I like it. The pop-up viewer is a great addition. I'm not 100% sure I see the point of a 42 mpix sensor in there. I guess they just want to make Leica look bad there :)
jesus_freak: It's puzzling why Sony is so dead set against touchscreens, yet so innovative in many other areas..
Sony's philosophy is that if it has a viewfinder, it doesn't need a touch screen.
Personally, I couldn't care less.
armandino: too expensive for a 21/2.8. At this price I will get a Voiglander 21/1.8.
Gaah what a bunch of unintelligent comments.
Firstly, why on earth would you pick an early-adopter system like the A7-series if you wanted good value glass? Wouldn't it be 10x smarter to get a DSLR with Sigma glass?
Secondly, you are complaining that Zeiss is more expensive than Voigtländer? Seriously? Will you proceed to complain that Leica is more expensive than Sigma?
And why do you call this a Sony lens?
I am starting to seriously doubt that you have an A7RII. You just don't seem to know what you are talking about.
DVT80111: Who said there are not many lens choice with Sony E mount?
I say how deep is your pocket?
And I find it funny how Temporel claims FE lenses have terrible IQ. Which one has terrible IQ? The cheapest one the 28/2 is still better than anything Canikon in that FL. These claims are hilarious.
Sony and Zeiss have managed to put out the most compelling lens line up since Leica M, in just 2 short years.
People look at test charts on the internet and draw conclusions about lenses without trying them.
The Sony Zeiss FE 24-70/4 is a spectacular zoom lens.
Sure, in terms of sharpness it is only on par with the Canon 24-70/4, which is still better than the Nikon offerings.
Nevertheless, the key strength of this Sony Zeiss lens is how the field of (de)focus bends away towards the edges behind the subject. This makes the subject jump out of the frame more than I've seen from any Zoom lens so far. Combine that with excellent colors (T* coating), great bokeh, and the fact that it is tiny, and you have the Sony Zeiss FE 24-70/4.
People will continue to berate it, but in fact, there's nothing like it on the market.
Treve1: Really wish they would release the Loxia range of lenses for Fuji X mount. This, paired with the X-T1 would be perfect for street photography.
Cane: why does every lens for this system end up being like $1400?
@Cane: because every lens for this system ends up being best-in-class!
JacquesBalthazar: Nice! Would be interesting to compare the Milvus 21mm with this one on a A7IIR. The Milvus has a more complex optical design and is much bigger and heavier (and costlier). If it does not outperform the Loxia, that will again say something about the mirrorless advantage. For manual focus lenses anyway. Did anyone compare the Loxia 35mm with its ZF2/Milvus cousin in such a setup?
Yes, both the Loxia 2/35 and the 2/35 ZF2 were tested at lenscore.org and the Loxia rates higher.
teddoman: No full frame body yet, just an enticing photo, and they already have a 2.8 zoom in the works? WTH, Sony?
The lens above is a Tamron lens. You can already buy this Tamron lens today and use it on your Sony camera: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845351-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html
Caerolle: So, I see all these Zeiss manual-focus lenses for dSLRs, and I wonder, how do people use them with modern dSLRs, which aren't very good at manual focus in the OVF?
Do people mostly use them stopped down a good bit, so they *can* be focused in the OVF? Or only use them on tripods with Live View? Or do focus bracketing?
Most people use these lenses for video and focus in live view.
Jetfly: I'm still waiting for a Zeiss lens which offers autofocus capabilities for Nikon mount. Just like Batis for Sony FE.
@luxor2: Zeiss has plenty of AF options for Sony listed on their website.
RichRMA: Where is Zeiss getting these lens family names from, the CDC?
It is great that Zeiss uses human-readable names for their different lens lines.
Much better than EX DG HSM II or AF-S G DX.
Johannes Zander: Looked at the Milvus 100mm design and the 100mm Makro Planar. Is the Milvus just a repackeged Planar?
Only the 85mm and 50mm are redesigned.
M1963: So many remarks on manual focus. Which is faster - rotating a focusing ring or fiddling with buttons and dials to select the focusing point?
Manual focus sucks on DSLRs.
straylightrun: They really should have just made a mark II of the 25/1.4. I don't see many peole getting this when the 20/1.7 is more compact and versatile.
Not interested in an updated 25/1.4 --> this lens is too big. I can carry a Zeiss Loxia instead which is vastly superior.
A faster 20/1.7 would be killer, but I've already given up and am using the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 instead which is only marginally bigger on an A7.
Sorry for mixing up micro four thirds and Sony FE, but I use both systems side by side, and am only interested in micro four thirds if it can offer something full frame can not (i.e. Oly 75/1.8, Panasonic 35-100/4-5.6, etc..)
John Vickers: Umm, So that's equivalent to a Full-Frame 50mm f/3.4, right ?Is that exciting ?
You can calculate lots of equivalences for lots of lenses and camera combinations, but at the end of the day what matters is what DIFFERENTIATES systems, not where they are equivalent.
An f/0.95 or f/1.2 lens on full frame can produce results which cannot be achieved on micro four thirds.
But some of these micro four thirds lens-camera combinations offer a level of portability not available on full frame. Especially on the tele end (75/1.8 and the collapsible 35-100).
peteygas: It has the DOF of a 3.4 BUT light gathering of 1.7
...per unit of sensor area on a sensor 4x smaller.
shademaster: The 540g is what really reminds me I'm happy with my 85g 30mm Samsung NX pancake. It's not as effectively bright (f/3 effective vs. f/1.8), but hey, for 6 times the weight...
APS-C lenses have nothing to do with this product. My phone lens is even 100x lighter.
cesjr: Nothing against this lens or FF DSLR, but when people wonder why Fuji ILC here's exactly why. I'm not saying this lens and FF Canon offer nothing over an XT-1 and 23 mm. But if you want something higher quality on the lens front but don't want the huge size and cost of Canikon FF, Fuji is a very good option. Everything is a compromise in size and cost. And I just like the balance struck by Fuji between quality, size, and cost. It does offer something over Canikon - higher quality somewhat lower cost APS-C. Nobody else seems to be doing that. Not the M4/3 folks. Not Sony. Not Canikon.
Sony FE 35/2.8 is better than the Fuji 23mm and smaller.
With Sony you can then still choose to mount the faster 35/1.4 or the manual focus Loxia. More choice, more flexibility in size, higher IQ.
Mike99999: 1) This lens should have been released together with the original D7000 back in 2010. The timing of this lens is baffling. First they kill DX by not releasing lenses and forcing everyone to m43 or full frame, then they release DX lenses. Great.
2) IQ is poor. The 17-55/2.8 is significantly better but has no size/weight advantage over full frame and lacks VR.
I guess everyone is better off with the Sigma 24-105 and a cheap full frame body.
@steven: I'm amazed at people that are in denial and keep talking themselves into buying into dead system (DX). I don't see any situation where one would be better off with the DX lens except a deep denial and clinging to Nikon's third rate camera system.
The Sigma is optically superior, full frame is vastly superior, and the difference in price is small.