Ben Moon (image by Brian Matiash) seems to find the new Loxia 21mm very tasteful. Watch out…Zeiss lenses can make you addictive! 🙂
And now some more “serious” news about the new Loxia lens:
Zeiss LOXIA 21mm f/2.8 Sample Photos (ePhotozine).
Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8 Hands-on Photos (Photographyblog).
First impressions by Mirrorlessons.
Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8 Distagon Aperture Series: Bristlecone Sculpture on Slate Outcrop, Late Dusk (Diglloyd).
Loxia 21mm FE lens at BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here). In Europe at WexUK (Click here).
56 Responses
gross
Gross.
Manual focus or the guy?
Why is the Loxia gross?
Gross. I don’t care who this weirdo is
uh, that weirdo is an incredibly talented photographer and filmmaker. His film has something like 8 million views and he takes lovely adventure landscape photography for companies like Patagonia.
https://vimeo.com/122375452
I could get 8 million views by throwing an iphone off a building or boiling a samsung S5.
Either way licking the lens is gross. It doesnt even appear to be his own lens.
You could, but he didn’t do either of those.
What’s wrong with a little lens licking? You clearly don’t love your lenses enough.
Stop feeding ’em, Chad. You know better.
Just having fun with the inmates
For Wad it’s worth, i was wondering who the guy was, so thanks Chad for the reference. Love Vimeo staff picks.
I see what you did there. Approved.
It wasnt his lens. It looks like a display, if thats the case, he is a jerk.
You could not.
Why dont you search iPhone drop on youtube. Be one of the first to get the iPhone 7, and throw it off a Mall roof… guaranteed 5-10 million views.
kim kardashian has more hits.. has she any talent?
I am not discrediting his talent, but licking a lens is a little gross. Not targeting him as a person, or as a photographer or anything.
Stop worshipping people. He’s some dude with a camera, not Da Vinci. And now don’t zip him up too fast.
As the other person said the act itself is disgusting and pointless. The post is demeaning to the intelligence of some people here.
SAR has gained the reputation of being a sensationalist blog and posts like these don’t help. Maybe the admin wants this place to fail.
Recently I sticked my 70-200 up my a**. Why not? It’s mine!
At least he didn’t shove it up his asss. That would put a whole new meaning to the term “screw drive” lens.
I don’t care who you weirdo are either, but I can’t see what is gross with this photo. If you have really such a hard life that you can not laugh about a funny photograph, skip it instead of making bitter and insulting comments. Jeezzz..
Who made you the expert in deciding what people should laugh at?
Well, there goes his resale value.
“Ben Moon licks the Loxia 21mm ;)”
Guess each of us have to buy two now.
And admin you’re being a jackass. Are you just looking for ways to make this place less credible?
Meh, see what happens when A68 isn’t announced on November 5.
It’s going to shut down Amazon with all the pre-orders.
That’s why I never click on the affiliate links 🙂
This time some dude is licking a lens. Next time he’ll be licking something else. Gross. I’m thinking about blocking this website in my parental control settings.
who?
Great job as usual crediting the photographer who took the photo, guys.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153675019011737&set=a.434888736736.197291.835026736&type=3&theater
Sorry for not adding a direct link to your image as I erroneously though the image is from Zeiss as they posted it here:
https://www.facebook.com/carlzeisslenses/?fref=ts
And I didn’t double check the source as I thought it’s a Zeiss made image!
Please note that I do write over 1100 posts per year. it happens sometimes that I link to the wrong one. So I hope you accept my apologize for a mistake that I really didn’t want to do 🙂
Now changed the link directly to your page!
Bye!
Andrea
Cats pee on what’s theirs.
You know what is really gross?
Being an industry website, and not crediting the photographer.
Do you guys not see the link? So the picture taker is not named directly, it’s one click away if one really wants to know. But it’s about the lens and person licking it here.
That isn’t how proper accreditation is given. Link or no link, the site needs to credit Brian Matiash directly, not through backchannel links.
The link is explicitly to a Facebook post, not some “backchannel link”. The very fact that the privacy settings on the post allows me as a Joe Schmo to view it seems to indicate that the intellectual property rights of the image allows for fair use viewing through other social media means, whether via Facebook or community blogs. If there is legal grievance, it should be taken up with Facebook. The admin wanted to share a community photo in jest of an E-mount product, it does not seem he is making any commercial gain from that picture share nor accrediting him in some “industry” manner. If there was some copyright expectation above and beyond the normal Facebook legal framework, then that image should not have been posted on an open, public social media site, or at least done so with a message to explicitly instruct people to not share the photo.
This photograph was first taken and used on a private website (this one). Just because you CAN download someone else’s photograph, and post it on your personal or business blog, doesn’t make it correct.
Why would Facebook be responsible? The photographer shared the photograph on a social media site, with the knowledge, and hope, that it would be shared using the means provided BY that social media site (Facebook). But there is a means to do that, hit the “Share” button. The photographer is credited properly. If you download the image, upload the photo to your own account, and do not credit the photographer, that too is ethically wrong.
And no, just because a photograph is shared on a social media site, it doesn’t give you permission to share it without accreditation. Yes, a publicly shared image can be shared publicly WITHIN the framework of the site (in this case, Facebook), because it maintains the proper credit.
And yes, he IS making a commercial gain. Look around. See all those links for products? Those are affiliate sales accounts. The more views, the more eyes hit those affiliate links. Content drives traffic. This website is using content that does not properly credit the creator.
Done.
Did Brian obtain a locations release for the venue the picture was taken in? Is there a rights and clearances for the logos Zeiss shown obviously on the lens and the logo Sony shown on the camera? No attempt was made to blur these logos if not and it seems to me that the photo was taken with fair use in mind, documenting a light hearted event in a non-commercial fashion. I do not see any evidence of fine art or corporate sponsor driven agenda in the picture, other than perhaps the use of Dutch angle to imply something odd and non-conventional going on, but not entirely original style. The admin’s apparent attempt was to show humor and exposure for the photographer. The nature of blog sites have a summary home page with more granular detail when hyperlink is clicked, somewhat similiar but not exactly the same as how a fashion or travel magazine will not credit the photographer on the page with the photo, but in general on the contents page, explicitly on a following page, or if an academic publication sometimes not until the very end of the publication.
You are kidding, right?
Brian Matiash is both a Sony Artisan & a Zeiss Lens Ambassador.
It really is simple.
1) Request permission to use a photograph.
If aproved…
2) Credit the photographer.
I’m done here.
Being a Sony Artisan is either irrelevant to the case of this photo not being fair use or possibly even helping to establish that case. There is no monetary compensation for one to be an artisan, so this photo could not have been a work for hire strictly based upon his status as an Artisan. If it was a work for hire, then being taken at a convention, a public event, exactly characterizes a free use license. For him to claim that this is his exclusive property otherwise, he would have had to have a locations release, a likeness release from Ben, a rights and materials release from Sony and Zeiss. Neither one of us is Brian though, and I don’t want to put words into his mouth. I highly respect anyone who puts themselves out there professionally and even though I don’t know Brian’s work, I’m sure he’s an incredibly talented individual. But hey, you posted a photo at an event you were either invited to (by Sony likely), at a venue paid for by the contributors (like Sony), and even have a non-monetary mutually beneficial professional relationship (Sony Artisan), with 4 basic elements:
1) an out of focus backdrop that is abstract enough of another companies’ booth (Sony? Nikon? Canon?)
2) Ben Moon (cleared or another Sony invitee?)
3) a Zeiss Lens (at a Sony Booth)
4) and a Sony Camera (at an event partially paid for by Sony)
…and a Sony blog site that also happens to profit on ad revenue and store/link driven commission, but who’s primary purpose is for community information (the revenue just makes it logistically possible to maintain the site – the admin actually has another real job) posts this picture, sorry, but my non-legal opinion is that this IS fair use. This is not a photo taken in a private studio or a permitted public location. Sorry Ben or anyone who thinks otherwise, the law is there to arbitrate and control these types of activities, not just for anyone who has an opinion and express it like it is in fact the law. When I’m involved in a shoot that is commercial, we permit and release everything / everyone. When I post something on a social media site, I’m not gonna get my panties in a bunch when and if it is shared by someone in a manner I didn’t expect.
If we’re talking about just human interaction, someone could politely ask the admin to remove a post if they have an issue with it, and I’m sure that as a decent human, he would oblige and take it down, but public passive aggressive shaming, is not a recommended approach either legally or “just between professionals”.
I’m not arguing fair use. I’m arguing attribution.
This isn’t rocket science.
Am I the only one in this forum who agrees with you? That is really sad.
The massive pamphlets of TomV illustrate quite good how clueless many people are in terms of intellectual property rights.
Right?!
I agree, I think this is acceptable. The blog nature of the site basically shows thumbnails on the main page, more detail contained inside after clicking.
Sorry. That’s not how copyright law works. Nor is it professional for an industry website.
This could fall under Fair Use.
Does Fair Use allow no accreditation?
Nope.
Even so, a simple note to the blogger would have sufficed rather than creating all this drama in the comments section.
Thanks for letting me know how I should, and should not, communicate.
Ironic that you are using the same means to ridicule me, that you find so ridiculous, when I use them to stand up for copyright protection.
I think you need to chill out.
Thank you again for your suggestions.
You have been most helpful. 😀
“industry website”
Which industry ?!?
It is a bloody rumour site for an equipment manufacturer!
If any profession has to be associated with that should be engineering.
Hi David!
Sorry, I made a mistake as I only linked to the image and did not mention his name. I saw the picture on Zeiss page mentioning Ben Moon. So I errounesly thought that it was his pictures (from Ben Moon). Now I changed it to Brian Matiash!
Sorry, this was just a misunderstanding. I simply thought Zeiss and Ben Moon were the source!
Please do note I do write 1,100 posts per year. And I am human. Sometimes it happens to make a wrong link and wrong mention. I already wrote Brian Matiash for an apology.
Hope this will make it clear 🙂
Thanks!
I noticed that you had added a credit to your link, which I’m sure Brian will appreciate.
You are absolutely right, we all make mistakes. My biggest concern was for the apparent lack of understanding of copyright law by some of your readers. Especially worrisome coming from supposed professionals.
Thank you again for the update.
Another thing. The 21 pics I’m seeing are quite nice. Not 1300 bucks nice but nice. I’d still take the 35 Loxia if I had to pic one (I’m not rich here). With that said- you have to really look at those pics up close and over to the corner to seriously appreciate it. I’m not sure it’s worth that dough, but nice to see Zeiss is giving us all these sexy choices.
I think I’m going to sell my M43 gear finally. It’s not that I don’t like it…but my ethos this year has been gear reduction. I can’t run 4 systems anymore. So, I might just pick up an A7II and loxia 35mm plus run all that A mount gear. Man, I so bad want some Contax lenses to and that new adapter. Those lenses are sexy….wait wait….I need to control myself here.
Mmm, I wonder what’s the possibility of a 18mm Loxia