Zeiss (Click here) just announced the new Loxia series. The Loxia 2/50 will be available worldwide starting October 2014 and the Loxia 2/35 from the end of the fourth quarter of 2014. The recommended retail price of the Loxia 2/35 will be EUR 965.55* (US$ 1,299.00)* (excl. VAT) and that of the Loxia 2/50 will be EUR 713.45* (US$ 949.00)* (excl. VAT).
The worldwide first Zeiss Loxia Full Frame E-mount lens preorder are now running at BHphoto:
Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens for Sony E Mount (Click here).
Zeiss Loxia 50mm f/2 Planar T* Lens for Sony E Mount (Click here).
Zeiss Lens Hood for Loxia 35mm f/2 Lens (Click here).
Zeiss Lens Hood for Loxia 50mm f/2 Lens (Click here).
Zeiss Rear Lens Cap for Loxia Series Lenses (Click here).
Zeiss De-Click Key for Loxia Lenses (Click here).
Here is the full press text:
ZEISS Loxia: Setting new standards for full-frame mirrorless
With the new Loxia 2/35 and Loxia 2/50 lenses, ZEISS combines maximum image quality with classic ease of use for E-mount full-frame cameras. During photokina, which will take place in Cologne from September 16 to 21, photography enthusiasts can see and try out this new family of lenses for the first time.
Loxia 2/50 without lens hood
“Ever since the Sony Alpha 7/7r/7s helped compact system cameras break through to the full frame, there has been a growing desire for a ‘digital manual focus‘ experience that combines the best of both worlds. With the Loxia 2/35 and Loxia 2/50, which are the first members of a new family of manual focus lenses for the E-mount full frame, ZEISS is ready to exceed those expectations,” said Christophe Casenave, Product Manager with ZEISS Camera Lenses.
The Loxia 2/35 on the Sony Alpha 7r
The Loxia lenses offer several key highlights, including optimization for digital sensors and electronic viewfinders, the mechanical aperture setting and – for ambitious videography – the mechanical deactivation of the aperture click stops (de-click).
The Loxia family has been specially optimized for digital sensors and the functions of mirrorless E-mount full-format cameras. An electronic interface transmits lens data (EXIF), but also recognizes focus movements and, if desired, activates the camera’s magnifier function. Moreover, the Loxia lenses enable precise manual focusing and a mechanical setting of the aperture (working-aperture aperture priority). This traditional way of working can express one’s personal photo lifestyle, and open up surprising new creative possibilities to compose the image that go beyond all automation.
Loxia 2/50 application sample
“If I had to describe Loxia lenses in just one sentence,” according to Christophe Casenave, “I would say, ‘tradition meets modernity’. These lenses have been designed for photographers who enjoy shooting spontaneous scenes, but without giving away the work of composing the image to the camera.”
Thanks to the mechanical deactivation of aperture click stops progressive aperture settings are possible (de-click)
Yet photographers are not the only ones who will enjoy the Loxia. Ambitious videographers will have at their disposal the possibility of progressive aperture settings (de-click). This will put a tool with enormous creative potential into their hands thanks to the mechanical deactivation of aperture click stops. The lenses’ precise manual focusing also makes the Loxia suitable for professional video productions.
The Loxia lenses are optimized for digital full-frame sensors, and incorporate the approx. 2.5 mm thick low-pass and infrared filters in front of the sensor in the corresponding Sony cameras.
Loxia 2/35 lens scheme
As a Biogon, the optical design of the Loxia 2/35 consists of nine lens elements in six groups. With a full-frame focal length of a moderate wide angle, this lens is a specialist for nature, landscape and architectural photography. Because it has a low minimum object distance of just 0.3 meters, all the advantages of close-ups with an unusual perspective also come to the fore.
Loxia 2/50 lens scheme
The design of the Loxia 2/50, which is based on the famous Planar, has six lens elements in four groups. As a ‘classic’ normal lens, it has a field of view that corresponds to natural eyesight. The Loxia 2/50 therefore reveals all its strengths in many different situations, from travel and family photography to photojournalism and portraiture. And with a minimum working distance of 0.37 meters, it can also be used for close-ups. The Loxia 2/50 is an uncomplicated but at the same time high-quality standard lens that photographers can keep on their camera continuously; this enables them to react flexibly to a wide range of everyday situations.
Loxia 2/35 application sample
The effective isolation of motifs with a low depth of field as well as free-handed photography, even in poor lighting conditions, are just two examples of the many possibilities that both Loxia lenses offer thanks to their high speed of f/2.
The Loxia lenses were intentionally designed to be manual-focus lenses; this makes them extremely compact and therefore a perfect companion for travel and street photography. An important advantage in this respect, especially for photographers who work in these disciplines, is that they cannot be recognized right away as professionals. Using the Loxia lenses, they can capture completely true-to-life situations, without attracting attention.
The Loxia 2/35 in detail: weather sealing, e-mount, lens interface
The lenses offer a high resolution across the entire image field and — especially at the maximal aperture opening of f/2 — a harmonious bokeh in the background. The superb mechanical quality that ZEISS lenses are known for can also be found in the Loxia family. The smooth focus operation, with a large focus rotation angle of approximately 180 degrees, allows for the finest variations in focusing. The filter diameter is a consistent M52 across the entire lens family. The robust barrel, made entirely of metal, can withstand the rough everyday situations that professional photographers work in and ensures a long product life. In addition, the lenses have a special weather sealing at the lens mount to prevent spray water from getting between the camera and the lens.
Loxia 2/35 without lens hood
More application samples can be found on Flickr:
The Loxia 2/50 will be available worldwide starting October 2014 and the Loxia 2/35 from the end of the fourth quarter of 2014. The recommended retail price of the Loxia 2/35 will be EUR 965.55* (US$ 1,299.00)* (excl. VAT) and that of the Loxia 2/50 will be EUR 713.45* (US$ 949.00)* (excl. VAT).
* Status September 2014
0 Responses
First Blood!!!
Can’t wait for a wide angle lens. Something between 20mm and 24mm
What the hell is this supposed to mean: “Thanks to the mechanical deactivation of aperture click stops progressive aperture settings are possible (de-click)”
these are just way too much to ask when there are plenty of manual zeiss primes I can adapt to
Like the ZM ones which cost nearly the same, require an adapter and don’t provide EXIF data?
no like the Zeiss Contax and Zeiss Jena that are a fraction of the cost
Ah, the big and old ones. I like Contax quite much myself, but these will be smaller, provide data, have warranty and not require an adapter.
The contax g zeiss lenses are small and cost about half the price
And are even more a pain to use, as they require a very fiddly adapter. Listen, if you are willing to suffer through it, older lenses are great. I have a few. But that doesn’t negate the clear advantages of these new Zeiss.
I hate to be so shallow, but the blue ring/weather seal at the base of the lens looks terrible touching the orange E-mount ring. Why can’t they both be black?
I would say because Zeiss’ brand colour is blue, as opposed to the other company that uses red…so going orange is too much…
That orange ring is as pointless as the “Calvin Klein” words continuously repeated around underwear bottoms. Who wants to use that to boast whats underneath your trousers?
Must be shallow to because I feel the same. But I can pass that since the blue ring is a weather seal gasket for the mount which was the weak point of the system (weather proof body and lens but nothing for the connecting point??)
Zeiss & Sony are fans of the NY Knicks and Mets.
I like everything about these lenses. Zeiss listened and delivered! Very pleased! 🙂
Feel the same way, they are no-nonsense products, and even the prices seem fair.
Good on Zeiss, and good for photographers and the market as a whole.
I know its being picky but I am unsure about the drawing quality of that 35mm. The bokeh looks busy on the highlights and the MTF chart is concerning.
Yes. For infinity shots, the 35/2 may not be great (as it is shown) unless they improve the extreme corners.
But, for street and portraits (many do use 35mm lenses for portraits in case someone comes in to say otherwise), it will be swell.
I am not worried about the busy highlights (or the MTF charts, to be honest). It could be a factor for some.
I pay attention to the MTF just because I use 35mm for almost everything so if a 35mm can show me a good performance across a range of situations (close, mid, far, wide open, edge sharpness, etc) then I am game for that.
I guess they went with the “different than the rest” strategy instead of topping the RX1 Sonnar in overall performance.
Yes, my man, you can do 35mm portraits and I have done many of them. It is just a matter of knowing the lens and working with it.
The MTF looks similar to the ZM, but this new lens has obviously been corrected for sensor glass, which is manifested in the way tangential lines in the MTF are curved up in the outer zone of the image field.
From what I have seen, I like the 55mm/1.8 more. I’m unsure about the 35mm, as more samples would be better. The idea about the mechanical deactivation of aperture click stops is neat.
very encouraging for the 3 more to come.
I like that mechanical deactivation of aperture click stops – don’t know if I would buy these two lenses. Waiting for a wide-angle one…
hmm. these lenses on the 7s, imaging the possibilities.
1) That sample of the 35 and the 50 are….in need of creativity. However, the bokeh on that 35mm makes me a bit concerned.
2) The de-click feature is yet another minimal but hugely important tool for people that work on video. It makes exposures on the go that much easier since shutter speeds (or shutter angles) are stepped so when recording you can finally have transitional exposures and not stepped exposures (unless you solved that with a variable ND filter)
3) “Tradition meets modernity”…what a statement.
Definitely not the best samples – guess that was one for the intern…
the sample of the 35 look like a joke.. the smearing on the angles is really bad.. did anyone else notice that? (see the flickr samples)
Hopefully, prices in US and the Americas are lower
the 35’s price is wrong (as usual).
that contrast characteristic…..
I don’t understand why Loxia’s MTF are so discharming (disappointing). I feel like Zeiss hasn’t been ready with lens optimization. When I compare those with MTF of Planar 50 ZM with NEX-7 (APS-C scope, made by Zeiss), I looks worse with distance at range between 0 and 15mm. Both are measured at infinity. Loxia Biogon 2/35mm looks better otherhand. It isn’t still great but I think I will try with this lens. For 50mm I will stay with my Planar 1.7/50mm. I haven’t seen MTF of those Planar with A7’s sensor but sample photos are great 🙂
Admin, I just saw this:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/
They got a picture of the QX-E with the SAR address…
Is that it then?
OMG~!!!
I wonder why Andrea left the news about the QX1 out. Unreliable sources, possible fake? For €300, I would buy it just for fun.
odd indeed. Missing post on SAR.
Any way the QX-E look nice specially if it come the 24MP sensor of the Alpha 6000/5100 for 300€. Would make a nice combo with my Z Ultra.
Imagine slapping a FE70-200 F4 on this little fella~!
But I don’t know whether the clamp is wide enough for Z Ultra~ But I do know there is a case with the mount for the Z Ultra which is only available in HK
No the clamp is not wide enough. You need the clamp made for tablet which come with different length arms (one fit the Ultra). Avoid the special case I have tried it in tokyo and it’s crap, break too easily.
“The Loxia 2/50 will be available worldwide starting October 2014 and the Loxia 2/35 from the end of the fourth quarter of 2014.”
Well, now I know what to buy to myself for Christmas present. 🙂
Uh… the 35… those Flickr samples… I mean… it’s not really a landscape lens, right? I hope this was not shot stopped down much or badly focused. Because the Corners are not sharp. But they’re not smeared much.. just not sharp. But still… The 35/2.8 is smaller, has AF, and is only slightly slower. I really hoped this is gonna blow away the 35/2.8.
As for the 50/2… I might love it… 0.37 mfd is cool on a 50, right?… Bokeh looks attracting… but so does the 55… but this one doesnt seem to suffer from the onion rings in oof highlights. I like how the bokeh-bubbles look in the plant Picture.
Just a few thoughts.
I don’t remember the Biogon being a design with fantastic corners. It usually has serious falloff and fairly soft corners.
Let’s decide whether it is a landscape lens after seeing more than one photo.
I want my sonnar f1.5
Now someone’s going complain they are too cheap.
I don’t understand how a manual focus only lens is good for street photography?!
It’s good because it offers you the opportunity to get in HCB shoes 🙂
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
zone focusing/hyperfocal focusing – at least that’s how I use it when i feel to do some ‘street’ photography, mostly zone focusing though
There is only one way to find out!
Ask all those Leica guys of the 20th century: HCB, Vinogradov, Capa, Kertesz would agree: they are good
Then the important question here is: would all these icons of photography have used fast auto-focus if they had the technology?
Correct me if i’m wrong but I think that they became legends because they loved what’s in the frame, not what takes the frame, and would use anything that could make the achievement faster and more reliable.
I don’t mind manual focus only lenses, but it feels a bit off to me to advertise it with street photography in mind.
Because many street photographer uses range finder camera
+1
The most important equipment of a photographer are his eyes
You are entirely discarding Hexx’s reply to you. There are actual advantages to these lenses when compared to current AF ones.
Try to do some street photography. Then you will a proper question: how an AF focus only (like current E-mount with no focusing scales) can be good for street photography.
Well hey…now you have a choice….
I get that you can’t zone focus, but otherwise I can’t see how the 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 are useless for street photography. I often use af with my 24/2 and 35/1.4 on my A77ii (with very pleasing results).
Look up hyperfocal distance and use the distance indicator that appears on screen/EVF when you adjust focus manually. That’s one suggestion.
To say they are AF-only when a range of tools to assist MF are available on these cameras (peaking, distance indicator, magnification) is pretty ignorant.
Buy a RicoGR and be happy. 😉
That is new technology properly implemented, but they also aren’t perfect.
how is it done on a GR?
The scale is shown on the screen, it’s called “snap mode” and basically it’s simply a prefocused zone.
You can see scale changing as you open or close the aperture.
It’s AF, there’s a way to manual focusing on the RicohGR, but I find it impossible to use.
I bought it mainly for landscaping, but it’s truly a street photography machine. A different way of shooting that I’m finding refreshing.
And its TAv mode is a nice feature.
I know, their Snap Focus feature is excellent idea, as the camera itself except fixed LCD. Personally, I think the GR is the best of the bunch (Fuji X100, Nikon A, Sony RX1).
because people will be distracted if they hear the sound of AF motor, lol 😀
And get a heart attack when the shutter snaps 🙂
That’s definitely a bigger problem for me than af noise – my a58 was terrible for street photography if I was trying to be remotely subtle.
Believe it or not, manual focus lens is actually great for street. It prevent you from getting random shitting pictures. And it’s fun to use. If it’s truly manual that is. The focus by wire of the Sony Zeiss FE lens manual focus ring is good but doesn’t give the satisfaction of the ZM lenses manual focus.
Hyperfocal distance?
Already existing Sonnar T* FE 35mm F2.8 ZA can focus at 0.35mm.
What has that got to do with whether or not MF is good for street photography?
Meaning they are over-advertising a product for something that can be achieved in other ways, with or without the restrictions of the advertised point.
Well that’s fairly cryptic.
Hyperfocal with 35 f/2 on FF is 67 feet. What kind of street photography is that? 😉
And if you are going to stop down, why buy f/2 to begin with? Although even with f/2.8 it is 47 ft – your subjects will be tiny specs in the frame. 😉
Yes, you need to stop down.
You don’t have to buy an f/2 lens, obviously not, but then a lens has more than one type of use, so f/2 might be useful in other scenarios.
I bought the A7 back in December, I shoot with it maybe 4 or 5 days out of every week. I have never used the autofocus function, and I don’t plan to. i bought the A7 to shoot compact manual focus lenses on it.
I’m
faster with manual lenses than most people are with autofocus, because of focus
peaking. When you have lots of moving pieces around you that you’re trying to
capture, it’s SO MUCH easier to compose the scene and surgically adjust the
focus as people move, rather than autofocus on a subject then recompose, and
refocus if anything moves, then try to recompose again, and then repeat again
if anything moves again. The difference is night and day for usability.
yep, the same here with leica m6, mamiya 6 (both RF cameras) – once you get hang of it, you can be very fast
Plus one. Add to that zone focusing, getting infinity in the dark, hyperfocal etc.
“Compose the scene” ?
If you have the time to compose the frame and “surgically” adjust points you’ll be faster with anything attached to your camera.
I understand that everything you shoot out on the street is technically a street photography, but for me – it’s that moment when you sneeze and it’s gone forever. Try that with manual focus!
Google zone focusing.
Wow that’s expensive. It figures. I’m still disappointed though.
I love the look. It is matched with the A7 body. I don’t mind the blue with orange. These are my favorite colors. I do not own an A7. I could not make up my mind. I want reliable low-quirky body. So, my mind is telling me to buy a 6D body and, as I like manual lenses, to buy a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2. Then one lens covers both of these at a quarter of the price.
Or get the 6D with the 35 f2 IS USM – it’s a great little lens – and you can use it in MF mode if you prefer that.
I have tried MF on some Canon bodies, 60d, 70d, 5dm3. And it’s a terrible experience in comparison to mirrorless cameras like A7 series
Yes, the Canon dSLR OVFs are very dim. For serious MF shooters, a replacement screen helps.
Not true with precision matte screen and FF
Did you read the second sentence of my post?
that 40mm f2 is so awesome. I love it to death.
a DSLR is not good for focussing MF lenses unless you use it in live view mode (display only). Even then the CANONs aren’t good for that, full of quirks actually in your words 😉
Ok. No personal experience. There is known solution though:
Canon EG-S Super Precision Focusing Screen for thirtysome bucks
The Canon 6D / Voigtlander 40mm Ultron is an excellent combo I own. Just buy the super precision matte screen Canon Eg-S, as you said, and manual focusing will be easy and the focus confirmation flash on the focus point will make it even easier. I never use the LCD for focusing; I do not agree with Zeisschen at all. My other camera is with an EVF and while magnification is nice and easy it only shows its relevance with macro shots but disadvantages composition. But still I prefere the Canon for macro too (and the Ultron comes with a close up lens). I’d call it different tech with minimal difference compared to good old reliable Canon. I am very interested in what Sony is doing and the Loxia is very interesting, that’s why I am here, but the A7 seems still not quite arrived at what I am used to, although the smallness is tempting.
would like to see comparison with standard M plannar, the one I have to see if they improved something or it’s actually worse. if you’re lucky, you can get fine M mount one for around £400
I can’t wait to see some examples from the first people to get these in their hands. I would of liked it if Zeiss did not remove all the exif so we can see the camera used.
Of the Flickr samples that are available in full size, they are 6000×4000, so they definitely used the A7 for some (if not all) the samples.
The 50/2 looks nice, and the price is ok, but the 35/2 does not look good at all, especially for that price. I used to have a 35/2 ZF.2 distagon on my Nikon, which was a lovely walk around lens and which did well at landscapes too. The flickr sample images all look boring and cheap, and the cannon shot has really awful bokeh for that kind of money.
Also see that they are made in Japan, according to the mount area on the schematic.
Pricing of the 35 appears a little bit overdrawn.
Colors do not look as good as on the 50, and the bokeh is very nervous.
Same busy bokeh as on the ZM 35/2. Stopping down one stop heals that a lot. though.
Price could be better, yes.
Yeah, I’ll go with the 35/2.8, its smaller, better edges (I guess from the samples and other biogons) and cheaper. And lighter. WITH AF. Even WITH hood.
But the 50/2 looks really great! That contrast and those colors… Wow… I hope its not just PP.
It does draw much better than the Biogon, imo.
Too bad its not good for MF…
Not bad if you’re a Gator (UF) fan!
$1300 for a Manual Focus lens?
…
AHAHAHHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
You’ve never seen a Zeiss lens? They even have a 3000$ manual lens.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860529-REG/Leica_11141_APO_Summicron_M_50mm_f_2_0_ASPH.html
I rest my case
seems every lens Sony / Zeiss announce for the FE mount is $950-1500 – in APS-C one pays $100-200 for a 50mm F1.8 – OK this is higher quality and they have a blue plastic ring – but I think Sony/Zeiss are milking customers – they entice them with discounted A7/r prices and stick it to them on lens prices – and still limited selection –
Zeiss alone is responsible for the pricing of these not Sony.
Of course Sony is responsible. If they weren’t they would surely offer up their own cheaper set of optics.
Why? Other than the consumer argument ‘Waaah, I want nice things for really cheap’ … why would they get into the value pricing game?
Sony is responsible for the pricing of Sony, Sony G and Sony Zeiss lenses. Zeiss prices their lenses (Otus, Touit, Loxia, Cine, Zf/ZE) however they see fit.
Is BMW responsible for Ferrari’s pricing because they do not offer Ford prices?
How, how much?
I expected some ridiculously overpriced $500. But at $1,300, they have outdone themselves.
Why would you expect them to drop the price by $600, and why would it be overpriced at that?
There is plenty of MF competition, with and without adapters. f/2 is not even fast, and no stabilization. Canon 35/f IS USM, obviously with stabilization and fast AF motor, costs $600. Same with the new Nikkor 35/1.8 G ED. Nikon 35/2D is only $330 (and just 205g). For DSLRs, where they are harder to make.
M-mount Voightlander 35/1.4 is $629. Sigma 35/1.4, PERFECT (and with AF), is $900. Rokinon 35/1.4 is $500. These are f/1.4, not the slow f/2.
I have the Sigma 35mm. It is sharp. It is contrasty. The field is pretty flat. I LIKE IT. But it renders oof areas and transitions harshly and already broke twice.
You seem to value speed and maybe MTF curves more than some others who may value build quality, good manual operation and aesthetics of the final image.
That is ok. But your comment is not persuasive to many.
None of the lenses you mention are comparably small when used with an adapter, except the Voigtlander. And Voigtlander have always made great lenses for cheap.
The prices you see are just regular Zeiss ones.
nobody expected them to start a cheapo line with the fe mount…
The Canon 35L is a 1980s design lens, that is pretty much has a t1.8 ‘brightness’, is quite large and issues with flare and CAs. It is $1500.
Here we have a very compact, premium lens with a different design philosophy and a price hundreds below that.
The outrage on the prices is silly.
To be fair, I think people are referring to the Canon 35mm f/2 (non-L), which is arguably a better lens than the L.
Those little Canons are clean and transparent, that is true. You pay up for unique features and aesthtic look, for sure.
But the pricing outrage, in context of the market, is just off. This is a specialty item… and not out of place with other specialty items out there.
If all you want is a good clean landscape image at f8, you don’t need to spend more than $100 on eBay. it still doesn’t mean every lens should be that price. You know where Im going with this.
Hey, I agree with you. Was just pointing out the lens people were talking about.
Canon 35/2 IS USM I mentioned is 2012 design. Why compare much faster lenses? And about t-values, this one without doubt T2.2 at best. Also I expect color shifts in the corners – rear element is too close to sensor.
You already compared with faster lenses above. And why compare with much bigger lenses?
you make a excellent point but I guess people are just comparing them to the excellent Af 35 and 55 that cost less.
I don’t get the insane prices of these. Why would anyone buy these over an adapted lens for a tiny fraction of the cost? Even the size of these lenses is offensive. I think my 40mm Konica lens is actually smaller, even with the SLR adapter and the image quality of this lens is incredibly good. Both of which cost me £50.
I personally use adapted lenses often, but there are a few main drawbacks.
1. There is always decentering and that translates to degraded image quality somewhere in the frame
2. Leaves the setup more prone to the elements. Moisture, condensation, dust
3. No automatic trigger of focus aids
4. EXIF data for distance and aperture not passed to camera
Lookup Roger Ciala’s ‘no free lunch’ post for more.
Wider lenses suffer from optical issues, but 50mm and 40mm don’t suffer at all. Probably even 35mm is fine, but I have had issues with 28mm. This Konica lens especially gives razor sharp images on the A7, even in the corners and with all apertures. The focus aid would surely be nice, but the rest of your issues are really not a big deal in general use. They’re certainly not worth more than $800 (or $1200 for the 35mm) for a lens that offers little (if any) increase in sharpness, has a worse aperture and is no smaller.
If you are happy, then you are happy. My cheapo Canon FD 28mm gets the job done on A7r too… but I also see the value in high quality native lenses.
I personally am not likely in the market for either of these, but like that they are there
I wrote a simple Windows-OS application which is GUI for ExifTool. It helps to write up very speedy all EXIF data (lens registration, focal length for zoom lens and aperture). But there is still obligation to remember (or to write up) a aperture when You shot a photo.
I am also trying to use only high quality adapters, mainly Novoflex (for C/Y, M42), metabones (for Nikon-F, Canon EF) and Kipon for all others (Hasselblad, ContaxG, Contarex, etc.). I use also good generic adapters for Praktica-B and PentaconSix. It doesn’t prevent a decentring problem but it help to avoid it. Otherhand I believe that small decentralization doesn’t affect my photography standards ^_^
I always carry a small notebook with my film cameras, and note little things like that (as well as contrast, some metering stuff, etc.). It’s a nice little ritual.
But for digital, the whole reason I like it is that it’s easy. It’s bad enough I have to run the RAW files through a Cornerfix type program. Isn’t the extra $600 worth the convenience? 🙂
If the same Konica AR 40/1.8 is made today, the new price of that will not be anywhere near 50 UKP that you paid for an used copy. Yes, old SLR lenses do cut in to any new lenses and their development. However, you do need to consider how much a new lens would cost and if they bring any advantages (other than the price). I think they do and I would pay for it. YMMV.
Original price is a good point. How much do you think the Konica lens would cost now? I’d guess £150 at the most (for a manual lens) and that’s generous considering the Canon 50mm f/1.8 AF lens is about £80 (razor sharp and beautiful bokeh!). The Zeiss 50mm is likely to cost £900-1000 when it hits here.
The Canon 50/1.8 (or the Nikkor 50/1.8) have their draw backs when you look at them objectively. It is contrary to you (or anyone in general) saying “razor sharp and beautiful bokeh”- I have used them and I know that is not correct.
Price for performance is an individual decision. I have about 3 dozen lenses in the 50mm FL range that I can use on the A7 series cameras. I still would like to buy the Loxia 50/2.
maybe it won’t be that bad – looking at euro prices and zeiss is (well, should be) German, so no tax on top, it’s EU. but what I really don’t understand at this stage (comparisons needed) why would it be a better solution than existing ZM lenses, new ZM 50/2 is £630 http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/shop-by-brand/zeiss/lenses/zeiss-50mm-f2-planar-t-standard-lens-zm-bayonet.html or £589 http://ffordes.co.uk/product/100723163510890
that’s nice, but your hexanon is a 40mm, which makes it even easier to make it small size on a FF sensor with 43mm diagonal. The aperture is a little bit larger, but then again can’t be compared to a 50mm. THe 50mm will make more bokehlicious pictures, just because of the longer focal length. And F number and real transmission are two different pair of shoes. Maybe they are both T2.0. Still a great deal of course, but don’t compare price of a used 30-40 year old lens in mint condition with a new lens.
‘the image quality of this lens is incredibly good.’
as different people have different quality standards – where can i see fullsize samples?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/sets/
i think joel was challenging the OP to post his full size samples with the “incredibly good” Hexanon
That Konica aint that good thou. I thought i wanted one until I acutally found it (for $15) and tried it. Dont know about my smaple, but the focus ring and aperture ring is hard to turn, and its to soft at f1.8. My Minolta 45/2 is way better, and it was even slightly cheaper then the Konica. 🙂
But I do agree thou that the prices on these new lenses are ridiculous! I really really want Samyang to start making E-mount lenses, would probably be cheap, small and so so awesome!
I have both, too. No problems with aperture and focus rings on the Konica. And I find the Konica IQ to be much better than the Minolta, at any aperture except wide open. The Konica has a LOT of PF wide open, but the Minolta at F2 is nothing special either. With the adapter, the Konica is smaller than the Minolta. I REALLY doubt that the Konica is going to hold a candle to these Zeiss lenses, though.
I guess its my Konica thats bad then, but for me the wide open perfomance is kinda the most important, so even thou the size and the focal lenght is better (for me anyways) i still prefer the Minolta.
Yeah sure these Zeiss lenses will perform better, but there isnt really any doubt which lenses will give you the most bang for the buck. 🙂
Well, this logic can be applied to any system. You can buy old Nikkors for Nikon, adapt Contax on Canon, buy Minolta for Sony etc. While I completely disagree with always mentioning that Cicala post, as problems in real life are really really minor to non-existent, it is nice to have EXIF data and not need to fiddle with adapters.
I love everything about these lenses so far, but that blue ring is HIDEOUS!
Zeiss being optics manufacturer could cut the nonsense that “50mm is a FOV corresponding to natural eyesight”. No, it’s not. Natural eyesight is much wider, something in the range of 24-28mm. The only reason 50mm lens are considered “normal” lens is because traditionally they were cheapest to manufacture and had simplest design as their focal length is close to the frame diagonal.
That’s not true either.
“Normality” depends ENTIRELY on viewing distance and screen/print size. Whatever lens matches the FOV defined by these two is normal in that PARTICULAR case of image display.
Yeah, this is most correct definition, however quite impractical as it gives no clear answer. Traditionally camera/optics manufacturers wanted us to believe that 50mm (on full frame) is “normal” because when you view typical-sized print from the typical distance it will cover similar angle. But there are simply to many variables in this equation. The actual reason is mostly economical: manufacturing 50mm lens gives the biggest margin.
It has more to do with tradition than precision, yes.
Knowing the target audience will give some insight on what normal lens to select. For example, if your image is going to end on a smartphone, you’d have a long normal lens (significantly longer than 50mm). If the image is destined for IMAX the normal lens will be very wide. (And, of course, in a typical movie theater each viewer would have a different corresponding normal lens: wider for front rows, longer for back rows. For practical purposes, people usually select the “prime seat” (horizontal FOV of about 45 degree, as per the THX standard, for example) as a reference for that.)
It is about perspective and FOV. You may see wider than 50mm, but you can’t read with your peripheral vision, can you? IMAX is a moving image, so it tries to emulate your peripheral vision for better immersion; however, how many subjects essential to the scene you see in the corners/sides?
It is actually quite a sensible choice and I seriously doubt your claim about biggest margins (unless you can actually support it with some data), as these lenses are also some of the cheapest.
Actually it’s more to do with perspective than FOV. Yes, human eyesight is wider when you consider peripheral vision etc, but we do not see the same as a 24-28mm lens, where a scene would appear quite un-compressed (the perception of distance between near and far subjects is stretched).
Standard focal length on a 35mm FF sensor is 42mm. The diagonal measurement of the sensor will give you the standard focal length.
Actually, when it comes to the natural perspective, than 50mm isn’t “normal” either. Do the simple test: put standard zoom lens on a camera with 1x magnification viewfinder and try zooming until you get the same perspective in the viewfinder as you see with your second, naked eye. I’ll find out that the natural perspective is something more in the range of 75-80mm 🙂
This depends on viewfinder magnification. On a Nikon body 0.72 magnification, the 58mm lens gives the same perspective as the eye. Look through with both eyes open…
That’s why I wrote to use 1x magnification viewfinder. I have no idea why you’re telling me to do exactly the same thing I described in my previous post.
And your observation is quite correct, as 58mm/0.72 = 80,5mm, what confirms what I wrote
A bit o/t sorry, but are there DSLRs with 1x viewfinder magnification now?
most APS-C ones have magnification like 0.95-1x
I think because they are around in the middle between a tele and a wide angle lens, so they don’t distort the perspective. Normal is more something like 43mm on FF but they probably made it 50 as it’s an easier number and maybe resulted in better portraits.
The full FOV of our human eye (1 of them) is close to a 22mm lens, but not all can be focussed. Both eyes combined can almost see 180 degrees.
Eye FOV is irrelevant really, it is projection FOV that matters. Images are practically never watched in the full FOV of the eye.
The sample shots look beautiful. I prefer to shoot manual with focus peaking. I would be ALL OVER this, except it’s disappointing that these are not faster.
For the same price, I just got the Mitakon 50mm .95 and I’m loving it so far. Clearly this Zeiss 50mm is a sharper lens, but if it was a 1.4 or at least a 1.8 it would be more attractive.
I’m also using the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 and I love it so much.
With those 2 lenses as respectable options to pair with your A7, these Zeiss lenses become tougher sells. If Zeiss made faster f1.4 manual focus versions at these focal lengths in the future, I would sell the Mitakon and the Voigtlander, as I do truly love the rendering of a good Zeiss.
I’m still a fan, and I hope they continue with this line. I just want to nudge them towards faster lenses.
From the samples,I personally don’t see anything that special about these lenses. I don’t see anything that the 55 and 35 Af can’t do. I like manual lenses but there are so many other options that are much cheaper. I will wait until some better samples come around, but I don’t think these are worth the asking price.
Too expensive. Hopefully they will be deeply discounted in the near future much like the Touits were awhile back. For Pete’s sake, these are only manual lenses with no electronic motors inside. The price should come down in time.
but they might appeal to A7s owners or other videographers, click-free aperture rings
You’ve got it wrong. Electronics cost next to nothing, it is the optical and mechanical construction which could demand this price. I say could, because we know nothing about their performance yet.
From a purist point of view, the LOXIA line could be the best there is, top performance, no failing electronics, aperture ring, consistent focus gearing and without clunky adapter. YMMV.
If it’s too expensive for you, don’t buy it.
Good logic. 99.99% of people won’t buy this.
That is another reason for the price.
maybe zeiss lenses are not meant to be bought by all a7 users. thats ok you can also be a happy photographer with a samyang or the kit lens.
Wow. Ugly vignetting… Must be a joke.
Don’t forget to judge everything but just one example…
So true. Now watch people complain about these same issues they saw in the first sample years later when it will be proven to be all wrong.
Now, onto some threads for positive people:
– All of the Loxia lenses will have a 52mm filter? That’s super interesting — makes me curious how wide they will be able to go with the lenses, but it’s convenient. “The filter diameter is a consistent M52 across the entire lens family”
– I was wrong all along — they did allow the 50 for focus closer than I ever expected. That’s wonderful news for future lenses, as well.
– What do you suppose “Grippy focus ring” means? Rubber? Interesting, either way.
– I’m encouraged by Zeiss’ belief in the A7 line, and I hope that means more and more third party support.
– Yep, that is very good new for the filter thread and it fits my Voigtlanders. The whole e-system is quite consistent in this.
– I surely hope it is not rubber.
– As long as Zeiss completes the Loxia line and Sony adds a few more lenses, I’d be happy with the system,
If it’s really 52mm across the board, then the presumed 85 (and probably also the 24) are almost certainly going to be slower than f/2, correct?
Too bad consistency in speed and consistency in ergonomics/physical attributes are necessary in conflict. For people interested in video as well as stills, the latter is important. I might be willing to carry a slightly bulkier 35 and 50 for that.
I support rubber focusing rings. They can be easily replaced, don’t scuff and offer plenty of grip. 50mm price is respectable. 35mm is pushing it. My problem is I don’t see any optical special sauce here. To many cheaper options if you want to scratch that itch. Plus, your not locked into the Sony system with other adapted lenses.
From what I see in the samples, the Loxia 35 has better correction than the FE 35 (which I had). A stop faster and better IQ… that’s a win win right there.
The Loxia 50 also seem to be just as sharp if not sharper than the FE 55/1.8
I’m working the negative rejections of this lens out of my system. Maybe I will warm up to it after a few serious tests are conducted.
$949 for a manual focus 50mm f/2 lens.
That’s E-Mount for you.
Well, the m-mount 50/2 Planar with no electrical contact is $860 at B&H, so not that bad really.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/662721-REG/Zeiss_1771_845_Makro_Planar_T_50mm_f_2.html
50mm f/2. $1283.
Totally an E Mount thing.
OK, you made your point, but… why buy them then?
If you can buy AF wider-aperture 1st-party lenses for comparable price
He actually destroyed your illogical point. Anyway, you want to know why some people want to buy those lenses or you want to be convinced?
maybe you only understand when you have used one of these yourself. slightly better image quality? better handling? superb build quality? emotions? i dont know. some people use a modern scooter to driver to the supermarket and some ride an old harley. both have a right to exist…
You should try it. I was an AF zoom person for almost 10 years, but once I got into manual primes two years ago, I haven’t wanted AF one bit. Most aspects of the experience are very subtle and very personal. I am into Leica R now after Contax Zeiss–I love not only their rendition and subtle colors, but also the way they feel and are made and assembled. I’m not willing to pay $5k+ for some of the new Leica M lenses. That’s too much, but $3k or under it’s worth it for me. Many positive aspects of the experience can’t just be easily compared or reduced to a number, or even isolated.
let me fix it for you, shall i? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/662717-REG/Zeiss_1767_825_Planar_T_50mm_F_1_4.html
you’ve listed MACRO plannar 😉
Considering the Loxia 50 focuses to 12″ and is f2, it’s much closer to the Macro planar than the 50mm 1.4. LeicaBoss made a proper comparison.
what about reproduction ratio? that would be more appropriate to compare than minimum focusing distance
Oh Leica Boss, let’s not even mention the Apo Summicron, another manual 50/2.
Yeah, but you can sell that one a few years later for more than you bought it for. Try that with anything Sony.
I can’t decide i these lenses are pushing me toward e mount or away. I’ll tell you what will decide that. If Olympus comes out with their rumored full frame e mount compatable camera at Photokina- I’m in. Imagine, an EM1- but with a 32MP sony sensor.
oh, i forgot about that rumor completely – i don’t believe it would happen 😉 although, having E-M1 build quality and FF sensor would be brilliant, and IBIS
No IBIS with a bigger sensor, unless they don’t opt for a brand new mount (there’s no space as it is and it would work just in crop mode)
what if this camera had a e-mount? for sure it won’t be MFT
It is suppose to have an e mount and 32MP sensor. Several websites are now speculating this. Sony has a controlling stake in Olympus so why the helll not? The EM1 is a beast with the build quality a sony camera full frame sensor deserves. Do it!
Zeiss* vs. Zeiss**
OK, the price is definitely a surprise.
Also, don’t bash manual focusing. I like it, many people like it. Many will prefer it to focus-by-wire lenses with crappy AF. Also, this lens might last for a long time, being mostly manual.
It has an aperture ring too, what more do we want? It even activates the MF assist IF you want it to! What more do you need? Everyone should buy this!
Just kidding, I’d buy Voigtländer’s 35/1.2 myself. But I don’t think this 2/35 is any bad at all. It’s just perfect. If you’re saying otherwise, this lens is not meant for you anyway.
I’m not that excited about 2/50 though. I’d be if Sony’s Zeiss 55/1,8 didn’t exist but it does.
*made by Sony
**made by Voigtländer
***The place of manufacture is far less important that the origin of design.
I’ve had 3 copies of the CV 35/1.2 ii. Tried very hard to like it but really couldn’t. The rendition is too modern, macro contrasty but not micro contrasty. The ergonomics were about perfect on the A7R so it’s unfortunate. I wish lens makers wouldn’t prioritize bokeh and resolution over overall rendition.
Hey, thanks for your reply. Could you post some samples about what you’re saying, if I’m not asking for too much?
Here is an example of what I can only call bizarre rendition from the CV 35/1.2. All chemical colors and all primaries. Maybe it was the scene, maybe it was the lighting, but I can just say I never get images like this from my Contax and Leica R. And while not all photos from the CV are like this, they all lack a certain spark I see in those other two. There’s something shallow about them.
not sure if the photo was attached successfully so i try again
If you’ve ever used the Voit 35 1.2 then you know there are some flaws that won’t be corrected til you stop down to f/2 (can’t stop to 1.8) and it is pretty damn big for a RF lens. It also focuses to .5 where this one focuses to .3. It’s also adapted, not weather sealed, has no EXIF transferred, and costs almost as much brand new. I’d get it to compliment the Voit 35 1.2 which also has a focus shift if you are using a RF.
The CV also has relatively strong barrel distortion, esp at close focus.
Hi, thanks for your comment.
-I haven’t seen it in person but I’ll probably be fine with the size.
-I don’t really care about close focusing abilities.
-Ditto for the weather sealing.
-EXIF is nice but not a dealbreaker.
-I’m aware of the price as well.
Still, I’m considering it. I wish I could rent or borrow a copy for a weekend.
Btw, I was actually serious about the Zeiss 2/35. It is quite the perfect lens for a lot of people.
the weight is not well distributed. it’s quite front heavy that it can become awkward at time to hold
I’ll pass on these. Sony’s FE 55mm f/1.8 is flawless, and the 35mm f/2.8 is great – it has more vignetting than I would like, but it is VERY sharp corner to corner on my A7r, contrary to what most reviews say. I wish Zeiss had released a 21mm or 24mm, and 85mm instead.
what if I’m telling you that they will ALSO release those lenses instead of INSTEAD?
I do wish for a 24 35 50 85 1.4 set. F/2 is good, f/1.2 is overkill, but f/1.4 is perfect. Still wouldn’t be that heavy. I can deal with 600grams even as long as the lenses aren’t shaped like narrow hard-to-hold flutes like some Summiluxes-M.
I’m sure they will too. Just wish they released those before the 35mm and 50mm.
Flawless? You mean terrible AF and even worse MF aren’t flaws?
Focusing on my FE 35mm works perfectly. Locks on quickly and accurately in AF, and MF is a breeze with magnified view. If you can’t operate this lens properly, you may have an impediment.
Mmhh… Thanks but I will keep my Sigma’s ART lenses.
those little 300gram ones with crappy bokeh?
You mean the 50mm that is on par with the Otus for a 3rd of the price ?
With way shitty bokeh? Ya, I’d still buy the Otus first.
On par in sharpness only. Underperforms practically any other lens outside of this.
yeah budday!
loxia = luxury
The lenses are cheaper on the Leica M than they are on the Sony A7’s, which seems counterintuitive. I think these lenses go to show that DSLRs are alive and well with lenses with superior (and updated) designs, autofocus and sometimes image stabilization and larger apertures. The Loxia 35 f2 is for hardcore MF people with cash to spare. For less money, you can get a nikon FF 35mm 1.8, a canon 35mm IS f2 or the Sigma 35mm 1.4. All of these lenses will likely perform better than that old biogon design, and they range from $550 to $900, much less than this MF $1300 nonsense. The 50mm is an OLD double guass f2 design, yet costs as much as cutting edge highly correct f1.4 Sigma 50mm art, which is superior in every way except size. I think this announcement just asserts that innovation in the photographic equipment realm is not alive and well.
so you compare small and lightweight native system optimized lenses that transfer exif data to huge and heavy lenses that are just a half or one stop faster which need a “stupid” adapter and would not be used for more than 10 shots before your arm fell off? you sir missed the point. Have fun with your DSLR
Canon 6D ($1700) = 770g, Canon 35mm f2 IS ($550) = 335g, total ($2250) = 1105g
Sony a7 ($1700) = 416g, Loxia 35mm f2 ($1300) = 340g, total ($3000) = 756 g
Price difference = $750
Mass difference = 349g
Based on my waste-of-my-time calculations above, the offset cash differential between your wallet and the camera should equalize such that no limbs are severed based on camera mass.
makes it a clear win for the Sony for me because I’m not “Megatron” but got the extra cash
LOL Let the fanboy spec wars begin! OVF vs EVF, IS vs no IS, AF vs MF. Oh shiz, what’s the filter thread diameter?! Yo, that canon takes more expensive filters. How many shots does that thing get on a charge and how heavy is an extra battery pack. Peace out brozefs.
The tone of this forum is so bad. Why can’t we all just chat, even disagree, while remembering ultimately we share an interest in photography? At least my interest in photography is much greater than any sense of loyalty to any piece of equipment or camera company. Any time someone starts arguing, someone will invariably namecall dismissively–idiot, fanboy, what have you.
Many have not learned to critique/debate/attack the idea not the person who wrote it. Separating the two would make things more civil.
Visit 43rumors and suddenly you’ll find SAR peaceful as Eden. 😉
Instead the EF 35mm IS take the Voigtlander 2.0/40mm Ultron for comparison, it’s MF and much smaller (200gr, 24.5mm long).
You just proved mathematically that he is right. It is lighter. And here is the visual part:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.368,487.86,ha,t
Wait… the brochure says it has a “minimum working distance of .37 meters”, but its close focus is listed as 0.5 meters. Are they saying that if you shoot at f22, the closest thing in focus would be .37 meters away? Hopefully it’s a typo, otherwise that’s some shady nonsense.
50mm = 0.45m
35mm = 0.30m
don’t know where you get those other numbers from
The brochure says that because if its “minimum working distance of 0.37 meters” it’s great for closeups. I realize now that that means the distance from the lens and not distance from the sensor.
Working distance as in from front of lens to subject.
MFD is from image plane to subject.
I wonder how they compare to the Leica 35mm and 50mm Summicron? I already have those 2 and use them on my A7R with an adaptor. Any advantages to go with a native mount lens other than EXIT info?
– cheaper
– lighter
– weather sealed
– automatic magnification
– click less aperture option
– lens hood included
pretty much sums it up 🙂
Crucially, much shorter MFD — 0.5 and 0.3m vs 0.7m.
You can sell them and get the Loxia if you are only using them on the A7r.
Most forgot to tell you this. Your Leica is not optimally designed for the A7r; they were designed for film (so no sensor stack thickness). On the other hand, these Loxia lenses are optimized: “The Loxia lenses are optimized for digital full-frame sensors, and incorporate the approx. 2.5 mm thick low-pass and infrared filters in front of the sensor in the corresponding Sony cameras.”
This alone would make these performing much better than your Leica ever could (especially that Cron 35). Look at the distortion also, pretty nil as far as I concern. This is a hard task considering the MTF is quite stellar on both. So consider what Zeisschen said, I don’t see the point of the Leica on the A7r.
Some samples of the 50 2.0
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/berlinbackstage/
very nice!
Ugh, really not liking that bokeh
I agree looks TERRIBLE! I was looking forward to this lens =(
Wow the cobalt and cinnabar color bands don’t clash nearly as much as I thought.
Great combo for neoteric circus clowns who lost their pentax.
I don’t know how the clickless option works. The literature says something like it can be “locked.” Does this mean the aperture ring can be dialed to an Auto position (like on Fuji X lenses) where aperture is controlled by one of the camera dials? I’d prefer a switchable clickless aperture like the Voigtlander MFT ones.
Oh I just didn’t read that part. Never mind.
Apparently many love to ventilate negative criticism in general. Let’s counterweight this a bit…
The price is EXCELLENT NEWS! As a matter of fact, those Loxia’s will be slightly under the price of comparable ZM lenses! That seemed impossible to me, since they will offer more functionality. Great job, Zeiss!
I don’t understand those critics about the price, sometimes even comparing with second hand glass!?? I can only say: come to your senses and compare apples with apples. As far as I’m concerned this is the best news of the whole announcement.
BTW, those lenses will be about as compact as the ZMs with adapter (the Planar, that I own in ZM will be some 7mm shorter! and a bit thicker). The weight of the Planar increases with some 55gr – not too much in regard of the added electronics and closer focal distance.
I also love the esthetics – also how the blue belt matches the orange of the body. A personal matter. I think it’s very beautiful, as is the whole lens.
The ZMs already perform outstanding (with some WA problems, when used on the Sony A7r), the Loxias will only improve this performance, especially in the wide angle department. Some criticize the smearing of the Biogon, but there is no smearing in the “Berlin 1” picture. So, like with so many lenses, if you don’t want no smearing at all, I guess you have to chose the right aperture. If you want a lens that performs perfectly in all circumstances, buy the Otus for 3,5 times the price of the Loxia. Or learn how to use a manual lens. When used with consideration, I’m pretty sure that the Loxias will perform outstandingly well. Exactly what we needed for the A7x bodies.
I have a few hopes. Zeiss will start with five Loxia lenses, so is said. Considering the price, I guess Zeiss expects a bigger market for Loxia than for ZM. So I hope there will come more than 5 Loxia lenses. Further, I hope the 85mm will be a Sonnar type with f/2 widest aperture. Especially in tele, a faster lens makes a lot of sense, IMO. And I also hope they will go further in tele than 85 and even 135mm. The EVF makes extreme tele (and wide angle) lenses absolutely possible. Please exploit those possibilities, Zeiss!
I say yes to bring back some of the legendary ZMs (like the 85/2, and most definitely the 15/2.8). Loxia definitely has a bigger market than the niche M-mount lens. I’m just afraid that Zeiss is choosing the safe route and going with a slow/less wide lens.
I understand that Zeiss wants to start safe, probably with the Tele-Tessar. But I hope they will come with more lenses pretty soon, like the Sonnar 85 and indeed the Distagon 18 ànd 15mm. But I’m a great candidate to buy a 135 and 200mm as well. If Cosina would make those lenses, the price could remain reasonable, I guess…
Why is the ZM 85/2 is legendary?! Is it because it is out of production?
AFAIK, it has focus severe shift problems, CA and other issues besides having been priced atrociously. An used APO Summicron 90/2 is cheaper than the so called “legendary” ZM Sonnar 85/2 and is easy to find.
Dual personality (not too sharp at WO for portraiture, definitely much more preferable than the 90AA) with extreme sharpness when stop down. I don’t have the lens myself but a few respectable photographers with the ZM 85 certainly prefer it over the 90AA or 75AA (the 75AA is quite closer to the ZM85 in term of draw).
Re: price
The ZM lenses are obviously cheaper than the Loxia.
You’re right but it’s a moot point when you get smeared corners on the Sony body.
Thats beside the point.
He said they ZM are more expensive, which is not true.
Just look at the prices: the ZMs are indeed more expensive. Where do you get your information? Maybe there’s a different situation in different parts in the world? I get my prices in Euro, living in Belgium.
The RRP’s are one thing, but street prices are different. If the Sony Zeiss 24mm or Zeiss Touits are anything to go by, the street price won’t drop much, if at all.
Zeiss price of the ZM Planar: €749,- (online Zeiss Lens Shop), the Loxia Planar is announced for €713,45 (found after a few clicks on Zeiss.com).
Zeiss price of the ZM Biogon: €1049,- (online Zeiss Lens Shop), the Loxia Biogon is announced for €965,55 (Zeiss.com).
You just need to look to found it. Please don’t claim things that arent’t throught.
Those prices come from Zeiss themselves. I don’t speak about possible going prices. Those can of course differ – the ZM prices, but the Loxia prices as well.
And re: smearing
There is smearing with the 35/2 in the extreme corners. You can see it in the pictures and you can see it in the MTF: look at the downfall of the tangential lines in the last few millimeters of the graph.
Much better than the ZM adapted, ofc, but still present.
Hmm, I’d think MTF graphs are just based on the optical design and are independent from sensors.
That’s a question for Zeiss then. I’d expect a lens optimized for digital cameras to be measured in a combo with a sensor.
MTF by Zeiss was measured (not calculated like other brands) on an optical bench. Since these Loxia lenses were designed for the Sony filter stack (instead of film like most lenses out there), the optical bench is likely equipped with a similar stack of glass during measurement.
Yeah I was aware of that, but I just wonder if Zeiss’s optical bench incorporated that A7 sensor glass stack. I guess if I were Zeiss I’d probably not, and it wouldn’t exactly be dishonest (since the designs could presumably be used on future FF mirrorless sensors, Sony or otherwise). I guess the fine print should say.
If they designed it with the stack in mind, it would not make sense to show an MTF graph measured without the stack since that would degrade the actual performance. As stated by Zeiss:
“The Loxia lenses are optimized for digital full-frame sensors, and incorporate the approx. 2.5 mm thick low-pass and infrared filters in front of the sensor in the corresponding Sony cameras.”
Dear Dean. On the “Berlin 1” picture, there is no smearing visible. That’s what I meant and that’s what counts for me. To me a camera is meant to produce pictures, not graphs. I’m sure you’re right that there is a downfall, but I believe, when shooting with consideration, the smearing can be negligible because virtually invisible. Well, in that case, that counts for “no smearing” to me.
Zeiss have never said they’ll start with 5 lenses. However, Sony have said Zeiss will make 5 MF lenses. Not the same thing.
I wouldn’t expect any more than 5 for a while. You won’t see number 5 for a year either. Just being real here.
5 lenses is all anyone would ever need unless you are a specialist (macro, for example), 21, 50, 85, 135, 200mm. what else would you want?
Well, given they’ve released a 35mm already, that takes your list to 6 😉
The 2/50 is well priced, but the 2/35’s too high, shouldn’t be more than US$1k ( it’s an MF lens! ). I’ll wait for Christmas sales.
Around about ZM pricing then. I wanted to be wrong. 😉
The blue ring is real? Great, it goes so well with the sparkly red/orange ‘look at me’ ring.
LOL, it doesn’t bother me one bit. I rarely look at those cinnabar/orange mount since I point me camera forward most of the time.
I love how the blurb for these lenses talks about not attracting attention. They know what the A7 looks like, right? When street shooting with my A7R, I have people asking me what I’m using all the time.
Why do they start with 35mm and 50mm? We already have two great lenses.
Because they can take that money to the bank.
I think the best thing to hope for now would be for Voigtlander to come in and replicate the Loxia strategy (manual, EXIF embedded, weather sealed), except offer their lenses at f/1.4 and a reduced price. If they can manage to produce them at a similar size and weight, then it would be an awful lot more to pay for the Zeiss name.
Except that Cosina manufactures lenses for Zeiss, and therefore stand to profit better sales of these new Loxia lenses.
i’m happy with my GX7 and CV17.5mm with higher zone focus, and 0.17meters working distance.