The Contax is tiny, and f1.4, and also very cheap at about $200-300. The Makro-Planar has better contrast at f2, true. What I ment was you can probobly get the same performance in a much smaller, much cheaper lens, EXCEPT @f1.4.
This will be a reference lens for sure, but I'd rather get that Contarex lens he compares in the video.
I thought it was Zeiss sonnar 1.5. it has similar drum shape.
Seems the new trend for high performance standard glass is have more and more element in lens design to correct aberration. This was the philosophy of Zeiss vs ASPH of Leica. The trend can be clearly seen from latest Sigma 35mm. Now seems manufacture put both more elements and more ASPH surface.
Though the size became real problem. in that regards, we have to give Leica credit.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Wow, what wide open contrast !
Wonder how it compares to 100 Jahre 55/1.2 planar?
It is 500g and 8 elements. But twice as expensive.
The 100 Jahre edition is not nearly as well corrected, from what I have seen, although it is also a lens worth owning.
They (Nasse) looked at 'many other fast lenses' and of course that would include all their own modern lenses. To say this is better is a massive understatement, so high end pros who don't obsess over da weight penalty are going to be able to present customers with something very special - good for business, no?
The interesting point in this and the previous video on this range is the emphasis on how CZ are responding to feedback from 'our customers', as it gets several mentions. I think they are referring to business customers rather than buyers of lenses, we have some amazing times ahead.
fsiagian wrote:
I think so. It's new to me because I thought normal lenses are easier to make than tele or wide angle lenses.
Tele lenses need to pay special attention to colour aberrations, as I understand it, but otherwise aren't so hard to design, due to the amount of space available. Wides are harder, since (close to) symmetrical designs are easier, but there is no space left on a (D)SLR to design symmetrical wides.
'What I meant was you can probobly (sic) get the same performance in a much smaller, much cheaper lens, EXCEPT @f1.4.'
A statement of very large proportions, given that this lens benefits from lessons learnt in Zeiss cine lens program. We will know in several months time.
Another other recent high end effort by Zeiss - the RX1 - is also very good wide open at f2, I trust it is small enough to be considered small. The 15mm Distagon is also far ahead of its Nikon rival at f2.8, so it seems they have made some serious advances in the science in this area of large aperture performance.
A 12 element Distagon was probably quite easy after the wider Distagons - 16/13 ZE 21mm and 15/12 15mm...most normal FL lenses are only six elements, the 50MP is 8/6, quite complex.
carstenw wrote:
The 100 Jahre edition is not nearly as well corrected, from what I have seen, although it is also a lens worth owning.
Yes, I think that too but most of the very few shots I have seen from the 100 Jahre were taken wide open at f1.2 and not at f1.4 which I am sure it gets quite a bit better at.
This new 55/1.4 makes the new 135/2 Sonnar seem light! Good to see Zeiss improving its lens lineup and upping the ante, though with this high a price, mostly video guys will be buying it. Nice to see Nasse getting excited about being one of the first to shoot with this incredible lens.
It is almost blasphemy to compare this type of lens to other lenses of the same format. What it really does is to blow away the last reason to buy a Leica S2 or similar system: The S lenses. That was the last argument for MF digital after the D800E had proven itself: The MF lenses were better corrected.
This 55 mm f/1.4 is equivalent to a 70 mm f/1.8 lens on the S2 sensor (vertical). That is effectively one stop faster than a Summarit-S 75 mm f/2.5, about 50% heavier and about the same price. And the optical correction will be in the same league, if not better.
And if someone is satisfied with the image quality of a 16 MP micro four thirds sensor compared to a D800 with even a cheap, small, good prime lens, then good for them.
