Boatloads better? I seriously doubt it. But it will certainly be somewhat better and it will have that Zeissy look with high micro contrast and 3D pop, and almost certainly corner to corner sharpness. Normally the MTF should be available in 1-2 weeks so we will know for sure, but the disappeared samples on flickr did look very promising. Anyhow, I don't think Zeiss has any unrealistic expectations. The lenses are certainly for a niche clientele.
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.
No, that must be a printing error. It says f/2 but the MTF is still the same as the previous version of the datasheet (I have a copy), where it said f/1.4.
AhamB wrote:
No, that must be a printing error. It says f/2 but the MTF is still the same as the previous version of the datasheet, where it says f/1.4.
Thanks for this info, AhamB. I was wondering why would Zeiss do that
Jman13 wrote:
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.
There will always be a market for people who want the Zeiss look and build quality. I'm not sure I'll buy either of these lenses because I already own the Fuji lenses at these focal lengths, but I'm definitely interested in seeing what they can do. Zeiss probably feel that they're a premium brand and they can charge premium prices for mirrorless system lenses, and they're probably right. I know several people who wouldn't even consider shooting mirrorless until they saw that these Zeiss lenses were coming. I suspect that's the niche Zeiss is catering to.
BTW the 50 f/1.4 is also pretty expensive relative to its competition, isn't it? The Nikon 50 f/1.4G costs $400 and has AF.
itai195 wrote:
BTW the 50 f/1.4 is also pretty expensive relative to its competition, isn't it? The Nikon 50 f/1.4G costs $400 and has AF.
That's my point.
Look, I'm not banging on Zeiss, and I know people will buy these. I for one really, really like the Zeiss look. On my X-E1, I have my 3 Fuji primes and my Zeiss 90/2.8 Sonnar. I've owned the C/Y 50/1.7, 85/1.4, 85/2.8 and 28-85. That biting sharpness, rich color and microcontrast is awesome. But they're entering a very interesting market with a $900 f/1.8 normal prime...at least on the Fuji side, given the very, very good performance of the 35/1.4.
The 12/2.8 is a little big for me, and a little more than I want to pay for an ultra-wide, but I get that price...it's a lens that I'm sure will do just fine, especially if it performs like the 21 Distagon. The 32/1.8, though, I'd have expected to be in the $500-600 range, not the $900 range. I mean let's face it, a $600 f/1.8 normal lens is already in the 'premium' category. At $600, it would be the most expensive f/1.8 or slower normal prime (in current mainstream production) that didn't have "Leica" on its barrel (excepting the Zeiss 50/2 Makro...but macro adds a whole different level). Adding 50% to that is pushing it.
Both gonna be a tough sale. 12 will sell if it reach 21 Distagon performance. But 32 with aperture 1.8, I donno. For slow MILC lens, sigma is doing great, and how much they charge? Sony itself are seems doing great with 35mm 1.8. not to mention Fuji's 35mm is great with 1.4. and I bet more fast glass will come from SigmaArt.
I must say I am disappointed with 32mm spec. for Wide, I don't mind slow at all, but a FF 50mm prime at f2.5 without macro? even with stellar slow down performance, it is gonna be a hard sell. charge $700 like zm planar, it has a better sense/chance. but Planar is a FF lens with RF patch and metal build, which can be used for FUTURE.
Edit: Jaman, we post almost at the same time with same thought
Jman13 wrote:
The 32/1.8, though, I'd have expected to be in the $500-600 range, not the $900 range. I mean let's face it, a $600 f/1.8 normal lens is already in the 'premium' category. At $600, it would be the most expensive f/1.8 or slower normal prime (in current mainstream production) that didn't have "Leica" on its barrel (excepting the Zeiss 50/2 Makro...but macro adds a whole different level). Adding 50% to that is pushing it.
The Sony 35/1.8 OSS is about $450. I have this lens, it's a very good, but not great lens. And you expected the Zeiss to sell for only $50-150 more?
Frankly, I think all this complaining about price before we've seen how the lens performs is putting the cart before the horse. If the performance is comparable to a Leica Summicron or ZM Planar, would you still think it should sell for $600?
I guess it just doesn't strike me as that out of character for Zeiss. They also charge $1100 for the 35mm f/2 distagon, which is a very modest spec for a lens at that price, but that hasn't stopped the lens from selling. I agree it's expensive compared to the competition, though.
Jeff Kott wrote:
The Sony 35/1.8 OSS is about $450. I have this lens, it's a very good, but not great lens. And you expected the Zeiss to sell for only $50-150 more?
Frankly, I think all this complaining about price before we've seen how the lens performs is putting the cart before the horse. If the performance is comparable to a Leica Summicron or ZM Planar, would you still think it should sell for $600?
Yes. Frankly, while excellent, I think all Leicas are horribly overpriced. The ZM Planar is a good lens, but it's not earth shatteringly good. As for the Sony, it's got OSS, which is an adder, and frankly I think that lens is a little overpriced as well.
Don't you think an $600 f/1.8 normal is pretty pricy? The f/1.8 normals from all other OEM manufacturers are in the $100-$250 range. They're asking nearly FOUR times that for this lens. That's a pretty high price. Maybe it'll be worth it, but like I said...it needs to crap golden images at that price. For $900, it needs to be in APO Summicron territory, IMO. (Frankly, I think the APO Summicron should be around $1200 at absolute most, but I've never understood the insane prices Leica asks for their stuff).
zhangyue wrote:
Gosh, do they rising the price? I always complain Leica's price rising. But So did Zeiss.
They did raise the prices last year, but can't remember when exactly. I bought mine for 700$ so when I decide to sell it, I may actually make some profit
Jman13 wrote:
Don't you think an $600 f/1.8 normal is pretty pricy? The f/1.8 normals from all other OEM manufacturers are in the $100-$250 range. They're asking nearly FOUR times that for this lens. That's a pretty high price. Maybe it'll be worth it, but like I said...it needs to crap golden images at that price. For $900, it needs to be in APO Summicron territory, IMO. (Frankly, I think the APO Summicron should be around $1200 at absolute most, but I've never understood the insane prices Leica asks for their stuff).
It is pretty pricey. I expect better performance and much better build quality from the Zeiss. I use a Nikon 50/1.8G quite regularly, and while it's a good performer I don't think it will be tough for the Zeiss to better it quite handily in every way. Is that worth $900? Well, maybe not to me, but perhaps to others. There are still people out there who feel that the 35/1.4 distagon is worth paying for even now that the Sigma 35 has hit the market, so what do I know.
Jman13 wrote:
Yes. Frankly, while excellent, I think all Leicas are horribly overpriced. The ZM Planar is a good lens, but it's not earth shatteringly good. As for the Sony, it's got OSS, which is an adder, and frankly I think that lens is a little overpriced as well.
Don't you think an $600 f/1.8 normal is pretty pricy? The f/1.8 normals from all other OEM manufacturers are in the $100-$250 range. They're asking nearly FOUR times that for this lens. That's a pretty high price. Maybe it'll be worth it, but like I said...it needs to crap golden images at that price. For $900, it needs to be in APO Summicron territory, IMO. (Frankly, I think the APO Summicron should be around $1200 at absolute most, but I've never understood the insane prices Leica asks for their stuff). ...Show more →
I guess we're focused on two separate but related issues.
First issue, what do we think these lenses are worth on some intrinsic level. This discussion has gone on for ages. With camera equipment, like many consumer products (stereo equipment, automobiles, etc.) after a certain price point you pay a disproportionate increase in price for incremental real or perceived increases in performance.
Second issue, what did we expect these lenses to cost. Based on prices for other Zeiss (and Sony Zeiss) lenses, if you thought the new Zeiss 32 would be priced at $500-600, I think you were unrealistically optimistic.
And like I said above, let's see the performance before we assess the price performance ratio, taking into account that we pay a lot for small performance increments with lenses.
Jeff Kott wrote:
The Sony 35/1.8 OSS is about $450. I have this lens, it's a very good, but not great lens. And you expected the Zeiss to sell for only $50-150 more?
Frankly, I think all this complaining about price before we've seen how the lens performs is putting the cart before the horse. If the performance is comparable to a Leica Summicron or ZM Planar, would you still think it should sell for $600?
Jeff, I am not complaining price, but merely discuss if it is can sell. I might even buy it at this price but with knowing I am the minority in market make me question the value of this lens.
Invest big $$ in APS-C for premier lens itself is questionable to me. Serious amateur will transfer to FF MILC if it comes one day. (this can be seen that market for use to be hot APS-C red/gold ring is very soft now.) I won't even consider ZF/ZE if they are APS-C lens.
We simply can't use Leica's standard for this lens. If ZF/ZE charge Leica R use to be price, they will die just like Leica R. The only reason Leica M can survive is all about its uniqueness in the market. It is the niche of niche with no competition. Here, the competition is stiff for plastic AF lens.
And the problem for me to justify this 32mm is you might have a harder time to find 35mm FF equivalent stellar performer, but not so much for 50mm prime. So charge 24mm 1.8 at $1000 make a lot more sense to me than 32mm 1.8 even it can be sharp to extreme corner.
TBH, even $450 Sony seems over priced to me.
I am sure many people here is waiting for this lens and think it worth it. the real question is will it success?
Well said Jeff. The Zeiss 24/1.8 is priced at 1100$ and it is IMO the lens of reference being Zeiss and E mount. The 12 and 32 seem to be priced within the same range considering the different FL, and the 32 having no ED or aspherical elements. Expectations of lower prices are certainly unreasonable.
Zhangyue, based on many previous rumors and the announcement of these lenses, it seems that a FF mirrorless is highly unlikely in the coming couple of years, at least.
One more thought. Realistically I would expect the production ratio between E and X mounts to be like 8/2 or 7/3 at best. I expect these lenses to be more popular with Nex users, due to the long relation of Sony with Zeiss and the existence of the ZA 24 that the additional lenses complement very well. The decision to add the X mount was probably more strategical since a lot of the R&D is already covered.
