[shoplink 33732 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Very surprising to see that. But eBay store Shenikon is already accepting preorders on the new Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 lens via their [shoplink 33732 ebay]official eBay Store (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
Shenikon writes:
This is a brand new, unused and unopened Carl Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA Full-Frame Wide Angle Lens. It is made in Sony E Mount for all Sony mirrorless digital cameras. It comes with lens hood, tripod stand, lens case, front cap, rear cap and user manual and all original packaging.
This is a pre-order. Item will be shipped on or before 13th March 2015. If you have any question or want to combine shipments, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to serving you.
I would be surprised to hear that’s a mistake made by them. I really do hope this means all four new FE lenses will ship from March 13.
170 Responses
Wow, and it’s completely free and at discount price! 😀 Ebony and Irony…!
Apparently it comes with a “tripod stand”… something’s not quite right with this.
Yeah, the tripod stand part felt kinda iffy. Has not been mentioned before, nor does the lens look like it was made for it. Apart from that, I would not mind a tripod stand. I have used a Contax Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4, Leitax-adapted to EF on a Metabones on my A7x cameras, and I have found the integrated Arca mount on the Metabones to be very useful when using tripod.
It’s definitely not that big!
I can’t understand why sony was not able to announce that shipping date at CP+ some days ago….
matches the “no real raodmap for anything” (at least for the public) philosophy….
Sony has a ridicoulous pricing policy! Don’t buy it. #boycott ripoff
People with empty pockets have ridiculous ranting policy. If you want cheap crappy glass, don’t buy expensive good ones.
Touche
Or, you know, wait for it to actually be released and whinge about the official price…
How is it overpriced ? It costs about the same as the Nikon 35mm f1.4 G and the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZF and is about $200 or so from the MSRP of very old Canon 35mm f1.4 L and Sony 35mm f1.4.
Honestly I am clueless as to how much you expected it to be priced at ? 😛
As a reminder, the 35/1.4 ZM for Leica is $2000…
not only the size is ridiculous, also the price…meeeh
How is it overpriced ? It costs about the same as the Nikon 35mm f1.4 G and the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZF which it competes against optically and is about $200 or so from the MSRP of very old Canon 35mm f1.4 L and Sony 35mm f1.4 which are sub par lenses.
Honestly I am clueless as to how much you expected it to be priced at ? 😛
How can you suggest it is overpriced prior to knowing how it performs? I’m sure pleased that manufacturers don’t always produce crap lenses just to make you and others that only consider price and ignore value. I might end up agreeing with you, but I’ll wait for the reviews.
Will all those who only look at price just say that you can’t afford the lens. That is a fair statement prior to knowing anything regarding performance.
It’s probably price gouging before launch. Sony’s price could probably be at $1399.
I’ll hold on to my 35mm Art for now until the dust is settled.
fully agree even if the sony is released for 1399 us bucks you could get two sigma 35 .4 arts or one 35 art + 50 or 24 art for one zeiss and i have doubts that the zeiss sony 35 1.4 will be that much better….concretely twice as good as the sigma….;) never ever …maybe better flare/ghosting due to better coatings and bokeh rendering as it is highly discussed with regard to sigma art lenses….but even zeiss is sharper/ better would you really notice the difference in reality/prints or only in labs /scores ??? Pixelpeeping….
First of all you get what you pay for. My friend tried 5 Sigma 35mm f1.4 lenses on his 5d mk 3 and all of them would misfocus at infinity focus. He finally gave up and bought a Canon 35mm f1.4 L for a higher price but it focuses perfectly at all distances.
I checked with a couple of my friends who used the Sigma 35mm f1.4 L and all of them reported focusing issues at different focal lengths.
So while the Sigma is an awesome optic its focusing is really not up to speed and is worthwhile if you are looking at a MF only option.
Who knows maybe in 5 years Sony will do something to the mount and that Sigma may stop working completely on Sony.
Definitely price gouging. And tripod stand?! At least we know the Japanese launched his date though…
I assume, Sony’s official price will be significantly lower.
A grossly overpriced gigantic brick with no stabilization, at twice the price than the smaller Sigma 35mm f/1.4.
Where is the tiny, excellent, equally FF, 35mm f/2 IS on the rx1, Sony?? Do you really think a lens like that would sell LESS than this one, particularly on a system whose main advantage is size??
It does seem a bit strange. Zeiss did the same though with the ZE/ZF 35/1,4 – i.e. it greatly increased the size over the Rollei/Contax version but lost all the charm and unique rendering.
If this is just the ZF/ZE version with a new mount I think many will be disappointed. I read that the old Rollei/Contax lenses had lead in so can’t be recreated sadly but maybe they’ve come up with something totally new. You’re right to point out though that given its size it will have to be better optically than the Sigma which will be hard. Otherwise on an A7 one could just use the Sigma (in a-mount) with the La-Ea4 and have enough cash left over for a photo trip somewhere.
It isn’t the same design. Google for the cut away images of this lens at CP+. You’ll see that there’s glass all the way through it. I agree it looks like an adapted SLR design but I was pleasantly surprised to see it is a whole new take on the distagon. Who knows maybe it is actually most similar to the new ZM 35mm?
It really surprised me that Zeiss didn’t ensure that their new ZM 35 1.4 worked on Sony sensors – for example voigtlander managed it with their latest 15mm lens. It is surely just good business sense going forward for manufacturers to make sure their lenses work well on Sony FE mounts even if it almost certainly makes them be a little bit longer considering how many more of them there will be than native M mount cameras and the gap will grow every year.
Still if the FE works like that ZM lens it will be a bonus as it has had good reviews. Most reviews have found issues using it on an A7 sadly. I did see the cut outs and yes it does look like the lens has been specifically designed for the FE mount so perhaps we will get something unique. Not long to wait now.
I have no clue why people are complaining about the price ? First off this is an ebay listing but even then the price shouldn’t be more than $100 – $200 off this which puts it well on par with the Nikon 35mm f1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZF. Only the Sony 35mm f1.4 Alpha mount and Canon 35mm f1.4 L are cheaper at $1500 or so MSRP and those are both sub par optics.
3rd party offerings are almost always cheaper as there is a risk in using them. You get focusing issues, QC issues and the possibility that Sony may change the lens mount and stop them from working altogether in future.
No lens (or camera for that matter) should cost more than $1000. These products are ridiculously overpriced.
Fair enough. I would be most happy if they reduced the prices on everything. But the fact is with the slow 35mm f2.8 initially selling for $799 a $1700 price for the f1.4 version was kinda par for Sony.
Right, but instead of suggesting that it’s wrong to complain about the Sony price because it’s on par with the Canon/Nikon prices, shouldn’t the suggestion be that the Canikon versions are also vastly overpriced? I mean, these things aren’t really performing any better than the Sigma, which costs half as much. Is a brand plate really worth an extra $800?
You can’t compare first party lenses to 3rd party lenses.
Sigma will make many many more lenses than Sony so their costs are pretty low due to economies of scale plus they are a third party brand and no one will buy them at a higher price.
Am I happy Sony is charging a lot of money for this lens ? Of course not I don’t have tons of money BUT if you are asking if I expected this price then yes I did. And anyone thinking Sony will give you a cheap price for a Zeiss branded lens is fooling themselves IMO.
Indeed, I would never expect that.
Hm. That will become difficult to be sold independently of its (to be expected) superb IQ.
In Germany it will, if the Dollar price is correct, end at 1.399 or even 1.499 €.
The 35G was a dead article due to its insane price level.
And not very impressive performance…
http://www.lenstip.com/181.1-Lens_review-Sony_35_mm_f_1.4G.html
Yes.
It is an excellent performer when stopped down to medium apertures – but that is not the intention of using it when investing a hell of a money into a super fast lens.
^^ Wrong lens Freddo.
So tell me, what 35 G lens Dirk is referring to.
It won’t, because for all big brands 1$ = 1€, just like the 1800$ of an A7II = 1800€
huge price
To all those who complained about the high price…. talk to Leica about it! LOL!!! 😀
Leica makes a much smaller lens at the same speed. With hand-ground glass instead of molded glass. And it’s a true wide-angle design instead of this retrofocal crap.
Well, with all that Leica exotic glasses and all, i still think FE55 has better IQ than sumilux-M. And its couple times cheaper.
The bank says NO
Has no one paid attention to the fact the auction has a photo from the Sony stand?
Who would believe this guy?
Zeiss is nice at twice the price
Holy crap $1730 for a 35mm? Is that going to be the USA pricing too? How does Sony expect to sell any of these?
Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is about the same. They seem to sell them.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. And it’s not like they’re discounting any of the other fast Zeiss glass.
+This one is going to be much better. I bet.
It had better be damn good, because at that price, you could by the sigma 35mm art and a Canon 6D or Nikon D610 to go with it.
it’s ebay seller, he even can set the price $999999 if he want. Not indicator the real Sony’s price
True but it’s a price in line with competitor first party 35mm f/1.4 lenses.
Well it was never going to be cheaper than the a-mount 35/1.4 G. Many on here want small, fast and inexpensive which is unrealistic.
So it’s extremely large, extremely expensive, and about as fast as every other system 35. I am not impressed.
The 55FE was pretty fast, pretty expensive, pretty small, pretty amazing. The new 35FEDistagon had better extremely amazing.
Not expensive for such a lens. I thought that it would be priced like the ZM version. Good value, but only if it delivers what I’m looking for. How can you judge value without knowing how it performs.
Exactly. What did people think when they announced FE55? 1000$ for 55/1.8? Insane? After some time passed, it is probably the best fifty ever made, and the price is quite right. I expect this Zeiss to have the same killer quality. It shouldnt be compared to canon nikon sigma 35 1.4 because its most likely gonna trample them.
I suppose the thinking was they already have the very good & compact 35/2.8 so they did not need to design it to be small or in the same price bracket and it had to be sufficiently faster than 2.8. There is the Loxia which is high quality and less expensive for those that can forego AF. There are plenty of 35mm lens options.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-Unused-Sony-FE-24-240mm-F3-5-6-3-OSS-Zoom-Lens-SEL24240-a7-a7R-a7S-/141586535194?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20f737131a
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-Unused-Sony-FE-28mm-F2-Full-Frame-Wide-Angle-Lens-SEL28F20-a7-a7R-a7S-/351326197257?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51ccac5609
Is it real?
Who knows, prices seem about right.
This sounds promising.
For me the big question though is how does it render? I, like many others, am hoping for it to be like the old Rollei & Contax Distagon 35/1,4. The newer Zf/ZE versions aren’t bad lenses, they have beautiful bokeh, but they have lost that 3d rendering, that pop that was so unique about the old Rollei and Contax 35s. Just really hoping we can have that back. Or perhaps it will be something entirely different. First time in ages I have been genuinely excited about a lens.
Totally agree since I already have the Rollei Distagon 35 f1.4. The way it renders OOF areas might not be everybodys cup of tea, but it definitely is unique. Just the idea of a modern similar lens (sans triangular aperture opening), but with AF makes this new lens quite intriguing.
I have the Contax version and often find myself wishing I had the Rollei for the triangles! They are always such mad prices online though!
I bought the new ZF version and couldn’t believe what had happened, the old one is so insanely sharp at f/1,4 and finally with the A7R I can focus properly, it has been a joy to use my old Contax. The ZF one does have nicer bokeh but has lost that rapid fall of in focus depth which gave the 3D and has lost the well corrected behaviour at f/1,4. Even comparing it to the latest Leica 35 1,4 on an M9 I prefer the Rollei/Contax – the Leica is sharper across the frame but lacks the 3d pop. So yes it’s fair to say I have my fingers crossed that we might finally have an AF version of the Rollei/Contax on our hands but I’m trying not to get too excited after the disappointment of the ZF/ZE version (not a bad lens but nothing compared to the old one).
I know. I have a lot of lenses, but the Rollei 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 are the last I would sell. Those lenses have a soul. Really hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. Sad to hear that modern Distagons are different.
Yes the modern ZF/ZE 34/1,4 design is completely different. It is under corrected so at f/1,4 there is a sort of veiling haze, not softness as such but things with lots of RGB don’t focus well – the upside is it gives nicer softer bokehn. Stepped down it’s superior to the Rollei/Contax design, I think through being less contrasty it renders fine detail incredibly well at f/5,6. It’s a fine landscape lens and quite similar to the Nikon 35/1,4 G. But for people and general photography none of them compare to the Rollei/Ctonax. I have been trying different 35s now for a decade in the hope to find another! I don’t like using the old ones too much for fear of damaging them. It’s a rather different rendering but in many respects the closest I have found is the Voigtlander 35/1,2 II on the A7R. It is not quite as sharp as the Rollei/Contax, being a 1,2 lens, but sharp enough for 36MP even at 1,2 and it gives an even greater fall off in focus due to the extreme aperture. I don’t like the colours as much though and it’s certainly an unusual rendering as I think most extreme aperture lenses are.
Could someone explain to me in layman’s terms, why would anyone want a Sony A7 camera rather than, say, lice, scabies, tapeworm, salmonella, genital warts, gonorrhea or chickenpox?
I mean, considering the 11+7 bit issue and all, I just don’t get it.
nice anagram.
Two letters from each word spell “re” “ta” “rd” going from the last to the first
Naton Libren is also an anagram for Anton Berlin.
I realised that. I was just trying to be funny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagram
Because, people who want an A7 mainly want a relatively small, full-frame mirrorless. In short: Compactness, great IQ and great ISO performance.
The A7 / II / s / r do exactly offer that. You can make great pictures in jaw dropping quality with them. In case you disagree with that statement, I really can’t halp you. If that goal is archived, most people give a sh*t about how that goal is reached. To be more specific, if LOSSY compression gives great results in most cases, people don’t care.
Thats why.
I am honestly trying to figure out why I might want to keep a Sony as a back up….
Maybe video. I think it’s easier and more creative for that use. And the compression isn’t a factor.
I can not fathom using the camera (even as back up) for the D810 for photography.
Lots of solid reasons here. The more I compare the more relieved I am with having made the change.
https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/
People stick (are stuck) with the Sony system because they bought Sony’s BETAMAX e-mount lens line up. They have too much sunk money in making mushy photos and can’t stand to admit to themselves that they made, yet, another foolish decision.
https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/
Ignore me, sorry off my meds again.
Outer finish of SONY FE lenses looks so boring – a simple black barel. Give it some glitter please.
And Svarowsky stones. Then they could ask for 6.999. 🙂
Olympus Pro lenses look much better. Zeiss fail.
are you serious??? Olympus???????
PRO lenses. Have you held one? Makes my Zeiss look pail in comparison. It’s like they built them to survive a zombie apocalypse.
Outer finish of SONY FE lenses looks so elegant – a simple black barrel. Don’t give it any silly glitter please.
Yeah, but that’s only the Zeiss branded lenses. The G lenses tend to have that stupid shiny ring around at the front. And all of the Sony lenses look completely different from one another. No consistent design language or f/stops. What a headache of a lineup.
OK, agreed with all that. What I was trying to say is, that the barrel like shape, especially on the Zeiss lenses, looks rather elegant, not boring.
Zeiss FE lenses are a snore fest in the visual department. Now that 90 macro isn’t to bad. The rest might as well be coffee mugs.
Yes, A-mount lenses look like shit in comparison.
I wish a company would create a smart Canon EF/Nikon G adapter to Sony E-mount. No glass in between, fast and accurate autofocus. Then I would get the Sigma Art 24, 35, 50 and Canon 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II then I would be good for the upcoming weddings. Why the hell did I sell all my Canon gear 🙂 Any news on this dream adapter anyone???
You’d be better off buying the Zeiss for Nikon as you can use it on your Sony today and on your Nikon when you get fed up with Sony’s 20% loss in resolution due to astigmatism and 75% color information due to Sony’s 11+7 lossy compression scheme.
I wake up every morning thanking the universe I had the common sense not to waste money on Sony e-glass and instead invested in quality glass like the 21mm Distagon, the 55mm and 85mm Otus and the 135mm Apo-Sonnar.
The Nikon D810 and 70-200 has 2X the IQ of the Sony A7r and equivalent lens.
https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/
Wow you really are like a briken record, saying the same things over and over and over and over and over, your life must be really exciting if you have nothing else to do.
Yep, he’s clueless.
I’m briken ?
Looks like your spell check is also bricken.
Lol
Like yore maff.
Had people not continually complained about wobbly plastic lens mount, then we’d never have gotten sturdy metal one on a7II.
Had people not continually complained about NEX menu, then we’d never have gotten Alpha style menu.
Had people not continually complained about lacking IBIS, then we’d never have gotten it on a7II.
Had people not continually complained about fly-wire focus and no fast lenses, then 35/1.4 would never have been created.
Had people not continually complained about needlessly small ergonomics, then a7II would never have been redesigned bigger.
Had people not continually complained about small AF area, the a77II would never been released with wider AF area.
__________
So keep complaining about short battery life and lack of fully articulating screens… along with compressed RAW. Sony only listens to the angry hordes.
Some mighty assumptions there, and no proof whatsoever.
Obvious truths aren’t based in assumption and don’t need proof.
What do you think Sony just said “Let’s make cheap plastic mount first and then put a metal mount on later… all part of the plan… Let’s have gitchy consumer menu first and later we’ll use the Alpha menu… just to see the look on their face”…
No my friend… these things changed because photographers who use the cameras complained loud and proud. Our voices are the only thing preventing Sony cameras from devolving from the user perspective. Sure the tech evolves. But that’s no excuse to allow the user experience to devolve.
Notice E-Mount gains respect every time it adopts an A-Mount function. Sony sure didn’t plan for that. Our voices contribute to controlled mutations, rather than random mutations.
More conjecture.
Thick labels, “assumption”, “conjecture”.
Thin on contribution, discussion, debate. Meaningless mouth phartz, unless you’d like to challenge the meaning of my comments with substance, rather than labels.
Maybe you should look up the meaning of the words? While you’re at it, look up concise.
While I’m doing that, you can address the issues at hand, rather than move the goal posts.
What issues at hand? Your assumptions, or your flawed logic?
You may have the time to waste, but I’d rather not waste mine debating with someone whose arguments are built on quicksand.
Have a great day!
Now flawed, presumptuous conjecture. But you never say how. You can’t back up your judgements. Yet mine are based upon initial conditions and final outcome. You simply move the goalpost and cry waste of time on metaphorical quicksand. The only thing wasted here is the meaninglessness behind the words you spout.
Answer the question Justtakethepicture… How is it that you bash me for assumption and conjecture, but allow for Sony assumption and conjecture that users want the improvements listed above?
If Sony didn’t listen to the complaints and answer to them, then the only other alternative is that Sony “assumes” and “conjectures” about what customers wanted… without ever listening to them.
And if there is another alternative, then please present it. Much better than your last offer of “oh-boy”.
Sony aren’t restricted to just assumptions and conjectures. There are such things as market research, focus groups, customer questionnaires etc.
You talk as if people constantly whining and complaining on internet forums is the only way a company can get information about customer opinions.
No doubt Anton. I totally agree. My comments were arguing against Justtakethepicture’s shallow logic of waving my words away with convenient labels. If he says that about my comments, with no reference, then he should use the same standard for Sony too.
Forum users aren’t just limited to assumptions and conjectures either. And that’s what I was being accused of. We have a thing call “user experience” and “historical reference”. And that’s why no one has yet to topple any of my original comments. Easier to kill the messenger than to digest the message.
Ooops, your logic just ate itself.
Were it not for user complaints, then the only possible alternative is for SONY to entertain “assumptions” and “conjectures” that users want the improvements listed above, Without their feedback?
If you mock my comments as “assumption” and “conjecture”, waving them away with your personal labels, then will you also mock Sony for the same, if the improvements came without user feedback?
And what a shame on Sony if at least some of the improvements didn’t come from user feedback.
Check mate.
“the only possible alternative” – another assumption. Oh boy, you are really not equipped for this discussion.
Maybe if we complain long enough about you Mr Anton Borin Sony may “fixyoutoo.”
“Had people not continually complained about fly-wire focus and no fast lenses, then 35/1.4 would never have been created.”
I thought the Zeiss 35/1.4 also comes with focus-by-wire…
But how can you focus those lovely lenses with such an inherently inaccurate D810 OVF. See Mingy Thong’s website.
No problem using the OVF in 99% situations and a Zacuto or Hoodman for critical focus. It’s not as elegant as the EVF but the OVF has it’s advantages at times. The keeper rate of the Nikon OVF and Nikon’s superior AF system was 8.5 X better than the Sony in yesterday’s test. The Nikon images were superior as well.
https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/an-imatest-is-worth-1000-pictures/
>The keeper rate of the Nikon OVF and Nikon’s superior AF system was 8.5 X better than the Sony in yesterday’s test<
Eight point five times better, not eight point for seven five?. You really are a balloon aren't you. Those of us that shoot (not test) for a living soon figured out that the Sony EVF is infinitely better than a Z-Finder on Nikons dodgy LCD live-view implementation.
Portrait sessions must be fun with your Frankensetup.
Obviously it is hard for your photography skills
You own the otus brothers huh? Fancy that.
You are without doubt the most tedious person on here, and that’s saying something.
Lol. None of your samples are sharp, neither the D810 nor the a7r ones. Better learn how to use a camera.
Sh*t in sh*t out. Imatest on poor data is utterly useless.
Yes, the good stuff is often expensive and heavy.
If you can’t afford it new look on eBay and if its too heavy for you then whatever….
don’t buy it.
I’d love a Tesla roadster but its too expensive and it doesn’t have enough seats but you don’t see me complaining on a blog about it.
The best, by a large margin, 35/1.4 full frame lens available now costs $900 new.
If you are referring to the Sigma 35mm f1.4 then I have yet to see a properly working copy yet after trying 5 copies on my friends 5d mk 3 and 3 copies of different people I know using different cameras.
All of them had some focusing issues either near infinity focus or at different focal lengths.
My friend got so pissed off that he bought the optically inferior Canon 35mm f1.4 L but at least he gets consistent focusing and guaranteed compatibility.
In future if Sony does something to the mount the Sigma might suddenly stop working altogether.
Nope! It costs $5000.
I can smell it A9 is not far away, a $3000 body to match the $1700 lens.
That smells nasty.
1700!!! HELLLL NOOOOOO!!!!!!
Agree
I expect the US pricing to be $1500 – in line with a-mount prime pricing.
Hong Kong prices tend to be more expensive.
He is advertising a lens with a price he doesn’t have, most likely to scam people out of some extra cash, and not to mention the 55 USD shipping fee which is nuts.
Its a photo from a trade show = automatic discredit
its been rumoured that the lens would be in the 1300 Euro range… i would imagine thats more accurate
The sigma Art is only 899 and it is a legend
plus $300+ smart adapter.
Samyang 35/1.4 gets fantastic reviews and can be native mount or use cheap adapter… for A LOT less.
This one will stomp all over that Sigma.
Huge, expensive… I can buy a Zeiss 1.4/35 for CaNikon, where is the added value here? And, have you checked the excellent 2/35?
Added value? Autofocusing Zeiss.
Yeah, good luck manually focusing that CaNikon mount lens wide open through the OVF.
FE lens will have AF and on the A7II, the continuous focus tracking is pretty damn impressive. I just used it with surprising results in a dimly lit club a couple nights ago with the 55/1.8. The new FE Zeiss 35/1.4 also has a new magnetic AF mechanism that is supposed to be even faster.
E-Mount is dead…
… expensive funeral though.
Need a big coffin to bury all those huge E mount lenses.
Sony is leaving lots of us with the kit lens and few others as rest out of budget. So I see myself not using my A7 much and back to Nikon DSLR. Sony is killing us also with the E mount no 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8 etc. endless new bodies but very very few Sony lenses. Just the highly priced Zeiss
While I agree that some lower priced lenses would be great (the 28mm is a step in the right direction). You then complain that there aren’t f/2.8 constant primes? … Because those are always cheap.
Hyperbole much? Sony isn’t killing anyone.
If your top two lens choices are a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 then you are in the wrong place. Especially if you think they are going to be compact, have perfect IQ and will be cheap.
Why anyone would leave Canon or Nikon DSLRs if their main criteria was low cost lenses is a mystery to me.
We are all grown-ups and should be able to understand the current FE platform capabilities and have realistic expectations about the speed of development.
Canon and Nikon have fast zooms 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 are mainstay for wedding photographers for example and so are F1.2 lenses I don’t think we will ever see those for FE. Nikon and Canon and Olympus for example have standard premium and pro lines. But I guess you are happy with lens lineup and prices
You just complained about lens prices. How much are those f2.8 zooms from Canon and Nikon ? 😛
It is a great native lens line-up for a system that is 1.25 years old (not to mention the a-mount AF adaptation options plus the endless MF adaptation).
HAHAHA Yes! Well said.
That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
So you are going to stop using your Brand X camera because the image quality has suddenly degraded to garbage, because the company sells the products that you want for a price that you dont like????
Time for a lobotomy.
I’m looking for more expensive options please. Can someone point me in the right direction? I was hoping to empty out my wallet.
Noticed the following.
1. The pictures are probably from CP+
2. The seller mentions a tripod stand for the lens?
3. The price (1116 pounds) isn’t that far from the 1000 pounds I have heard before.
Sony loves these high price FE lenses I have feeling that all those $1000 plus lenses are not going to help sell a lot of a7 s r bodies. Sony is killing owners with lack of Sony normally branded lenses or am I the only one that is not happy with theses prices ?
I own an A7 and some FE and many legacy lenses with this great camera.
I am not going to buy any further FE equipment, as long as they will just offer such
high-price lenses. So I could say I am on strike. Maybe endless, if Sony will not move towards more customer friendly lens pricing. Let’s see. Developments are good, üractically all news are disappointments from price point of view.
Look at the Nikon and Canon premium lenses. Pricing is similar to those because quality is as good if not better.
I’m with you. Some will claim prices are justified – I’m not convinced Yes the 55mm f1.8 is a sharp and a nice lens but it is just a F1.8 The point is also that Sony needs to have both yes the high end for those who have the money and are ultra critical but also lenses for the others that might not be as critical and do not need weather seeking etc. I don’t think Sony will sell many of these ultra costly lenses I don’t think we are alone with this
No, they wont sell many of them, but they will sell all that are made, because the ratio between those Zeiss lenses that are all hand checked for consistency (and real live humans have to do the checking and get paid in real money to do that in the EU within the Zeiss plant and all of the technology available and set up to their exacting parameters) is considerable. Your G lenses and standard sony lenses are high quality lenses but they are made by machines and tested by machines boxed by machines and so there are many many more of them and the price goes down. Zeiss have their own standards and their own methods, and quite honestly is shows in the images that are produced from Zeiss lenses, which is more than can be said of 99% of all other lens brands.
So you are dissatisfied with your Sony branded lenses?
They are not working?
They are too expensive?
Or perhaps you are merely dissatisfied with the price of the Zeiss lenses which you want but cannot afford/choose not to buy?
If its the latter then stop complaining and continue doing your photography and making beautiful pictures with great lenses that you already have. Lusting after things that you want and don’t have won’t make your photography any better. And Moreover, it doesnt reduce the quality of the beautiful images you have already made with your existing equipment.
I agree. Sony is really killing us and the joy of owning a a7 r s How about some Sony Branded lenses under $800
Because selling Zeiss branded lenses is working and the margin are higher, this is purely marketing. If you want cheaper Sony lenses, tell people to stop buying those Sony Zeiss lenses.
You will have to wait for the Sony 28mm f2 which should sell for around $450 and should be a pretty good performer. You can use a UWA adapter to make the lens into a 21mm f2 prime.
No, i doubt Sony will make both cheap and good lens. So, leave quality to Zeiss and good-cheap combo to Sigma. I hope they will enter FE soon. APS-C Sigmas for E mount are maybe the best lenses ever in terms of value. In 200$ range, i have never seen anything close to it in overall quality.
I think I did see a comment from Sigmas top guy that the are not going to make any E and FE lenses. Which I do not understand as I think they could make money doing so given Sonys track record in producing lenses for those mounts. Tamron made few for the E mount and I do not think they are big sellers and I think that is because Sony has somewhat marketed their Nex /a5000 as a beginner camera. For example the Nexs did not even have a mode dial. They tried with the Nex 7 but it just did not appeal to the pros and there was a lack of lenses I think there would be more users willing to buy Sigma for FE but seems Sigma is not wanting to gamble on it
More like 1399.00 here in the states is my guess. I’m buying but I’m a Pro so fast and expensive goes with the turf. Your not going to get a 1.4 35mm lens any smaller folks, it’s never going to happen. Here is the good news you have choices .
yes, the 2.8/35 is more resonably priced. 1400 USD/Euro would as well be tooooooooooooooo much for a prime with a non-critical near to standard focal legnth.
Stating getting pissed by Sony’s lens price politics. There is no competition and they let me strongly feel that.
Summilux 35mm f1.4 is a much much smaller lens and no doubt outperform this lens optically. And it doesn’t take that much to fit AF into a lens. Just look the how small m 3/4 AF primes are… not any bigger than its MF counterparts. Zeiss is not known for building compact and optically perfect glass. Just like how Sigma ART relies on a bunch of corrections glasses to acheive decent IQ.
I wouldn’t say that there’s “no doubt” that the summilux will outperform this.
True, and lets consider what the parameters of “out performance” actually are given the technical constraints of a flange distance close focus and throw range.
Sonnar 5518 beats summilux m 50 14 from 1.8 wide open in every aperture in all the tests with real subjects i have seen. I dont know about the charts because i dont care about them, but i believe it performs better there too. And its much cheaper. So, my guess is there is no doubt this FE will be better than summ 35 1.4 also.
Summilux-M 35 or any leica-M or R lens for that matter are MANUAL FOCUS. No IC, no motors. I have seen the inside of every camera and every lens made up until 2 years ago, IC (integrated circuitry) is a big design hindrance. “And it doesn’t take that much to fit AF into a lens.” Are you basing your argument on the USM linear orbital radio magnet motors that are built into Canon lenses? Well maybe you should go take a look at the size of the optics how many optics are present, how many optic to air surfaces there are vs groups and look at the same for Zeiss, and the size of the shell and tell me that there isn’t much space taken up by that motor. -ADD TO THAT the fact that most lenses now do not have proper helicoids all Canon and Nikon lenses use gutter and track barrel systems that offer about 70% less manual focusing precision over an actual 11 thread helicoid, Im not saying they are not accurate, but they are no way as precise as a dedicated helicoid with a long throw, this new Zeiss lens has a massive throw, because this lens is partially marketed to film makers. Go look at a Leica-R Summilux 35 considering the fact that its a MANUAL focus lens using a similar design to Zeiss and Pentax, and also consider the rear mount throat size and tell me that lens is not massive. All Leica-M lenses have 0.7 meter close focus which means that the helicoid can be small. If you wanted to add an additional close capability they would need an additional 5-8mm of helicoid plus shell armature of additional 20-30% so your magical 35 lux would end up being about the size of a pentax takumar 50 macro.
Also note that the flange distance (from the rear lens mount to the film plane is less on a Sony a7 then it is on a Leica M body, and that right there has a massive implication on lens design. Nikon is the longest Fuji and Sony are the shortest.
The real genius lenses out there are Zeiss and Pentax, and note that they worked together in the 1970s to achieve Zeiss T* lens coatings and an enhancement of Pentax’s already established SMC coatings.
Also Consider this, Zeiss designed their lenses before Leica did, and their formulas were a major influence on the design of every lens that exists today. And those formulas are still as valid today with all the latest computer lens design technology vs a century+ ago when there was pencil and paper.
I have little doubt that when this lens reaches my hands or the reviewers and cinematographers hands it will be mind-blowing.
Panasonic makes the 42.5 mm F1.2. And it has mega OS and much better built / materis. And it costs a lot less Yes it is not FF but Fuji likewise in APSC has fast primes that are top quality made and not as costly. I just think this partially is a marketing thing with Sony. Sell the bodies at a reduced price but get the customer on the lenses So how many none Zeiss and none G branded lenses are there ? Ok the kit lense 🙂
why don’t you compare with other full frame lenses from Canikon instead.
That’s a 85mm f2.4 equivalent.
The list price is actually $1600 although amazon sells it cheaper now.
I think m43 lenses are lot more rip off than the Sony lenses.
you are right Sony lenses are very inexpensive – I apologize
How do you know if the fuji is better built or uses better materials than this unreleased lens? Sony Zeiss lenses tend to be very well built to take a beating.
I have both Fuji and Nikon and Sony FE and E lenses – not saying the Zeiss is not built well but no better in my estimation then some of the Fuji lenses –
But it seems clear that most commenters are just very happy with those prices and very happy with the FE selection of lenses – although there are no zooms faster then F4 – 24-70mm F2.8 and the 70-200mm F2.8 are the main stay of wedding professionals – and I do not see Sony coming out with those in the near future – they have hinted to that fact – so I apologize
I don’t see a ton of people happy with the prices. Sony Zeiss and Sony G lenses are certainly sold at a high premium. Many who do buy them find value in them though. I was just curious about the build quality issue you brought up since the 35mm in unreleased.
From personal experience, the Sony Zeiss 24-70 and 16-35mm 2.8 a-mount lenses are the best built lenses of those ranges so I’d be surprised if this prime were somehow inferior from that standpoint.
People, wait. If it fails to deliver for the price, than its expensive. Now nobody knows nothing, so we dont know if it is expensive, just right or even cheap. Its newest Zeiss. Same disbelief was around FE55 pricing, until people saw what that lens really is. Now, be patient and watch. My intuition tells me this one will be the best IQ AF lens ever. If it fails (yet i dont know when did Zeiss prime failed), no one will buy it, price will drop significantly, and then it will be fine again.
I honestly don’t see how can this lens fail on IQ when taking its sheer size into consideration. It’s doesn’t take a genius to design a 35mm f1.4 that is about four times the size of Leica Summilux lol
Why would anybody want to compare Zeiss with overpriced snobby niche that is Leica? Zeiss as well as Leica makes 10000$ lenses- and much more expensive than that- but doesnt offer it to consumer market. No photographer need something that expensive. Those lenses are for science purposes etc. This is probably only time i`ll ever quote Ken Rockwell: “People dont buy Leica because they need it, but because they can”.
And if you visit Steve Huff`s page and his most recent preview of this lens, you can hear him saying this is actually better lens than summilux IQ wise. For 4 times smaller price. Precisely, the best 35 he had ever used. I believe him. Not his words, his image samples.
So, my intuition i mentioned in the first post nailed it.
You talk as if price is a relative thing. The price is an absolute number; if it’s too high, then it’s too high, it’s as simple as that. The price, the value, won’t suddenly be lowered just because you take into account what the products “deliver”.
Of course price is relative. Number alone is absolute, because it is abstract value with nothing attached to it. Price has another factor combined with the number= product quality. So it is relative to product quality. 1800 would be too high for a cellphone, and too low for a car. If the lens is bad, that price is too high, if its outstanding, it cant be too high. Its simple as that.