DigitalPlatonist: The front element is deeply recessed. Doesn't that mean they could have made the whole package a lot smaller?
yes, but it would be unusable without a lens hood
TN Args: The 35mm lens weighs 120g. Looks like a brilliant walkaround FF combo.
only if it was at least f2 and had a price of $500...
mario GTI: Kinda ugly, but I'm suspecting top notch IQ and performance.
which is kinda funny, given the reception of the first Sony DSLRs by the photo community..
shaunly: looks like a real winner here. Good job Sony. The 7R seems great for landscape photographer like myself looking to save weight when we go backpacking. With a few right lenses, I may just sell the D800.
Can't wait for the test results!
Yep. If this did not sound the alarms over at Canon & Nikon, they should prepare to be just a 3rd party lens producer in the future.
misha marinsky4: I repeat:
I challenge DPR to a double-blind print test; this Zeiss vs. the Sigma 50/1.4.
Four aperatures: 1.4, 5.6, 8, 16. Print size 16x20.
but of course, since you can't prove your imaginary better high ISO performance (which btw does have nothing to do with a lens, and everything to do with the sensor), you return to your "Zeiss color subtlety" mantra.
Well guess what, if you can't measure the difference, then those are your own subjective preferences so stop claiming nonsense like "Zeiss performs better at high ISO". It does not, because it has the same Transmission number.
Your logic is in the sense of "I like blue cars, so cars having every other color are worse".
Kodachrome200: I know its good but there is a question of diminishing returns. The Nikkor 50 F1.8 G is actually a superlative lens the will out perform most lens being used for by pro photographers today. This is 20x the price. Even if it was 20x better is there a need for a 20x better lens here. I dont doubt its great. but personally Id rather have my light autofocusing nifty fifty on most shoots. We have 50mm lens now because photographers prefer the framing of 50mm lens to 55mm and 58mm lenses. However 55mm lenses have always been better than 50mm so one has to ask how much less would the difference be if nikon made a 55mm 1.4 with autofocus for like $500. Again even if it was 8x better could the human eye tell it was 8x better. I mean at a certain point something has to become sufficent. We also found years ago in photography that photographers preffered 50s even with the diminished image quality. there is no reason to suspect this isnt still true
well, except that Zeiss just adds after-market spoilers and bumper stickers to the Civic, and sells it for a fortune.
It is YOU, who claims that Zeiss lenses perform better at high ISO than every other lenses - so it's YOUR resposibility to prove it.
Prove that f1.4 Zeiss lenses beat the current generation of f1.4 lenses from Nikon/Canon. Or just STFU.
Stanchung: In time, this will become the 'Zotus' range of lenses.
Dreamed of by many.
Some of you may get to fondle one through rentals or at the shop but alas a dream only for many like me.
I still think they should make an AF one. Then, like my dream of buying a Porshe, they will give me reason to buy one when I'm old and a bit blind. [it takes time to save for one!]
white shadow, so I presume you have tried all drugs as well
Yanko Kitanov: This is ridiculous the CoS of this item is TIMES less and when it gets compared to good HQ glass from Sigma, Nikkor and Canon it will even lag behind in terms of IQ....take my word and check DxO in a month...not to mention the ultra fast and accurate AF of the others... Well the farce goes on. ;)The most lovely Tomioka/Cosina 55mm f/1.2 goes for the price of the focusing ring of this 1kg heavy GUN
The difference is not that huge. It's more like one is a Corolla, and the other is a Corolla with aftermarket spoilers.
Spectro: Zeiss, just put an apple logo on it and people will say ""shut up and take my money.""
that's exactly what they are doing, except the Zeiss logo is worth much more than the Apple logo
please provide high ISO RAW examples supporting this Zeiss mantra that you keep repeating.
A 1.4 lens is a 1.4 lens, and since Zeiss lenses have the same Transmission as every other lenses, they provide absolutely no benefit for high ISO shooting over any other lenses with the same max aperture.
Stop comparing f1.4 Zeiss primes to slow $200 kit zooms.
The Photo Ninja: I can buy a heck of a lot of canon L lenses for that. It might be really great, but out of my price range. Also, how come no autofocus? Zeiss has AF on sony.
right, the mysterious fancied "Zeiss color subtlety", that no test can ever measure ...giving the edge to Zeiss lenses ever since marketing was invented.
To most Zeiss owners, the logo on the lens and info in the Exif is all that matters.
Paul Petersen: But will it out resolve the much cheaper Sigma 35 F1.4? I know they are different focal lengths but just saying.
I can make a similar table in Excel with the same credibility as this "LenScore" of yours, that nobody has ever heard of.
Alec: And by 'uncompromising professional' they mean a wealthy retiree. This is why buys those things. There's nothing wrong with that; on the other hand, any real working pro is value minded and comfortable with the notion of compromise to get the job done. I look at a lot of my colleagues in NYC and they rarely even shoot non-zooms, which get a workout and a beating - never mind a precious manual focus fixed focal.
This is a cool lend and I love the industrial design. I'd love to see f/1.2 and f/1.0 designs that are better than what Canon and Nikon had put out. Looking how far Rokinon and the like have come, both in quality and market penetration, it is conceivable they will start making attractive industrial designs and back them up with solid innovation, quality, service, marketing. Just see what Asys, Samsung, LG are doing to the incumbent companies in their fields. They're having them for lunch! Zeiss does not have long to rest on its laurels.
also, most wedding photographers (even the best ones) use a 24-70mm lens on one body, and a 70-200mm on another.Nobody has the time to switch primes back and forth.
marike6: Same price as a Leica 50 f/1.4 Summilux, but without the beautiful knurled metal barrel.
But a $4000 normal lens?
This new Zeiss lens will probably do well as a rental. But most modern pro-grade lenses provide more than enough resolution and performance for even the most demanding applications so it's not clear to me why such a lens is even necessary.
ZhanMInG12, oh please, so I need to check ONE specific Zeiss lens and compare this to the pro level Nikon/Canon lenses ?Because a 35mm Zeiss is mediocre, somebody mentioned the current 50mm Zeiss lenses are mediocre as well, and based on DXO, the 25mm Zeiss lenses are no better than the 24mm 1.4G Nikon.It seems that only those Zeiss lenses that have not been tested perform the best..
M Lammerse: As a professional photographer I have no need for this lens, but I know for sure it's an exceptional build lens with an exceptional image quality and with an exceptional investment value.
HowaboutRAW, are you a Zeiss employee ?
Can you please explain how this specific f1.4 Zeiss lens improves your high ISO images in any way over ANY OTHER f1.4 lens costing a fraction of it's price ?
It seems you have no idea what you are talking about.
Jane79 - are we talking about some imaginary Zeiss marketing database now ? Because according to DXO, the Sigma is at #4, while the highest ranking Zeiss lens is the Distagon T 25mm f/2 ZF.2 at #7.
what's all this "future-proof" BS ? Zeiss lenses do not resolve any more detail than common pro 1.4 lenses from Canon/Nikon.
Zigadiboom: Zeiss Otus = 'Uncompromising optical and build quality' at an 'uncompromising price' with 'compromised styling'.
Latest Sigma offerings = 'Uncompromising optical and build quality' at a 'compromised price' with 'uncompromised styling'.
...and when the Sigma AF motor breaks down, you'll end up with a "Zeiss" version of the lens :D