Both lenses are now available for preorder at BH and Adorama:
Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 lens at Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2.0 lens at Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
Lens shade for 85mm at Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
Lens shade for 25mm at Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
I haven’t found EU or Asia preorder links yet.
POLL:
Now let’s see how many SAR readers will really buy those lenses:
[poll id=”225″]
SAR admin opinions:
Unlike the other FE lenses I do not think these new lenses are heavily overpriced. They are weather sealed, build quality is top and I am sure they have top-notch image quality too, the 85mm has optical stabilization and the OLED display may turn out to be more than just a useful gimmick.
Reminder: New Zeiss Batis key features:
1) They are the first Full Frame Zeiss lenses with autofocus
2) Those are the first worldwide lenses with OLED display on lens to show aperture and depth of field info. And at startup it reminds you what you spent $$$ for with a “ZEISS” writing 🙂
3) The 85mm f/1.8 is the first Zeiss with optical stabilization.
166 Responses
I was this close [] of buying the Mitakon 85mm 1.2 .. thank god it wasn’t available yet
Ha! I think many of us were. Poor Mitakon, they are yesterday’s news now 😛
Only benefit of Mitakon is that extra stop of light (which is not that important) , poor Mitakon .. 1-0 to Germany
Mistaken could always drop their prices and be a viable option, especially for videographers
I think they should do something because when I’m in a situation to choose between the 2 lenses I would get the Zeiss ofcoarse.
Mitakon 85mm 1.2 MF $799
Zeiss 85mm 1.8 AF $1199
That OS and the OLED screen…just too good to pass, eh?
don’t forget that blue Zeiss logo is hard to let go 😉
I’m gonna wait for reviews on the 25mm.. I would have prefered a little wider and faster, but I could work with it..
These lenses make my appetite very wet … can’t wait to see them on my desktop.
I want a camera with IBIS in the future, so the Batis 2/25 is looking really good to me right now. It’s the one I want the most.
It doesn’t look very compact though. Hopefully the optics are really high quality.
Will buy both…
Someone said that Steve Huff will proclaim these as the best lenses ever.
I can almost read it now:
“Guys…this is the BEST 25mm/85mm I have EVER tested. Better than the Elmarit and Summilux 24 and the what-not-cron-lux-rit 85mm? YES! but they don’t feel like the Leicas and I can’t tell you if you will like these lenses better but IMHO for my final word conclusion down to every lens ever made, these Batis are IT! Would I sell my M240? NO!! because otherwise I would loose much of my audience. Anyways, I’m a CRAZY guy! so you never know!”
No offense to Steve, but you kind of can predict it.
At least with the 85mm it won’t look half as bad as the time he shot close up portraits with a 35mm (which was yesterday).
I know. Those 35mm portraits of this family are awful.
completely irrelevant
Bang on!
Well Steve is pretty good at seeing things nobody else can.
http://huffparanormal.com
I have NOT seen that before!
I have no words… no words.
His photos are over processed. His reviews are poor. I hope he is offended. He is the worst reviewer I have seen
What if this 85 delivers Almost-Otus-Like performance for 1/4th of the price as the FE 55/1.8? If Zeiss releases a 25mm Otus anytime soon, we can be sure that the team responsible for them use their second best ideas to release a lens for Sony FE mount.
With a couple extra years development over the OTUS you may be pleasantly surprised. It’s certainly a more practice/usable/sensible lens with A/F on a 35mm platform.
The 85/1.8 does seem awfully expensive. I’m used to Zeiss costing 50-100% more than Canon/Nikon, but they both have well-liked 85/1.8s for a third of the Batis price. If it were a Zeiss 85/1.4 it would seem about right with the AF/OSS/OLED. So it had better be pretty darned special. Which could happen, of course.
25/2 is a more unique thing so easier to justify the ticket, but I’d personally prefer a wide zoom. On a wide I’m not really looking for shallow focus or to stop motion, so I don’t need the f/2. Whereas I do want the flexible crop.
I was thinking exactly oposite. 85mm is always pricier than 50 at the same aperture, and still the price difference between this one and fe55 is small. Especially when you take OSS, OLED, full weather sealing into account. If it performs better than canicon counterparts as much as fe55 was better than canicon 50s, i would dare to say its cheap.
Well, neither nikon nor Canon even make a stabilised 85mm fast prime, so the comparison starts off skewed anyway. Add in the fact that Zeiss lenses are usually MF, so add both stabilisation and AF on top of that 100% premium and it’s about right.
If your way of comparing lenses is by looking at the numbers written on them and then checking prices, then yes, it is expensive.
92mm length?? no way
The Leica 85mm F/4 is 95mm…. You realize that the lens has to be longer than the focal length right? There is a connection between lens length and focal length.
No it doesn’t have to. In fact misused term of tele lens, means that actual lens is shorter than its focal length. Leica is using “tele” term correctly with their lenses 🙂
http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/optical/focal-length
“The focal length of a lens is defined as the distance in mm from the optical center of the lens to the focal point, which is located on the sensor or film if the subject (at infinity) is “in focus”.
It has nothing to do with the how Leica uses the word “Tele”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens
You’ve been educated 🙂
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens
Last comment disappeared somehow. As i said before. No, lens does not have to be longer than its focal length.
Ok, on paper I love these two. Now if Sony or Zeiss just manage to release a 50/1.2 (a little smaller than a trashcan and cheaper than a new car, please…) I’m set.
You’d have to throw it in a trashcan cause at 1.2 it’ll probably suck. Add to that the horrible balance on any FE camera and probably CA out the wazzo.
I’m not extremely concerned with ultimate sharpness, as long as the image is sharp enough and pleasing at print size. Obviously YMMV.
And as for CA now is relatively easy to correct, and besides I photograph these days almost exclusively in b/w, so bring it on 😉
Yeah, I’ve had this thing for b/w lately as well. I was being a bit sarcastic….everyone should have that one ridiculously fast lens.
Try the Loxia 50 f/2 once and you’ll wonder why you ever needed that f/1.2 aperture.
Yes, the Loxia is indeed an exceedingly nice lens. But to trow enough out of focus the background to make your subject stand in a crowed environment or into the woods (where I like to take pictures) your only option is unfortunately a fast aperture 🙁
And has to be on a relatively short lens, because oftentimes you will not have the space to back up and using a long lens
Buying both. 1.4 would have been nice on the 85mm but ill just be happy to ditch the LAEA4.
Ditch it so you can unload serious coinage on lenses that do the same thing…but with worse focus? To each his own I guess. Alls I’m saying, if I had the 85 Zeiss I wouldn’t let go of it for this.
With worse focus? Everything I’ve read said that the LAEA4 has slow, inconsistent focus.
I see. I was refering to mounting it on an A mount camera.
Do you have an LAEA4?mI have one, and I dont see it as slow or inconsistent (consistent to what exactly though..). In fact I find it very fast.
The incredibly mixed reviews (many say it’s great, many say it’s terrible) on it have kept me away from it. Also, it’s a pretty expensive accessory for someone as ‘small time’ as me.
I have native and non-native lenses for my A7s and A7r I use the LAEA4 with an A-mount Zeiss Distagon 24/2 and can tell you that the AF speed on both cameras is considerably faster than the AF speed of both Sonnar 35/2.8 and 55/1.8.
Out of my own curiosity, the LA-EA4 appears to be again even faster with said Distagon on my A6000 also. I dont have optical test-bench data to prove it but in my experience with these combinations the LA-EA4 appears to be as fast as the A99.
My applications are reportage, documentary video, street and track-bike racing.
next question: does OLED screen eat up my “already weak” A7 battery?
This was a great announcement and exciting news… funny how we had 0 rumors about it and tells you just how reliable all these sources are, caught everyone by surprise, LOL!
Even without seeing the image samples it’s a safe bet to pre-order now, imo… you know these will deliver on the IQ front, and with OS, weather sealing, and whatever latest tech that’s packed into them it’s a no-brainer to me. I can’t understand all the complaints about the price – these are pro grade, high quality FF glass… what’d you expect – $500 a pop? I’ve pre-ordered both.
Another telephoto or two and we have ourselves a complete system as far as I’m concerned… all in the matter of few short years – that’s quite an achievement no matter what your thoughts are about Sony/Zeiss.
A7 series is getting better with AF and I am starting to migrate my entire setup from A-mount, which has become my secondary system lately. There’s not a whole lot that my a7II can’t do better than my a99. Still holding on to my A-mount as there the faster zooms for this system are still my favs, but my primes are now going to be all E-mount. Well, except the 135mm 1.8 CZ… if A99II becomes a reality, they’ll be joined permanently.
Same for A7II … this site is kind of useless … euh sorry yes it is useful to provide us with evilbay and sony ads!
Thinking about switching from 85 1.4ZA to this 85 1.8 FE Zeiss, I can’t think of any reason to change, because my 85 does not leave studio and I rarely shoot my 85 outdoor…
Then don’t. Buy something you need. And, in any case, the FE isn’t going anywhere.
They look to be quite large. I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Not really. The 85 mm is only about 10 mm longer than the legacy micron, so less than 20% increase in size while the lenses 20% faster. Plus it has autofocus and optical stabilization. Of course it is wider, but that has more to do with the mount being bigger than anything. Fast telephoto lens is our big. No way around it. The 25 mm looks a little big but it is hard to say. I personally less interested in that lens
You’re right. Hopefully they’ll release a 135 soon to match.
Everybody wants a good 135 save Canon users who already have one. Nikon needs to update theirs, Sigma should make their rumored OS Art version, and a Zeiss APO Sonnar would be a wonder to behold. However, if the pricing on the ZF is any indicator, it would be one $picy meatball.
People eat their own cake all the time! In fact I had a delicious chocolate cake for my birthday and I ate a huge chunk of it.
And now you don’t have a cake.
Quite right. This is why I suggest eating other peoples cake.
it is a very expensive 1.8 lens. Of course it is a lens with a zeiss badge. It is a good lens for the rich sony FF customers. I just hope Sigma will release a Art 85 1.4 soon for CaNikon.
Like the cheap 55mm Art?
I’m in the middle of my switch from Canon to Sony and boy the price of these lenses are hurting me. Sure they are good and the sensor in the Sony is great but the Canon, well I have 10 great lenses all at a fraction of the cost of these…..hmmmmm what to do?
If they’re a fraction of the cost, you’re not buying the high-end Canon lenses, as they’re pretty damn pricey, too. You can’t compare high end on one system to the low end on the other and then complain about price. But hell, just buy the Canon adapter and keep using your current lenses! That’s the beauty of the e-mount system…
The cost of FE lenses is a problem, but a lot of it has to do with the number of units sold. Nikon and Canon can price their f/1.8 offerings so aggressively because they have a large user base. Hopefully, as the number of E-mount users increases, we will see a reduction in the pricing.
And the Canikon f/1.8’s aren’t too well put together…….
No. It has to do with the fact that only Zeiss and Sony make FE lenses. Zeiss price their 20 year old EF and F mount designs higher than Nikon and Canon price their recent. Of course, with a reason. Zeiss dont make cuts in optics and mechanics to keep the cost down. Their FE lenses will never be significantly cheaper than they are now. On the other hand, we may expect more affordable system when Sigma and others enter FE line. Zeiss never really had any intention to produce millions of lenses yearly, not because they couldnt, but because they intentionally want to make only top quality products.
By mentioning the Zeiss EF and F mount designs you’ve only strengthened my argument, thanks. More low unit sale items.
Adapt.
I switched to Sony A7R about a year ago but I kept my Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS and bought Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS. The great thing about A7 series is you can use 3rd party lens w/ an adapter. The only Sony I have are FE 35 f/2.8 and FE 55 f/1.8.
I will buy it!
I am 100% certain this will happen! (SR1).
A screen that small…. I can’t imagine it being that power hungry.. At least probably not enough to make a noticeable difference. though perhaps an e-ink display may have been a better idea.
Although OLED won’t use much power, I’m also puzzled as to why they didn’t go for E-ink as well. It has a few disadvantages, but surely the cost, power and reliability would outweigh those…
I guess a price can’t be placed on a glowing Zeiss logo on boot 😉
E-Ink doesn’t transition fast enough.
Modern E-ink, like in the latest kindles, isn’t terrible. But the lag would definitely be noticeable.
and how soon does the OLED display fail and you have to send it to Zeiss for 2 months or worse? I see Craiglist ads…”Zeiss Batis…OLED not working”blah blah…hope it is not focus by wire and has a nice manual focus mode for video follow focus…
I agree I think adding such a component to the lens was a mistake. If they intend to go fully electronic, such information should be relayed to the camera body and displayed on the screen of the camera instead.
OLED displays have a lifespan of somewhere around 30,000 to 60,000 hours, depending on the quality of manufacture. How many hours do you expect to be using these lenses for?
Idk, I have a 40 year old Nikkor here, works fine…
Interesting!
It is without any doubt the lack of high quality autofocus lenses that has kept Sony cameras in their boxes. However, Sony super-short flange distance is still a problem and will make it difficult for Zeiss to reach Nikon image quality on FF Sony cameras.
However, in the smaller formats there is an opportunity for Sony and Zeiss to revolutionize the market for bird photography. A top notch Sony 4/3 format, 24 MP image sensor and a top notch 300mm autofocus Zeiss lens (comparable to FF 600mm) would be a given in my bag
Where is the evidence of the short flange causing a problem? The 55/1.8 and 35/1.4 for example are class leading lenses and surpass Nikon offerings.
For a given sensor size there is an optimum flange distance.
This does not mean that that Zeiss can’t build a good lens for a shorter flange distance, but you will pay for it in price and vignetting.
Leica (and also Zeiss) does not seem to have problem with M-mount !! Can you provide more info/links on your statement ?
Where are you getting this from?
Dream on !
Common sense, evolution of design……this is very basic design rational.
Actually you pay for the name ZEISS.
And especially for wide-angles the short flange-distance is a big advantage.
If you think there is an optimum flange distance for a sensor size (e.g. 40mm for FF), so tell the lens makers to add 22mm tube to the back of the lens and get rich by solving all theirs problems with one simple trick. I am sure, they never had thougt about this.
I can’t understand the claim of “optimum flange distance”. The flange distance only dictates the distance between the sensor plane to the bayonet plane, it does not say that you HAVE to put the exit pupil there. Now that Zeiss/Sony bringing out Distagon designs just proved it.
Which requires a longer lens and a larger flange diameter. You have gained nothing.
Corners especially for wides and wider are weaker due to the distance.
There isn’t any evidence. Wides are weak on mirrored systems because of retrofocus lens design “compromises” that’s why Leica M wides were always superior on film cameras. Now we have shorter flange distances on mirrorless they can design better wides accordingly, the problem now is “sensor design” and angle incidences, the issue is “now” the sensor. Sony are correct in their flange distance, they have designed (future proofed) the mount “ready for” the upcoming redesigned sensors. Of course Sony know this……..its simply the internet experts that do not understand the “long term design strategy.”
sony does have a 16-35 ultra wide angle lens
And it’s better than the Canikon versions too, even with the limitations of the generation one bayer sensors design in the A7R.
Optimum flange distance depends on the sensor size. 18 mm flange distance is too short for FF unless you offset the pixel-optics or curve the sensor.
Sounds familiar?
If you want a really long lens it gets even worse.
Wow, and you think 1000 phd’s in optical science over at Sony don’t know that. It’s what they do know, what they cannot talk about that makes the difference. You are playing with half a deck here.
Surpass Nikons offerings is subjective. I’d take the 58g over the FE 55 for its superior bokeh and I’d wait for a side by side before pronouncing the 35/1.4 better as well, despite Huff’s goofy proclamation. Plus you have the Sigma 35 at less than 1/2 the price. I’d also take the 14-24 over the FE16-35. It goes on…
How is the flange distance a problem? If they cannot desing a short-flange lens with good enough quality they can easily make the lens with an empty tube at the end and have it exactly the same distance from the sensor as it is on nikon or whatever dslr
>However, Sony super-short flange distance is still a problem and will make it difficult for Zeiss to reach Nikon image quality on FF Sony cameras<
incorrect.
I am talking about optimizing the optics, without paying a penalty for miniaturization etc.
Next generation!!!!
1199 for the Batis 85/1.8? It might be 3x the price of the Canon 85/1.8 but I’ll seriously consider it if it’s anything like the 55/1.8!
What if it’s 1199.99?
Is it confirmed that the 85 will have OIS? B&H seems to be the only site that lists optical image stabilisation. Not even the Zeiss site says anything about OIS. That said, would be fantastic if true as it would also be lovely for video on the A7S!
The official Zeiss announcement said that it does.
that’s cool! thanks 🙂
Zeiss does make a 1.4 (planar) for about the same price (though only for Canikon mounts), but it’s MF only. Gotta pick your compromise…
yeah, but does the optical image stabilization work with the IBIS in the A7II?
No! Any attempt to use both simultaneously will result in an explosion equal to 50 megatons of TNT.
A version of me is going to buy this in a parallel universe
I really want a 21mm loxia to be realised soon. It doesn’t have to be super wide aperture
Interesting but I am not sure I will buy into any new system these days.
I don’t need it really, my RX100 v.1 is enough for me but I am looking for something
with some better high ISO performance so maybe a new RX with 4/3 sensor if that is
coming for real. But nice primes, just what I would buy if I one day jumps in.
I don’t see the point of those small aperture FF lenses…
You can get an APS-C body with f/1.4 lenses to achieve similar results at a fraction of the price. Why bother introducing an FF mirrorless system if they’re mostly going to make lenses that can’t take advantage of it?
Advantage……You mean apart from better image quality…??
Only in DR. ISO and DoF would be the same with fast lenses on APS-C / slow A7x lenses
Iso performance will be worse on the aps-c (everything equal) as each pixel is much smaller….So DR, colour depth and ISO better on FF…and if you have the equivalent lens… same DOF….Hardly convincing…
Did you read my comment at all? Who’s talking about “everything equal”?
I said FE is mostly getting narrow aperture lenses, which negates the positive effects of a larger sensor vs. an APS-C camera with wide aperture lenses.
No…It’s not only about the amount of light, but about electromagnetic effects happening = noise. That is not compensated by aperture. Therefore, even good aps-c sensors like Fuji Trans X are worse in comparison to, say, Sony A7 at 1600, 3200 regardless of aperture.
sigh……comparable quality sensor……yawn
Go to sleep, man 😀
Can you tell me which APS-C bodies and lenses can achieve similar results?
Fuji 35 1.4, Fuji 56 1.2
Any of them with a fast lens. f/2.8 vs f/4, f/1.4 vs f/2… Am I missing something?
The sensor…
What about it?
Smaller pixels + wider aperture = larger pixels + narrow aperture.
This is highly theoretical, and will only work for a small range of settings.
you can never match the dynamic range and color sensitivity of a FF sensor at base ISO 100 with your equivalence. Nor the resolution and tonal range.
Secondly most f/1.4 lenses have an actual light transmission of T/1.6 or T/1.7, while slower lenses are usually closer to their mark.
So for low ISO work I find FF cannot be beaten. For high ISO work I also find there’s hardly a substitute for an f/1.4 or f/0.95 lens on full frame. Only for some range in between you can find some common grounds, which might be enough for some, but not for me.
Yes, the fact that there are few lenses which can do that in APS-C format, and if there are, they are likely as expensive as the FF equivalents.
To match a FF 25 f2.0 you need a 17 f1.4, 35 f1.4 = 24 f1.0, FF 55 f1.8 = 35 f1.2 and so on. Certainly not at a fraction of the price.
The Fujifilm 16mm f/1.4 – $1000 vs. Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2.0 – $1300 is actually a very reasonable comparison to make. Similar field of view on their respective formats (APS-C vs. Full frame) and nearly identical aperture diameters means similar DOF capability with a slight edge to the Batis: (25/2=12.5mm and 16/1.4=11.42mm) but the Fujifilm has a better close focusing distance and magnification ratio. All told, I bet they perform very similarly, probably comparable to their price differences.
True, but this is an exception. And another important factor is resolution. The Batis lenses can be mounted on 36 MP and soon 50 MP sensors, while the Fuji bodies are still stuck at 16 MP.
Easier to get a wild angle with a full frame
Larger glass means diffraction occurs at a different time
Larger sensor means more mega pixels and more light hitting the sensor
1.4 crop isn’t the same as 1.8 full frame
Your math is wrong
Have a nice day
Better high ISO performance is one obvious reason.
Why would there be better ISO performance? Bigger sensor size is offset with A7x series by slow lenses. APS-C camera with f/2.8/f/1.4 lenses will get you roughly the same results as f/4/f/2 lenses on an FF body.
The bigger sensor will give you less noise, better dynamic range and make better use of existing full frame lenses. All your rationalization is nothing but rubbish.
The bigger the pixels on the sensor the better ISO performance as more light is hitting each pixel, so MP for MP a full frame sensor will net you much better ISO performance. This reason is why the A7S has such amazing ISO performance, the low MP in the camera and FF sensor create huge pixels.
EDIT: Also you gain more dynamic range
Smaller pixels + wider aperture = larger pixels + narrow aperture.
That has nothing to do with ISO performance they are not equivalent. You get more than a one stop improvement in ISO performance from and less than a 1 stop difference in glass between the 2 not to mention you can adapt all the lenses you want to the fullframe cameras so if you want f/.95 you can get it and the fullframe will have a much lower depth of field.
Yes and no. You also need to factor in pixel density. Eg comparing the Sigma 35/1.4 on my old a77 to the 55/1.8 on my a7, I get getting on a 2 stop advantage out of the a7.
blessed are the ignorant
Theoretically the only difference between an ideal 24MP APS-C with 28mm F/1.4, an FF with 42mm F/2.1, and an M43 with 21mm F/1.05 is base ISO performance. The FOV, DOF, bokeh and low light performance are EXACTLY the same. For example, an ideal FF is 2EV better in high ISO and dynamic range than M43, but you only need 2EV lower ISO for the F/1.05 lens on M43.
There was a rumor though.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-two-new-zeiss-fe-25mm-f2-0-and-85mm-f1-8-coming-mid-end-2015/
Always good to check your facts 😉
Ah, I stand corrected, hard to keep up with so much other junk littering the rumor mill 🙂
Waiting to see the Loxia wide prime (and costs), but I’m very interested in 25/2.
Huge aperture doesn’t matter to me, stabilisation and FF sensors (and high ISO) don’t require it…
As landscape shooter i want wider lens
14-16-18 mm
Once we get an announcement of the almighty 135mm then we’ll talk. Until then, this too shall pass.
Sir..you’re talking sense here. Now why would you do that?
Still too rich for my blood, but not understanding how people think that these lenses are overpriced. Zeiss branding with autofocus, (some) weathersealing, and stabilization (on the 85). This is not your old canon 85 1.8 usm.
Both lenses are not really pricey – and you have to pay extra $55 for the hood ?!?
C’mon – Tamron & Sigma, help out with AF-lenses!
IN THE BOX
Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2 Lens
67mm Front Lens Cap for Touit 12mm f/2.8
Rear Lens Cap for Zeiss Touit E-Mount
Lens Hood for Batis 25mm f/2 Lens
Limited 2-Year Warranty
the hood is included in the box, $55 for replacement only
Nah! Sigma missed the boat already. Yet, they have nothing planned at the moment for full frame E mount.
My guess would be not much. OLED only uses power for the pixels of the screen that are illuminated, not the portions that are black. And if you look at the videos, 90% of the screen is black at any given time. Very very small amount of illumination being powered in the letters.
Pre-orders… done.
Bank account….empty.
mine empty too lol
You are right Admin, they are not heavily overpriced, just very overpriced. Nikon AF-S 28 mm 1.8 is $699. Excellent lens, I own it.
def order if it is a ultrawide
I just picked up the Sony Zeiss 85 f1.4 for less than this, and have IBIS, so maybe the 25, but I’ll have to see image examples first.
It good news that Zeiss is making more lenses for E-mount. But the pricing is a little disappointing, it actually made me order a Sony Zeiss FE 16-35 yesterday…cheaper, stabilized and more versatile. 🙂
In which country is 16-35mm f4 cheaper than 1199$?
The 24 mm Batis will cost 1299 euro in Europe, the two largest online dealers in Sweden had an 20% off deal when I ordered my FE16-35, so it will cost me apprx 1150 euro.
I really want that lens for interior photography. It is very expensive here in Norway though :/ Especially now that i bought 70-200mm f4 G lens
I will use mine to shoot shop interiors! 🙂 If you live in Norway, then it’s only a short trip to some of the Swedish dealers, you can check the current prices and, if you register, get an alert when the price is right: http://www.prisjakt.nu/produkt.php?pu=2802772
well that lens offers convenience.
Personally, they’re not for me. I’ll be taking the 90/2.8 instead. I don’t shoot uwa, so the 35/2.8 is probably enough for me (unless someone comes out with a bargain 24mm).
Sony E mount flange distance = 18 mm
Leica M mount flange distance = 27.8 mm
The Leica flange distance of just under 30 mm is about as short as you want to go on a flat Full Frame sensor, even though that already borders on increasing complexity and cost of the lens to control vignetting.
Canon EF flange distance = 44 mm (because of mirrorbox)
Nikon F flange distance = 46.5 mm (because of mirrorbox)
So will there still be a 85mm Sony lens comming?
that is a completely different kind of rumor 🙂
New FE lenses will come in September.
DOH!!! Why did I eat it!!!
So, now it becomes really cheap! 😀 Just kiddin’
Overpriced but very interesting. Do you think 25 and 85 couple is enough (with legs zoom and a bit of PP crop) or something in-between is needed? And what? The 35s or 55?