philber wrote:
What about other wides, like Leica or CV? The same? And any idea what Fuji may be doing to avoid such problems with its own wides?
Fuji designs the lenses specifically for the sensor. A quick look at the lens diagrams will tell the story.
As for Leica, I saw one comparison between the Fuji 35/1.4, ZM 35/2 and Cron 35/2, and while the ZM is completely unusable, the cron faired much better, even though the Fuji remained the clear best performer. Since I don't own any Leica or CV lenses, I didn't research their performance.
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."
edwardkaraa wrote:
Fuji designs the lenses specifically for the sensor. A quick look at the lens diagrams will tell the story.
As for Leica, I saw one comparison between the Fuji 35/1.4, ZM 35/2 and Cron 35/2, and while the ZM is completely unusable, the cron faired much better, even though the Fuji remained the clear best performer. Since I don't own any Leica or CV lenses, I didn't research their performance.
Yes, when the X18/2 was announced Fuji themselves told about the specific catering to the sensor when designing the lens. Lenses are tailored to the sensor.
From Fuji XF18/2 online literature:
"The final element, positioned as closely to the sensor as possible, makes the incidence angle of light reaching the sensor smaller, and reduces vignetting and color shading, while helping to keep the lens's overall size small."
Henrik
May 02, 2013 at 07:10 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think these lenses will sell on both NEX and X-mount, but for different reasons. I think they will sell on NEX because Sony hasn't made many lenses yet and these will be of a noticeably higher quality. Some people will pay for that higher quality. They will be bigger than the alternatives, however, and this will pose a challenge as I do believe most NEX users care about size (after all they are picking some of the smallest mirrorless cameras). I think they will sell on Fuji, partly because I think most X mount users don't make size as much of a premium feature. I think the X Pro 1 and even the X-E 1 are mostly about a type and style of shooting. These are relatively small but also have a bit of a range finder feel. Simply put, a nice small camera that works well. Fuji owners seem more concerned with quality and they can let the lenses be a bit bigger. Look at the kit zoom as an example. The Fuji kit zoom is bigger, but also of a higher quality and this fits the system, IMO. With that sort of a system I think the Zeiss lenses could find a home with a number of users. The Fuji lenses which are great as well, however, will be stiff competition.
Steve Spencer wrote:
... I think they will sell on Fuji, partly because I think most X mount users don't make size as much of a premium feature. I think the X Pro 1 and even the X-E 1 are mostly about a type and style of shooting. These are relatively small but also have a bit of a range finder feel. Simply put, a nice small camera that works well. Fuji owners seem more concerned with quality and they can let the lenses be a bit bigger. Look at the kit zoom as an example. The Fuji kit zoom is bigger, but also of a higher quality and this fits the system, IMO. With that sort of a system I think the Zeiss lenses could find a home with a number of users. The Fuji lenses which are great as well, however, will be stiff competition....Show more →
philber wrote:
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?
Yep, that's what the output from Adobe (and camera jpegs) does to some areas. The newly updated Aperture is MUCH better in terms of detail.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yep, that's what the output from Adobe (and camera jpegs) does to some areas. The newly updated Aperture is MUCH better in terms of detail.
Haven't seen you for a long while Douglas! Still shooting with the M9?
serhan_ wrote:
From the rumor sites, offical prices for the new Zeiss Touit lenses:
Touit 32mm f/1.8 for 799 Euro/ $900
Touit 12mm f/2.8 for 1099 Euro/ $1250
Nice! So these are more expensive than the ZE50/1.4 and ZE18 for FF cameras .
edwardkaraa wrote:
They have been removed. I wonder why? Maybe just a teaser.
Ah, wtf... Anyway, I'm glad I saw them, especially the desert shots with the 12mm looked good to me. Seems like Zeiss is showing their strength in creating high performance super wide angle lenses again.
AhamB wrote:
Ah, wtf... Anyway, I'm glad I saw them, especially the desert shots with the 12mm looked good to me. Seems like Zeiss is showing their strength in creating high performance super wide angle lenses again.
I will still have to see how the Zeiss 12mm compares to my Fujifilm 14mm f2.8, how easy the Zeiss 12mm is to control and how easy it is to manually focus.
The $300 premium on the 12/2.8 over the Fuji 14 may be worth it to some people for the extra width, and I'd imagine it will perform great.
However, that 32/1.8 had better crap golden images and clean your house for $900. $900 for a medium speed normal is pretty insane. I mean, it's not quite Leica prices, but it's still a little nuts. I mean, the ZF/ZE 50/1.4 is only $725, and it's 2/3 stop faster.
The $300 premium on the 12/2.8 over the Fuji 14 may be worth it to some people for the extra width, and I'd imagine it will perform great.
However, that 32/1.8 had better crap golden images and clean your house for $900. $900 for a medium speed normal is pretty insane. I mean, it's not quite Leica prices, but it's still a little nuts. I mean, the ZF/ZE 50/1.4 is only $725, and it's 2/3 stop faster.
I may either wait for PhotoPlus in October to check out the the Zeiss 12mm f2.8 or talk to my friends at Unique Photo and ask their opinion of the comparison with Fuji 14mm f2.8. It may result in my running over to Unique Photo in NJ and to check out the lens on my X-E1.
Except that the 50/1.4 is unusable wide open. Zeiss even removed the MTF graphs at f/1.4 and replaced them with f/2. I bet the new lens is sharp wide open, just like all other modern Zeiss designs.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Except that the 50/1.4 is unusable wide open. Zeiss even removed the MTF graphs at f/1.4 and replaced them with f/2. I bet the new lens is sharp wide open, just like all other modern Zeiss designs.
I'm sure it is, but so's the Fuji 35/1.4...and it's 2/3 stop faster, $300 cheaper and it's smaller.
Like I said, it had better be utterly spectacular, or they're not going to sell many. As in, it needs to be better than the PL 25/1.4 on m4/3, which right now is what I consider the best normal lens overall I've ever used. It's super sharp wide open with really nice bokeh and a very pleasant rendering. The Fuji 35/1.4 isn't quite as sharp wide open as the 25/1.4, especially in the corners, but has slightly nicer bokeh and perhaps a nicer overall rendering. While I'm sure Zeiss may have the capability to create a lens better than these, it needs to be boatloads better to really justify the 50% price premium AND the loss of 2/3 of a stop of light. ( of course, it's not competing directly with m4/3 at all, but I bring it up as an example). If it was essentially like the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, but in normal lens form, I think that would make it qualify.
Henrik
