A source claimed to have seen an early prototype of the Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 lens. It was not labeled as Zeiss. This means he is not sure yet the lens will get the Zeiss or Sony “G” badge on it. The lens has been designed to have an extremely nice bokeh.
The lens is scheduled to hit the market in September/October.
–
To not miss any rumor quickly subscribe our social network:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
And if you have some “rumor” to share just send me an anonymous messages here:
[contact-form-7 id=”14822″ title=”Share”]
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
270 Responses
The old Minolta 85mm f1.4 G lens is well regarded lens, so I expect this lens to be even better
It may be that Sony could maximise profits with releasing such a lens, but it does seem odd to me to ‘double up’ on existing focal lengths when there is a lot of calls for options that aren’t available at all yet.
Of course, my needs are not necessarily the same as others, so perhaps I’m completely wrong.
I agree, they should concentrate on other focal lengths. But then again this is only a rumour.
Yep – we need another 35mm!
yes a 35 mm 2:0 between the AF 1.4 brick , its too large for schlepping around and the 2.8 nice little lense but DOF is not so my taste with 2.8
Too good to be true…
I thought the same. 🙂
Any news on a new A7SII (do you think it will happen this year?) I’ve been holding on for months. Also do people hear think we’ll see an updated to the 28-135mm any time soon with a slightly wider range, say 24-200mm to cover Sonys s35 sensor cameras. Just Asking, so please no trolling !
will certainly postpone my decision to buy the batis to see a real comparison . the issue related to AF in low light for the Batis make me hesitating to buy it now. we haven’t see in depth review by guys like DXO yet
You’re going to postpone buying a lens that actually exists (Batis) for something made up? SMH.
I’m guess you don’t have much FE glasses, there all crap I low light 🙁
There was a lens which has “extremely nice bokeh” call Minolta 85/1.4 G (D) Limited. I will pay it for anything if Sony is going to re-release it in FE mount.
Batis did not want to compromise the Sony lens line. Vice versa Sony releases a 85mm that already exists in the Batis line.
This is a good sign and my hope grows, we could see a 50mm Batis soon.
Please design it like the 35/1.4 with an aperture ring.
But since it doesnt wear a Zeiss badge, it also seems not to wear a G badge either, so why call it a G lens in the headline? I would just call it an 85/1.4 for now.
There is no way that anything F1.4 will have neither Zeiss or G badge.
If what the source said is true, it might have been a prototype unit, before the design and branding is finalized.
Of course, what Im saying is the title suggests it will be a G, when it also could be a Zeiss.
Aperture ring? Yes! Badges? Not if it artificially raises the price. But Zeiss quality would be nice.
+1 for the aperture ring. I don’t mind if it’s Sony G and not “Zeiss” as long as I can use it for cinematics.
Why? Price can’t be that much different from Batis, so why not cover other focal lengths before?
Because Batis is from Zeiss and Sony seems to be selfish 🙂
Is not the first time, Sony releases a lens to an existing Zeiss counterpart. Up to now the Sony versions were selling better because they were cheaper/smaller. Maybe this time, the Zeiss will sell better than Sony version.
It will be very much different from Batis.
Current A-mount 85/1.4 is 1700$. Add couple hundred more for OSS and inflation.
Ouch. And here I thought that the Batis lenses would represent the best quality for the FE line of lenses for some time at least. But I guess the proof is in the Loxia vs Sony 35mm 1.4 pudding.
Current A-mount is a Zeiss branded and the street price is much lower.
Sony G lenses are just as expensive if not more expensive than Sony Zeiss lenses.
Street price for it is still almost 1700$ for every reputable seller.
Used prices are as low as 900$, but those are pretty low for most of the A-mount gear due to wide-spread hysteria about the future of the mount.
Personally, I would take smaller and lighter Batis 85/1.8 over 85/1.4 any day. If they are working on another portrait prime for the system, it should be 135/2 instead.
I was indicating based on German/Europe market – so sorry.
Sony’s price is 1.485 €, and streetprice is 1.200 €. Thought it would be similar in $ as well.
On German amazon, the 85/1.4 ZA price is today reduced to €1195. This equals Batis 85mm retail-price.
But nevertheless I would prefer the slower Batis, just because f1.4 has a tooo shallow DoF for my usescases and Batis is better in size/weight issues.
Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 is just 75g lighter than the Sony Zeiss 85/1.4 but 19mm longer.
I prefer a 135, but Sony makes the money on their lenses not on Zeiss lenses (Batis not Sony Zeiss – which are Sony lenses).
I for one finally switched to FE because of the Batis lenses. Bought the body (a7r2 on order) and a bunch of Sony lenses. So Zeiss does help Sony, whether there’s a royalty or not.
Lens availability makes the camera bodies more attractive of course.
A 2.8 Zoom with Zeiss badge please. I don’t want an LAEA with A mount Zeiss glass…
Those a mount Zeiss lenses are not in the same level of quality as their FE offering. The 85 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 are just so so for the price
As we now have enough choices for 24/35/50/85mm – and considering the fact that they have noted, that serious A7 users are willing to set IQ above size/weight – how about UWA/standard/tele zooms in 2.8?
I’m fine with the original Sony G lenses, quality and price is in a good balance. Will be my next lense for sure!!!
Great to have options at such a popular focal length. Now give us a 135mm f/2 and something ultra wide but not fisheye please!
Once that’s done, some f/2.8 zooms to cover the usual range, then some big telephotos for wildlifers. Mix in a strobe system and pro service, fix everyone’s lossy RAW with firmware, and never release a body that overheats or shutter shocks again, and you win. Oh, and let the shutter shocked trade in at high value towards an unaffected model.
That’s about the time we’ll all start whining that FF sensors are inadequate. Hurry up.
PS to Zeiss: a Loxia 90, not 85. But you already know that. 🙂
I don’t know. I am having such a great time shooting with loxia, being my first MF lens, that I would love to have all this lenses to. OK maybe a wide lens could come first, but an 85 f2 it would be very welcome.
We’re coming up on August, Sony lenses are typically announced a few months before release. I’d be shocked to see this before November.
It would also be huge, expensive, slow focusing, and really heavy. 85/1.4’s have a lot of glass and are slow on DSLR bodies. The whiners will be out in force if this becomes a reality.
I’ll stick with the Batis.
I guess it will neither be cheaper, nor smaller than Batis 85. And I doubt the image quality will be better.
85mm 1.4 gives a very shallow DoF – maybe a buttery Bokeh! But if I cannot get both eyes of a headshot in focus, I won’t use this big aperture. f1.8 should be sufficient for most usecases.
If Sony does not a miracle, I guess Batis will be the better choice for me.
If you are shooting close up headshot portrait, even f/2.8 is enough for shallow DOF and obliterated background. Still f/1.4 is very usefull if you want obliterated background behind subjects that are several meters away. At larger apertures you get OOF background and foreground, so even f/0.95 has its nice use. Of course noone will use 0.95 for a headshot.
Exactly, it’s not all about headshots from 1-2 metres away. f/1.4 has its uses.
I’d consider this lens over the Batis if it isn’t priced too much higher. f/1.4 would differentiate it a bit more over the 90mm macro.
Exactly. If you want both eyes in focus, 1.4 is not the right option and even 2.8 gives beautiful bokeh. However, I love it when only a single eye is in focus, and for that 1.8 is not enough.
Exactly. The idea that f/1.4 or full frame is only for razor thin DOF or one-eyelash-in-focus shots needs to die.
You can get razor thin DOF with a compact camera by focusing incredibly close. Fast apertures and large sensors simply extend the range of distances over which you can any subject isolation, thus giving the photographer more options. You are not forced to have shallow DOF all the time with a fast lens, you can stop it down when you want to!
The depth of field of an 85mm F1.4 lens on a full frame camera is razor thin at close distances.
Not when you stop it down… I’m not sure what your point is exactly?
Daaaa, not when you stop down. The discussion is about an 85mm F 1.4 lens, at that wide open aperture the depth of field is razor thin. Always has been and always will be.
What’s the point of an F1.4 lens if you shoot at F8.
So that you can have shallowish (but not razor thin) DOF at further focus distances by shooting at f/1.4.
Did you not read the original post you replied to?
I did indeed, and generally shoot the 85mm at F2 to F2.8 for portraits because the depth of field is so thin. To use F1.4 at close distances requires a tripod and a very still model, but the effect (razor thin depth of field) is sometimes desirable and makes for a good shot.
I think you are wrong, and assuming the shots you have seen are either close up or widest aperture; prove it. I think the subject in the frame will not reach the edges as you are implying with ‘close distances’ and I would like to see proof of effective use of widest aperture in the context of head to edges, in fact any head to edge shot that isn’t someone reclined on a couch or something- for an enveloped defocusing effect.
Lens tests sometimes do that however…wrongly.
I like wide angle portraits, and here a wide aperture is required to defocus the background and for the image to acquire shallow depth of field look without distorting the features by being too close up.
hahahahaha
The 25mm f/2 looks quite good and is an expensive sort of lens at the best of times, but i have different focal length priorities having garnered a surprisingly comprehensive collection of wideish angles already despite myself, and would all but require manual controls.
I found great ones and love them as I can use them indoors etc.
This is something you will never experience using your IPhone, obviously you haven’t a clue and your question proves that.
The 90mm 2.8 I checked out today is much better than I would have thought and I will shoot something with it as its ironic, being the one with discrete issues, somehow some of the best qualities also: you can test gear and ‘principles’ to destruction when you don’t understand photography you know.
Try doing some close head shots using an 85mm @ F1.4, pick an eye pupil or an eyelash to focus on. Zoom in closely on the eye, you will see the focus fall off between the two. That’s how critical the focus is a F1.4, don’t take my word for it, try it yourself.
I will answer this to you with the fact of the matter seeing as you are onto this subject now and the non photography and personal are setting in. A fast 85mm for portrait is in the main for an uncanny experiential view of subject somewhere between natural and emphasized to be as if looking too, when the image is viewed somewhat small like on a monitor or in a magazine etc- like beyond normal lens wide angles are used. With the subject at that greater range than just close up, the extremely shallow depth of field or at least good quality not so stopped down can best achieve that particular effect as completed by real photographer below, without which it would possibly fail anyway. That’s one way to use the fast 85mm and to some good effect, if specific, and the other is that 85mm is supposedly easier to frame up a portrait without moving around and distancing from subject, but that is false because if you don’t have space to do that you are always sacrificing best naturalism and effective imagery just for it. Relatively fast 100mm and 135mm are superior with 90mm as possibly a fantastic compromise between. That doesn’t mean Sony shouldn’t make one, as at some point a lot of switch users etc will buy one in their new Sony system, but perhaps real photographer is correct in saying that the focus could well be on completing useful effective focal lengths, after all, its the focal length which combines with aperture and subject distance and type that really matters and for that, I suggest getting the best possible most suitable aperture to achieve the desired effects from each focal length that interests you, with compact high image quality choices leaving little to be upgraded, and at once leaving some less desirable but necessary focal lengths in less expensive models you can make less compromise when focusing upon- even preferring later- in building your system.
Cropping from the excellent Sony 90mm 2.8 for a little tilt when shooting freely with AF and so on, you can just about match the 100mm equivalent and still have delicious rendering and most effective imagery, great subject description and move in as close as you want too: FURTHER than any 85mm without macro.
I don’t think 90mm is as good as 100mm generally but it would introduce a little distortion of periphery elements in a busy scene and isolate the subject a little, for a cool modern look with that beautiful almost vintage rendering and totally modern contrast and lowest colour aberration- aside from night shots and lights near sides it seems 🙂 Its well worth it!
Oh, this is getting personal, isn’t it? If you send a plea to the master, and by master i mean technically and artisticly acclaimed teacher who cares not only about metanarrative, but personal experience and perception also, then the angle as in point of view doesnt make a difference at all. Beggining with his personal approach to the nature, mortgages and food he eats, he doesnt even feel disturbances that you try to imply on him.
I should have said ignorant, sorry.
But you applied for the job?
No one says f/1.4 with 85mm is useful for headshots. However, it is much better for full or 2/3rd body portraits to give that added subject isolation compared with f/1.8.
So in summary f/1.4 just give even more flexibility, but the price is probably more bulk and weight than the Batis 85.
What this system is seriously hurting for is a 135mm. Sony, let Zeiss shine for a while with their 85mm Batis and give people what they REALLY want – options above 100mm.
Also, if I see another FE 35mm I’m going to scream.
I was amazed how cheap you can pick up a vintage 135mm. Grabbed a canon FD 135/3.5 for £25. Not as fast as it could be but it weighs practically nothing…
Or get a Leica R 135mm f/2.8. Suba Suba Suba Leistung!
I don’t remember, since when 135mm was sooo popular. You can also put a Zeiss APO on it, or cheap Rokinon. A-Adapter and the beautiful 1.8.
Myself, I love the bokeh of the Nikkor AIS 135mm f/2 for portrait.
I wouldn’t mind a cheap 35mm pancake.
I hope this is not the case. The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is immaterial. Too many redundant lenses for the FE mount, when there are glaring holes to be filled (135mm, 200mm, f2.8 zooms)
So the difference between f1.8 and f1.4 is ‘immaterial’ but the difference between f4 and f2.8 is ‘glaring’?
The difference between f.2.8 and f4 is a full stop. that’s material. 1.4 and 1.8 less than 1/3 stop that’s immaterial
f1.8 to f1.4 is 2/3 stops. Learn math buddy
1.4 to 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop
*puts head in hands*
What everyone else below said. The difference of 1/3 stop between your two examples IS immaterial.
This one raises eyebrows. The Zeiss America guy said in an interview on youtube that their goal with the Batis lenses was to not overlap with Sony’s offerings. It’s daft to figure Zeiss and Sony aren’t coordinating roadmaps. So either there’s some intentional overlap, in which case the Sony lens would have to have some technology to set it apart from the Batis, or the focal length is not really 85mm, or this rumor is false.
Loxia lenses overlap
“..that their goal with the “Batis” lenses was to not overlap with Sony’s offerings…”
Batis is not Loxia
And eveven Loxia lenses don’t overlap because they are manual focus lenses.
Yes and no. Over and above Loxia lenses being manual focus, they are a 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/2, and the Sony lenses are 35mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2.8, and 55mm f/1.8.
Are the Loxia and Sony lenses similar, and for some people competitors? Yes. Do I think the FE needs, e.g., a 70-400mm f/4-5.6 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 more than it needs a Sony 85mm f/1.4? Yes. But the similarities and differences among these are along the lines of what other systems have historically offered.
Of course it’s false. Guy from Sony said it won’t happen any time soon. Additionally all the a7000 rumours are pure BS and we’ll see some new A-mount bodies probably this year.
They don’t overlap in aperture. Canon and Nikon both have two 85mm lenses and Panasonic have two 42.5mm lenses.
Two auto-focus lenses a half stop apart counts as overlap for most.
They are from different companies. That’s like saying there are too many 24-70/2.8 lenses for a-mount because the Sigma and Tamron 24-70’s exist.
Not exactly. Zeiss and Sony have a mutually beneficial relationship. You may have noticed that many Sony lenses are Zeiss branded.
Actually 2/3 of a stop apart. Without getting into how significant 2/3 of a stop it, just note that historically, lots of camera companies sold several different lenses one stop apart, e.g., f/1.4, f/2, and f/2.8.
I doubt this will be a priority for Sony, but I’d love an FE 400mm f/4 prime.
That’s great, but where are the more compact lenses they were talking about? An 85/1.4 isn’t exactly going to be small…
Yes, this is the only other lens they are going to make 😛
Did you already buy the 35/2.8 and 28/2?
These are indeed small, but are just two lenses out of ten from Sony.
Yes, in a word.
Well there are some 50mm lenses of decent size like the loxia or even the 1.8/55. You can get the 15/4 voigtlander and that seems to wrap up the current options. May be some 21 or 24mm will work nicely too. Longer than 50mm lenses will be big
The a-mount 85/2.8 is quite small, so I’m pretty sure they could design a compact shorter telephoto for travel. I’d definitely look at a 21mm though
Indeed. Mirrorless is about flexibility for me, but right now it seems I will be adapting lenses to get the size down.
Yes, it will be announced in February and be available in April.
Im gonna get the Batis 25, and 85 mm. So a FE 85 mm is out of the question. What i really is missing is f.2,8. 70-200 mm, and a 400 mm f.4,0/5,6 like the EF 400 f.5,6. And i really need a super wide angel lens. And why not a dedicated 45 mm ts lens. Like the Canon 45 mm f.2,8 ts
Another fast 85mm? On top of the Batis and the 90mm they also advertise as suitable for portraits? Unless this is the budget option, what a stupid idea.
Let’s have an f2ish lens in the 120-135mm range instead. Much better!
You understand these are different companies building those lenses right? Different marketing departments. It is ok if they release similar offering then you have choice. Like we have 3 types of 35mm lenses for full frame and 3 more for crop only
Yes different companies that are working together. Zeiss have said they want to avoid duplicating existing lenses and Sony would obviously benefit from their system having a more diverse range of lenses.
And yes obviously having choice at the same focal length is good, not not as good as a choice between focal lengths. Would someone buy into as 3 lens system with 3 35mm lenses, or one with a 20, 35, and 50?
A lens can take years to develop. I doubt Zeiss was actively talking to Sony about what lenses they were designing.
So they were developing Batis lenses years ago for a mirrorless FF camera that didn’t exist?
A7 launch will be 2 years in November. The camera launched with Sony Zeiss branded lenses so Zeiss had some inside knowledge that e-mount was going full frame.
You might want to check this post from 2013 http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/zeiss-presentation-hints-new-lens-line-guess-its-the-ff-nex-zeiss-lens/
Actually a skinny, small non-macro 85/2.8 to go with the 35/2.8…?
Another 85!….before a 135! Preposterous.
One is built form zeiss (which happens to be a huge company on its own wiht 25K employees) the other by sony (a completely different company)….they both have the right to release 85mm lenses. Very likely their teams had been hard at work on these lenses for last couple of years….
We have 3 full frame 35mm lenses by now and 3 more if we count the cropped version…..
Yes but you would have thought they would have had some meeting with Sony to plan things out to avoid stepping on each others toes, especially given the complete lack of many focal lengths (for prime lenses), 14mm, 18mm, 21mm, 135mm, 200mm etc.
And at this meeting they could have shared their plans moving forward as regards design, prices, marketing …
Oh wait a minute, that would be against the law.
Believe it or not it’s possible for companies to collaborate on products without breaking antitrust laws.
Its breaking the law when you collaborate on prices only if there wasnt a joint design on a product.
Marketing wouldnt be at fault, unless there is false advertisement, so your comment is largely incorrect.
See Scion FRS/Toyota Ft86/Subaru BRZ – everything was jointly done here.
I have many old Minolta AF lens which in my opinion have nicer rendering than current Zeiss or G lenses.
I belive we only can be certain that Sony will release some portrait lenses and some f2.8 zooms in not so distant future.
It my be that they will do 2/85 or 2/100 or 2/135 or even dare I say it an all metal 1.8/85mm Zeiss Planar lens (the one designed by Tamron) to contrast the all plastic Batis! 1.4/85 to me seems least likely of the portrait lenses in short term.
We also know they will do some bright zooms – there is huge demand. I hardly see the rationale. Weather it is going to be the 24-70 or the 70-200 or may be some weird 17-40 and 50-150 we cannot know yet. 15-30/2.8 seems a good candidate if the Tamron is easy to move to E mount.
Why is everyone saying this is another 85mm? Sony does not have an 85mm in their lineup. Only the 90/2.8 Macro which is the closest. There is definitely a room for a fast 85/1.4 FE lens to exist, and to compliment the existing Sony 35/1.4 FE.
Probably because of the Zeiss Batis 85.
I think if Sony knew from the start that Zeiss would release a 85, they wouldn’t make it now because of the 90mm macro, a 135mm or a ultra-wide might have been more desirable, for filling the gaps purpose, but at least if it is a 1.4 this focal lenght is basically complete.
Give it an aperture ring like the 35/1.4 and I’m sold… the 85mm Batis doesn’t appeal to me for video reasons but the 35 is a great Cine lens. Unfortunate that it feels like it weighs 3 times more than the camera itself but Size, Image Quality, F-stop. Choose 2.
So as a Sony full frame e-mount shooter, if money, size, weight, and manual focus are no restrictions, the following nice set would IMHO leave little else to be desired..
Canon TS 17mm f/4
Zeiss 21mm f/2.8
Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2*
Sony RX1 35mm f/2 (e-mount prototype with attached sensor)
Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4
Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4
Zeiss Apo 135mm f/2
Minolta 200mm f/2.8
Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6
* Thought I am not sure the Batis 25mm is really that cool, as I haven’t seen enough examples of it yet.
If money, size and weight are no restrictions, you can also buy the corresponding bodies.
FE 35/1.4 is NOT good for cine. You can see the steps when changing aperture.
Why would you not get the Loxia for cine?
Come on… 105mm or 135mm
Not if you do it slowly. Whatever that means now. But I checked it, turning it slow will go stepless.
I will slow down my turn and see. So far though while happy with optics the ring turned out to be a gimmick — but maybe it was the speed with which I am changing it. The noticeable steps that I am seeing by the way are even in clickless mode (problem is it’s still a e-aperture mechanism… Just s better control than body dials). Mathias I hope you are right about slow turns. Will try tonight!!
WTF? Why 85mm? Why not 135mm G???
I remember someone from Zeiss saying that they went for FLs which are not competing directly with other offerings for FE… Somehow, I don’t think this rumor is true.
Relax, 8 lenses are coming.
Why some say the Moon?
why 1.4 G? it will be 50% on top of the 35/1.4 and no mortal will be able to buy it – we watch only videos of ah an oh. do some mortal men $500-600 1.8 so we can actually by this for the a7m2.
It’s almost certainly a Zeiss. Sony already makes a Zeiss A-mount 85mm f/1.4, so it wouldn’t be a big stretch for them to make a version of it for the FE mount.
I have an FE 35/1.4 mounted on an A7r sat right here on my desk and yes you are correct, even setting aperture click to off it still visibly and quite obviously has aperture jerky steps as you stop up and down, regardless of how slowly you do it.
It’s electronically controlled, not direct mechanical movement. This needs a firmware update to sort it out.
Mine is smooth when I turn it slowly, I have it right here too (I’m talking real slow here though).
But regardless of that, the 35/1.4 is far from a cine lens anyway. It has no proper manual focusing, no toothed focus ring and actually heavy breathing.
I had another go and you are correct. although it really has to be so slow that in practice it just isn’t practical.
This manual focus-by-wire thing is just ghastly too!
The Contax 200/2 should be much better than the Minolta…
I highly doubt the Contax is sharper than the Minolta. The Minolta is pretty much the best 200/2.8 out there. Now for f/2, the Leica 180/2 is a better option.
I’m reading STF here but somehow I don’t think Sony will be as enthusiastic as Minolta about niche optics…
STF with an f2 aperture & AF would be pretty amazing,
Presently I use, Samyang 14/2.8 (fantastic lens!), Sony FE 28/2, FE35/1.4, FE55/1.8 and FE 70-200/4.
I agree about a decent T/S lens, although I’d likely go for the TSE 24/3.5 MkII. Ideally a native T/S lens will hopefully be forthcoming. Also I’d hang on for the FE 85/1.4 and certainly a fast native 135 is needed.
Not sold on either Otus. Price (diminishing returns upon higher investment) and of course size and weight.
Would surely against this idea, Batis just begin to roll out and Sony try to jeopardize the sales while having the space for another lens, 21mm, 105mm, 135mm and not to say tilt shift lens. No idea about the partnership between Zeiss and Sony, but Zeiss definitely helps Sony gain traction in full frame. Having to fight over the same focal length is not ideal for the system development.
Clue, you have not; talking out of your rear, mastered, you have.
Yoda.
Sony Zeiss = Sony Lens
Zeiss (Batis, Loxia, Otus) = Zeiss Lens
They are not jeopardizing sales, they could get a piece of the 85mm action.
Tilt-shift lenses are not particularly relevant since Canon & Nikon T-S lenses adapt perfectly.
But I dont really think Sony needs to hurry pushing lens with overlapping focal length.
Do you prefer to choose over two 85mm at this stage or given the option to buy another 21mm or 40mm pancake lens. Yes, they should push out their own 85mm but not now. There are things more urgent to up against canikon.
If Sony has been working on their own 85mm lens, are they to scrap it simply because another company released one?
Disagree. Having a wide choice of options is always good for system development, even if there is some overlap.
Unless the price is much lower, or it weight much less or even performance much better multiple options in same focal length is not critical for current development. Sony needs to fill up the gaps as soon as possible versus the competitor, even m43 is getting good in lens range.
Agree on more choices is good if sigma, voightlander and tamron get in the game. But spending the resources on current state to overlap with Zeiss is not ideal. Better spend on other stuff such as 21mm prime, or a 40mm pancake.
I agree. The Batis 85 has rave reviews so far and I expect many people will buy that before the Sony version is announced. It would be much wiser for Sony to release a 135mm, or even a 200mm.
Hey, let’s not forget that f1.4 will somewhat help low light focusing and if they don’t include OSS it might be on par with the size and weight of the Batis 85mm.
More like the ZA85 or Mino85, both of which are not ‘that’ much bigger. Also while the Batis can be aimed at ultimate sharpness (with occasionally wonky bokeh) a nice 85mm f1.4 aimed at nice rendering / bokeh it would be quite a nice match.
We have several options for making shallower depth of field at good subject distances.
The 85mm 1.4 is only one and not the optimum at all, not least for weight and price where these others would be producing ideal results. 105mm 1.8 or 1.4, 1.8 was made by nikon already and 85mm is 1.2 sooo. 135mm 1.8 has already been made and could be remade with less aberration, more contrast and flare resistance etc, but still with great rendering, however,
a 135mm 1.4 would be system defining and surely unsurpassed for some time and where it was- Leica or Zeiss?, unlikely with all the benefits of a made for Sony lens and for a given system: ours! If it had full manual direct control as well, of focus and aperture, on top of useful AF, well…
Nikon don’t make a 85mm f1.2. Sony already have an exc plenty 135mm f1.8 lens that really is a halo lens like the Canon 85L.
Canons 85mm 1.2 is surely superior to nikons 1.4, given the most particular usage i’ve outlined below, for that focal length and fast aperture combination, no?
85mm 1.2’s were made in the past too. Is this kindergarten?
50mm 1.2’s were made also by many makers and still are even, and we don’t have one of those do we.
What i’m talking about is achieving the most ideal photographic expression.
Even the best 50mm 1.2 on 35mm sensor may not surpass or even match the equivalent on medium format, but the combination of exceptionally fast medium tele would be getting closer in look- EVEN if the image quality wasn’t perfect. Why not just get as fast as is required most generally and start piggy bank for medium format instead of unnecessary glass?
Frankly, I can’t wait for medium format Sony, would I even want a fast tele when I could get an amazing equivalent in medium format with even shallower results and better clarity of subject definition.
Now dont you pretend to make sense when we all know its just the means to achieve unattainable position from the poimt you are standing on. With A7 you can use great focus peakimg feature, and thats where sony beats competition not to mention phase one and other leica excuses for a shallow depth of field, nonetheless expensive and you get what you pay for so they all think.
Don’t pretend you have any camera. I don’t use focus peaking.
Yes you do.
You first post that makes sense. A 135mm would be very welcome, but at 1.4 it’ll never happen. Defining- yes. Major sales success- no. Cost and size would go against the FE ethos. Besides- a 200mm F2 would have a better chance of succeeding.
Sure, and for most effective imagery, a 135mm 1.4 would be ideal balance of subject distancing and general usage with weight and cost. As opposed to the 85mm 1.4 or even 1.2.
OR exactly as I said, based on the complete understanding I have of ideal photography even through theory. The Sony cam, many great vintage lenses and other gear helps too.
F1.4 on a DSLR or Mirrorless body is never going to happen. I had the 1.8 and that was just about balanced on my A850 and A99. Put it on a mirrorless body and it would so forward heavy not even a grip would sort it out. I could not see the need for an F1.4 the different would be so small and the disadvantages so big.
I use the 135 on an A7 and yeah, it sorta sucks. It’s sucks…ok it really sucks. So I slap it on the A77II for now….until…that is….I buy my a900 back!
135 Zeiss, I’m gonna get one soon on the A mount~ One of the great lenses I had experience~
I use to own the 135mm F1.8 ZA and agree it was one of the sharpest lenses I ever had the honour to own. The colours were beautiful too, it was a very sad day when it went.
Especially the huge metal hood~ But what happened to your lens?
I sadly had to sell it, times were hard. It is on my wish list again lol
Sorry to hear that. No worries, you will get her back~ That lens is worth the effort~
Thats for sure.
Probably the best Sony lens ever 🙂 Along with the 55mm E-mount. Out of curiosity – have you guys tried the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO?
No but it does sound like a very good lens.
Well in all fairness – the FE 35 is not a cine lens. You have the 28-135 which is smooth when changing apertures or you can just de-click any legacy lens. Samyang makes a decent cine lens on a budget.
I call this the era of Sony Civil War~ Whereby there are power struggle inside Sony’s Alpha system whereby the recent rapid rise of power of the E mount wing has threaten the lineage of the Minolta legacy know as the A Mount wing. Both fighting for the throne to become the dominant power in the Alpha system.
E mount is adaptable, a mount isn’t.
E mount caters for vintage lens users, who might not even use Minolta. they also might.
A mount users haven’t sacrificed anything to keep on with E mount and ALL I ever say provides evidence and proof of this, I have tenacity only of my own to make a system with only essential compromises and fun to use.
E mount/ is adaptable, a mount isn’t.
E mount/ caters for vintage lens users, who might not even use Minolta/. they also might.
A mount/ users haven’t sacrificed anything to keep on with E mount/ and ALL I ever say provides evidence and proof of this, I have tenacity only of my own to make a system with only essential compromises and fun to use. Hint: E mount/ adaptable- some wholly vintage lens users- with interests in a Sony/ system equivalent…Minoltaish?
Check all the usual pointers I make, and add aperture dial if that’s not considered, in fact you speak of a mount like its 1990’s mount or something, i don’t know what.
Then you demand they be compact not hu lk like minolta old AF and you don’t care about manual control which those presumably at least had in bucket loads..
We, the emount/ users are generally less ignorant of other options, that is all. LOL
you’ve lost my respect for saying that. There is no war. Not in Sony system between past and future. Only Sony is integrating all lens types old and new- different forms and functions, how can you even say that- as a presumably predominantly a mount user?
Say Sony are inconsistent and lets see who wins the war against change.
Canon did well in the past by losing a complete lens line up and tagging a new mount on same lenses, because it allowed…well all what it did. Arguing that theres disparity now when Sony opened up 35mm sensor cam more than any other is absurd. Thats the absurdity of those A mount users, they can’t see that many systems failed or died off, and they are lucky to have it now, as are canon, nikon and pentax. Actually, one of my favourite adaptable vintage mounts is shorter than all those above and that’s a defining factor in my interest in it. Made by the oldest camera company in japan. Now somewhat defunct in lineage along with contax for instance or are they? WE HAVE them live on and you talk of a mount in isolation, you best do some history too and consider the modern impact of adaptable mount with the likes of leica potentiated too: that’s a lovely standard of lens mount.
That’s now what I meant.
LOL, tell that to all those E mount fanatics that claims E mount is the only future of Sony and A mount is dead and have no place in the Alpha system. For me I prefer both to exist A mount for the existing user since the first Alpha while E mount is Sony’s strategy of gaining Canikon’s user base.
E mount is the only future. ‘:I
Ideally adaptability is kept up fully, but don’t expect total. Look at pentax and what k mount lost, or canon lost a whole range overnight (not something I know much about, but passing by with interest in certain lenses) Nikon have full functionality? maybe but they can’t adapt anything.
See~ you said it yourself~ And you can definitely see two factions of pro A mount and pro E mount bashing each other and Canon & Nikon just sit and laugh~
And now we know what we normal users of Sony A7 cams are up against :I
You need to understand we know lenses and possibly from other even older systems, pentax k mount? Nikon f mount? and all the fantastic systems that didn’t make it. You know, its history repeating itself, APS and stick to film etc. Then later ‘analog’ is better than digital. I’m sorry to say you are just forming the latest in a long line of such false assumptions born of some narrow mindedness.
Sony changed fast, and its not that bad for any of us, i’m so excited about their future and in some way this 90mm 2.8 alone has given me the greatest of expectations for it, what about that?
That lens, is that not ideal, and e mount after all? It apparently has mechanical focus but don’t quote me on that. If it does, you really need to start looking at what Sony are actually doing, and what they are saying. The whole scene is changing so fast, and its only with Sonys superior tech and sensor that we can be so far ahead as it is, and as it were safe in wider progression of camera gear and usage.
It is more like the opposite I guess, A mount never oppress E mount but rather E mount users are always wanting a death warrant of A mount which should be adaptable on E mount, while citing freedom of choice, etc
But that is one thing. The real problem I see is far more problematic which I would not want to stir up, just in case~=P
Who has ever said that without irony of the fact that a mount aficionados without qualifying themselves, won’t allow the all but indistinguishable properties of adaption be considered anything less than high treason.
E mount is all about adaptability and most top end users will get it to use some LM glass at some point, even though its not ideal. Why? because Leica cams cost more than even medium format cams alone! and are worse than Sony’s have become.
What I’m saying is, for why both A & E mount camp wants to bash and troll each other and express their superiority or reason to be the “Alpha” male? That is utmost ridiculous and usually meaningless argument.
Come on man, this sort of thing is beyond tech and marketing strategy and the like. Trying to prove your fact and ideas is one thing, but when your expression brings hostility and the sense of urge to objection still makes you an average joe with no gain or whatsoever~
I’m no average joe in my photography and camera considerations!
I’m super critical and want for whats most effective, and can argue for exactly that, this Alpha- lineage is sadly of your own making and wholly disruptive to actual e mount developments.
Minolta lent the new bodies in body stabilizer as far as I know and AF is improving, i speculate that at some point essentially they will surpass the previous methods this way, with the caveat of improving image quality we will all demand and more so our art, against 3d, simulation virtual reality and the decline of interest in older formats, including EVEN cinema, for instead interactivity, like games. Will we see a gaming camera? Of course we will, once its worked out.
The new A7RII has given me more motivation to purchase A mount glass. Adaptability isn’t all that bad. In fact, I welcome it at this point. At the prices some A mount glass is going for you just can’t go wrong. You just can’t.
Yep, planning to get the ZA 135 or maybe the ZA 50mm F.14.
The problem with the ZA135 – you’ll have to use either MF only on the EA3, or back to SLT via the EA4… It needs SSM badly.
Heck, half the time I even switch to MF with that lens on my A-mount camera to save myself some time, as it isn’t the fastest focusing lens in the world, for sure.
I will be using it primarily on the A850 and yes , since it lacks SSM, I wonder whether this fella will work decently when I get an A7II with an LAEA3 or LAEA4. But since SLT has gave me some bad impression on the A77 and focus will suffer on the LAEA3,
I wonder should I wait for SSM version but I bet the price will be steep compared tot the current 135.
I used it on the A7r with both adapters but mostly with the EA3. It worked quite well, I like manual focusing and I don’t shoot any kind of action 🙂 I got bored, sold it and got the Zeiss 135 f/2, it also works well, remarkable sharp, and the manual focusing is especially nice because of the very long focus throw, but sometimes I miss ol’ good Sony 135 ZA 🙂 It’s really hard to shoot both @ 1/160s without getting motion blur on the A7r (and that’s not necessary the shutter vibration, but my shooting technique), but on the A7m2 I haven’t noticed any problem going under 1/30s.
Yes, I hope the price difference won’t be as significant as between the 70-200 f/2.8 1st gen and the second gen 🙂
I share your thought on this one. I will be taking my 16-35 and 24-70 ZA’s with me when I move over the Sony’s mirrorless range.
Haha yep those A-Mounters are never oppressing E-Mount users with their talk of ‘real cameras’ vs ‘E-Mount toys’ 😛
PS I’m a Sony shooter that doesn’t care which mount so long as there are bodies to match my needs, currently there are no bodies (except A77 II) that I really care about in A-Mount. But I like both and neither ‘mount’ has much to do with anything really, it is the bodies that have this far been segregated, no reason there can’t be a pro styled E-Mount body etc.
And yes I think it’s dumb that there is this constant war going on. We are all Sony shooters and we should appreciate that we have choice well beyond what most systems have.
IKR? Well, the bashing between 2 front is just plain silly. We’re all Sony shooters. Or should I say, we’re all photographers and rather than having arguments because you have different system, believes, style and stuff. This has become a bad habit.
But the reality is, this is the Internet, people felt the most secure to induce harsh response on others they felt disagree with. Same thing goes when you’re driving. But if we all meet in the same physical place, I bet everyone will not behave like how they did behind the web.
With the nilo supporters your team can describe as you like while real Sony cam users are depreciated. You are out of luck now, i’m fed up with the stalled browser and converse on Sony subject matters.
We’ve all made new allegiances and mine is with real photography and not these others. I love it without, and won’t stop ending the bs.
Historically, professional photographers weren’t the better photographers, they were the worse, and that hasn’t actually changed much, here you neglect to mention usual assumptions that converse to pro a mount users in line with canikon dslr: that e mount is somehow impractical or deficient and don’t say, oh is it, because no, it isn’t, a mount camera’s in fact are, in respect of e mount ones, and an a mount lens made new as opposed to the potential which is inherent for it to be made identical or improved upon will be found superior in an e mount formulation. I suppose I consider selling my time as a photographer and works as a highly profitable art form- the one I also mastered and the only one I think I could ever enjoy completely while making it at once my work. Its obviously a can of worms the term: pro, so perhaps we can just avoid it and consider the actual factors involved in choosing a lens of a given mount, or camera….for once the a mount resistance actually say what they want positively and with fair qualification: not, if a camera was magically developed on my bad faith demand for it no matter anything else, I would pay for it by buying it. That doesn’t add up, and conversely in fact, A7 cams sold a lot while dslr sales are in decline?
You invent new demands of course even as all the old are negated with new A7 cams and will continue perpetually to do so, assuming all the new functionality a component in the same demands for something yet polarized with it: more expensive, heavier, less functional, like canikon but with better sensor and restricted adaption like the nikon and the top camera system backed utility found in canon-but with not the worst but instead the best image quality…Sony and e mount cam will be top, by way of considering what an actually effective photography system is.
I prefer both to exist too.
I have an A77II, A99 & A7II.
And they want their parents dead…
Wow. I want contax and konica mount back but Sony can do it all, its earth mother of cameras.
The last vestiges of contax saw some interesting things happen, and they never ended really, they could theoretically return.
Whats this company you speak of? Minolta?
OH, you mean Konica Minolta….
More like Goya’s giant eating the subject!
Tell you what, spit out Konica camera lens division and have it get back to work and you can have an a mount cam line all of own too, we can divide it all neatly up into all the separate entities and compete with identical lines of convergingly useless expensive lenses with no photographic impetus, normal lens? whats that?
Wrong, so wrong. Sony’s strategy is spelt out by them, and ignorance is intentional, you know what they say and are choosing to ignore it.
They said for instance ‘resolution AND sensitivity’ and we got it, same with faster AF and countless other things. Now our cameras make canikon users HAVE to consider our system as an option with the caveats of interoperability. Real new Sony users like me, or who used solely manual focus glass etc like me and wanted adaption for best lens options don’t even require that interoperability, we have so MANY options including Sony’s. I cannot emphasize enough how lucky we are with the likes of 55mm 1.8 and the 90mm 2.8 as first line of lens entries.
Instead I just get on and consider further and further ideals of camera system I will likely use until medium format from Sony also.
If you want sony medium format, its already here. The Pentax 645. Sony sensor, crazy high ISO and IQ. Probably the best value medium format around.
True. the IQ for the price is amazing. But too bad there are no leaf shutter lens support at the mean time thus flash sync is limited to 1/125th (I guess).
I want Sony camera body-compactness- and lens adaptability and EVF.
Yes, do for medium format what that A7 did for 35mm. However with the volume of sales I cant see it being worth it as Sony would need to make an entire lens range as well.
Of first the most useful defining focal length equivalents…
Kind of hard not to believe A mount is dead when nothing is happening. At this point I don’t see why I even want A mount when E mount supplies pretty much everything I need.
Seems so. But I got all the lens I need for my work at the moment. The current problem I’m facing is outdoor strobe system whereby flash guns can’t satisfied my needs when you’re used to studio strobes. But the mobility of flash guns are always a selling point compared to heavy battery packs~
I hear ya. I love studio strobes, but hate ’em when on the go. I’ve basically switched to flash guns for my on-the-go stuff now, and after getting used to the differences, I now am just as happy with the setup. I use a few flashguns in place of one studio strobe so I can get same light output, but running them at less than full power so I can get quicker recycling times – works pretty well.
Even though the setup is pricy, I wish Profoto would design a Sony-compatible version of their TTL “Air” controllers for their B1/B2 compact strobes, as those would be a dream in the field. They can still be used manually with other triggers, of course, but it’d be nice to have that wireless TTL as an option.
Yup, that is why I still can’t do much with outdoor lighting. I found using flash guns instead of strobe head to be kind of a struggle since the characteristic of the light and effect seems to be a bit underwhelming. I found the coverage and power is quite weak compared to a strobe head even without any light modifier. Maybe I’m new to outdoor strobe and found the result not as desired. How many flashguns say, a F43AM are needed to replace a 600W head?
Oh, I wish I can get my hands on a Profoto B1 but the price is so expensive. I usually goes with manual mode and TTL is not my thing at the moment. And yes, the trigger system are kinda messy in my current configurations with many adapters for the hotshoe. Really hope sony makes a HSS compatible radio triggers.
I haven’t calculated the actual power equivalency, but I typically use a tri-mount adapter to run three flash guns together (I’m typically using Yongnuo 560III’s now, as they put out decent power/light for low $$, and I can adjust them remotely w/ the Yongnuo remote controller) with a parabolic umbrella, and I’m usually able to get the light I need.
For my studio strobes, I’m using Paul Buff lights, and they work pretty well with their Vagabond mini battery pack, but it’s still kinda clunky to walk around with.
What strobes are you using?
A set of 600Ws Visico monolights. Nothing fancy but gets the job done.
I really hope I can get my hands on those battery powered B1 Profoto heads but hey, photography is just my hobby and part time freelancer
Profoto is expensive 🙂 I had Bowens before with their enormously heavy Travelpacks, but switched to the domestic PCB Einsteins (640Ws, up to 1/13000s t1 at low power mode), this stuff is cheap and great! They offer small lithium batteries that just 3.5lbs.
Emount cannot be used on Amount…
Amount can be used on Emount…
Therefor… Amount is adaptable, and Emount isn’t.
I realize now. I realize how. I can see exactly what has been going on with those others and the matter of ‘alpha’. I checked out the Sony line and the 20mm 2.8 says it all.
What a thing to lose best friends over, or a master of photography itself and lenses etc.
A sense of economy, a sense of getting one over. The fox on the sunny side of the hedge.
Ok, so once again but this time as the directive factor. Please Sony, ignore this anachronous dispassionate stuff, and may we have greatest manual control of focus and aperture.
Errr what does it say exactly?
You’ve demonstrated what it says to you, for the last two years.
You should know, and I just worked out exactly.
I JUST wrote it.
Don’t mind him, seems like his medication just wear off… we will just have to bear with him
There is literally no real difference between an a mount lens with a longer lens casing and an e mount equivalent, first assumed difference negated.
There is a second, potential difference between an e mount equivalent of aperture and focal length, a positive difference, and the first suggestion that you are indeed the one reversing things.
There is a subtle difference in the way Sony and Zeiss seem to be operating in this ‘era’ seen as disparate somehow, and looking at some of the glass in Sony minolta range, but is that anything but branding and association, nevermind a whole NEW era?
The new Zeiss 55mm 1.8 and 90mm 2.8 G show the only difference is they are even better now than they were, and 2.8 zooms are on their way.
So, the only real differences which could be found in lenses and their function have not even been raised at all, as differential, correct?
That leaves the camera’s…now who is want for, interested and even to find that relevant who is otherwise naive?
New users perhaps, and those who want A7 cams for what they are, and those who want the balance of quality and affordability Sony has managed.
What do you have to say to them? Should they consider or even like you presumably, demand, a completely A mount based camera body? Why so?
If not demanding such yourself, why the expectation for it to be dashed by completely naive users to the subtle differences of a dedicated a mount body for a mount lenses?
If you are sure of the a mount body and its superior functioning with a mount lenses,
what is that functionality say compared to e mount cam and e mount lenses?
Is it superior then?
you can always adapt a mount to it anyway. With the new lenses you may not even have the hidden basis for constant reprisals against ‘e mount’ and its dedicated users..
I lost patience waiting for A-mount updates, and the A7R2 was too good to pass up, but for those with more patience than I have, I do hope Sony comes around and rewards your loyalty with a kick-ass A-mount body. It’d be good for FE mount too, to show people that Sony won’t soon abandon that mount either.
RX1 lens cannot be adapted to e-mount — rear element is too close to sensor
14-300 f/1.4 pancake please
I wish I wasn’t quite so interested in Sony’s lens roadmap. The plan was to just pick up the A7R2 and use it with my cabinet full of Canon L’s, dangit. I don’t need to get sucked down another money rabbit hole, gah Now I want to buy the Batis and Sony’s 85 1.4, and put them both up against the 85Lii. Just kill me now, or my wife will later
*Sony sales team* “Sh!% He is only investing in the new body, and he is going to use all his Canon L glass! That’s not going to cover the R&D cost and operating profit~!?”
If Sony’s own sales team was as oblivious of the great new Sony glass as you pretend to be and perhaps canikola in general ‘:I
You want the sales team who according to your own ironic set of insertions, don’t even know the system to DECIDE HOW Sony should make the camera system based on your personal veto?
In actual fact they can sell you the sensor in another cam through Sensor team, I guess they don’t care and don’t have the sort of arrangement you might think they ought, according to your personal direction. Its not american football or something, its a big multifaceted company which has shown great interest in these things and reaped the rewards as have we from fantastic camera system developments- seemingly despite your better judgement and because of real technological improvement. I don’t know how such companies operate, I worry about the photography that I am interested in, and no one can ignore the giant leaps Sony have made for it, not even you.
14-300mm f1.4? No not long or wide enough, not fast enough and will be ‘typical’ Sony overpricing for a blue badge. It needs to be 11-600mm f1.2 for 78c or I’m crying foul 😛
It needs also to have variable bokeh and variable field curvature ability.
They already have 3 18-200mm lenses for APS-C, plus the 24-240 for FE, not sure the 24-200mm range is hurting any.
I guess everyone is assuming this rumor is regarding an FE lens and not a redesigned A-mount.
Makes sense.
Not overly fussed. I want to see some new Batis lenses far more to be honest. For me they are perfect. Not too fast to keep the weight down and a great IQ for a price. Also a proper real fish eye. Not converter toy.
No thanks. I am not interested in lenses with OLED distance displays…and i am not alone in this
Im really in it for the IQ and lens performance. OLED is interesting but not a killer feature for me.
Fine, but the OLED has no detrimental impact on IQ or any other area of performance. I can’t see why anybody would see it as a negative, like the guy above.
That’s nice.
OLED distance displays!!! OOHHHH NOOO!!!
Dude… are you for real? Get. Over. It.
Tells us how exactly is OLED a problem for you again?
You’re not alone in not wanting a display that helps you to manually focus? Why is that a problem exactly?
You could just ignore the display if it offends you, or cover it with tape.
I like the OLED display, but I’m kind of afraid it can wear down. Maybe thats why people don’t like it who knows. The more I read about it, the less excited I am about it. I still want the lens though.
This is exactly why i don’t want it. OLED’s become dimmer over time. Lenses are meant to last for many years. Over time, the OLED distance display will dim until it cannot be read and by which time, Sony/Zeiss will not want anything to do with it.
You are buying a fully electronically dependant lens with autofocus and you just worry about the OLED, Really?
Yeah i know what you are saying but the factors that people consider when purchasing expensive items are different for everyone.
Me personally, i would prefer a lens to be as simple and straight forward as they can make it.
Also, the OLED display is not something they are giving you as a free bonus. You are paying a premium for a feature that very few people seem to be excited over or will ever use.
Comparative to Nikon/Canon equivalent lenses…this lens is extortionately priced. Now some could argue that this is the price you pay for “Zeiss quality” but I am pretty sure that most of this inflated price is due to the unnecessary OLED display.
I own at least thirteen Zeiss lenses, most manual focus, one was purchased used for 50% more than these oled lenses. I don’t like image review,so I don’t use the lcd.
I kinda wished that they used Mirasol for the display, as it doesn’t deteriorate as fast as OLED. It is also color, is perfectly visible in sunlight, has a decent refresh rate(~30hz) and has no power draw when not refreshing. It was basically Qualcomm’s solution to color E-ink displays.
I love the ink display on amazon Kindle. That would be nice too. Do those deteriate?
I don’t think so, at least not at the rate that OLED does. I’m pretty sure that all display types deteriorate, but OLED is notable for deteriorating pretty fast. My Super AMOLED Galaxy Note 2’s screen is incredibly dark now, whereas my S5’s screen is still very bright. I don’t think Samsung has significantly changed the display tech between the two either. The big problem with E-Ink is the refresh rate, which is only a couple of hertz with pretty bad ghosting. That would make it near useless for a display that needs to change quickly, like the one on the Batis lenses. OLED, on the other hand, refreshes very quickly with minimal ghosting compared to most other display types(which is why it is often used in VR headsets), making it useful for something like this. OLED also takes less power for backlighting, as black pixels take no power, unlike LCD displays.
You can disable it completely I read.
The zoom thru EVF and color peaking are more useful for precise focusing than the OLED display on the lens. Theoretically it requires some power from the camera’s battery though, so not sure if the OLED display really worth that extra battery juice. It would be no surprise for me if Samsung put an electronic display in their lens (and I bet we’ll see one soon!), but Zeiss…
It isn’t just about precise focusing. The OLED can also provide confirmation of hyperfocal distance/infinity focus. Peaking isn’t particularly great for that.
It’s not accurate, designers say.
Link?
Viktor verybiglobo.com talked to them at the booth. They say OLED shows only rough estimate of the distance. Not sure if the infinity sign is calibrated. Also CoC is not taken into account for DoF calculations, as commented by Zeiss on their camera lens blog on May 8. This sounds like OLED is a matter of convenience, not precision.
You can easily disable it, if you don’t want to use the tool it provides.
Most E-mount lenses have no distance display at all. I would think the image or price would be the dealbreaker. To each his own…
You can cover the display with black electrical tape, this will prevent your head from exploding.
Even more: Sony cameras run communist Linux system. Don’t use them.
And all recent Sony Zeiss have secret coating using blood from Stalin.
where is the 40mm pancake? what is taking so long????
the Sony 85mm lens is designed by the same guy who designed the FE 55mm lens, it will be awesome.
time to see some a-mount road map
Next A-Mount lenses will be announced soon enough, usually after the last announced lenses have hit the showrooms.
Fairly certain a-mount is dead in terms of new developments.
Everything Sony has done as of lates, seems to indicate this.
I expect nothing for A-mount except SSM updates to existing lenses, as we’ve already seen with the 24-70, 16-35, etc.; and that’s primarily so they’ll work better when adapted to E-mount, whilst still keeping the A-mount crowd happy for a tiny bit longer until they’ve finally accepted the need to move over.
If they add SSM to the 135 f/1.8 – I’m buying it again 🙂
Indeed, that lens would be as close to perfect as one could get if it had SSM.
i think “happy” is quite optimistic, if you think about all the effort thats been poured into fe mount, and then what theyve done with a mount in the same time frame, and the idea thats fallen flat of being small light and wonderful, when it turns out they are real close to canikon of same spec. whooo
and they gave us the retarded mis shoe, with the even more retarded adapter yay.
with a slight amount of effort they could have really good d810/d750 competitors, but nope…
Where in the world did you get the idea that Sony is updating its a-mount lenses to work better with e-mount? Do you just make this stuff up? I am an a-mount user. Perfectly “happy” with a-mount and eagerly awaiting Sony’s new flagship camera body, which will be an a-mount. I have no present intention of ever purchasing an e-mount, at least until e-mount can measure up for what I need in a camera. It’s not there yet, maybe never will be.
I would be very surprised if the A-mount road map is going to change to much. I cannot seet there being any more than one or two a-mount bodies released in the future either. I think Sony’s market share is now FE with some very good adapters.
Like saying ‘time to see some real women’ in all h0m0 s*kz chat-r00m decades on.
Populated by self care busybody positively discriminating an0nymous threa tening politicals.
A-mount lens line is already built out? What need is there for a road map? Most likely Sony is working on its next flagship camera body . . . a full frame a-mount to replace its current flagship, the a99.
Loser out of the gate if it has fly-by-wire focusing. Wide aperture lenses need a fine mechanical linking for critical manual focus. Fly-wire doesn’t react to slowest turn of ring… then it jumps past with accelerated action. It’s a horrid thing for manual focus requirements. Would be better off with Minolta original without auto clutch. It has a great manual focus feel, and can also be AF if needed. Proven workhorse too.
Make it a list with lots of 35mm lenses, all the obviously best ones and some interesting ones, oh and many vintage and that might scratch the surface of ideal system for me.
Why no 100mm…….or 28mm……….or 120-300mm or 400mm 2.8
Manual and AF in every focal length too.
Great dxo list making..
1.2 and .95? f/2 compact and great ones
My set would still be reduced to best and uncompromised particular ones, but that doesn’t even cover the focal lengths.
Not a good set…
leica 28 1.4 obviously. 21 1.4
bad list.
Not even a 50mm
FE line needs f2.8 longer lenses – 135 or 200mm. Be able to use 3rd party lenses is great, still, I’m much prefer native.
*puke* Sony give me a break, enough with the same focal lengths. Time for some quality wide angle landscape primes
for 135
I’ve got a lot of money invested in Sony A mount Zeiss lenses, I dont understand why they are still producing A mount lenses when it looks so obvious that Sony only beleives in E mount. Are they suckering us or is thee any future in the A mount marque?
really want the Sonnar 35/2 (on the RX1) release as a interchangeable lens
What’s the point?I have just ordered the batis 85mm with the discounted price offered by sony hk.
If it is SSM’ed A-mount lens redesigned for the shorter register (of course, sharper, better, etc)… Who needs Batis then?
“redesigned for the shorter register” means completely new lens. Sony is replacing motor only because it’s cheap in R&D.
Having seen the beautiful aberration free rendering of the 90mm 2.8 G (with manual focus action?) it makes me wonder now if a 135mm or 200mm G could even beat all the competition in those focal lengths :I
In fact, because that 90mm 2.8 does so many things right in my book, applying those characteristics just might sway it, between all the main 135mm from zeiss f/2 with slightly neutral bokeh, through 135mm 1.8 with aberration and not so much contrast to stf smoothness, but with better rendering throughout aperture range, and reasonable AF with manual focus engaging, modern total flare resistance and something of that beautiful glazed pastel drop painting 🙂 Even at 2.8? well that would surprise everyone wouldn’t it, but that’s the way Sony seems to be going with amazing 90mm 2.8 macro.
You have serious gear addiction. You should be shooting medium format at this point.
Careful – it gets addictive! I bought an Adaptall 200/3.5 close focus at the weekend and keep finding myself looking at WA options…
Adapt e mount to other mounts for all lenses. highstreettotnesdevon. Language politics, not photography.
Cannot adapt any other mount lenses to A mount.
A mount seems to have all AF lenses which are the trickiest to adapt to shorter flange distance mounts anyway. You have an adapter made for the purpose and still politicize.
Ill take a 70-400 but I have a-mount version of the 85 1.4 and 24-70 2.8. If they can make the 24-70 2.8 smaller or lighter than the a-mount than maybe. I wouldn’t mind a 2x teleconvetor for my 70-200 f4