A99 with the Zeiss 135mm lens (Courtesy of Adalbert).
Two weeks ago I told you how the current Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 A-mount lens would get replaced at Photokina. The new version is said to have the same optical design but it will be upgraded with the “SSM” focusing mechanism. According to a source from the French site Chassimages the new Zeiss will ship in early 2015 (has 77mm filter diameter and weights 1050g). The source said that also the current 85mm f/1.4 A-mount lens will get a similar update later.
Both current Zeiss lenses got a $100 discount in US:
$100 off on the Zeiss 135mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and SonyStore.
$100 off on the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and SonyStore.
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
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!
0 Responses
Alpha 99 mk II and zeiss 135 mm mk II wil be my prefered lens when it comes to portraits from a little distance. And maybe i could dream of a 1,4 lens.
Yes, that would be an excellent portrait lens. Love how it looks on the A99, exudes quality.
I have the a99 + 135mm f/1.8 and u have no idea how my Nikon and Canon user friends are asking me how in the world I get smoother bokeh than their 70-200mm LOL.
this is the perk of shooting a sony camera 🙂 this 135mm f/1.8 lens is exclusive for us sony user and I enjoy every click on my camera with it lol
I’d definitely pick up the mk1 135mm if they start selling it off…
How can Sony afford to give a $1799.99 at $100 discount? You’ll go bankrupt! ;^)
Really, that’s hardly a discount for a soon to be obsolete lens. Sony never gives us a break on A-Mount glass.
Given the rumored minor update, calling the original version obsolete is not accurate. SSM is nice but hardly essential for portrait lenses. Plus the pricing of the original Sony 70-200 hasn’t taken much of a hit through 3rd parties or on the used market given the lackluster update and extreme price bump.
Obsolete simply means it’s no longer produced, takes nothing away from the quality of the original design. When production ceases it becomes obsolete by definition, so it is an accurate statement.
No longer produced is “out of production” or “discontinued”, obsolete means the object will no longer work with current infrastructure or the results are so poor that there is no point in using it. The Minolta MD line of lenses is obsolete because you can no longer buy new production bodies that support the lens natively. The Zeiss 135mm is of course still supported by new A-mount bodies and will still be of good quality. So discontinued but far from obsolete.
Finally!!!
But the 85mm probably should get an optical revision though :
That + it should be INTERNAL-FOCUSING.
Never really quite understand what the fuss is about with IF
I mean, it’d be nice to have, but in my 2 cents worth that won’t be a dealbreaker.
Really wish Sony/Zeiss will correct the CA their planar produces. Wouldn’t mind adopting sonnar then maybe correct for field curvature instead :
I never bothered to update my Minolta 85mm to the Zeiss because the CA was only a little better (and the 135mm showed what could be done).
Add SSM to the 85mmand I’ll upgrade when my Minolta dies – add similar CA control to the 135mm and I’ll upgrade tomorrow 🙂
finally. SSM & weather sealing for 135 & 85 ZA are some of the most awaited upgrades to alpha system for me. no more dot-matrix printer sound when focusing my portrait lens!
+1
I don’t mind that much the relatively loud AF motor – I would appreciate the SSM on my beloved 85ZA besides AF speed to get rid of this chirping sound when using DMF setting. 🙂
silent AF is only a part of the equation (albeit a must have for video work), the other one is full-time DMF override without using any special setting on the body, and working in AF-C/AF-D too (ideally with automagical focus magnifier the same way it works on E-mount cameras). this way we could get an instant confirmation of AF hit (esp. with paper-thin DOF these fast primes provide)
No e-mount lens news yet?
What do you think? The Admin here would post e-mount news if there were any, don’t you think?
You think he posts every new he gets the instant he gets them? I assume not, or otherwise the website would have posts very inconsistently. So there are certainly rumors we don’t know about yet.
This thread is about the release of the Zeiss 135mm F1.8 for A-Mount, what part of that don’t you understand?
but A-mount is dying, do you understand?
A-Mount isn’t going anywhere. You are seeing the emergence of a proper two line philosophy. 1 line for everyone up to the working professional and one for high end enthusiasts and working professionals. It’s a smart move and it’ll work well, globally.
Quit acting like an imbecile @stu. The A-mount is Sony’s “Professional Workhorse”, which is why Sony is updating the most commonly used lenses.
A99 Mark II and 135mm f/1.8 Mark II is what I’m waiting for.
Can’t be true as we all know that A-mount is dead.
The King is dead, long live the King. 🙂
Is it too much to ask for an updated 24-70 with weather-sealing?
I assume yes.
Although being a little bit aged, the 2470ZA is SSM driven.
Considering not having an updated 35/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro I guess that they put less attention on the 2470ZA.
I’m guessing the 16-35, 24-70, and 35mm are all receiving updates relatively soon.
Given the current prices of these lenses (the 85 in particular) vs. the performance of peers, I just hope they don’t keep the same optical formula, claim to change the coatings, pop a new focus mechanism in, and raise the price 20%
The 70-200 price was raised by 50% for such an update.
Which is exactly what you know will happen.
That’s exactly what will happen. Sony doesn’t invest in A-mount lenses; just re-releases of the old designs (many of which are Minolta designs) with minor updates and a higher price.
What’s the problem with the 85mm performance? Otherwise you can expect exactly what you are describing – minor changes and a price hike – everyone is doing that.
Who is doing that? Canon is, for example, actually making significant changes to optical formula and glass to their new lenses and lens updates. The Zeiss 85mm has horrifying LoCA and overall chromatic aberration. Lasted 2 weeks in my bag and, for a moment, made me wish I was back with Canon.
Canon had to make significant changes because each of their core 3 lenses were sorely outdated and were a big reason why Canon shooters jumped ship or bought into the Zeiss primes. The 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 IS series I lenses were all pretty terrible on digital. That there is significant improvement shows how bad they really were. Sony’s Zeiss designs on the 16-35 and 24-70 are superb but the new 70-200 improved only slightly (more in construction and AF) over the predecessor because it was already optically suited. Sometimes incremental upgrades are all there can be, especially noting the cost. And yes, I agree that the 70-200ii is way overpriced by a good $500.
Come on, Pentax just converted their whole Limited line to HD coating and charges up to around 15% per lens for that, Canon is reselling the same old sensor, just look at the 5D3, Olympus is selling lens shades for crazy prices, Sigma changed the bodies of their mirror-less lenses etc. Plenty of examples, this singling out of Sony that is going on is preposterous.
As to the great peers of the Zeiss, what are they? The 85mm 1.2?
You’re all over the place. Lens hood prices? Really?
RE: Pentax, a 15% increase would be a bargain for Sony. Especially for the Minolta-era designs. Re: Canon, we’re talking lenses, not camera bodies. If that was relevant – one might note that aach camera generation for Canon’s tired APS-C sensor doesn’t see a huge price increase. The 5D3 saw one, but offered substantial performance increases.
Sony should be criticized for starting with a weak price/performance ratio for their lenses, and doubling down on that with huge price increases on very outdated designs.
To the specific lenses in question, The 135L absolutely keeps up with the Zeiss 135 – except that it’s $700 less, got faster and more accurate focusing and a slightly more balanced contrast profile (Having shot both). The 85L at f/1.2 (also owned it) is kind of wild in its rendering – very distinctive. By f/1.4 – f/2 is very well-mannered, and doesn’t exhibit the same chromatic errors that the Zeiss does. Stopped down a bit, the Canon is slightly higher res and the Zeiss has more contrast bite. Ultimately, the Sigma 85mm, for many, is actually a better all-around lens than the Zeiss. When the A series is released, forget about it.
Well, yes, I gave examples of many photography products that are too expensive for what they are. I am elaborating on the point I made “you can expect exactly what you are describing – minor changes and a price hike – everyone is doing that”. Why limit ourselves to lenses only (though I gave you lens examples too, but you simply glanced over those)? To suit your Sony bashing? One might also realize that not every Sony lens has seen a huge price increase. As to the 15%, it is you who mentioned 20% being too much, but suddenly 15% are ok?
No, Sony, like any other company company can be criticized for some of its lenses, certainly not everything, as you seem to imply. Off the top of my head, more than half of the lineup is priced rather fine, compared to the competition.
As to the lenses, you seem to be very happy to cite the 700$ difference between the 135s, but somehow you forgot the 500$ difference between the 85s. Btw, the Canon 85mm is not sharper than the Zeiss, at least based on what I’ve seen (some time ago), but putting that aside and judging by your own experience, one can say that both have their strengths and weaknesses, so why would the Zeiss be worse than the competition then? For you, ok. Overall though? And why suddenly include Sigma here? Yes, it will be a problem for the Zeiss 85mm, but it also will be a problem for the Canon 85mm. Third party lenses have always been cheaper.
You are really trying to twist everything, we speak only about lenses, then we speak only about some lenses, then only about some lens aspects, then not the same aspects for each lens, then Sony is to be criticized.
+1 Vlad. Well said.
WTF – Minolta era designs. I know were talking about the Nikon, Zeiss, and Canons, but the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G-Series (D), is an outstanding 85mm, which is why I kept it even after purchasing the new Zeiss five years ago. The “Minolta Blue” colour rendition is still unmatched
The same goes with the 80-200, 28-70, and 17-35, they’re out class many of the newer lenses, and still hold high resale values.
I hope Sony waits to revisit the 85mm until after Zeiss releases an 85mm Otus. It seems to have helped in regards to the FE 55mm.
Perhaps, but aren’t the Otus and FE 55mm different optical designs? Otus is Distagon and FE 55mm is Sonnar. How much in common do they have?
If you look at their drawings and forget the names then yes, they are very much alike, with FE to be simpler.
They are completely different designs. The FE is a simple 7 elements 5 groups Sonnar, the Otus is a complex 12 elements 10 groups apochromatic Distagon. Please, keep it real.
Perhaps I should say then that I hope Sony waits for Zeiss to release their 85mm Otus, so Sony may use the optical design, period. A Sony Zeiss Otus-lite 85mm 1.4 would be a true upgrade.
I do hope that they’re not going to be super expensive like they did with the 70-200 II, SSM is handy, but I don’t need weather seal for these focal length (85 and 135), most of the time I use these lenses indoor.
instead of making 50% more Zeiss lenses that just a few can buy, make 100% more affordable ones.
I agree but all Sony sees in forums like this is that their pro level lens selection isn’t up to par and that’s why people aren’t recommending the system to their non-pro friends. Which is asinine but wholly true. So Sony needs new designs. Also, with everything inevitably moving to sensor based AF, the lenses will need to be optimized for future functionality and now is an excellent time to start.
How many lenses are really needed for a system to be considered complete. I have over a dozen A-Mount lenses, and only seem to use my 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and 85mm. The rest are rarely used these days.
It really is about perception. And a whole lot of squeaky, impossible to please, forum wheels.
I totally agree… people keep complaining about incomplete lens lineup.
It’s not like you carry 50 lenses with you when you shoot. You’ll probably carry your top 3 or 4 and that’s it.
they’re not shoe sizes to fit every personal taste.
Ok, let me put it this way to you. Does Sony have plastic fantastic 35/2 and 85/2? I’d be interested in those if Sony had them. Canon has 35/2 and 85/1.8. Same goes for Nikon.
You can’t fill the gap with a $1500 lens and say “There, you asked for it and we provided”. Not everyone can possibly afford such a lens. Photography isn’t a primary source of income for alot of people and our gear doesn’t exactly pay for itself. Sometimes “Good Enough” is what people need, instead of “The best of the best”.
Usually 3 plastic lenses = 1 good lens… just don’t waste your money on crap (Been there done that).
Good lenses last longer, have better resell value and at the end of your shoots you’re guaranteed to be more satisfied with the outcome… regardless of the applications. You don’t have to be a pro to want quality glass and images.
I agree. I originally owner the plastic 50mm, but sold it off when I bought the A850. It was junk. Cheap plastic lenses should be banned.
Some of the cheaper lenses are excellent the Nikon F1.8g lenses { 28m,50mm 85mm } are all very good the 85mm F1.8g in particular is a superb performer for the price.It can compete with even the best Sony lenses
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18___823_814_1252_0
It’s not only about quantity, it’s about quality too. 85 is still screw-driven, 16-35 and 24-70 don’t have weather-sealing.
Speaking of weather-sealing, only 50mm and the hugely expensive 70-200mkII have it, so almost whole Sony’s pro line-up needs to be re-released.
Also the standard f/4 line-up is obviously missing.
If we get the rumored 24/105 f/4, 135mm SSM and 85mm SSM, that would be a big step towards closing the gaps, but nowhere ‘complete’.
Well it looks like Sony’s correcting all of our needs this year. The 135mm, 85mm, are getting the SSM motors they need, and they’ll probably be weather sealed as well.
Its nice that Sony is going to finally update the 16-35, and 24-70 and advertise them as being weather sealed. I currently own both and they can easily can handle outdoor work.
I’ve used them for over five years in Northern Canada, and I’ve never had a single problem. Rain, Snow, Blizzard, Hurricane, and they’re optics are still immaculate.
A complete system is not measured by filled gaps, but is rather measured by gap fill + price + standardization. As an example, the entire f/2.8 zoom line must be SSM and weather sealed. The cheaper/smaller f/4 zoom line is missing altogether.
35/1.4 is old optically and needs an AF update,
35/2 FF is missing.
50/1.4 needs AF update.
85/1.4 needs AF update.
85/2.8 has to become 85/2 as every other competitor has.
135/1.8 needs AF update.
There are also wider focal lengths needed. Where is the superwide 16mm as an example.
Just because you or I are not using those lenses, doesn’t mean nobody does. I’d be interested in a cheap plastic fantastic FF 35/2 and 85/2 as an example. Similar to the SAL85f28.
Sony has always separated FF and APS-C lines, with the latter having the cheaper lenses. Whether this satisfies every need out there is a different question and while it might make for a more complete lineup is not necessarily what should be done. And, frankly, your definition of a “complete” system is entirely random, as well as some of the examples.
A complete system is something for everyone that is also up to date. You can’t grab Nikon’s old lenses to fill current gaps as an example.
As far as separation of FF and APSc thats not entirely true. Take SAL85f28 as an example. Its a FF lens.
And while I understand that Sony has pushed cheaper lenses primarily for APSc line, does not necessarily mean that its a right thing to do.
I’m speaking on the basis of what i’m currently looking for. At the moment I have A65 with SAL1650 and Tamron 70-300. I’m looking to upgrade to FF. The Tamron is already there, but I need something at the wide-standard end to get started with. A 35/2 or 50/1.4 would be perfect, except that 35/2 is missing and 50/1.4 is still screw driven. You can’t expect anyone to shell out thousands of $$$ to buy into a system. Since photography isn’t the primary income source, and for me its not an income source at all, the system doesn’t exactly pay for itself.
Hopefully this is easier to understand than the previous post.
There’s nothing to understand in the previous post, as I already mentioned and you completely missed my point. I would normally clarify, but you decided to be patronizing for some reason, so I don’t believe this discussion is going anywhere useful.
I wasn’t trying to be patronizing. I was just trying to show that completeness of the system varies based on needs, and was trying to include all needs, including mine.
Didn’t mean to sound like a smarta** or anything.
Fair enough. And that is precisely what I meant with random. It is difficult to say what is a complete system. Does Leica have one, for example? Does it need to have AF? Does it include tilt/shift lenses? Or pancakes? DSLRs and mirror-less? While it will be obviously great from a user perspective to have everything in one system, it is something very difficult to achieve. So, what you are proposing is very subjective, that is all I am saying. One example would be why should the 85 2.8 be faster? It is small and light now and that is what someone else likes.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that you are right for yourself, the reason I am debating it is because this is an interesting issue and would be nice to see if there can be any semblance of a definition for a ‘complete’ system. For the moment, the only thing I can think of is a proper set of focal lengths. Not much 🙂
Come to think of it, all of the current mirror-less systems are probably the most complete systems, because they have both native and adapted glass, resulting in some amazing possibilities.
Why the your negativity toward screw-driven lenses. I own the 16mm, 20mm, 50mm, and would gladly buy a new 24mm or 35mm f/1.8 or f/2.0. I hope one day Sony re-releases a 85mm, that is based on the 1985 screw driven model.
Screw driven motors allow these lenses to remain compact, and relatively inexpensive which are both pluses in my books. I can fit all of them in one pouch in my camera bag which is a another huge plus.
If you add SSM and new housings, Sony will jack up the prices for sure, and the optics won’t be much better.
The only thing they need IMO is added weather sealing, and updated optics to include low dispersion glass.
However if you by chance find a Minolta 35mm f/2, buy it. Its a gem.
Stan the 35mm f/1.4 doesn’t need a AF update is faster than the newer Sigma, and very accurate. It just need some sound deadening material (soft rubber) to keep the noise under control. The screw driven AF keeps it very compact which is is a big plus.
How trustworthy is the rumor that there is no optical change in design? I really hope they make at least some minor changes. While I’d love to own this, I just can’t see myself shelling out 1k to trade in my 135mm just for SSM. For those that own this it seems unreasonable to upgrade without some sort of upgrade in the design.
these lens were already pretty good… Why not making new lense instead ?
SR2 for 2015…?
Years ago the a99 was supposed to be 36mp in an SR4 rumor.
If this is true, then follow the pattern for the ZA50/1.4. Sony makes nice expensive lens. Then a few months later Sigma release Art 50/1.4 half price with twice performance.
Twice the optical performance? Not even close. The Art lenses are superb but they’re not twice anything. And the well known Sigma AF issues will stop me from investing long term in their system again. Even the Sigma faithful agree “it’s just something you live with” but when the lens stops autofocusing in mid wedding and I have to do the whole lens off/on, battery in/out, camera off/on reset… I’m not putting up with that ever again.
Yep agreed. Nice and sharp. But have used sigma Art lenses, where the focus calibration has been horrendously out. Happy to pay a bit more for Sony lenses. Because I know they will work.
That’s my experience too. I like very my 35/1.4 but it needs a -18 adjustment on my A77ii… They’re also not the fastest focusing lenses out there.
I’ve used the 35mm Art, and didn’t like it.
I have the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G-Series, and its a little great performer. Its slightly noisy screw-driven motor is actually pretty fast on the A850 or A99. It may not be as sharp as the Sigma but its “Minolta Blue” colour rendition more than makes up for its imperfections.
This little wonder was designed thirty years ago, and should be updated to include modern low dispersion glass elements (FLD, ED, SLD, UD). If updated it’d probably end up being the best of the lot.
Plus its reliable, and I’ve never had any issues with it since I bought it second hand (like new) for $800.00 approx. four years ago.
This is great news. I have both lenses, and wont upgrade for SSM, but it sure is nice to see Sony investing on some easy upgrades to their best lenses. That shows commitment to many years of A-Mount ahead more than anything else I’ve seen since the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZA came out. I’ve never been so happy to hear my equipment is going to be “version 1” of 2. And I bet there are going to be some great used deals on the version 1s. They are both simply stunning lenses. Bravo Sony for not stopping at good enough, but continuing to strive for perfect.
My guess is used values on the version 1s won’t change at all. Since sony’s updated 70-400, 70-200- there has been zero change in used values for the older designs. Sony jacking the price up saves us humble earlier adopters from taking a beating on evilbay when we go to sell.
Sony camera/lens combos are starting to look dated and funny. Curvy round cameras with blocky hard edge lenses. Paint finishes don’t even match. Even Minolta redesigned their lenses when the XI series came out. CaNikon’s match new cam/lens combos.
Sony design aesthetics portray an ill conceived system apparent on so many levels… Like the completely missing flash system. Really, years into the new hot shoe and still no off camera cables, no pro system, no third party options.
Agreed!!! I hope the new design language for Sony’s full frame cameras are more rigid. Kind of like the A900. It’s all over the place right now.
Design and language are two terms that you can’t associate with the A900. It’s looks are the stuff of nightmares. Never seen a thing, living or inert, more ugly. Only Sony seems capable of making such gross products A900(looks) is so gross and chaotic like a retard, I actually laugh out loud..Every time.
Design and language are two terms that you can’t associate with the
A900. It’s looks are the stuff of nightmares. Never seen a thing, living
or inert, more ugly. Only Sony seems capable of making such gross
products A900(looks) is so gross and chaotic like a retaard, I actually
laugh out loud..Every time.
Well, I don’t find them getting any prettier that’s for sure. I don’t think the A99II will look any different either.
Ugly is subjective. I find the A900 to be a fairly decent looking camera.
Fair enough. As one poster has pointed out earlier, why do you think Kai bashes the superb, well priced Sony cameras? I feel Sony makes the worst looking cameras and by a far margin.The compact segment and the smaller cameras are good though.
You can thank Minolta, not Sony, for the a900 design. Based upon the Maxxum 9 film camera. I think it’s beautiful.
Sony just brought it to market, then destroyed the system with curvy melt trying to be like CaNiko without a flash system. Sony gaming butchers.
I like my A850, I actually prefer it over my A99. Its a tank, and I’ve used with the original 70200G in some of the worst imaginable conditions, and it keeps on trucking. Its battery life is superb, and I never have to worry about running out of power when I’m in the back country.
Plus after using it for four years I really don’t need the EVF. Hitting the intelligent preview, and recomposing is second nature.
I like hearing this as I constantly debate buying an A99. I think I’m just going to hold on to the A900 and pick up the next guy when it comes out. The battery life and intelligent preview are really good. Like you said…a damn tank.
No third party options? I just shot a celebrity event with my A7 through Cactus V5 triggers and everything worked like a dream.
How’d that TTL and HSS work out for ya… like a bad dream.
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I just didn’t have an answer yet as I was still in the process of fully integrating those V5s into my regular workflow.
Six months after purchasing that equipment, I’ve not once had a desire to use HSS or TTL. With my off-camera lights I do events, portraits, and food—all things that shoot perfectly between 1/160 and 1/250, and since I use real monolights and check my exposure responsibly I have no use for TTL.
When I find myself shooting fast motion or other genres, I’m not using off-camera strobes anyway, because that’s just ridiculous. I blast the shit out of my subjects with fluorescents so I have continuous lighting—it’s faster than any strobe-based solution since there is no need to pre-flash or check your positioning.
One day I may need to use off-camera flash for SOMETHING, but for now the only benefit I see is portability. And I’m not going to sacrifice quality when I could just pay someone to carry my shit.
Admin: Can you confirm that this rumor is really all that trustworthy in terms of no optical change? Is there any chance at all this might be incorrect?
well this site is all about things that might be incorrect
Well, the 70-400 was said to have minor changes optically. Although, tests showed that it was a very minimal change. It’s a great lens but you know Sony is going to jack the price up. IMO it’s at the maximum anyone should pay for a 135mm right now. If it goes above 2k they are absolutely nuts.
It’s the fastest 135 in the market, with optical performance to match. Pricing is more than fair.
It’s more than fair as it stands- correct. I’m talking about if it goes above 2k. I wouldn’t exactly say .2 is a serious “advantage” either over F2.
It’ll never go above 2k. Ever. It won’t crack $1799. Guaranteed.
Apparently you’ve never used either lens. They’re already the best in class, and any increase in performance would come with a steep price increase.
Do you ever look at MTFs or read results from lens testing labs? Not one single Sony lens currently produced is “best in class”. Not one single lens! As for the 2 lenses in this post: the best 135mm prime at the moment is the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135. The best 85mm prime currently produced is the Nikkor AFS 85mm 1.4G. Both are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the old Sony designs. Yes, Sony should update the optical design. We all love Sony, but that doesn’t mean we have to live in a delusional dream world. Sony lenses are good too, but they are not “best of class”, that’s fanboy talk.
Apparently you don’t know modern English, and are either a troll or a moron (probably both). Definition of:best-of-class
A product considered to be superior within a certain category of hardware or software. It does not mean absolute best overall; for example, the best-of-class in a low-priced category may be seriously inferior to the best product on the market, which could sell for ten times as much.
The lenses we’re talking about are in the same class, the class of fast FF 135mm and 85mm primes respectively.
Troll go away. Apparently you don’t understand English. An un-stabilized manual focusing 135mm, and auto-focusing stabilized lens are in two completely different categories. Sony manual 135mm STF is the other relevant lens, and it is in a class of its own.
Nikon isn’t even close, cause its not even stabilized, and its optics are inferior in every respect. JJ needs to go to school.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/987
or
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14?start=2
or
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/441-nikkor_afs_50_14_ff?start=2
They all say the same thing “The Nikon is inferior”
Did you even read the photozone.de reviews of the Nikkor and the Sony 85mm? The Nikkor is MUCH (!) better when it comes to resolution according to their tests, with significantly less LaCA. Did you by mistake read the review of the Nikkor 50mm 1.4G (your link is to that lens, not the 85mm)? In this case, please read the correct review. The 50mm 1.4G Nikkor is not a good lens, but it’s not the lens we’re talking about here.
The Zeiss 85mm Sony and the Nikon are evenly matched. However the Sony is stabilized, and therefore better.
Did you even read the slrgear reviews of the Nikkor and the Sony 85mm? The Nikkor has much better sharpness and CA according to their test. I don’t get it. You post links to sites that confirm what I said? Well, thank you I guess …?
And according to the same reviews the Nikon has more vignetting and worse bokeh, Now what?
As stated below, these lenses are no longer best in class. The Zeiss APO F2 is supposedly much better wide open up until 5.6 in terms of sharpness and lack of bokeh fringing. Sony should think twice about not updating the optics at all. You can’t price this near the same cost of the Zeiss APO and expect to come out ahead. People expect the best at these prices. AF doesn’t make up for that. I own the 135mm and 50mm Zeiss as well. Any increase in performance shouldn’t automatically equate to a price increase. The 135mm should have been update like 5 years ago.
Seriously I’d take the autofocusing f/1.8 ZA anyway over the manual focusing model. The difference in the real wold is negligible, and in the real world most of us have timings to make.
If I’m going manual, I’m probably going to use the STF, which neither lens can compete with.
Don’t disagree at all. I have no plans on getting rid of my 135mm 1.8 for the APO and I do agree it is negligible. Still, it would be nice if Sony upped the performance wide open a bit. However, practically all 135mm’s are stellar performers.
I don’t know about the manual focus. I was trying my A900 and the 135mm in manual this weekend. Dang thing is freaking heavy- kills my wrist man. So yeah, no manual for me either.
You do know the price of the 135mm APO, right? Because the Sony is 400$ cheaper, while having AF. Will you be willing to pay the price of the APO and the AF just so you can get a marginally better performance?
Realistically- no. I’m not willing to make the switch. It just makes zero sense to do so and waste hundreds for such a small improvement.
Yep, that’s the reason why I think the rumour is incorrect. Although I hope I am wrong, so I can buy the current version cheaper 🙂
I nearly dropped the A850, and STF multiple times in the first month, but once you get the hang of it the results are stellar. Check out the Dyxum review of it.
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/sal-135f28/sony-af-135-stf-sal-135f28_review.asp
http://www.magnuswedberg.com/index.php?doc=STF-review
Really? I always wanted to know which was better. I sold my 135mm 1.8 and decided to get another copy soon but I also want the stf but can’ t afford both at the moment.
If you don’t mind manual focusing the buy the STF. If your using a A850/A900 buy a type M focusing screen to compliment it. It took me a month to get the hang of it.
Ooh, the Sigma Art 135 should be exciting.
It is SR2.
Nice. I adore the 135mm. Use it for wide format portrait/product work where it has never failed me. I don’t need the optics to change and I’ll welcome the SSM though, really I don’t need that, either, the way I use it. It’d be nice to reduce the weight a little 😉 she’s a beast.
And to the people complaining about matching finishes so their camera system looks fashionably correct: seriously. Stop. You know the two tone look of white lenses on black bodies looks ridiculously gauche but no one seems to care as long as the images speak for thenselves. I wouldn’t care if Sony’s G lenses were all metallic rust orange with black trim: as long as they performed, I’d buy in. None of your clients care about the fit and finish of your camera system. As long as it’s clear your camera is better than their’s and that you are a more competent photographer, they’ll be fine.
To be honest it doesn’t matter if your client has a better camera than you – I’ve seen plenty of dentists with a 5d iii that should stick to pulling teeth…
Exactly. Money don’t buy talent! But a better camera will allow the talent to make their statement more proficiently.
Some do unfortunately. Appearances are often important in these situations.
No. Perhaps the photographer’s personal appearance matters, depending on the situation (though I’ve been in jeans and hiking boots when the weddings or the weather demands it) but the look of the gear? Never. Never have I ever heard it from anyone other than another photographer. Never from a client and never from their families or bosses or subordinates. The only people who care about what cameras look like are photographers.
It’s maybe a more common issue in the film/videography industry. A cheap, unused matte box somehow demands more respect.
Personal appearance for many photographers often takes a backseat . I work alongside press photographers who rarely look as good as their cameras.
I care about appearance in the sense that I want to stay low profile for street photography. My Contax 135/2, much smaller than the optically superior 135/1.8, is about the maximum size I feel comfortable using in an urban environment. I’ll never use a white lens for this very reason. It’s not about fashion but practicality.
Most people won’t use a 70-200 lens for low profile street photography, unless I am wrong 🙂
Vlad,
Believe it or not, I use the 70-200G for street photography. Awesome for quickly framing the right portrait. I am very upfront with my photography and often engage in a conversation before I photograph, (but not always). Most of the time a smile and a friendly discussion go along way.
Below are some older shots from one day, all shot with the 70-200
You’ll note some are very close.
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BVrCKQN/0/X2/i-BVrCKQN-X2.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cpqpWvk/0/X3/i-cpqpWvk-X3.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KrH4rVt/0/X2/i-KrH4rVt-X2.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-PXwbbSC/0/X2/i-PXwbbSC-X2.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-dBNDzWP/0/X3/i-dBNDzWP-X3.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-z9fmDn5/0/X2/i-z9fmDn5-X2.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-kTzxCX8/0/X2/i-kTzxCX8-X2.jpg
Zikes! – I miss the ability to edit my poorly write grammar good.
As I said, I might be wrong. Although you are saying that you are being upfront, so maybe it can’t be considered “low profile”? 🙂
I agree with that, that white lens makes a user stick out. The Minolta 100-200mm f4.5 lens is very discreet. I enjoy using it because it’s so compact. And it’s dirt cheap.
Own both and they’re incredible. DMF will be a great improvement. I hope they fix the minor slack of the focus ring on the 135mm.
Currently only two lenses from Sony Zeiss are superior to the Nikon/canon lenses and that’s the Sony 135mm f1/8 Zeiss and Sony 55mm FE Zeiss. If you have one of these babies then you currently own one of the sharpest lens in the world and if you have both of them then you’re very blessed.
Sony if you are reading this please give us the best wide angle lens for landscape. We need a full frame Zeiss lens at 14mm focal length please. As you see, landscape photographers love to travel and with the A7/A7R they can travel light. The only missing piece is that superior lens for landscape photography. I heard about 16-35mm f/4 FE is coming down and I can’t wait for it.
Arguably the 24/2 should also be on that list. I’d also like to see a cz 35/1.4
Agreed. The 24 f/2 is superb. As is the 50ZA which outperforms Nikon 58mm.
You probably won’t see a ZA 35mm f/1.4, because it’d be worth approx. $2299.99 to $2399,99, and it’s doubtful that many in the community would be willing to pay the premium.
I personally have the current 35mm G-Series, and it is a great lens on the A850/A900/A99.
Hopefully Sony will update the 35mm G-Series optics to include modern glass, which would easily address its shortcomings.
why so expensive?
A 50mm Zeiss for Canon sells for $799.99, and the Sony version is $1399.99. There is a 600.00 premium, because the weather sealing and SSM don’t come cheap.
A 35mm Zeiss for Canon sells for $1799.99, and the Sony version is likely to also have a $500.00-$600.00 premium too, due to the addition of weather-seals, and SSM.
The error in this reasoning is that Sony Zeiss lenses are essentially existing Zeiss lenses with an added Sony AF motor. This is not the case. Compare the optical formula of the Sony Zeiss 50mm lens and the classic Zeiss 50mm among others. Sony Zeiss lenses are, essentially, Sony lenses just as Canon L lenses are Canon lenses.
BS, Sony Zeiss has 2 serial numbers: zeiss glass serial and sony lens serial
Sony owns the patents to the optical designs of their lenses – Sony Zeiss included. The optical formulas for specific focal lengths are different when you compare Sony Zeiss to Zeiss lenses.
Sony Zeiss lenses are great, but they are Sony lenses foremost with Zeiss input and coatings.
Origin of glass and coatings even more important then patent ownership. Zeiss badge worth its cost =))
I never stated that Sony zeiss lenses are or are not worth it. I stated that Sony Zeiss lenses are Sony lenses. If they are Zeiss lenses, zeiss would own the patents (as they do for Touit and Otus lenses) and the optical
Formula would be the same as the equivalent zeiss lenses. The optical Formula (and associated patents) are Sony’s.
I own two Sony Zeiss lenses and prefer them to the equivalent canon L lenses I also use.
Why would a Sony zeiss 35 be more expensive than the g 35? The G 35 pricing is incompletely in line with the Sony zeiss 24 and 50mm pricing. Also, g-branded lens prices are equal to or greater than zeiss branded pricing.
35mm are normally one of the more expensive lenses you can buy.
A Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 would be 50% more expensive than a 50mm. So $2299.99 to $2599.99 is what would likely be charged. 35mm f/1.4 lenses are always very expensive.
The 35mm G-Series pricing hasn’t really changed since it was introduced in 1985 (adjusted for inflation). It was always $400 more expensive than the now discontinued 85mm f/1.4 G-Series. It’s priced inline with G-Series primes.
Hopefully Sony will re-release the 85mm G-Series.
This is why a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss hasn’t be produced for the A-Mount it’d be too expensive for 99% of Sony FF users.
24/2 is worse optically than both Nikon and Canon.
BS.
Take that. http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-24mm-F2-ZA-Sony-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24mm-F-1.4G-ED-on-Nikon-D600-versus-Canon-EF-24mm-F14L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___430_831_310_834_473_795
What about it? You are showing me a single optical aspect on a specific aperture setting from a single test and claiming better overall optical performance. Get serious, it’s not optically worse.
pixelgonzo =))))
And the 135STF is one of the best lenses ever made (it’s also Sony’s current lens designer’s favorite lens). Sony has the two best 135 lenses on the market, imo.
I completely agree. I’ve used both, and the pictures produced by the STF are jaw dropping, but require additional time to compose. I bought the 135mm STF, because its just so unique.
The stf is actually a minolta lens with a sony badge but still I can’t wait to have one.
Well, quite a few of Sony’s current lenses are Minoltas, rebadged. Shows how amazing Minolta was back in the day. Color matched, too.
Actually most Sony lenses are better than their Canon equivalents – go and look at some MTFs. Nikon lenses also test better than Canon on Average. The reputation that Canon glass has now is not based on fact, in the film era their lenses were considered the weakest of the ‘big five’.
There is a Sigma for that: their 50 is better than so called FE “zeiss”. There is also real Zeiss 135 that outperforms Sony 135. Sigma 135 should also be better I am sure. And twice cheaper.
Sigma 50mm is not “better” than the Zeiss. It uses more elements because they are inferior and arrives at it’s sharpness through more groups thus more optical corrections. This is why it has been noted from those who have compared that the Sigma has a bit harsher bokeh and less contrast than the Zeiss. There are trade offs with everything. You have to pick what you value.
“You have to pick what you value.”
I prefer the original. Its IQ is excellent, and its light, compact, and leaves plenty of space in my camera bag for my 20mm, and 16mm fish eye. The Sigma, and Zeiss are improvements, but the price performance isn’t high enough to justify an upgrade.
My recommendation is buy the regular 50mm f/1.4 because it’ll leave you enough cash to buy an additional lens or go on a all inclusive vacation for a week in Cuba, or The Dominican Republic.
You must be missed something. Sigma has more contrast than FE 55, the MTF graphs clearly shows it.
Ah, possibly- I don’t know about that one. I was referring to the 50mm 1.4 Zeiss.
LOL
This “zeiss” is just too soft WO
Look for the latest 50mm shootout of latest released 50 or matt granger on YouTube. The otus looks a tiny sharper, but the Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 and sigma are not distinguishable from one another. The Sony has advantage to be much smaller, lighter, and to focus faster. And as a happy owner only the magenta/green fringings could be bothersome in some backlight situations. All the rest is only comparable to the 135 ZA. A must have.
SR2… ok. We can also hope that it has OSS, and F1.4. Why not, SR2, we can say what ever we like
OMG SONY~~ stop upgrading stuff that already the best….. go make a 15mm ZA prime….
35
Any news on the rumoured 16-35 FE lens admin? thanks
what is Shppping?
(SR2) A-mount rumors: New 135mm Zeiss shppping early 2015. New 85mm Zeiss coming too?
what happened to the next/upgrade of SAL1650?
Does it actually need one? Its fast, weather sealed, and produces G-Series quality images. I bought the original A77 in order to use this lens.
There was a rumor about it a while back… Whether it needs it is a whole different story.
Agree! 🙂
It could use some adjustments at 16mm. But other than that, I freaking loved that lens. Wish I didn’t sell it. The build quality was awesome as well.
where the hell is the wide angle zoom for e mount?!??? or it was just a false rumor???
All rumors are false.