Steve Spencer wrote:
These are outstanding MTFs. It looks like these lenses will be worth the price, IMO, but perhaps that is jumping the gun just a bit. Still the 12mm MTFs look way better than the 18mm ZE/ZF and it is less money.
If I compare to my ZM glass on FF, I think both Touits outperform my very highly regarded ZM 18 and 50.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I agree that these Touit lenses seem to have THE full Zeiss look, while the 24/1.8 and even the RX1/35/2 seem to be a bit different.
The RX1 35/2 is not the full Zeiss What
Has more 3-d and sharper than Z* 35/2 and colors and microcontrast are Z* level. Much better than ZA24 which you are including it with.
wayne seltzer wrote:
The RX1 35/2 is not the full Zeiss What
Has more 3-d and sharper than Z* 35/2 and colors and microcontrast are Z* level. Much better than ZA24 which you are including it with.
Why are you so offended Wayne. I said "a bit different". In the case of the rx1 I find the rendering a cross between Zeiss and Leica. Is that a bad thing?
I'm a bit surprised that Zeiss have used the layman's term "effective focal length" in their datasheets (without even specifying that they mean equivalent FL on full frame).
edwardkaraa wrote:
Why are you so offended Wayne. I said "a bit different". In the case of the rx1 I find the rendering a cross between Zeiss and Leica. Is that a bad thing?
Never heard anyone say the rendering is a cross between zeiss and leica. It is very zeiss like in rendering unlike the SonyZeiss ZA lenses. The lens has the very fast focus to out of focus transition like the contax 35/1.4 but has smoother bokeh and better flare control.
I spent the afternoon at the Zeiss press / demo. I don't have much to add that the early reviewers haven't already mentioned, but in case this is news for anyone:
1) The AF motors are DC, not USM. Zeiss said they specifically chose DC motors for more power and reliability.
2) The focus ring is an electronic actuator - MF is by wire. But I honestly didn't realize it at first - MF was smooth and the feel is great. I only noticed because you can hear the motor working.
3) Distortion is different on the Fuji and NEX mounts because of different flange to sensor distances. It's pretty low on both.
4) The 35 sharpens up and contrasts up dramatically at f/4 - it's good resolution but less contrasty below that, the 12mm is best at f/5.6 but is still very contrasty even wide open.
5) The AF motor noise wasn't loud to me and is low pitched and not too buzzy, but I could see it being an issue to someone shooting video.
6) Speaking of video, there's a bit of focus breathing with each.
7) Fuji and Sony were both represented and both companies have opened their AF algorithms and systems. Zeiss made it very clear they don't reverse engineer and would only do AF at the invitation of the manufacturer. They were noncommittal when I asked about micro 4/3 lenses. Said it was possible but they had no immediate plans.
This all sounds like negative stuff - but that's what I was there to do. Overall I found them excellent lenses, especially the 12mm which is amazing for something that wide. I'm quite excited about both.
Two other things I found out: the next Touit lens will be a 50mm f/2.8 Macro released in the fall. That will be it for 2013, but there will be more in 2014. And finally, they are prototyping a Touit zoom.
This may all be old news and if so I apologize - I was up too late last night watching the Grizzlies, then had an early morning flight here, so I'm fairly brain dead.
Thanks so much, Roger. Good to hear they are emphasising durability - that perennial German obession.
'It's pretty low on both.'
Here is where it gets interesting because distortion is so low, and CZ are using new graphs for Touit, that this is surely computer modified. The ultra wide angle 12mm (so 18mm on FF) never exceeds 0.1%. The 32mm is about the same.
This is for a focal distance of 0.7m, perhaps a new method? Maybe a tech person can advise the effect across FDs for rectilinear distortion in a prime lens, does it vary a great deal? I thought not. It is also referred to as radial distortion and relative distortion - interchangable terms?
The MTF for the 12mm is so close to the D21mm there is no more than a struck match in it, it's comfortably ahead of the $3000 D15/2.8. The 32mm is not much less spectacular, looks optimised for wide open, maybe a little residual CoF in the outer frame. It's easy for us to get carried away sometimes but these are about as good as it gets, it would be a surprise if either show anything significant to complain about.
sebboh, a mid wide angle can't be off the agenda for long. 18mm will not suit many compositions, Zeiss are just such show-offs.
wayne, I think I know what Ed is driving at, and yes it is a complement to the RX1's status as a character lens which has the special magic that some Leicas have, expressed in a Zeiss style - 'Zeiss plus'. There is nothing quite like it. It's why you see a lot of hardened Leica M people interested - Huff, Ron and Ed here, many more. I hope I have not verballed you, Ed ;-)
There's no way the 12/2.8 has lower than 0.1% distortion. Just look at the sample shots...while not crazy, there is clearly visible distortion on the 12mm shots.
philip_pj wrote:
sebboh, a mid wide angle can't be off the agenda for long. 18mm will not suit many compositions, Zeiss are just such show-offs.
wayne, I think I know what Ed is driving at, and yes it is a complement to the RX1's status as a character lens which has the special magic that some Leicas have, expressed in a Zeiss style - 'Zeiss plus'. There is nothing quite like it. It's why you see a lot of hardened Leica M people interested - Huff, Ron and Ed here, many more. I hope I have not verballed you, Ed ;-)
Agreed on both counts Philip!
The RX1 has a large Leica M user following, more than you can imagine. I don't know why saying it has a Leica look is considered like an insult. In fact, the modern Leica glass has every bit of Zeissness, 3D and high micro contrast, but with an unmistakable Leica smoothness, that I would rather describe as sophistication. Many recent Zeiss lenses have this Leica smoothness too, so I think the distinction is not as clear as it was 10 years ago.
I agree, you make a good point. But I also read many comments that people wanted Zeiss to make whatever does not exist yet in the Fuji/Nex lens lineups. Different strokes for different folks.
My guess is that Zeiss are aiming to have a more or less full Touit line in and of itself. They just chose the entry points where they felt they would have the most impact early on. As there is basically no alternative as a premium UWA on Nex, the 12 is a good punt. The 32 is the classic FL. And, from there, a short tele cum macro make so much sense. Wanna bet that the next Touit will be a mix of a longer tele, a WA, around 18, and a zoom?
Now if they had included M4/3 in the equation, it would have made even more compromises necessary because the competitive landscape would have been much more complex, and because the effective FL is different due to its smaller sensor size. IMHO new bayonets for Samsung or Canon are more likely/sensible than M4/3. That would be for example a simple, inexpensive, quasi-instant way for Canon to spiffy up their lame Canon M line, and Zeiss already do Canon-compatible lenses.
Maybe they figure the APS-C class is likely to win out, as it can pick up downsizers from FF and upsizers from m4/3 and similar miniature formats.
Agree it would be excellent to see, philippe, an 18mm Distagon (28mm eq), how about a 60mm Sonnar (for 90mm) both at f2.8 for small sizes and easier correction and serious performance, and a renewed 23mm-47mm small zoom (a new 35-70, has to be Vario Sonnar) in f3.4. All lend themselves to small and compact sizing, and are well differentiated from the other Touits (and the 24/1.8). That is some system right there.
The 12mm is a good choice all in all, they get the kudos for the widest prime lens, it's fast, and field of view is the same as the well established 18mm (eq). Note their distortion data is from NEX not Fuji. Great they are doing these in two top mounts, reflecting the Canon/Nikon duopoly in full frame. Why not compete head on with Fuji and the adapted lenses on NEX?
Zeiss now has a finger in so many pies - Cine, FF with C/N and ZA, these Touits for APS-C, the new super FF lenses, the RX series. I nearly forgot The FF NEX mirrorless, rumoured to be three in that series to start with. It is all coming together for them, they are maturing into digital very nicely.
I just watched their video, they are so shy about their achievements it's very charming...no info about the ultra low distortion however.
philip_pj wrote:
Agree it would be excellent to see, philippe, an 18mm Distagon (28mm eq), how about a 60mm Sonnar (for 90mm) both at f2.8 for small sizes and easier correction and serious performance, and a renewed 23mm-47mm small zoom (a new 35-70, has to be Vario Sonnar) in f3.4. All lend themselves to small and compact sizing, and are well differentiated from the other Touits (and the 24/1.8). That is some system right there.
+1
What a great set of focal length choices! Here's hoping that the Zeiss designers have been thinking along the same lines. Initially I wasn't all that interested in the Touit line. I don't like AF and, since I never use anything wider than 24mm on full frame, the 12mm Distagon was of no interest. But I think it's great that Zeiss started with an 18mm equivalent lens because there's clearly a strong demand for that FL on NEX particularly and, by providing what seems to be an excellent lens, they've made a lot of people really happy.
But the Flickr samples from the 32/1.8 Planar bowled me over and the 18mm Distagon and 60mm Sonnar that philip_pj suggests would give me a 28/50/90 equivalent set. Plus the fact that I'd definitely use the 50mm macro and a 35-70 equivalent zoom would be the perfect walkaround lens. I guess I'd better start trying to overcome my aversion to AF (though it's comforting that Roger says the MF is smooth and feels great).
The RX1 has a large Leica M user following, more than you can imagine. I don't know why saying it has a Leica look is considered like an insult. In fact, the modern Leica glass has every bit of Zeissness, 3D and high micro contrast, but with an unmistakable Leica smoothness, that I would rather describe as sophistication. Many recent Zeiss lenses have this Leica smoothness too, so I think the distinction is not as clear as it was 10 years ago.
Edward, I am not offended and was just reacting to your first statement where you included both the ZA 24 and the RX1 35/2 in the same sentence saying it was not full Zeissness which appeared negative and gave me no clue why you think it is not full zeissness. Then you told me it is because it renders both like a Zeiss and Leica lens which also did not make sense to me as I think Zeiss and Leica have different drawing styles. Zeiss renders in more of a 3-d manner with volume shape where Leica has more flat, sharp in a plane type rendering. There was a good discussion a few years back on the differences in drawing style between Leica and Zeiss.
So I just like to understand what you meant and have more detail so it is more clear. I have both leica and Zeiss lenses so I will never be offended.:-)
When you mention smoothness, are you talking about bokeh? Also, I think the multiple aspherical elements which help sharpness wide open also somehow helped the bokeh rendering to be smoother than a single asherical element lens like contax 35/1.4. Maybe the short register distance helped this too.
What