I have a 12 pre-ordered, and there is no "line" of pre-orders ahead of mine, so I should get one reasonably early in the game. I will mount it on my NEX 7 and see. And post of course..
And why is that? The Sonnar incorporated in the RX1 is clearly top-notch glass, so I wouldn't have been the least bit worried if Zeiss had chosen a Sonnar design instead. The lenses are good not because of their theoretical architecture, but because the design team know whatthey are doing IMHO. Well, the "good" part remains to be seen, as far as the Touit are concerned.
A few of my previous Sonnar lenses were the weaker links in the Contax C/Y chain but they were not poor lenses. I did prefer the Planars. I think the Sony ZA 135/1.8 is a Sonnar lens and it is the best telephoto lens I have used for practical use - there are lenses that are about as good optically but it didn't leave me with anything to wish for really.
The RX1 Sonnar is another "modern" Sonnar design that I think is superb.
The 32/1.8 Planar is not really my type of lens but a few of the photos caught my attention and I honestly think it will give the Fuji 35/1.4 a run for the money. The 12 Distagon might not be as good as the good old Biogons (21 for Contax G and 38 for Hasselblad) but I think it still looks like an awesome lens.
It will be interesting to see what the new macro lens will be like.
philber wrote:
And why is that? The Sonnar incorporated in the RX1 is clearly top-notch glass, so I wouldn't have been the least bit worried if Zeiss had chosen a Sonnar design instead. The lenses are good not because of their theoretical architecture, but because the design team know whatthey are doing IMHO. Well, the "good" part remains to be seen, as far as the Touit are concerned.
I don't have anything against Sonnar. I own one; however, Sonnars images tend to be smoother, which isn't bad. I'm still not certain I will get one of these Touits yet. I'm just looking for a Zeiss with more oomph. Looking through the NEX images, I'm pretty impressed with the Contax G lenses that I am seeing. I might get one of those instead. I'm in the process of consolidating my equipment towards a lighter setup and I need to be very picky with what lens I get next instead of adding to the collection... if you know what I mean. At the prices of these Zeiss, I have a lot of choices. Contax G for my NEX, Sigma 35/1.4 for my Nikon, or mixed things up and get the RX1. I want my next lens to be spectacular. Right now, I am going to hold my own judgement till more sample images comes out on the NEX-7. Early opinions in this thread seems to point to these lens not being very good.
The Sony 35/1.8 OSS doesn't appear to be a slouch either.
kosmoskatten wrote:
The RX1 Sonnar is another "modern" Sonnar design that I think is superb.
I agree the RX1 is a superb camera, but I'm not sold on the Sonnar lens on it. I've spent a lot of time looking at RX1 images. It is one heck of a sharp lens. Even DXO says it's ridiculously sharp. However, I spent a lot of time looking at images from the new Sigma 35/1.4, and that lens has some major oomph. Images just pops out. Of course, the difference is that the RX1 is discrete, whereas a D800E + Sigma will get noticed.
sflxn wrote:
I agree the RX1 is a superb camera, but I'm not sold on the Sonnar lens on it. I've spent a lot of time looking at RX1 images. It is one heck of a sharp lens. Even DXO says it's ridiculously sharp. However, I spent a lot of time looking at images from the new Sigma 35/1.4, and that lens has some major oomph. Images just pops out. Of course, the difference is that the RX1 is discrete, whereas a D800E + Sigma will get noticed.
i don't know about oomph (probably not what i want), but the pictures i see from the rx1 look a lot more attractive to me than what i see from the new sigma (which seems rather sterile to me). i agree the rx1 doesn't draw like traditional zeiss lenses though. the zeiss samples from the 32/1.8 look awfully similar to what i get from other zeiss planars though, which quite frankly isn't my favorite look.
Let's not kid ourselves. A Zeiss lens that sells for 1000+$(or €) and offers AF isn't going to set new levels of performance in the absolute sense. That is set to happen, if MM Zeiss are to be believed, with the ZE/ZF 55 f:1.4, at 3 times the price, not all of which comes from it being a FF lens rather than for the smaller APS-C.
Also, Zeiss have their ZM range. Having shuttered the Ikon, and stated that they are not about to produce a digital Ikon, where do the ZMs sell? On Leica, who are busy making it as hard as possible to use on their M9 and M, through in-cam software correction, but only for Leica lenses of course, and on mirrorless, mainly NEX. Mainly NEX because the Fuji doesn't love rangefinders, and MFT aren't really in the race for such high IQ that you spend thousands on glass.
So if the Touit out performed ZMs, that would spell the end of the ZM line, whereas Zeiss have announced that at least one new ZM would be released.
OTOH, the Touit must visibly out perform native Sony, Fuji, Sigma, or else they will have pretty little to offer except prestige.
I rest my case.
philber wrote:
Let's not kid ourselves. A Zeiss lens that sells for 1000+$(or €) and offers AF isn't going to set new levels of performance in the absolute sense. That is set to happen, if MM Zeiss are to be believed, with the ZE/ZF 55 f:1.4, at 3 times the price, not all of which comes from it being a FF lens rather than for the smaller APS-C.
Also, Zeiss have their ZM range. Having shuttered the Ikon, and stated that they are not about to produce a digital Ikon, where do the ZMs sell? On Leica, who are busy making it as hard as possible to use on their M9 and M, through in-cam software correction, but only for Leica lenses of course, and on mirrorless, mainly NEX. Mainly NEX because the Fuji doesn't love rangefinders, and MFT aren't really in the race for such high IQ that you spend thousands on glass.
So if the Touit out performed ZMs, that would spell the end of the ZM line, whereas Zeiss have announced that at least one new ZM would be released.
OTOH, the Touit must visibly out perform native Sony, Fuji, Sigma, or else they will have pretty little to offer except prestige.
I rest my case....Show more →
It's not the ZMs they need to worry about. If you quick scan through 100 pages from the NEX image threads and just stop on the one with that microcontrast pop and check the lens used in the photos, you will pretty much stop at every single Contax G 45mm, 35mm, and 28mm image. I did. There is a new AF adapter for the contax G lenses. That 45mm Contax G is particularly spectacular to my eyes. Zeiss needs to worry about the old Contax G lenses. If the Touits can't even surpass them, there really isn't any point in the Touits.
To be honest my ZM lenses are some of the finest glass I have ever used and clearly outperform equivalent ZE glass I used to own especially in corner sharpness and CA control. I have been using them on the M9 without correction and I never feel the need to, but for those who like to use camera corrections its easy to code the lenses or select the equivalent lens manually from the menu.
I have serious doubts about that AF adapter. Early videos showed it to be very slow indeed. If it is not quicker than MF, what is the point of having AF? And besides, it makes the setup larger and more expensive. That said, G lenses do offer fantastic VFM on NEX. Fortunately for Zeiss, there is a limited supply, and not for the "general public" of well-heeled amateurs
I wouldn't also set a price on performance. High prices doesn't always equal performance. Look at the Sigma 35mm 1.4. It's rated the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm FF. It even beats the Nikon 85/1.4G and obliterates every Zeiss available for Nikon and Canon... according to DXO. It's less than $1k. It's not only sharp, but the images have that microcontrast pop. When you look at the RX1 images, they have a high level of sharpness to them, but I'm not sure it has a lot of pop.
Not everyone considers DXO lens tests to be very meaninglful, and not everyone considers sharpness to be the tell-all of lens performance. Other criteria matter more iMHO, like colours contrast, detail. But to each his own.
philber wrote:
Not everyone considers DXO lens tests to be very meaninglful, and not everyone considers sharpness to be the tell-all of lens performance. Other criteria matter more iMHO, like colours contrast, detail. But to each his own.
You must not have been following the Sigma 35/1.4. DXO has a perceptual megapixel measure for the lenses. It kinda sucks having a 36mp or 24mp sensor and a lens that shows way less in perceptual details. Outside of DXO, you can read reviews and look at other people's images too. That Sigma 35 has a lot of character, besides being the sharpest lens DXO has measured and raved about in every single review for it. Like I said before, DXO also found the RX1 lens to be one of the sharpest lens they've ever tested, but when I look at the images, I find it has less character than the Sigma 35. So right there is an example of two sharp lens, one having a lot of character and the other not so much, atleast to my eyes.
When I say oomph, i'm talking about that microcontrast pops that gives the some Zeiss images their 3D look and character.
Where do you see me mention the Sigma, or criticize it? I just say that I, and others don't find the DXO lens tests very helpful. Many people find the new Sigma a very good lens indeed, but loving it doesn't mean all the others have to be bad. Sigma seem to have upped their game significantly recently, with very cheap and cheerful lenses for NEX,and interesting very high-end offereings, like the 100-300 f:2.8, or the 18-35. But they still have a lot of ground to cover before their reputation reaches Zeiss or Leica levels, including becuse they were long associated with QC issues and unreliable AF.
sebboh wrote:
i don't know about oomph (probably not what i want), but the pictures i see from the rx1 look a lot more attractive to me than what i see from the new sigma (which seems rather sterile to me). i agree the rx1 doesn't draw like traditional zeiss lenses though. the zeiss samples from the 32/1.8 look awfully similar to what i get from other zeiss planars though, which quite frankly isn't my favorite look.
That's interesting that you would say that. Are we talking about the same Sigma? The FF one, not the NEX 30mm one. It's interesting you would use the word sterile. On another forum I visit a lot, getdpi, there is a long discussion about the 35, one in which some people have called the RX1 clinical but lacking character. I would agree with the assessment that the RX1 images are clinical. I chalked it up to being the Sonnar look. To me, I've always preferred the Planar look over the Sonnar look. I'm not especially experienced with Zeiss, but when I hear people say Zeiss 3D look, Planar always pops into my head, based on the images I've looked at over the years.
I want to add that when I look at the RX1 images, they are sharp but smooth at the same time, if that makes sense. Maybe I just like the harder hitting planar look. It all comes down to personal preference.
