The Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 now sells for $899 at Amazon US (Click here) and Adorama (Click here).
And the deal of the day is that Sony NEX-3n with kit lens for $399 at Amazon US (Click here).
More deals:
Open Box RX1 for $2295 at [shoplink 22823 ebay]KenmoreCamera (Click here)[/shoplink].
Manufacturer refurbished A99 for $2299 at [shoplink 22823 ebay]Cameta (Click here)[/shoplink].
New RX100 for $525 at [shoplink 22826 ebay]BigValue (Click here)[/shoplink].
20 Responses
The Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 had this rumored price before its official announcement. I guess supply is outstripping demand now.
It should have been 699. I lost one on ebay the other day for 450.00 really early in the morning about 2:00 am. I am still pissed, stupid number lock button…..
The link to the rx100 drives to the open box rx1 link !!
Funny comment on dpreview over A7 and A7r
“These cameras are going to make Canon the next Blackberry!”
Then who will be Samsung?
For openers, Samsung themselves.
can someone explain to me why the zeiss 24mm is still more expensive than the new zeiss fe lenses for the a7/a7r?
24mm is shorter distance to sensor than 35mm FE lens or let alone 55mm FE lens for A7/R. This is a technical challenge and to overcome it Zeiss/Sony used a special design (number of lenses and their composition in relation to each other). That is why this lens is not small (it is even slightly bigger than 18-55mm zoom). So all this costs money and in addition to make this lens superb – they used quality glass and Zeiss T* coating – thus the price was initially very high. At $899 it is still high, but at least it is cheaper than it was initially.
Now was this the only way to go? Definitely not. We have a perfect example of Canon 22mm f2 lens which costs $99 new and is almost as fast, while is many times more compact and almost as sharp as Zeiss! Sometimes Sony has to think before doing such an expensive lenses. This is not good for an average user to pay 9-10 times more for same thing. 🙁
The real issue is not focal length. It’s the max aperture that makes a lens more expensive and complex. The 1 1/3rd stop difference between the E 24 1.8 and FE 35 2.8 at relatively fast apertures in the wider angles always means more money.
The shorter focal length matter is secondary on a mirrorless system with such a lot of room. Plus both focal lengths produce the same field of view so one lens doesn’t have to take anything more than the other in to consideration apart from the max aperture matter.
As for the EF-M 22/2… I think it’s mostly better than the E 24 1.8:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=22mm&m=pool&w=1998469%40N24&s=int
I also wish we had something similar like the Canons pancake 22/2.0 for EOS-M !
As mentioned, it costs roughly 1/8th the price of Zeiss 24/1.8 and it delivers about the same IQ and is actually much smaller and cheaper. Zeiss 24/18 is actually more of a F2 lens due to shading which makes them even more comparable.
I’d guess this isn’t possibly due to patents by Canon or something similar. Does anyone here know the reasons we can’t have a lens like this?
Would be especially nice if they came out and announced that the 24mm lens actually covers the full frame field to use on the A7 cameras.
I have no more interest in APS-C E-mount lenses 🙂
Since this is a low news day, maybe someone who knows technical stuff will speculate about this and offer an explanation.
–Sony RX-10 has a 1″ sensor, fixed 24-200 (equiv) w/ constant aperture of f2.8; it is very large and weighs approx 29 ounces.
–Sony RX-100 has a 1″ sensor, fixed 24-100 (equiv) w/ variable aperture of f1.8 to 4.9; it is tiny and weighs 8.5 or 10 ounces (depending which one you look at).
–Sony NEX7 has an APS-C sensor, and w/ Zeiss 16-70 (24-100 equiv) w/ constant aperture of f4; it is smaller in all dimensions and weighs approx 21 ounces–half pound less than the RX 10.
–Leica X Vario has an APS-C sensor, fixed 18-46 (28-70 equiv) w/ variable aperture of f3.5-6.4; it is about the same size as the NEX but weighs 24 ounces.
My questions are:
1. Why is there such a HUGE size diff between RX 10 and RX 100… when the specification diff doesn’t seem so large?
2. Why is the RX 10 so much heavier than the APS-C NEX w/ Zeiss zoom–with the diff of f2.8 vs f4 constant?
3. Why is the Leica X Vario so heavy given its specs compared to the others.
Thanks to anyone who can help me understand this.
‘choke
I can’t speak for the manufacturers and their exact reasons but in general:
A1: Constant aperture zooms have always been ridiculously large compared to variable aperture zooms. Newer lenses have a lot if fluff in them but if you look at old manual/screw drive focus zooms, you get an idea of the variable vs. constant size differences better. Add to that the 8.3x zoom factor of the rx10 vs. the 4.1x factor of the rx100 and things start to make sense.
A2: The camera body dimensions are likely a design decision than a necessity. As for the lens,
A3: To make things even more confusing, the xvario also has a plastic outer shell… maybe it’s brass inside. You’re better off asking Leica why it’s so heavy because they’re from a different planet… possibly one with low gravity.
1. RX10 and RX100 are obviously a different concept. RX10 has a much higher quality, more reach and faster lens. Both are totally different concepts, the only thing in common is the sensor. You’d not want the RX100 to be heavier or the RX10 lighter.
2. 24-100 F4 vs 24-200 F2.8 and you think one of them should be much more lightweight? Put the 18-200 (slow 24-300 eqv.) on the NEX-7, this makes it more heavy.
3. because at LEICA you pay more for more weight 😉 😀
“–Sony RX-10 has a 1″ sensor, fixed 24-200 (equiv) w/ constant aperture of f2.8; it is very large and weighs approx 29 ounces.
–Sony RX-100 has a 1″ sensor, fixed 24-100 (equiv) w/ variable aperture of f1.8 to 4.9; it is tiny and weighs 8.5 or 10 ounces (depending which one you look at).
–Sony NEX7 has an APS-C sensor, and w/ Zeiss 16-70 (24-100 equiv) w/ constant aperture of f4; it is smaller in all dimensions and weighs approx 21 ounces–half pound less than the RX 10.
–Leica X Vario has an APS-C sensor, fixed 18-46 (28-70 equiv) w/ variable aperture of f3.5-6.4; it is about the same size as the NEX but weighs 24 ounces.”
Maxium diameters of circles of light which has to be captured and transmitted to the sensor correcting for aberrations in the process:
RX100 – 100 / 2.7 (crop ratio) / 4.9 = 7.56mm. Area 44.9mm2.
RX100 – 200 / 2.7 / 2.8 = 26.46mm. Area 549.7 mm2.
Zeiss 16-70/4 – 70/4 = 17.5mm. Area 240.5 mm2.
Leica X Vario – 46/6.4 = 7.19mm. Area 40.6mm.
Amount of glass in a lens (and its cost – depending on the volume of the glass and the total area of all surfaces of all elements which need to be polished and coated) roughly proportional to that initial image circle area. Of course it is more complex that that for zooms, and for higher quality also.
genotypewriter, Hans, and PeeVee–THANKS TO YOU ALL–very helpful!
there are plenty used 24mm F1.8 for $500 to $550 here, after A7/R announcement.
very cheap, but stay focusing on FE55!
Why do they list “List Price” of 24mm as $998? It was $1099. Still $1,098 on B&H (as overpriced a lens as I have ever seen).