These samples really don't look good.
Then again none of the DP Review samples look good.
jhinkey: Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.
Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.
This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.
I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.
I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .
What are you talking about? The 35mm f/2.8 is a compact prime. And I'm sure this is not the last f/2.8 prime for this system.
Spectacular. This confirms the DxO findings.
I'm happy Sony is following the OM-D route by releasing high quality primes from the start, even if they are significantly more expensive than standard Canikon offerings.
As an owner of the 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 I couldn't be happier and I've begun the process of selling all my Nikon lenses.
I cannot wait for what primes Sony/Zeiss have in store next. I've been playing with the Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA and Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA with adapter at the camera store. Those lenses are amazing...
Joel Pimenta: The poorman Otus...
Or better: the baby Otus.
This lens is considerably smaller.
G1Houston: Still most people will be quite happy for a very good 50mm f1.8 lens, like the one from Nikon or Canon, priced around $200 and weighs no more than 200g to go with this relatively inexpensive and light weight full frame body. This is how you can capture the market to build user bases to the point of no return, which is why Nikon and Canon are still holding on to most of their customers b/c SONY did not make it easy for most to switch.
58mm is also an odd focal length for FF, too long as a walk about normal lens and too short for head/shoulder shot. Is 58mm supposed to be a compromise to be between these two extremes? Any way, I don't understand it.
As a Nikon user I agree that these inexpensive 50mm lenses are sharp enough for most needs. However, these cheap 50mm lenses have terrible rendering and downright ugly bokeh. They are so mediocre to the point where crop alternatives render far more attractive images (Fuji 35/1.4 and Pana Leica 25/1.4 come to mind).
As the A7/R is competing with Fuji and Olympus, it makes a lot of sense for Sony to start with a very strong 50mm-equivalent, and a miniature 35mm-equivalent.
There's no doubt in my mind that Sony will follow with a cheaper non-Zeiss set of primes in the future.
0MitchAG: This just goes to show the u4/3 Panasonic-Leica is way overpriced! Isn't it silly that a Panasonic lens should cost more than this, on a smaller system? By all means the PL is great, but I'm sure glad I didn't pay the asking price.
The PL25 is priced just about right... look at comparable alternatives:
- Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX: $200, ugly rendering, soft.- PL 25mm f/1.4: $500, good rendering, quite sharp.- Sony FE 55mm f/1.8: $1000, excellent rendering, one of the sharpest lenses on DxO.
You get what you pay for.
Mazhe: Zeiss, I thought you said you were too good to do things for APS-C systems? :)
Thas was Leica...
fmian: More regurgitated Bayer filter trash from a company that's clutching on to it's camera division with its last dying gasps.Nothing to see here unless you want yet another new camera that will hopefully take a good photo for you.
Fuji fanboy troll..
... doesn't it hurt to see Fuji abandon it's rangefinder designs in favor of an OM-D clone?
AndreSJ: NX30E-M10FUJI XPRO/ XT1SONY NX7 (replacement coming soon)PANASONIC G6
Things are heating up, what should one get????
A7/R if you want the best.
Fuji if you're a hipster.
Olympus if you want tiny lenses.
LukeDuciel: Iti'll be tough choice between Sony A7(R) and Fuji XT1 for me.
A7:+ FF- Operation & Ergonomics; Lens choice and quality.
XT1:+ Design and operation- not FF
the IQ should be on par between the two.
I use D800 (same sensor as A7R) for work and own X100S (same sensor as XT1) Both of them can produce image that turns into amazing prints. The dynamic range and low light capability is definitely on par (kudos to Fuji, fighting FF with APS). I have not used A7, but from the reviews, the IQ is sufficient for me.
Sony's logic is always bizarre. I used to use NEX, sold because of the stupid design. RX100 is a keeper, but still leaving a lot of improvement wanted. On the other hand, I picked up the X100s naturally without hitch
People keep saying that FF means larger lenses, but then go to Steve Huffs website and look at the tiny Zeiss FE 35/2.8 destroying the huge Fujinon 23/1.4.
Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer all make small, high quality full frame lenses that are available on the market right now.
You can get that Fuji camera - basically a glorified D7000 with proper lens selection - and forever suffer the itch what if you had full frame... or you can just get the real deal.
framed1: Fuji have nailed it. They really are the "Apple" of camera manufacturers.
If this little guy's performance lives up to its spec sheet it will romp over the OM-D E-M1 with its unfortunate "bridge camera" styling. Heck, this little beauty might even sway on-the-fence FF shoppers.
If you are serious wouldn't this make them the "Samsung" of camera manufacturers? This is obviously a clone of the highly successful OM-D...
cheddargav: As a wedding photographer, I just want someone to give me 2 of these, the 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 for 2 weddings and I can compare it to my Canons. If the AF and overall performance is on a par with the 6D, I'm in
The AF on the 6D is not that spectacular...
I'm delighted to see another great alternative to the horrible APS-C Canon and Nikon cameras with non-existent lens selection.
So now the original OM-D has spawned two clones: on one hand the APS-C Fuji X-T1, and on the other hand the full frame Sony A7/R.
So with the Fuji you get a 24% larger sensor than the OM-D, but you have to give up IBIS and blazing fast AF.
Sounds like a great option for those who can't decide between an OM-D and an A7.
Though with the full frame alternative priced so competitively, that itch for the full frame magic might be unbearable. No matter what the equivalences say, the bokeh of the Fujinon 23/1.4 cannot even match the slow and tiny Zeiss FE 35/2.8.
ProfHankD: In almost every way, very similar to the Sony A7. However, the A7 is 24MP FF for about $300 more. That's a pretty small price bump from the X-T1's 16MP APS-C.
Bigger? Less attractive? If you go and take a look at Steve Huff's blog you'll see that the Zeiss FE 35m and 55mm lenses leave the Fujinon 24mm and 35mm in the dust.
And in the 35mm case the lens is much smaller to boot!
MikeF4Black: I'm not sure, but I think noone has mentioned the LA adapters yet. Don't they negate the whe "Oh so light, oh so small" concept, and look slightly rodiculois as well? They must serve a very important purpose (VIP).
@MikeF4Black, if you want a decent lens selection you should just wait until March until Zeiss announces its 5 native primes + the 2 additional primes Sony will announce soon.
If you can't wait that long, just get an M-mount adapter and buy all the Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer lenses your heart desires.
BillGarrett: Fuji seems to be on a tear with its new lenses! I've been shooting Nikon DX for 6 years, the last 3 with growing frustration about Nikon's apparent halt to building out its DX lens lineup. I've been thinking about jumping the fence to the Fuji X-mount; this lens makes the choice more compelling. But, oh, the price! The Sigma 10-20 I shoot on my Nikon cost less than half the price.
Though DX (and DSLRs in general) are a dead end indeed, the Nikon DX system has had this lens for ages and then some:
- Nikon 12-24 f/4- Nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5- Tokina 11-16 f/2.8- Tokina 12-24 f/4- Tokina 12-28 f/4
And your Sigma costs less than half the price because it is optically terrible. You get what you pay for. I doubt Fuji would ever release a lens as bad as that Sigma.
jhinkey: It's lenses like this one that really makes me think twice about having both a FX and m43 system - If I only had one system Fuji would be it.
You mean you want a system with lenses the size of full frame lenses yet with the image quality of micro four thirds? Because then yes, you should get a Fuji.
For all the trolls (yabokkie etc..): if you do the aperture equivalence, you also have to do the ISO equivalence.
To imitate an image captured by four thirds 17mm/1.4 ISO 6400 (clean on an E-M5), you'd have to set your full frame camera to 34mm/2.8 ISO 25600. Suddenly the comparison becomes less attractive when you do *full* equivalence...
JosephScha: Aperture: ... Lowest value 16Should that be "1.6" instead of "16"? If not, I'm confused. But then I'm confused by T1.6 instead of f/1.6
Yabokkie, a 17/1.4 does gather the same light on MFT as a 34/2.8 on full frame, but it concentrates this light on a much smaller surface, yielding better sensor performance.
So you have to adjust for equivalent ISO if not you are just spewing nonsense and/or trolling.
sebfarges: I have used the prototype of this lens this summer and did a first video test on OM-D E-M5 (new test with the final version soon) :
looks really good!