Reminder: All new Sony FE lenses will be announced on Wednesday March 4 at 5-6 am London time. You can follow the live blogging here on SonyAlphaRumors.com!
And these are the first “official product” images and specs of the new Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens. The lens will cost 1699 Euro:
– Focal length: 35mm
– Dealing Aperture: f / 1.4
– Minimum aperture: f / 16
– Filter size: 72mm
– Number of diaphragm blades: 9
– Focus on APS-C: 52.5mm
– Minimum focus distance: 30centimeter
– Weight: 630gram
via CameraTools.
Shenikon now unveiled the price of the new FE lenses through their eBay store:
[shoplink 33732 ebay]Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 for $1,729 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 33744 ebay]Sony FE 24-240mm lens for $1,099 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 33745 ebay]Sony FE 28mm f/2.0 lens for $459 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 33753 ebay]Sony 16mm Fisheye Converter for $319 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
–
To not miss any of them quickly subscribe our social network:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
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!
156 Responses
for that price I hope it’s better than the sigma 35/1.4
You cannot compare, because Sigma 35/1.4 ART lens is only made for a-mount, and not for e-mount! And with the LAE-adapter you will loose something on image quality….
Zeiss 35/1.4 will be very good. Zeiss will not disapointing. And solid lens are expensive…
Exelent IQ expected if it’s a original Zeiss and not a Zeiss labled Sony version.
People think that Sony/Zeiss are not good lenses… move along…
Really, so I suppose the Sigma ART 35mm is not a solid lens then, right????!
We’ll there is certainly no quality loss with an laea3 and quality loss at low ISO with an laea4 is non-existstant.
True but for me the impact to AF (especially in low light) is a non-starter.
sure it will be good. still find it hard to accept that a lens can be twice as expensive than another lens and still not perform better. I find it hard to believe that any “normal” lens, including this one, can perform optically better than the sigma 35/1.4.
It looks like that price is an ebay listing. Typically before an item is actually available sellers will list it for several hundred dollars more than its actual MSRP to gouge the early adopters.
thats what i am hoping and thinking
630 grams…that is heavy,
In fact, the only new lens going under 600g is the 28….thats a bit odd
Perhaps a special lightweight version will be made for people with cerebral palsy, don’t loose hope.
being ironic wont change the fact that the recent lens releases are (size/weightsize) identical (in some cases even larger) to the DSLR alternatives
Well when lens specs are equal the size will be comparable.
Not that heavy. It’s lighter than the Sigma Art.
by 30 grams
however, its heavier than the nikon 35/1.4 and also sony 35/1.4 A
True, but neither of those lenses are that spectacular. The Sony especially is a very poor performer by today’s standards.
If the new Sony 35/1.4 matches or exceeds the 55/1.8 optically, that bit of extra weight will be more than an acceptable trade off.
The ZM version of distagon 35/1.4 makes me wonder the most. It weights 380 grams and the performance is fantastic. Does the AF+SSM make really such a big difference in bulk+weight?
I will have a big inner fight which one to get (the FE vs ZM) Both have advantages and downsides
Price seems crazy. Hope it just the europe thing.
What the hell is the aperture ring for ?
Anyone knows ?
sony has lost it´s mind…… cheap bodys but crappy lenses for horrendous money.
keep it….
Homeless vagrants were not the intended audience for this lens, go look for a cheap Chinese made knockoff.
Or you could just get a canon Nikon lens for a lot cheaper with exactly the same IQ as this overpriced gigantic behemoth.
they think putting a blue zeiss logo on it makes this lens better?
unfortunately thast not the case as the past has shown.
Well indeed, the 55/1.8 was pretty crappy.
But it makes it better than what you have, hence your petty jealousy and stupid comment.
Yep, crappy like the ZA24/70, ZA16/35, 135/1.8, 85/1.8, FE55/f1.8… move along…
For that price, it better make breakfast every morning and bring it to my bed. The existing 35mm/1.4 Distagons for the DSLRs are actually worse than the Sigma Art 35mm/1.4 in image quality. The Sigma goes for half the price. Given the cross-section of the FE one posted in the past, it looks markedly different from the Distagon designs, so it may only share its name. But if it still gets beaten by the Sigma, that’ll sure be some huge ass mark-up to just get faster AF on a 35mm/1.4 for the FE-mount. I think I keep using my Sigma on an adapter.
Next post: (SR5) First full specs and images of the new Sony A9 camera.
Right?!
Seems long waiting, I have almost lost interst in A9 and started to look for tempted small D750.
That’s like choosing a Volkswagon over a Mercedes, the D750 is a cheap plastic POS.
POS?
Have you used one before? Have you noticed the professionals are using these for their work and praising them?
I’m guessing you’re not a photographer. Just an idiot on a forum or as people call them, a couch expert.
I own both Sony and Nikon, and wouldn’t call the Sony A7r a POS because of its shutter issues.
So please back up your POS comment.
Otherwise please show us your work shot on something superior to Nikon equipment.
Meathead!
If the D750 is the best you can afford then fine, it’s still a plastic bodied cheap shutter, crappy viewfinder flaring POS.
Even if he posted an amazing photo, you’re going to insult it, so why ask to see his work? Not defending him per se, I just think your method of attack is pathetic
Speak for yourself, I’d love to see some good work posted.
Apparently nobody should stop you from getting the D750. Buy one if you don’t regretting later when the A9 turns out to be very good.
fo that price it should be at least as good as the 85/f1.4 for A-mount and something as twice a s good as the Sigma. I really can’t imagine who will be willing to pay such a price (even if converted 1:1 to US$) for such a lens….
all the new lenses seems to be overpriced by far. The 28/f2 maybe a nice and welcome addition, but the lens is priced 100€ too high and both convertes are maybe just worth half the price. Also the macro; 200-300€ less and nobody would complain (still more expensive as a Tamron 90, but native mount and OSS).
Hopefully price decrases as nobody will buy. But there is still the option of having A-mount (or Canikon etc.) glass via adapter for a more reasonable price… that’s the e-mount advantage and maybe a problem for Sony with that pricing policy… But history showed that Sony isn’t decreasing list prices much…
This lens is not designed for a point and shoot camera, look elsewhere. I’m sure there is a POS lens that will be fine for your use.
€1700? Holy cow, at that price it should come with a lifetime personalized call-girl service.
Why, is your sister unemployed?
This one only comes with a free hand job.
I don’t know which call girls you hire for life for only 1700EUR.
Double in size and weight compared with real ZEISS DISTAGON 35mm 1.4 which shines on A7s! Well AF and OSS double size and weight then.
CRAZY! Go for DISTAGON it’s worth the consideration if you want small and lightweight and accurate MF.
the ZM distagon jut became so much more appealing by this announcement
big price difference as well. The ZM sells for 2290$
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/zeiss_35_1_4_zm/Ntt/zeiss+35+1.4+zm/N/0
>630grams
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHSHAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
well..to select the aperture? 😉
:/
To be honest I expected such answer :p
At this price weight it better resolve the most on that rumoured 50mp sensor.
I believe there was a statement from a Sony exec that they designed the lenses with that in mind.
To be honest. I would rather go formthe Voigtlander 35 mm Nokton f.1,2. Cheaper than the FE 35 mm, and much more compact. Here is what Steve Huff say about the Nokton: The Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 is the bargain of the century in the world of super fast 35mm lenses
True.
It all depends on what you are looking for as well.
If 1.4-1.2 is what you want because you need the light, maybe the bokeh and across frame performance wouldn’t be as important.
If they were, then the selection becomes more complex and, inherently, potentially more expensive.
For those who liked the RX1, but were not 100% satisfied with the MF offerings from M mount, then the new lens could be appealing if it covered what they needed.
I am looking closely at this and waiting for the solid photozone, slrgear, dxo reviews to kick in before I would consider purchasing it. If it did ver well (and I couldn’t expect to do any less than very well) then I could be attracted to it with an A7 II or even an A7r to boot.
If it was as good as the RX1, but with that extra stop, it would be easily worth it. At least for me.
Size wouldn’t matter much to me if the all around IQ was exceptional.
If looking for a budget fast 35mm, the CV 35mm 1.2 has no competition.
Hahaha…
What i heard its for videographer..
Hmm .. I always forget about video stuff.
Thanks 🙂
At almost twice the price of a Sigma 35mm ART lens, will this lens be almost twice as good optically?
I think not.
It will only be 1.75 X better.
I doubt it. Zeiss lenses are always overpriced. Too bad Sigma doesn’t design ART lenses specifically for full frame mirrorless. If they did, the A7 Series would be much more attractive, though still with issues – lack of uncompressed RAW files and shutter vibration issues with the A7r.
Sigma sucks and you suck.
I’ve got a Leica 90mm APO Asph. On my A7 today. For me, this is an expensive lens, but it delivers and holds value. I have a dozen Zeiss lenses, because I love what they do and consider them a real value. Again, I can sell them and lose little money.. Or sell for more.
when it comes to good quality lenses you have to pay much more for further little improvements. ask yourself if its worth your money.
but to use the Sigma, you have to use a DSLR. Most here are committed to the benefits of the A7 platform. To use the Sigma on the A7 you would need the bulky and slow LAEA4, where the new native Zeiss is reported to have a newly designed magnetic AF system. Having a native lens also means you get the full benefit of the 4D AF tracking.
I bought and returned the Sigma twice on the A900. Resolution was top notch but I prefer the Sony 35 1.4g rendering and the Sigma was painfully slow to focus in low and back light.
If Sigma mad a native FE lens I would definitely take a look but for now, if you want to use them at their full potential, you need to be gunning with a DSLR. Sorry, no.
Come to daddy!
…when Sony announce something, it’s like giving new life to the trolls.
I guess for many people writing comments in here is a lot better to buy the usual Canon body with a 50MP sensor in it and be raped by Canon for a line of code that removes the AA filter.
Pricy shit but good shit!
The 35mm is more expensive than my old Canon 35mm f/1.4L, which is way overpriced itself. While the Zeiss may turn out to be better, I doubt it is better than the far cheaper Sigma version. Even the manual focus version (Loxia) is more expensive than the Sigma version. For a 35mm for a mirrorless system, it seems to be very large. While the Fuji version is for an APS-C sized sensor, I wouldn’t expect a full frame version to be more than double its size.
35mm lenses are always expensive. They’re super complex compared to a 50 or 85. That said, the Sigma 35 has really done the photography world right with an (relatively) affordable and superb 35/1.4, and years ahead of the competition.
Compare the size of the crop Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art to the 35mm.
>630gram
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
This is a lens I have been waiting to get and planned to get. But in my wildest dreams, I never anticipated a fast 35 in the FE line up being more than $1,400. A refurbished RX1 is $1,599 and that’s appealing to not change lenses . . . but I’ll stick with my Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 II. I thought 35 was my preferred focal length, but the FE 55 has grown on me. It’ll be my AF lens and the 35 will be as needed. Ah well.
Look at the price of the just introduced ZM version. You should be happy that they didn’t price it higher.
We get it. It’s too pricey and/or big for you, move along and find another lens or do yourself a favor and find another system. I for one will reserve judgement until I see sample photos. If all is well, this lens will make a great addition for my line up.
People who command others on how to respond to news have some weird control issue at play.
Would you kindly elaborate why No one is allowed to hope or ask for something? Of course they can always find another lens or system, you do not have to tell them to.
I only said what I said because this is what, the 20th post on possible, maybe, yes this is it, pricing on these lenses? I too think it’s expensive but so is a Porshe in relation to other cars yet there is still a consumer for them.
Sony sells a fixed focal length camera for $2800. Surely, a stellar Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 $1700 doesn’t seem like a reach. Expensive? Yes. Surprising? No.
You see, that will never justify your statement that no one is allowed to hope or ask anything.
Yes, a Porsche is always expensive, but there is nothing wrong to hope for them to cut prices or perhaps Toyota, VW, Kia or GM to introduce cheaper models that will perform the same.
Realistically speaking, you can’t state that any hope or asking are not allowed and they should get lost (by changing systems). You should rather Talk with reasons, like why those statements (hopes and asking) are very unlikely.
Then perhaps simply, Zeiss branded is not for you and hopefully a cheaper non Zeiss version of a fast 35mm will be available in the future.
I’m not saying people can’t state their opinions. But what I am saying is, it gets annoying after awhile, complaining about the same thing over and over. Just my opinion too.
Well, I don’t think you’ve to be annoyed whatsoever.
dont add oil to the fire. they’re coming to haunt you.
Agree fast lenses are big and expensive no getting around the physics or the cost. I figured 1399 all along for US market which for me as a Pro a fair price to pay. It’s no different in any other system. Folks need to get over it. These are high end lenses and they are made for demanding shooters. I’m torn between this and the Loxia 35 as F2 is workable for me but live to have the AF in the 1.4.
My Minolta 35/2,0 is my 35mm favorite of all time. Great on my A7R I don’t need another 35.
How does this lens compare to modern 35mm lenses? Field curvature? Aberrations? I’ve read it’s a sharp little lens.
How does this compare to the Minolta AF 35/1.4? I know they are two completely different beasts.
Agreed that the Minolta 35/2 deserves its reputation but the LAEA4 is the weak link. Focus speed is painful in low light and accuracy also falters.
Too bad Sony didn’t make the 35/2.8 a modern version of the Minolta right out of the gate. The Zeiss is a great little lens but at the end of the day, having an f/2 does make a difference.
I’m buying the 35/1.4 but it is a purpose built lens, not well suited for general walk around like the Minolta was.
I have the 28-134/4 FE Cinema Zoom in my possession now, and there is one particularly glaring disappointment that I hadn’t anticipated that will apply to this new 35/1.4 Distagon FE.
The smooth aperture ring.
Because it is an electronically controlled aperture ring, the aperture is not actually smoothly racked during video recording. It steps down very obviously (though a bit more smoothly than a ring with hard stops or with a finger dial). This is a major disappointment and has me considering a return (as this is not actually a smooth aperture, and is not appropriate for rack apertures).
Very good question…
Given the reported reason for the de-clicked aperture ring was for video, I’d be very surprised if it was done electronically instead of mechanically.
The iris is operated by wire. There is no mechanical connection from the aperture ring to the iris.
Everything on the actual lens is done by wire (focus ring, zoom ring, and aperture ring). Nothing is directly mechanical
Interesting lenses coming. 90mm f/2.8 will probably be nice for Potraits. This one seems to be very good too although the price is a little bit too steep at 1700. Keep introducing new lenses sony! You’re on the right track. Soon your Mirrorless will probably past old DSLR tech cameras. I’m waiting for an affordable 50mm and 35mm f/1.8, a bit pricey 85mm f/1.8, 70-300 f4… Hopefully all will be within reality!
Soon Sony will pass old DSLR tech? You don’t think much before speaking do you? Don’t answer that, you’ll just prove me right.
When Sony has a native lens lineup with the focus speeds of old DSLR tech, a flash system like old DSLR tech, professional accessories like old DSLR tech, then come back here and make that stupid comment again.
In the meantime, high school kids using old tech from the Nikon d3000 line will be creating stunning images far surpassing Sony posters caught up in new tech.
Wow… What a coincidence. I am a D3000 shooter (I’m still using it now). High school student too.
I am not sure where do you get that ‘stupid’ from. The future is the future. MILCs have technological advantages that diffrentiate themselves from Older SLR technologies, and they have the potential to have the things that DSLRs have such as the things you said in the near future.
So unless you can time travel to the future, there is no reason to say ‘stupid’ or ‘You don’t think much’.
The flash and accessories for both dSLR a mount and mirrorless e mount are the same flash and accessories. You don’t think much before speaking, do you?
There’s no native radio flash options for the a7.
There’s no flash sync port for the a7.
There’s no GPS options for the a7.
Few lenses for the a7.
I think his point was to judge the system as a whole
There is no native radio option for a-mount dSLRs/dSLR with TTL (pocket wizards in manual function on the MIS). There are no flash sync ports on any sony flashes. Only one current body (a99) has gps and this one does not have wifi /NFC to grab coordinates from a phone.
My point is all of the problems with the flash system and accessory system for e -mount are the same problems for the amount dSLRs. The flash system absolutely needs serious improvement (overheating, built-in radio, standard ports, etc.). I would live to see more 3rd party support. This would benefit Sony SLT and mirrorless users not one or the other.
But there are better audio accessories for the A7, its swings & roundabouts.
I’m ashamed to be a Sony shooter listening to you lot!
Great releases by Sony, making the FE mount harder and harder to resist. I’m still waiting for something that’s going to blow away my a99, in either A-mount or FE. Any new rumors on the a99ii?
Sony is testing the waters here, looking to see how many Pro photogs are going to buy this. They know the shooters will pony up the cash while the rest will buy something else, probably the F2.8. They also know they’re on the clock- the Sigma lineup with FE mount is just around the corner, and they want to get as much out of this lens as possible before then.
Sigma has mentioned time and time again that they will not be making any FE mount lenses. The most they had were some cheap lenses for the APS-C E mount.
So Sony has no proper competition but 1699 euro is a pretty bad price as it makes it the most expensive 35mm f1.4 lens available from an OEM. 🙁
And probably why I won’t buy it a long with others. Is this the official price or are they still quoting the price from the seller on Ebay in Hong Kong thats doing pre-orders?
I think this is the official price. The ebay seller is selling in dollars. But this is sucky news. I thought the price was around $1600/1400 euro.
Its not uncommon for them to price things in USD, i still want to wait for an official price list from Sony. I agree with you completely that this is not good news price wise. If they are smart they will do a rebate or something.
I thought it was Tamron that said that. There is a post about some Sigma zoom lenses for E-mount.
which are all aps-c
Sigma started talking about producing FE lenses in early December:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/11/26/sigma-qa-kazuto-yamaki-micro-four-thirds-lenses-full-frame-foveon-feasible
There is nothing concrete being promised at all in that interview.
Sigma has a few patents for E mount APS-C lenses –
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-sigma-patents-for-aps-c-e-mount-18-55mm-f2-8-18-70mm-f4-0-18-200mm-travel-lens-70-200mm-f4-9-6-0/
What was mentioned in the interview was wishful thinking from the IR guy.
In a later interview they categorically denied making any lens for FE mount just yet.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-says-they-will-yet-not-make-fe-lenses-will-keep-doing-aps-c-e-mount-and-a-mount/
Look everyone will be happy if Sigma does E mount lenses. More competition is almost always good but wishing for something when there is clear signs that its not happening is living on false hope.
Oh, I don’t expect them to turn over any lenses dedicated to FE mount. I do, however, fully expect them to pull a “Samyang” and offer existing Art FF lenses with the native FE mount. That’s not ideal of course, but, at least in the case of the 35mm it would be the same size as the new Zeiss.
Unfortunately that won’t work. Samyang are pure MF lenses and so just adding an extension is all that they needed to do to make it compatible with E mount.
However DSLR lenses use a different motor which isn’t compatible with contrast dectect AF systems of mirrorless cameras.
Thats why Sony uses that bulky LAEA4 atapter with a mirror to enable fast AF with A mount lenses.
My metabones EF->E adapter would disagree with you. I’ve used half a dozen SLR lenses on a couple of mirrorless bodies. It’s a bit slower than native E of course, but saying it’s not “compatible” is wrong. SLR lenses are tuned for phase detect, yes, but that doesn’t mean they’re incompatible. That also doesn’t mean Sigma can’t tune them for contrast detect, or put in a different motor altogether. My EOS-M works great with my EF lenses as well.
Sony released the LAEA4 because they didn’t want to modify their A-mount lenses and they can’t modify the older Minolta ones.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/good-news-folks-sigma-says-they-will-make-lenses-for-the-sony-fe-system/
🙂
Hey I am shifted to E mount from A mount and I would be very happy when Sigma makes lenses for E mount BUT that interview is all wishes and promises with little to no concrete timelines or action.
So when Sigma actually designs and produces a FE mount lens it could be after 2 – 3 years at the very least if not more.
Agreed. Although they could easily have already been working on them for a year or so. The last mirrorless lenses they put out were early 2013. I could see them having already been dedicating resources. Sigma has learned from the 24-105mm flop – moving forward they’re going to target lens lineup gaps. If they crank out an F2.8/F4 or 200/300mm mirrorless FF lens for example, they could sell it to the entire mirrorless market and it would have zero competition from any other vendor – m4/3s, x, e, fe, ef-m, nx, etc. It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
Well I can only hope you are right. E mount needs more players to come on board. However I am not convinced we will see anything concrete right away. My guess is we are going to see those crappy low cost zoom lenses for APS-C E-mount much before we see some kickass lenses from Sigma.
Still i ask, do you have the official price list from Sony themselves or are you basing this off of an Ebay listing? If you are basing it solely off that ebay listing then perhaps you should stop doing so until you know for sure that just not a HK price, and a pre-order price to be one of the first to get the lens. For months everything that has been quoted says it would be in the 1300.00 Euro range, which makes it roughly 1400 USD… which would be more in line with current 35mm 1.4 lenses with the exception of Sigma. I find it rather hard to believe that this lens will be nearly 2000 USD …
Wow, that is price for the 35mm? When they make a 85mm 1.4, it would 2499? lol
nope, 85/1.4 would probably more or less the same price
Well, not surprised with the rage of comments in SAR.
It should be fairly obvious, that Zeiss label doesn’t come cheap at launch.
Well, let’s see what do we have now as options:
The normal Z FE 35mm 2.8 : take that out for being a 2.8 since this new one has to cater for whose who want the 1.4 or as fast as an f2 lens at least.
The RX1 : If you don’t need 36mp, or the super ISO of the A7s, a second hand RX1 will set you back less than this lens alone and will give you a second body.
M mount alternatives :
Leica 35mm 1.4 (how much is that?)
Leica 35mm f2 (Surely more than this AF Zeiss and the RX1 is better if you want f2. Both a stop slower)
Zeiss 35mm f2 biogon ZM (not as great in the corners and some colour cast? also a stop slower for anyone who minds this)
Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM (that isn’t that much cheaper, right? and MF)
CV 35mm 1.2 (verson I or II, to your taste) this is a great lens. Had one. Bokeh would not be up to everyone’s taste (not smooth) but it does give you a great performance in the centre. Big and heavy, but comparably smaller to the FE. Cheap is the word with this one but quality is great.
Most of the M mount lenses as well would have some form of compromise to them. Whether MF is a compromise to you or not, I don’t care. You should. Whether smearing or colour casts are important to you, or not, I don’t care either. You could shoot black and white and colour casts would be a non-issue. Maybe the wavy depth of field can be an issue (I believe the Leica 35mm 1.4 has this issue as shown by some sites) or whatever. Only you know what you can to do with your money when you look for alternatives.
Then we have the SLR alternatives:
Many 35mm f2 lenses out there are small enough that would likely be physically similar to this FE Z 1.4 lens, so you can go out there and look for them. Size is, of course, an issue to many so that could be a viable option. How is their optical performance at the apertures you need? That’s another factor. For those shooting in the f4-f11 range for their work, 1.4 probably means nothing but 1 stop for twice or three times the price of their current set up. They wouldn’t even be looking at this. Come on…people who look at this already know the price and performance of 1.4 lenses so, let’s get to that:
Sigma 35mm 1.4 : Yes, the star of all SLR 1.4 lenses. I had the Canon 1.4 and from the photos I have seen from the Sigma, the Sigma is numero 1. That bein said, QC seems to still be somewhat of an issue with Sigma and while you can definitely go through a few lenses until you find your perfect one, you get a nice bang for buck on this one. That being said, any adapter will make it longer and larger than the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 FE discussed here.
Canon 35mm 1.4: Since there are adapters to make Canon EF lenses AF on a Sony E mount camera, we can count these as options. Not as good as the Sigma, more expensive but it is a bit smaller.
Nikon 35mm 1.4: Probably the worst 1.4 35mm AF lens for SLR out there in production. Rented it, had it exchanged because I wasn’t sure if it was alright or not, and same thing from the second copy. It actually goes for not that much less than this Zeiss FE, but it would be larger, with an adapter, and AF would be questionable. You could do MF but you would do better with a Voightlander 35mm 1.2.
Now, the real question is: How good or bad is this 35mm 1.4? This would be the ONLY fast 35mm for FE so, technically, it has no competition except for alternative lenses.
So, if there is an AF, 1.4, 35mm lens that could have no smearing, no colour cast, be of an acceptable size with a performance that is as good or better than the now legendary RX1 Sonnar (the top of the 35mm’s ever made by Sony/Zeiss)…then…what else do you want?
Just like the 24mm 1.8 for the NEX cameras…that everyone complained about for their price…there is still no better APS-C 45mm FOV equivalent lens. No…not the Fuji 23mm because simply that lens has yet to resolve on a 24mp sensor and give the corner performance of the Zeiss 24mm. Shot with that on my NEX 7 for 2 years and it was fantastic.
Again, people here truly preach like a hard core authorities. Not everyone’s needs and wants are the same. I believe this lens is priced accordinly to what is out there. Whatever its performance will be, if it excels (and I hope it does), then whomever can budget for it would be very happy with it. A lot of people mocked the RX1’s lens MTF at the beginning (along with the RX1’s price)…now you would have to be obtuse enough to not regard that lens as a true engineering feat. Same went for the Zeiss 24mm f2 when it launched: “too expensive and only f2 compared to 1.4 for Canon and Nikon…” Yet every reviewer out there praised it as an outstanding 24mm lens that did without an extra stop in order to provide better overal IQ.
Wait for the reviews before you cast your prejudice.
What is the point of this post?
Lol… fluff
pumping the Sigma
with good reason
Haha, that is a good point!
>.there is still no better APS-C 45mm FOV equivalent lens.
the EF-M 22/2 STM has very close quality but at 0.5x the size and 0.25x cost
Yes, the 22/2 is very sharp. Plus its pancake. I will definitely jump ship if canon ever releases an eos m body with built in evf.
Exciting times. It’s an autofocus Zeiss lens, naturally it’s expensive. Just as the current ZA ones are. But if the quality is there then it’s a long term investment. I used the 50/1,4 ZF for years on Nikon and when I moved to Sony to be able to have a Zeiss 50/1,4 that had autofocus was a god send for certain types of photography. Even using it on an A7r with the La-ea4 it’s great. The Zeiss 135 1,8 is another wonderful example, blowing away Nikon’s offering. And these lenses, ZA and Z-FE are the only game in town if you want autofocus Zeiss lenses.
As for the 35/1,4 if it has the rendering of the old Rollei/Contax model expect it to fly off the shelves almost regardless of price. They often go over $800-$1000 on ebay and I have seen mint ones go for $1600+ on ebay. That’s because it has a unique rendering and I really hope we now have an autofocus way to get that.
I think if it’s more like the ZE/ZF 35/1,4 enthusiasm will be slightly dampened, not a bad lens but not radically different from using a Nikon 35/1,4G.
Or perhaps we will get something completely new. A 35/1,4 that rendered something like the 55/1,8 would be cool – sharp, contrasty even at infinity, nice neutral bokeh, the only thing that might be criticised is it being a bit clinical/neutral but it would make a great low light lens.
It is a shame that the cheap canon lens is superior to the zeiss 50 1.4 fe
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=709&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
A lot of zeiss lenses are overrated but I guess that goes with a lot of companies
I followed the link but I’m unsure what you are referring to – I expected the Canon to be a lot sharper than the Zeiss but they looked quite similar to me – the Canon being a bit sharper with more purple fringing at f/1,4 – perhaps I clicked on the wrong thing. The Sigma 50/1,4, I know from experience for example, is a lot sharper close up at f/1,4 than the Zeiss. Yet when I wasn’t relying on autofocus or needing to shoot close up at f/1,4 I preferred the photos from the Zeiss.
There are other things one can desire beyond just sharpness, unless one enjoys photographing test charts at close range of course! The rendering of the bokeh, the transition for in to out of focus, the colour etc – I can’t say for Canon but with regard to the Nikon 50/1,4G, the Zeiss 50/1,4 ZF is better to my tastes in all those regards – of course taste isn’t a scientific measure. The same applies very much to the Leica 80/1,4-R – yes it is softer wide open than the Canon and Nikon and Sigma lenses but it gives a beautiful, gentle rendering that cause people to pay huge sums to buy old copies. But just measuring sharpness is like insisting that a Mitsubishi Evo is “better” than an E-Type Jaguar because it goes around a corner faster and ignoring all other considerations.
Which Zeiss 50/1.4 FE are you referring to? There’s no such lens.
Duh, at f/5.6 any 50mm prime from all respectable lens makers is gonna be sharp on test charts since the 1970s or so?
Rarely at f/2, so I beg to differ.
ZE! Zeiss Manual Focus lenses for Canon (ZF for Nikon)
That Zeiss was never known for its sharpness to begin with. It is the cheapest of the ZE/ZF lenses.
Now…FE…that’s another story altogether, thoroughly been reviewed and lauded as the “baby Otus”
What your asking for is impossible, I don’t think any mass-produced camera lens would be able to mimic the old Contax/Rollei rendering, nobody would go through the means to find the glass used for those lenses because most don’t care about the rendering.
—————
It’s Sony’s in-house design, expecting something more like the 55/1.8 is realistic.
Insane pricing.
Yes, it is so expensive compared to the manual focus Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM… Oh wait, that one is $2300…
that is why you guy judging people wrongly, he means insane pricing super cheap lol…
That one’s probably better, better built with higher performance, smaller too.
You’ve seen how much some other manufacturers 35/1.4s cost, right?
maybe the prices of the Nikon and Canon 35/1.4 are insane too.
😉
An insane price would be one that bankrupted the company by being far too low, or one that was so high there were no sales of the product. Given good sales of 35mm f/1.4 lenses from the aforementioned companies suggests their pricing was “sane”.
I was not talking about the manufacturer’s price calculation. And I’m pretty sure fgf’s comment wasn’t referring to that either.
What is “sane” and “insane” is totally subjective. It has to do with someone’s income and the personal worth of a certain amount of money.
To me, and many others I know, prices (except computer stuff) have risen much faster than the own income.
A Nikkor 35/1.4 AIS was far more affordable, compared to my income 25 years ago, than a AFS 35/1.4 is today. Again, that’s highly subjective.
So what I learned from this post is that people want fast, full frame, zeiss glass for cheap.
So I guess I didn’t really learn anything 🙂
1.This is not Zeiss.
2.We want them small too.
3.Oh, this is Zeiss if you count in the Nokia Zeiss lenses too.
Oh right, I should have mentioned “leica M sized, cheap, fast full frame glass for cheap.”
Leica M sized, Made in Germany, Zeiss Otus like image quality, Voigtlander price (or cheaper)
LOL
I want fast and full frame. But definitely not Zeiss branded as that is only a marketing gimmick.
I’d take the Zeiss 35mm / F2.8 at 1/3 the size and half the price anytime.
Half the price, and 1/4 the aperture.
It’s a trade-off. After using a Voigtlander 35/1.2 for a year, I’m seriously considering how much I actually need that large aperture.
I could see some.. note !some! sense on this pricing if this lens is so good optically that it goes beyond sigma 35mm 1.4 ART on the upcoming 50mpix sensor cameras (relusolution + bokeh wise)
The price is right in line with the launch price of Canon and Nikon’s 35/1.4 lenses, and I expect this to be a lot better. Third party great is always cheaper, you can use the 35 ART with an adaptor if you like. The Sony lens will be shorter and lighter with better AF, but more expensive. The choice is yours.
Autofocus with aperture ring?
Seems like “very Zeissy Zeiss”. Looks nice and having aperture lens isnt bad thing.
Aperture ring is great. But why not autofocus on Loxia?
Loxias are not made by Sony.
Loxia designs are not situable for CDAF
Yes, cool huh? Or manual focus with aperture ring, if you switch from AF to MF. Or even continuous autofocus with aperture ring if you switch from AF-S to AF-C. A bit Fuji-esque so to speak, with their lineup of autofocus XF lenses all with aperture rings.
XF 27/2.8 lacks aperture ring
Sure, I should have written XF R instead of XF.
The Voigtlander 35/1.2 seems far more compelling, IMHO.
Agreed. However, we are talking about apples and oranges (AF vs MF).
I have the Voigtlander. It’s rather soft until you hit f/2. At f/1.2 the only word I can use to describe it is “cloudy.” I’ve loved it when I needed the f/1.2 aperture, but the vast majority of my shots with it have been f/2 and above, which is making me seriously consider selling it for either this Zeiss 35/1.4 (if the test results are good) or the older, smaller Zeiss 35/2.8.