanity = blasphemous or obscene language
Neither of which are present in my comment. Sorry, Mr. Cockroach, your stupidity fails again. Not a very good loser, are you?
Sorry for disappointing you, I see you are looking for a soulmate – or a buttmate.
Flagged as Inappropriate.
Now look up “obscene” fanny boy. You are inferior aren’t you?
Geeks are untermenschen…
Judging from your pic, your grandfather is a cockroach.
Flagged as Inappropriate.
Nerds are untermenschen…
I’d like to use Zeiss lenses, but there is no Effing Way that I’ll use a Full Frame camera. For Motion Picture Work I Prefer the Cooke Look. Sorry Zeiss.
We would really like to make lenses for you, but then we’d have to reveal that we can’t beat what is alredy done in the field by existing lenses dedicated for the small sensor with our existing lens range which is meant for larger sensors.
Simply porting our Nex lenses to m43 like Sigma does will not yield better results than what you already have and, unlike Sigma, we can’t sell ours for peanuts to make them competitive in m43.
At least we’re honest: porting the existing stuff will not be worth the price tag we’ll ask for them, developing dedicated lenses for m43 will be too small of a market. Cheers.
Thei maturity level of this site is funny. Everyone would be jumping up and down if Ziess announced the exact opposite believing it validates their choice of system. What Hippocrates.
Wow, auto correct went bonkers. What I meant to say was this. If Zeiss announced that they were going to produce lenses for m4/3, everyone here would be jumping for joy. They would be saying how awesome it is that Zeiss is joining m4/3. What a bunch of Bologna.
you mean Baloney Zesty. Hey where did you get that name?
Zeiss knows too well it’s products are uncompetitive, being big, heavy and super expensive when compared to other pro level lenses from Panasonic Leica, Olympus, but only only have very similar optical quality. Like Schneider, it has missed the opportunity, this boat of this fast growing M43 market by not going in earlier when there were not many top quality lenses. Too late now. They had the chance to become more relevant in this industry and get some of their past glory back, instead of becoming more and more niche. As they say, great margues never die, they fade away, like Angenieux, like Rolls Royce, …
There are no pro level lenses from Panasonic or Olympus. Writing “pro” on the barrel is not enough.
Keep telling yourself that. It will help you sleep at night.
Neither is using it as your name.
Define “pro” level.
You are a “pro” right? So you should know LMAO.
that 42mm f1.2 from panasonic is pretty darn “pro” enough for me
LOL it’s heavily software corrected junk, the noctipus has 6% distortion and matches a cheap 85/2.4 on proper sensors. After fixing that distortion, see how much “sharpness” is left – “sharpness” is the ultimate goal for the kids here.
Flagged as Inappropriate.
Flagged as Inappropriate.
doesn’t Angenieux still make cine lenses? Also if anyone doesn’t want their Angenieux glass or their Rolls Royce because they’re fading away I’ll send you a self addressed envelope 🙂
Ok, you might be taking it a bit to far. Uncompetitive- hardly. Vastly superior to olympus- no. Better sharpness and contrast for sure.
Pretty much sums it up, yeah. Not to mention that the sub $1000 Zeiss lenses are no better than the $400 Olympus ones…..
This^^ Very true.
if so… Zeiss Touit price/performance for E isn’t good either, this doesn’t prevent Zeiss from making them
Oh, and not to mention that their agreement with Sony probably prevents them. How hard can adapting a lens to a smaller sensor be, anyway? A new chip and bayonet mount?
Doubt they would get any sales, zeiss lenses for sony nex aren’t that good, not to mention really slow af, at this point you can go for f0.95 lenses 🙂
Sigma’s MFT lenses designed for APS-C sell pretty well
Sigma lenses on say the A6000 are cheap and amazing…try the 19 and 60mm for pennies and then compare them to a zeiss and you’ll be very surprised. Google that comparison and it’s wow wow wow
What a silly confused statement.
“At the moment, the MFT system is quite valued, but as for the
willingness to spend big money on lenses, to see this as an investment
as you do on a SLR, we are not 100% sure it is there. On a full frame
SLR system, the lens is really the investment part. The camera is what
you change, and people are used to this. In the case of less-than full
frame systems, we still don’t understand.”
So they make lenses for systems that are used by mums and dads mostly, people who will never buy an additional lens. The vast majority of NEX users.
Fuji, yes a group more likely to be in the Enthusiast class and buy lenses. But M43 they don’t want to know and blame the purchasers of m43 as not buying additional lenses. So Voigtlander has it wrong. Olympus is informing customers that the new 40-150mm f2.8 will be a long roll out due to sheer volume of orders.
Maybe it is as some commentators say. They cannot match the current existing quality at a reasonable price. That may be the real reason.
On lenses for MFT: “One thing we can’t make is excellent lenses with less money.” “(lack of) willingness to spend big money on lenses”
Nobody said anything about cheaper Zeiss lenses for MFT – I cant help but feel Zeiss doesn’t fully understand MFT – from these two statements it sounds like Zeiss looks at MFT as a economy cheapo-consumer system.
MFT glass certainly isn’t cheap, because of the sophisticated lens design and tolerances required for such quality and speed in a small system. You’d really have to understand and see the lens as the core investment if you want to buy any MFT lens outside the kit lens.
Maybe I’m giving too much benefit of the doubt here, because if not a lack of understanding by Zeiss, its obviously an condescending view on the system – which probably is the case given the overall arrogant tone Zeiss has in this interview.
” it sounds like Zeiss looks at MFT as a economy cheapo-consumer system.” I think you are right, and I also look at MFT the same way. That’s why I find MFT prices outrageous. Am I a bad person?
I think maybe Zeiss is busier and more successful than ever and like the post says allocating resources to address Sony’s FE needs. The German companies are not like Ford and GM, what makes the glass special is the attention and precision that goes into making them. They are not going to become assembly-line companies pumping out quantity while sacrificing quality. Gee I sound like their PR person. My guess is that this is the case.
Look at Mercedes, they churn out maybe 150 new cars per day, while GM or Ford will make 5000 or more cars per day. In 1999 Daimler Benz purchased Chrysler in an effort to learn the assembly line protocols and incorporate them into the production of Mercedes’s. It didn’t work at all.
I see Leica, Zeiss, Schneider as precision instrument companies that are not going to become monoliths any time soon. Not only that but you make Lenses to last into the future and it seems like Zeiss is not giving M4/3rds it’s blessing by sitting this one out.
Thats what I think too – If I was Zeiss, I wouldn’t spread myself thin. I guess my comments were moderated out, but I’m too lazy to retype.
So I guess my reply to you was moderated out, but in short, I wanted to say:
1. You are likely mixing what MFT is (as-is) and what you WANT MFT to be. As I said, MFT is expensive, its benefit is compact size, not economic. Oly and Pana stated the are focusing growth in the premium segment.
2. I’d love to see Zeiss MFT glass, BUT I agree with them that it doesn’t really make sense for them from the business side. However, in my post above, I found it strange that Zeiss had to either demonstrate their lack of understanding of MFT, or show an snarky attitude towards an entire system. It could have respectfully just said its not interested without trying to dismiss the system.
Based on his own words, I woukld say that Christophe Casenave doesn’t understand the way the camera market is changing. It seems too radical for him to grasp. Much the same way other companies allowed themselves to fall behind, Zeiss is willingly letting itself fall behind because it sees value only in the 135 format cameras. That’s fine by me, let Sigma and Tamron make more m4/3 lenses.
does Tamron make ANY M4/3rds lenses?
Yes. Google your own comment and the 14-150 comes up.
thanks for the answer albeit snarky. i thought perhaps you’d tell me what the lenses were and why you liked them?
using a big (slow) lens on a small camera kind of defeats the purpose of M4/3rds smaller systems doncha think? not to mention Pana and Olympus offer planty of big slow crappy zooms.
I think if Zeiss wanted in they would have plenty of cache. They do make great glass an their reputation proceeds them. As a matter of fact I think Zeiss making lenses for the M 4/3rds market could have been a game-changer. But I guess if you want to use Zeiss glass on your micro 4/3rds you (we) can always rent cine lenses in various mounts.
I am surprised some here believe that m43 lenses are cheap. Whatever the guy says, it is pretty clear that the place is already oversaturated by excellent lenses by Olympus, Panaleica and Voigtlander. What can they offer more? MF is covered, IQ too.
Cheap they aren’t, and good… Not really.
That can offer “Leiss”…it’s like, Zeiss quality but with that Leica glow.
shouldn’t the photo above be the Fuji X-E2 vs the Sony A6000? Those 2 cameras are contemporaries, the Xpro 1 is kind of out of date and bigger than the Sony. The Sony A6000 and Fuji X-E2 are nearly identical size. Very different cameras ( I love the Fuji) but comparable in release date, size, sensor size etc. Just saying’ and that Zeiss Touit lens is not worth the dough
I’m not interested in Zeiss glass anyway, as good as it may be. What I want to see is a commitment from Sigma and Tamron.
I agree. Sigma and Tamron are a good match for m43. Zeiss is massive overkill.
TRANSLATED: We’re pretty half a.rsed about M4/3…..
Don’t worry, Pana and Oly have a broad palette of excellent professional lenses for a genius like you.
The “we have limited resources” is a marketing double-speak for the “our resources are better used elsewhere”.
Same difference.
Come on guys, this statement is pretty clear: we are not making Pirelli Zero Rosso for Lada. Makes sense to me.
Reported as Inappropriate.
Keep it down gaywat….
Reported as Inappropriate. Seriously Admin, sort it out.
Nerds are untermenschen…
Still mad at me Harrydicktom?
I could never be mad at me. Smack!
This certainly makes sense to me. MFT users have already made the statement that picture quality means less to them than the “weight of their” camera or whether or not they have a mirror in it. Why would a company known for no compromise see promise in such a compromised system?
There’s very little wrong with the picture quality of m43. If you believe there is, go elsewhere. It’s simple.
Or, this could mean:
“We considered it, and realized that we cannot compete with some of the high end lenses made by Panasonic and Olympus. We certainly could make lenses just as good, or better, but not at the same prices they can.”
Plus…. every day there are fewer and fewer “gaps to fill” in the M4/3 lens catalog. Third party lens makers thrive on filling the gaps. This is why Zeiss is making lenses for Sony and Fuji. The companies with the “most gaps.”
That’s the problem: Zeiss can not compete with crapasonic. I think you hit the nail on the head there.
Wow, stealing my name now – awesome.
Who cares when we have Leica with us…..zzzzzz
I am so sorry for your parents.. Do they feel like beating you savagely from time to time?
Well I would. Maybe not savagely, but this shill would get a few lashes. Like in the old times in Alabama.
Alabama now, getting better by the day. So that you shills know, people like Abhinay or Robert were lashed back then. That’s the spirit of this toy format: bad, expensive and racist.
Hijacking people’s real names, spinning them into multiple fake handles, and then using them to troll…?
HEY ADMIN – TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE TROLL INFESTATION ON YOUR SITE.
I think so you’re talking about your parents right? I feel sorry for you :'(
Leica is cute for posers. If you actually plan on picking up the camera than Zeiss.
“In the case of less-than full frame systems, we still don’t understand”……….Sony Alpha (Nex) and Fuji X series are medium format or what?………zzzzzzzzzz
We were all eager with anticipation for your next comment. Thanks for bestowing that on us.
so eager was eagerly waiting for my eager comment….now GTFO as eager as possible
Thanks. To use your same lingo, I shall say “thanks thwat”. Remove the “h” if you can dumbass.
He can’t…
Thanks it seems…..go get a life instead of trolling around
Zeiss can sell for other mounts, that’s ok by me. We have Voigtlander and Leica, Kowa, SLR Magic, and Samyang. They’ll do just fine.
Dear Zeiss: Give us the 42.5 .95 OTUS!! Do it, put Leica to shame.