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.67 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
Are you seriously comparing an f/2.8 standard zoom to a 55/1.8?
Anyway, you want to spend a grand on an f/1.8 normal, go ahead.
Problem is, we don't know how it compares optically to the lower priced CaNikon offerings. If it's on par with my 50/1.8G, then obviously that is a problem. I like my 50/1.8G, but it doesn't have the kind of pop that my ZE50MP had (which I used as a $850 normal because I liked it's output a lot).
I am holding out hope that this new 55 is an amazing lens, and worth the cost. If it is, then I'd likely buy one, 'cuz it's my favorite focal length and I'd love to have an AF lens that knocks my socks off in that range.
Are you seriously comparing an f/2.8 standard zoom to a 55/1.8?
Anyway, you want to spend a grand on an f/1.8 normal, go ahead.
Problem is, we don't know how it compares optically to the lower priced CaNikon offerings. If it's on par with my 50/1.8G, then obviously that is a problem. I like my 50/1.8G, but it doesn't have the kind of pop that my ZE50MP had (which I used as a $850 normal because I liked it's output a lot).
I am holding out hope that this new 55 is an amazing lens, and worth the cost. If it is, then I'd likely buy one, 'cuz it's my favorite focal length and I'd love to have an AF lens that knocks my socks off in that range.
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:29 AM
p.67 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I can't help but notice the price of the Sony Zeiss FE 35 2.8 and the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 2.8 are extremely close to one another ($800 vs $859). Beyond the obvious AF, MF, aperture control and so on, I'm really curious how these two will compare performance wise on the A7r.
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:41 AM
p.67 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
There is no point of saying it's expensive right now since no one knows about the IQ, AF speed, build quality, size and weight. It's just the same thing when people wonder about the "value" of the Otus 55/1.4 or any Leica 50. Sony has a good mix of size, price and speed for the first launch. Later, if they can just scale their 50/1.8 up for FF and price it around the same now, it would be a good, cheap substitute. I doubt that m43 had a better line up first launch.
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:44 AM
p.67 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I can't help but notice the price of the Sony Zeiss FE 35 2.8 and the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 2.8 are extremely close to one another ($800 vs $859). Beyond the obvious AF, MF, aperture control and so on, I'm really curious how these two will compare performance wise on the A7r.
These "Sonnar" designs for mirrorless, with most of the lens elements behind the exit pupil, are a lot different than the more symmetrical Biogon design, so I'd expect that most of the similarities between the two lenses just comes down to focal length and aperture.
That's another reason why you can't compare the new 55/1.8 Sonnar price to old 50/1.8 designs, as the 55/1.8 looks to be a new, non-Planar formula.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 09:50 AM · View previous versions
I can't help but notice the price of the Sony Zeiss FE 35 2.8 and the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 2.8 are extremely close to one another ($800 vs $859). Beyond the obvious AF, MF, aperture control and so on, I'm really curious how these two will compare performance wise on the A7r.
These "Sonnar" designs for mirrorless, with most of the lens elements behind the exit pupil, are a lot different than the more symmetrical Biogon design, so I'd expect that most of the similarities between the two lenses just comes down to focal length and aperture.
That's another reason why you can't compare the new 55/1.8 Sonnar price to old 50/1.8 designs, as the 55/1.8 looks to be a new, non-Planar formula.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 09:50 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:47 AM
p.67 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Wonder how much Sony will be charging for the Zeiss 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4? Probably $1700 and $2000 knowing Sony and looking at the prices of the primes.....
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:50 AM
p.67 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
No news of a fast 85 or 35 to go with it?
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:50 AM
p.67 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I'm glad to see the Zeiss 24-70 f/4 doesn't look that much bigger than the Sony 24-70 f/3.5-5.6. I want the A7r with 24-70 f/4 as a lighter walk-around, travel, hiking alternative to carrying my 5D3 and 24-105. The A7r with 24-70 f/4 will weigh in at 925g about the same as the 5D3 body alone. I think that will work for me.
Sony 24-70 f/3.5-5.6
Zeiss 24-70 f/4
Zeiss 24-70 f/4
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM · View previous versions
Sony 24-70 f/3.5-5.6
Zeiss 24-70 f/4
Zeiss 24-70 f/4
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:54 AM
p.67 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
EOS20 wrote:
Wonder how much Sony will be charging for the Zeiss 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4? Probably $1700 and $2000 knowing Sony and looking at the prices of the primes.....
SAR says 24-70 f/4 is $1200USD
No word on 70-200 but the leaked image at diglloyd shows it not being a Zeiss lens in the photo but says it is a Zeiss in the caption so who knows. Weight is said to be 840g without the tripod collar. That is heavier than the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS at 759g without the collar. So heavy beast to be sticking on a mirrorless camera. Don't really see the point of that one.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM · View previous versions
Wonder how much Sony will be charging for the Zeiss 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4? Probably $1700 and $2000 knowing Sony and looking at the prices of the primes.....
SAR says 24-70 f/4 is $1200USD
No word on 70-200 but the leaked image at diglloyd shows it not being a Zeiss lens in the photo but says it is a Zeiss in the caption so who knows. Weight is said to be 840g without the tripod collar. That is heavier than the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS at 759g without the collar. So heavy beast to be sticking on a mirrorless camera. Don't really see the point of that one.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:56 AM
p.67 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
douglasf13 wrote:
These "Sonnar" designs for mirrorless, with most of the lens elements behind the exit pupil, are a lot different than the more symmetrical Biogon design, so I'd expect that most of the similarities between the two lenses just comes down to focal length and aperture.
That's another reason why you can't compare the new 55/1.8 Sonnar price to old 50/1.8 designs, as the 55/1.8 looks to be a new, non-Planar formula.
Yes, I'm sure the Biogon will almost certainly give better distortion results (it's about as good as it gets with close to 0 distortion). Bokeh may be better with the Sonnar. The other charecteristics such as contrast, edge to edge sharpness and resolution are what I was mostly thinking about. I believe the Biogon is pretty exceptional in those aspects. Didn't you own the Biogon at one time Douglas? What did you think of it?
Tariq Gibran wrote
I can't help but notice the price of the Sony Zeiss FE 35 2.8 and the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 2.8 are extremely close to one another ($800 vs $859). Beyond the obvious AF, MF, aperture control and so on, I'm really curious how these two will compare performance wise on the A7r.That's another reason why you can't compare the new 55/1.8 Sonnar price to old 50/1.8 designs, as the 55/1.8 looks to be a new, non-Planar formula.
Yes, I'm sure the Biogon will almost certainly give better distortion results (it's about as good as it gets with close to 0 distortion). Bokeh may be better with the Sonnar. The other charecteristics such as contrast, edge to edge sharpness and resolution are what I was mostly thinking about. I believe the Biogon is pretty exceptional in those aspects. Didn't you own the Biogon at one time Douglas? What did you think of it?
Oct 15, 2013 at 09:57 AM
p.67 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
ricardovaste wrote:
No news of a fast 85 or 35 to go with it?
You're moving too fast! The whole system is not even announced yet. Hopefully, this time Sony would release a road map of sort so people have more faith in the platform. So far, it seems like Sony is on the right track.
No news of a fast 85 or 35 to go with it?
You're moving too fast! The whole system is not even announced yet. Hopefully, this time Sony would release a road map of sort so people have more faith in the platform. So far, it seems like Sony is on the right track.
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM
p.67 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Well I have my Phigment Leica M to NEX adapter and Hawk's Factory Leica M to NEX Helicoid in hand and I just ordered my Leica R to NEX Novoflex adapter. I should have the Novoflex adapter later this week or early next. I am all set; hopefully Sony will allow me to try M mount and Leica R lenses on the A7 and the A7r at PhotoPlus in NYC on October 24. Then, it will be a waiting game and my deciding if I get the A7r or wait for an upcoming FF NEX body. 
Rich
Rich
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM
p.67 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
hiepphotog wrote:
You're moving too fast! The whole system is not even announced yet. Hopefully, this time Sony would release a road map of sort so people have more faith in the platform. So far, it seems like Sony is on the right track.
Sorry, I'd only caught pieces of what people had spoken about, I thought it had been announced now.
ricardovaste wrote
No news of a fast 85 or 35 to go with it?Sorry, I'd only caught pieces of what people had spoken about, I thought it had been announced now.
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM
p.67 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
New Prices Posted On SAR:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-more-lens-price-info-and-a7r-costs-100-more-than-samy-leak/
Cameras:
- The A7 body only costs $1698 as leaked on Samys.
- $1998 (or 1999 Euro) is what you pay for the A7 kit version with the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens.
- The leaked Samy price for the A7r could be wrong. Instead of $2198 the price should be $2298. In Europe the price is likely 2400 Euro.
- The RX10 costs $1298.
Lenses:
- The Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 prime lens will cost 800 Euro and in US $800.
- The Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 prime lens will cost 1100 Euro and in US $1000.
- The Sony 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom will cost around 500 Euro (not sure yet about price in USA).
- The Zeiss 24-70mm f/4.0 zoom will cost around $1200 (not sure yet about price in Europe).
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-more-lens-price-info-and-a7r-costs-100-more-than-samy-leak/
Cameras:
- The A7 body only costs $1698 as leaked on Samys.
- $1998 (or 1999 Euro) is what you pay for the A7 kit version with the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens.
- The leaked Samy price for the A7r could be wrong. Instead of $2198 the price should be $2298. In Europe the price is likely 2400 Euro.
- The RX10 costs $1298.
Lenses:
- The Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 prime lens will cost 800 Euro and in US $800.
- The Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 prime lens will cost 1100 Euro and in US $1000.
- The Sony 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom will cost around 500 Euro (not sure yet about price in USA).
- The Zeiss 24-70mm f/4.0 zoom will cost around $1200 (not sure yet about price in Europe).
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM
p.67 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
anyone staying up late for some live video?
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM
p.67 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
uhoh7 wrote:
anyone staying up late for some live video?
More like getting up early here
anyone staying up late for some live video?
More like getting up early here
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM
p.67 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
arbitrage wrote:
I'm glad to see the Zeiss 24-70 f/4 doesn't look that much bigger than the Sony 24-70 f/3.5-5.6. I want the A7r with 24-70 f/4 as a lighter walk-around, travel, hiking alternative to carrying my 5D3 and 24-105. The A7r with 24-70 f/4 will weigh in at 925g about the same as the 5D3 body alone. I think that will work for me.
With the Zeiss 24-70/4 at $1200, now THAT'S what I'm talking about. Now my interest is rekindled. $1200 for a 24-70/4 with IS is a reasonable price. If it's really good, that plus an A7 is a pretty killer combo for $2900. (I actually started adding up the cost of going to a minimal m4/3 system to pick that combo up...keeping only the 14/2.5, 60/2.8 macro and 75-300...the things m4/3 really does best...super small, macro and compact super telephoto....I can't ever see getting rid of my 60/2.8 macro because it's SO good and the smaller sensor means 1:1 is REALLY tiny. Of course then I start thinking about how good the 25/1.4, 75/1.8 and 35-100/2.8 are....argh.).
The 35/2.8 is a little pricey given the slow aperture, so I'll hold off on that one, but the 24-70 looks good and the thought of adapting many of my Canon FD lenses has me thinking. Wheels turning, so to say. Darn you Sony! I don't need another camera. (though it would open me up to doing new reviews in this mount...)
If they offer the A7 with the 24-70/4 in a combo that saves a few hundred bucks, I may not be able to resist...
I'm glad to see the Zeiss 24-70 f/4 doesn't look that much bigger than the Sony 24-70 f/3.5-5.6. I want the A7r with 24-70 f/4 as a lighter walk-around, travel, hiking alternative to carrying my 5D3 and 24-105. The A7r with 24-70 f/4 will weigh in at 925g about the same as the 5D3 body alone. I think that will work for me.
With the Zeiss 24-70/4 at $1200, now THAT'S what I'm talking about. Now my interest is rekindled. $1200 for a 24-70/4 with IS is a reasonable price. If it's really good, that plus an A7 is a pretty killer combo for $2900. (I actually started adding up the cost of going to a minimal m4/3 system to pick that combo up...keeping only the 14/2.5, 60/2.8 macro and 75-300...the things m4/3 really does best...super small, macro and compact super telephoto....I can't ever see getting rid of my 60/2.8 macro because it's SO good and the smaller sensor means 1:1 is REALLY tiny. Of course then I start thinking about how good the 25/1.4, 75/1.8 and 35-100/2.8 are....argh.).
The 35/2.8 is a little pricey given the slow aperture, so I'll hold off on that one, but the 24-70 looks good and the thought of adapting many of my Canon FD lenses has me thinking. Wheels turning, so to say. Darn you Sony! I don't need another camera.
(though it would open me up to doing new reviews in this mount...)If they offer the A7 with the 24-70/4 in a combo that saves a few hundred bucks, I may not be able to resist...
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM
p.67 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I will buy the 55/1.8 and the 24-70 ... and skip the slow 35 (too close to f/4 and no OSS) ...
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM
p.67 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I will buy the 55/1.8 and the 24-70 ... and skip the slow 35 (too close to f/4 and no OSS) ...
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM
p.67 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Tariq Gibran wrote:
These "Sonnar" designs for mirrorless, with most of the lens elements behind the exit pupil, are a lot different than the more symmetrical Biogon design, so I'd expect that most of the similarities between the two lenses just comes down to focal length and aperture.
That's another reason why you can't compare the new 55/1.8 Sonnar price to old 50/1.8 designs, as the 55/1.8 looks to be a new, non-Planar formula.Yes, I'm sure the Biogon will almost certainly give better distortion results (it's about as good as it gets with close to 0 distortion). Bokeh may be better with the Sonnar. The other charecteristics such as contrast, edge to edge sharpness and resolution are what I was mostly thinking about. I believe the Biogon is pretty exceptional in those aspects. Didn't you own the Biogon at one time Douglas? What did you think of it?
I did own the Biogon, but I only used it on aps-c, so I'm not sure how it compares to the RX1's lens or this new 35/2.8 on FF.
Distortion is the main advantage that we're still going to see with M lenses, compared to the new native Zeiss lenses, I'd imagine. The funny thing is, I actually prefer a little distortion with my 35mm lenses, when shooting people, because it's more pleasing on heads/faces that aren't smack dab in the center of the frame, and, although correcting distortion hurts resolution a bit, it usually isn't a deal breaker. With the RX1, I tend to not correct distortion.
douglasf13 wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
I can't help but notice the price of the Sony Zeiss FE 35 2.8 and the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 2.8 are extremely close to one another ($800 vs $859). Beyond the obvious AF, MF, aperture control and so on, I'm really curious how these two will compare performance wise on the A7r.That's another reason why you can't compare the new 55/1.8 Sonnar price to old 50/1.8 designs, as the 55/1.8 looks to be a new, non-Planar formula.
I did own the Biogon, but I only used it on aps-c, so I'm not sure how it compares to the RX1's lens or this new 35/2.8 on FF.
Distortion is the main advantage that we're still going to see with M lenses, compared to the new native Zeiss lenses, I'd imagine. The funny thing is, I actually prefer a little distortion with my 35mm lenses, when shooting people, because it's more pleasing on heads/faces that aren't smack dab in the center of the frame, and, although correcting distortion hurts resolution a bit, it usually isn't a deal breaker. With the RX1, I tend to not correct distortion.
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM
p.67 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
SAR puts the price of the 55/1.8 at an absurd €1100. Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal.
Or unless your name is Zeiss
I likely won't be buying this lens since I have other adaptable lenses in this focal length that I like quite a lot, and for situations where I need autofocus I'm probably using a zoom lens. But I am curious to see what its performance is. I'm getting the sense that they are really trying to establish a premium level system, it will be interesting to see if it lives up to the billing.
SAR puts the price of the 55/1.8 at an absurd €1100. Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal.
Or unless your name is Zeiss
I likely won't be buying this lens since I have other adaptable lenses in this focal length that I like quite a lot, and for situations where I need autofocus I'm probably using a zoom lens. But I am curious to see what its performance is. I'm getting the sense that they are really trying to establish a premium level system, it will be interesting to see if it lives up to the billing.
Oct 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM