ProfHankD: GoPro has been doing a really nice job on these and I think the key interesting feature is that these are now really top performers in terms of wireless tethered control. For example, my Sony A7, which DPReview praised for its wireless performance, still frequently drops & remakes the wireless connection when shooting as commanded by my cell phone from 10 feet away... not cool. Let's hope that makers of cameras with bigger sensors notice that the bar for wireless control has been raised.
dPreview will praise any camera for WiFi as long as it's got "WiFi" label on body or a box.
StevenE: They really need to compare this with the other new products, like the Sony that has image stabilization and an lcd
This one has an LCD too. On a front. Monocolor. ;)
attomole: This is a good lens better than the Sigma as the Sigma is too big for street photography where 35mm is an ideal focal length IMHO the additional speed and edge performance are not important to me and not much anyway.
however because it says Zeiss on it an it's 700+ quid it going to meet with a hail of brand snobbery, and well let's face it is rather expensive for simple formulation.
Nikon surprisingly are doing quite well in this sort of space, their more recent 1.8 G lenses 85, 35 50 mm come in at often well under this price and offer decent performance. If you want to shoot primes on full frame. I doubt you will get a better value rig than a D610 with the aforementioned lens line up. shame their SLR line up at this level makes people so angry
"it going to meet with a hail of brand snobbery"Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 says hello.
Alex Velasco: Phenomenal lens. With lenses like these, Sony is indeed setting its stall out.
@Just a Photographer - AFAIK all of the E-mount Zeiss-branded lenses are manufactured by Sony up to Zeiss specifications.
Heaven is for real: For those haters or don't anything about Sony/Zeiss Partnership...
"Sony is the brand of choice for people looking for great design and high quality. In 1996, Sony came out with its first camcorder with a Carl Zeiss lens. Since then, Carl Zeiss and Sony’s cooperation has expanded to include compact digital cameras and camcorders, high-quality bridge cameras and interchangeable lenses for the Sony Alpha DSLR camera. Sony and Carl Zeiss develop Lenses for Sonys digital cameras together. Then the manufacturing takes place in Sony facilities according to Carl Zeiss specifications. It’s a partnership that combines premium-quality electronics and sensor technology with the best-possible optics for film and video cameras."
So please stop spreading wrong information!
yabokkie - door is this way: ----->
Jogger: Seems like there are a lot of b*tt-hurt folks on here.. Sony must be doing something right :D
There are always B*tt-hurt folks under Sony reviews. Since 2006 if not earlier.You must be new here, I guess.
Plastek: What about rainbow-coloring across entire frame?
^ IMHO a lens that got a varied color shift on a whole frame is unacceptable, regardless how sharp it is.
Not really. It's not sensor-specific problem as it occurs in both: A7 and A7r which got very different sensors - both: in megapixel count and AA-filter.
Autocrat: Steve Jobs famously said
“If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.”
Most businesses protect existing products, services, and processes and fear change. Such fear comes at a great price. Remember Kodak? Xerox? Blockbuster? Book stores?
No industry is immune – no company is safe.
Evolve or die.
Well, Nikon seems to be doing quite fine. They even experiment with smartphones and try to cooperate with companies strong on that market (Nikon is the one to get their Android compacts out first, and rumors about Nikon smartphone pop from time to time so there's certainly something in the air). They don't bother with Mirrorless cause they seem to collapse under their own weight anyway, but their AW series was quite creative - after all it's first WR mirrorless on a market.
As one of analysts said: Only Canon, Nikon and Sony will survive smartphone onslaught.
" We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.
So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.
KL Matt: Razor-sharp wide open. Wow.
Literally it's not. It begins to touch limits at F/4. Which isn't wide-open.
dynaxx: Why wouldn't a metal barrelled Zeiss lens cost more than the two plastic 35mm Canikon lenses mentioned in this Lab Test Review ? Compare the three lenses when they have been used for five years ( and their re-sale values ) and you'll see where the value lies.
The slower f/2.8 is inevitable is you want to keep the weight down to 120 grams and still have a durable construction.
Buying native lens always makes more sense than buying other lens and toy with adapters. ;)
@Andy Westlake - why would you compare DSLR pancake with regular Mirrorless lens? Pancakes got very different priorities than regular lenses.
Just another Canon shooter: Corner and edge performance is poor even on this high resolution sensor with no AA filter. 1+ vignetting at f/22? There seems to be a price to be paid for the short flange distance.
I'm afraid that it's not really how it works.
There are multiple examples where lenses with higher maximum aperture perform worse of these with lower on an equivalent apertures. Take for example 35 f/2 vs 35 f/1.4 from your own reviews - at aperture f/2 Canon 35 f/1.4 performs worse even though it's stopped down than wide-open 35 f/2.
It's not an art to build a dark, but sharp lens like Sony did. It is an art to build bright and at the same time sharp glass (look: Zeiss Otus).
Realistically I would argue that it's an issue with lens itself, cause somehow there are other FE lenses that work just fine.
But if you prefer to use this excuse then well... same can be said about next to every single issue that lenses got - chromatic aberrations are also a function of sensor and a lens (that's why CA is more pronounced on film-age lenses when used with digital sensor than it was on a film cameras). Sharpness is also a function of lens, sensor, and (to a very high degree) image processing (lenstip.com wrote a lot about this issue and how manufacturers manipulate with image to make it appear "sharper" in reviews).
In either case - I see no reason to skip this very notable problem in a review.
RobertSigmund: An overpriced piece of glass. There are better and cheaper alternatives (Sigma and Canon are mentioned), just not for Sony E mount!
Sony sells it's A7(r) relatively cheaply, so no wonder that the lenses are super-expensive. How do you expect them to earn money? Full Frame E-mount isn't a system for people who want to build a collection of lenses. It's for those who like high-tech (let me quote Sony manager: ) "wow"-effect bodies.
What about rainbow-coloring across entire frame?
bstolk: None of the samples shot wide open? I would like to see that DOF, especially from that f/1.4 lens.
There's no native f/1.4 lens for A7.
fengchun: "The camera has a total of 25 focus points to work with, and from our experiences, its focusing performance is on-par with DSLRs in good light, and a bit slower than the best mirrorless models."
Here i believe the "on-par" is with DSLRs' Live view auto-focus performance?
kimchiflower - mirrorless propaganda at it's best.
cheetah43: Is it acceptable to tolerate a noisy and shaky shutter in this day and age? What happened to the shutter technology of 50-60 years ago?
Max Savin - no, it's not.
abortabort - yep, you're right. Small body == compromise. That's one of a prices you pay for it.
armandino: the big attraction to me for a wonderful FF mirrorless is the true advantage over an SLR: the minimum distance from the optics to the sensor. When am I going to see superwide angles that truly take advantage of this?
armandino - it's as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. Short flange distance forces compromises in design which end up with various weird artefacts unseen on DSLR lenses, like rainbow-circles discolouration (eg. on FE 35mm lens), huge issues with distortion, various problems with edge sharpness (and a fact that resolution on the edges depends on a color of light you test against), etc.
Gold award for an interchangeable lens camera that offers next to no lenses? Well done.