thrice wrote:
Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 Fisheye
Lumix G 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
Sony Fisheye Adapter OR Samyang 8/3.5 although that's a little big


Samyang 8/2.8. I just got it today. Small and light, nice build. Haven't tested it yet, but test reports say excellent.

This has been a fascinating interchangeable lens discussion... in a thread about a fixed lens camera.

Regarding the Zeiss brand and how exactly Sony (and others) produce or have produced for them Zeiss labelled lenses, I'm not too concerned about the details although I would still find it interesting to know those details if a reliable source from Sony and Zeiss were on record.

It stands to reason that Zeiss has a lot to lose if bad lens implementations with their name on it make their way to consumers, so I'd assume that at the very least Zeiss has in its contract language some level of control over what gets to be called a Zeiss lens.

I think you missed my point again, but this statement from you makes it sound like there is hope:

I have spoken to some key people and cannot comment on unannounced lenses, but suffice to say a lot will be announced next year.

I should perhaps also have been more explicit, but my mention of lower quality lenses is primarily with respect to kit lenses and DSLR lenses, not NEX lenses in general. There are a couple of really good NEX lenses, but very many holes.

For the prime user the 12/25/45 kit is a holy trinity for MFT, there is nothing comparable in optical quality to this. The 50 OSS is good, but that is it. For zooms, there is nothing like the 12-35/2.8 + 35-100/2.8 from Sony. There are a whole boat load of mediocre zooms though. There is a match for the 45 Macro (not as good), but not the 60.

The total number of lenses doesn't make it obvious, but when you start looking for lenses to buy, the story changes. I thought hard between MFT and NEX, but there is just no competition at the moment, whatever kit you want to build (apart from super-tele, admittedly), there is no problem with MFT. For NEX, much less so. I also still prefer the EVF from Olympus, but this will surely swing the other way from time to time.

Anyway, this is an old conversation, no need to rehash it. There are as many opinion as there are people. Suffice it to say that I would not buy a NEX system until the number of high quality primes and fast zooms increases, and I would not buy a Sony DSLR system until the lineup is fleshed out considerably, and Sony does need to pay some attention to pricing as well. Some of the better A lenses are insanely expensive, out of proportion to their quality compared to Canon or Nikon, especially the super-teles.

Having said that, I have nothing against Sony, and would in theory buy into their systems. If things change, I might.

By the way, the presence of third-party lenses for Sony's systems does nothing to assure me of Sony's direction. If their direction is to let Sigma fill their lineup holes, for example, I am instantly not interested any more.

Regarding Zeiss co-branding, I started a new thread here since this is somewhat off topic to RX-1:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1159868/0#lastmessage

In response to comments about my contention that there are smart engineers in Japan and Zeiss is just a brand name.

So I have to admit that I don't know very much about optics engineering, but unless Zeiss has some secrets that no one else knows about, or patents that no one else is allowed to infringe on, then Japanese engineers ought to be able to duplicate Zeiss quality if they wanted to.

There are a lot of reasons why not every lens is an amazing Leica-Zeiss-quality super-lens. Manufactures have goals other than making the best possible lens. They want lenses that are inexpensive to manufacture and develop. They want to lower their R&D costs. They might prefer their engineers to make 2 lenses in one year, rather than make only 1 perfect lens during the same year. And they want lower manufacturing costs. They may tell their engineers to design a lens that's cheap to manufacture rather than a lens with super-high optical qualities.

Furthemore, lenses are old are no doubt overrated. Modern lens design is aided by computer technology and the ability to include high-tech aspherical and other exotic elemnts. I am sure the engineeers that Sony picked up from Minolta can design lenses that way outperform some old Leica or Zeiss lens from the 1950s.

Take any modern lens and compare it to a Zeiss Contax G 28mm or 45mm, there just aren't any around that can match those two unless you're paying astronomically more from Leica. Take some of the Leica-R lenses, extremely few modern lenses can match the quality of some of those as well.

meh, i don't care if the lens was designed by a million monkeys with a million adding machines and built by ants. i just care how it performs. the full sized images i've seen from the rx1 so far indicate that it is an extremely good lens.

sebboh wrote:
meh, i don't care if the lens was designed by a million monkeys with a million adding machines and built by ants. i just care how it performs. the full sized images i've seen from the rx1 so far indicate that it is an extremely good lens.

+1

The discussion on whether this is a ”real” Zeiss or not is for non-photographers or brand wankers. If it's good, it's good and nothing else matters.

leave it to us, wankers then , we do not need reminding it. I like the history behind the lens not just the results it produces. As much as I agree you, this statement rings wrong in this forum.

Makten wrote:
+1

The discussion on whether this is a ”real” Zeiss or not is for non-photographers or brand wankers. If it's good, it's good and nothing else matters.

Hey, I want a real Zeiss, like those Cosina makes!

Makten wrote:
+1

The discussion on whether this is a ”real” Zeiss or not is for non-photographers or brand wankers. If it's good, it's good and nothing else matters.

Hey, Scorpions made the benchmark for Power Ballads, Metallica is just a copy

wfrank wrote:
Makten wrote:
+1

The discussion on whether this is a ”real” Zeiss or not is for non-photographers or brand wankers. If it's good, it's good and nothing else matters.

Hey, Scorpions made the benchmark for Power Ballads, Metallica is just a copy

how many power ballads did metallica actually make (i stopped paying attention to them after the black album)?

i believe the scorpions also set the benchmark for ridiculous album covers.

We need pictures of squirrels in the thread. Soon.

michaelwatkins wrote:
We need pictures of squirrels in the thread. Soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o87XXR5T0y4

Awwww, very cute.

Ok, that interlude over, was that an out of focus Fujinon lens on front of the video camera?

Uncle Mike wrote:
So I have to admit that I don't know very much about optics engineering, but unless Zeiss has some secrets that no one else knows about, or patents that no one else is allowed to infringe on, then Japanese engineers ought to be able to duplicate Zeiss quality if they wanted to.

The point is that they don't do it. I don't want to speculate on their reasoning, but the only way to build a legendary brand is to put quality at the top and keep it there, and make the prices fall where they may.

I am sure the engineeers that Sony picked up from Minolta can design lenses that way outperform some old Leica or Zeiss lens from the 1950s.

Sure. Those were made by Minolta anyway Just kidding.

Let's move to another thread.

The 'whatever it takes, whoever did it' line has some resonance with most, but brand names and company reputations count and do matter, and consumers like sincerity and truthfulness - old-fashioned, but there it is. Just ask Lance Armstrong or Tiger Woods. It'd be sad to see Zeiss become the Nike/Hilfiger/Klein of optics.

High end companies produce their best work when they have very high levels of control and ownership...not a lawyerly 'contractual arrangement' no one knows much about. It's like finding your Subaru has a Hyundai engine, and it fuels a race to the bottom, not the top. The market may take a while to notice, but when it does you are just another sellout.

'Zeiss has some secrets that no one else knows about'. Absolutely and always has been true - they are perennial master innovators. They may have to downgrade a design so it can be fabricated by other companies rather than find new ways to get it done right; this of course does little for innovation. Technology trickles down, not up.

carstenw wrote: I also still prefer the EVF from Olympus, but this will surely swing the other way from time to time.

Slightly on-topic.

The accessory EVF for the RX1 is the same as the built-in EVF on the NEX-6 and A99.

I suggest you look through one, but it might complicate your choice

thrice wrote:
The accessory EVF for the RX1 is the same as the built-in EVF on the NEX-6 and A99.


Is the EVF improved from the NEX-5N / NEX-7 / A77?

Hoping so, not that I found the NEX-5N + EVF combination unusable but improvements always welcome in EVF technology.