Lenses: Did they get it right??

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
wayfarers Regular Member • Posts: 211
No, they did not.

I agree with you. This is, obviously, my opinion, but it does not appear to be that uncommon:

"Zeiss made a series of Touit lenses that are close to useless for the X- system. Neither the 12mm nor the 32mm lens seem to be able better their Fuji counterparts. They are just more expensive. The 50/2,8 makro seems to be the stranges one. Who needs such a lens when Fuji already has a very sharp 60/2,4 macro?" From: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51649553

Zeiss appears to be desperately looking for new ways to expand into the market which was never of any interest to them: I do not remember Zeiss ever making prime lenses with plastic external finish and no depth of field scale. What next: a PlayStation photo attachment? Oh well, times are changing...

deednets wrote:

For my personal taste the lens selection available for the Fuji's is just plainly wrong! There is the 18/2.0 (since this is a wide angle the difference versus the zoom not compelling enough for me). The 35/1.4, there seems to be a lot of people here who like that lens? The equivalent of 52.5mm on FF, close enough to 50mm. I find this lens is neither here nor there, neither close enough to be a portrait lens nor wide enough for landscapes. Close enough to the "normal" viewing angle, the way we allegedly perceive the world. Beats me what is so great about 50mm?

But then it gets better: Fuji releases the fantastic (IMO) 14mm lens - and Zeiss releases a 12mm lens. I understand that those 2 mm are in fact quite big, but again: compelling enough or more a matter of this one or the other rather than both? Is this wise policy? Is it? Really?

The 32mm Zeiss (48mm versus 52.5) spot the difference?? Get both? Sure, but again: really??

Regarding the bigger zoom the 55-200, why not make a 50-150/4.0? I personally don't care about the extra 50mm (not that huge anyway) on a mirrorless system, 300mm on the wobbly EVF. Would Zeiss, not really known for their expertise re zooms fit the bill here?? I doubt it, they might make a 59/1.3 ... for some reason the lenses have to be so close to the originals, but why not a 75/1.8 by Zeiss?? Or a 90/2.0? It just had to be a 32/1.8 ...

Well done, right??

Am I alone here thinking that there was a great opportunity here starting from scratch so it doesn't take rocket science, as a taxi driver/hairdresser equivalent of a photographer anywhere in the world and they might have given them some ideas. Hard to believe they would have come up with a statement like: We want a 35mm lens - and a 32mm, we would in fact buy both! Simply because some people just "need" the extra 4.5mm ...

Why not release a 38mm lens? 2.0?? And then a 41?? You think I am exaggerating?? Well they did the 32/35 ... some people here might think this is great, I think it is wasted engineering and could have been spent differently ...

Just frustrating to see how opportunities are being wasted, but maybe they have got it right and I am just a dino with no concept as to what people really need or want these days??



Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow