Zeiss Loxia 85 mm f/2.4

[Steve W]

We already have three MORE THAN EXCELLENT lenses in this focal length. Do we really need a fourth? What were they thinking?

Why oh why do people of forums not understand simple things. Its a series of lenses right? They have done the standard and the wides... they needed a tele.

Loxias are aimed at a very different group of people than batis or GM lenses, loxias arent there to fill gaps in the lineup. Its a series of lenses.

--
https://500px.com/candidchris

Ohm I understand fully well, we DO NEED a tele. But instead giving us the fourth 85mm lens, how about a native 100mm, 135mm, 180mm lens instead? Now that would be a series!

So my comment still stands: WHY OH WHY

I dont think Loxia lenses will go above 135mm... But actually yes you are right that a 135 would actually be better than an 85... and maybe sell better too as there isnt one. But regardless, you know what I mean, its a series so in 3 years time we will have a lot of overlapping lenses... which is good.

--
https://500px.com/candidchris

Personally, I am waiting for a Loxia 15. Love my Loxia 21.

(On second thought, maybe a pure MF 85mm lens isn't so bad. Still, Zeiss could have set it apart from the crowded 85mm field by offering something slightly different, like 75mm or 90mm instead).

Understand your opinion but I thinks Zeiss predominant heritage is 85mm. I think the Contax 90/2.8 was their only 90mm but I might be wrong. And definitely if they are trying to think like they did on ZM the 85 is a natural since they had both an 85/2 and and 85/4 which I used to own until earlier this year. Also I don't see Zeiss going longer than this in Loxia lenses if they are following the ZM roadmap. Next up might be a 28mm and then 15mm for Loxia

Steve W

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 

[robonrome]

We already have three MORE THAN EXCELLENT lenses in this focal length. Do we really need a fourth? What were they thinking?

Why oh why do people of forums not understand simple things. Its a series of lenses right? They have done the standard and the wides... they needed a tele.

Loxias are aimed at a very different group of people than batis or GM lenses, loxias arent there to fill gaps in the lineup. Its a series of lenses.

 

[BBQue]

We already have three MORE THAN EXCELLENT lenses in this focal length. Do we really need a fourth? What were they thinking?

Why oh why do people of forums not understand simple things. Its a series of lenses right? They have done the standard and the wides... they needed a tele.

Loxias are aimed at a very different group of people than batis or GM lenses, loxias arent there to fill gaps in the lineup. Its a series of lenses.

 

[woof woof]

The Minolta MD 85/2 remains my last legacy lens holdout. It's relatively compact, great from 2.8 (useable @ f/2 in a pinch) and unlike most other legacy glass, the contrast & colors for landscapes don't seem too far off from my modern Sonnars.

I'm sure the Loxia will be marginally better in most aspects, but not enough so for the pricing to bump off the old Minolta.

I'll probably eventually go for the Batis - that extra stop of speed, stabilization and AF just seem a whole lot more compelling to me.

But that's just me - hopefully this Loxia finds a sufficient niche.

I have three film era 85's, the Rokkor 85mm f2, Zuiko 85mm f2 and FD 85mm f1.8. I'd say that the Rokkor is the best at wider apertures as it's sharper and displays fewer optical nasties but once stopped down they're the same.

I don't use 85mm much as 28-ish to 50-ish is my range so I have the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 native AF lenses and for fun and other focal lengths I have manual lenses from 24-135mm.

These Loxia lenses will no doubt be better than film era lenses especially at the wider apertures but I don't think many people looking at my pictures would notice the difference and in fact I'm sure they wouldn't.

 

[landshark]

EyeAF is such a handy feature for portrait shooting.

I just don't see the benefit of the Loxia 85mm, when it's slower at F2.4 and manual focus.

Why unnecessarily cripple yourself when there are so many other better options?

The Loxia 85mm seems like it's only good for photographers who want to show the world how good they are because they can use a manual lens.

It's understandable not understanding other's motives, and feeling that way for not finding MF suitable for your motives (or for an inability to cope with MF) - but I have to say I want to believe you're not as ignorant as the insult to MF lens owners would suggest.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

EyeAF is such a handy feature for portrait shooting.

I just don't see the benefit of the Loxia 85mm, when it's slower at F2.4 and manual focus.

Why unnecessarily cripple yourself when there are so many other better options?

The Loxia 85mm seems like it's only good for photographers who want to show the world how good they are because they can use a manual lens.

It's understandable not understanding other's motives, and feeling that way for not finding MF suitable for your motives (or for an inability to cope with MF) - but I have to say I want to believe you're not as ignorant as the insult to MF lens owners would suggest.

 

[mg_k]

EyeAF is such a handy feature for portrait shooting.

I just don't see the benefit of the Loxia 85mm, when it's slower at F2.4 and manual focus.

Why unnecessarily cripple yourself when there are so many other better options?

The Loxia 85mm seems like it's only good for photographers who want to show the world how good they are because they can use a manual lens.

It's understandable not understanding other's motives, and feeling that way for not finding MF suitable for your motives (or for an inability to cope with MF) - but I have to say I want to believe you're not as ignorant as the insult to MF lens owners would suggest.

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.

I agree it is a foolish comment, but there are some foolish MF user comments here as well.

there is even someone whose signature is to paraphrase

"I use MF lenses because when I shoot an image I want to do more than just push the shutter."

Yes, that is a rather arrogant tagline.

I shot with MF lenses for so long that I now enjoy how accurate AF is, but to each his own

And versa-visa [g]. I find MF a nice change of pace from the years with AF. Well, for some endeavors I feel more engaged using it. For others AF is essential for success.

I think it all comes down to your application and your intended subject.

I just received delivery of Loxia 21 because at 21mm its main application is mostly static/scapes and therefore I don't mind MF at such wide focal length.

However 85mm is still primarily a portrait lens imho, and I'd think most people would love to have AF over MF, not to mention eye detection/tracking.

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.

--
My Flickr
My Getty Images

 

[JimKasson]

EyeAF is such a handy feature for portrait shooting.

I just don't see the benefit of the Loxia 85mm, when it's slower at F2.4 and manual focus.

Why unnecessarily cripple yourself when there are so many other better options?

The Loxia 85mm seems like it's only good for photographers who want to show the world how good they are because they can use a manual lens.

Why not just buy a Batis 85mm and switch off AF instead?

W

So when I tell you that since I have sold all my AF lenses, my enjoyment and passion for it has gone through the roof, and I feel I am taking better photos too.

I genuinely prefer MF lenses to AF lenses, I like them as they are small, satisfying and fun to use. You use the term 'better' as if its fact...

While I don't like your header, I very much agree with the body of your post. I'd go further, though. There are photographic projects for which manual focus lenses are appropriate, and the ergonomics of AF lenses are in general a step or two back from the real thing. There are photographic projects for which autofocus lenses are appropriate, and the speed and fluency of MF lenses are in general a step or two back from the real thing.

As I am fond of saying, horses for courses.

Jim

 

[JimKasson]

I think it all comes down to your application and your intended subject.

Absolutely.

I just received delivery of Loxia 21 because at 21mm its main application is mostly static/scapes and therefore I don't mind MF at such wide focal length.

However 85mm is still primarily a portrait lens imho, and I'd think most people would love to have AF over MF, not to mention eye detection/tracking.

I would say that the MF lens that I use the most is the Otus 85/1.4, and I never use it for portraits. It is a fantastic landscape lens. It is a marvelous lens for stacked semi-macros.

Jim

 

[Bobo Hodls]

EyeAF is such a handy feature for portrait shooting.

I just don't see the benefit of the Loxia 85mm, when it's slower at F2.4 and manual focus.

Why unnecessarily cripple yourself when there are so many other better options?

The Loxia 85mm seems like it's only good for photographers who want to show the world how good they are because they can use a manual lens.

It's understandable not understanding other's motives, and feeling that way for not finding MF suitable for your motives (or for an inability to cope with MF) - but I have to say I want to believe you're not as ignorant as the insult to MF lens owners would suggest.

 

[mg_k]

I think it all comes down to your application and your intended subject.

Absolutely.

I just received delivery of Loxia 21 because at 21mm its main application is mostly static/scapes and therefore I don't mind MF at such wide focal length.

However 85mm is still primarily a portrait lens imho, and I'd think most people would love to have AF over MF, not to mention eye detection/tracking.

I would say that the MF lens that I use the most is the Otus 85/1.4, and I never use it for portraits. It is a fantastic landscape lens. It is a marvelous lens for stacked semi-macros.

Jim I am sure it's fantastic when it costs as much as a used car.

Over at FM people raves about the ZM 85 f4 for scapes and unless you are doing massive prints (which I assume you do) the pixel peeping difference is meaningless in real life.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

--
My Flickr
My Getty Images

 

[wkingsie]

Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular:

Will you buy the Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f/2.4 lens?

Total Voters: 2,746

No - 77% 2127 votes

Undecided - 13% 371 votes

Yes - 9% 251 votes

Loading…

www.sonyalpharumors.com

W

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular:

Small samples mean nothing. But let's assume it does reflect the reception it will get. . .

It doesn't take a poll to understand that's a specialty lens not made for the consumption of the masses. If 10% of the potential customer base is all that are interested, it's still a money maker.

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be made, or shouldn't be bought? Still?

 

[wkingsie]

Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular:

Small samples mean nothing. But let's assume it does reflect the reception it will get. . .

It doesn't take a poll to understand that's a specialty lens not made for the consumption of the masses. If 10% of the potential customer base is all that are interested, it's still a money maker.

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be made, or shouldn't be bought? Still?

--
...Bob, NYC

"Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular"

...

I wasn't suggesting anything other than to post the current results of a small sample survey, which would indicate low interest in the Loxia 85mm f2.4.

Personally, as mentioned in my earlier post, IMO there are better options in this focal length. So yes I don't think Zeiss should have made this lens, it doesn't make commercial sense to develop and manufacture a "specialty" lens without gauging the market interest beforehand.

Zeiss (and other manufacturers) would be better off surveying the market to determine the potential market's "needs", and then "wants" before deciding on what lenses to develop.

I don't believe Zeiss did this with the Loxia 85mm f2.4. I don't remember seeing any posts on DPReview saying "I wish I had a slow expensive manual 85mm lens for my a7x camera" before.

And no, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't buy it. Different people have different needs and wants. It's up to others to decide if the Loxia 85mm f2.4 is a worthwhile and worthy purchase for themselves.

W

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular:

Small samples mean nothing. But let's assume it does reflect the reception it will get. . .

It doesn't take a poll to understand that's a specialty lens not made for the consumption of the masses. If 10% of the potential customer base is all that are interested, it's still a money maker.

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be made, or shouldn't be bought? Still?

--
...Bob, NYC

"Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular"

...

I wasn't suggesting anything other than to post the current results of a small sample survey, which would indicate low interest in the Loxia 85mm f2.4.

Until you reveal the other motive two paragraphs down, the belief that the makers have no clue as to their strategy and knowledge of their audience.

Personally, as mentioned in my earlier post, IMO there are better options in this focal length. So yes I don't think Zeiss should have made this lens, it doesn't make commercial sense to develop and manufacture a "specialty" lens without gauging the market interest beforehand.

Zeiss (and other manufacturers) would be better off surveying the market to determine the potential market's "needs", and then "wants" before deciding on what lenses to develop.

I don't believe Zeiss did this with the Loxia 85mm f2.4. I don't remember seeing any posts on DPReview saying "I wish I had a slow expensive manual 85mm lens for my a7x camera" before.

And no, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't buy it. Different people have different needs and wants. It's up to others to decide if the Loxia 85mm f2.4 is a worthwhile and worthy purchase for themselves.

Yet you suggest those that would buy it shouldn't have been given a chance to buy it.

Thanks, I have no questions about your position any more.

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.

 

[Jerry Fusselman]

Well if small sample surveys mean anything, it may look like the Loxia 85mm f2.4 won't be that popular:

Small samples mean nothing.

It is not a small sample. It is a huge sample. Don't forget the 13% undecideds that could decide to buy depending on the reviews, etc.

But let's assume it does reflect the reception it will get. .

Agreed, the problem is that we don't know if the sample is representative of what buyers will actually do. Also, we don't know how many lenses the sample group will buy during, say, the next year.

It doesn't take a poll to understand that's a specialty lens not made for the consumption of the masses. If 10% of the potential customer base is all that are interested, it's still a money maker.

I'm guessing that the data indicates something closer to 17% than 10%, if the reviews come out about as favorable as they did for the Loxia 21mm. Judging from the survey, I'm fairly sure it will do quite well, actually. Remember that many people said no initially to lenses that they later purchased. The FE 90mm macro being, I believe, a prime example. I'm one of those.

My choice for landscapes will likely remain my tiny Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 4/85 ZM, though the Loxia sounds intriguing.

 

[Dave Sanders]

I think it all comes down to your application and your intended subject.

Absolutely.

I just received delivery of Loxia 21 because at 21mm its main application is mostly static/scapes and therefore I don't mind MF at such wide focal length.

However 85mm is still primarily a portrait lens imho, and I'd think most people would love to have AF over MF, not to mention eye detection/tracking.

I would say that the MF lens that I use the most is the Otus 85/1.4, and I never use it for portraits. It is a fantastic landscape lens. It is a marvelous lens for stacked semi-macros.

Agreed Jim... One of my most used focal lengths for landscape. Calling it just a portrait FOV is a disservice.

 

[tommiejeep]

I must admit that this lens came as a big surprise. I have almost purchased the ZM 85mm f4 a couple of times and if I had a surplus of funds I would probably buy one now. Seems I did a recent count and have 17+ lenses in the 75mm to 135mm range.

I responded that I would not buy because I will save my money in case a fast 135mm comes out. I really enjoy using my Loxia 50. Much will depend on the size, performance and my financial position. It is pretty much double the price of the ZM and considerably less than the Nikon 105 1.4G but I shudder to think what a Loxia/Batis 135 f2 or FE 135 1.8 may cost.

In a perfect world I would just buy any lens I want or at least live in a location that allowed me to try every lens (or multiples of every lens) with a no penalty return policy .

 

[blue_skies]

First leak:

http://www.optyczne.pl/10167-news-Zeiss_Loxia_85_mm_f_2.4.html

Is this an update of the CG90/2.8 then?

 

[blue_skies]

Thought this would be a 135.

Not compelling for me as I have the Batis 85 and I have no problem with its size or MFing it when desired.

The AF is fast and Eye AF works beautifully.

I don't need 1.8 on most occasions but when I do it is great to have.

This Loxia better have a lot of mojo if it is to compete with the Batis.