rscheffler wrote:
It's interesting that Zeiss state in that blog post that a physical/mechanical aperture ring is technically not feasible with this design, implying it's not just the EF but also F mount that will lack on-lens aperture control (as seen in the photo of the lens on a Nikon body)
As far as the 50 Lux ASPH is concerned, it really is a very good lens, but does lose some technical brilliance at near distances with a pretty wavy MTF which influences non-central image quality wide open. I'm more interested to see how this new Zeiss compares agains the new 50 Cron AA. While it's an f/2 lens, it seems to be technically spectacular. With the new M it will now be possible to do direct comparison of SLR vs. M lenses...
At least for me, the biggest turn off of the new Zeiss is the size....Show more →
I also want to see how this ginormous lens compared to the new 50 AA. On the side note, Lloyd Chambers reported that the ZF.2 version would still retain the manual aperture ring (such a big plus for me).
sebboh wrote:
it's more fun to pick at little flaws than to praise perfection.
i have the same problem with this lens i have with the ZF line – to big. if i do end up throwing down that kinda cash it'll be for a rangefinder lens. i'm excited to see how this performs though.
Agreed. I have no interest in this lens because of the size and weight, not price. Actually it is not expensive at all for what it is. Try to see the prices for Leica M 50 summilux
I'm also interested to see what this monster can do.
I think Zeiss has realized that medium-format kind of died with the arrival of the D800E. This new line of lenses is probably aimed at getting back what Zeiss used to have with Hasselblad and Contax 645. The D800 and future ultra-hires 35mm cameras will probably take over most of what has been done with medium format till now and Zeiss are going to claim their throne back with the professionals.
Gives a good sense of the size of the lens, assuming that Hasselblad is the size of a NEX-7. Seems a reasonable size, about the same as the 24/1.8. Anyone see any pictures from Photokina of the 32 or 50?
Another question will be whether these new Zeiss emount lenses will support the new NEX hybrid-AF.
alwang wrote:
That 32/1.8 doesn't look too big without the hood: maybe a tad longer than the Sony 35. Good to see.
It'll be interesting to compare the Zeiss 32 to the new Sony 35. Sony apparently used a new design with a couple of asph lenses that supposedly improves corner performance. The Sony has OSS, looks a little smaller and lighter, and is likely one half to one third or the cost. I'm sure I'll buy both.
Hopefully the Zeiss will include burled walnut inlays to justify the extra price.
Seriously though, if the Zeiss comes in around $1K, I'd still seriously consider it vs. the cheaper Sony, as this would be an important focal lengt for me.
Yeah, I sold the Zeiss 24 after using the cheapie Sigma 30, so I'm hoping I'll remain prudent. The cheapie Sony 50/1.4 was actually my most used lens on the A900, so I have hope. The great thing about the Sony 35/1.8 is the 2012 release date, so we'll have a chance to use it a while before the Zeiss comes.
I can't believe I've been suffering through trying to find the right standard lens for so long, and now we have two options coming. Pretty sweet.
The Zeiss 32/1.8 for Fuji is even more curious, since the Fuji 35/1.4 is seemingly outstanding. Maybe the Zeiss will have a faster, linear AF motor??
douglasf13 wrote:
The Zeiss 32/1.8 for Fuji is even more curious, since the Fuji 35/1.4 is seemingly outstanding. Maybe the Zeiss will have a faster, linear AF motor??
The Zeiss will probably be more Zeissy than the Fuji's Leica-like rendering?
? ? ?