Zeiss marketing need to start featuring some pictures of iridescent and brightly colored parrots in their product literature to communicate the intention behind the name. It's really not so bad, when you learn where it comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touit . Otherwise, I would agree that 'Touit' sounds very pretentious.
As for size, perhaps Zeiss know that anyone desiring small will just adapt existing ZM lenses to mirrorless. They therefore decided to create an alternative. (Which also has its own advantages - AF, better performance on the NEX7 sensor etc).
For myself, I much prefer the build, style, history, inter-operability and hyperfocal markings of the ZMs.
Very interesting that they provided a ZE/F style data sheet on their own website, even more so that they lack MTF data.
The ZEF and ZM Distagons have similar MTF (very high centre fading gently, ZM being better) and the anatomy of the 12mm looks like a compressed version of these two designs. The ZM has very high distortion at 4%, moustache. For the small cam weight weenies, the new lens is half the weight of the ZM (260g vs 500g). I'd say that counts it out, and the new lens is, uh, a little cheaper too, that ZM is $4600.
The ZM Biogon 35/2 was one (I am almost sure) Ron Scheffler did an extensive test against the RX1 with, see his blog for details. It is a good enough price, light and small - the RX1 was clearly a better performer however, the bokeh of the ZM was, in a word, challenging, corners were also poor, all in comparison (and my opinion) of course. But it is benchmark of sorts for the Touit 32/1.8, agreed, and should have better corners. The 32mm focuses much closer also, is lighter, AF, native mount..
I'd expect the 32 to have different, if not better, bokeh than the ZM35/2, since they're such different designs optically. The ZM isn't really that Biogon-ish but it's not at all Planar, either. Whereas the 32 is very much a Planar.
I would say that the 12 and any of the NEXs would be a substantial size and weight savings over a D600/6D/a99/5Dx/D800 and a Zeiss 18/3.5.
This is what I don't understand. Zeiss makes a great set of manual focus lenses for cameras that have hobbled their usefulness as manual focus cameras to accommodate AF. For the cameras that have fantastic MF tools and comparatively hobbled AF systems, they make AF lenses.
freaklikeme wrote:
This is what I don't understand. Zeiss makes a great set of manual focus lenses for cameras that have hobbled their usefulness as manual focus cameras to accommodate AF. For the cameras that have fantastic MF tools and comparatively hobbled AF systems, they make AF lenses.
Had these two sets of lenses for the two kinds of cameras had been introduced side-by-side at the same time... then yes, the irony would be delicious. However, the reality is that CZ probably wasn't ready for autofocus until now. Or at least autofocus at a performance level where their disadvantage (from a relative lack of investment and experience) would be otherwise embarrassing for such a premium product.
DtEW wrote:
Had these two sets of lenses for the two kinds of cameras had been introduced side-by-side at the same time... then yes, the irony would be delicious. However, the reality is that CZ probably wasn't ready for autofocus until now. Or at least autofocus at a performance level where their disadvantage (from a relative lack of investment and experience) would otherwise be embarrassing.
Zeiss has designed AF lenses for years. They may not have had to design the drives, but they certainly had to engineer around them for the Contax G, N, 645, and all of the Zeiss-branded Sony lenses.
Contax N and 645 AF were built by Kyocera. I am not sure how much of the AF technology Zeiss had the rights to? Ditto Sony. The G system is completely different in the way it works, and very old-style in the performance, presumably.
Realistically, Zeiss doesn't have any modern AF experience.
Can't say I'm too excited about these on Fuji given: price, size, focal lengths.
The 12mm is of passing interest, but far too big/pricey compared to the 14mm Fuji-- though the focal length difference is substantial, and if you need 18mm equiv, likely quite well corrected, Zeiss will temporarily be the only game in town. But I imagine the Fuji UWA zoom, starting at 10mm, for the same/less money (my prediction; not by much though), will, for me at least, render the Zeiss 12mm less exciting. No matter the zoom will have slightly more distortion and be not much smaller.
The 35, on the other hand. I'm way too happy with the performance of the Fuji 35mm to think about spending 2x to 3x the price for something slower and bigger.
Now, if the 12mm was manual focus only, half the size, and half to 2/3 the price, compared to it's current specs... I'd be much more interested.
My viewpoint on Zeiss' marketing is different from the one most commonly expressed here. Most posters complain that the Zeiss choices don't fill the existing gaps in the Sony/Fuji/Sigma/Voigtländer lineups.
My experience in marketing is that this is defintetely not how companies think, unless they see themselves as underdogs, or, to put it another way, linefillers. Which means that, whereas that POV would confine them to lenses not already supplied to the market, meaning niches within the NEX or Fuji niches, Zeiss obviously want to be ther leader in premium lenses for those niches.
And, frankly, I think that approach could well work if the IQ is there to back up the price.
Sony NEX lenses are not shooting for the same price/performance segment, and Sigma are at this time still far from the Zeiss reputation, even if their recent products are much improved over prior offerings. Fuji's reputation for lenses in the wide world isn't there yet either, neither is that brand a truly household name.
So I make the case that Zeiss are aiming to be the dominant player in the luxo-mirrorless segment, on the back of the prestige of "German glass" (Leica-Zeiss). Hence the choice of 3 lenses, one WA, one standard FL, one short-tele-cum-macro lens, all of them with AF, and not looking very "exotic", the way a ZM would to mainline clients. This at price points more expensive than any competitor (Sony is way cheaper, as is Sigma, Fuji a bit less so but still in a different league). So, whereas you want a full lineup of options, whichever lens manufacturer they may come from, Zeiss want to be king of one segment....
I think Zeiss' offerings here are fine in view of the NEX. I think they're going to have a much harder time on the Fuji side, though, as the three proposed Touit lenses are all competing against smaller Fuji options that are already absolutely stellar optically. When there's very small margin for improvement anyway, and you're producing larger lenses for a format that is all about size, there's not a lot of room to establish yourself as a premium brand with these offerings. I'm not saying that it might not be possible...these two lenses might be the best lenses ever made for these formats. But it's a steep hill to climb.
Now, if they continue, there is plenty of opportunity for amazing glass to be produced by Zeiss that will be competitive with the native Fuji glass.
I do think the 12mm will be an attractive lens, despite the size of it. It is reasonably fast and wider than the XF14, not by much, but it is wider. The UWA zoom will be a bit wider, but slower and size/weight/performance unknown.
I think all of the three lenses would make for an excellent set up, I could see myself buying into a NEX6 or XE-1 just for the 12mm alone. The 32 would not be my first choice but the rest are up my alley.
I think they'll sell, but mirrorless is a different space, and people buying in to mirrorless cameras are predominantly doing it to get away from the large size of current SLR kits.
)