I got more images about the new Zeiss 16-35mm f/4.0 FE OSS lens that will be announced tomorrow. As you know you can follow the event live here at SAR at 16:00 Berlin time!
Here are two graphs about the new lens:
The Zeiss 16-35mm should ship within end of this year. But I “fear” that all other lenses that will be announced tomorrow will hit the market in 2015 only. Because so far I didn’t get detailed info on them…probably because Sony will not unveil the final info tomorrow (just general introduction).
To end with a good news: After Pohotkina I can probably start with new rumors about the High Resolution cameras and some RX camera info I got in these days.
Follow the Sony announcement live here on SAR on Monday Sept 15 at 16:00 Berlin time. That’s:
7am in San Francisco
10 am in NYC
15:00 in London
23:00 in Tokyo.
———
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
How do I read the mtf charts?
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm
Hate to be the 1 to say it but we really need the new lenses now – I think Sony is missing the point that lenses drive body sales at this stage.
A lot of people are waiting for Sony to improve the lens lineup before buying. Leave it until 2015 and the risk is people will then decide to wait and see what new bodies are announced…
I agree….this drip, drip native lens release strategy is painful.
By now I expected at least a 100mm(ish) macro and a wa prime. They’ve finally captured pro attention and need lure them in with a lens lineup that they’ll take seriously (rather than look at again when they upgrade their 5d mk v).
Correct me if i’m wrong, the new FE 16-35mm looks quite decent to my untrained eye… its performance at f8 appears to be not too far from FE 35mm at f8.
Better than 16-35mm ZA at 16mm f8?
Well yea, but pretty much any lens looks good at f8.
don’t think I’ll say that for the 16-35mm ZA or the FE 24-70mm…
Sony seems just unable to produce quality lenses really sized for the A7 bodies. They worked hard on designing such a compact FF camera, but they are making oversized lenses. This 16-35 (like the 24-70) finally looks too big with its 72mm filter size. I hoped for something sized like the 35mm F2.8 (even a bit longer) or globally like Leica lenses
They’d have to severely compromize the IQ to make such lenses really compact.
At least make them f/4-5.6 instead of constant f/4.
Meanwhile people are complaining about the f/4, claiming they should release f/2.8 FE zooms.
Full Frame E-Mount seems to have an inherent contradiction in itself.
Fair enough a full frame zoom is never going to be tiny (or at least not without big compromises), but there’s no reason why an FE prime system needs to be large.
If the size or price is too much for you, adapt a wideangle from another system or buy a Samyang or whatever. The constant f/4 fetish is a compromise: it helps reduce size, but not as much as variable aperture would. At the same time, constant f/4 is useful for video and at least it’s smaller than f/2.8.
That is the fact. You can make compact FF body, but the lens’ size still remains not much different from other FF lens. It’s physics of optical design.
72mm filter? where did you get this information?
oh i see…
For me, size and weight of the 24-70 are accepted. But, I think if Sony manage to put the IS system into the sensor (if they can do), the lens would be a little smaller. 🙂
“I “fear” that all other lenses that will be announced tomorrow will hit the market in 2015 only”
——————————————————————————————————————–
So…What is “At the end of 2014, FE system will have 10 lenses” statement that we heard all the time in this year.
Oh…I forget that they may be very very busy on “the next generation” camera now.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Let’s hope admin are wrong at this time.
Blame Sony. Sony said 10 lenses would be available by end of 2014. But latest I heard is that the other FE lenses they will shwo will be come early 2015.
Yep, I blame Sony not you. 🙂
🙂
With the 28-135mm and this Wide Zoom, that makes 7 lenses. Add 2 from Zeiss / Loxia and that is 9 Already, so they may be a little behind schedule, but almost there.
10 lenses as Sony said earlier did not include Loxia from Zeiss. Not mentioned that both Loxia lenses at this time have identical focal length which we already have. More over, according to prior post, only Loxia 50mm will hit the market in this year. 🙂
If you can’t shoot with the lenses now available…..You can’t shoot…
Yes, I can shoot with the lens that I have now….and If you want to see, I can show you what I got from this FE system.
But, it would be better if we have more options for lenses in this system. More over, Sony said by themself that we will have 10 lenses by the end of this year, not me. Now, it seem to be that Sony cannot keep on their plan. Thus, I think I have right to blame Sony about this topic.
So after the launch tomorrow there will be 9…..That is what your complaining about…..?!?…sheesh
10 lenses as Sony said earlier did not include Loxia from Zeiss. Not mentioned that both Loxia lenses at this time have identical focal length which we already have. More over, according to prior post, only Loxia 50mm will hit the market in this year.
Thus, at the end of this year, if admin is correct, we will have 4 zoom lenses (which one of them is not a practical lens for travel photography) and 3 prime lenses from Sony (and Sony-Zeiss).
And what I want most at this time is an ultrawide angle fast prime for shooting astrophotography and a mid range fast tele for shooting portrait. I know that even Sony release 2 more lenses in this years, they may be not the focal length that I want. But, if Sony keep their pace on releasing new lenses as their plan, I think I will got what I want soon.
They said 10 lenses and we have only nine. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Again….Loxia is not include in these 10 lenses that Sony said.
*5 Zoom lenses
Please show us what you have done yes..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gift-of-light/
Some shots took by my old A99, while some shots took by my A7 with various lenses.
I’m not telling that my work is great. In fact, I know that I’m just an ameteur in photography.
However, I think people have right to say what they want from the company that they are support, not depend on the ability of them to squeeze the best result from the company’s product.
Tried shooting 1:1 macro with any of the current FE lenses? Maybe you could tell everyone else where we’re going wrong?
Seriously……That’s your argument….1:1 macro….that’s it…..That’s the great gap in the lens range…..
You need more examples? A classic portrait prime, a wide angle faster than f4, a telephoto longer than 200mm… But hey you’ve got all this covered with you 28-70.
35mm 55mm 70-200mm 24-70-mm and soon the 16-35…Yep pretty covered…
Can anyone good with the charts give a prediction how this lens compares to these in terms of sharpness. The first is the new Canon 16-35mm f/4, the second the older Canon 17-40mm f/4. Thanks!
http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens/MTF-16-35-IS.png
http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens/MTF-17-40.png
MTF is meaningless to me. The data plotted in the chart typically comes from the mathematical calculation or simulation.
Or straight from marketing…
Without knowing the aperture it´s difficult to evaluate the data. I assume that the charts above mean max aperture = f4 of the canon lens. So at the tele end the Sony looks much worse at f4 especially in the corners. At the wide end both lenses are very close but the Canon might be a little better in the corners too. The canon seems to have a more linear decrease in sharpness whereas the Sony exhibits some field curvature – that´s not too bad – the Sony looses sharpness a little earlier towards the corners but gets slightly sharper as it approaches the extreme corner – that´s for 16mm f4 only.
At 35mm f4 the Sony is plain crappy but very good at f8.
Thanks! I really like the sharpness on the Canon 16-40mm f/4 IS so I have high hopes for this. It looks like I might need to remember few people look at the corners, haha, but it’s one I might keep for now. At 615g it’s hard to imagine the Sony being much smaller and lighter.
I edited my post a little – hope it helps.
Ah, that does help, thank you! And yes I can testify to how terrible the 17-40 was with corners. I actually sold my Zeiss 21mm prime when I got the 16-40mm though. Pixel peeping away, it was so close I knew the prime would spend a lot of its time in the camera bag.
What looks concerning to me with the Sony is at 16mm it appears to have both astigmatism and lateral chromatic aberration issues. Wide open you might expect this but it doesn’t look like stopping down to f/8 really is going to help you. What’s sad is since this lens is a bit slow at f/4 you hope for better wide. There may be some minor corner sharpness issues at 35mm wide which are solved stopping down.
I suspect another mediocre FE zoom over-priced because it carries a blue badge but you really don’t know until it get reviewed out in the wild. Zeiss MTFs supposedly are more real world than Canikon. I assume that holds for the Sony licensed versions and are required to be tested using the same standards.
“because it carries a blue badge” Come on! We will very soon here from people testing right now under NDA? Your arguments are not very valid 🙂
My comments were all based upon the MTF charts. You have a different reading then justify it. But just don’t do a diaper dump because I think Zeiss badging means a high price and the FE zooms have been largely underwhelming thus far.
Which makes me wonder see there’s no wa prime on the cards… A 24/2.8 would be perfectly acceptable and doesn’t need to be big (compare the minolta 24/2.8 to the Zeiss 24/2).
Here is a terrific article on how to read an MTF chart.
http://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts
That’s a good article – thanks for posting that.
Why are the outer corners better than the edges? @f16 that is. Stopping down doesnt change much at worst case frequencies, also (only radial).
Oh well, Im intrigued to see first samples.
The 10-18 OSS APS-C is quite a feat for making a small UWA. It certainly gives the Tokina 11-16 a run for its money for image quailty and sharpness and is a heck of a lot lighter than the Tokina which is built like a tank.
As long as this lens is smaller and lighter than the Tokina 11-16. I would say that is a big win especially if its got the optics to match. A comparisson against the Nikkor 14-24 and 16-35 and Canon 16-35 and the upcoming Sigma 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 2.8VC will be what I’m waiting to see.
It seems to be smaller than other 16-35/4 lenses.
There were no full-frame mirrorless wide-angle zooms before. You can’t really compare the size of wide-angle lenses built for such a different flange distances.
Great!! Looking forward to this…..Usual Sonyalpharumour b*tching about everything and nothing I see……
Mmmm.. Those corners don’t look too good..
We will have to wait to know how this zoom is performing. But what I would like to know now and that isn’t rocket science, is the weight and size of this lens. Hopefully it isn’t heavier Than the 24-70mm.
As fir the lens being big : get an MFT body if you are looking for a smaller system : FF lenses alas will remain big.
Wide angle zooms like this, and even primes to some extent, have MTF curves that look like this. For example take a look at the highly acclaimed Canon 16-35 f/4 which by almost all accounts is the best 16-35 on the market:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is_usm
It’s MTF curves are very similar to these. Nikon’s 16-35 f/4 MTF curves have the same characteristic look as well:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-16-35mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html#!
I am looking to upgrade to full frame and I hope Sony’s next generation camera can give me something that can compete to D800. Recently few friends of mine keep persuading to jump to nikon world. And I keep telling them I will wait till Sony’s next full frame a-mount camera first, and see if this is worth to stay. Please Sony
You’re in luck, it was already released last year!. It’s called the a7r, look it up on google.
but i want it in a-mount ><
You’re in luck, it was already released last year! It’s called the LA-EA4 A-mount to E-mount adapter, look it up on google.
Ah, not really. I’d say keep looking for the a99II and cross your fingers.
Didn’t the Admin state “They
decided to avoid the release of small upgraded cameras (A99II?).”
Any updates seem to be cancelled.
This lens is huge in sense of size, not performance. I had preferred a 16mmFE2.8 prime lens with better performance than the SEL16F28, a bit bigger presumedly . This lens is worse than ANY legacy prime lens e.g. Tokina17F3.5SL, OM24F2.8, OM28F2, and of course SEL35FE28. It is another example that marketing people rule over customers, photographers. I bet no professional will touch this lens.
Why would you expect a Zoom lens to be better than any Prime lens? Get Real!!!
You get me wrong: I know it will not, so it is useless to me on A7r. All primes I own cover the focal range better. OSS is also useless on A7r as I learned from the SEL70200FE4G. Sony and Zeiss should deliever lenses matching sensor performance. Up to now this is only true with SEL55FE18 and SEL70200FE4G, that is also a huge monster…candids almost impossible with this bright shiny white lens.
I agree with you on that White colour on the 70-200. It is a pretty nice lens though, but would have been better in Black. I looked at painting mine, but not an easy job, and I would lose a lot if I wanted to sell it later. I just hope that the 16-35 is as good IQ as the 70-200, or at least a big step up from the 24-70. I suppose that the samples have been with reviewers for a few weeks already, so we should know the verdict in a few days. On my old Nikon system, the 16-35 was my favourite lens.
There will probably be made lens coat for this lens soon i guess, I see someone has already made camo but hope we will see some all black coat soon
Nikon 14-24mm AFS f/2.8. This is the benchmark that wide angle lens manufacturers must compare themselves against.
Great lens, but far too large & heavy. I have the 16-35mm F4 which is also a fine lens. I don’t think the extra 2mm is worth the hassle of the large size & the 16-35mm has VR & takes filters right on the front. So from a practical point of view, it was a better choice for me.
To each his own. The point remains, the Nikon wide zooms beat out many primes in their focal length range. Sony are competing against all lens manufacturers when it comes to the FE mount.
Really? What about Zeiss’ 15/2.8?
That’s a pretty incredible lens. I’ve used it on Nikon mount. Honestly the options on Canon and Nikon really make me wonder if Sony A-mount is the way to go. Sony has to destroy them with better camera bodies, otherwise, why stick with them? I think Sony’s strategy is make lenses and bodies for the enthusiast, and offer a top-end a-mount for those that advance. But I’m there now, and the limitations of the mount have me really considering switching unless Sony does something spectacular with the a99II (or whatever it’s to be called).
Not used it myself but according to Diglloyd (and he generally knows what he’s talking about) you’d be hard pressed to call the Zeiss the definitive winner, and it’s even arguable the Nikon is sharper, with less vignetting. Also, the Zeiss is about $1000 more. Looking at direct comparisons, I’d probably say it goes to the Nikon: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=615&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=794&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Nah I don’t really know which one’s better, I’m just bringing up the possibility.
Yeah, the Zeiss gets very good reviews and it’s a nicely corrected lens no doubt, but it’s difficult to justify in a world where the cheaper, zoom-capable Nikons exist. They’re just that good.
Wow worse than a prime lens….classic!
You’re asking too much. Zoom lens with better image quality then prime yet small with auto focus and weather resistant. If there’s such a zoom there’s no need for prime.
this is a silly reply. read what I wrote before you answer.
The E16 is a equiv. 24, an FE 16 would be MUCH bigger, and better it would likely be not.
Legacy options dont really cut it on 36mp.. if this fe 16-35mm f4 does better than average and weighs a tad more than the 24-70mm lets say 450g then it’ll be good enough.
You mean this OM 28mm f2?
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Olympus-28mm-f2-146/images
You’d be pretty shocked to see MTFs of most classic lenses – these rarely had any aspherical, AD or ED elements. They may have pleasing rendering qualities, but technically they are behind. Technology has advanced, really.
Trying to find a perfect old wide angle (<28mm) SLR lens (with the exception of the Distagon 21mm) is a waste of time and money. There exists none which would beat a modern design, such as the FE 16-35.
Those MTF charts look encouraging and better than the a-mount Zeiss 16-35mm f2.8:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-16-35mm-F2.8-ZA-SSM_lens480.html
And that in turn is better than my Minolta 17-35mm, so it’s a likely purchase for me
But that only show sharpness and there are lots of other factors to see reviewed
It’s easier to design wide-angle lenses when you have a short flange distance, so no wonder here really.
Please Andréa, give us some news about Rx camera
If you are patient. Please don’t be negative ok? 🙂
I am far from negative. But stop teasing us. Just post the rumors you have. It´s the point of your site.
Too easy to give news 24h before sony and say, i was right !!!
🙂
admin , Is the 135mm f1.8 going to be updated ?
I believe that rumor was hoax. Sony had promo price on this lens where I live and I thought the rumor is correct. Recently the promotion ended and price is back in the sky.
I actually got the lens this year and there is not much to update on it. Optics is the best of all 135mm SLR lenses (period). Mechanically it has no motor but features most of the advanced features found on SSM lenses like – focus ring does not rotate while focusing and there is focus hold button. Ohhh and also the 1,8/135 is about the newest 135mm SLR lens on the market. Both Canon and Nikon 135mm lenses are way older and still people buy them especially the Canon one is quite good.
So arguably SSM update of the 135 will be interesting, but not a big deal.
It is interesting to know if such update is coming though if you are to buy this lens. I bought it before the rumor broke out and was a little sorry. But then really the new lens will not be much if at all better.
One last thing 1,8/135 is manageable on the A7. Works quite well. You probably would like t put a grip on the A7 to make handling easier especially for portrait orientation. I only wish Sony come out with LA-EA6 or alike adapter with improved AF capability i.e. more AF points, more cross points, better tracking. This said I did manage to take some decently sharp images at f1.8 of moving subjects – running horse.
Erm, unfortunately not true. The Zeiss f/2 APO is optically better than the Sony f/1.8.
Could be. I was looking at AF options last year. Nikon lens was not quite good – seems old coatings did not work well. Canon was ok but not at the level of the 1,8/135. So I ended up with a7 and the 1,8/135mm. Sold my D700.
By the way is the 1,8/135 Sony or Zeiss lens? Seems newer lenses like the 1,8/55 and 2,8/35 are fully designed and made by Sony? Which in the case of the 1,8/55 is quite an achievement.
All ZA lenses are made and designed by Sony, Sony paid to zeiss though to get their logo on lens barrels.
Can you point to your references?
Naoki Miyagawa, Sony optical engineer, is the designer of the FE 55mm.
So Naoki picks a specific Carl Zeiss Sonnar design and uses Zeiss for “a lot” of quality control. Seems like pretty much a Zeiss lens then, not just a sticker.
There is a huge number of lenses based on Sonnar design from pretty much any manufacturer, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, you name it. It’s basis for many modern lenses, but no one put Zeiss sticker on them just because of that.
You can thank Zeiss then. After a patent has passed anyone can copy a design and that shows how many lenses Zeiss has influenced in the market. But without final QC from Zeiss you wont get the Zeiss signature which is what makes a Zeiss lens.
By this logic, are all sonnar lenses Zeiss lenses whether or not Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma or Leica design / manufacture them?
If its gone through Zeiss QC it would make it Zeiss. The QC part is important and as Naoki says those germans are even more stringent. So without Zeiss input you’d get a less Zeissy lens. And yes technically those manufacturers have copied the Zeiss design but without Zeiss input or QC then its not officially Zeiss. But you could say the design was derived from Zeiss.
All you guys have is a single interview and a Zeiss badge on a Sony lens, the rest is just bla bla bla, and can actually be different from lens to lens. I would love to know more about their real relationship, but can’t find anything on the web and here is just speculation.
Regarding the 135mm, I bet the Zeiss APO is hard to beat, but personally the ZA 1.8 just has something special and unique about, prefer the latter one for its look very much – no matter who really designed it.
Guess where he obtained a special certificate that allowed him to design a Zeiss?
He works for Sony and designed a Sony lens.
Guys you don’t get it.
Of course he is a Sony engineer who designed a Sony lens. But a Sony lens that is based on a Zeiss design and that fulfils the contractual requirements in order to gain the blue badge.
I get it, I do not think you do. It is the other way around, Zeiss has to fulfill obligations to Sony who pays them probably more than any other company. The only obligations that Sony has to meet to Zeiss is that their checks keep rolling in.
Ultimately the blue badge is the equivalent of the red ring on a canon lens. It markets these Sony lenses as being premium.
Do you think that Zeiss would risk their reputation by letting Sony stick the blue badge onto anything they want to?
Of course Sony is paying Zeiss and not vice versa, but the usage of the Zeiss logo is limited by rules and contract.
There are marketing rules whenever a logo and mark is used. Of course there is some agreement that the designation be limited to certain products that must be above a certain price point and adhere to an agreed upon look, finish and feel (all of sony’s zeiss branded lenses have a specific design aesthetic of the barrel, use the T* coating, etc). However, let there be no confusion who the client is and who pays the bills. Zeiss licenses their brand, does some consulting (of which the level of consulting is in dispute) and supplies their T* coating. If Sony were to terminate their contract, they retain all of their IP and would only lose the blue logo and t* but their lenses would continue to be their property.
Ultimately Sony designs and produces outstanding lenses that stand in line ( and sometimes above) what Canon and Nikon do. They do this thanks to their own long history of producing lenses, their acquisition of Minolta’s camera & lens properties and their hiring Zeiss but not simply because of this last item.
I thought it was clear that I of course know who is client and supplier.
But it is for sure a little bit different to something like “here is my soul just gimme some bucks”.
Of course we don’t know the content of their contracts, but from experience I know how comprehensive such contracts are. For example, designs will not be just one off payments, contract termination rules will be defining freezing periods, etc.
But somehow you are losing the point.
We started the discussion when I stated that I am sure that Miyagawa-san has been trained by Zeiss on Zeiss-Designs.
That’s all and I don’t get why insist on proving the opposite. We both cannot confirm. So let’s shake hands.
You wrote that the Sony designer received a certificate from Zeiss or was trained by Zeisd in how to design a lens. Without any support for this, it sounds imagined.
According to this article –
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.lesnumeriques.com/objectif/rencontre-avec-naoki-miyagawa-pere-meilleur-50-mm-moment-a1818.html&usg=ALkJrhglQjxa8kds0kXH_Yyw4NNAtZiJIw
– He trained at the Technological University of Tsukuba in Tokyo not in Germany.
You smartass are starting to p..s me off….
I didn’t say he graduated or was educated at Zeiss, I mentioned that he probably got trained on specifics related to the Zeiss brand.
And now, go w…king.
I agree you are right, I am wrong, full stop.
You really felt compelled to attempt to insult me for sharing information and sticking solely to the subject matter (and nothing personal)? If you have a theory about this or that, you are entitled to it. If you want to convince others of said theory, supporting evidence goes a long way. If you are frustrated and feel the need to insult someone who has neither insulted you nor discussed anything personal, please refrain from replying or take your frustrations out by going to take some photos with your Sony, Zeiss or whatever brand of lens you prefer.
Ok, second last sentence from me – sorry.
Normally it takes a lot to get me to insult somebody…
I got annoyed by you twisting my words repeatedly.
And then? – blaming me for insulting you – and what are you doing?
Instead of being the more reasonable person and stop you impute frustration to me…
“And then? – blaming me for insulting you – and what are you doing?
Instead of being the more reasonable person and stop you impute frustration to me…”
I hope you’re joking.
Certainly – yes 🙂
I’ll go and pick a coffee now.
Where are you located?
You keep repeating this statement but never back it up with any evidence. So the assumption is you’re full of $hit and don’t have a clue as to how these lenses are built or who designed them.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.lesnumeriques.com/objectif/rencontre-avec-naoki-miyagawa-pere-meilleur-50-mm-moment-a1818.html&usg=ALkJrhhGUJXla144rYmaQBFSJkjLTNJBVg
Actually on this site, maybe a year ago, they posted a speech by one of Sony’s lead lens designers, and he pretty much echoed the statement above. The Zeiss logo on Sony lenses means Zeiss assists with the design and quality control measures but Sony is in charge of manufacture. If you’ve ever used a real Zeiss lens you’ll see they’re quite different than the Sony Zeiss lenses.
How naive of you to still think Sony Zeiss is Zeiss.
He doesn’t say that Sony Zeiss is Zeiss.
Of course it is not, because Zeiss have for their own products much more tight quality demands.
However it is a pain in the butt to read this bullshit that ZA is just a purchased blue badge on the barrel. That’s all.
Given the drawbacks on the latest Sony Zeiss zooms (E1670 and FE2470) it seems to be so that just the Zeiss logo is purchased…
I am not saying that the two lenses mentioned are all that bad. However this not the ZA quality I am used to get as with my A mounts.
But you are wrong that ZA lenses were all designed by Sony. Design and QM guidelines were services provided by Zeiss.
we have heard it so many times from you now. Thanks for your obvious trolling support of this site.
Zeiss have said it’s basically their logo and allowing Sony to adopt their optical layout and some quality control processes. The rest is all Sony – design and manufacture, the important parts imo. This doesn’t mean that the Sony-Zeiss lenses aren’t great lenses (they are), but the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO is in a league of its own.
as far as i have seen , just less CA… not a biggie…
You have to bear in mind, CA means reduced contrast/detail, not just fringing. It’s also just generally a slightly sharper lens across the frame. Again not a biggie. But what is a biggie? Most lenses are fairly sharp and you only see the differences if you pixel peep. Point is, the f/2 is optically the best 135mm SLR lens available, not the f/1.8.
Thanks Kiril, I had this lens on my A99 and really feel sorry for ever selling it , I was naïve to believe that Sony will release anything similar for the e mount…
Since there won’t be any update I’ll just buy it , the quality was amazing… I don’t know how the Zeiss 135 mm f2 can be better
The 135ZA is for sure the best lens available for the A-mount.
Updating with SSM and sealing would be appreciated, but that would just be a marginal update as the optical part doesn’t need any improvement. However Sony will likely ask for 2k€ for the M2…
On the A7R it has two disadvantages.
First the weight – using it via LA-EA4 on an A7R with VG it is not all that bad in terms of handling, however almost all the weight is carried by the left hand.
Shooting an hour or so doesn’t matter, but if you use it a whole day your shoulder will for sure be aching at the end of the day.
Secondly a specific A7R issue (due to missing EFC) needs to be kept in mind – with shutter speeds below 1/200s it is endangered to blur images due to shutter shock.
mmmmm…
Delicious.. can’t wait to try this one
2015? bye
I need this for autumn (2014)
farewell then 😀
Bub bye……….
The 16-35mm will be avaiable within end of this year. It’s the other lenses that will come 2015 only 🙁
You don’t even have the money to buy one
Anyway it’s good to go back to your dying m43 system or dying slr.
When somebody chooses not to buy a lens that makes him unable to afford one. Look at you, what’s wrong with you people?
whats wrong with you people? ask the funny guy who started it with a silly comment 😛
What’s wrong with finding a product with slow distribution unfit for one’s needs when one needs it the most in the short term?
how do you know that? you are working better than admin 🙂
Awful MTFs, just awful. Astigmatism at 16mm is insane! As usual, these “Zeiss” lenses are overpriced junk. Their only hope for realizing potential of those high-res 24mpix/36mpix sensors is Sigma now.
Plus look how they had to keep their rear element forward because of the flange distance inappropriately short for FF sensor (awful color shifts on the sensors with color filters are unavoidable otherwise), basically making up for short flange distance with lens sizes, and not just for normal and tele but even with UWA!
FE is such a dumb idea! Short flange is good for APS-C and great for m43, but simply moronic for FF.
So it is likely to expect similar issues concerning IQ as on the FE2470…
Only on the copy you buy.
Funny guy, read the charts
is it really that simple?
Of course it doesn’t say everything about the lens’ quality. But it looks like that especially at 35mm the resolution drops significantly towards the borders and corners.
Fortunately it seems that at 16mm it is not all that bad, but for a limited usage this lens will be much too expensive.
Lens looks cool but compared to the new Canon 16-35mm it’s hard to be excited. I now can’t decide if I want this lens or the Canon with the Metabones.
How many copies are one supposed buy before getting a satisfactory sample? I went through 2 blitzangebote, each time the lens got cheaper. Still no luck. 🙁
3Dkraft wanted to dump his WATE for this?!
By the look of it, it uses an improved formula of the 10-18/4. It’s going to be a terrific lens, I think.
Looks like the admin take pleasure to say, i have news for rx and high MP camera but i wońt say anything.
It´s not rumors any more. But news 24h before sony.
Sad.
43rumors, mirrorlessrumors….. And other just post rumors all the time.
Something nobody’s been talking about much, that’s the 100mm f/2.8 macro. It’s really in need of a modernization. The screw-drive focus is incredibly slow, and the expanding barrel makes shooting up close complicated. I wish Sony would come with an SSM, non-moving, faster focusing and even sharper lens. Maybe even a 180mm macro like Sigma’s.
I’ve never understood the need for AF or large apertures on macro lenses. I’d take a weight reduction over AF and speed any day, they have no use while shooting macro. Unless you intend to use it for non-macro purposes (in which case why are you getting a macro lens)? My ideal macro lens on the Sony would be maybe a 150mm or 200mm f/4 manual prime, with IF, and with IS as a nice bonus.
Sounds good to me. I mostly manual focus anyhow, but given the option, it’s always nice to have AF. I’d like to see either or both of those lenses, and an update to the 100 as well. But macro lenses are relatively niche, and Sony is apparently dumping resources into building their EF mount offerings, so I guess we’ll have to keep dreaming.
>>I’ve never understood the need for AF or large apertures on macro lenses.<<
you dont have to have use macro lenses only for marco photography…
ok, ignoring the fact that it seems you didn’t read all of my comment, have you ever done much macro photography? It’s a very, very rare day that I go out with macro gear and decide suddenly I’m going to take portraits or long range action shots, which is presumably what you would want large aperture or AF for. So, making such a huge sacrifice on cost and weight for those things makes little sense. I’d much rather have a dedicated portrait/action lens, and a dedicated macro lens… having everything in one lens would make things unnecessarily heavy and expensive. What’s the point?
… Sure I need macro lens to shot Mount Everest …
Never tried a macro for portrait photography? For art macro, a large aperture is a blessing.
I had the impression they’d basically abandoned the tele-macro market to Tamron and Sigma… The 90mm takes a lot of beating!
I agree that the 100 macro needs an update.
If somebody doesn’t want to wait for it – I have the Tamron 90mm USD and the mighty Sigma 150mm. Both with full IF design and f2.8, and both are far above average in IQ.
Okay so from now on, it seems that Carl Zeiss lenses for Sony FE system will have minimum focus distance indication written around the front glass and Carl Zeiss becomes “ZEISS”.
Carl Zeiss became Zeiss over a year ago. They announced on the 28th June 2013 all future products would be branded simply Zeiss.
Thanks for the input, I didn’t know that ! But it is strange because 55mm, 35mm and 24-70mm were launched in october 2013 and are still branded as “Carl Zeiss” lenses.
I guess they were already tooled up for, or in production of those lens when the decision was made.
Given the outstanding FE lenses how probable is it to expect A9 body?
I would hope it externally mirrors or improves upon A99 and carries most of it features like display attachment, focus limiter, IBIS, dual AF with EA4 (why not EA6 with improved focusing like A77 ii), flash socket and so on.
LA-EA6 with A77II AF would be a dream!
For some reason NEX and now FE (potential) consumers are and have been obsessed with the number 9. It’s a little like how SLT A mount (potential) consumers are obsessed with 88. At least for the latter there was a precedent with the 850 whereas it’s always been wishful think for E types.
oh terrific, MTF charts!
I am looking forward to have this lens.
These are not measured MTF like the Real ZEISS produces, but the calculated best case fairy tale MTF variety that Sony uses.
Also, it may want some spectacles for that astigmatism
RX1’s Sonnar MTF was not measured either but lived up to the expectations and the some.
I wouldn’t be worried.
You shouldn’t either, even though you distrust the FAKE ZEISS.
16-35mm is only 1 year late after sony anoucement. also extremely overpriced. nikon 16-35mm f4 vr costs less than 1000€.
no tkx.