We can not forget that the real heritage of the Sony 35mm DSLR system is with Minolta, a company that was known as a leader of sorts, particularly with regard to bringing technology to the masses(AF for instance). The only Mamiya equipment that has ever impressed me are the Rangefinder bodies and lenses.
jjlphoto wrote:
When Zeiss got the contract to build lenses for Hasselblad, it was most likely one of the best things that happened to Zeiss. A first rate camera now with first rate lenses. (I believe the first Hasselblads used lenses built by Kodak.)
But for 35mm SLRs, it seemed they always stumbled. Their partnership with Yashica, a second rate camera company, just didn't have the clout or visibility of Nikon or Canon. The Contax lenses and bodies were certainly first rate, but I believe being in bed with the Yashica brand, (then Kyocera) pulled them down. Now their superb AF lenses are featured on a Sony system. It may be a fine camera, but again, Sony is a company that is simply not known as a leader in 35mm types of cameras, and probably never will be. A real coup would have been to become the sole lens supplier to Mamiya (when Mamiya traded hands a couple years ago)....Show more →
jjlphoto wrote:
When Zeiss got the contract to build lenses for Hasselblad, it was most likely one of the best things that happened to Zeiss. A first rate camera now with first rate lenses. (I believe the first Hasselblads used lenses built by Kodak.)
Maybe, or maybe not. Zeiss was before that a leading lens maker. Actually, I think that the contract with Zeiss was probably the best thing that happened to Hasselblad. If Zeiss didn't contract with Hassy, they probably would have been making lenses for someone else. They already had a relationship with Rollei, for example, and had their own lines of highly respected cameras (Contax, Contarex, Zeiss Ikon).
jjlphoto wrote:
But for 35mm SLRs, it seemed they always stumbled. Their partnership with Yashica, a second rate camera company, just didn't have the clout or visibility of Nikon or Canon. The Contax lenses and bodies were certainly first rate, but I believe being in bed with the Yashica brand, (then Kyocera) pulled them down. Now their superb AF lenses are featured on a Sony system. It may be a fine camera, but again, Sony is a company that is simply not known as a leader in 35mm types of cameras, and probably never will be. A real coup would have been to become the sole lens supplier to Mamiya (when Mamiya traded hands a couple years ago)....Show more →
It is interesting that at this time they almost hooked up with Pentax. They eventually went with Yashica. Yashica, at the time, was seen as an innovator in camera electronics, if not one of the top sellers. I don't think either Canon or Nikon would have been interested. Yaashica obviously proved that they could produce a top-level camera. And they always had respect as a lens designer/producer. Their Tomioka factory was one of the best in Japan and their ability to produce Zeiss designs with Zeiss quality was certainly an important factor in Zeiss selecting Yashica. Yashica did a lot for Zeiss, they produced a quality product that allowed them to continue in the camera and lens businesses at a time when it was no longer economic to produce these things in their German production facilities. The subsequent take over ao Yashica by Kyocera only enhanced (at least initially) the relationship as Kyocera was able to bring a technological prowess and capital resources that were beyond Yashica means. Kyocera was a leading international technology company -- at least the equal of Canon or Nikon. Zeiss was brought down (not sure that is the right words) by Kyocera because Kyocera had a change of heart or found that their interests were diverging from Zeiss' -- not becuase they were a lesser company by any means.
Zeiss never would have been a supplier to Mamiya because Mamiya never gave up their lens making capabilities -- that was part of the sale, and perhaps the part that still have value as the shift to digital camera bodies was not going well for them. I suspect Zeiss still sees potential for another medium format system based around their lenses.There are lots of people that still cling to their Contax 645 system and lenses, and plenty of people now using Mamiya as that is the only option outside of Hassy Not really sure what will happen here, but I don't think Zeiss is done in this market.
If you were a 2-1/4 shooter in the US, you were either a Hasselblad user, or a Mamiya user. Mamiya is certainly firmly entrenched as a leader in the medium format platform. Rollie never really caught on here, and Fuji was too late in the game. Pentax's seemed to always be the red headed step child.
Ok, enough said, I just pulled the trigger on a A900 and ZA 24-70 ZA 85 and 135 on Monday and 16-35 coming soon. I wish to thank wholeheartedly the OP for enticing me to let go of some hard earned cash Needless to mention, there will be several Contax lenses for sales soon
Can you post some ZA 85 1.4 vs. Contax CZ 85 1.4 comparison shots. I think the Sony version has two more elements and seems to be an improvement over the ZF and contax versions. Does the ZA version have an aspherical element?
Enjoy the 135, I know am.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Can you post some ZA 85 1.4 vs. Contax CZ 85 1.4 comparison shots. I think the Sony version has two more elements and seems to be an improvement over the ZF and contax versions. Does the ZA version have an aspherical element?
Enjoy the 135, I know am.
I will definitely do, as soon as I get the lens, and fix one dilemma: Raw conversion
I have to make some more serious testing, but it seems to me that the ZA 24-70 is as sharp as the C/Y 28/2.8 and 35-70 at similar apertures. I uprezzed the 1DsII files but slightly different focusing makes it difficult to tell a winner.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Can you post some ZA 85 1.4 vs. Contax CZ 85 1.4 comparison shots. I think the Sony version has two more elements and seems to be an improvement over the ZF and contax versions. Does the ZA version have an aspherical element?
Enjoy the 135, I know am.
I have done some tests, nothing worth posting here really, just to see if the new lens is ok. I can tell you though that the ZA seems visibly better at 1.4, not necessarily sharper but with less dreamy effect. At 5.6, it's difficult to tell them apart, but if I have to pick a winner, I believe the Contax is very slightly sharper. Anyway, one has to take in consideration the AA filter of completely different cameras.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have to make some more serious testing, but it seems to me that the ZA 24-70 is as sharp as the C/Y 28/2.8 and 35-70 at similar apertures. I uprezzed the 1DsII files but slightly different focusing makes it difficult to tell a winner.
The ZA 24-70 does promise to be a good sharp zoom. The one thing that concerns me about it is that it weighs almost a full kilo. That's about twice the weight (not to mention length) of my current Zeiss N 24-85. It makes for challenging a "walk-around" lens. But there is no other alternative in the lens line (the Sony - nee Minolta) zooms are not an option (neither would any Sigma/Tokina/Tamron zooms either). I can't even get a couple prime lenses to substitute. The rumored ZA 24/1.4 might be a start (I wonder how big that is going to be), but there is nothing else between that and the 85mm.
I have been considering pulling the trigger on a a900 (despite my reservations about the high ISO performance), and now I am holding back based on lens selection. The ZA 24-70/2.8, while I'm sure is a fine performer, is a beast of a standard lens. Combined with the a900 that's almost 2 kilos (or about 4 pounds) of weight. Combine the ZA 24-70 with the ZA 16-35 for another 900 grams and you've got a serious workout. (OK. I'm a wimp, actually not really). Why can't Sony put out a Zeiss ZA 50/1.4?, or perhaps a ZA version of the ZF 35/2.0? However, if the rumored ZA 24/1.4 has the close-focus capability of the Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 (a lens that I really like using) or ZF 28/2.0 that might seal the a900 deal for me.
Lotus, you're absolutely right. This lens is a monster. But this seems to be the trend in the ZA line as the 85mm I received today, though smaller is also quite larger than my C/Y. Moreover, if you think the ZF/ZE line is very well made and gives the impression of high quality, the ZA is even more so. I also feel from only 2 days of using only 2 lenses that the ZA is a modern line of new enhanced designs (over the C/Y and ZE/ZF) that really deserves to carry the Zeiss name and inherit the status of the late Contax N line.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The ZA 24-70 does promise to be a good sharp zoom. The one thing that concerns me about it is that it weighs almost a full kilo. That's about twice the weight (not to mention length) of my current Zeiss N 24-85. It makes for challenging a "walk-around" lens. But there is no other alternative in the lens line (the Sony - nee Minolta) zooms are not an option (neither would any Sigma/Tokina/Tamron zooms either). I can't even get a couple prime lenses to substitute. The rumored ZA 24/1.4 might be a start (I wonder how big that is going to be), but there is nothing else between that and the 85mm.
I have been considering pulling the trigger on a a900 (despite my reservations about the high ISO performance), and now I am holding back based on lens selection. The ZA 24-70/2.8, while I'm sure is a fine performer, is a beast of a standard lens. Combined with the a900 that's almost 2 kilos (or about 4 pounds) of weight. Combine the ZA 24-70 with the ZA 16-35 for another 900 grams and you've got a serious workout. (OK. I'm a wimp, actually not really). Why can't Sony put out a Zeiss ZA 50/1.4?, or perhaps a ZA version of the ZF 35/2.0? However, if the rumored ZA 24/1.4 has the close-focus capability of the Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 (a lens that I really like using) or ZF 28/2.0 that might seal the a900 deal for me.
Weight is a real sore point (no pun intended) for me too. Camera lenses just keep getting heavier and heavier. while I realize that the increased zoom ranges create this requirement, their seems to be no thought given to using composites or lighter materials. How about a 1 series that weighs the same as a 5d?? The DO was the last real attempt at this, I had high hopes for that technology...
Weight is also one of my sore points. The original reason I chose contax is that you could find high quality (relative) light weight lenses (ala 25f2.8, 28f2.8, 35-70f3.4, 100f3.5, ...).
I do wish sony or canon would produce some high quality primes/zooms that would weigh a bit less.
Andrew Gough wrote:
Weight is a real sore point (no pun intended) for me too. Camera lenses just keep getting heavier and heavier. while I realize that the increased zoom ranges create this requirement, their seems to be no thought given to using composites or lighter materials. How about a 1 series that weighs the same as a 5d?? The DO was the last real attempt at this, I had high hopes for that technology...
Note the current Mark III's are significantly lighter than the Mark II's due to the move to lighter, higher-capacity Lithium-Ion batteries. The determining factor for camera size and weight has been battery capacity and prism size for quite a while. You need a fair amount of voltage and a high watt-hour rating to handle 8+fps or big honkin sensors for 2000+ exposures per charge. Camera size has been pretty stable since the mid-90's (The F5 and D3 are essentially the same size, as are the D700 and F100, just to use Nikon's as a comparison point. The A900 and Maxxum 9 are essentially identical in size and weight as well).
As to lenses, well the market's demanding higher performance and better build quality. Which means more elements and heavier barrels.
Does anyone know where you can find the a picture of the elements and design of the ZA 85? Just wondering if the new one has a new aspherical element which the old Contax and ZF versions don't have which give it the better wide open performance.
Wish Dimitry could have added this lens to his excellent 85 and 50mm shootout testing to see how it compares amongst the big boys like the 85L mk2.
Also, I am wondering if the other ZA lenses (85, 24-70, 16-35) have the same 1mm small play on the manual focusing ring like my ZA 135? There is a 1mm play before engaging the internal heliocoid it seems which is nice smooth once engaged.
The other issue with some of these ZA lenses is Sony not giving them SSM AF and instead putting on the ancient Minolta screw drive AF interface which is slower and noisier.
Edward, you will will really like the size and weight of the ZA 135 f1.8.
It is a beast at little over 1kg. The Sony-Minolta users call their 70-200 a "beercan".
I think they should call this new 135 the "keg can".
wayne seltzer wrote:
Does anyone know where you can find the a picture of the elements and design of the ZA 85? Just wondering if the new one has a new aspherical element which the old Contax and ZF versions don't have which give it the better wide open performance.
Wish Dimitry could have added this lens to his excellent 85 and 50mm shootout testing to see how it compares amongst the big boys like the 85L mk2.
Also, I am wondering if the other ZA lenses (85, 24-70, 16-35) have the same 1mm small play on the manual focusing ring like my ZA 135? There is a 1mm play before engaging the internal heliocoid it seems which is nice smooth once engaged.
The other issue with some of these ZA lenses is Sony not giving them SSM AF and instead putting on the ancient Minolta screw drive AF interface which is slower and noisier.
Edward, you will will really like the size and weight of the ZA 135 f1.8.
It is a beast at little over 1kg. The Sony-Minolta users call their 70-200 a "beercan".
I think they should call this new 135 the "keg can".
The Beercan is the old 70-210 f4 (which is the size and shape of a king can) not the 70-200 (which is much larger and white). There's also a Big Beercan, the 100-300.
Note the screwdriver AF is not appreciably slower than SSM, it's just louder. Sony (and Minolta before them) spec's VERY powerful AF motors in the 7/8/9 series bodies. In fact the old Maxxum 9 in particular is notorious for shredding the focus gearing in low-end 3rd party lenses. HS-geared lenses focus quite fast (an 300 f2.8G HS will focus as fast as the 300 f2.8G SSM on a Maxxum 9).
Apart from noise, there's not a lot of reason to put SSM into the ZA primes. It just makes the lenses larger and more expensive to make.
I don't think the ZA 85 has any special glass as it is not mentioned anywhere afaik. My lens also has this small play in MF mode, but curiously the 24-70 doesn't. As for the 135, haha, I believe it will be worth every gram
wayne seltzer wrote:
Does anyone know where you can find the a picture of the elements and design of the ZA 85? Just wondering if the new one has a new aspherical element which the old Contax and ZF versions don't have which give it the better wide open performance.
Wish Dimitry could have added this lens to his excellent 85 and 50mm shootout testing to see how it compares amongst the big boys like the 85L mk2.
Also, I am wondering if the other ZA lenses (85, 24-70, 16-35) have the same 1mm small play on the manual focusing ring like my ZA 135? There is a 1mm play before engaging the internal heliocoid it seems which is nice smooth once engaged.
The other issue with some of these ZA lenses is Sony not giving them SSM AF and instead putting on the ancient Minolta screw drive AF interface which is slower and noisier.
Edward, you will will really like the size and weight of the ZA 135 f1.8.
It is a beast at little over 1kg. The Sony-Minolta users call their 70-200 a "beercan".
I think they should call this new 135 the "keg can".
Just found this on the dpreview Sony SLR forum.
A link to a french review of the 16-35 with DXO testing results.
It also has a link to a french book with all the lens reviews.
Interesting what it said about the 85 1.4 which is inline with what photozone review said even though the photozone test was not a full frame camera.
Yeah I meant the 70-210, good catch.
Yes, there is great debate in the Sony camp on the SSM vs. screw drive.
Since I am using the 135 on a Canon, I guess I am glad that they went with the cheaper screw drive.
Edward,
Too bad the 85 also has the small play in the MF engaging also.
The specs for the # of elements is 8 elements in 7 groups for the ZA 85 and the zf 85 is listed as having 6 elements in 5 groups.
I am guessing the extra two elements are helping the lens in the wide open end.
ZA 85 and 135 on Monday and 16-35 coming soon. I wish to thank wholeheartedly the OP for enticing me to let go of some hard earned cash 
