Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              36       37       end
  

Archive 2013 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)
  
 
naturephoto1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


wayne seltzer wrote:
Looks good, hope they are strong performers!
What are the prices?


Wayne,

As I mentioned earlier, at PhotoPlus in October, Zeiss was suggesting that both new lenses in the NEX and Fujifilm X systems were expected to have about a $1000 US street price.

Rich



Apr 30, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Taylor Sherman
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


* How is manual focus coupled? EG by wire, magnetically, (I can only dream) directly. . .
* Will the 12 work on the Nex-7 without any color-correction in post?



Apr 30, 2013 at 05:04 PM
serhan_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Fujirumors report that the Australian retailer camerapro is already taking preorders (with preliminary anticipated pricing*) for the Zeiss X-mount lenses (12mm f/2.8 32mm f/1.8 50mm f/2.8). The preliminary price is of AUD 1.499 (USD 1.550 - Euro 1.184).

Hopefully it is closer to $1000 esp when Sony Zeiss 24mm version is selling for $1100.

naturephoto1 wrote:
Wayne,

As I mentioned earlier, at PhotoPlus in October, Zeiss was suggesting that both new lenses in the NEX and Fujifilm X systems were expected to have about a $1000 US street price.

Rich





Apr 30, 2013 at 05:15 PM
aleksanderpolo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Am I right in thinking that all these big lenses would have been unnecessary if they put a better microlenses array at the sensor?

And Touit is a type of parrot, wonder if it is related to the autofocus motor's noise



Apr 30, 2013 at 05:29 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Why would the array impact the projection?

Isn't that kinda like saying wouldn't they be able to use smaller lenses if you loaded a camera with K25 instead of T400. The projection will be what it will be regardless of the capture media. How well the projection is captured ... well, that does depend upon the capture media, but it really doesn't dictate how to design the projection.



Apr 30, 2013 at 05:49 PM
ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Will be interesting to learn to know the focusing speeds of these new Zeiss lenses, and their manual focus handling. And if Zeiss will support firmware updates like Fuji have been doing for their Fujinon lenses...


Apr 30, 2013 at 05:52 PM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


corposant wrote:
If you are curious about the name, it's product-related, not design-related:
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=3518


I suppose you're right; I was just a bit confused that they don't refer to the lenses by their design (Planar/Distagon), not even in the datasheets (even though it's printed on the front of the lens).

Zeiss' new naming convention feels to me a bit like what Sigma is doing with their "Art" series, except the philosophy of the Touit name seems to have been picked because it's the name of a small species of parrot (indicating that they are crop format lenses). Maybe Zeiss will come up with some other bird name for their new lenses in the line of the 55/1.4.



Apr 30, 2013 at 05:52 PM
alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


I'm not sure the NEX 32/1.8 is all that interesting, given that the Sony 35/1.8 is very good, smaller, and has OSS. The 12/2.8 is definitely interesting though, and I don't even mind that it's a little bigger.


Apr 30, 2013 at 05:54 PM
buggz2k
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Wow, Zeiss AF.
The only Zeiss AF I have is the Contax N 85/1.4, which I love dearly.
Which also works great as MF on my FujiFilm X-E1.
However, I also love my Fujinon XF lenses.
I am not quite seeing the "need" for these.
Perhaps if they covered a FL not covered by the Fujinons, or a really speedy version, f1.2 or >, I could then see the "need".
However, I do agree, the more, the merrier!
I am eagerly awaiting the release of the Fujinon XF 10-24, and the Fujinon XF 56/1.2.
No doubt, I will get these.
And the release of the 55-200 is soon.
I will no doubt get one of these also.



Apr 30, 2013 at 05:56 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Touit: probably paid for a nice, new summer beater sports car for the ad exec who thought this up along with all the new styling cues seen in Zeiss's upcoming lenses...

Good they're at least still keeping the Distagon, Planar, Biogon, etc. nomenclature.

Sigma's new naming scheme at least makes some sense - I wonder what Zeiss will rename the ZE/ZF line, the ZMs and all their cinema lenses...?

Size of the lenses is also a consequence of internal AF drive and aperture mechanisms. But I agree, these lenses really aren't that small. I guess there's still something to be said for direct mechanical helicoid and aperture couplings to keep size down (see ZM & M series lenses).



Apr 30, 2013 at 05:58 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


RustyBug wrote:
Why would the array impact the projection?

Isn't that kinda like saying wouldn't they be able to use smaller lenses if you loaded a camera with K25 instead of T400. The projection will be what it will be regardless of the capture media. How well the projection is captured ... well, that does depend upon the capture media, but it really doesn't dictate how to design the projection.


You can't change the capture media on NEX, m4/3 or Fuji X mount cameras, so logically Zeiss will design for good performance on current camera models, so they have to take the incident ray angle into consideration. Knowing Zeiss, they would probably make the lenses more retrofocal (= bigger) in order to guarantee proper corner sharpness and lack of color shift. These lenses aren't designed for M mount like the ZM's, with possible use on a Zeiss Ikon or film Leica M in mind (they're even calibrated for proper focus on the Ikon).


Edited on Apr 30, 2013 at 06:04 PM · View previous versions



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:00 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


I think aleksander is referring to shifted micro lenses like on the GXR and Leica M cameras.

RustyBug wrote:
Why would the array impact the projection?

Isn't that kinda like saying wouldn't they be able to use smaller lenses if you loaded a camera with K25 instead of T400. The projection will be what it will be regardless of the capture media. How well the projection is captured ... well, that does depend upon the capture media, but it really doesn't dictate how to design the projection.




Apr 30, 2013 at 06:02 PM
aleksanderpolo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Ya, so they can use more symmetrical design, instead of making all lenses bigger due to telecentricity requirement.

AF motor's size is a necessary evil though.



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:05 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Still, it's possible to make smaller mirrorless lenses, if you put a priority on it. See the Zeiss 24/1.8 vs the Olympus 17mm f/1.8. Or the Olympus 12/2. Fuji's native lenses are a little chunky, but overall not too large...this is bigger even than those. I sort of get the 12/2.8 size, but there isn't really a good reason why the 32/1.8 is as big as it is. I mean, it's larger than the Fuji 35/1.4, which is a full 2/3 stop faster, and yet smaller in all dimensions (and also has AF and autoaperture mechanisms).


Apr 30, 2013 at 06:12 PM
john_edwards
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


As for these new lenses, I'll get a round touit one day, I guess.


Apr 30, 2013 at 06:13 PM
wolfloid
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Isn't that kinda like saying wouldn't they be able to use smaller lenses if you loaded a camera with K25 instead of T400.

I don't think so. It would be possible to design the lenses differently, ie smaller, less retrofocal, like Leica M lenses, if Fuji or Sony had gone to the trouble of designing a set of microlenses with that in mind.

They didn't because unlike Leica they didn't need to. But with Leica you can use tiny 40s,35s, 24s 21s and 15s and still have them sharp in the corners.

Even so, these new Touit lenses seem unnecessarily large compared to the brilliant Fuji lenses they are competing with. More like the fugly Zeiss 24/1.8 for Nex.



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:14 PM
Jeff Kott
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


alwang wrote:
I'm not sure the NEX 32/1.8 is all that interesting, given that the Sony 35/1.8 is very good, smaller, and has OSS. The 12/2.8 is definitely interesting though, and I don't even mind that it's a little bigger.


The way I would put it is that the 32/1.8 will not be that interesting unless it has a significant performance advantage over the Sony 35/1.8, which I am expecting.

I have the Sony 35/1.8. It's a nice lens, with pleasant rendering. I would say it's good enough for many uses, but is not really in the same league as my Pentax 31/1.8 limited or ZM 35/2.8.

In lens OSS can be handy, but I don't consider it necessary with a relatively fast lenses in this focal length range, especially when used on a camera with relatively clean high ISOs. Also, there are situations when image stabilization can degrade bokeh.



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:22 PM
uscmatt99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


Jman13 wrote:
Still, it's possible to make smaller mirrorless lenses, if you put a priority on it. See the Zeiss 24/1.8 vs the Olympus 17mm f/1.8. Or the Olympus 12/2. Fuji's native lenses are a little chunky, but overall not too large...this is bigger even than those. I sort of get the 12/2.8 size, but there isn't really a good reason why the 32/1.8 is as big as it is. I mean, it's larger than the Fuji 35/1.4, which is a full 2/3 stop faster, and yet smaller in all dimensions (and also has AF and autoaperture mechanisms).


I'm okay with lenses being a bit larger if there is an attempt to optically address issues like distortion, CA, as well as edge/corner performance with short-flange mounts. I had thought that mFT lens designs were made with the assumption that CA and distortion correction would be done on the capture side of things. In conjunction with a smaller projected image circle, their lenses should be a lot smaller. Not sure about the Fuji lenses, are they reliant on software fixes as well?

It remains to be seen how well these lenses will perform, but since they went and made them chunky, I'm hoping that the optical characteristics are excellent straight from wide-open, as we've seen from the other recently released SLR lenses, with design matched to the worst case scenario interaction with a digital sensor. I use some CV M-mount and ZM lenses on a GXR and NEX-6, and I have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the CV15 and ZM performance on the NEX-6 related to edge/corner color shift and slight resolution degradation. The GXR has it's own issues without an AA filter, but at least corner performance is superb.



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:37 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


wolfloid wrote:
It would be possible to design the lenses differently, ie smaller, less retrofocal, like Leica M lenses, if Fuji or Sony had gone to the trouble of designing a set of microlenses with that in mind.

They didn't because unlike Leica they didn't need to. But with Leica you can use tiny 40s,35s, 24s 21s and 15s and still have them sharp in the corners.


Is that with/without any trade-off/compromise @ vignetting?

The distance from the rear element to the center of the film/sensor plane vs. the edge vs. the corner is going to remain the same for a given optical design regardless of which sensor or film you place in the film plane for a given format.

Changing the design of the lens will impact the ratio of those distances and thus the corresponding falloff/vignetting. I don't see how putting a different array would have any impact on the projection coming from the lens. Of course, if you were to have a curved sensor/film plane, that would change the design parameters for the lens significantly, but to date we are only talking about single plane sensor/film planes.

I get that they designed for a different sensor size/image circle projection based on the industry crop sizes. But their decisions at lens design/size/distance/retrofocus etc. will yield their intended/desired projection, regardless of what film/sensor is used to capture that projection.




Edited on Apr 30, 2013 at 08:14 PM · View previous versions



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:39 PM
zhangyue
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Touit touit touit.... touit :)


rscheffler wrote:
Touit: probably paid for a nice, new summer beater sports car for the ad exec who thought this up along with all the new styling cues seen in Zeiss's upcoming lenses...

Good they're at least still keeping the Distagon, Planar, Biogon, etc. nomenclature.

Sigma's new naming scheme at least makes some sense - I wonder what Zeiss will rename the ZE/ZF line, the ZMs and all their cinema lenses...?

Size of the lenses is also a consequence of internal AF drive and aperture mechanisms. But I agree, these lenses really aren't that small. I guess there's still something to be said
...Show more

Could be just because I am an un-native English speaker. I couldn't help thinking "toilet".
Does anybody know how to pronounce it?



Apr 30, 2013 at 06:39 PM
1      
2
       3              36       37       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              36       37       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password