This lens is going to be worth the cash they're asking based on what I see so far. Well done Sony & Zeiss!!
I'm putting all three on my "want" list - I hope they can keep the dates listed as I originally thought the 90mm macro was shipping in March but I noted it's no where to be seen on any website; and now I read May - Oh well - as long as it gets here before summer gets moving.
"What will those photographers do now?
Well the good news here I think is that they’re so well-known, and they’re such high-calibre photographers that I doubt they’ll have trouble finding another job whether it's as staff photographers or freelancers."
Translation: They're out of a job - they get to pound the pavement and knock on doors to see if anyone wants to hire them.. .
I like that 35 and the 90 - time to put in the pre-order :) I don't know what people on here are complaining about... sheesh
Serious Sam: IBIS is good for low speed and still object. For shooting street where 1/250 is a norm then it isn't that useful.
I hope they have improve the AF tracking as the original A7(s) AF tracking just sucks.
With the 24mp sensor, I don't expect it to be a low light king like the A7S but lets hope they improve the noise performance by 1 stop and make it usable at 12800. That will be good enough.
You make assumptions when you state "This is not usable when you shoot (sp) walking people on street" - you make the assumption that the photographer wants to capture "still" motion (i.e. no blur due to movement of the subjects) - not all photographers may want still motion and may intend to shoot blur - I have done this myself many times while street shooting - and I would shoot low ISO film (ISO 100) at 1/15 - I get the type of images I want and I intended to get. Don't make assumptions that everyone will shoot the way you shoot or believe they should shoot.
Jogger: Is this even a viable market??? i.e. do people really mount non-Leica lenses on $8000+ Leica M bodies??? Wont your fellow 1%ers laugh at you??
As a Leica owner and user, it would be good to consider more than just the "cost" of items - the Zeiss glass IS good glass and is perfectly fine on M-mount bodies. I currently own Zeiss and *GASP* Voigtlander glass along with *GASP AGAIN* used Leica lenses. I really wish people would look past the dollar signs or megapixels or "Image Quality" when commenting on gear on DPReview.
iAPX: So, to fix Typ 240, Leica created a new 240-typ camera, with enough RAM and maybe a firmware that don't bug when you shoot fast?
I wonder why it's not available as a free fix for actual owner of typ-240 that have a buggy camera?I also ask myself why it costs $1000 to remove a Leica logo and add a little RAM?
Is it a joke?
Odd... I don't have a "buggy" M240 - nor have I experienced any "bug" when I shoot it "fast" but then again, I'm not shooting multiple frames per second. I also have owned DSLRs since the Canon 10D and owned an EOS-3 before that and never shot multiple frames per second. Maybe that's my problem though.... it's clear that I'm not using my cameras to their full capacity and I should be shooting as fast as possible without regard for the number of frames I will have to edit, the number of similar images I will have or the amount of flash cards (or film) I would have run through. Boy - it's pretty clear that the M240 was totally the wrong camera for me !! Thanks for letting me know!
probert500: Does it offer a menu option that shows what you could have purchased with the $4000.00 you wasted?
For those folks who've shot rangefinders for an extended length of time the issue is there is only one (currently) digital rangefinder camera.
The M is, like it or not, the only game in town. If you want to play then you have to pay - if not, there are plenty of capable "rangefinder-like" systems including the Sony A7/r - but the difference is in focusing - while you can focus quite easily using just the rangefinder on the Leica M, the focus peaking and manual focus tools on the Sony are, sadly, not the same and do require more time.
If you're all about autofocus then there is a plethora of options open to you.
John Driggers: "Firmware 18.104.22.168 adds a few new interesting features such as expanded Auto ISO options and the ability to use live view with any lens."
Oh my, that is groundbreaking stuff that is. A few more firmware updates and this camera is liable to catch up with the rest of the industry.
As the kids say.."haters gonna hate"
Neodp: This does demonstrate the necessity of both great still IQ and not disregarding video performance (no matter the challenges) in the state-of-the-art design. Albeit within amazing pocket limits(not terribly limited).
That does not mean pocket cameras are better overall, or a better value for everyone. The cost here is way to high. No, not that it can't command a higher demand and to a point deservedly for good innovation. There are many cons here too. Manufactures are simply not doing the best they can, per value.
While Sony is doing commendable things, clawing their way toward the top; woe to you [however] if Sony controls the market! You'll then have to rent your cameras or something worse.
Apple's (don't know about Samsung's) phone camera sensor is (for the 5 series at least) is Sony based.
"you will get the complete scope of functions and performance as described in the manual of your camera"
Maybe it's me but I read that as Leica releasing a camera that was, truly, not ready for production. This firmware now makes it a production copy and no longer beta.
munro harrap: Very uneven resolution, at the borders scarcely ever lifting above 1500lpm- This is LESS than an 8MP sensor. OK, at f5.6 in the middle its OK, but as the sensor resolves 4000lpm, and this is an f2.8 lens it is a disappointing one. Compare to Samyang 35/f1.4...We buy wides to get more in at closer distances and to grasp situations. Now, I don't know about you, but if I had to display prints from an A7R I would be very unhappy to with this lens, since only the central area will be sharp until at least F8. Not only that, but the step down into mush at wider apertures outside the central area renders it useless as a wide-angle prime. It is under-designed- it should be equally sharp allover at this stage in optical history- it is a 78rpm in the age of Blu-ray, and there are many sharper consumer f3.5-4.5-5.6 zooms at a fraction of the price.And check the Sigma 35mm f1.4
How many of those consumer zooms can natively fit the Sony A7/A7r mount?
Daniel from Bavaria: Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good. Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.
I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony. Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - . If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well. Very interesting times for all of us!
@Dave - perhaps you don't see the reason because there are no other lenses (native autofocus lenses to the camera itself) available currently made by other manufacturers.. Sigma, Tamron, or Samyang have not (or have not) made any lenses for this new Sony mount yet. So, this lens sits on its own and, ergo, Sony can charge whatever they want for it. There is no stipulation that you (or anyone for that matter) has to buy it though.
This does not surprise me.When I had my D700 & my SB-900 was "malfunctioning" (would misfire/not fire/fire when I hadn't even tripped the shutter) while on camera I decided to do some research. Not only had this happened to my close friend but also many other photographers online. It was a common problem that may have been due to carrying the camera with flash attached in a sling strap thereby having the camera & flash hang upside down. The flash is heavy & the contacts b/w the flash / hotshoe were weakened by the method of carry. All I had to do was point Nikon to the various Google search terms / results and Nikon fixed the out of warranty D700 for "free" - yes I had to speak to someone above the tech but it was rather "matter of fact". Nikon, however refused to admit any issues with either the flash or hotshoe.
I don't know why Nikon can't admit they made a mistake & just allow the return / exchange - it would build far better relationships b/w Nikon & their customer base.
I'm not a "fanboy" (or "fanboi" as some are want to spell it). I own a Nikon D600 (w/o the oil issue) and a Leica M7 and a Rolleiflex T and the Sony A7. I usually don't get hung up on reviews - I just do my own - if it's good enough for me, then I'm happy with the product/camera/item.
But as a photographer with about 35 years experience I'm behooved to understand how 1/60 shutter speed can result in "blurry photos". I'm more apt to believe this isn't the shutter speed's problem so much as the shaky hands of the photographer in question (or the fact that you're using 1/60 to shoot F1 race cars - people walking 3mph are not blurry @ 1/60s). Mind you, this issue occurs with Auto-ISO, according to the review, on the Sony - a feature which I don't use (either on my Nikon nor on the Sony) - perhaps it's due to my film days and how I was taught photography. I simply set the ISO for my conditions and work accordingly. Conditions change, and I change the ISO. Not difficult really.
Meh.. I personally don't care what a reviewer has to say about it right now - I'm having too much fun shooting my Leica M-mount lenses on this camera. I've heard all sorts of detractors and potential issues with it and have yet to really feel "this sucks" or "boy that's horrible". But then again, I shoot with a manual focus M7 for a lot of my own shooting.
AF is AF.. anyone can shoot it - and that's great - but the beauty of this camera is the ability to take those MF lenses and USE THEM with all this newer technology. That opens up a different world altogether. I believe that is what is lost on some folks. It's not for everyone but if you grew up with manual focus/manual exposure/film then once you learn to use the Sony effectively, you'll be happy as a pig in "you know what" :)
beholder3: So you get "silver" awards and 84% for:- unreliable autofocus (" no way of persuading the lens to focus accurately at all")- poor sharpness at the aperture it is mainly selling for("anything but sharp wide open, giving rather soft, low-contrast images")- overpriced / poor value for the money ("Very expensive")?
The three key factors suck. Not even mediocre.
Makes me think the "silver" is the silver dollars offered by Nikon / the Amazon gear shop to smoothen these review results for allowing good sales figures.
Hmmm.. . The review leads me to suspect a couple things (as I own a copy of this lens and have since mid-late October):1) They have a bad copy2) Their test cameras must be a bit "off"
I have never had a problem with the AF on this lens and the copy I have, on my D600, functions perfectly and is far more sharp wide open (at the focus point) than my previous 50mm f1.4 G ever was.
My suggestion to the lot of you who want to pass judgment on the lens without trying it out first... go and try it out on your own camera and see for yourself. It's worth it imho.
As someone who had no intent of purchasing this lens; but upon testing it out on the D600 I did end up buying it, sharpness was but one factor. To my eye (and in comparison to my current 50mm f1.4 G) this new 58mm was far sharper at the focus point at f1.4. The out of focus areas were rendered quite nicely and the way the photo is drawn by the lens is what attracted me. I rarely read MTF charts because, what/how I shoot, I often don't care or worry about the corners.
This lens has replaced my 50mm (I sold it the same day) and I will be happy to keep the 58mm and 35mm as my main shooting lenses. Heck, the 58mm may even replace the 85mm f1.4 D I still own.
DaveCS: Maybe it's me but the title of the DPReview post:NYT offers a look 'hometown' across the U.S. through the eyes of teens
Makes absolutely no sense. It needs, at the very least, an "at" nestled in there between "look" and " 'hometown' ". Sorry but while the photos are great title read not well when missing word thing (catch the drift?).
= You can "look there" and understand, without being told "look at there" or "look over there." Army drill sergeants bark "Eyes right!" =
Yes, that's correct, a person can say "Look there" or "Eyes right" as a command, and be understood. However, the last time I checked, in reading DPReview (or any other online publication for that matter) I am reading and not dealing with a person directly, hence the difference and the reason why the original headline did not make sense.
Maybe it's me but the title of the DPReview post:NYT offers a look 'hometown' across the U.S. through the eyes of teens