[shoplink 9808 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Image on top shows the current [shoplink 9808 ebay]Biogon T* 2/35 ZM (here on eBay)[/shoplink] M-mount lens. The new Loxia 35mm could be very similar to it.
I have been told the first Zeiss Loxia prime lens will be a 35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/2.0 manual focusing lens. It will have a physical aperture ring and electronic aperture control. I have no other info about price and lens physical design characteristics.
Zeiss has a [shoplink 9808 ebay]Biogon T* 2/35 ZM (here on eBay)[/shoplink] M-mount lens in their portfolio. Maybe the new Loxia also has a Biogon design. The lens is likely to cost more than the current 1 stop slower Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 FE lens. But it will have much higher optical and material quality.
The 50mm f/2.0 makes also a little sense to me as we already have a superb 55mm f/1.8 FE. But maybe the new 50mm lens is a macro to make the difference?
The question now is…
[poll id=”190″]
———
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
Don’t understand why they would choose two focal lengths so close to one another.
35 and 50 close?
Sure. Can’t see many people buying both. Wouldn’t any of these combinations draw more interest?
25 (or 28) and 50
35 and 85 (or 100)
21 and 35
People always have different preferences, but 35mm and 50mm are standards, so it’s reasonable to begin a new lens system with these focal lengths.
50 and 35 sell more individually than 85, 24 or 21 because of their great flexibility. They are also the most used lenses for street photo since they have been popularised as such.
35mm and 50mm are the two “normal walk around-ish” lenses. 50mm is the more traditional choice and 35mm is for those that prefer the slightly more wide perspective so they are logical first release. The ZE/ZF line started with those two, with the more interesting lenses (to me personally) coming out later so I guess we’ll how much Zeiss chooses to reveal this time around
OK, but whatever else we say about the Touit, they started with a 12 and a 32, far apart.
I’d totally go for the 35 f2, any idea on price? Maybe a 21-24 f2 will be next
35mm and 50/55mm is still alive. Why not complete other. Different Wide Angle are missing
Yes!!!! Now let’s see how they are!!
These, and especially the 50/2, make little sense as there are other options at these focal lengths. Why not plug some of the considerable gaps in the FE lineup instead? Like wide and ultra wide primes.
There’s supposed to be many of these lenses I think, these are just the first 2. The 55 doesn’t make sense but the f2.8 is the primary complaint of everyone with the FE 35
I very much doubt that they will use the Biogon design for FE lenses : their legacy Biogon lenses are all exhibiting corners smearing and magenta cast.. With the Biogon design the exit pupil is to near of the sensor, which creates problems..
I was hoping for wider lenses : the 55 mm F1.8 is already perfect and I don’t really care for a 35mm.. I would like something between 21-28mm
that would be an interesting range, though I’m curious to see how the 16-35 Zeiss FE performs when it comes out…. if it ever comes out 😛
So happy there’s a 50mm in the lauch-lineup. The FE 55mm is a great lens but has no scales and focus by wire, so this new Zeiss lens will be a great alternative.
Could be the zeiss 50/2 macro planar an 35/2 from their slr lineup.
if that’s the case those are going to be pretty huge lenses relative to the cameras. I do like those lenses but I hope they miniaturized a bit – a cross between the ZM and ZE/ZF line would be lovely – the lenses I’d love to see made more compact for FE would be the 35/1.4 and the 100/2
Why will anybody buy a 50mm f2 MF when there is the superb 55 1.8 AF out there? A real alternative for those rumored Zeiss lenses would have been some good Sony G primes like a 35 f2 OSS and a 50 f2 OSS.
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
I love my 55FE – simply not at all interested in looking at another 50. The 35mm would have been inciting if it was faster- perhaps a 35/1.4 or 1.8 distagon but oh well… maybe a later model?
The ideea is the A7 system is a modern one even compared to its dslr peers. So why build a new line of manual focus lenses that will probably look like vintage ones and will cost much more than their AF counterparts? Very puzzling.
If you’ve used MF on the A7 series, you know it’s wonderful. I honestly get more consistent focus using MF lenses on the A7s.
Yep, but AF have also MF…
Well, sort of. Try only using the 55mm 1.8 on manual focus and it will drive you nuts. It is not quick or intuitive, which defeats the purpose of MF. But a lens that is mechanically made to be manual focus will be smooth, easy, and quick. But, I get your point.
Also, the FE 55mm has no scales (only on the display) and pre-focussing via lens-scales greatly facilitates manual focussing.
I’ve never used MF only lense before and now I am satisfing with 55mm with MF. Will MF only lense give me a whole new experience??
Probably. It’s just a matter of knowing the lens and the camera. With the 55mm, turning the ring faster makes the lens throw further, which is not at all intuitive. But with a full time, mechanical manual focus ring, you know where it was last focused, you know how much you have to turn the ring to go a certain distance. It’s consistent and smooth and your muscle memory helps take over, so even if you have to focus very quickly, you still end up at least close to sharp.
I have a feeling the optical designs will not be “vintage” or will at least be tweaks to vintage designs to maximize their utility in the context of the A7 series. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if these are small lenses like the ZMs or if these are simply SLR lenses with built-in adapters
The difference between 35/1.8 and 35/2 is pretty negligible
true… it’s not so much the actual speed that I’d be interested but the look. The 35/1.4 distagon look is very unique with it’s pop and bokeh. It’s different from the look of the 35/2 distagon which is still a nice lens and it’s the look that I would love, granted in a more FE friendly package than the current ZE/ZF lens. To me, that lens has an amazing look that I find very appealing (along with the 21/2.8 distagon and the 100/2 MP).
For one, I owned the 55 and sold it A: because 55 was just a liiiittle too tight, and B: the lens never really had any character. Plus, the 55 would misfocus/hunt too often, and MF on it wasn’t great since it was Focus by wire. I’m actually really curious to see the 50 f2 MF. Sometimes AF and sharpness don’t make a better photo.
if you cannot properly use AF it is a problem with the user not the camera. Try using a smaller focus point and pre focusing it on the subject.
Well, that’s not entirely true. I agree that trying different focusing techniques should help, and they do when there’s enough light. But when you’re on a very dark dancefloor and you have a very quick moving, backlit subject, a good manual focus lens is going to work better than an A7 with the 55 1.8.
I agree that I love the 55FE but it needs at least decent light and focus by wire is crap. When it works it works well though but I find myself reaching for my adapted lenses more than the native ones. It’ll be nice to have the EXIF data and lens corrections available in my RAW processor though.
Simply an untrue statement – most AF systems are crap and some people (like myself) get a higher percentage of “keepers” using a manual mechanical focus lens.
People will want it because focus by wire is still underdeveloped, hence mechanical lenses have very distinct advantages. Or simply for the feel.
I’m quite sure people will go crazy for a 21mm or 15mm.
Personally, I would go crazy for a 18mm!
Gief 35/2 manual!
Might be a Double Gauss/Planar or a Sonnar design. Highly unlikely to be a Biogon. Biogons are quite terrible on the A7 series.
Do these lenses come with bagels and schmear?
well looks like these will be tweaked ZM lenses… bummer 🙁 I was really hoping for a 35/1.4 that’s leica-ish sized… oh well
The 50 could very well be a 50/2 ZM Planar rehoused.
The 35 – unlikely.
fair enough… that said, they still don’t make a lot of sense to me but whatever.
The 35 F2 Distagon for the SLR series looks like it has good performance. It weights about 1000 lbs though, hopefully they trim it way down
This is strange..we already have more than decent Zeiss 35 and 55mm lenses….did not Zeiss see this?
Different target audience.
There’s a good chance that a lot of the people in that different target audience already have the FE 35 and 55. They aren’t exactly slouches when it comes to image quality.
The difference in target audience comes from the way you operate.
Image quality may very well be exactly the same or slightly worse, for all I care.
This thread neatly mirrors the split audience. some say, why bother without AF?, some say, finally a real MF. I’m with the former, but I can the the point of the latter.
if so, why wouldn’t they produce the identical optical design with different mechanics — much much cheaper?
These are the two easiest focal lengths to design for a FF 35mm sensor. They probably tweaked existing designs, packaged it into some reasonable metal and plastic, blue logo on it, big sticker — done and something to show at Photokina on home turf.
The harder ones will come later. 21 (24?), 15 and 85, one might presume. In particular the 15 is hard, because symmetric designs do not play well with fine-pitch CMOS sensors.
A 28/2 would make more sense, or a 25/2.8 or 21/2.8
I would so love the 28/2 ‘Hollywood. Got it on the ZF mount and the microcontrast (and the huge field curvature) makes it really 3D
28 is my favorite FL, had the Nikon 28/1.8 and voigtlander 28/2, both great for the streets.
What’s with all the manual focus lenses being released these days? Why would I want to focus manually if my camera can do it for me?
MF lenses just aren’t for everyone. But there’s never been a better camera for MF than the A7 series (well, except for the X-T1, maybe).
Yeey! Finally some 35 and 50mm lenses!
Unless these are pancakes, theses lenses are….
BOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGG
I’m excited to see these lenses, and they’ll probably perform wonderfully. But it is a little dejecting that everyone seems convinced that no one wants a 1.4 lens for their A7. Make small lenses and large lenses, and people will buy what they want. Like the Canon 7 film rangefinder, it had a 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, and 50mm 0.95, and you just used the one that fit your needs.
They both should be 1.4, if Leica managed to make compact 35,50 1.4, Zeiss should do that as well.
Leica’s sensor glass is infinitely thinner allowing for smaller designs.
haha that is irrelevant. Leica glass works very well on current Sony cameras, just try a 50/1.4 lux asph.
Not really.
A selected bunch of Leica lenses work well.
Most are terrible. Same for ZM. And for VM.
Agreed that the 55/1.8 FE and ZM 50/2 are better options over the 50 Lux FLE.
No, it doesn’t work well (it’s not that great either on M240 where it’s showing its limitation from a 10-year old design).
Sold it and now using 55 1.8.
P.S. Put an a7 on a tripod and shot a blank wall on aperture priority with fixed ISO, 55 1.8 somehow gives me faster shutter speed than the 50 ASPH so the T-stop for the Leica is not good (at least on an A7)
No the 50mm F1.4 doesn’t work well on my A7r. The corners are all smeared and not only wide open. I was quite deceived when I saw the results.
Boring … I guess they have to fill the obvious ones first … but then they should do something that nobody has yet … like a working wide angle …
And this is the exciting news…? Sad, very sad.
two of five manual loxio lens….after 35, 50 2.0………three FL are left…. i think 24, 85 for sure..and maybe one additonally 18,20 or 28mm but i guess we already know now that all five /the whole loxio series/line will have 2.0 constant aperture…….bummer….i thought 1.8 at least….not any better than cheap nikon or canon 1.8 ff primes….offering better value/price performance/size…..
I do not understand the logic of launching directly competing models of the same focal length of Sony lenses with Zeiss label, especially after the FE35 and FE55 having received nice reviews. IMO 24 or 28 or 85 would have made much more sense.
Though exactly the same way.
21mm would be my dream atm
Well, the Voigtlander 21 1.8 is an excelent 21mm lens for E mount, and currently my go-to wideangle on the A7r. Although not everyone would appreciate the weight of a f1.8 ultrawide…
I don’t mind weight. Currently I am using my 1635ZA via LA-EA4 at my A7R. Although loving 16mm, I am mostly using 20-24mm.
May I ask which adapter you are using the lens with? Does it provide exif?
There is nothing electronical, only metal and glass in this lens so no electrical contact or exif. The lens is Leica M mount so any Leica M to Sony E mount adapter will do. Such adapters are easily available on Ebay from us$10 for the basic ones to us$35 for the ones with macro helicoid built in, which will allow for a shorter minimum focusing distance.
Who needs exif? ….better, who pays you for exif data? If the lens is great and you can get a picture with it that no exif-compatible lens can do for you, shoot with it.
I agree, we need ultra wide angle for FE. My dream would be a 18mm lens, with the same or better quality than the 12mm Touit.
exactly right, 18, 21, 24 and especially 28!!!!!!!
there are no good options at these FLs
forget the 85, as plenty work well.
Exactly right… especially 18mm!!!
The reason why is because they are the most popular standard lenses. They do not compete with the FE AF lenses because:
1) They are not AF so only people really interested in these would buy them (that’s pretty much enough excuse for anyone to consider or dismiss the ZFE lenses)
2) The 35mm is f2 and not 2.8 so it competes not with the FE but with the Biogon ZM and the Summicron and the Voigtlander variants.
3) Even if the 50 f2 was as good as the 55 1.8 (showing similar characteristics) you would still need for people to think that the Zeiss-Zeiss (as Leica_Boss would like to put it) is better than the Fake-Zeiss 55mm to look at it as better value.
Sorry Sony and Zeiss, but this is getting ridiculous. I am sitting on a great A7 and waiting for high quality lenses which will allow me to replace my heavy 5DIII. Why is there no effort made to built a complete system, which can be used in a varity of circumstances to make this system competiive?
– No decent standard zoom ( the FE28-70 is cheap and bad , the FE 24-70 is expensive and weak compared to Canons 24-105 and 24-70 (f/4 and f/2.8), I had both and and returned them. Especially the Zeiss 24-70 is a disgrace for the price and not usable if you intend to make large fine art prints).
– No wideangle lens (thougt a 16-35 was coming, but where is it?) Why no fixed wideangle lenses ( 20mm, 24mm, 28mm)
– we got a big,heavy and expensive 70-200. Why should I sell my likewise excellent, smaller, lighter and cheaper Canon 70-200 f/4 for this?
– Where is the fast prime for portraits (85mm)?
Now we get another 35mm and 50mm on top of the exiting 35mm and 50mm. I dont doubt that these are nice lenses, but they do not really extend the scope of application of the system. On top, the Zeiss Af 35 and 50 are extremely good lenses, so whats the point (apart from pleasing the MF-connoisseur)?
Sorry, with that kind of politics its easy to see why Canon and Nikon are still holding their ground firmly. They make better lenses for less money with much broader practical applications. A great 35mm and a great 50mm do not make a usable system, even when they are better than the competition!!! Without a high quality standard zoom this system will be going nowhere in the long run.
BTW when will we see a fourth Iteration of the apha 7? ( You dont have an “A7 BW” as competition to the Leica monochrome in your line up, yet)
Couldn’t agree more. I hope this is a rumor only and we get different products from Zeiss/Sony.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. A CSC is only as good as its system of lenses and right now my hands are completely tied.
Patience rewards those who wait? The system is less than a year old, fool, and you compare it to systems with many decades of development? It isn’t as if you are the only customer.
The 35 and 50 coming up are NOT on top of the current 35 and 55 if you know what you want. If you do not make a difference between AF and MF, then I don’t know what you are asking for.
Would you call me a fool if we were taking face to face or would you rather vent your opinion in a more respectful manner?
Anyhow, seeing Fuji releasing a wide variety of great lenses over the last year, I wonder why a company like Sony cant do the same.
I’m not saying it in a disrespectful manner. If it came across that way, I apologize. In the way I did, though, I would say it again (you need to think of hood way of saying it)
Fuji released the X line in January 2012 with the X Pro 1. They currently have no other mount to support and only the other compact cameras with fixed lenses to develop.
Sony has two mounts with four different lens categories: E APS-C, E-FF, A APS-C and A-FF, plus the development of the meagre small sensor cybershots and the RX line of cameras and the QX concept cameras. I think that for the age of the FE system which were announced in October last year (so not even a year old) you ought to think that your demand for FF E mount lenses, which is very rich, has to be placed in a priority order.
What you are also missing is that this is Zeiss alone doing this announcement and not Sony from Sony’s own back.
I empathize with the lack of delivery of the FE Zoom lenses. Since I don’t care for zooms, I don’t mind. However, I appreciate many shoot with zooms and thats great, but I think the compact “rangefinder-evolution” concept of cameras needs small lenses and hence why f4 is the aperture chosen and hence why not so many zooms (or at least serious ones with wide apertures) are not on the horizon. For that, I think in Sony’s marketing mind you need to go A mount. Sorry for you, great for the rest of us that use fast primes only.
Why not f / 1.4 ???
Oh yes, so people buy first f/2 and buy again when f / 1.4 gets available…
Presumably size…
Plenty of ridiculously small 1.4’s WITH AF. No reason size would even be a question with a manual focus Zeiss. They have a 1.5 if I’m mistaken in the ZM mount and it’s unbelievably small.
There’s the Leica Summilux, which is pretty big compared to the ZMs and Summicrons (and excessively expensive), otherwise I don’t know of any small quality 1.4 standard prime, feel free to name examples.
The 1.5 is still fairly large compared to other ZM lenses and it is a classic sonnar design (like the FE35mm & 55mm) except in this case “classic” means “soft wide open”. Some like that about the lens but I’m guess from your previous posts you don’t. Look a the summilux’es they are much larger than the rest of Leica’s lineup and very $$$.
It weights about 30 more grams than the 55mm 1.8. I can handle that as it still is around half a pound. But yes, I am concerned about the wide open aspect.
Sorry didn’t mean to imply it was bigger than the FE lenses. It is a cousin to the FE 55mm and in truth the light transmission is almost equal between the two. DxO Mark (look at their measurements not their conclusions) has the T-stop of the FE 55mm at T1.8 which is within a third of a stop as most F1.4 lenses. Adjust for the slightly tighter FoV and you get better bokeh and an equal DoF as most F1.4/1.5 lenses.
The point is that the faster you get the more correction you need to keep up performance. The size/weight increases dramatically. Look at the size of the F/0.95 lenses and none of them are good in corners or CA! Of course at that aperture it doesn’t matter as much.
I did this side by side test when people were complaining over the 55FE size. It’s roughly the same size as a Leica 50 Lux FLE. The ZM50/2 Planar is about 80% of that size.
Thanks Tre.
Delay the 50mm until 2015, make a 24mm f2 and you will have a great base of potential buyers. Even in the APS-C shooters that want upgrade later to FF
Depends on the price. If 50mm f/2.0 is not much cheaper then FE55, why will I not choose AF?
I’m interested but won’t bite unless they are significantly smaller in size (i.e. existing ZM sized).
I already have the FE55mm f/1.8 which is stellar and I already have the amazing 35mm f2.0 attached to my RX1 so the new Loxia 35/50mm is redundant.
Also, electronic aperture control sends shivers down my spine. I was hoping for ZM style, it seems Loxia may follow the touit line of lenses.
What’s bad about electronic aperture control, as long as there’s a real aperture control-ring on the lens?
nothing inherently wrong with it but I’m also a Fuji X user and they have woolly, loose and altogether uninspiring electronic aperture control rings on their lenses.. and their lenses are all metal and very high quality.
I figured I was expecting better of zeiss. You never know, it may feel just like a mechanical ring from their MF ZM/ZE/ZF lenses.
I hear you, I was a Fuji X user for a while ( I still think Fujinon prime lenses offer close to the best image quality on the market), but it’s sad that Fuji is relentlessly cutting corners in favor of price, including the flimsy aperture rings. But I was thinking there’s no technical reason why electronically coupled apertures can’t have good tactile response since it’s just a click-stop control.
With manual focus it’s a continuous real-time control, which so far appears to require mechanical coupling to respond accurately.
I’m with you on the style. The silhouette on the teaser puzzle looks like some silly Touit design. Not a fave.
I don’t like the idea of electronic aperture either, but I also suspect they’ll implement it very well with minimal lag. I wonder if electronic aperture will make it switchable to clickless for videography.
Well.. I am adapting my Zeiss ZM lenses (on my A7s body).
To be honest, I am a flexible guy who likes to own the best…
For this i often change my camera and like if my cameras hold a certain value…
For me the Sony cameras just drop too fast in price.. I love the camera.. but once canon or nikon come out of an equivalent im going there with my ZM lenses (if this should ever happen and the ZM´s are working on there).
No reason to invest into the Loxia line for me… but for me, it still doesnt sound bad.
Those are the “normal” focal lenght. As they will build up a whole line very fast, this is the way to beginn… don´t forget that there are supposed to be more lenses coming out soon… I would guess 28mm and 85?
I’ve yet to see a ZM lens wider than 50mm that actually works well on A7.
sadly tue.. the 25mm Biogon seems to be one of the only Biogons that work relativly fine (i have just read that a couple of times! no first hand experience!)
the others are not to be recommend for the A7 and especially for the A7r
I have been asking for small manual focus lenses from Zeiss that fits the A7 family. I would buy both of them if they are, as expected, new designs and compact. I have no interest in the Sony 35/2.8 or the 55/1.8.
Why no interests in the 55 or 35 from Sony? They are fabulous.
They don’t have distance scales.
And yes, people still use these…
What is the point of distance scales when you can check it on the display? I never used MF only and the lense with the distance scales, so I’m just curious.
Lightning fast prefocus way before framing the image. Most useful for street shooting. Even the fastest AF in the world can’t beat prefocus which essentially has 0 ms delay.
As you don’t need to AF, the time the camera is up to your face is lowered, hence, you draw less attention. Also, you can shoot without raising the camera at all.
That makes sence. Thank you.
Thanks for explaining this so concisely. I’m always wondering why so few photographers seem to know about effective manual focussing, since every second one claims to be a professional.
“professional” means a person who earns money with it. This does not have to include all photographic knowledge.
Focussing a manual lens is as basic as it comes.
of course! but scale focusing is not very accurate. so lenses don’t have to be as sharp as Sony’s 55 & 35.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Using scale focus doesn’t mean youy will use it for every shot. Also, you could shoot at closed aperture for large DOF.
If aperture is closed for large DOF, there is sharpness loss due to diffraction. And at closed apertures, there’s little difference between sharp and not sharp lenses. FE 35 & 55 were designed with 36 mp in mind…
Still not following.
I may very well want to shoot some shots with scale focus and some shots precisely focused for maximum sharpness.With the same lens. Why would I want two lenses for these two methods of work?
Also, with the A7s you do have quite some leeway before diffraction effects kicks in.
Your first point is valid. It’s just some people said they needed scale focusing only. I think a focus distance dial (like shutter dial on Fuji/Leicas) on top of camera would have been a solution of all these fly-by-wire lenses.
Your second point is not: A7S doesn’t protect against diffraction. It’s lowering requirements does.
I have a had time believing the 35FE was designed with the A7r in mind. The 55FE was for sure. The 35FE is good but not excellent. I own both but then again I own several 35’s and 50’s as they’re my favorite focal lengths.
As for the distance scales – a mechanical focusing system is superior to a focus by wire one in every way. Being able to ready your camera before you bring it to your eye and being able to stop your aperture down and shoot at waist level without people reacting to you bringing it up to eye level is invaluable in street photography.
without distance scale or hard stop at infinity you can’t focus on stars, for example.
More than what Dean says, a manual focus lens stays where I have left the focus and does not retract and doe stuff like that on its own after a few minutes. I really detest the fly by wire stuff on lenses no matter how fantastic they may be. All my E mount lenses (APS-C) are sitting idle and they were a sheer waste of my cash.
The 55FE is great but I’m not super impressed with the 35FE on the A7r. It’s good on the A7 though. The Voigtlander 35/1.2 II (and really so many other manual focus options) are superior lenses in just about every way when compared to the 35FE.
Sounds like a ZM carry over. As in, let’s double dip real quick and make some fast cash off of FE mount. You’re stating the quality is to be supposedly better than the existing 35mm 2.8 and better material. We….will….see. Looking at reviews of existing ZM lenses- while good- don’t indicate they are class leading. As far as the 50mm goes….zero reason that it is not a 1.4- ZERO reason. Unless that is….your double dipping.
lol, many of the ZM´s are as good and some are even told to be better than their leica equivalents. For example the 50mm planar, 25mm biogon or 18mm Distagon, 35mm c biogon, … Even tho not cheap they are much less than half as their leica equivilants. read reviews of for example ken rockwell
I have read those reviews and I’m not impressed. Wide open he makes it clear the 35mm F2 is lacks sharpness compared to the Leica- that is until you hit 5.6. Same story with the 50mm 1.5- which by the way- why aren’t they offering this for FE mount? It’s so small you could literally forget it’s on your camera. I’ll wait for the reviews on these lenses but if the prices are going to be sky high I’ll pass. To many MF options out there at a much more affordable price unless these are optically updated to peform better wide open.
The 50/1.5 is a specialty lens. Rendering is peculiar due to spherical aberration. Most certainly not a general purpose lens like the 50/2 Planar ZM.
The 35/2 Biogon is excellent. It is not good on the A7 series though, even though it is probably the best biogon on them (yeah, the other are worse).
Well, Rockwell says the 50mm 1.5 is actually best used for general photography- not a specialized lens. I figure the wider lenses such as the 35/2 might be problematic due to the issue with wider lenses on FE. We shall see. I have hope, but I’m not interested in direct carry overs with a price tag to make my eyes bleed.
Rockwell talks out of his ass. Most people can’t even focus the 50/1.5 at 1.5 on a rangefinder due to a significant focus shift inherent in the design and the rangefinder coupling being optimized for f2.8.
I think the 1m MFD of the 50/1.5 makes it unsuitable for general photography. Sure you can use a helicoid, but it adds an extra step.
Please note that I also did not reffer nether to the 50mm 1.5 nor the
35mm 2.0. The 35mm 2.0 has a very good quality, even tho is not the best
leading in class. Its a little bit softer than its leica equivalent and the C Biogon. The 50mm 1.5 is a speciality lens… it is based on
an old design and they just put modern lens coatings on it. Its centre of sharpness is very small wide open what will give a kind of dreamy look. It is a very nice lens.
Gives a dreamy look whide open and is very sharp stopped down.
As I said.. check the 50mm planar, 28mm C biogon, 25mm Biogon and 15mm/18mm Distagon… there are more very good lenses but I am not 100% sure about the reviews and I don´t want to say any stuff Im not sure about.
If you are interested in manual focus lenses, I would suggest you to go with the ZMs. You can get them mint on ebay for about half of their retail price if you are doing it smart. Also they are now already stable in their “second hand value”. Just my opinion of course
Well said and I figure I’ll just buy second hand the ZM’s. If I thought these new lenses were either redesigned optically for the FE mount or modestly priced as their ZM equivelants I’d consider it. As of now, I’m not holding out for either.
As far as ZM lenses go The “stars” are the 15/2.8, 18/4, 25/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.5, 50/2, and 85/2.
I actually prefer the rendering of the 50/1.5 over the Leica 50 Summilux FLE that I own but I didn’t wanna deal with focus shift on a rangefinder. It renders “dreamy” wide open but gets sharp from f/4 on. I wasn’t wild about the 35/2 when I tried it and the 35/2.8 C-Biogon kills it in every regard except speed.. The 50/2 Planar is amazing. You get about 90% of the APO-summicron performance for 10% of the price. I still own it and can’t see myself selling it. I used it on the A7r until I got my 55/1.8. The 85/2 was a great 90 APO-Summicron alternative and just as expensive at the time. It has a reputation as a pure portrait lens andI tend to agree. The 21/2.8 and the 25/2.8 were both great. The 25 gets more attention but you can’t go wrong with either.
These lenses remind me of Contax Zeiss lenses with electronic aperture. If they are more compact in size and IQ are significantly better than their autofocus counterparts then they are worth the investment.
Zeiss Ikon coming?
Why not?
Maybe with a Sony sensor, so why another 35mm and 50mm lenses?
D750 and 7D mk2 will be stars of the show?
=(
Zeiss: “Today we introduce to you the 35mm & 50mm f/disapoint”
Physical and electronic aperture? So another drive-by-wire ring like the regular focusing ring of the E-mount lenses? I hope not…
electronic aperture has NOTHING to do with fly-wire focus
Please read the article again: “It will have a physical aperture ring and electronic aperture control” So they could be using the same solution they do for the focusing ring (which also has a physical ring but an electronic control).
And a plastic lens hood for $329.
I wonder if it will be handled like the Fuji lenses with an A option on the aperture ring.
It would be extremely strange to implement it with focus-by-wire and physical aperture ring. If it’s aperture-by-wire and physical focusing, everything is clear.
I would prefer the 55 f1.8 with autofocus and the voigtlander 35mm f1.2 for manual focus. Thanks but no thanks…
the CV 35/1.2 is a shallow and vulgar lens designed for Internet reviews. Great bokeh and pixelpeeping resolution, but unsubtle colors and low microcontrast. I’ve given it a serious go–I used 3 copies and sold them all. Ultimately Leicas are better.
At 3x the price for anything close to 1.2, it had better be better. The cv 35/1.2 is a wonderful lens at a great price.
Leica R 35 is twice the price, just heavier. Contax 35/1.4 is about the same price and also more subtle than the CV. The CV does have very ergonomics and fits the A7 very well, but I just didn’t like the rendition at all unfortunately.
I had a contax 35/1.4 on my A7r – that old design lost some of it’s magic on that camera – the newer ZE lens is better but also so huge as to be laughable when combined with the FE bodies.
The ZE 35/1.4 is gynormous. Contax 35 still has enough magic for me. It’s also quite good ergonomically on the A7–heavy big enough to hold comfortably and wrap one’s palm around it, but not too unwieldy. And the CV is 500 grams already, less than 100 grams lighter than the Contax 35 and 85.
no argument on the ZE… the CV, although heavy is much more compact than the contax, especially when you consider the size of the adapters. I really hope they put out a Leica ASPH 35/1.4-sized lens…. though who knows, by the time they get around to it I might be able to save for the Leica (that would take a long time indeed for me).
Strongly disagree with your assessment of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 not being a great lens if you’re referring to version 2 of the lens but to each their own. Mine is great and combines the best things about the last two Leica 35 Summilux’s for 1/4 the price. It’s better at close or midrange. The lens has a lot of character wide open to f/2.8 but the colors are very strong out it from f/2.8 on. It’s one of two Voigtlander lenses that I’ve actually kept despite owning several Leica lenses (the other being the 21/1.8 Ultron.)
The Leica 35 Summilux FLE is technically better at all distances. The 35 Lux Pre-FLE has better character but has focus shift on rangefinders. The Leica 35 Summicron ASPH is their best 35 still overall on M cameras but it doesn’t play well with the A7 or A7r really.
Thanks for sharing. I haven’t tried the FLE, but I just bought the pre-FLE and I like it much more than the CV v2. The CV v2 very well made and is an admirably affordable. But I find its rendition unsubtle and lacking in microcontrast (at least on the A7R, don’t know about M sensors). The colors all tend towards exaggerated primaries with thin midtones. I tried hard to like it–I bought and sold 3 copies, and also asked around a lot. Few people still to have bad things to say about it, but in the end I could only trust my own eyes. The CV consistently yielded very strange and awkward colors–like chemical colors–in scenes that Contax and Leica R 35/1.4 would handle pleasingly.
And less subjectively, the CV also has stronger vignetting (not due to Sony sensor) and barrel distortion, and the f/1.2 is really a gimmick. Between f/1.4 and 1.2 there’s very slight light gain, and only at the center.
Incidentally I also have the 21 Ultron and find it unsatisfactory for similar reasons. Artificial drama created by loud colors and macro contrast. I prefer a lens that lets a scene unfold gradually and lets the viewer discover details on his or her own. With the Mandler Luxes there’s a nice quality of translucency because of the gradual OOF roll-off–you feel like you’re looking at stuff in and through space. They give space texture and weight. I really couldn’t find that in the Nokton.
Releasing a 50/2.0 and 35/2.0 is going to cannibalize on sales of the FE primes and the curved sensor RX2… Far better would have been wider angle, short telephoto or specialty lenses like a macro / soft focus / tilt shift and etc. that would have their own niches and enhance the existing FE lenses in the lineup. The 55/1.8 is an incredible lens that already outresolves my A7 sensor wide open outside of the extreme corners and I have my pick of classic 50 1.8 and 1.4 mf lenses from my existing collection or a dime a dozen off Ebay.
Sony really needs to get with the program and plug the gaping holes in its lens lineup, not confuse people with 20 different versions of essentially the same lens when their FE primes are already ‘best in show’ so to speak. If anything they should admit their botched 24-70/4 zoom and release a V2.0 that is actually better optically than the 28-70 rather than ‘I paid $1200, so it must be better… right?’ optically.
I really don’t think that “Cannibalize” is the appropriate term. That would be the correct way of thinking if a manufacturer makes a product that slows down sales of one of their *own* products. These are Zeiss lenses and We’ve already seen Zeiss release a 32mm f/1.8 even though Sony already has a 35mm f/1.8 and a wide angle even though it is already covered by Sony’s own wide angle.
I do agree that Sony would be smart to rethink their own lenses, but I hope Zeiss just does their own thing and releases some truly amazing primes regardless of Sony’s strategy.
1 more thing. The 50 is pretty close to the Sony/Zeiss 55 , but an F2 35 Biogon would be far superior to the current 35mm f/2.8.
Not really. Biogons are film lenses. They suck on digital sensors due to heavy light ray inclination at the borders.
now you have option to use A7S!
I do have an A7S.
It is only marginally better than A7 in terms of border smearing, if at all. It is a bit better in terms of color vignetting.
Still largely unusable with symmetrical lens designs.
border smearing is due to thick cover glass as is really independent if it’s digital sensor or film. You can modify A7S and corner sharpness with biogons will improve.
Well, there is no cover glass with film. Hence the need to redesign lenses for digital.
Not interested in modding, thank you.
Oh. I forgot to say: if lens designers know in advance thickness of cover glass (usually they do), they may produce a biogon lens which will be sharp in the corners (however it won’t no longer work on film as good), so there is no reason to be afraid of biogon designs.
This isn’t Sony’s program to get with, Zeiss is making these (unlike the Sony Zeiss lenses which are Sony lenses).
I already use an m-mount planar on my A7r and have several 35s. The only 50mm I’d buy would be a true 50/1.5 sonnar.
What’s your opinion on those lenses and the A7R- happy with the results?
ye my saying… you know what you are doing ;-). I am only using ZM´s and won´t loose my flexability to change the systems by buy the Loxia… I got the 1.5 Sonnar btw… nothing you can do wrong with that… beatifull lens.
In ZM, the choice between C Sonnar and Planar is a matter of taste, the first having more “character” the second more reliability (IMO). I owned them both (with the A7r) and sold the Sonnar, because I didn’t like it’s fickleness. On the other hand the Planar is my absolute favorite lens (amongs the about 30 I own). But like I said, it’s a personal matter. If the Loxia is a Planar, performing like the ZM (or better?!) I think in some time I’d switch
to get the exif data and get rid of the adapter.
Can get a brand new Nikon 50mm f1.8d for under $100 here in Australia. Who is Zeiss, and even Samyang with there 50’s pricing, kidding with this…
If the 50mm 1.8d is all you need, then you you aren’t the market for this lens. A NEX-3n can match the D4 in image quality 90% of the time, but to say that the D4 is overpriced because of that is silly. They are different things.
Sadly that’s the state of things when people don’t understand how some manufacturers use plastic lens elements and others use rare specialized and expensive glass lens elements.
Some only define “quality” by specs and use that to justify why something is a waste because they can’t or won’t spend what the market demands for great glass. Many said the same of the 55 FE (that so many happen to love now) when it was announced.
LOL are you claiming that the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D uses plastic lens elements?
why not?
most of the glasses (the one you wear for your sight) are made with polycarbonates. The industry have ditch real glass for a long time for eyeglass because of the weight and durability.
If it’s good for your eyeball why not in a lens.
The human eye isn’t as sensitive to the electromagnetic spectrum as a camera sensor is. Internal lenses don’t have to deal with the outside elements like a persons eyeglasses either so that’s really an apples and oranges argument. Polycarbonates are much cheaper to manufacture and I’m sure if it provided the same amount of performance than manufacturers would use it in their high end lenses as well…They don’t as of now.
No but I am saying some cheap entry level primes that sell for cheaper prices do use plastic (polycarbonates if you wanna be technical) lens elements internally. That’s not to say they can’t be decent performers but there’s a performance difference in the polycarbonate lenses compared to the specialized glass elements.
I won’t even say there’s linear value to it. For instance look how close in performance the 55FE is to the 55 Otus. You pay 4X the price for an extra 2/3 of a stop and higher QC but lose AF. No it’s not the best value but it is a lens without equal at f/1.4. People will try to quantify and justify if a lens is worth it for others because they can’t afford it or don’t see the value. That is something I have issue with because I saw a lot of that disdain towards Leica users and how they supposedly weren’t real photographers because SOME buy and collect special editions.
Getting back to the question – I don’t specifically know if enough about the Nikon’s entry level lenses to say whether the 50/1.8 specifically uses polycarbonate internal lenses. I have some knowledge about some of their more recent higher end nano-coated lenses which carry a premium price while being marginally faster in some cases and the same aperture size in others. My original response was in reaction to people making final judgments based on specs and assumed price because of aperture speed – hence why I said all lenses aren’t built the same.
“Who is Zeiss” is enough for me to not even bother…
Good aperture and focal length choices. Not too slow and not so fast that they’d be huge or be a complicated optical design. Hopefully they’ll do the 36MP of the A7R justice. Also hope the price is reasonable. Wonder what else is in the Zeiss pipeline at shorter and longer focal lengths.
The A7(s/r) series with some reasonably-sized high quality primes is a great system.
15, 18, 21, 25, 28, 35, 50 & 85, corresponding to ZM lenses?
that’s what it’s looking like, though I really hope these aren’t straight ZM copies – I’d love a bit more cross-pollination from the ZF/ZE line
Those focal lengths would be fine with me. I’d take a 18/4, 35/2, and 85/2.8 to start with assuming I can afford them and they are excellent on the A7R. Hopefully these will be new optical designs that will shine on short registration distance high MP FX sensors/cameras. Hopefully they won’t be too large either . . .
I understand it will be manual focus, but about OIS? Will these Zeiss lenses have it?
No.
Zeiss is a King on the hill … If some people are comparing Zeiss with Nikon lenses which are not even made by Nikon them self then these people are not knowing what quality optics are all about.
why can’t zeiss ad auto focus compatibility?
Many of ZM designs move whole lens barrel for focusing (or at least large fraction of lens), which is not suitable for CDAF focus-hunting E-mount. FEs usually have only one lens element to focus with.
Zeiss have always said that they don’t like autofocus and image stabilization because it compromises their superb optics.
Because then they would have to update their designs. The Touit lens did autofocus, sort of.
100% Redundant. The Sonnar T* FE 1,8/55 ZA is no slouch to even the most demanding use of optics. Unless you’re a collector I can’t imagine you buying a manual focus instead. If you think otherwise give me a situation you’d want the manual other than a declicked aperture for video? I appreciate the stop gained with a 35mm f/2.0 but why not first focus on essential lenses to make this a complete system. i.e. fixed wide angle prime. Any current solution yields color shifts or other loss of quality that Zeiss fanatics will drop big money to avoid. Myself included
I agree that I would like to see the system built out more before introducing another 35 and 50. I’d also like to see Zeiss make a lens cap worth a damn. A 18-25mm UWA and a 85-135mm telephoto are the obvious omissions.
I use manual focus about 80-90% of the time on my A7 and A7r. The fact of the matter is I’m just as fast when it comes to meaning shots with manual focus. I personally despise declicked apertures but I don’t do video either.
I agree that the 55FE is optically great. The AF system and focus by wire for manual control are the weak links in that equation. If the 55FE had normal mechanical focusing I would be more like to use it in dim to low light conditions where I don’t have the luxury of being able to use the AF illuminator.
Just goes to show we all have different requirements and desires.
You are confusing Zeiss with Sony. Zeiss isn’t here to complete Sony’s lens line up, that is Sony’s job.
it will only make sense if these lenses would be significantly cheaper than 55FE and 35FE, which are both great lenses, 55FE being an amazing lens. However, I understand with prices of $999 ($750used) for 55FE and $800 ($600used) for 35FE, if Zeiss introduces CHEAPER 50/2 and 35/2, people that cannot afford the FE autofocus lenses can go for these
It’s more likely the Zeiss Loxia lenses would be more expensive than the FE lenses…
Are you sure. I though Zeiss 50 for Canon/Nikon costs like $600 new, let me check…. here Zeiss for Canon 50/1.4 is $700 new http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Planar-50mm-Canon-Cameras/dp/B001RL2OF0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409077119&sr=8-1&keywords=zeiss+50mm so why would Zeiss 50/2, a slower lens, cost more?
You should be checking the price of Zeiss ZM lenses.
Just did. you right, $865 for 50mm F/2 ZM Zeiss http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-50mm-Plannar-Leica-mount/dp/B000CLQ06K/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1409077660&sr=8-4&keywords=zeiss+ZM+50mm still cheaper than 55FE new
New & improved optical design than 50/2 ZM + electronic aperture & etc => more expansive than 55FE
But not as good as FE 55mm F/1.8. I have compared them.
The 50/1.4 is a very quirky lens that irritates the charts&graphs photographers.
I’d predict the price to be like the Makro Planar. We’d be very lucky to have that at $1,300. It’s absolutely beautiful.
Macro ability, potential development costs for new optical designs, improved optical design, etc.
Compare the Leica 50 Summilux (f/1.4) price versus the 50 APO-Summicron (f/2.) The f/2 lens is about twice the price as the f/1.4 due to design, glass, and the improved optical formula.
A friend of mine has that lens (the Zeiss 50/2) and believe me when I tell you the rendering of that lens is just beautiful. Yes, it is bigger, but that is because of the macro thing built in it.
Exactly! Which is why these are probably aimed much more to the purist/collector type rather than the working professional. Bummer. I feel Sony & Zeiss could easy trample a large part of the Canon/Nikon market if they give us professionals what we need to make the full jump without adapting lenses.
Bingo…
Are you implying that working pros don’t use manual focus? I know working pros that use ZE and ZF.2 lenses which ARE manual focus only.
I use all MF lenses for my “professional” work, and I shoot weddings. Professionals can’t use MF? That statement seems backwards.
Trust me, the Canon people aren’t whining and complaining about the existence of the $1,300 50mm f/2 ZE lens (which is quite popular) – even though Canon has a number of 50mm’s at a lower price.
Why? Because not everyone is a complete philistine. Some can actually appreciate a beautifully rendering lens with great build and smooth operation.
Why does the Sony crowd have to beotch and moan so loudly when someone like Zeiss comes along and wants to make nice things?
It’s not nice unless it says “Carl” on it.
Why? Is that your husband’s name?
Agree with what you say but there’s a point here… the 55/1.8 is hard to beat in terms of quality, size and functionality. A 1/3rd stop slower aperture isn’t going to look favorably either. As much as people talk about bokeh… zeiss and leica have plenty of examples where the bokeh is no better than that of a kit zoom.
Canon users like the 50/2 MP because there’s no direct competition for it. The 50/1.8 is a budget lens, the 50/1.2L is quirky and neither of the three common 50s Canon can be used also as a macro. The 50/2.4 CM exists but… virtually it doesn’t.
The 35/2 Loxia has a place if it’s good.
Judging by the results of this article’s poll, your non-philistine crowd is not very large. Zeiss is making lenses as a business to make a profit. It remains to be seen if these will be well received and a success. It’s pretty obvious the Touits were not, so it might be better if Zeiss does go back to a target audience that is more familiar and prefer lenses such as these Loxia.
Well Zeiss, there is a whole range of wideangles Emounts missing, and a couple of nice short telelenses you could choos to launch, but you choos to make youre own copy of the only descent prime lenses we alredy got … Go figure! Im still waiting for my 24mm, it seems I might be waiting for a while longer.
I hope this isn’t true. Why would they introduce two lenses so close in spec to the AF primes already on offer?
This makes very little sense.
They probably figured out how impossibly difficult a good wide angle lens is to make for the A7(r)
Indeed. I’m seriously considering a Tri-Elmar, as it’s the only UW that measures up to my A7r. I had hoped Zeiss would offer a decent, more modestly priced alternative. Oh well.
apparently the summicron-m 28 works well on the A7S
Consider these new Z’s to be marketed as an option to existing native primes. Someone has determined a good audience there. Yes we want exotics, but companies must first test the waters with safer retooling or r&d risks.
I can find little logic in this choice of focal lengths. You could argue these are the first choice lenses of most people building a system. But again, if the system already has these focal lengths covered, it makes no sense.
Regarding retooling and R&D costs, I doubt there is much in it. They have several existing lines from which to borrow optical designs, and any retooling costs will be similar regardless, as these will be new designs mechanically.
I’m sure there will be people that are delighted by these choices (if they are true), but the vote suggests they are in the minority.
“But again, if the system already has these focal lengths covered, it makes no sense.”
But the manufacturers aren’t working together to make a complete system. They are competitors, and each one wants you to buy their lenses, not the others’.
Even if you take their interests in each other completely out of the equation, there is still an argument for offering different focal lengths. They may be competitors, but they are making lenses for a solely Sony product. The success of the Loxia range depends on the success of FE-mount.
Anyway, back in the real world, it doesn’t really matter. Sony does have a big stake in Zeiss, and wins whether you go Sony Zeiss or Carl Zeiss.
I still think an UW would have been smarter. Maybe the upcoming 16-35mm will actually be good and I won’t care so much. 🙂
testing the waters with only 2 lenses might make sense… but when the two lenses are so close to what is already out there as AF would seem to make the test a bust simply because it is doubtful that some that own the AF would then say Oh my I need the manual focus version now.
You may take a look at my explanation on why Touit is autofocus and Loxia is manual. If my conclusion is correct, then we may end up with two lines of Zeiss FE lenses. One line is Zeiss AF FE lenses made by Sony and the other line is Zeiss manual FE lenses made by Zeiss.
if i had an a7 would consider the 35mm, but w apsc need a 24mm – and already bought the zeisse 24mm f1.8
If the 50mm is modeled after the Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 – then it might make sense.
Really? There is only 2 Sony/zeiss prime lenses in the Emount line up and Zeiss want to cover almost exactly the same focal lengths? Okay okay… I hope that they will be stellar and/or cheaper (I don’t believe it) and/or tiny. Otherwise, I don’t see the point here… I was hoping for some wide angles. It’s not covered by the present line up (before the release of the 16-35), manual focusing is not an issue. Maybe later…
My clients have given no indication that the Mino 35/2 and 50/1.4 are in any way crippling their profits. In fact, the Maxxum glass seems to be serving everyone just fine.
But have fun with your new lenses folks. I’m sure they’ll serve you well.
As much as I like manual focusing, I wouldn’t recommend it for professional work where the goal is getting shots the client wants (vs. creative freedom).
Remember not so long ago all the pleading frenzy for PANCAKE LENSES?
OMG… Did ANYONE answer that request? I think I heard it more than once.
Not buying these new Z’s unless they’re true pancakes with “CARL” printed right on the front.
The pancake train has been waffled.
The only thing slower than a manual focus lens is Sony releasing the A99II.
Correction… only thing slower than a noob here using a manual focus lens.
Can show you plenty of examples where manual focus has been fast enough if user skills are there.
Manual focus cannot be slow. It depends entirely on the user’s speed.
It was a joke…I was referencing the A99II and trying to be witty at the same time. I see it didn’t work. Oh well, I just want my new FF!
need UWA, FE lack of it
anybody seen here this rumor?
http://www.cameraegg.org/sony-qx1-35mm-f1-4g-and-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6g-a-mount-lenses-to-be-announced-for-photokina/
“Along with the QX1 camera, two new A-mount lenses will also to be
announced: Sony 35mm f/1.4G Lens and Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G Lens.”
Oh boy, a white version of my 35/1.4 G. Hard to pass that up instead of waiting for the GII.
So the 70-300 will be the latest in the series to become a “G II” lens and get much more expensive for virtually no reason.
Great.
Amazing how many people think that Sony and Zeiss seem to be the same company with the same business plan. Sony wanted a 35 and a 55. Zeiss wanted a 35 and a 50.
While it is true each company has it’s own business plan, you are obviously unaware how large a stake Sony has in Carl Zeiss. Even without Sony’s interests in Zeiss, given these lenses are E-mount, consultation would clearly take place.
If the 35mm is as good as the RX1’s Sonnar, I will buy an A7r tomorrow, sell both of my RX1’s, get that lens and get the amazing bargain priced 55mm 1.8 AF and BOOM!, great combo!
Did you say “both” RX1’s? Baller…..
Yes, both. I love the lens so much that I got two of them.
The main issue with the RX1/r is that horrible 24mp sensor. Every camera that sensor has gone in to has been crippled in terms of image quality and sometimes in other ways too…
VG900, a99, d600, d610, a7, etc. none of them are winners.
Your credibility train just derailed with that comment. Nothing wrong with any of those sensors in any of those cameras.
Why? Because it hurt your feelings? Now what… I won’t be invited to your compound? The horror.
No, because every single review site on the net can’t all be wrong lol, the 24mp sensor is more than capable of excellent results. It is only bettered by the 36mp Sony sensor . Personally I would choose the D610 option as the best utilization of it technical glitches with various cameras do not change the achievable image quality they just make it a little harder to get
Sure… I’ve seen people produce excellent photos from iphones too.
But it remains… the 24MP Sony sensor has never been anything impressive.
Why horrible sensor? It’s outstanding. I really love the malleability it gives my files.
Or wait a little while for the optically perfect (by theory) RX2 curve sensor?
Apparently the megapixels will be less and, to be fair, in the great scheme of things, the RX1 lens is so good…so good, that the curved sensor RX2 may just be incrementally better optically whilst being substantially smaller (the whole point for the curved sensor) and the RX1 is the smallest I would ever want to handle since I use it with an RRS grip already and I feel it needs a bit of weight (maybe 200g) still to make it a good camera for slow shutter speeds…so…. A7r with 35mm f2 Loxia (if as good as RX1’s Sonnar) will be my pick.
How many who sold their A7R for the A7S will then ditch it for the RX2. You know, have to have the latest and greatest.
Problem is…latest doesn’t exactly mean greatest.
Why two RX1’s?
Back up. I am a working photographer.
The Sigma 35mm F1.4 is better than the RX1 lens in every way other than size. Though as you have 2 RX1 cameras I assume you prioritize high quality small to maximum quality large/huge. I love the 55mm it really is a great buy
You are right. I do prioritize high quality in small packages. However, I do not think the Sigma ART is better than the RX1. From all samples I have seen, and I have been very curious about that lens, the Sigma’s edges need 2.8 or 4 to compare to the RX1’s at f2, which gives the Sonnar great flexibility in composition when you need that extra stop in low light. The bokeh of the Sonnar is smoother throughout the aperture compared to the ART lens. I don’t think the differences are that large, but they are there. From f4 onwards they are about the same in most aspects except bokeh. I don’t remember the chroma-correction on the ART lens but the RX1 needs a bit of help in Lr at f2 on the edges. I really do respect the Sigma lens and if I was to ever go back to SLR that would be my choice, no doubt. If you have, or can get, an RX1 to try out, I highly suggest you do so in RAW with all corrections off and really see how the pictures just have a ridiculous amount of detail and isolation wide open and even at f2.8. The Sonnar also has one of the flattest field curvatures I have ever seen which makes it easier to focus centrally (if on a rush) and recompose wide open. It also makes it difficult to get proper per-pixel sharpness at hyperfocal distances at 5.6 so you really need f8 to get a truly outstanding image when you want a proper hyperfocal focused imaged from near to infinity.
Compactness, price, performance, speed, build, brand, feature… choose any of these which are absent and you are ready to rant!
I believe that one Distagon and one Planar or both of them will be Distagon design. None of them would be Biogon type.
Correct! Biogon bad on digital. However my bet would be Distagon or Sonnar.
Maybe Apo-Sonnar 🙂 I believe that just sonnar doesn’t meet current zeiss standards (in marketing way). It’s the reason that ZM Sonnar 1.5/50mm is Classical design lens (which is only soft lens wide-open in ZM line) and ZM Sonnar 2/85mm is discontinued. It was probably too cheap either – I consider this option as reason too. There is no Sonnar beside Apo-Sonnar in current SLR line. I believe also that ZA Sonnar 1.8/55mm have neither Sonnar nor Planar internal design (cause it is build by Olympus) but Zeiss AG suggested to call it Sonnar because it is inferior design name in term of performance. In contrary Makro-Planar 2/100 isn’t really Planar classical design but it promises its highest optical properties. Starting from born of Otus lenses, the highest performance would be connected with Apo-Distagon name and no more with Planar design 🙂 The Planar remain best performance design in mainstream target group of lenses but I have a little assumption that Loxia would be premium line like Otus line for DSLR. Mainstream for mirrorless is Touit with two of Planars and one Distagon, which is only possible design for wide angle for digital cameras. I believe that Loxia would be very premium lens line.
RX1’s lens is Sonnar. It is one of the best 35mm lenses ever made. Check it out.
Design to make a classic look is not dependent on the name of the lens itself. It is just a feature the lens designer decided it was going to go for. The ZM 50mm 1.5 was competing against the Leica 50s (Summarit, Summicron, Summilux) and the Voigtlander 50s before it even hit the market so it had to differentiate itself somehow from them to make its space in a rather niche market where Leica and Voigtlander clearly dominate. The classic look was a feature, albeit the Sonnar design (like all Zeiss desings) is an old name. The RX1s Sonnar and the 55mm FE Sonnar don’t NEED to be Apo corrected. Would you pay for a true Apochromatic lens? I mean true, not the Sigma version of Apo-correction.
What you are noticing is the marketing babble mixed with the classical names. In reality, for optical formulas to succeed, you need designs that allow more elements to play that the simple Planar or Biogon. Contax Gs were Planars and Biogons but those are designs from the 1990s albeit excellently made and still relevant today.
What the new Zeiss lenses need is a performance that matches the RX1’s 35mm or Summicron 35mm (which I believe is a bit of a worse lens than the RX1 Sonnar) and the 55mm 1.8 or the Sigma 50mm 1.4 since they are the ones by which all 50mms will be compared against. I am not mentioning the Otus here because its price range makes it “incomparable”.
And where do you get the “built by Olympus” on the 55mm 1.8?
I think that it is difficult to compare a built in lens where all the cameras software correction/optimization can be devoted to just one focal length . All of which can be done in-camera before it creates the RAW image ,there is obviously no way to test the lens independently compared to other 35mm lenses which have to work on many different cameras { different MP, different AA, for OEM brands the have to reverse engineer mounts etc} . Not that it matters in the end as the RX1 delivers great results , it is just not comparing like to like.
I do get your point, however, I beg to differ that the RX1 does not work software optimization for the lens. When you turn all corrections off, you do see what the lens really gets. How do I know? the same way I know the RX100 corrects A LOT and Lr and Ps obey the instructions from the RAW file without giving you an option to turn it off. Open the files on DxO. Also, you cannot “sharpen” the edges and corners and make it look like real lens sharpness, or make the bokeh more buttery, since these things are dependent on focus distance and the camera doesnt know how to select what blurs and what sharpens, or can it? You can only correct for distortion (the example of the RX100 abusive correction – albeit needed), chromatic aberrations (where high contrast areas denote where it happens) and vignetting.
Funny you should mention it ,I was unfairly using the RX100 model in my thinking lol as I have it as my carry everywhere camera. I do not have the RX1 so I was more playing devils advocate , I do have the Sigma 35mm F1.4 which though a hefty beast delivers great results on my A7r and more commonly on my D800e
I don’t think you were using it unfairly. Rather, Sony and Adobe agreed to not let people have the full control of the RX100’s files.
I am, indeed, very much amazed at what Sigma was able to deliver with that lens. Really. Like I said somewhere else, if I was to go back to SLR, the Siggy would be my choice against anything (although the ZE 35/2 which I used to own was great but MF on pentaprism SLR is a bit iffy…)
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX1R-lens___1057_0_1196_0
When compared to the Sigma 35mm F1.4 which is a full stop faster the Sony falls behind in sharpness, distortion ,vignetting and especially CA
That’s with the Sigma on a D800, 36mp. Change that to a D3X (24mp s 24mp) and check again. The Sigma and Sony are close in sharpness across the frame, and while Sigma wins in vignetting (which is not such a bad thing) and distortion (this one counts, I admit) the Sony wins in chromatic aberration control. That being said, I still defend the RX1’s lens as the better lens since the bokeh is really smooth and the subject isolation is exceptional from f2 to f4.
RX1’s Sonnar is very simple lens but it is very optimized to RX1’s sensor, so maybe it”s one of best 35mm lens but only with RX1’s sensor. I expect more flexibility from lenses at mount side.
I wouldn’t pay for Apo corrected lenses because I don’t like out of focus rendering of apo corrected lenses. But I payed for Superachromatic Sonnar and this design is even more priced than apo designed lenses by Zeiss. I like superachromatic out of focus rendering 🙂 Leica’s apo lenses are more expensive not because they are just Apo but they are Leica’s at first place.
I believe SEL55F18Z is first lens, which was built in collaboration between Olympus and Sony after getting Olympus shares by Sony. As You probably noticed it’s internal design is far different from any Zeiss-designened lens. SAL50F14Z was told by Sony to be developed by Sony by itself. One of first Zeiss lenses from ZA line was Planar 1.4/85mm, which was made by optimalization of Zeiss Planar 85mm design. The next one was SAL135F18Z, which I believe share some major influence of Zeiss cine lens design. Next SAL24F2Z has simplified internal design in comparison for other Zeiss Distagon lenses. It isn’t making it bad performer at all but I believe it has more Sony influence than previous designs 🙂 Jumping to SEL24F18Z, it is has ever more optimized design by Sony engineers, especially in rear part of lens, after diaphragm.The Carl Zeiss label, which is used by Sony, express itself in T* coating of lenses and Quality of Control in manufacturing and assembling. Carl Zeiss AG from time to time complains about Quality of Service by Sony but agreement still is steady because it gives a lot of founds to Carl Zeiss AG 🙂
A modern “Sonnar” maybe… I have a classic Sonnar 50/2 and corners aren’t good on the a7r until around f/11.
Yeah, modern like 55mm 1.8, RX1 Sonnar.
Planars in this focal length won’t be any better.
Because these are the focal lengths that don´t already exist and 2.0 is so much faster than what´s there atm.^^ At least the build quality will be better – that´s worth a thousand bucks more and who needs af^^ or wide angle or tele or macro or fish eye or…
Is this real or am I having a nightmare?
35/2: I might consider it, depending on the price. Current 35/2,8 is a beautiful lens. However, I’m mostly happy with my 35/2.4 Flektogon, despite the size. If the lens would give me a unique look, a delicious rendering, I might consider it.
50/2: Stillborn.
Correction: I’d rather get Voigtländer’s 35/1.2
Have you seen the bokeh from the 35mm 1.2? Have you handled the size and weight of that lens?
I have…and I tell you, the current Biogon 35mm f2 is a better lens than the Voigtlander, stop and a half slower but nicer rendition, better performance centre to edge and better bokeh altogether.
I haven’t seen it in person but the samples I saw were actually quite pleasing to me. I’ll check again.
I’ve seen the Biogon 35/2 on a Leica and I was floored by the results.
But in my experience the bokeh from the Nokton v2 is actually very “good” according to mainstream modern aesthetics–very buttery, hard to make busy. Don’t you think so? I dislike that lens but I’ll give it the bokeh.
Or maybe the Biogon is just “better.”
The 35 Biogon has very busy bokeh wide open. Stopped down it is close to the C-Biogon.
Onion rings
That’s right. The CV 35mm 1.2 (either version) has very similar bokeh that reminds me of Burger King.
The Biogon ZM, as noted by Dean, has better bokeh albeit I have not experienced bad bokeh with it, when I had it, wide open as Dean notes.
But not on the A7.
It’s the other way around on it. The Nokton wins with its significantly larger exit pupil to image plane distance.
Gave it another thought and ended up saying OH FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!
Come on!
This is a solution to a problem that never even existed in the first place.
Do you need a 35mm lens?
-Buy a Nex 7, A6000 or just any APS-C camera with the Zeiss 24/1.8
-Buy a Fuji X100S
-Buy the FE 35/2.8, it’s excellent
-Do you need a shallower DOF and you are willing to spend more? Get the RX1
-Are you comfortable with its size? Voigtländer 35/1,2 offers you more than almost anything else on the planet.
-Bought a A7 and still being a cheapstake? Sigma 30/2.8 is almost a full frame lens. Remove the rear baffle and be amazed.
-There are tons of legacy lenses waiting for you.
-Leica.
I’m really looking forward to see how this will turn out.
“Sigma 30/2.8 is almost a full frame lens. Remove the rear baffle and be amazed”
Not really, cropfactor 1,35 maybe.
Wide open it’s not that bad, also depending on how much vignette you’d be fine with (I’m fine with a lot, apparently).
I like the Flektogon too 🙂 I cannot stand it’s performance at f/2.4, but f/3.5, especially after dawn, it’s quite all right 🙂 In daytime I pleased most with it’s performance starting with f/4.
Instruction for young Shutterbug success…
1 – Save the money and pay yourself to learn WordPress, IMovie, InDesign.
2 – Get a decent portfolio printed and web site published.
3 – Keep a little cash to pay for gas to go see art directors and advertising agencies.
4 – Get off this site and go meet some people with your new career.
5 – Laugh at all the hogs left arguing about, about… whatever they’re arguing about.
Making soulless snaps for fee doesn’t appeal to everyone
Shhh… don’t say that. You need to have one camera with a 24-70 off one shoulder and another camera with a 70-200 over the other shoulder or you are not a photographer. Also you need to have the camera on continuous high and must always stay in autofocus. Never take one shot at a time. Carry several 64GB cards also as they will fill up quickly. At home you need a Mac with Lightroom to go through the 15000 photos you shot that day.
* end of sarcasm *
Boys like “gadgets”, and phart jokes.
Men are professionals. Perhaps a professional collector. Nothing wrong with that. But professional collectors know it will be a long time coming before these Cosina Z’s are worth anything beyond 60% of new price.
Soulful photos for pay are far more rewarding that soulful photos for free. In fact, continuing the latter is a recipe for killing the soul.
The most these new Z’s will ever provide is some colorful conversation amongst boys on forums like this.
6- Don’t shoot Sony, you’ll regret the ever changing line up and lack of support.
YAwnnn, simple answers for the simple minded. You don’t seem to realize there can be 2 hobbies going on at the same time. Photography and gear collecting. Who are you to tell them to choose one hobby only. I got tons of friends buying leicas as a fashion accessory they couldn’t give a less of a dam about WordPress, IMovie, InDesign. How about just thank them for making you feel superior cuss you know you work with WordPress.
See #5, and don’t forget to cover your mouth when yawning.
#5 is why I said you should thank them for making you feel superior. Do you not see the irony? Truth hurts doesn’t it. You will never come to terms with logic, merely an smart a$$ at best, keep catering to the simple masses who takes pride In a hobby.
Fuebay …”I got tons of friends buying leicas as a fashion accessory…”
Boy that’s some crowd you run with. Pictures or it didn’t happen. Use your camera phone if necessary, but I gotta see this group.
Nice dodge and insecure much? Nor did you address anyof my points. Btw, Photography is not that expansive of a hobby relatively speaking. Ever heard of middle class? If you think I was saying I got rich friends then…haha I got bad news for you. Saying I got friends with leicas is like saying I got friends with pencils.
50 f/2.0 – how ambitious!
Look up what equivalence means.
In mathematics, an equivalence relation is the relation that holds between two elements if and only if they are members of the same cell within a set that has been partitioned
into cells such that every element of the set is a member of one and
only one cell of the partition. The intersection of any two different
cells is empty; the union of all the cells equals the original set. These cells are formally called equivalence classes. (Wikipedia)
Now what? Do you understand what that means? I happen to know. Perhaps you would like to share with us how that relates to the Zeiss lens?
Are we on a maths site or a photography site?
Look up lens equivalence.
The whole concept of equivalent images has been cocked up so many t ok mes, it causes more harm than good.
“Do you understand what that means? I happen to know.”
No one who *properly* understands equivalence relations would have inferred that to be the context here.
Neither did I – that is why I asked for clarification.
Lets see how compact the lenses are and then speak! I have the suspicion Zeiss’ll make them tiny.
That is what I am interested in , if they can deliver truly compact lenses that perform well then it could be of interest .Let’s face it due to the current lack of choices amongst FE glass and the easy adaptability of other lens mounts there are no shortage of FE mount shooters using manual focus. Assuming high quality a selection of compact native mount primes could be interesting but I will wait and see
Zeiss can make small lenses (see the C-M 35/2,8 Biogon), but their lenses tend to be larger than comparable Leica/Voigt lenses. They are brilliant, however.
Geez, nowadays “being ambitious” is apparently limited to only ISO performance and lens speed. What if Zeiss makes a lens with great optical performance? Ambitious enough?
Sony, Zeiss, you can shove f/2.0 up your dark warm hole. I’m selling you. Bye.
They are full frame. You need f/1 lenses on your micro four thirds to match these in terms of speed. Still these will be better in plain image quality than a f/1 lens.
They are fuji fanboys not micro fans
Exactly and they have become worse tham43’s fanboys. They are clearly threatened by Sony over any other brand, have a look in every post on Fuji Rumors what they spew about Sony, every time without fail. Just sad.
mFT fans are even more deluded if you ever want a giggle pop into the mFT forum at DPreview , some of the posts would be hugely comical alas they believe what the write so it is at times it is more tragedy than comedy.
What’s wrong with MFT? I own an A7 and two MFT cameras and they’re good cameras.
All this fan boy slagging and DoF equivalence is… daft. Lets talk like adults 😀
There is nothing wrong with mFT cameras some of them are excellent and capable of great results .The problem is some of the deluded owners of said cameras. I have seen some truly ridiculous posts in mFT forums. Equivalence is not daft it is a simple [ though miraculously difficult for some mFT fanboys to grasp] incontestable fact. I also use mFT and A7r.
sold my mFT camera a few days ago, that was the 2nd time i left the system, 1st time was when they released the PL1. The small sensor is a dog, it improved a lot of the years but still can’t keep up with FF sensor regardless of what the # says. mFT user is a little bit partial toward their system though, they spend a ton of money for a 7-14mm/F4.0, which is an effective 14-28 f/8 on FF… I picked up a sigma 12-24 for 400, i bet if I stop down to f/8 I will probably just a sharp if not sharper.
So go, bye bye. You silly fujifanboy
I love how this poll allows me to select both “None” and the two focal lengths…
Same focal as current FE and slower than expected. oh, It will cost more than the FEs that i am sure. If I wanted a f2 full frame 50mm why don’t I just get the fuji xf 34mm 1.4? oh wait I did. I will stick with the rx1 till Sony finishes the lens lineup.
But even a high end 35/1.4 on aps-c is garbage next to a good 50/2 on FF… the latter will likely be smaller too.
you base that on what? I am looking at shots taken with my fuji xf 34mm 1.4 and a 50mm summicron…meh Different rendition/bokeh, sharpness same ( I am talking just normal viewing). Dof same. Basically ends up being preference. So WTF are you talking about?
It’s called physics. Go back to school and learn it.
You want me to go back to college get a third degree in physics to learn something you don;t understand? Nah I am good
Your double degree in knock knock jokes isn’t relevant here. Clearly you have wasted time and money. And I meant high school.
When did a double degree/major become a knock knock joke explain.
Looking at your writing, your physics degree seems to be but a piece of a paper.
What? I did not major in physics.
You must appreciate that there is a zero tolerance policy on anyone making a non complimentary comment on anything to do with Sony. genotypewriter gets mixed up with “read about” and used/owned back in his DPreview days as late as 2009 he only had a 40d and 5Dmk2. So unless he has bought a camera every month since and a lens every couple of days since ,he is quite simply talking BS.
I wouldn’t take him very seriously after all in Australia a “researcher” means someone who compares different beers
For someone who studied jokes you don’t seem to get them easily.
You are really rude and annoying , go back to fuji land. Moron.
Why do you keep trolling with silly fuji ideas?
btw, you still shooting FF? a high end FF is just garbage compared to a good M Format. You do know that right?
Btw are you still learning to use a web browser?
http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter
Scroll down to see what I use.
Would it tell me the difference between a summicron and an xf? if not I Don’t give a dam about what you have to say.
Have a look at what I have and have used. Wouldn’t touch Fuji X with a stick until they make FF.
Wow that is a lot of gear, you work at camera store? How do you even find the time for your hobby? Honestly though, why do you even bother with all that gear to take those photos. Your clearly not pro…as in paid for your work.
For that numbers of gears in his list, I think he would not spend enough time to understand the camera which he doesn’t like, so we should just ignored his negative comments which didn’t come with valid proof.
Work at a camera store? lol
I can’t be bothered explaining equivalence to you since so much has been written on it. So try google. What I can tell you is if Fuji X was any better at the end of the day I’d certainly have gotten it over the Nex line.
Fuji is a junk brand so do not waste our time for it.
So you saw the word fuji and your brain just shuts down? I got a rx1 and 2 alpha cameras sitting right infront of me, maybe I need to go to sony land right? Stop having a insane brand loyalty to a company you do not even work for you god dam tool.
When I started my incursion on rangefinders I bought a Bessa R4a. It was the bomb. The 21mm framelines… but I only got to use 24, 35 and 50 on it so they were never really used.
I loved it but I couldn’t get used to RF shooting so sold it and got a Contax G2.
Just started following you. Nice work.
Also, where’s the body where that 80mm f2 goes?
Yeah I almost got a R4a once to replace the R I have but moved to MF instead.
As for the 80/2 Planar… got it for a project:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/carlzeissplanart80mmf2/
I’ve actually taken it apart now and I’m building a compact medium format p&s around it with a nice quiet copal leaf shutter.
Great works there.your works and knowledge in this field are really amazing ,to say the least.
That’s very kind.
Exactly the fuji is overrated but actually quite lousy in many ways
I’ve been a fan of Fuji since the Super CCD days and they’re the most innovative company in the photo field but like you said, Fuji X stuff is overrated. The X-Trans is also a failure.
Gonna stay with my Zeiss 85mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.7 C/Y.
I’m a Canon user that bought the a7r with Metabones adaptor and I love it. But since then I bought the native 35mm and 55mm and I love them. But I’m waiting for new native mount lenses but Sony and Zeiss seem to love offering multiples of the same focal lenses. What’s going on? I’d love to see an 85mm or a 24mm. There’s already 3 zoom lenses around the 24-135 f4 (OK one is not released yet) and now it looks like two 35mm and two 50/55mm. I love the camera but very disappointed with the lens line up so far.
What Zeiss release have nothing to do with Sony and their official lineup. Besides how many have practically demanded a 35mm f2 for FE? It’s so typical really…
I think you’ve misread or misunderstood my post. It’s very clearly a personal statement about ‘my’ feelings on the announcement and what ‘I’ am looking for and obviously not a statement about the marketplace demands which I know no more about than you do. It’s so typical really…
And we should care about your little feelings? Sorry but you ask questions like ‘what’s going on?’ – as I say this release has nothing to do with what Sony release in the next few weeks. These are not in replacement of Sony’s own lens roadmap, so other than saying these are not interesting to you the rest is rather pointless.
hehehe..you like the cameras but are very disappointed with the lenses…welcome to Sonyland
There’s too many rumors about lenses on this site. Lenses are so boring, we want to know about upcoming cameras. Basically, 5% of image quality comes from the lens, 95% from the sensor and processor. Just put any cheap lens you can find on the camera, it will give you almost identical photos to the most expensive lenses by Zeiss and Leica.
You had a drink to many I guess?
Change your glasses =/
You can’t compare coating of leica/zeiss with coating of cheap lenses
Oye… I just shot a nice job with the old Tammy 20-40 SP… BECAUSE it flares so beautifully.
One man’s “coating” is another man’s straight jacket.
So, you contradict yourself 😉
Lenses aren’t just 5% of images.
When did I say that? You must be speaking to “just a piece of glass”…
But if you want my opinion… his math 5% + 95% doesn’t leave any room for the photographer. I’d say that’s at least 1 or 2%. Maybe more ; ).
Too many rumours – that complaint is a first here.
this is by far the funniest bait post in the thread.
Well played!
Coincidentally, was reading through some of The Canon Lens Experience B&H propaganda (though it’s pretty interesting as far as marketing materials go) and ran across this ironic (based on the context) Jeremy Cowart quote:
“I still rent primes a lot when I go on bigger shoots, but I’m not really a technical dude. A lens is a lens in my book, I’m not really freaking out about different lenses. Way too many people geek out about this stuff but you should be able to make beautiful images with any lens.”
SAR is mostly flooded with gearheads and photo geeks. I guess I’m just as bad as the next but the differences between many of these bodies and lenses really is indiscernible without extreme pixel peeping magnification.
Yeah, it’s often forgotten in forums like these, that there are many extremely talented photographers out there, both pros and amateurs, who know very little about the technical stuff.
I would argue the opposite. 95% optics 5% sensor. Maybe not that extreme but still even a 1″ sensor can take outstanding images if you get enough light into it and/thru stronger optics. I.E the success of the RX100 series.
I don’t need 50 or 35 for now, I already got Sony zeiss 35 and 55 and I am fine with them.
But I would like to see a great 100/2 and 135/2 from Zeiss. And of course, Otus branded 21 and 25mm.
Neither, because I am happy with the 35 and 50 mm lenses I already have. A very short focal length for the A7r could be of much greater interest, IMHO.
I’m not budging on these until Ken Rockwell plucks the chicken.
btw… I wish he’d drop the Ken and just go with “Rockwell”.
After all, Zeiss dropped the “Carl”.
Apparently, I’m not allowed to make jokes of an adult themed nature.
This gives me the saddy-wadys in my tum-tum.
I don’t see the point of releasing fully manual lenses for a system that needs electronic aperture control for absolute focus accuracy. If the Sony system were a rangefinder, fully mechanical lenses would make sense.
As it is, manual lenses should be focused wide open then stopped down for metering since the entirety of the focus system and metering work TTL. If there was a quick way to stop down/return to aperture, like the tab seen on Leitax/Nikon lenses, it might work. Or, if the aperture rings were just electronic relays to tell the camera how to meter, it would work.
What? That makes no sense. Sorry, but what accuracy are you talking about?
A lens has a specific plane of focus. In order to nail that plane, a lens should be focused wide open. It is how it works on all electronic mirrorless lenses, all SLR lenses. Rangefinder uses a different focusing system independent of the lens being open or closed.
SLRs and mirrorless focus wide open, then prior to exposure close down (of the lens is closed).
No, they really don’t. Besides how would focussing a rangefinder make any difference to ‘nailing that plane of focus’? Focussing wide open is actually a ‘bad’ idea as lenses have focus shifts at different apertures, so focussing at the actual taking aperture is the ideal scenario, one which mirrorless can do, but SLRs can not. RF’s can’t compensate for this at all so you just have to hope for no focus shift.
Some lens systems do exhibit bad focus shift, you are right. Many do not. One of the benefits of mechanical systems is that they don’t suffer near the amount of shift that can happen in poorly designed fly-by-wire systems. Helicoids won’t move on their own and don’t rely on sometimes jerky motors.
My X100s, for instance, is 100% unreliable when shot close. The lens focus shifts of its own accord. I have to adjust focus back by several millimetres in order to achieve good results even for Facebook.
That said, rangefinder cameras provide a bright view on the world unmatched by any SLR or mirrorless and decouple TTL view from the photographic experience. It works in a more ‘about’ way that is subject to many things such as rangefinder integrity. But their reliance on a focusing system outside of the TTL tunnel means they suffer none of the same problems, specifically amp noise, dropped FPS, and AF-induced focus shift.
SLR and mirrorless focusing systems can be more precise when you need to be 100% accurate.
No lens I’ve used with a good ground glass exhibits any focus shift at all.
I own a number of lenses that exhibit no focus shift. Always it is more accurate, and less taxing on the camera/viewing system to focus them wide open.
One of the major reasons for focus shift in fast primes is actually a high degree of spherical aberration. So that depends on the optics of the lens.
But for lenses without severe focus shift, I agree that focusing should always be done wide open, by default. Otherwise you’re crippling the AF system by giving it less light, as well as more DOF which means CDAF has to hunt more to focus. Any on-sensor PDAF sensors start failing at smaller apertures as well. And remember: masked pixels only see ~half as much light (or less) as full pixels, so they already start off at a disadvantage in terms of SNR. Stopping down the aperture just makes matters worse.
Focus shift also becomes less and less of an issue with the increased DOF of much higher f-numbers.
Also, sometimes setting Live View Display to Setting Effect Off doesn’t always force the camera to focus wide open. Even though the lens doesn’t automatically stop down when you choose a higher f-number with this setting, when you engage AF, the camera often tries to stop down to the shooting aperture to focus. *Unless* it thinks it needs more light to acquire focus (b/c the subject is dark). Problem is: the algorithms seem to be pretty optimistic about how much light they need to focus. In other words, the camera often won’t open up the aperture enough – thinking there’s enough light for AF when there really isn’t.
That how it appears to be in the latest iterations of the firmware/cameras, anyway. If I remember correctly, the NEX-7 and the first two RX100s were less prone to behaving this way. The newest RX100 III is quite poor about opening up its aperture to acquire focus; therefore, it’s quite easy to make the camera’s AF fail when you’re stopping down. Just aim the camera at a low contrast/dark subject, set your aperture f/4 or f/5.6, and you’ll often see the camera will fail to focus. Set your aperture to f/1.8 though for the same subject, and it’ll nail it.
Fantastic little camera otherwise, though.
If you have any ZA’s, or Maxxum primes, you will know for fact they DO NOT focus shift. That’s the main reason we shoot good ole’ A-Mount.
Compare on Photozone any Alpha prime against CaNikon primes.
As Photozone says, and I concur:
“You may also observe that the lens has virtually no focus shift when stopping down – this is often a problem in this lens class.”
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/554-zeissza85f14ff?start=1
The same cannot be said for our CaNikon friends. In fact, some of Nikons most expensive glass are the worst offenders. Like the Nikon VR 200/2 shown here:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/499-nikkorafs200f2vrff?start=1
Just terrible. Check bottom of page. Canon 50/1.2 even worse. Native A-Mount primes don’t do that, even the old Minoltas. The head shots I do depend upon it.
Alpha can shoot both ways actually. Wide open, or in stop down mode. Just release the lens and turn a bit to operate the aperture manually. At that point, you’re shooting at live aperture, with EVF even, albeit without AF or EXIF data.
Here’s the test on the old Minolta 200/2.8 APO
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/660-minolta200f28?start=1
No focus shift. The old Mino beats Nikon’s current best.
What?!
Why would I wide open to focus manually?!
It is just more accurate. The best, most accurate focus, is the centre of a plane of focus. You can ‘about’ focus using focus peaking, but you can’t ensure 100% that you are nailing the exact plane of focus without focusing the lens wide open.
Also, in dark places, a camera system that cannot automatically index the aperture darkens the viewfinder and/or amps the signal, inducing FPS slowdown, noise, and other artefacts.
That is why I say that that a fully manual system for the FE system is less helpful than if it had an indexing aperture. It could be a mechanical system like Nikon’s G or AFD lenses, which accept aperture indexing from the camera body, but which focus wide open and close down prior to exposure, but that relies on a mechanical prong and/or aperture ring.
But some sort of auto-indexing is necessary to be both accurate and not overly tax the computer system inside the camera, and to keep frame rates high.
Nikons (and all other SLRs) focus wide open to allow more light to both the VF and AF system. They are basically incapable of focussing stopped down and the viewfinder dims as you do. Sony’s mirrorless focusses and composes at the taking aperture, which yes can have an impact on EVF refresh and noise.
That is what I’m worried about. I don’t have any native EF lenses. I do have one native mirrorless lens for a Fujifilm X-T1. I own both it and the A7r. When used in conjunction with manual lenses, as much fun as it can be, the extra amping necessary to boost the signal to a stopped down lens and the dropping of frames is painful, not to mention that when focusing through a stopped down lens, a larger portion of the image appears to be in focus. You can focus on something that looks really sharp, but if you are relying on hitting the centre of a plane of focus, the most accurate way of doing so is focusing wide open, then stopping down.
SLRs, too, used to work like this, and not just because of the dimness of the focusing mechanism.
SLRs don’t do this because it is the most accurate. The A7 series ‘can’ do focussing wide open with electronic lenses, you just need to turn off the ‘settings effect’ mode.
Again, I don’t own a single FE lens, and likely will not- at least in the near future. What I appreciate about native electronic FE lenses is that they operate in the most natural way for the camera to operate, keeping FPS high, focus accuracy high, while removing the direct feel of controlling the lens without too many other drawbacks.
At first, the Zeiss announcement sounded great. Native mechanical lenses, with full focus stops (for fast and accurate focusing), aperture rings, etc., but then I realised that if the camera has no control over aperture and the only native element is the lens mount, all of the same problems that plague using non-native lenses on mirrorless cameras apply.
And I’d rather just use M mount lenses, which belong to a well-supported system.
With the current FE 35 and 50, the A7/r aren’t really small thanks to the awkwardly long lens sticking out. I would prefer zeiss to come up with pancake lenses, eg C/Y tessar 45/2.8. Afterall the advantage of leaving the AF motor out is to keep the size compact. I’m sure many are willing to compromise on lens speed for easy storage/portability since the iso performance is already good. And with 35/2, and 50/2, zeiss and sony are just cannibalizing each other.
Really? The FE35 ‘sticks out’? Have you used one? Compared it to a ‘pancake’ on an adapter? Ever used small rangefinder lenses? My 40mm f1.4 is a lot smaller attached to my A7S than my 40mm ‘pancake’ attached to it. Rangefinder lenses are tiny, so is the FE35. FE55 is a bit bigger though.
Alright my fault, i should have used an appropriate example, like the summaron 35, but then again its not a zeiss lens. I apologize.
But i’m sure they will be able to make an equally compact lens if aperture is limited to 2.8. However i’m not a lens designer, i hope what i wished for is no absurd 🙂
We FEmounters already enjoy the extra special Zony FE 55 and the very good Zony FE 35 lenses both with fast AF and OSS. Not sure why Zeiss might reproduce these focal lengths when there are other obvious gaps in the FEmount lineup. Now if Zeiss would roll out an 85 f/1.8, 135 f/1.8 and a nice UWA maybe 12mm, FEmounters will stand in line to preorder.
Opps. I mistakenly wrote OSS above. FE 55 and FE 35 are not OSS lenses.
Some will buy them, but unless they were new optical designs I personally wouldn’t. I would buy the M-Mount versions which will have higher resale and can be used on many more cameras. Of course I will stick with the FE35/55 for FE series, but happily using 12mm and 40mm M-Mounts which I can at least use with my rangefinder.
The only thing that would draw me to these is if they have distance encoding and electronic contacts which enables automatic focus magnification, which would make them relatively tempting (especially the 35mm) for me.
If they use the makro planar design for the f2, stand in line. It will be worth it.
But admin clearly stated the Loxia 35 will have “much higher optical” quality than existing FE.
And this is SR5 pal so you better pay attention before a flock of Loxia fairies imprison you in the Cosina plastic mines. You have been warned!
bah, just F2????? bye byee loxia :p
It is completely ” astounding ” what intellectual point of views are coming out on this forum … It seems too, that many of these posters may well could be advisors to lens / camera manufactures …
Ps … I wonder if they know how to take a photograph in first place …
Silly Z077…
Everyone knows that photo advisors can’t take pictures. It’s part of the job description.
It’s not like golf, where the designers actually use the gear they create.
Hmmm … Mr. Michael Reichmann from http://www.luminous-landscape.com I would Not call him Silly even thou he has in past tremendous influence on Lens / Camera makers in very positive way …
As far as everyone know Mr. Reichmann is very good adviser and takes fantastic art photographs …
In contrast you SAR you do comedy ?
I have Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 II and Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 and both of them are work perfectly on my A7. So, I don’t have enough reason to buy these slower lens at this time. But, if I have a lot of money in my pocket, I will consider to buy them which is only because of my own passion for Zeiss glasses.
Insanity of backwards tech.
I would say the sanity of more reliable tech. Tech that is however, plagued by its own shortcomings.
Sony 55mm is superb, so I dont know what’s the point of 50/2 Zeiss.
I assume it’s an E mount version of the superb 50/2.8 Makro-Planar with electronic aperture control. The 55/1.8 has a magnification of only 0.14x, but the MP is 0.5x. That’s the point.
As an assumption, how can you know if that’s the point?
If the 50 is a makro planar with 1:2 magnification I would sell the 55FE for it
WHY THE F**K WOULD I BUY THESE??…….BAD MOVE SONY… UNLESS THEY ARE CHEAP! ZEISS AIN’T CHEAP!
the 50mm is not even considerable.
if you want cheap go buy yourself some centons
we’re all sorry for your problems
why would you mad at Sony? this is pure Zeiss decision
if you want cheap lenses bye legacy glass and adapter. Dot. The two lenses are famous for its outstanding sharpness and colours. No buddy is forced to get it. The who want outstanding quality will get it.
I think you may need to check your attitude as well as your facts. This has nothing to do with Sony. It’s a Zeiss only decision i.e. it’s not designed and manufactured in the same way as the FE35/FE55 which were a Sony-Zeiss partnership. I believe this is a zeiss-only initiative.
I apologize .
Why is there so much negativity here? These two focal lengths are the easiest to design, though I must admit the 50mm f2 will be pointless and not sell unless its a macro lens. The 55mm f1.8 is legendary due to its outstanding performance. I suspect these lenses will be all new optical designs aimed at getting the best from the current and future high resolution sensors. Small compact and all metal construction. They are Zeiss designed and manufacture so they will not be cheap, but if you want the best lenses for the FE mount theses will be what everything else will be judged against. Lets not be to hasty and wait and see what Zeiss announce and what future lenses they have in their roadmap.
You said it. None of the other people including me thought about macro. It would be worth it, and fast enough if it’s a macro.
the first thing I think of it size. I would have no issue doubling up on focal lengths for different uses. I have the 55FE and it’s amazing but it only comes out to play when I get serious. Otherwise it’s the a 50mm ZM with adapter that’s bolted to it. Why? Because it’s tiny.
more than mediocre design. these lenses are just rebadget models from the 80s. Gives some insight in how the company Zeiss is committed in doing the best they can offer to the consumer. Shame on you, Zeiss company.
Thanks god, you saved us from buying old lenses by sharing your Zeiss insights…
BS
Maybe im wrong but aren’t a lot of non zeiss brand lenses based on zeiss optical formulas that have outlived the original patents? I thought pretty much every macro lens was based off the original makro planar formula?
I’m no super zeiss fanboy (I own one zeiss lens out of 14) but I find it a stretch to suggest they’re phoning it in.
And you know what, those old optical formula is still kick as
You know what, the old formula needs old leaded glass types to kick ass.
i dont mind if they take the otus optic formula and just make the glass smaller and restrict it to F4 or even 5.6. there is still a very large market for high quality/ultra compact lens
They don’t need retrofocus for an ultra slow prime. Why not take an enlarger formula and add focusing.
I believe these lenses will be based on their existing ZM range of lenses –
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/zeiss-ikon/distagont2815zm.html
So they will be compact if I am right.
I would buy a 18mm or 20mm or 24mm Loxia. These are missing.
A 35mm and a 55mm is in stock.
This would be a good place for Zeiss to start this series of lenses. And Zeiss: keep them compact, please … Oversized manual lenses of exellent quality already exist, adapter is not a big problem if size does not matter.
Manual focus only? What a complete failure. Why can’t they just make it AF with super smooth manual focus that isn’t fly by wire? Give us the option. Not many people are going to want MF only. Well I guess that’s what separates the amateur brands like Sony/Zeiss who only care about novelty to the professional brands like Nikon/Canon that are practical.
why would everyone drag Sony in Zeiss decision huh? beat me…… this is pure Zeiss, not Sony Zeiss branded lens……
That only fits and is designed specifically for…ah, er,…Sony. It is not like they are coming out with alternate mounts that fit Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus full frame mirrorless camera cameras. Oh wait, that could be a hint – perhaps if the others actually had full frame interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras.
You know Sony is a major shareholder of Carl Zeiss, right?
Also, as Larrry pointed out, these are E-mount lenses, for Sony cameras. You believe these would be designed and manufactured without any consultation with Sony?
Its very simple. Designing and launching MF lenses without any electronics is far easier than making a AF lens with electronics.
Zeiss already makes AF lenses in their Touit range so this is a supplementary range of lenses possible based on tweaked existing designs.
“Its very simple. Designing and launching MF lenses without any electronics is far easier than making a AF lens with electronics.”
Just because it’s easier, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it! They need to do it RIGHT the first time, or don’t do it at all. Taking the easy route really shows how unprofessional they are.
You aren’t getting the point what I made at all. The point is they have BOTH. AF AND now MF lenses.
They have the AF Touit line and to add to their revenues they are launching the CZ MF range also.
You didn’t see the crazy Touit sale that was practically buy one get one free a few months back? I think Zeiss recognizes that that line is a failure and is moving on.
I find it a bit disappointing that in a mount where there are very few existing primes, Zeiss chooses to start with the exact same focal lengths that the system was already launched with. Perhaps they will be astoundingly compact?
But those are the most popular focal lengths for primes, and Zeiss wants a piece of the action.
If I was buying e-mount (and I’m no longer ruling it out), I could definitely do worse than the 55/1.8 and a mf 35/2…
Even Sony with their dreadfully slow lens rollout have already got these focal lengths covered. Give me a 21mm or a 25mm….please!! I know I would be happier, and you would probably sell more.
They probably are launching the bread and butter lenses first. After that the exotic ones can be launched. Since these are MF lenses they should be much easier to design and launch.
Crap… Where’s the 35/1.4 and 50/1.2…now that there’s no AF, size is no reason.
I believe these are based on existing designs of their ZM lenses. So the best you can expect is a 50mm f1.5. Rest are all f2.8 and f4 lenses with one f2 lens. 😛
Maybe some are ZM tweaks, but anything wider than 35 should be new. The rangefinder designs have serious color shift and/or smearing.
Yes lets hope for that ! If they are just rehashed ZM lenses like I believe then their usefulness will be reduced greatly.
Well, I expected a 50f1.2
I’ll keep my Voigtlander 50f1.5, then : Manual focus, quite compact, and good image quality. Just a bit heavy.
I strongly believe these lenses are not brand new designs but are mostly based on their existing ZM lens lineup.
That would mean there is a possibility of a 50mm f1.5, 21mm f2.8, 15mm f2.8 and other ZM lenses to be launched in the FE mount.
I’m assuming that when Sony says ‘jump’, Zeiss say ‘how high’. With that in mind Is it likely that Sony have insisted on Zeiss only releasing their first few FE lenses in focal lengths that Sony already covers. Thus allowing Sony to launch their 2nd wave of FE lenses (24mm and 85mm Hopefully) without any native mount competition.
What ever happened to that rumor about LARGE/FAST APERTURE PRIME? I been waiting … and THIS is what they give me? I need a 85mm fast prime with OSS & AF native lens. I have so much legacy glass n adapters already. At least f/1.4 and sharp enough at center then sharp edge to edge when stopped down. Zeiss and Sony need to come out with this. Look at fujifilm’s aps-c mirrorless lens line-up, TAKE NOTES …. WOW.
Are you saying you bought a camera and just hoped the would build the lens you wanted, in the time frame you desired? I’m not saying Sony won’t make an 85mm, but when they do, it’s almost certainly going to be no faster than f1.8, and optical stabilisation is probably unlikely.
Everyone would like to see more lenses. They will come, but sometimes we have to take responsibility for our own choices. Sony have never been exact about the specifications or timetable of future FE-mount releases. They have said they working on 15 lenses by the end of 2015. They have time yet.
Ummm Zeiss, we already have a 35 and 55mm prime for FE cameras.
Why not bring us a 18 or 21 or 25 or 28 or 85 or 135 or 200 or 300???