Previous news story    Next news story

Zeiss announces pricing & availability of Touit lenses for mirrorless cameras

By dpreview staff on Jun 3, 2013 at 11:16 GMT

Zeiss has announced that its first two Touit lenses for mirrorless cameras are now available for sale. The 12mm F2.8 wideangle has been designed according to the 'Distagon optical concept', and has an RRP of €920 / US$1,250 excluding VAT. Meanwhile the Planar-type 32mm F1.8 normal lens will cost €670 / US$900 excluding VAT. The lenses will be available to fit Sony NEX and Fujifilm X-system cameras, and include autofocus but lack optical stabilisation. The X-mount versions also feature aperture rings with 1/3 stop detents. The next model in the line, a 50mm F2.8 Macro, is expected to appear at the end of the year.

Jump to:


Press Release:

New ZEISS lenses for compact system cameras

 Like the 50mm focal length in full frame, the Touit 1.8/32 reproduces the perspective of the human eye

New market segment for ZEISS camera lenses – first members of Touit family with dealers starting June

OBERKOCHEN, June 3, 2013 - Starting immediately, the first two members of the new ZEISS lens family Touit are available with dealers. With the extreme wide angle lens Touit 2.8/12 and the robust standard lens Touit 1.8/32, both for Fujifilm X and Sony NEX cameras, ZEISS is entering the new market for compact system cameras (CSC) with autofocus, interchangeable lenses. The new lens series is characterized by a powerful optical and mechanical design, which fully exploits the potential of the cameras thanks to the low distortion and stray-light absorption. Noteworthy is also the professional product design of the new lens family, which has already won several design prizes.

“With Touit photographers can use ZEISS lenses on two leading mirrorless system cameras,” says Michael Schiehlen, Director of Sales at ZEISS Camera Lenses. “We are addressing this market because it offers interesting application possibilities for sophisticated photographers and because the segment promises very interesting growth.”

By supporting Fujifilm X and Sony NEX, ZEISS has decided on cameras with an APS-C sensor in order to guarantee maximum image quality. The APS-C sensor is the largest possible sensor currently available on the market for this segment. The Touit lenses are characterized by their high production quality, guaranteeing longtime usage. Like all ZEISS lenses they also offer outstanding imaging performance. Typical for the new family is above all the combination of compactness, light weight and precise, durable mechanics. “High imaging quality and light weight are the most important advantages of Touit and are especially interesting for ambitious users of compact system cameras,” says Schiehlen. “The angular view is identical to DSLR lenses for APS-C cameras, but the lens is significantly smaller and lighter.” The metal body underscores the lenses’ robustness and durability. Those parts that are not relevant to key functions were designed in high-quality plastic in order to reduce weight. Compatibility with all Sony NEX and Fujifilm X camera functions, a clearly accentuated 1/3-step aperture ring on the version for Fujifilm X, nine aperture blades for an almost circular bokeh, as well as excellent stray-light absorption through the ZEISS T* coating are the hallmarks of the design of this new lens family.

With an angular field of 99 degrees, the wide angle Touit 2.8/12 lens shows its strengths particularly well with landscape and architectural photos

The Touit 2.8/12 offers the most extreme wide angle fixed focal length in the current APS-C range. “It is an extremely sophisticated lens which has been equipped with the great effort and care that an extreme focal length of 12 millimeters requires,” explains Dr. Michael Pollmann, who is responsible for the development of the Touit lenses at ZEISS. The lens has eleven lens elements arranged in eight groups and was designed according to the Distagon optical concept. In addition, the lens has floating elements, two aspheric lenses and three lens elements made of high quality glass materials with anomalous partial dispersion. This lens is especially suited for nature and architectural photography. The product design of the Touit 2.8/12 has received an iF as well as a red dot product design award.

The Touit 1.8/32 offers the user an angular field that resembles natural eyesight. The goal during the development stage was to create an easy-to-use standard lens that the photographer can leave on the camera continuously and which can be used for a wide range of everyday situations. Touit 1.8/32 was developed according to a modernized Planar design approach that was adapted to today’s requirements: instead of six lens elements, which is common for the Planar, the Touit 1.8/32 is equipped with eight lens elements and therefore offers an even higher i]maging performance when used with digital sensors. The Touit 1.8/32 can be used in many types of situations: travel photography, family photos, photojournalism and portrait applications. The Touit 1.8/32 recently received an iF gold award and red dot product design award for its innovative product design.

As announced during photokina 2012, the Touit 2.8/50 Makro will come on the market at the end of 2013. Other focal lengths will follow.

The recommended retail price of the Touit 1.8/32 will be €670 / US$900 (excl. VAT). The recommended retail price for the Touit 2.8/12 will be €920 / US$1,250 (excl. VAT).

Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 and 1.8/32 specifications

 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format sizeAPS-C / DX
Focal length12 mm32 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountFujifilm X, Sony E (NEX)
Aperture
Maximum apertureF2.8F1.8
Minimum apertureF22.0
Aperture ringYes
Aperture notesFujifilm X-mount version has aperture ring, Sony E-Mount does not
Optics
Elements118
Groups85
Focus
Minimum focus0.18 m (7.09)0.30 m (11.81)
Maximum magnification0.11×
AutofocusYes
Full time manualYes
Distance scaleNo
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight270 g (0.60 lb)210 g (0.46 lb)
Diameter82 mm (3.23)65 mm (2.56)
Length86 mm (3.39)60 mm (2.36)
Filter thread67 mm52 mm
Hood suppliedYes
23
I own it
6
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums
29
I own it
16
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 159
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (10 months ago)

Now people can put an overpriced Japanese lens with a "Zeiss" badge
ON to their Japanese "SONY" camera with a " Hassleblad " Badge on it

then they can pretend to have a Swedish camera with a German lens on it
just like top photographers had back in the days of film.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (10 months ago)

These 2 new lenses pretty much look like garbage, hopefully they perform a tad better than what they look. But at these crazy prices, they should only be gotten by those well-heeled aficionados who are hell-bent on supporting the German economy... no matter what and at what price.

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (10 months ago)

What the Zeiss ? As well as silly names Zeiss appear to be doing a Leica - "we must be good cause were so expensive" - Zeiss glass is good, some say brilliant - but I can't help feeling that Zeiss are milking this for each and every penny and should their glass be better say that Fuji it will be a tiny improvement for a lotta cash. Looking forward to the reviews. Samyang where are you?

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

But Fuji was already close to Zeiss quality. Anybody expecting astoundingly better results from Zeiss would have to be willing to pay a lot more--say around 3000usd per lens.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (10 months ago)

Who's the twit at Zeiss who didn't think to do some name research?
A twit lens... how could you miss that???
Even in Germany we speak English and could spot that a mile away.
Probably some narcissistic marketing or product manager's ego got in the way of consulting others for their opinions. He should get a pay cut for that one!

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

could be a word coined in Japan,
or to please the Japanese manufacturer.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (10 months ago)

Touit twits for dimwits, anyone?

0 upvotes
phive
By phive (10 months ago)

Actually, Touit is pronounced similar to the English words “Do It”. It *is* German. Applying synthetic phonics to non-English words is not always the ideal way to ascertain proper pronunciation.

So anyway, according to the Zeiss blog, the name Touit comes from a genus of parrot. The branding for the new line is meant to highlight the characteristics of both the lenses & the parrots: agility, mobility, etc.

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=3518

0 upvotes
dhlee
By dhlee (10 months ago)

interesting!! need some review..

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (10 months ago)

Seriously DPR, give us a tool to block people in the comments section. Tired of seeing the same old trolling bullsiht.

And get rid of the swear filter while you're at it. It stops nothing and makes the site appear more immature than it's commenters. You've been the "web" how long now? And you think you should be filtering foul language? Or even think you can?

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (10 months ago)

@ micahmedia: "Tired of seeing the same old trolling bullsiht."

Okay, okay, so don't post here then, and then you do not have to see it. Thanks, really!

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

When I see the size of those lenses, it makes no sense to me to step away from my EA1 adapter on the nEX and MF focusing on excellent FF and APSC lenses. The Sigm 30/1.4D is same bulky, but I do not think that the Touit will ever outperform it. CA in corners is almost the same, but corners of the Sigma 30 are better. Look at samples on my buddy's site here.

http://www.pbase.com/lou_giroud/sig3014

you can see what the 30/1.4 does on the NEX-7.
an idea of Bokeh in night scenery can be seen here.

http://www.pbase.com/lou_giroud/image/146798683

That lens can be found in Sony A mount and runs in AF on EA2 adapters as well. We share this lens and I love to work with it.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (10 months ago)

"but I do not think that the Touit will ever outperform it."

...well that's the unknown value: exactly how will this lens perform. Until we know, everything else is speculation.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

think one reason why 32/1.8 has to be bulky is that it uses old design with old issues, just as old lenses that are collecting dust. then it has to be bulky so that the peripheral qualities won't look too bad.

0 upvotes
matt k
By matt k (10 months ago)

Be interesting to see how the 32mm lens stacks up against the Fuji 35mm lens. I'm looking forward with great glee to see a shootout between these 2 lenses.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

XF35/1.4 is obviously a better lens but I'd give it a score of good at best. may be better than so-so but definitely not excellent, still expensive at about 400 US (in Japan).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

The Fujifilm XF 35 f/1.4 is an excellent lens, one of the best, if not the best X lens currently available. And 400 USD for an f/1.4 prime is not expensive especially considering it's 600 USD in the US. I don't see the point of the 32 f/1.8 in X mount at close to double the Fuji 35, but some may.

I've only seen on Zeiss Touit review but of the 12 f/2.8, and the samples looked quite good (on ePhotozine).

0 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (10 months ago)

I will complain about the price when I get a round Tou-it.

5 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (10 months ago)

I have a feeling the 32mm will not be a very good seller, but the 12mm likely will, despite it being the more expensive lens. The 32mm doesn't offer enough performance advantage over native lenses on either platform to justify its price, while the 12mm does.

1 upvote
km25
By km25 (10 months ago)

Have you read the reviews on the Fujion 14mm F2.8. Wide open to about F4 the edges, the far edges at F4 are a "little soft". The center super sharp. In raw there is just a little distortion. CZ makes good lens, there wides are some of the best, but Fujifilm has created a hard to beat wide. CZ may not beat it, I feel they will only equal it.

0 upvotes
devwild
By devwild (10 months ago)

I agree, from what I've seen so far the main downside of the 14mm is the dramatic light falloff, and the main downside of the zeiss may be distortion (first review I found with stats said about 2.5%, which is just enough to be annoying for architectural). Otherwise they are close, and both can be fixed in post. However, 18mm equivalent is notably more appealing to landscape folks than 21mm equiv, and may push them over the edge.

I'm borrowing a 14mm right now and comparing to the voigtlander 12mm, and the difference in perspective is noticeable.

0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (10 months ago)

Well the 32mm is not the focal lenght I wanted and the 14mm may be a litte shoft on the edges, like no super is not going to be. The 12mm CZ will just be an other choice, for me th e 14mm is a litttle on the wide, well so am I. The best lens Fuji makes so far for the Xs is the 60mm F2.4. Good luck CZ, I would not pay like 50% more for a lens that is a liitle better then Fuji, that is given that it will be better. These lens are more for the Nex line, that needs lens a lot more then Fuji. Nice to have choices, but so far Fuji has only delighted me with their lens and cameras.

4 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (10 months ago)

The 60/2.4 is Fuji's best x lens? Funny, i'd say its their worst. Putting out a 60/2.4 macro at launch instead of the 56/1.4 makes no sense.
As for these zeiss lenses... I can't imagine they'll sell many in the X mount.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

very disappointing Fuji don't have many good lenses. hope they can redo it all together after they make good profit.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

Not exactly dispelling that stark dilemma for NEX owners between choosing lenses that are good and lenses that a normal person can afford.

1 upvote
Airless
By Airless (10 months ago)

They'd better be some incredibly superb lenses at those prices.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

About the 12mm construction... don't you think it is strange? The lens widens at the end, leading to large 67mm filter thread, but the front element is actually small, smaller than the main lens barrel. Is it to avoid vignetting from the filters?

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

Very likely, yes. Does make for an oddball lens, but no one who knows high-end NEX and X-Mount lenses will be uncertain what you have.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

I think ideally all lenses should have large front elements compressing the light to small (and light, for fast AF) focusing groups, so they all should have the form like that. It is just the front element of this one is actually small (which is expected from relatively slow WA lens). If the front element would be bigger to almost cover the front, the lens could have been f/2, within the same dimensions.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

there is an issue that for superwides smaller front filters may cause vegnetting. then think it's a better idea than a drop-in one.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Isn't 12mm on APS-C (18mm eq) a little TOO wide in most cases? For close objects (like shooting inside a room, or on a city street), the corners will be pulled apart (ugly effect), and when shooting landscapes, you'll have to crop to something like 5:2 or 3:1 to have reasonable amount of land and sky left, and these crops are too wide for HD media.

I think Fuji 14mm is more suitable for 2:1 or even 16:9 landscape crops.

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

I have a lens on my Nikon 1, the 6.7-13mm that is equivalent at its widest to 18mm, and I just love it. If the lens is a good one the image can look quite natural. The problem is that many simular lenses have major barrel distortion, heavy vignetting, and are very soft away from the center. Good or bad, such lenses always have a slightly strange look because humans don't see clearly at such a wide angle, but without those other problems the strangeness becomes beautiful and powerful.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Even if a lens like this does not have "major barrel distortion, heavy vignetting, and are very soft away from the center", the corners will be distorted (pulled), and subjects farther away much smaller than they are in normal perception. And I like WA, just a little tired of all those shots in 4:3 and 3:2 which should have been 2+:1, with land and sky completely overwhelming the tiny strip of what could have been an interesting and beautiful vista if it were actually visible (I am not generalizing, sometimes the land and the sky ARE the subjects, but rarely).

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (10 months ago)

Check m4/3 stellar panasonic 7-14mm, which is even wider - 14mm FF eq. So 18mm eq. is actually quite nice.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

@Xellz, the fact is even those dark lenses have good resolution, at the end of the day you still get not as good images because noises destroy the resolution (or resolution goes with noise reduction whatever).

have a look at DxOMark lens tests and compare the results of a same lens on different cameras of different noise levels and you can see it. why 4/3" is not a practical option for serious photographers.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (10 months ago)

Not all serious photographers use high ISO, especially with UWA. Point here is, level of m4/3 lenses is a lot higher and bigger choise than on nex and fuji only starting, choice is really small.

And btw, m4/3 used by serious photographers for pro work in various fields.

0 upvotes
devwild
By devwild (10 months ago)

Some people just like the extra wide effect for it's surrealness and dramatic look. Great for sunsets or water motion. It's very popular for landscapes right now, especially with a mixture of foreground and background elements. This has been common since the 10-22mm range zooms on APS-C DSLRs became popular, and why fuji has a zoom in that range on their roadmap.

0 upvotes
devwild
By devwild (10 months ago)

Oh, and it's also use in real estate a lot to get pictures in cramped spaces and make rooms look bigger than they are. :)

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (10 months ago)

One would like to think at this price level and as prime lenses, all the corrections "are in the glass," and don't rely on the camera's software engine.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

What about a design that left simple-to-correct distortion, so that the digitally corrected images were really good vs one that tries to correct everything optically, making the residual imperfections difficult to eliminate?

6 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

Exactly. There are good reasons makers are going to digital correction of CA and geometric distortion. Most CA is simple to adequately correct digitally and painful to eliminate optically, often introducing worse problems. Simple barrel and pincushion distortion are easy to fix, but if you try to solve the barrel distortion and end up with less pronounced mustache distortion, is that better? If it varies in shape with focal length or focus it can be very tough to fix.

1 upvote
RStyga
By RStyga (10 months ago)

I had the impression that if you correct distortion the image becomes softer...

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (10 months ago)

"In the glass" means plain good optics, instead of software chicanery. And that's what one expects from the name and price.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

"in the glass" means a big fight among conflicting requirements that can never be settled down peacefully.

> that's what one expects from the name and price.

both mean one thing: ripping off. German brands mean significantly extra cost from a third-class Asian maker, and less available service than major players.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
nathantw
By nathantw (10 months ago)

I'm a bit embarrassed to ask but I don't know the answer and knew you folks would. Are all mirrorless mounts universal? Would lenses that fit on a Panasonic fit onto a Sony or Olympus? Most of the time when looking at new lenses for a mirrorless camera a mount isn't ever mentioned and that's the reason why I ask.

2 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (10 months ago)

No, most mirrorless systems are unique and similar to DSLR's in that each brand has it's own mount.

The one exception that I am aware of is micro four thirds. Both Panasonic and Olympus make cameras in this format and their lenses (as well as those of third party manufacturers who make lenses with this mount) are interchangeable.

In addition to the Oly and Panasonic lenses, Sigma makes a few lenses, Leica makes one and there are few other less known brands. For micro four thirds you can also buy adapters that will let you use just about any major lens made for any other camera system, but in manual mode.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (10 months ago)

It depends. Sony and Fuji cameras and lens have different mounts and thus lens aren't interchangeable. But Panasonic and Olympus use the same mount, Micro 4/3 (m43), and thus you can share lenses between both brands. For sure some lens features would be lost but they are relatively minor and not critical. For example, Oly m43 lens on Pana bodies won't have any image stabilization since Pana implements it optically in the lens and Oly implements it in the camera body. Similar differences will be in certain optical corrections that each body implements differently. AF speeds and behavior will be also somewhat different.

0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (10 months ago)

@HDF2 - Both Nex and Fuji mounts also offer adapters to various other lens mounts. So it's not unique to m43.

0 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (10 months ago)

Thank you everyone!

0 upvotes
Diopter
By Diopter (10 months ago)

So ...
It would be naive to expect a responsibly priced 12mm prime E-lens this year.

1 upvote
Soggoth
By Soggoth (10 months ago)

Would be interesting to see 32 mm Zeiss VS 30 mm Sigma comparison.

1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (10 months ago)

Zeiss 32mm vs Sony 35mm (and 30mm is mentioned there too):

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/05/finally-got-around-touit

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

very interesting that I'm impressed by the 12mm (at least on an APS-C body regardless of price) and not at all by 32mm. let's see what Roger Cicala will say when he tests more copies.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

Exciting time ahead for Zeiss lens lovers. I wondered why Zeiss has decided to start their venture into the mirrorless camera market by targeting Sony NEX and Fuji instead of micro 4/3.

Currently, Sony has already been making some Zeiss lenses for themself and Fuji has quite a well accepted range of prime lenses. From their popularity, the Fuji camera owners would be unlikely to go for Zeiss with a much higher price. Wouldn't it be better to go for the micro 4/3 market where the market is bigger and have a need for some higher quality lenses?

With the introduction of the Olympus E-P5, for example, there is an obvious need for some better quality lenses. I am sure they can make some really good wide angle lenses for this larger market.

Maybe DPR can throw some light into this and perhaps ask them when they meet them in future.

1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (10 months ago)

On the contrary, Fuji owners buy one of the most expensive mirrorless cameras (excluding Leica) available at the moment and so are much more likely to buy premium lens for it too unlike budget shooters (m4/3, NEX) who look for best bang for the buck.

It's similar to Android vs iOS. There are much more Android devices but it's more profitable to release app for iOS as people are more likely to have money for apps if they buy more expensive phones/tablets.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

I think 12/2.8 may be slightly better than XF14/2.8 (if we ignore the difference of angle of view), and 32/1.8 is not as good as 35/1.4 (which I think is between so-so and good).

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (10 months ago)

Because m4/3 already has many stellar lenses and with how much Zeiss is asking for those lenses it sure going to be difficult to sell enough. For example 7-14mm panasonic (14-28mm FF eq.) it's really sharp even in corners, amazing performer.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (10 months ago)

I hope these sell well!! I want to see a Zeiss 85mm F2, thats really slim in size!

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

I hope not, for a very simple reason that efficiency is good for both the users and the providers.

0 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (10 months ago)

I hope so, for the real reason that quality is best for consumers and the economy.

1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (10 months ago)

127mm equiv is a bit weird focal length. I can't understand why don't people say 90mm instead of 85mm when they speak about their lens wishes for crop sensor cameras...

0 upvotes
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (10 months ago)

"Just Tou it".

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (10 months ago)

I woke up and saw this news just like a dream. I thought everyone know the pricing, blah blah blah months ago? Is this real that they just make an announcement today?

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

From the press release: "OBERKOCHEN, June 3, 2013"

0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (10 months ago)

Who is Zeiss trying to fool here with these offerings?

3 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (10 months ago)

Obviously not you.

13 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (10 months ago)

According to the reviews out for them, they are actually excellent lenses. The build quality is on a very high level as well.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (10 months ago)

I had the opportunity to see some tests with the Touit on X system, and observed in comparison with Fuji, was the color rendition was more weak/outright at my eyes. Is not a serious problem, but relevant for some.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (10 months ago)

Yeah, when you compare Zeiss to Fuji they don't seem to be any better. On the other side when you compare these new Touits to all that Sony junk that is available for NEX they appear to be a spectacular groundbreaking lens with exceptional micro-contrast and color rendition with splendid sharpness from corner to corner even wide open...

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Digitall
By Digitall (10 months ago)

Yes the difference is very subtle with compared with Fuji lenses.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (10 months ago)

> Like the 50mm focal length in full frame, the Touit 1.8/32 reproduces the perspective of the human eye

I wish we would stop repeating this myth.

6 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

It's not quite the perspective, but the relative dimensions of the objects in the frame that are similar to the human eye. Having been shooting with a 56 mm (efl) lens for a while now, I can say this is true.

1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (10 months ago)

"but the relative dimensions of the objects in the frame that are similar to the human eye"

That's exactly what perspective means.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Den Sh: Actually, there's a bit more to perspective than the perception of dimensions. There's also the position of the eye relative to the objects. A standard lens compresses perspective in the horizontal and vertical planes, either compared to the human eye or a wide-angle lens. So it doesn't render quite the same perspective as the human eye. The relative distance of the objects, however, emulates what we perceive, though it is debatable exactly which focal length comes closer to the human eye - some say it's 50mm (in 35mm terms, n. b.), some say it's 45mm.

0 upvotes
JohnMatrix
By JohnMatrix (10 months ago)

@onlooker

I agree. That quote from the press release stood out as odd to me too. I think everyone aceepts that changing the focal length without changing the subject distance doesn't change perspective.

So the statement as written in the press release (or was it even DPR's own words?) needs qualifying with additional info regarding subject distances.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

12/2.8 looks better than superwide zooms for APS-C DSLRs.
32/1.8 is useless no matter how good is the quality unless << USD 100.
this is a good place for Sigma who can make better lenses at lower prices.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (10 months ago)

Sigma can design good lenses when they choose to. I have the Sigma 30 f2.8 and it is OK(not spectacular) optically but mechanically I seriously doubt that under constant use it will last more than a couple of years, if that long. There is more to a good lens than just optics. Cheap lenses are cheap for a reason.

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

> 32/1.8 is useless no matter how good is the quality unless << USD 100.

Show me a single ~35mm f1.8 lens that is less than $100. Just because you can get cheap crappy 50mm f1.8 lenses for FF doesn't mean that decent APS 35mm lenses should cost the same.

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> Show me a single ~35mm f1.8 lens that is less than $100.

yes, mount a 50/1.8 on 6D and stop it down to f/2.8 will do you the job. APS-C lenses will cost the same (50mm equivalent). 12/2.8 should cost much less than 18/4+ becasue the equivalent back focus is shorter, about 27mm as opposed to 40+mm.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

@yabokkie First of all the 50mm 1.8 only sharpens up in the corners from around F4 (ideally f5.6) so that's pretty poor "total light" as some people here like to quote, and how exactly is a $100 lens mounted on a $2000 camera is better value than a $900 lens mounted on a $800 camera?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (10 months ago)

Yabokkie, 50mm lenses are much easier to design. whether its for crop of not.

Dont get lens design and crop factor mixed up.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

the 32/1.8 is not a good performer at open, maybe because it uses classic design and simple manufacturing. one have to stop 32/1.8 down to beyond f/2.8 (50/4 equiv.) to get good image. hope DPR will post their test soon.

1 upvote
Zdman
By Zdman (10 months ago)

Well Samsung makes a pretty good 30/2 and its under $200 so I think yabokkie has a point.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

@yabokkie Where are you getting your performance data for the zeiss from?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

@Andy Crowe,
they have been on the market for two weeks in Japan.
the quality of 32/1.8 is bad in almost every aspect,
optical (soft at open, not very sharp stopped down),
AF (slower than already slow ones from Sony and Fuji),
MF (uncomfortable, poor mechanics),
... impression, not scientific test though.

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (10 months ago)

Expensive but not nearly as expensive as the usual Zeiss MF lenses. Either the AF is really slow or the quality of OEM lenses are so good Zeiss cannot set price wildly.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
byhyew
By byhyew (10 months ago)

I hope the pricing do drop a little soon.
The 32 1.8 is less tempting as both Fuji and Sony have a decent lens, either superior in some aspect or a lot more economic, in the same focal range.
The 12 2.8 is the real bang here, but I seriously think a 1000 dolar price tag would be more reasonable.

1 upvote
Steve Balcombe
By Steve Balcombe (10 months ago)

Touit? Is that pronounced twit, or twee?

I'm not just having a cheap laugh at Zeiss's expense here, this is a genuine issue - do they not employ English-speaking international marketing people??

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (10 months ago)

To-it.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

it's not toilet. not yet.

2 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (10 months ago)

In French, "Touit" have the same pronounciation like the "Twi" from Twitter.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (10 months ago)

"do they not employ English-speaking international marketing people??"

Steve, Zeiss is proudly and historically German company. Why should they name their lenses so that it is convenient for Americans?

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

It's a European thing. Leitz and and Durst, among others had a long history of making up new words including the notorious Leica close-up device,"nooky hesum". And "poison" in German is "gift".

0 upvotes
Steve Balcombe
By Steve Balcombe (10 months ago)

@klopus - "Steve, Zeiss is proudly and historically German company. Why should they name their lenses so that it is convenient for Americans?"

I'm not talking about what is convenient for anybody, I'm talking about the unbelievable stupidity of calling a product "twit". Maybe you don't know, it means idiot. I would have expected better of Zeiss's marketing department.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Steve Balcombe
By Steve Balcombe (10 months ago)

@AbrasiveReducer - " And "poison" in German is "gift"."

I once had the pleasure of explaining to a customer that his product, called xxxxxx Mist in English, needed another name for the German market. Google translate: http://translate.google.com/#de/en/mist

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (10 months ago)

As far as I know, Touit is only otherwise found as part of the scientific name of a genus of parrots. Maybe it was an attempt at onomatopoeia?

0 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (10 months ago)

Seems like a pretty small camera segment to build lenses around. Is there much future aps format? Considering it started more or less because technology made creating larger sensors difficult. It just seems to me this would have been more exciting 5 years ago.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

5 years ago there were no modern interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (with AF).
Now they all are either APS-C or smaller. Sensor quality per sq mm increases, in terms of noise/DR/color, what was only possible with FF 10 years ago is possible with 4/3 sensors now - hence the need for FF, cost and size and weight of it, just decreased.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

APSC will not disapear for the simple reason the we need a triple set of sensors. FF has some problems with DOF, and still today that difference in picture quality is not justifying the price they ask for it. In some way a FF camera should cost 100$ more than any apsc DSLR. That is the price difference in material and development of a FF sensor. Now, for those who seek in depth sharpness, we need sensors able to do this. The 1 series sensor we find in Sony RX100 and in NIkon 1 series is the basic smaller sensor that is able to deliver correct IQ that can compete with the larger sensors and the ISO range they offer. Then comes the APSC turnaround and 4/3 nonsense. I say nonsense because in my view it is just a way to show others that we, do something of our own.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

APSC existed before 4/3 and there was no reason to make a smaller sensos to provide good IQ, specially when we consider that 4/3 brings no better result, it is just a cut in the APSC format. The facts are that large sensors do not allow you that in depth sharpness that smaller allow, and with smaller sensors, pushing Bokeh can be done by faster lenses. That is one reason why I stick to APSC, the second is the overpricing we see at the moment if we compare cameras, for example Nikon D7100 and a FF D600, where both cameras are almost the same with different sensors. In this matter, the lens development we see at the moment proves this aproach. Now, for those 2 lenses, looking at the pictures I see in the tests, I do not see any reason to step from a Sony 35 to a Zeiss 32, here the price is not justified. The 12 is special, and not so badly priced. Anyway, I do also not drive Mecedes Benz, the star is to high priced to me and, mechanically, the quality not what one thinks it to be.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Carl_Zeiss_Touit_32mm_f1-8/sample_images.shtml

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/carl-zeiss-touit-distagon-t--12mm-f-2-8-lens-review-22026

1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (10 months ago)

Thanks Shamael!

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Thanks. From the 12mm review: "Although autofocus is reliable, the speed of focus acquisition with this lens is noticeably slower than with other E-mount lenses"

And other E-lenses are not speed demons either. So might as well be MF.

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (10 months ago)

I am heavily into MFT (and FF)...but these lenses are exciting. If Fuji brings on a fast-focusing X-E2 soon.....and the lenses keep growing like this I could sell off all of my MFT gear as the Fuji Sensor is quite tempting. Now we have Zeiss AF.....hmmmmmmmm.....
Can't wait to read some reviews of these new lenses.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
1 upvote
klopus
By klopus (10 months ago)

"If Fuji brings on a fast-focusing X-E2 soon"

According to most reviews X-E1 already has a pretty fast AF by mirrorless standards, no?

1 upvote
PeterLeyssens
By PeterLeyssens (10 months ago)

Yes, I'm feeling the same way. It's interesting times: on the one hand, the new E-P5 is probably the most desirable camera in the whole µ43 range since the original E-P1 (the E-P2 was good, too, with the addition of the viewfinder, but the E-P3 was a very minor update and the E-M5's horrible prism hump is completely incompatible with the notion of small camera in my eyes). On the other hand, the Fuji system became truly interesting with the X-E1 and these extra lenses make it even more likeable. I have no particular need for ultra wides, but more choice is always healthy in a camera system.

0 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (10 months ago)

Since I can get a brand new GX1 body with Sigma 30mm 2.8 for 400 bucks, I seriously doubt that I'll ever get a round Touit.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (10 months ago)

What relevance does that comment have? :-)

7 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (10 months ago)

You're not the kind of customer Zeiss is targeting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (10 months ago)

@Infrared ... Oops ... I see your smiley ... so you and @dpLarry appear to have correctly interpreted my comment ...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (10 months ago)

Kim...I get it..(wordplay)....and these days a GX1 with the Sigma lens is a very decent camera purchase for the frugal...but the lens and the sensor ,,(I own a GX1) are a far cry from the Zeiss/Fuji combo....but for the money you have a winner, no doubt! It's all relative...You have to spend the money to get in-touit!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Daniel from Bavaria
By Daniel from Bavaria (10 months ago)

Hi,

these prices are very reasonable, competitive and much more realistic then the latest rumors.

I already have the 14mm and the 35mm from Fuji and I am more the 21mm than the 18mm Fullframe guy. Therefore I am not in. But in general these two lenses are welcome additions to the lens lineup - especially the 12mm lens. Very nice.

And in the past I have never been dissatisfied by Zeiss lenses for my Canon 5dmkII.

It´s good to have more choices.

Regards,
Daniel

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

Can't say the announcement of these lenses forthcoming, nor the price, have put a smile on my face at all. But I'm probably the only person being Mr. Poopy pants about it all.

C

1 upvote
3dreal
By 3dreal (10 months ago)

didnt yashica tell last year that they will work with one or two german companies?
btw: sigma is producing for sony, panasonic and Olympus. see yamaki-interview. thats why we will hardly see a foveon MILC. Until sony has establishe its new Foveon-like sensor, right?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Isn't Yashica (and its Contax division) still part of Kyocera and still ignoring cameras?

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

There isn't much money in cameras. See how Sony is not making money from electronics. "Sony's Bread and Butter - It's Not Electronics" (NY Times).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its-not-electronics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
21s
By 21s (10 months ago)

There is no reason to buy these lenses for FUJI users :>

2 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (10 months ago)

Why would there be no reason for Fuji owners? Wouldn't Fuji owners desire to own a lens that may optically perform better. Also, Consina made lenses with the Zeiss label tend to have the finest build levels of any current lenses except maybe Leica. I don't know about these, but I would assume it would still hold true.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

I thought that they are most attractive for Fuji users.

1 upvote
dengx
By dengx (10 months ago)

@Guidenet
I don't think that these lenses are better optically than already top notch Fujinons XF14 and XF35. The differences so far are hardly noticeable and some in favour of Fuji and some in favour of Zeiss.

Then it all comes down to the focal lengths (12 vs 14 and to some extent 32 vs 35) and their unique renderings (microcontrast, bokeh, colours).

Some will like Zeiss more, some will like Fujinon.

4 upvotes
Eppoh66
By Eppoh66 (10 months ago)

I own the Fujinon 35/1.4 9and the 18mm) and will be testing the Zeiss 32 later this month for the Dutch importer. i will, offcourse, be comparing the two. I am very sattisfied with the Fujinon so am curious on how the Zeiss is performing. The Dutch importer is not affraid of a comparison...

0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (10 months ago)

You should mention autofocus and stabilising capabilties in the news text, i think.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

Added, thanks for the suggestion

0 upvotes
Blackraven
By Blackraven (10 months ago)

where are they made? Germany? Japan? Should be at least Japan right?

0 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (10 months ago)

This page says Japan. Look for "Where are the lenses made?":
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2864
Here is a promo video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-82GN1lZ80w

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (10 months ago)

Zeiss stuff is generallly made by Cosina in Japan these days and licensed by Carl Zeiss in Germany. I think the Zeiss lenses Sony have are designed and made by Sony with the licensed Carl Zeiss name. Cosina also makes a line of Rangefinder film cameras called Voigtländer Bessa in Leica mount. In fact, I believe Cosina now has the full rights to the name Voigtländer. They make a lot of manual focus lenses for Nikon and Canon in either the Zeiss or Voigtländer name.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Guidenet - wrong. Sony Zeiss lenses are designed by Zeiss and manufactured by Sony similarly to the Cosina-made Zeisses. Only difference being that Sony also designs lens barrel and AF system (as Zeiss has got hardly any experience at all in AF).

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

Cosina and Sony do research, planning, development, manufacture, and marketing all by themselves. Zeiss is nothing more than marketing cost, what's it's all about.

3 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (10 months ago)

Plastek show me any reliable information to what you say. Zeiss has been licensing out their name for years. The basic designs have changed a great deal over that time, but show me more than some Zeiss or Sony rep in a booth talking about it.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

These comments show how silly it is to get caught up with brand names. Modern Contax cameras (good) were made by the same people who make Yashica (bad). Ricoh used to make cheap department store cameras (bad), now they make very impressive digital cameras (good). Sigma, which used to make lenses for places like Spiratone (bad) is now making lenses that people discuss in the same sentence as Zeiss (good). And Zeiss lenses, famous for their German quality (good) are now made by Cosina, who are capable of cranking out stuff in all price ranges (good & bad).

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

as far as I know, the last time Zeiss did anything real was in the 1970s when they coated lenses in Japan. but their T* performed about the same as early Pentax smc and soon Japanese makers started to coat the lenses themselves with better quality than T* but under the same T* brand name. funny things did happen and are still happening.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

p.s., I think Zeiss lost design capability before manufacturing. some last lenses made in West Germany were obviously designed by Japanese.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (10 months ago)

I love the concept of mirrorless micro 4/3 and I will love it even more when the companies and people will put it back where it belongs. A compromise between quality and portability and the price of cameras and lenses should reflect that.

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

These lenses aren't for m4/3.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (10 months ago)

thanks for pointing it out I did not read carefully enough :-P

0 upvotes
nguyenhm16
By nguyenhm16 (10 months ago)

These lenses are autofocus. Also, Zeiss seems to have no problem selling manual focus ZF.2 and ZE lenses.

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (10 months ago)

Zeiss doesn't make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon DSLRs since they would have to reverse engineer the AF routines which is not something Zeiss wishes to get into.

In this case Sony and Fuji have given Zeiss all the info they need to make their lenses so its fully compatible.

If they want to make m43 lenses they also will have all info so they can make m43 AF lenses as well if they wish.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (10 months ago)

I don't understand why Canon cannot just licence out the specs to third parties, they have the most expensive bodies of the two. Allowing better third party lenses to be made would be a selling point.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

I think Canon is already considering themselves to be very generous by allowing Zeiss to make some lenses in the ZE mount with focus confirmation on their manual focus lenses. They have to protect their own "L" lenses otherwise those who know the quality difference will definitely change to Zeiss. For those who have used Zeiss lenses, they would not buy Canon again, not that the "L" lenses are bad but the Zeiss are so much better.

Its like gourmet food. Once you have tasted the better quality, you may not want to eat fast food again.

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (10 months ago)

$900 for a Manual Focus 32mm F/1.8 ??? Good Luck!

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Autofocus: Yes

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

It is autofocus actually. But on NEX, there is Sony 35/1.8, with OSS and for half as much. On Fuji, there is Fuji 35/1.4. Pretty stupid purchase this Zeiss would be in comparison.

1 upvote
Johan Borg
By Johan Borg (10 months ago)

Well... Sigma charges about the same for a 30mm f/2.8. But that's including the DP2M body ;-)

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

peevee1:

And as a general rule, well made Zeiss lenses are optically better than the good Fuji lenses. (There are all sorts of ways Zeiss beats Sony Nex system lenses.)

So of course there's a reason to buy the Zeiss instead of Fuji or Sony mirrorless system lenses.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

peevee1 : And how does the sharpness of this lens compare with the Sony or Fuji?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

we don't really know yet. So far no reliable comparisons have been made.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Andy Crowe+Plastek:

Fuji X lenses are plenty sharp, that's not likely to be where these Zeiss best the Fujis (no real reason to even bring up Sony Nex lenses). The Zeiss are likely to have much greater colour subtly than the Fuji X lenses. Already existing Zeiss lenses already do.

1 upvote
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (10 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW - from all the comparisons I've seen so far Zeiss isn't sharper than Fuji's lenses and although it's got some of the magic of Zeiss as we know it (my old Plannar 50 at least has it) I haven't seen single conclusion where reviewer said he would replace his Fuji X lens with this Zeiss - not for the money and from looking at the samples I haven't seen that magic there myself. Don't forget, Fuji's lenses are brilliant and Fuji has been making lenses for Hasselblad and also pro lenses for film makers (check BBC for example)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

hexxthalion:

As you should notice, I wasn't making claims about the sharpness of Zeiss lenses--some are, some aren't.

Then, given that I've used Zeiss extensively and have Fuji X lens samples that I've shot in the same lighting, with the same camera, as the Zeiss: I'm pretty confident saying that Zeiss has the magic and Fuji doesn't.

Can't find the citation but others have made the same point.

(Samples shot as raw and extracted myself, so not looking at jpegs online. And yes I have a Nikon to Fuji X body adapter so that's how I tested a Zeiss manual focus lens on an X body.)

Look Fuji X lenses are excellent, but there's a reason to pay extra for the Zeiss..

0 upvotes
Wally626
By Wally626 (10 months ago)

Lens rentals tested one Touit 32 f/1.8 in E-mount against the Sony 35mm f/1.8. With the caveat of only one sample the Touit had better optical performance overall, but it was pretty close at f/1.8 the Touit doing better at smaller apertures than the Sony.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/05/finally-got-around-touit

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Wally--

That Lens Rentals review is all well and good, but it's mostly about sharpness. I don't see a single thing about colour quality.

Yes, of course a Sony lens could match the sharpness of a Zeiss, as could a Nikon or Canon. But sharpness isn't the only important thing about a lens.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"peevee1 : And how does the sharpness of this lens compare with the Sony or Fuji?"

According to lensrentals, Touit 1.8/32 is a little better but very close to Sony 35/1.8. But add OSS and handholding, and difference is other way around.
Fuji 35/1.4 is better than the Sony. And how is the sharpness of this Zeiss at f/1.4? Oh, wait...

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

" By HowaboutRAW (7 hours ago)

Andy Crowe+Plastek:

Fuji X lenses are plenty sharp, that's not likely to be where these Zeiss best the Fujis (no real reason to even bring up Sony Nex lenses). The Zeiss are likely to have much greater colour subtly than the Fuji X lenses."

What is "much better color subtly"?
And color is not an issue, both Sony and Fuji optimize their JPEG engines for their own coatings, not those of Zeiss, and in RAW (how about it indeed?) you can have whatever color you want.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

peevee1:

You don’t know what you’re writing about, colour subtly is not simply the tint or white balance of the image. Someone from FujiUSA, admitting to me that Zeiss has more magic, called the quality microcontrast.

No one who cares about colour shoots jpeg if he/she can avoid it. And still a better lens means a better jpeg to begin with.

Try using good lenses and a good monitor or printer+paper before dismissing the idea that Zeiss beats Fuji X lenses. The images from Fuji X lenses appear dead. (Good Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, Samsung and Olympus images don’t have this problem.) And no Mac “retina” displays don’t have good colour.

No one disputes that good Fuji lenses are better than what Nikon and Canon offer, but they’re not better than well done Zeiss.

0 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (10 months ago)

You have to remember that these lenses are not the top-notch ZF lenses but only their smaller and younger brothers.

http://www.fujirumors.com/zeiss-touit-vs-fuji-xf-sample-images-and-feedback-pch-store-brussel/

There are full size samples.

Crop them the same, do a blind test and it's hard to tell what is what (not looking at the busy bokeh of Zeiss).

Slightly different microcontrast (in favour of Zeiss, but only a notch), slightly sharper (in favour of Fuji) and subtle colour differences (hard to tell).

Then it's busy donuts (Zeiss) versus more creamy Fuji.

Good to have a choice though.

1 upvote
dengx
By dengx (10 months ago)

Direct link to full size samples:
http://dunkelkammer.co/blog/entry/hands-on-x-mount-fuji-vs-carl-zeiss-touit

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

dengx--

Thanks for the links, I looked at some of the bigger jpegs, and the Zeiss colour is better, not sharpness, all to be expected. But to make real judgements about colour, one needs the raws.

I'll try to look at the bigger jpegs with my good monitor at home, but the connection is slow.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (10 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW

"And yes I have a Nikon to Fuji X body adapter so that's how I tested a Zeiss manual focus lens on an X body"

you see??? there you said it, you are comparing ZF glass vs Fuji's lenses. Let me dig a bit in my memory but as far as I remember every single ZF glass costs twice as much as a Fuji's X lens.

Topic is Zeiss Touit lenses vs Fuji's X lenses - is that tiny little difference worth the extra money? I'd rather have lens sharp wide open than have slightly better colours. After all that's why you use fast prime with this angle of view - to be able to shoot wide open in low light.

And as a proud ZF owner, honestly, do samples from these Touit lenses have the same 'pop' as you get from your ZF lenses? (they don't have that pop like my old Planar ZM)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

hexxthalion:

Just to be clear the ZF 50mm sells for about 750usd, and the 85mm sells for about 1300usd. So they’re not exactly more expensive than these Touits. I guess the faster wide angle would be more.

Your point about sharpness, absolutely go with the Fuji if that’s important too you, and as evinced by the jpgs linked the Fuji also does better bokeh. (http://dunkelkammer.co/blog/entry/hands-on-x-mount-fuji-vs-carl-zeiss-touit)

As for your final point saying that these Touits don’t have the “pop” of the ZF lenses you own, perhaps true, but I really think it best to wait to see raw samples, many raw samples from these lenses.

Anyhow I’m more interested in the well done Samsung NX system lenses than Fuji X lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 159