surlezi: No EVF no buy.
It might have an EVF overlay on the ground glass screen in the VF. That would offer both optical and EVF viewing with wysiwyg and data etc - sort of like a DSLR version of Fuji's OVF/EVF hybrid in the X Pro 1.
Glad to see a small and sealed 35mm option. The fact that it's an unusual optical design suggests that Fuji have gone out of their way to offer something special. I'll be interested to see how it performs. The only things that are distinctly missing are focusing and DOF scales.
Ironically, no-one really thought that Fuji's 35/1.4 was large and what many Fuji users really want are some smaller alternatives to the larger 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 56/1.2 lenses. Hopefully this lens signals the start of a series of small, sealed lenses. All with an aperture ring of course.
This is certainly faster than Zeiss's DSLR Distagon 21/2.8, but it weighs almost a kilo by itself and we've yet to see how it compares in IQ. Add Nikon's new 20/1.8 into the comparison. For mirror-less adapters it will also be interesting to see how its IQ compares to the newly announced Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 which like the Nikon only weighs 350gms.
I'm into landscape, hiking and travel and I don't want mega weight WA primes at all. For me UWA images are all about what happens in the foreground, not shallow DOF. So again for me personally, f1.4 in UWA lenses is a complete waste of time. I'd love to see modern optical design expertise applied to give us better high grade *small* lenses. Yes they'd be slower, but in an UWA lens, that's fine for many people.
Wonders will never cease...... Canon actually finally worked out that offering a built-in EVF is a good idea compared to omitting them completely or offering some expensive add-on accessory that blocks the flash shoe and gets lost, left at home, etc.
I always wondered why Zeiss offered the 35mm and 50mm first when those FLs were already catered for by Sony. I would have bought into the A7 series IF there had been a decent WA (20-24mm) available from the start. This is the first one that appeals to me - solid, aperture ring, and has focusing and DOF scales - far better to me than the gimmicky AF Batis 25mm design. And far smaller than an adapted SLR Distagon 21/2.8. Let's hope the IQ lives up to it.
These look good, but what of the corner issues that have plagued UWA short registration lenses on the A7 cameras? No mention....?
Rod McD: Interesting designs. It's good to see independent offerings designed for mirror-less (as against DSLR lenses with extended barrels). OTOH, I'm generally suspicious of very fast WA lenses - they often have crappy corners. It's no accident that the best 21mm lenses remain slower offerings from Zeiss and Leica. Let's await some tests to see how they fare.
I agree that one sometimes needs the speed, but note that f1.4 is only suitable for subjects that work with very shallow DOF. It's not a panacea for action or low light all the time. Our uses are probably different. If I was offered a Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Samyang 21/1.4 for free, I'd take the Zeiss every time. It's nothing to do with the value - it just suits my uses better to have high IQ across the frame. In any case, the new Samyang may surprise us - perhaps it's as good? Let's see some tests.
Rod McD: All the talk of it being a DSLR mirror-less hybrid might give a DSLR the option and benefits of an EVF (ie live view at eye level through VF and data) but it won't change the registration distance.
If Pentax are going to introduce a FF system part of the equation is the lenses. Some Pentax owners have film era lenses that will cover FF. The company sells a handful of digital era designs, including the new FF zooms they've announced this year. What I will want to see is the future primes. Pentax have a long history of offering compact high quality lenses and I'm hoping they'll be offering something like that in their new designs. Every other manufacturer seems to have abandoned compactness as a goal. If Pentax offer another load of massive "me too" f1.4 and f1.8 WAs, there won't be anything to differentiate them from brands I could have bought years ago. Let's see.
Zvonimir... There are some exceptionally fine lenses in the mirror-less world and not all of them are corrected by SW. (NB that Pentax also offer SW correction on their DSLRs for certain lens issues. Perhaps it's not "cheating" when Pentax do it?) Your endless railing against mirror-less systems here and in the Pentax Forum is bizarre.
@ Tsvonmir Tosic. Registration distance is not irrelevant - it's an absolutely critical matter inherent to the design of any camera system and is chosen carefully at the design stage by the manufacturer. Pentax's K mount registration was chosen to be 45.46mm decades ago and will obviously remain there. IF they do offer a camera with a hybrid system it will have all the benefits and limitations of that longer registration distance. But to infer that short registration distances aren't for a serious system is ridiculous. Tell that to Leica and these days Fuji, MFT, and Sony - all of which have professional users.
If Pentax do offer some sort of hybrid eye-level OVF/EVF viewing, it might give some of the advantages of both systems, but the registration distance won't won't allow it to offer comparable compact size.
Interesting designs. It's good to see independent offerings designed for mirror-less (as against DSLR lenses with extended barrels). OTOH, I'm generally suspicious of very fast WA lenses - they often have crappy corners. It's no accident that the best 21mm lenses remain slower offerings from Zeiss and Leica. Let's await some tests to see how they fare.
All the talk of it being a DSLR mirror-less hybrid might give a DSLR the option and benefits of an EVF (ie live view at eye level through VF and data) but it won't change the registration distance.
belle100: Zeiss marketing department is a master of illusion. They don't have many lenses but they make up a lot of sub-brands to disguise as lots.
I don't know that it's even mastery of illusion. It's just plain obvious that most of these lenses are a re-shelling exercise.
There was nothing wrong with the existing Zeiss lenses...... I wish they'd put their efforts into developing new Loxia MF lenses for mirror-less.... The Batis line doesn't appeal at all with its gimmicky plastic focusing window, no aperture ring and no DOF scale.
M1963: So many remarks on manual focus. Which is faster - rotating a focusing ring or fiddling with buttons and dials to select the focusing point?
AF has its place but so does MF. One of the best things for me about lenses that are deliberately designed for MF is that they have a decent long focus throw and a DOF scale for hyperfocal focusing. A long MF focus throw is great for precision, close work and macro and hyperfocal focusing is ideal for classic landscape. Most AF lenses suck in terms of both their MF throw and DOF scale (if they even have one).
Another bird name, but same glass? These lenses look like the identical FLs and same optical constructions as the good ol' ZF/ZEs. Not so? No 25mm or 28mm lenses though.... No new FLs either. Looks like a re-shell to me, but I guess some testing will tell if there's anything new in performance.
Good to see quality MF still alive and well. And real aperture rings, at least on the Nikon versions.
Rod McD: Am I the only person here yawning? More choice in 35mm and a 45mm, both with enough feature acronyms for alphabet soup and both rather substantial? Good they might be but excited I'm not. With all the CAD design technology available, surely it's not beyond manufacturers to offer smaller lenses with high IQ? That would offer some real choice that's more than a difference in brand name on a large lens. I'd be happy to use moderate apertures to get smaller lenses, but the world seems to have been overtaken by fast lens religion.
Yes, your right, I'd probably take the 35/2.8 for my travel and hiking uses if I were to invest in the FE mount. It's not a bad lens stopped down to landscape apertures. I guess my disappointment with the direction the optical world is taking is that there are in fact fewer and fewer small options at all in FF gear. BTW it's not about the money at all - I'd pay more for a high grade, small, light and sealed lens than a fast one. Obviously I've different priorities from the more popular view....... Cheers, Rod
To Dave Oddie and PazinBoise. It may not be new but the preoccupation with lens speed and the abandonment of compactness as a goal has kind of got out of hand IMO. It's actually getting difficult to find smaller lenses without going Leica. And exactly how big does a good 35/2 have to be? - Forget the Canon 35/2 on size. The Pentax FA 35/2 lens is only 44mm long and takes a 49mm filter. It's all of aspheric and AF and a good performer. The Leica Summicron 35/2 takes a 39mm filter and is another good lens. The fact that it's not AF may effect the barrel size but has nothing to do with the necessary front element size needed to collect light. These new lenses are all substantially larger and take 67mm filters. Saying that that's fine because it's smaller than the f1.4 lenses that are even bigger just shows how far out of touch we are with what small means.
@Tieu Ngao. Yes, but you have to carry them to get to your subject, and yes, if you happen to shoot at wide apertures. Like many others, I'm into landscape and nature. So I appreciate portability and rarely use very wide apertures. An assumption that is always made here is that fast lenses are some sort of panacea for low light. They aren't - they only work IF your subject suits shallow DOF. Mine don't. So moderate apertures are just fine, and small size greatly appreciated.
Am I the only person here yawning? More choice in 35mm and a 45mm, both with enough feature acronyms for alphabet soup and both rather substantial? Good they might be but excited I'm not. With all the CAD design technology available, surely it's not beyond manufacturers to offer smaller lenses with high IQ? That would offer some real choice that's more than a difference in brand name on a large lens. I'd be happy to use moderate apertures to get smaller lenses, but the world seems to have been overtaken by fast lens religion.
Despite all the arguments here about doom, gloom and dwindling sales (of non-phone cameras) we probably have more choice than we've ever had before. It's a good time to be a photographer.
Phones may have taken the bottom of the market because they answered the needs of millions, but there's still a case for the specialised camera. Even if the numbers change, I suspect that there will always be a market for both.
Yes there are developments from its predecessor, but yet again Canon's M series falls short of better featured cameras from the mirror-less competition. Limited native lens range. No built-in EVF. Not sealed. No sale. Canon appear to be aiming at the bottom of the market as if mirror-less users are limited to P&S upgraders (if there are any left ). There are too many great mirror-less cameras for this to make Canon a competitive mirror-less player unless they introduce a higher level model.....