Luvwine Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
philip_pj wrote:
50/1.4 ZA / Loxia 50/2: these are two so very different lenses with such different use cases and user profiles, market niches. It's hard to imagine they form a straight choice for many people, so extreme are these differences. For f8 style landscapes the 55/1.8 is a far better choice, and even a better performer (see Sony's own MTF).
I feel poorly about criticizing the middle Loxias because the format needs less commercial lenses than the fast ZA set. But we know Zeiss have it in them to combine IQ and artistry at the highest levels - but for some reason have refused to join the fray. We speculate why, but no one really knows.
In their absence, lens choice will further degenerate into zooms for wide angle work, and the old two tier C/N/S approach - fast and expensive / slow and value. Leica M users have 15-21-25-28 and 3x35s (all ZM) plus their own slow and super 21/24 and WATE. An extravaganza of choice! Some are great landscape lenses.
Zeiss are acutely aware of these issues and that many prefer more artistic lenses. Their latest lenspire notes:
"..designing a lens is a multifaceted process where science meets art. Only the best lenses withstand the test of time and become highly sought after classics for many photographers over the decades. They succeed, not only because they are excellent lenses from technical point of view, but also because photographers are able to rediscover their characteristics over and over again."
...Show more →
I would disagree with your comment that the 55/1.8 is a better landscape lens than the Loxia 50. You may have intended the comparison with the 50/1.4, but at F5.6 and smaller, I and many others found the Loxia 50 to be a more pleasing landscape lens than the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8. At larger apertures, I would agree but not stopped down.
|