[shoplink 34633 ebay]
[/shoplink]
I don’t remember the last time both of the Loxia were in Stock in USA. Now you can have them if you are fast:
Six 35mm Loxia are for sale at [shoplink 34632 ebay]Popflash on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]. Also in Stock at BHphoto (Click here).
One 50mm Loxia is for sale at [shoplink 34633 ebay]Popflash on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
Reminder: New 24-240mm FE lens is in Stock for the first time at SonyStore (Click here).
41 Responses
35m….. nice focal length, not the usual short 35mm; hopefully stabilised … 😉
lol all the no-long-lenses-for-e-mount whiners can now shut their mouth.
with the A7II it’s stabilised 😉
well, that went fast. none availabvle on BH now
lol, yep, when I clicked it it actually said in stock, by the time i moved it to the shopping cart it said “coming soon”
Just found one (the 35, which is what I was after) at Amazon. Last one. I’ll have it on Monday! 🙂
The availability issue is likely caused by the infinity focus QC problem. I would hold off on purchasing one until the entire faulty inventory is phased out.
Infinity focus problem?
ilovehatephoto.com wrote: “There was one serious quality control issue with the Loxia. The infinity stop was inaccurate. It means, if you dial the focus ring all the way to infinity, it didn’t actually focus to infinity. You have to dial it slightly back towards 5m (as shown above) to actually have everything in focus. I’m chalking this to the lens being an early production copy. Hopefully, future Loxias won’t have this issue.” – http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/03/03/zeiss-loxia-35mm-f2-0-vs-zeiss-sonnar-35mm-f2-8-lens-review-comparison/#more-8848
There’s no quality control issue. It’s designed to work that way, so it could be used in different temperatures (thermal expansion). He should have read the manual that comes with the Loxia lenses, it explains it perfectly.
That is completely normal. Every lens I’ve owned with a mechanical focus ring has focused past infinity.
Lucky me, my loxia 50 arrived today (belgium). Ordered it one month ago.
You’ll love it!
How sexy does it feel….if that makes any sense.
I’m actually very envious of the Loxia lenses, they just seem to be much, much higher build quality than my Sony/Zeiss 1,8/55 FE lens.
The Loxia 2/50 lens is so much smaller, yet it’s 13% heavier!? How can this be?!
It’s as if my lens is made of air, and the Loxia lens has more pure quality glass inside. That’s the feeling I get anyway…
I think assuming they are of a much higher build than the 55mm 1.8 might be pushing it.
I know I’m making unfair assumptions there. But it’s just a suspicion I have.
For example this review: http://78.47.130.109/#!/articles/5486bdb7e2939c1336dcbfab
In the sharpness test: http://backgroundblur.com/img/2014_12_12/crop.jpg
You can see the wires on the left antenna in the Loxia image, it’s retained 100% and is clearly much sharper than the other two lenses.
And the bokeh test, the Loxia lens makes such HUGEand sharp bokeh pearls. I’m really really envious of this!!
I know the review has nothing to do with the 1,8/55 FE lens I have. But if it’s a general indication of the quality in the Loxia lens, then…
Saw this. I own the exact same cameras as well. I think….just me here…you’d be crazy to ditch the 55 for this. It’s sharper.
I’ll take your word for it. That’s more reassuring to hear.
My life depends on Autofocus anyway, I’m too much amateur for manual focus.
Wow, the Pana looks bad. Anyway, the weight of the lens only tells you more about materials, not necessarily build quality (and it could be the body, not necessarily the glass, that makes the difference). Two very different things. There are excellent plastics, crappy plastics, excellent metals, crappy metals, tolerances and whatnot to take into account. Some days I wish my FE55 was as plasticky as my SEL50.
As to IQ, there will be differences in some aspects, but overall these are all excellent lenses. The test above is weird, at f5.6 the SEL50 looks great, certainly not far off the FE55. I’d never spring for the Zeiss if I am using the lens at that aperture.
I also tested the 50/2 Loxia against the 55/1.8…
http://backgroundblur.com/#!/articles/547cd671f2cdc6e12bf4cdee
In my opinion the difference in sharpness is negligible except for extreme pixel peepers. The 55/1.8 has smoother bokeh, the 50/2 more 3D pop. Both are top notch. 50mm is my favorite focal length so I’m happy to own and use both.
But yeah, the 35/2 is very highly recommended. I will also be posting a review of the new Sony 28/2 later today or tomorrow.
I concurr. It’s fair to say that the Loxia build quality radiates a lot more confidence than the FE. It feels as if it effortlessly can survive thirty years of daily use, the FE not so much. And something you’re not mentioning, is the fact that the Loxia shots have more contrast and saturation than the FE55. But maybe that is included in the 3D-pop definition? 🙂
The paint of my 55/1.8 is already peeling off. The Loxias have a very different standard of quality. A lot of weight goes into the metal housing, while the Sony lenses are plastic with a metal shell. This makes them nice and light, but not as durable.
It’s so much smaller cuz it’s just manual only (no AF motor) and it’s heavier is probably cause of the glass quality or the amount of metal they used.
SONY PLEASE LISTEN UP!
IF SAMSUNG AND FUJI CAN MAKE A 2.8 ZOOM LENS FOR THEIR APS-C CAMERA SO WHY CAN’T YOU?
IM YELLING BECAUSE THE ADAPTER SUCKS AND IHAVE THE ZEISS 24-70 2.8 MOUNTED ON MY A7R/A6000 AND IT’S TERRIBLE. GIVE ME NATIVE ZOOM LENS WITH MORE FOCUS POINTS! THANK YOU SONY!
I’m not sure your brain double checked what your fingers did before you posted this.
I have the 16-35mm f/4 lens and I love how I can shoot at f/4 in autofocus when shooting video. And I love how Sony made it possible to shoot video in full frame in autofocus!
I wonder if Sony can make a 16mm f/4 AF prime lens so that it won’t be as heavy and big as the zoom?
Lighter is always good for better productivity. And the lighter the rig the more work you can do.
Thank you Sony!
Loxia, Otus, Touit – what kind of pretentious names are those?
It’s not the names that matters, it’s the image quality behind those names.
Lol, birds names are pretentious now? Could you troll worse than that?
He wasn’t trolling… Count Vlad Dracula….
Latin names for bird genera? Yeah, that’s pretentious names for lenses.
Fancy, I didn’t know the Loxia was a bigon. You know what I say to that. Bye-gone-it…I wish it wasn’t so expensive. I sure as heck buy one for myself. Sure is nice.
Just the 35mm is Biogon, lots of lots of glass in the compactness. It’s even heavier than the Loxia 50mm.
The 50mm is Plannar lens.
There is nothing to get a woody over these MF lenses. Why buy one if these when a Sony Zeiss AF lens like the v good FE 35/2.8 exists and costs less?
1. Some prefers manual lens and doesn’t like the focus by wire feel
2. Just because you mentioned the 35 f2.8, the Loxia Biogon 35 f2 is 1 stop faster and apparently sharper WO
Yeah I have my Leica M lenses for this. But then you’re going to say these lenses are “optimised” for digital. But then look at the A7S – works well with M lenses..
It works well but it certainly isn’t optimised, as in if you do a comparison test, then they’ll be a slight performance decrease (be it sharpness, flare or etc) of the lens on the A7s compared to a M.
The one I can recall is the new ZM 35 1.4 which works superb on the M, but not as good when mounted on the A7s. Still usable either way.
Not all of us have Leica glass. Getting this type of a lens, at a fraction of the cost of a Leica, is a nice option to have. Just because you have a Ferrari, does not mean someone else shouldn’t get excited about a new Audi.
people like options…
and depth of field markings, solid build quality, good optics, manual focus, the brand. i guess you have to be very crazy to be this.
*buy