They're big! Very big for a mirrorless lens. The Fuji 14mm, while not huge by any means, is slightly larger than many other wide angle lenses for mirrorless (see the tiny Olympus 12/2 and 9-18 zoom). It's a good compromise size for a wider view with a smaller footprint, but it's not 'tiny.'
The Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 is quite a bit longer and much wider, though similar in weight. (both are light).
The 32/1.8 is the same diameter, but again, longer than the Fuji 35mm f/1.4, which is still 2/3 stop faster. The Zeiss is also heavier.
I'm sure they'll be good lenses, but why so big? (note that I've removed measurements in this edit, since their diagrams on the pages show different measurements than those listed in the brochure, so I don't know what the actual sizes are)
Also...what's with the 'touit' name? From everything we've seen, the 12/2.8 is a Distagon design and the 32/1.8 is a Planar design, so why give them new names? Zeiss has always used the standard names based on lens design, so why change if the design is the same, and make all 'mirrorless' lenses 'Touit' now? It does seem the pictures on the site show that "Distagon" and "Planar" are still on the lens ring, but they're also Touit lenses as well, which is just bizarre.
Jman13 wrote:
Also...what's with the 'touit' name? From everything we've seen, the 12/2.8 is a Distagon design and the 32/1.8 is a Planar design, so why give them new names? Zeiss has always used the standard names based on lens design, so why change if the design is the same, and make all 'mirrorless' lenses 'Touit' now? It does seem the pictures on the site show that "Distagon" and "Planar" are still on the lens ring, but they're also Touit lenses as well, which is just bizarre.
The datasheets don't include MTF charts. That fact and the name suggests to me that Zeiss just doesn't want to present these lenses as serious photographic tools. Strange...
Jman13 wrote:
I'm sure they'll be good lenses, but why so big?
I'm guessing raypath angles ... to afford good control over both distortion and vignetting (and possibly color shift) as UWA gets exponentially more challenging the wider you go ... noting the shape variance @ rear element of the Zeiss 12 vs. the Fuji 14.
I suppose the same question could be asked about the Distagon 21/2.8, particularly compared with the likes of the Oly or Nikon counterparts in FF formats. I'd like to think that even if we don't always follow the "why so big" ... I doubt it isn't without rationale/reason.
AhamB wrote: The datasheets don't include MTF charts. That fact and the name suggests to me that Zeiss just doesn't want to present these lenses as serious photographic tools. Strange...
That wasn't the impression that I got from the Zeiss reps at PhotoPlus in October. They were pushing that this and a 2nd lens was coming for both the Nex and the Fuji cameras. They seemed proud of what was coming and these were going to be excellent performers.
The 32/1.8 is going to need to be absolutely spectacular to get business from Fuji buyers, since the 35/1.4 is already very good, faster and smaller. The 12mm could be awesome, and since its very wide, it will get buyers just on account of that. I will be very interested in how that performs, but they have stiff competition there with the Fuji 14mm, for those who are OK with 21mm equivalent vs 18mm, since the Fuji 14 is exceptional...very sharp and essentially zero distortion.
One thing's for sure: I'm excited to see Zeiss enter this market, and I hope these are strong lenses.
Jman13 wrote:
Also...what's with the 'touit' name? From everything we've seen, the 12/2.8 is a Distagon design and the 32/1.8 is a Planar design, so why give them new names? Zeiss has always used the standard names based on lens design, so why change if the design is the same, and make all 'mirrorless' lenses 'Touit' now? It does seem the pictures on the site show that "Distagon" and "Planar" are still on the lens ring, but they're also Touit lenses as well, which is just bizarre.
Jman13 wrote:
The 32/1.8 is going to need to be absolutely spectacular to get business from Fuji buyers, since the 35/1.4 is already very good, faster and smaller. The 12mm could be awesome, and since its very wide, it will get buyers just on account of that. I will be very interested in how that performs, but they have stiff competition there with the Fuji 14mm, for those who are OK with 21mm equivalent vs 18mm, since the Fuji 14 is exceptional...very sharp and essentially zero distortion.
One thing's for sure: I'm excited to see Zeiss enter this market, and I hope these are strong lenses. ...Show more →
I will probably wait to see the 12mm lens at PhotoPlus in October. Hopefully Zeiss will let us mount the lens on our Fujifilm camera bodies. It is going to awfully wide though. I want to see how it can be controlled for taking images. I remember how hard it was for me to control lines with the Leica 19mm R lens that I had at one time.
Yes, the diff @ 14 vs. 12 may make some diff @ AOV, but I'll be watching to see how the 12 fares for vignetting (rear element size/shape could make a diff here) compared to the 14 which is reported to have more than 2+ stops vignetting (raw) by Photozone, with the Fuji jpgs partially correcting it down to about 1 stop ... realizing that 12 vs. 14 is also quite a bit more ambitious.
RustyBug wrote:
Yes, the diff @ 14 vs. 12 may make some diff @ AOV, but I'll be watching to see how the 12 fares for vignetting (size could make a diff here) compared to the 14 which is reported to have more than 2+ stops vignetting (raw) by Photozone.
I haven't noticed anything like that kind of light loss on my 14mm f2.8 lens. In fact I have noticed very little light loss in RAW and it is sharp. I haven't checked how sharp out to the edges and the corners, but it looks sharp. But, it could be a sample to sample variation.
+1 @ sample variation potential ... although vignetting usually doesn't seem to deviate as much (my observation) from sample variation as other attributes from what I've noticed.
Also, are you talking about your camera corrected jpgs or raw images @ vignetting levels?
But, for what I have been using the lens for most of the time, I am stopping down to about f8 to f11 to hold DOF- mainly landscape. I haven't shot the lens that much WO or even close to it.
