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.
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.
If I were still a Nikon DX user, I'd be all over this lens right now. It is the perfect zoom for DX users. Unfortunately it came 5 years late, and I sold my Nikon gear 3 years ago due to lack of native, light-weight lenses.
The 17-55/2.8 was too heavy, the lack of 16 and 24mm primes unbearable.
Jim Evidon: Leica is steadily breaking away from Panasonic for their small camera line. They are going for very high quality cameras to satisfy every need; from completely manual M's to automatic fixed prime lens Q's. I'll stick with my M9P with a Fuji X100 backup for now, but the Q looks like an ideal small street shooter/travelcamera as long as price is no object. This camera is getting back to the original Barnack concept; a small carry around camera with few complications. Keep it up!
What are you talking about? I'd bet good money that this camera/lens is a Pansonic design for "testing the water" just like the RX1 was for Sony. The f/1.7 aperture gives it all away.
It wouldn't surprise me if this camera forms the basis for Panasonic's new full frame mirrorless line. Most likely Panasonic is hoping for a Panasonic/Leica partnership similar to the Sony A7 with Zeiss Loxia and Batis lenses.
Looks 100% Panasonic to me. They just glue the Panaleica lens on in Germany and call it "made in Germany".
What I would like to see is an IQ comparison to cheap A7 + cheap 28/2.
King Penguin: So this Fisheye is larger and heavier than my FULL FRAME Nikkor 16mm AF 2.8D......mmmmm, the benefits of M43....LOL.
Sorry M43 guys, but facts are facts!
Fri13 you don't know what you're talking about.
Sergey Borachev: These prices just ensure that most people continue to go to M43. I really doubt how much better quality, if any, you can get out of this Zeiss 16-50mm than the smaller, lighter and much cheaper Panasonic 12-35mm or Olympus 12-40mm
Yeah, thanks, I can stop looking at Sony cameras from now on, since they are still making good quality lenses only at such prices. So long!
@Sergey, these full frame f/2.8 lenses have the background separation if a f/1.4 lens on M43. Imagine you could throw away all of your M43 primes in favor of just one full frame ZEISS zoom. That's why professionals spend this amount of money on these lenses.
Is DP Review going to try to explain the discrepancy between its studio test results and DxO Mark?
Canon informercial from a site sponsored by Canon. No surprises here...
This camera is a RX10-clone disguised to look like something better. The RX-10 has a target audience, but for 4K use I don't see why anyone would choose this Canon over the flexibility of a GH4.