Jman13 wrote:
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.
That pretty much covers me. OTOH, I'm not getting away from large DSLR cameras, I'm getting into smaller cameras for those occasions that a DSLR is too big and obtrusive. I'm much less likely to buy a larger XF lens when a smaller one has effectively the same IQ and coverage, and so it's more likely that I'll get the Fujifilm XF 14/2.8 than the Zeiss XF 12/2.8, unless the Zeiss offers significantly better IQ.
carstenw wrote:
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.
My point wasn't that they''ve manufactured AF lenses (since they don't even manufacture most of the SLR/RF lenses) but rather that they've have to design lenses to work with AF. Nor was I trying to say they owned the rights to those AF motors, though I doubt Zeiss would've had to go far to find someone willing to sell it to them. But to say they "weren't ready" for AF or lacked any modern AF experience makes them sound pathetic and out of touch, where as their marketing material put an entirely different spin on it.
In this post on Zeiss' website, which is partly about overcoming the obstacles of manually focusing lenses on AF SLRs, the author states, "...these lenses achieve a level of focusing accuracy that is far superior to any conventional AF lenses."
So either Zeiss has developed an AF motor for the two new lenses that will assist the NEXs and Fujis in attaining greater accuracy than the conventional AF lens on an AF SLR, or these lenses are providing inferior accuracy (on cameras that could maximize that accuracy) in comparison.
freaklikeme wrote:
My point wasn't that they''ve manufactured AF lenses (since they don't even manufacture most of the SLR/RF lenses) but rather that they've have to design lenses to work with AF. Nor was I trying to say they owned the rights to those AF motors, though I doubt Zeiss would've had to go far to find someone willing to sell it to them. But to say they "weren't ready" for AF or lacked any modern AF experience makes them sound pathetic and out of touch, where as their marketing material put an entirely different spin on it.
Oh, I don't think what they are doing will be pathetic, I am sure it will be competent. And if they make certain claims, I am sure that the reality will be close. I just mean that they don't have a track-record yet.
Pretty sure at least with the Fuji system there is some software tweaking to offset less desirable lens characteristics. I'm not sure how much this affects the 14mm, but my impression is the 18 and 35 do benefit from some tweaks.
What we don't know is how much, or any, such support the Zeiss lenses will receive for either platform. If there isn't any such support, then Zeiss must offer lenses that can compare against or outperform the native lenses, but strictly based on raw optical characteristics.
My guess is once we see the results, there will be differences to set the Zeiss apart. Probably not strictly based on sharpness/resolution, but colour/rendering, similar to what we see with the ZE/ZF vs. Canikon and ZM vs. Leica M, where sharpness is never really a problem for the top lenses from any brand.
Just got it. They can't make them for MFT. The FFD for MFT is 20mm while for NEX and X it is 18mm. Which makes me wonder why did they gave up on this market. I mean, it can't be that difficult to develop a lens that will fit all.
Quote:
"Will the lenses also be available with Micro 4/3-bajonet (MFT)?
We want to offer lenses of very high quality. The image quality of the system also hinges on sensor size. Therefore, we intend to concentrate initially on the biggest sensor size in this segment which is APS-C. It would be possible for us to make lenses for Micro 4/3-bajonet as well but we have not made a decision on that yet.
If current APS-C lenses were also used for the Micro 4/3-bajonet, we wouldn’t be able to achieve the best tradeoff between lens size (weight), and image quality."
carstenw wrote:
Oh, I don't think what they are doing will be pathetic, I am sure it will be competent. And if they make certain claims, I am sure that the reality will be close. I just mean that they don't have a track-record yet.
Understood and very true. I just selfishly wish they weren't trying to develop an AF track record.
Quote:
"Will the lenses also be available with Micro 4/3-bajonet (MFT)?
We want to offer lenses of very high quality. The image quality of the system also hinges on sensor size. Therefore, we intend to concentrate initially on the biggest sensor size in this segment which is APS-C. It would be possible for us to make lenses for Micro 4/3-bajonet as well but we have not made a decision on that yet.
If current APS-C lenses were also used for the Micro 4/3-bajonet, we wouldn’t be able to achieve the best tradeoff between lens size (weight), and image quality."
I think the reality is that at 4-5X the cost of the panny 20 1.7 that is quite excellent, the 32 is a boutique item that no one would really want. Ultrawides are also well spoken for on m4/3, I might add, as the panny 7-14 is probably more versatile, for most things than the 12 tout.
Richard Schleuning added some test shots. They look impressive (optically).
Interesting to note that the camera used is a Fuji, whereas Fuji owners here feel that the Zeiss offerings are of no special interest except maybe the 12mm in a minor way. I would have expected them to shoot a NEX7 for two reasons. One is their partnership with Sony, the other one is the 7's very small pixel size makes it a challenge for lenses.
The tree leaves in the "desert" series with the 12mm leaves look strange to my eyes. Is that what the Fuji sensor does, especially when processed with Adobe software?
Images look appealing for early releases. Would like to see them go on a NEX7, and there will be plenty of interest in how they do on each design platform.
FLM, Zeiss (like Leica) have never believed in AF, hence that quote; they have been in the business too long and share an obsession with quality and durability, but now need to have a commercial 'accommodation' with it. They are right of course, and the article predates the D800. Selling the idea that less is more is never easy.
I think the 12mm looks promising regardless of platform, I am however still on the fence about that Fuji X-trans processing. There were plenty of variation in the pictures and lots of them which is great. Focus was a bit off on some but overall a very solid early presentation of the capabilities of the lenses.
To be honest I didn't look much at the 32mm samples, but the few I saw looked fine.
philber wrote:
Interesting to note that the camera used is a Fuji, whereas Fuji owners here feel that the Zeiss offerings are of no special interest except maybe the 12mm in a minor way. I would have expected them to shoot a NEX7 for two reasons. One is their partnership with Sony, the other one is the 7's very small pixel size makes it a challenge for lenses.
The tree leaves in the "desert" series with the 12mm leaves look strange to my eyes. Is that what the Fuji sensor does, especially when processed with Adobe software?
I think these are not official Zeiss shots. They can be considered as semi-official since Richard is the marketing manager in the US, but he's free to shoot whatever platform he likes. Also I would expect Sony not to be very happy about the new non ZA lenses, so shooting with a Nex might be considered as a direct provocation Anyhow, I am glad the sample shots are on a Fuji, because this sensor has a much worse corner performance than the Nex, so if the lenses work so nicely with the Fuji sensor, they will be even better with the Nex.
The Fuji has worse corner performance than the NEX 7, Edward? I wasn't aware of that, and so you make a very promising point. Not that I was overly worried, because it would have been unthinkable for Zeiss to release a WA with problems on platforms for which it is desgined.
philber wrote:
The Fuji has worse corner performance than the NEX 7, Edward? I wasn't aware of that, and so you make a very promising point. Not that I was overly worried, because it would have been unthinkable for Zeiss to release a WA with problems on platforms for which it is desgined.
Well, I should have added "with ZM wides" as I have done a lot of searching on this topic and frankly speaking, I would not use any ZM lens wider than 85mm on the Fuji, which means all of them
In fact, I was planning to get a Nex 6 but hated the form factor, so I started looking at the Fuji. Both Fuji cameras (X pro 1 and X e1) have a beautiful form but I quickly realized their sensor is not very friendly to the ZM lenses. The new touits may be the reason for me to get into the Fuji system.
