Ming Thein reviewed the new Loxia 21mm f/2.8 FE lens. And the conclusions are quite favorable:
“it is already remarkably sharp in the center at maximum aperture, and taking into account some field curvature, the edges, too. By f5.6 it is very difficult to find fault with anywhere in the frame – longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration are very well controlled and there is little evidence of smearing in the corners. I wouldn’t call it apochromatic, but it’s really not far off. Colors are deep and saturated, and in the typical Zeiss manner, microcontrast simply pops.
The Zeiss has the level of clarity we have come to expect from their best lenses, and is a perfect partner for the whole philosophy of ‘smaller, lighter, no optical compromises’ – it is a little jewel of a lens, and built to last a lifetime. It takes filters, and is my choice when working stopped down on a tripod or if weight is a priority.”
Loxia 21mm FE lens at BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here). In Europe at WexUK (Click here).
53 Responses
Wasn’t this a rumor page? We should change name for sonyalphadeals or sonyalphanews 😛
Damn! I just checked the price on that thang. It’s 1500.00 dollars! Zeiss has got to be smoking something. I mean- 1k tops but 1500.00 FOR A 2.8 21 MF! I need some fresh air right now.
I haven’t checked US prices (because I don’t care!), but this thing seems reasonably priced when compared to the DSLR Distagon equivalents.
Zeiss 21mm f2.8 T* Distagon ZE Lens – Canon Fit – £1449.00
Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Milvus ZE Lens – Canon Fit – £1299.00
Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Loxia Lens – Sony E Mount – £1099.00
Who said mirrorless was expensive?!
I’m struggling to decide between the Loxia and the Batis 25mm. I need a wide angle prime, and the Loxia is wider, but the Batis is just edging it for me right now. It is cheaper, has AF, and has that extremely useful display that will tell me when I’ve hit the hyperfocal distance when in MF mode.
If you were planning on getting the 85 Batis then I’d keep it uniform and grab the 25. You know, gotta leave some room for a potential Batis 135 too….!
Well I got the 90mm macro, so no urgent desire for the Batis 85, although I’ll no doubt splash out some day. Wide angle is the priority purchase right now.
For me the same. But between Loxia 21 and Zony/Seiss 16-35.
The Batis is not wide enough for me and I don’t need AF at <25mm.
Either a Batis 135; or Zeiss gives us a 200 first and fills the gaps with the 135 plus a 40-somthing later.
Well, just keep the quality high and the rest will see to itself!
Would be great to be able to specify the circle of confusion as well. Not possible AFAIK.
Go wider. You can always crop down to 25mm.
I suppose it depends on how much use you’ll get. For me it’s desirable but not essential (unlike the 55/1.8 or 90/2.8 where I was happy to cough up), so I’d have to weigh it up against the 16-35 and 25/2 (or just cheap out and adapt something).
Yeah, it’s expensive. For 300$ more you get the Milvus. I know they are different lenses: one better, one smaller. But for me, this loxia should be 1200, like the 35/2
IS the Milvus better optically?
From reading the article, apparently the Loxia was better than the 21 ZF.2 which IIRC is the same optical design as the Milvus 21:
“…the 21 Distagon ZF.2 is superior to the Nikon and the Leica, and the 21 Loxia is superior to the ZF.2.”
Indeed. No rumors for one week 🙁
It is clearly posted in the REVIEWS section of the site. If you only want rumors, simply click on the word RUMORS just left of center at the very top of any page in sonyalpharumors.com
I must smile everytime i see something like this 😀 #AwesomeAt5.6 #AwwwThatsCute
“By f5.6 it is very difficult to find fault with anywhere in the frame…”
Lenses from ’72 dont have faults at f5.6
For a lifetime or until sony changes the mount again 😀
They have a mount now that allows them to convert customers from nearly every other camera mount on the planet; I don’t think they’ll be changing that cash cow.
Antiduott, how are you thinking here? Sony has NEVER ditched any mount. They have honoured the Minolta designed mount since 1985 – all lenses from then and afterwards works excellent (no problems at all with my Sony A77 II).
Sony has created one ADDITIONAL mount, the E-mount. Quite different to your claim.
I’d say that you would be perceived as more honest if you change your nick to Antisony instead.
.
Unless you count hotshoes…
Fortunately, Sony phased out the Minolta shoe to something much less proprietary. Enabling us to use radio triggers, microphones, LED panels, audio break out boxes and a cr@pload more cold shoe accessories than I care to list. Stuff Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Olympus/Leica/Panasonic could use the whole time. Success cameras like the A7S would have gotten a huge chunk of ridicule from the video crowd if it still had that Minolta shoe.
i am sorry, i didn’t mean it in that ofensive way 🙂 i am quite aware of that. Actually I love sony E mount , I love adapting my old Canon FD , Minoltas or M42s lens. dont get me wrong 🙂
rumors.
Given the 10 year lifespan of modern electronics, I think a lifetime is unlikely. But hey, you never know.
Well, the electronics are a minimum in the Loxia. If everything in it fries, you can still use it the way you use any manual legacy glass, with no automatic focus aid and no exif, but the same nice optics.
True. It does have that. I try to forget how much I hate the construction of modern lenses. I forget how much of a pleasure it was to use properly made metal and glass.
Only Voigtländer nowadays…
Samyang?
Last time I tried they were making toys.
Good point. That’s why I liked the Canon F1 N so much. Exposure automatic, but fully working without batteries or failing electronics.
You can build them to last way longer … but should you for a TV or a phone?
A good microphone still lasts for decades – and so should the Loxia.
I exect the Loxia electronic to brake after one or two decades. The mechanic will likely last much longer.
BTW: I don’t expect nowadays hardware like microphones not lasting this long anymore. It is built to break after some time. Anything with electronic/electric parts… google “Planned obsolescence”
I’m an electronics engineer in the Pro Audio business – you CAN make stuff wich lasts for decades and when you want to sell a microphone for $4.000,- it better will 🙂
It’s “planned obsolescence”, not “to stupid to build stuff” (ähhhm, it’s a mixture in real live).
You won’t stay in the pro business when you don’t build your stuff to last. But yes, this stuff is a little more expensive.
I’m quite sure the Loxia will live longer then E-Mount … so nothing to concern about 🙂
Agree.
I think it requires a lot of engineering to do planned obsolescence. At least more engineering compared to “just make it”, as they did 20 years ago.
On this high level the test is…
Somebody should MT that you lose corner sharpness when adapting canon or nikon lenses on FF E-mount cameras. And somebody should explain me, why this is the case.
It is primarily due to two additional mounting surfaces on the adapter, all of which have tolerances. The tolerances could add up to significant cross field planarity issues resulting in one or more corners being slightly out of focus. It would show up most in closer up work at larger apertures where depth of field doesn’t save you.
So the result is a minimal tilt-lens in any direction?
Having a landscape picture where everything is far away and the DoF gets really big should override this effect, right?
And this testpicture of MT are good comparable, whereas Tony Northsrup’s test of taking pictures of 2m distant paintings shows this effect, right?
Yes, in general that is true for the small amounts of tilt we are talking about. I don’t pay attention to Tony Northrup, I find him and his wife incredibly annoying and lacking an in depth understanding, or at least lacking the ability to relay to their audience that they are any more than click fodder 😉
I pretty much second that.
Sorry to say, but that sounds like total nonsense. Did you ever used a field camera or a tilt lens? The tolerances are in the range of a 100th of a mm. That would result in an infinitesimal tilt angle. The effects of optical flaws like field curvature or aberrations are bigger by several magnitudes.
Can you provide any scientific sources for your claims? I would be very interested.
Here you go:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters
Yup, that’s a good article. Just remember that Roger discuss adapters from a lens testers perspective (which he clearly states in his article). For real life situations, you (the photographer) have more effect on image quality (in the order of several magnitudes) than a tad non-coplanar adapter.
Totally agree with that, just pointing out the original source of the information and where the perception of possible corner softening came from. I can’t imagine ever seeing it as an issue unless you are shooting close up and wide open where DOF won’t cover any minor errors induced by this. I certainly haven’t seen it and did comparisons of my Zeiss 21mm Z.F2 with a Novoflex adapter compared to the 16-35 f/4 FE at 21 mm and it wasn’t even close. The Zeiss resolved way more detail in the corners even with the adapter while the centers were essentially indistinguishable. Of course zooms and primes aren’t always fair to compare but at least in this case, even with the adapter, the prime blew away what is considered to be a pretty good performing native FE zoom in the corners.
WOW. Thank you for the link. This is a VERY interesting read.
However, here is what bothers me the most:
It is clearly shown that the impact of the tolerances of a real world mount adapter on IQ is almost equal the difference between a good and a not so good (average) lens mounted on a precision optical bench mount module.
I would expect that the impact of the tolerances of a real world mount adapter is more or less equal the tolerances of a real world camera lens mount.
Would that mean, the degrading in IQ caused by a real world adapter on an optical bench mount (vs. optical bench mount only), would be equal to the degrading in IQ caused by mounting a lens on a real world camera instead of a precision optical bench mount?
How relevant is a optical bench measurement in real world?
I’m VERY confused.
Yes there are tolerances at play in any mount that can cause problems. I think the point though is that the more mounts you introduce into the system, the higher likelihood of cumulative errors.
“it is already remarkably sharp in the center at maximum aperture, and taking into account some field curvature, the edges, too. By f5.6 it is very difficult to find fault with anywhere in the frame”
*gasp* And here I thought lenses stopped doing that after the 1930s! ;D
I thought more or less the same. LOL
..except the Sony FE normal zooms then, obviously.
I was talking about real lenses. Not zooms. People who buy zooms won’t understand .