I think the sample shots on photozone tells it all. He somehow tries to show off his photography skills and fails to do a couple of reliable test shot at one or two apertures. There is a slight chance he works less sloppy in his laboratory though. That said I think the 135mm focal length can not to be improved so much, the L and the Nikon are already excellent. The better for Zeiss if they join the club with a decent AF lens.
I think Sony is what we need, Canon and Nikon will have to answer the body IS and the new cameras in some way.
If I am right the A900 will be a camera similarly to the c5D with an attachable grip, but with the performance of the 1Ds3.
While this is probably not enough to switch for me, people who use an APS Canon or Nikon and have to replace all aps/DX lenses get a chance to make a huge step forward in switching brands.
There will be lots of gear from Canon and Nikon on the B/S and they have to think about what they are going to sell next year. Good times!
Is it not premature to state the performance of the A900 - esp features like the inbody stabilization (which will be much more difficult than A700 due to larger sensor) ?
Also the 24-70 (while sharp) seems less than ideal with the often poor bokeh. The 85f1.4 seems ok but not exceptional - though both the 135f1.8 and 135f2.8 sf do seem like very nice (exceptional?) lenses. Remains to be seen if something in the wide to normal range will become available (either for aps-c or full frame).
I've been most impressed with nikon recent offerings (though they are quite a bit more expensive than canon similar offerings).
you2 wrote:
Is it not premature to state the performance of the A900 - esp features like the inbody stabilization (which will be much more difficult than A700 due to larger sensor) ?
Indeed. The proof will be in the eating. It all sounds promising, but even the best hyped pudding can be bitter.
Well, they do have in body IS - instant IS for any lens you mount on the camera. The could be quite a nice feature, especially with some of the fast lenses. How much more does one pay for a decent *single* lens with IS in the canon line-up?
I would expect the IS performance on FF should be similar to the APS-C sensor. I have the A2 (tiny chip) with AS, and at that time people were saying they would never get it to work in a APS-C sized DSLR.
foto-z wrote:
Yep, I don't understand their strategy at all. They should be selling the camera body for at least 30% less than the equivalent Canon so get people into the system. If they only 'match' Canon's quality and price, they have no carrot to attract people over to a new system.
pdmphoto wrote:
Well, they do have in body IS - instant IS for any lens you mount on the camera. The could be quite a nice feature, especially with some of the fast lenses. How much more does one pay for a decent *single* lens with IS in the canon line-up?
I would expect the IS performance on FF should be similar to the APS-C sensor. I have the A2 (tiny chip) with AS, and at that time people were saying they would never get it to work in a APS-C sized DSLR.
Although i'm wondering how effective an in-body IS will be when compared to an in-lens one?
About 1 / 1.5 stops less effective than the latest Canon implementation. But that's still two stops better than the D3 or 1 Series with any lens faster than f2.8 (200/2 excepted).
you2 wrote:
Is it not premature to state the performance of the A900 - esp features like the inbody stabilization (which will be much more difficult than A700 due to larger sensor) ?
Also the 24-70 (while sharp) seems less than ideal with the often poor bokeh. The 85f1.4 seems ok but not exceptional - though both the 135f1.8 and 135f2.8 sf do seem like very nice (exceptional?) lenses. Remains to be seen if something in the wide to normal range will become available (either for aps-c or full frame).
I've been most impressed with nikon recent offerings (though they are quite a bit more expensive than canon similar offerings). ...Show more →
It seems strange that you are more impressed with the recent Nikon offerings. Every test I've read ranks the Zeiss 24-70, 85mm, and 135mm at or above both the Canon and Nikon variants. Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is SWEET, but Nikon's direct competitors to the Zeiss are not more impressive. I have a feeling when the Alpha Pro arrives, we're really gonna see the difference with these Zeiss lenses. They've probably been designed to work well on some pretty high megapixel fullframes, but we'll have to wait and see (looks like only a few weeks more.)
Like was mentioned above, having a 24-70 2.8 and 85mm 1.4 stabilized is great for me.
Well it would appear the launch of the Sony Flagship the A900 may happen well before Photokina. Over the next few weeks in Europe Sony will be rolling out some Alpha Pro Centres, which will have sale displays of the A900 & FF Zeiss ZA’s.
Well -- i'm disappointed in the ZA 24-70 bokeh and the 85f1.4 did not look that special compared to many other 85f1.4 and 85f1.2 (i.e, pentax defunct 85f1.4, nikon 85f1.4, canon 85f1.2, ...). The 135 does look special but it would be nice to see a few decent wides (much less super wides).
--
Anyways I should refrain from comments until we see how well the A900 performs and the lens road map. For me the system is not there. I would like a 35f2 (f2 over f1.4 for smaller size) and perhaps a 24f2. The 24-70 is too large and has the previously mentioned flaw. I would also like for the A900 to weigh less than 1200g (possible since sony cameras tend to be a bit light compared to nikon).
douglasf13 wrote:
It seems strange that you are more impressed with the recent Nikon offerings. Every test I've read ranks the Zeiss 24-70, 85mm, and 135mm at or above both the Canon and Nikon variants. Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is SWEET, but Nikon's direct competitors to the Zeiss are not more impressive. I have a feeling when the Alpha Pro arrives, we're really gonna see the difference with these Zeiss lenses. They've probably been designed to work well on some pretty high megapixel fullframes, but we'll have to wait and see (looks like only a few weeks more.)
Like was mentioned above, having a 24-70 2.8 and 85mm 1.4 stabilized is great for me. ...Show more →
The test confirms everything I've seen from that lens. Since it's a focal length that I use a lot on DX (corresponding to 200mm on FF), I've been considering buying an A700 for that lens only. Not a cheap solution, but the combination of sharpness, fast aperture, general characteristics of the lens and in-body IS is very tempting.
For what it's worth, I found this quote from a Nikon user a few months ago, but I haven't got a hold of the actual issue, so who knows?
"The Chinese photo magazine, "Photographers' Companion" September issue also has the test between the AF 85/1.4D from Nikon and Planar T*85/1.4 from Zeiss, for Sony Alpha, between page 130-135. Basically the test result does show Zeiss lens to have some edge over Nikon, that between f/1.4-f/2.8, while Nikon is close to Zeiss in center sharpness, it is visibly less than Zeiss at edge. Zeiss has been consistent score between 1900-2088 resolvig power and Nikon at 1888-2081 at center, the edge from Zeiss at 1854-1962 while Nikon only 1501-1804. At f/4 Zeiss reach its peak with center/edge reading at 2319/2249 and Nikon 2177/1961 and at f/5.6 Nikon reach its peak at 2198/2017 but still less than Zeiss at f/5.6 with 2202/2162. The Zeiss is a more expensive lens but also superior, at least from the test. I believe the ZF/ZA mount should at similar performance as the Alpha mount except no AF, or perhpas a little better."
What kind of price are we looking at for the CZ 135/1.8? I know those CZ lenses will be running a little steep, but if they can manage to keep them in the $800-1500, they will be in a better position to steal some market share. Of course it will still take them 3-5 years to gain enough share, but it's very doable with CZ.
P.S.
Don't count out Canon. They have come too far to let someone steal from their plate without a backhand to the jaw. At least that's my hope. Of course, don't cout Nikon out either. If not, Sony may have a chance to convert the Pros.
The lens looks nice, already at it's sharpest in the center at f/4. That will be handy if they go above the A900's 24mp.
@ Cogitech: I don't think they'll be releasing any of the ZA lenses in F mount anytime soon. That would do bad things for the appeal of the Sony system for pro's. The main draw is these lenses, and if you can get one to work on a Nikon.... well you know.
