This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
p.65 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Well, my ZM 50/2 is currently around 860$ and the 50/1.5 at 1200$. Both are worth the money imo and they don't even have AF.
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:33 AM
p.65 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
This is exactly my point. The Oly 75/1.8, which is one of the very best lenses I've used on ANY camera, costs $849. The Canon 85/1.8 costs $419, and the Nikon costs $489. So the Olympus costs 71% more than the Nikon 85/1.8. A steep price increase, but worth it for what amounts to a longer lens that is absolutely brilliant optically.
This lens costs 400% more than the Nikon 50/1.8 and 900% more than the Canon 50/1.8. If this Zeiss were $400, I'd view it as a reasonable price should the optics be outstanding. Heck, if it was $600, I'd...Show more →
It really does not matter though. In the end, this lens, like any other, will be judged by it's performance (and build quality to some extent). For those folks who use and love a normal lens for the majority of their photography, the comparative ratio of price to other focal lengths does not matter a bit. If we started doing price comparisons based on mm's of sensor size covered, I suspect m43 would look astronomically expensive. Does it matter? Not if you prefer using m43.
Jochenb wrote
Ok, but there's one thing I don't understand then Jordan. You own the Olympus 75/1.8 which is only a littlebit cheaper than the rumored price of that 55/1.8 over here. A lens for a much smaller sensor, also f1.8, SLR variants (85/1.8) costing only a fraction of that,... That's another way to put things into perspectiveThis lens costs 400% more than the Nikon 50/1.8 and 900% more than the Canon 50/1.8. If this Zeiss were $400, I'd view it as a reasonable price should the optics be outstanding. Heck, if it was $600, I'd...Show more →
It really does not matter though. In the end, this lens, like any other, will be judged by it's performance (and build quality to some extent). For those folks who use and love a normal lens for the majority of their photography, the comparative ratio of price to other focal lengths does not matter a bit. If we started doing price comparisons based on mm's of sensor size covered, I suspect m43 would look astronomically expensive. Does it matter? Not if you prefer using m43.
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:35 AM
p.65 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
You are of course correct, Tariq. This isn't a comment on the relative merits of the lens. I would imagine the lens will be brilliant. I sure hope it would be. I though the Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX was way overpriced because it's only 'good' optically...I didn't think it was anything particularly special...but that was a 35mm equiv priced at the same price point...this is a normal, which should be cheaper...so they'd better deliver on it.
Yes, you can compare to rangefinder lenses, but this isn't a rangefinder lens, and it isn't a hand-built solid metal crafted machine...it's a mass produced AF lens. If it floats your boat, then by all means go for it.
For me, personally, it's actually a major barrier to entry into the system. Especially if the other 'good' lenses are similarly priced. My Fuji kit, which consists of absolutely stellar lenses, consists of the 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 60/2.4 (which will be swapped for the 56/1.2) and the 55-200. This covers a huge range, with truly outstanding optics, and costs $3650 (probably $4K when the swap to the 56/1.2 takes place). If the other lenses for this camera are similarly priced, with the wides and telephotos being about 50-70% more (which they almost always are), I could expect a A7 kit with 21/2.8, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 70-200 to run me about $8,000-10,000. That's really not worth the small increase in image quality for going to full frame, especially since the fast lenses will not get me any extra depth of field or light advantage in low light (since the Fuji's are faster). For me, at least. If it is to you, that's fine, but since this is a discussion about the system, I thought I'd add my 2 cents.
Yes, you can compare to rangefinder lenses, but this isn't a rangefinder lens, and it isn't a hand-built solid metal crafted machine...it's a mass produced AF lens. If it floats your boat, then by all means go for it.
For me, personally, it's actually a major barrier to entry into the system. Especially if the other 'good' lenses are similarly priced. My Fuji kit, which consists of absolutely stellar lenses, consists of the 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 60/2.4 (which will be swapped for the 56/1.2) and the 55-200. This covers a huge range, with truly outstanding optics, and costs $3650 (probably $4K when the swap to the 56/1.2 takes place). If the other lenses for this camera are similarly priced, with the wides and telephotos being about 50-70% more (which they almost always are), I could expect a A7 kit with 21/2.8, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 70-200 to run me about $8,000-10,000. That's really not worth the small increase in image quality for going to full frame, especially since the fast lenses will not get me any extra depth of field or light advantage in low light (since the Fuji's are faster). For me, at least. If it is to you, that's fine, but since this is a discussion about the system, I thought I'd add my 2 cents.
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:47 AM
p.65 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
For me, personally, it's actually a major barrier to entry into the system...
But I think we are back to the main difference of the NEX system - option to use the lenses you already own.
If AF is a requirement, that might be of course a problem. But if not, we don't really care about any new native
NEX lenses. If they are great, well, that's nice, but as of today, I honestly don't care what new lenses Sony brings.
I have all the lenses I need, the missing part is a modern FF camera to put them on.
Seems like it might be finally answered
For me, personally, it's actually a major barrier to entry into the system...
But I think we are back to the main difference of the NEX system - option to use the lenses you already own.
If AF is a requirement, that might be of course a problem. But if not, we don't really care about any new native
NEX lenses. If they are great, well, that's nice, but as of today, I honestly don't care what new lenses Sony brings.
I have all the lenses I need, the missing part is a modern FF camera to put them on.
Seems like it might be finally answered
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:53 AM
p.65 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Of course if you're only adapting, this is fantastic. You have to realize, though...people who only use adapted lenses are a vanishingly small percentage of photographers. I adapt a lot, but I still prefer to use native AF lenses.
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:00 AM
p.65 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
Of course if you're only adapting, this is fantastic. You have to realize, though...people who only use adapted lenses are a vanishingly small percentage of photographers..
I know, we are all here
Of course if you're only adapting, this is fantastic. You have to realize, though...people who only use adapted lenses are a vanishingly small percentage of photographers..
I know, we are all here
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:03 AM
p.65 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
You are of course correct, Tariq. This isn't a comment on the relative merits of the lens. I would imagine the lens will be brilliant. I sure hope it would be. I though the Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX was way overpriced because it's only 'good' optically...I didn't think it was anything particularly special...but that was a 35mm equiv priced at the same price point...this is a normal, which should be cheaper...so they'd better deliver on it.
Yes, you can compare to rangefinder lenses, but this isn't a rangefinder lens, and it isn't a hand-built solid metal crafted machine...it's a mass...Show more →
The Fuji lenses are great and Fuji, unlike Sony, really know how to properly release a lens system. That said, the last point about "small increase in image quality" I really have to doubt. A FF 36MP Sony sensor compared to what Fuji is using now? That's a huge jump in potential image quality. After using both the Fuji and a D800E, there is really no comparison, particularly if you need or want the resolution. To get that in the tiny size of m43 or APS NEX? One certainly has to add that into the equation of overall lens price, which is not considered in your analogy. I'm like others though. If I buy this, it will be used with adapted lenses I already own.
You are of course correct, Tariq. This isn't a comment on the relative merits of the lens. I would imagine the lens will be brilliant. I sure hope it would be. I though the Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX was way overpriced because it's only 'good' optically...I didn't think it was anything particularly special...but that was a 35mm equiv priced at the same price point...this is a normal, which should be cheaper...so they'd better deliver on it.
Yes, you can compare to rangefinder lenses, but this isn't a rangefinder lens, and it isn't a hand-built solid metal crafted machine...it's a mass...Show more →
The Fuji lenses are great and Fuji, unlike Sony, really know how to properly release a lens system. That said, the last point about "small increase in image quality" I really have to doubt. A FF 36MP Sony sensor compared to what Fuji is using now? That's a huge jump in potential image quality. After using both the Fuji and a D800E, there is really no comparison, particularly if you need or want the resolution. To get that in the tiny size of m43 or APS NEX? One certainly has to add that into the equation of overall lens price, which is not considered in your analogy. I'm like others though. If I buy this, it will be used with adapted lenses I already own.
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:10 AM
p.65 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, you can compare to rangefinder lenses, but this isn't a rangefinder lens, and it isn't a hand-built solid metal crafted machine...it's a mass produced AF lens. If it floats your boat, then by all means go for it.
For me, personally, it's actually a major barrier to entry into the system. Especially if the other 'good' lenses are similarly priced. My Fuji kit, which consists of absolutely stellar lenses, consists of the 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 60/2.4 (which will be swapped for the 56/1.2) and the 55-200. This covers a huge range, with truly outstanding optics, and costs $3650 (probably $4K when the swap to the 56/1.2 takes place). If the other lenses for this camera are similarly priced, with the wides and telephotos being about 50-70% more (which they almost always are), I could expect a A7 kit with 21/2.8, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 70-200 to run me about $8,000-10,000. That's really not worth the small increase in image quality for going to full frame, especially since the fast lenses will not get me any extra depth of field or light advantage in low light (since the Fuji's are faster). For me, at least. If it is to you, that's fine, but since this is a discussion about the system, I thought I'd add my 2 cents.The Fuji lenses are great and Fuji, unlike Sony, really know how to properly release a lens system. That said, the last point about "small increase in image quality" I really have to doubt. A FF 36MP Sony sensor compared to what Fuji is using now? That's a huge jump in potential image quality. After using both the Fuji and a D800E, there is really no comparison, particularly if you need or want the resolution. To get that in the tiny size of m43 or APS NEX? One certainly has to add that into the equation of overall lens...Show more →
And to add some Leica M wide angle lenses if they truly perform well with the cameras.
Rich
Jman13 wrote
You are of course correct, Tariq. This isn't a comment on the relative merits of the lens. I would imagine the lens will be brilliant. I sure hope it would be. I though the Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX was way overpriced because it's only 'good' optically...I didn't think it was anything particularly special...but that was a 35mm equiv priced at the same price point...this is a normal, which should be cheaper...so they'd better deliver on it.Yes, you can compare to rangefinder lenses, but this isn't a rangefinder lens, and it isn't a hand-built solid metal crafted machine...it's a mass produced AF lens. If it floats your boat, then by all means go for it.
For me, personally, it's actually a major barrier to entry into the system. Especially if the other 'good' lenses are similarly priced. My Fuji kit, which consists of absolutely stellar lenses, consists of the 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 60/2.4 (which will be swapped for the 56/1.2) and the 55-200. This covers a huge range, with truly outstanding optics, and costs $3650 (probably $4K when the swap to the 56/1.2 takes place). If the other lenses for this camera are similarly priced, with the wides and telephotos being about 50-70% more (which they almost always are), I could expect a A7 kit with 21/2.8, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 70-200 to run me about $8,000-10,000. That's really not worth the small increase in image quality for going to full frame, especially since the fast lenses will not get me any extra depth of field or light advantage in low light (since the Fuji's are faster). For me, at least. If it is to you, that's fine, but since this is a discussion about the system, I thought I'd add my 2 cents.
And to add some Leica M wide angle lenses if they truly perform well with the cameras.
Rich
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:13 AM
p.65 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
naturephoto1 wrote:
There is no mention in the specs about the cameras being able to accept a wired remote. I hope they do. Otherwise I do not know of any way of using remotes for a variety of functions including for lighting photos.
Rich
I'm not too happy about what looks like the lack of a sync plug for strobes. That's not really acceptable on a FF, interchangeable lens camera. One can always use a hot shoe mounted adapter but it's a kludge on, cumbersome deal on a camera body this small. Hopefully, we are just not seeing the sync plug (but we know the RX1 does not have one, though I think it's a bigger deal not to be on this camera).
There is no mention in the specs about the cameras being able to accept a wired remote. I hope they do. Otherwise I do not know of any way of using remotes for a variety of functions including for lighting photos.
Rich
I'm not too happy about what looks like the lack of a sync plug for strobes. That's not really acceptable on a FF, interchangeable lens camera. One can always use a hot shoe mounted adapter but it's a kludge on, cumbersome deal on a camera body this small. Hopefully, we are just not seeing the sync plug (but we know the RX1 does not have one, though I think it's a bigger deal not to be on this camera).
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:20 AM
p.65 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Fuji lenses are great and Fuji, unlike Sony, really know how to properly release a lens system. That said, the last point about "small increase in image quality" I really have to doubt. A FF 36MP Sony sensor compared to what Fuji is using now? That's a huge jump in potential image quality. After using both the Fuji and a D800E, there is really no comparison, particularly if you need or want the resolution. To get that in the tiny size of m43 or APS NEX? One certainly has to add that into the equation of overall lens...Show more →
That's a fair point. I don't really have a need for that level of resolution, but I understand others do. I don't think it factors that much into lens price, though. Maybe a premium for the best lenses, but a 5 fold premium, or a 50% premium on already premium priced Zeiss rangefinder lenses? I'm quite shocked by the rumored price of the A7r, which I thought would be closer to $3K. But I guess my biggest thing with the 55/1.8 price is where does it go from there?
If an $1100 55/1.8 is acceptable, what do you think a fair price for an equally good 50/1.4 is? What about a 50/1.2? Are we to expect $2500 and $5000 price tags on these lenses?
What's a fair price for the upcoming 85/1.8? What about an 85/1.4? Are we to expect $2000 and $4000 price tags on these? When you start scaling by what the typical adjustment has been in almost all lens systems for speed increases and focal length changes, the price on the 55/1.8 starts to raise eyebrows. Usually the price doubles or triples to go from f/1.8 to f/1.4. And usually price doubles at the same aperture to go from 50mm to 85mm (and some cases even higher).
Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the camera...these cameras look to be awesome, especially for those adapting lenses they already own...but as a system, it still needs to survive on its own with the native lens options.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 07:38 AM · View previous versions
The Fuji lenses are great and Fuji, unlike Sony, really know how to properly release a lens system. That said, the last point about "small increase in image quality" I really have to doubt. A FF 36MP Sony sensor compared to what Fuji is using now? That's a huge jump in potential image quality. After using both the Fuji and a D800E, there is really no comparison, particularly if you need or want the resolution. To get that in the tiny size of m43 or APS NEX? One certainly has to add that into the equation of overall lens...Show more →
That's a fair point. I don't really have a need for that level of resolution, but I understand others do. I don't think it factors that much into lens price, though. Maybe a premium for the best lenses, but a 5 fold premium, or a 50% premium on already premium priced Zeiss rangefinder lenses? I'm quite shocked by the rumored price of the A7r, which I thought would be closer to $3K. But I guess my biggest thing with the 55/1.8 price is where does it go from there?
If an $1100 55/1.8 is acceptable, what do you think a fair price for an equally good 50/1.4 is? What about a 50/1.2? Are we to expect $2500 and $5000 price tags on these lenses?
What's a fair price for the upcoming 85/1.8? What about an 85/1.4? Are we to expect $2000 and $4000 price tags on these? When you start scaling by what the typical adjustment has been in almost all lens systems for speed increases and focal length changes, the price on the 55/1.8 starts to raise eyebrows. Usually the price doubles or triples to go from f/1.8 to f/1.4. And usually price doubles at the same aperture to go from 50mm to 85mm (and some cases even higher).
Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the camera...these cameras look to be awesome, especially for those adapting lenses they already own...but as a system, it still needs to survive on its own with the native lens options.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 07:38 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:31 AM
p.65 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
yeah the price of the body seems like a bait to be honest, the real mouse trap are the lenses
dont be a mouse Jordan, just snatch the body and run
habemus lenses
dont be a mouse Jordan, just snatch the body and run
habemus lenses
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:36 AM
p.65 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Every single ZA prime for A and E mount has been over a grand, and I didn't expect this to be any different. If you don't mind a bulky camera body, or you don't mind a small sensor, there are tons of more affordable options out there, but, if you want a 35mm sensor in a small package, there are only two games in town, and the Sony setup is significantly cheaper than the Leica option.
If I was interested in an interchangable lens system, the A7/r would be a no brainer.
If I was interested in an interchangable lens system, the A7/r would be a no brainer.
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:51 AM
p.65 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
That's a fair point. I don't really have a need for that level of resolution, but I understand others do. I don't think it factors that much into lens price, though. Maybe a premium for the best lenses, but a 5 fold premium, or a 50% premium on already premium priced Zeiss rangefinder lenses? I'm quite shocked by the rumored price of the A7r, which I thought would be closer to $3K. But I guess my biggest thing with the 55/1.8 price is where does it go from there?
If an $1100 55/1.8 is acceptable, what do you think a...Show more →
Well, it's Sony so I'm hesitant to say this given their lens release history but...
If the FF E-mount cameras sell well, they will very likely release cheaper primes that are not Zeiss branded for half the price or less. This would satisfy the folks who will be buying the cheaper kit with zoom initially and that market uses Zooms instead of primes anyway (though I find it silly to use big zooms on a small body like this to begin with). I don't think we will see a huge price delta between this normal and say the 35 2.8 or the 85 1.8 Zeiss/ Sony lenses. I highly suspect they will all be priced about the same (which might help to equalize your formula a bit for an entire lens system).
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 07:56 AM · View previous versions
Tariq Gibran wrote
The Fuji lenses are great and Fuji, unlike Sony, really know how to properly release a lens system. That said, the last point about "small increase in image quality" I really have to doubt. A FF 36MP Sony sensor compared to what Fuji is using now? That's a huge jump in potential image quality. After using both the Fuji and a D800E, there is really no comparison, particularly if you need or want the resolution. To get that in the tiny size of m43 or APS NEX? One certainly has to add that into the equation of overall lens price, which is not considered in your analogy. I'm like others though. If I buy this, it will be used with adapted lenses I already own.If an $1100 55/1.8 is acceptable, what do you think a...Show more →
Well, it's Sony so I'm hesitant to say this given their lens release history but...
If the FF E-mount cameras sell well, they will very likely release cheaper primes that are not Zeiss branded for half the price or less. This would satisfy the folks who will be buying the cheaper kit with zoom initially and that market uses Zooms instead of primes anyway (though I find it silly to use big zooms on a small body like this to begin with). I don't think we will see a huge price delta between this normal and say the 35 2.8 or the 85 1.8 Zeiss/ Sony lenses. I highly suspect they will all be priced about the same (which might help to equalize your formula a bit for an entire lens system).
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 07:56 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:54 AM
p.65 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I think it's still too early to be speculating about the value of the native lenses. All we have are rumors, we haven't even seen a single photo taken with any of these lenses yet. If they are truly excellent performers people will say they're worth the price tag. If not, people will say they're too expensive. Time will tell.
If they screw these lenses up you'll have a similar story as NEX. Nice for adapting lenses, but a mediocre native lens lineup (I don't even really like the 32mm touit). The rumors say there'll be a lot of new lenses coming in 2014, we'll see.
If they screw these lenses up you'll have a similar story as NEX. Nice for adapting lenses, but a mediocre native lens lineup (I don't even really like the 32mm touit). The rumors say there'll be a lot of new lenses coming in 2014, we'll see.
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:56 AM
p.65 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Be nice to be able to use the distance markings on the lens barrels of my rangefinder lenses for a change.
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:56 AM
p.65 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
But this won't last forever. If it grabs enough market, Canon or Nikon will eventually respond... if it doesn't, well then everyone will know where things stand and these will continue to be very expensive niche products. There's always a steep price for early adapters (though the initial kit seems pretty reasonable aside from any of the lenses one might want).
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:58 AM
p.65 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
[double post]
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 07:58 AM
p.65 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I am happy the 55/1.8 is highly priced, cause I am expecting great IQ ... if it should perform better than the Lux (and it is possible), it'd be a bargain
Oct 15, 2013 at 08:28 AM
p.65 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
So this gets announced at 1:00pm CST in the US? Anything on the price of the 35/2.8?
Oct 15, 2013 at 08:34 AM
p.65 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I happen to disagree with Jman on what "causes" the price of a Zeiss lens. I don't think Zeiss price in linear fashion as a multiple of a given Nikon price. I also don't think it is strictly and only cost-based. I suspect that there is in their thinking some kind of a "floor price" around 1000$ for any new release of. Zeiss lens. But that is just a guess...
Oct 15, 2013 at 08:38 AM