acidic: F2.8? Why so slooow? That's F1.4 equivalent in m4/3 terms.
@armandino: Can you use the 21/1.8 Voigtlander on an A7 series camera? No soft edges or color smearing? Just asking. In any event, life is full of compromises. If you can find a lens that suits your style of shooting, then go for it. If not, then find a good compromise.
Temporel: one more reason to stay away from Sony's cameras.
What? I don't get it. But that's OK. You don't have to bother trying to explain.
Boss of Sony: What is the point of a lens without AF in this day and age? AF is one of the functions most photographers need more than any other.
This is a common reaction from people who have never used MF on a mirrorless camera with modern focusing aids (i.e. peaking and magnification.) It is really easy, fun and fast--not as fast as AF, but fast enough for most situations that don't involve rapid action. However, mirrorless MF is more precise than AF can ever hope to be, and it's very different from MF on a DSLR, which is almost an act of faith.
noflashplease: Nikon leads the wide angle market with the 20mm F/1.8, which costs almost half as much as this Zeiss, or should I say, "Zeiss-badged Sony lens?" The pricing of this lens demonstrates why so many Sony A7 users go with adapted Canon and legacy glass? For 1/3 the price, how much worse is Canon's EF 20 F/2.8?
"The pricing of this lens demonstrates why so many Sony A7 users go with adapted Canon and legacy glass? For 1/3 the price, how much worse is Canon's EF 20 F/2.8?"
I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of A7 series owners who use Canon glass are current or former Canon users who already own Canon lenses. But as the selection of FE lenses continues to expand, we will see more of those people choosing native FE lenses from Sony, Zeiss and others. It's natural to prefer shooting without an adapter, especially when the quality is so high.
@dcolak: No, I mean that at 21mm on a FF camera, DOF is deep, even with faster lenses, unless you are right up against the subject. To rephrase my previous question, how often does one need ultra-shallow DOF when shooting this wide? I won't say that it would never be needed, but it would certainly be very infrequent. For the Loxia 21 to be f2 or f1.4, it would have to be much larger and more expensive. Zeiss made a very practical decision in choosing f2.8. It's fast enough for 98% of real world shooting. If you need something faster, good luck finding it and paying for it.
Rod McD: 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.
35 and 50mm are the most popular focal lengths for prime lenses. That's all there is to it. Also, Zeiss already had the basic designs in their ZM lineup. They just updated and optimized them for the A7 series. Both are great lenses, especially the Loxia 50.
RichRMA: You get a really good zoom, and the primes don't offer much more in-terms of image quality these days, so really all they have or might have going for them is speed and this one is only f/2.8.
True, but IQ will be inferior at all focal lengths between 16 and 35mm except for 21mm. Look, I use prime lenses almost exclusively, but I am very impressed by the IQ from the FE16-35. It gives the Batis 25 fairly stiff competition at 25/f4.
Robgo2: I used the Zeiss Contax G 21/2.8 Distagon on my beloved Contax G2, and it was spectacular. The rear element of that lens projected far into the camera body, thus making it virtually unusable on the modern A7 cameras. I wonder if the Loxia 21 is a completely new Distagon design. It certainly does not resemble any previous Zeiss 21/2.8 that I have ever seen, whether for rangefinders or DSLRs. Does anyone know its derivation?
Oops. I stand corrected. The Contax G 21/2.8 is a Biogon. Thanks for picking that up. It is the Zeiss 21/2.8 for DSLRs that is a Distagon, but that, too, looks very different than the Loxia 21, supporting the information above that it is a new design.
It will be very interesting to see how the Loxia 21 compares to the FE 16-35, which is mighty good for an UWA zoom. I expect the Loxia to be superior, but by how much?
Too slow, really? How often do you need a larger aperture in an ultra wide angle lens? Remember, this is for FF cameras. Are you looking for shallow DOF? Well, forget it.
I used the Zeiss Contax G 21/2.8 Distagon on my beloved Contax G2, and it was spectacular. The rear element of that lens projected far into the camera body, thus making it virtually unusable on the modern A7 cameras. I wonder if the Loxia 21 is a completely new Distagon design. It certainly does not resemble any previous Zeiss 21/2.8 that I have ever seen, whether for rangefinders or DSLRs. Does anyone know its derivation?
MERLEWINE: As an advanced close-up photographer, I understand your point, but don’t like the slow drift of your post that most photographers won’t notice it. There are those of us who do notice and need a lossless raw format and not have it processed or semi-processed for us. I bought the Sony A7r and the A7s and returned both for reasons there is not enough room here to detail.
I will consider the A7rII when they offer a lossless raw option, and while they are at it, give us some batteries that last longer, and make sure that all levels of EVF focusing are sharp. Meanwhile, my Nikon D810 is doing the job.
"Dude, this is 3.200 USD camera that is crippled by the problem Sony cameras had for years. Sony did nothing to fix it."
Crippled? That seems a bit harsh for a camera that is capable of such superb IQ and only shows visible artifacts very infrequently under certain circumstances. But if that is still unacceptable to you, then by all means, do not buy the A7RII.
Robgo2: Since upgrading from DxO 9 Elite to DxO 10 Elite costs only $69, I felt that I didn't have much to lose and went for it. Right off the bat, I can see that tonal adjustments are improved with white and black points being more stable, i.e. they are less likely to shift with other tone adjustments. Highlight recovery seems better as well. Overall, I like the new version and think that it should serve most users well.
However, in head to head tests with Photo Ninja, PN is the clear winner, and that even includes Noise Ninja vs. Prime NR in super high ISO shots. Prime is hugely overrated (and overhyped), IMO. It may remove noise, but it does so at the cost of smearing detail and producing blotchiness. Neither program offers local adjustments. For that I use Perfect Photo Suite and get better results than are possible with raw convertors such as LR and C1. Sure, it means working on a converted file, but that's hardly a tragedy.
Three weeks after my last posting, and you are still inflamed. As I said previously, you need to take a pill and relax. You also need to re-read my earlier post in which I clearly indicated that DxO is one of my top choices in raw convertors, though it still trails Photo Ninja. I have done countless head to head comparisons that lead me to this conclusion, something that I am fairly certain you have not done. But if you disagree, that is fine, just don't falsely accuse me of always "putting down" DxO.
Man, you are testy. I don't look for DxO threads. I posted in this one, because I purchased DxO 10. I believe that entitles me to express an opinion on it. If anything, you seem awfully defensive about DxO. Definitely take a pill and relax.
I do occasionally search for PN posts, some of which also mention DxO. That is how you and I bumped into one another in the past, and as I recall, you PM'd me for information on how to use Photo Ninja. If you choose not to use it, that is fine with me. Just don't tell me or anyone else what we should or should not post on this forum. I will write what I please, and I could not care less if you disapprove.
Gee, and I thought that my review of DxO 10 was quite positive, or did you miss that part? My only criticism had to do with Prime NR, which I think is fully justified. But it's true, I am eager to share my enthusiasm for Photo Ninja, because it is a new product from a small company that can use favorable publicity in order to get people to try it. Still, there are many threads about PN in which I do not participate. And in case you're wondering, I have no association with Picture Code.
Now maybe you should chill out.
Topaz DeNoise works very well, but it is not an easy program to master, by which I mean to use it optimally and not simply choose one of the defaults. And you have not responded to my contention that Prime NR produces smearing and blotchiness. I know for a fact that I am not alone in this belief. Do you disagree based upon your own experience?
Right. As with all software, results depend on one's skill in using it. As I said in my brief review, I like v10 of DxO, but it did not take me long in head to head testing to conclude that Photo Ninja produces better detail and tonality, at least to my eyes. Also, I tested both programs with hugely noisy shots taken at ISO 12,800 with a Pentax K-5II, and PN was easily superior. I have found that in such circumstances, Photo Ninja/Noise Ninja produces a very fine, but pleasing, film-like grain pattern with minimal smearing and blotchiness, which is far preferable to the grain-free, but blotchy results that I get from DxO/Prime. Moreover, Prime is much more difficult to control. What you see in the tiny preview box is quite limited and does not always represent how the overall image will look after conversion.
That's my take on the subject. DxO 10 is currently my second choice amongst raw convertors, and I much prefer it to ACR/LR, but Photo Ninja remains choice number one.
Since upgrading from DxO 9 Elite to DxO 10 Elite costs only $69, I felt that I didn't have much to lose and went for it. Right off the bat, I can see that tonal adjustments are improved with white and black points being more stable, i.e. they are less likely to shift with other tone adjustments. Highlight recovery seems better as well. Overall, I like the new version and think that it should serve most users well.
Robgo2: The covers of "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper" are almost certainly the most famous in the history of recorded music and are fitting icons for some of the greatest pop music ever.
@JDThomas: Perhaps I'm not as hip as you, but it seems to me that Elvis's following these days is rather limited. My son, who is in his mid-thirties and is very much connected to the punk and indie music scenes, would not agree with your assessment of Elvis's popularity with younger generations. It's not non-existent, but neither is it very significant.
FWIW, I am of the generation that grew up on Elvis's music. I remember distinctly just how quaint it became after the Beatles arrived on the scene. We liked Elvis as kids and teens but lost interest when something fresher and more creative came along. And as the Beatles matured musically, they essentially redefined popular music. Even musicians who follow in their wake and seek to return to the "authentic" roots of rock are deeply in their debt.
@JDThomas: No doubt Elvis was highly influential, mainly through popularizing black music with white youth, including the British lads who became the Beatles. But my point was that Elvis's own recordings have not been embraced by succeeding generations. Granted, there are still some Elvis impersonators knocking around, but who goes to see them other than people above a certain age?