Part of the attraction of the 12 it that it has no real competition, as a high-end AF UWA. Part of the problem for the 32 is that there is a really excellent Sigma, which, while quite a bit slower, can be had for a quarter of the price of the Zeiss. And Fuji lovers say that the 35 f:1.4 is also outstading; So it is not going to be a walk in the park for the Touit 32 IMHO.
philber wrote:
Part of the attraction of the 12 it that it has no real competition, as a high-end AF UWA. Part of the problem for the 32 is that there is a really excellent Sigma, which, while quite a bit slower, can be had for a quarter of the price of the Zeiss. And Fuji lovers say that the 35 f:1.4 is also outstading; So it is not going to be a walk in the park for the Touit 32 IMHO.
But then, there are ppl which love Leica or Zeiss look. And are willing to pay price premium. Same reason why ppl get ZF/ZE lens. Or why I have C/Y instead cheaper full-auto Nikkor.
It will be harder for Zeiss, but if these lens are good and "Zeiss" then it wont be that hard and it will find its buyers.
philber wrote:
Part of the attraction of the 12 it that it has no real competition, as a high-end AF UWA. Part of the problem for the 32 is that there is a really excellent Sigma, which, while quite a bit slower, can be had for a quarter of the price of the Zeiss. And Fuji lovers say that the 35 f:1.4 is also outstading; So it is not going to be a walk in the park for the Touit 32 IMHO.
I definitely agree that it's going to be a fight for Zeiss but after looking at the samples posted by PCH on facebook I believe that the Touit 32 is up to the task. I pre-ordered from B&H yesterday and will be testing the Touit 32 against the Sigma 30mm 2.8 which is a very good lens on the NEX-7. The Touit 32 for me as a NEX-7 user is an extremely exciting lens and am hoping that it proves as good as the samples I've seen on the Sony. I'm already using the Sony 10-18 zoom and from what I can see on the samples with the Touit 12 it's going to be a even tougher fight for the Zeiss. I am looking forward to testing these two lenses and will have no problem sending them back if they don't make the grade.
Agreed that Touit 32 has a lot of competition, but nothing quite like it if it performs to expectations. I think that the E mount version will be sold out from preorders on the date it is available and very difficult to obtain for at least 6 months after that. X mount version is a tougher call because of the 35/1.4.
I have the Sony 35/1.8 oss, which is a good lens with nice rendering - perfect for people pix. But I don't think it's a great pick for landscapes/architecture, so I'm planning to get a Touit 32 if the reviews are favorable and it has a Zeissy look.
It's not a huge difference, but I will prefer the 32 mm focal length over 35 on APS-C (I say this based on using my Pentax 31 Limited as compared to the various 35's I've used).
Basically, Dennis, the Touit 12 needs to outperform the Sony zoom -or else! There are however many more choices in the 30-35mm range, each of which has something to offer. I am not totally taken with the sample pics, with what I see as somewhat nervous bokeh in at least one pic. But that could change when they start shipping
I agree but sharpness and clarity trump bokeh for me almost all the time. I can add and enhance bokeh easly if need be. I can't wait to see the comparisons! The real question is the lens worth $700 more than the new Sigma 30.
dennishh wrote:
The real question is the lens worth $700 more than the new Sigma 30.
As I said above, for many people who will buy this lens, that is not the real question. With many consumer goods, after a certain price point you pay a disproportionate increase in price for incremental real or perceived increases in performance. If this wasn't true, Leica wouldn't be able to sell any lenses.
I'm not arguing your point just the opposite for me. I'm convinced that just having a Zeiss lens on my camera makes me a better photographer if only by 10%, that's enough for me. Every one of my clients recognize the Zeiss name and assumes they are getting a better product, whether that is true or not we could debate for the rest of our lives. These Zeiss lenses surely enhance the Sony and Fuji brand.
dennishh wrote:
I'm already using the Sony 10-18 zoom and from what I can see on the samples with the Touit 12 it's going to be a even tougher fight for the Zeiss.
Is the 10-18mm really that good? Just asking - I don't presume either way.
corposant wrote:
Is the 10-18mm really that good? Just asking - I don't presume either way.
I think it's a good but after reading the photozone review I guess there's some major sample variations, I managed to get a good one the first time. Tested it heads up with my Nikon 14–24 with the Nikon only being slightly better at the very extreme outer edge. The reason I like it is the 10mm focal length is a place I like to shoot. I'm sure the Zeiss will be better but by how much, I'll wait and see.
serhan_ wrote:
Here is the sample photos from PCH, however photos are not at 100% viewable: Zeiss Touit Samples
Thanks for this. The 12mm samples on Zeiss' website did not inspire a lot of hope, but these do look better. I'm quite disappointed that no lens maker ever show samples on the NEX-7. We all know these ultra-wide will look great on the 16mp sensor. Anyways, I'm in no rush. I can wait to see more tests and reviews before jumping in. Someone will eventually test this lens on the NEX-7.
According to the pch post: To be honest I do not see something that strikes me, the files look similar, maybe the Zeiss 12mm is a bit smoother and not as sharp, or maybe it is more creamy than the 14mm Fuji, and maybe the 32 Zeiss is a bit sharper, or has better micro contrast? I can not tell really the differences. What is sure is that the Zeiss Lenses are beautiful to see and play with, I like the focus ring a lot, it’s a better feeling than the one of the 35mm. The aperture ring is a bit too smooth for my taste, and one can easily change the aperture without noticing it. It happened to a lot of shots during the comparison, were I had to be careful and check every time the aperture ring cause it had moved [...] After testing the 2 lenses 32&35, I found them equally fast, providing that the xf35 has the latest firmware. It’s difficult to say which is faster. The Zeiss on the other hand seems a bit less noisy and the focus seems smoother, I would say not so mechanical. But these are subtle differences. I did not have two bodys to compare. The Quality of the Zeiss is beautiful, the feel is georgeous, I like them, but image quality wise, they do not seem to be better than the Fuji’s. Only precise tests will tell from the usual Photozone and the likes what the truth is [...] Another thing, I’m testing now the Zeiss 32mm, and in manual focus mode, like the Fuji’s, you can still get AF when pressing the AE-L/AF-L button...Show more →
Wow, these Fuji lenses are awesome. I had a feeling the Fuji X would have the best lenses of all the mirrorless systems. If only they didn't have the problem with the raw processing.
If the test of PCH is representative of the quality lack of differences, this shows from one side how good the Fuji lens design is, and from the other side, and most importantly, that Zeiss has moved on in lens design to become just like Canon or Nikon. In the past, Canikon were known to design lenses with MTF charts in mind, in order to get the best MTF graphs and look good, even if the real world samples had other esthetic problems. Zeiss older designs are all very special. Every lens has some special qualities and they all had the Zeiss 3D pop and high micro contrast, even if the corners didn't always look so good. It seems to me that in the last couple of years, Zeiss is aiming for nice MTF graphs, corner to corner sharpness, but the designs are clinical and sterile, so that any good lens from another manufacturer would look indistinguishable.
