anscochrome wrote:
The test shown above has sold me on the Sigma lens-thanks for saving me $800.00 Yes-I can see a color difference, but since I process all my stuff with a half dozen different Kodachrome presets in Lightroom, the differences would be moot once I finished with the files.
This was my feeling exactly when I first started looking at the two files but as soon as I started blowing them up or cropping them the difference became extremely obvious that the Zeiss was worth the money. The NEX sensor is still not full frame in its abilities so if you're using it for anything other than the Internet the lense is very important. The tests done by the Spanish site show that the Zeiss is basically almost twice as sharp as the Sigma. That doesn't make the Sigma a bad product and in your case when you're doing computer manipulation and changing of the files you are correct it really doesn't matter. If your files are being outputted mostly to the Internet, then as you know the Sigma lens will give you superior results to 90% of the iPhone pictures already there. I still will do another series of tests between the Sigma and the Zeiss before I buy it.
Can any of you guys that have experience with Zeiss lenses answer a question for me please? Is there a chance the Zeiss Touit lenses will drop in price from the introductory ones and how long does that usually take. Would two months make any difference? I hope Zeiss isn't like Sigma where the prices fall in 6 months to half of what they start out at.
dennishh wrote:
Is there a chance the Zeiss Touit lenses will drop in price from the introductory ones and how long does that usually take. Would two months make any difference? I hope Zeiss isn't like Sigma where the prices fall in 6 months to half of what they start out at.
If the DSLR lenses are any indication, the answer is 'never'.
They are filling a niche heretofore only partially addressed, unlike DSLRs so used prices will remain lofty for a while, until someone else matches them. Sigma is a strong candidate if the latest FF 35/1.4 offering is any indication.
I would say there is a chance the prices might go down slightly when the lenses are available in stock. Pre-order prices are sometimes a bit too optimistic especially at BH and co.
Maybe a small adjustment but this is pretty hot and up-and-coming segment of the market, the two leading players pretty much. My favourite Zeiss story is my Contax 21mm, which sells for around $1800-1850 today and has done for the years after the new release - the newer ZE/F version costs $1843 (BH). It's 18 years old, second hand. You rarely lose money, maybe $50-100.
In the context of these Touits, that E mount 24mm f1.8 Sonnar is a fine lens also. Mike Johnston has more:
'A friend just completed some tests on his own equipment and told me that a $7,000 Leica 24mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M produces visibly inferior results to a $1,100 Sony/Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-Mount on a NEX.'
It looks very much a part of the series for Sony users. You could run up a very pricy lineup these days in NEX/Fuji.
I have not seen Zeiss prices go down. The only chance that I see prices go down is if Sony does release the FF NEX. In this event, the retail prices won't go down. The used prices will go down initially till all those waiting to get FF NEX get their hands on one.
However, with the way the lens lineup is developing, APS-C NEX might not turn out to be like their DSLR counterparts. It appears APS-C NEX will be full citizens under the NEX empire, with a full set of lenses. In other words, there should always be demand for these APS-C lenses so their prices may never drop, even with FF NEX on the market. Same goes for the Fuji X system.
philip_pj wrote:
In the context of these Touits, that E mount 24mm f1.8 Sonnar is a fine lens also. Mike Johnston has more:
'A friend just completed some tests on his own equipment and told me that a $7,000 Leica 24mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M produces visibly inferior results to a $1,100 Sony/Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-Mount on a NEX.'
It looks very much a part of the series for Sony users. You could run up a very pricy lineup these days in NEX/Fuji.
I have this lens, and the retail price hasn't gone down. Yes, you can build a pretty pricy NEX collection. I think this is a good thing. It sets the stage for a pro-NEX, APS-C and FF. The 5 and below can cater to amateurs. 6 and above can cater to enthusiasts and maybe pros. This is how I hope it develops into, but I hope Sony doesn't go too far upscale, into the Leica range.
philip_pj wrote:
In the context of these Touits, that E mount 24mm f1.8 Sonnar is a fine lens also. Mike Johnston has more:
'A friend just completed some tests on his own equipment and told me that a $7,000 Leica 24mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M produces visibly inferior results to a $1,100 Sony/Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-Mount on a NEX.'
It looks very much a part of the series for Sony users. You could run up a very pricy lineup these days in NEX/Fuji.
Shouldn't he be comparing the Sony 24/1.8 to a 35/1.2 lens? I don't see either point or validity to that comparison.
Okay, but why? The only normal reason for putting a FF lens on a crop camera is that you can get a good deal on some older, well-performing lenses. Comparing a high-cost f/1.4 wide angle lens is just the wrong way around.
Anyway, I would like to see some general proof of the result's validity before accepting them as gospel. The Sony Zeiss 24 has its own issues, and I suspect that which one is better depends a lot on which parameters you find more important. I can imagine that the Zeiss is sharper, but beyond that it is uncertain.
Edward, Michael Reichmann did exactly this and came to the conclusion that they were very close. In some areas, the Summilux won. In other areas, the Sonnar won. Quite frankly, it wouldn't matter much if the Sonnar lost by a little. $1k vs $6k, and with AF. The Sonnar was more than good enough for it's purpose of establishing a high quality wide for NEX.
Not everyone likes the Sony-Zeiss ZA 24. I don't. I tried two copies, and it was the frst Zeiss that I declined to buy. While it is unquestionably very sharp, and its performance up close is excellent, its performance at infinity and its colours were too disappointing for me to go ahead. And I know I am not alone in this. It is also not very wide, at 36mm equiv. on FF.
carstenw wrote:
Okay, but why? The only normal reason for putting a FF lens on a crop camera is that you can get a good deal on some older, well-performing lenses. Comparing a high-cost f/1.4 wide angle lens is just the wrong way around.
Anyway, I would like to see some general proof of the result's validity before accepting them as gospel. The Sony Zeiss 24 has its own issues, and I suspect that which one is better depends a lot on which parameters you find more important. I can imagine that the Zeiss is sharper, but beyond that it is uncertain.
To be honest, the only reason you would want to use the Lux on a Nex is if you already own one. I also agree that I would want to see the proof for any allegations. I was just saying that the comparison is valid because both lenses are the same FL.
sflxn wrote:
Edward, Michael Reichmann did exactly this and came to the conclusion that they were very close. In some areas, the Summilux won. In other areas, the Sonnar won. Quite frankly, it wouldn't matter much if the Sonnar lost by a little. $1k vs $6k, and with AF. The Sonnar was more than good enough for it's purpose of establishing a high quality wide for NEX.
Yes, I remember that comparison, but imho, it is only valid on that particular body, since we don't know if the sensor toppings and microlens design of the Nex were incompatible with the summilux. But definitely I would rather use the Sonnar on a Nex body since it's a native mount and has AF.
edwardkaraa wrote:
To be honest, the only reason you would want to use the Lux on a Nex is if you already own one.
I don't know about the 'Lux 24, having never tried it, but the strategy of buying Leica M for nEX is hardly invalid IMHO. I purchased an Elmar 24, which I vastly prefer over the ZA 24, and a 'Lux 50, which I also find to be far superior to any alternative, G 45 included. Whether it is "worth it", and what one's criteria are for preference are of course invidual matters.
I just think that buying such expensive glass to use on a crop sensor body may not be financially feasible for most users, noting also some corner mush with incompatible designs.
The lenses you have are superlative by any standards.
philip_pj wrote:
In the context of these Touits, that E mount 24mm f1.8 Sonnar is a fine lens also. Mike Johnston has more:
'A friend just completed some tests on his own equipment and told me that a $7,000 Leica 24mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M produces visibly inferior results to a $1,100 Sony/Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-Mount on a NEX.'
It looks very much a part of the series for Sony users. You could run up a very pricy lineup these days in NEX/Fuji.
I'm assuming the Lux was used on a NEX camera and the evaluation was for sharpness. I have the 21 Lux and when I did the M-mount 21mm shootout, confirmed what is evident in the 21 Lux MTF - it's extremely wavy and needs stopping down to f/8 for decent FF mid zone performance. I've spoken to a 24 Lux owner who confirmed the 24 is very similar (as can be seen in its MTF).
The thing with the 21/24 Luxes is they're designed for full frame, not APS-C. As a consequence, the mid zone dip falls at about the image edges on APS-C, right where everyone casts a critical eye to judge corner sharpness. But on FF, the MTF recovers for the edges/corners. At least with 21mm M-mount lenses, there are better alternatives for adapting to NEX. My first choice would be the new Voigtlander 21/1.8 and second would be Leica's 21/3.4 SEM... The SEM is amazing on FF and can imagine the 24/3.8 is very similar and am not surprised Philippe is very fond of it.
carstenw wrote:
Okay, but why? The only normal reason for putting a FF lens on a crop camera is that you can get a good deal on some older, well-performing lenses. Comparing a high-cost f/1.4 wide angle lens is just the wrong way around.
nope, that's the comparison that is interesting to me – which lens performs better on my camera. my reason for putting FF lenses on crop cameras is that i hate all current FF cameras but like a lot of FF lenses btw.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yes, I remember that comparison, but imho, it is only valid on that particular body, since we don't know if the sensor toppings and microlens design of the Nex were incompatible with the summilux. But definitely I would rather use the Sonnar on a Nex body since it's a native mount and has AF.
agreed, what's true on the NEX-7 won't necessarily be true on 16mp NEXs or fuji cameras. i definitely would rather NOT use the sonnar on the NEX because it's native mount and has AF. NEX ergonomics are terrible with AF lenses and excellent with manual focus lenses.
There are a lot of us on this forum that agree with Derek's comments and that is precisely why we are using the Nex's (i.e., at the current time, Nex is absolutely the best platform for manually focusing adapted lenses).
Another point is that there is often a significant size advantage when using FF lenses on NEX vs. native lenses. An extreme example of this is the size of the kit when using my 50/2 Summicron vs. the native 50/1.8oss (add the lens hoods and the size difference is enormous).
Yes-I can see a color difference, but since I process all my stuff with a half dozen different Kodachrome presets in Lightroom, the differences would be moot once I finished with the files.