Later this month at Photokina, Zeiss is set to announce a new top of the line Distagon 55mm f/1.4 ZE lens for both Canon and Nikon mounts. This new "normal lens" will complement their current 50mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T* and 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar ZE lenses.

"A must-see attraction is a high-performance, full-format SLR camera lens with manual focus. With a focal length of 55 mm and aperture of f/1.4, this lens is the first model of a new product family designed for demanding users. Thanks to a newly developed optical design, this lens is superior to conventional full-frame lenses, and it achieves with powerful full-frame, full-format cameras an image performance that until now has only been seen with medium-format systems. The first prototype of this new range will celebrate its world debut at Photokina. The family of lenses is expected to be on the market in the second half of 2013 for EF bayonet (ZE) and F bayonet (ZF.2)."

Read the entire press release

Someone wipe the drool off of my chin.

mco_970 wrote:
Someone wipe the drool off of my chin.


+1

mco_970 wrote:
Someone wipe the drool off of my chin.

I'd offer you my handkerchief, but it's full of drool.

(Yuck.)

I imagine this new family of lenses will be significantly more expensive than the usual expensive models. Have they published a MTF chart yet?

wow, mount thread is #82, is it the same as Distagon 21 ? Anyways, so tempting

I want one!

OH WOW, HOW AWESOME, I hope it shines as much as the 35mm 1.4 ZE, and the 21mm f/2.8 ZE! I like that focal length, not to long, not to short! The f/1.4 will be marvelous for those of us insane enough to attempt championing thin DOF xD

Nice.

5mm difference and still manual focus.

I get excited about these announcements until I think:

a) Do I really want to manually focus a lens?
b) Would I really be able to see a difference in image quality between this and the Canon equivalent?

The realistic answer to both is "no".

fhammond wrote:
I get excited about these announcements until I think:

a) Do I really want to manually focus a lens?
b) Would I really be able to see a difference in image quality between this and the Canon equivalent?

The realistic answer to both is "no".
A) You should try it, it is very usable, and easy to master.

C) Yes, yes, you will, as there really is no equal.

fhammond wrote:
I get excited about these announcements until I think:

a) Do I really want to manually focus a lens?
b) Would I really be able to see a difference in image quality between this and the Canon equivalent?

The realistic answer to both is "no".

The key word here is "I" (as in you).

fhammond wrote:
I get excited about these announcements until I think:

a) Do I really want to manually focus a lens?
b) Would I really be able to see a difference in image quality between this and the Canon equivalent?

The realistic answer to both is "no".

And the Canon equivalent is? maybe the 50/1,4

Why 55mm? Why not made it a new 50mm f/1.4?

n0b0 wrote:
Why 55mm? Why not made it a new 50mm f/1.4?

Why not 55mm ? There are many brands that have 55mm lenses. I think Canon have made 6 or 7 lenses that are 55mm also. Canon even have older 58mm lenses

Lars Johnsson wrote:
n0b0 wrote:
Why 55mm? Why not made it a new 50mm f/1.4?

Why not 55mm ? There are many brands that have 55mm lenses. I think Canon have made 6 or 7 lenses that are 55mm also. Canon even have older 58mm lenses

That doesn't answer the question and those Canon lenses you mentioned was made a loooooong time ago, in the 60s I believe. Canon doesn't make those non-standard FL lenses anymore.

n0b0 wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
n0b0 wrote:
Why 55mm? Why not made it a new 50mm f/1.4?

Why not 55mm ? There are many brands that have 55mm lenses. I think Canon have made 6 or 7 lenses that are 55mm also. Canon even have older 58mm lenses

That doesn't answer the question and those Canon lenses you mentioned was made a loooooong time ago, in the 60s I believe. Canon doesn't make those non-standard FL lenses anymore.

55 have always been a standard FL.

And what about Canons 14, 17, 40, 60, 65, 90mm lenses. All those are more unusual than the 55mm FL

My question is... why retrofocus?

Is this a scaled-down 6x6 ex-Hassleblad design with a massive image circle to avoid the double-gauss MTF doughtnut dip in the periphery? If so, is that 82mm front necessary to get enough light to hit 1.4 (see, e.g., 24/1.4 designs -- but no 6x6 (or 645 for that matter) lens ever hit f1.4.)

Why no Cosina-style metal focusing ring? Does the wide rubber grip make it amenable to attaching a focus pulling rig?

What a curious lens...

n0b0 wrote:
Why 55mm? Why not made it a new 50mm f/1.4?

Probably to differentiate it. If the current 50/1.4 stays in production, it would be confusing to have the two lenses on the shelf.

I don't mind 55mm focal length at all.