Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #5 · First ZA 24/2 lens comparison | |
edwardkaraa wrote:
To be honest I'm a bit disappointed with the apparent Sony involvement in the design process. Before, I was under the impression the design part was purely Zeiss.
It is interesting how opinions change in this topic. I'm not really referring to your opinion here, Edward, but rather my other own. I remember when the line first emerged there was a considerable debate -- dare I say, argument, -- about Sony involvement in the Zeiss lens designs. I was highly critical then. Some even went to so far as to call the lenses Sony lenses with a rented Zeiss trademark attached. Others defending Sony indicated that these were true Zeiss lenses.
I am less convinced today that 1) Sony's input in the design process is pervasive, and, 2) that their input is necessarily negative.
Sony needs to have some input. Since Sony is only using Zeiss to produce a handful of lenses rather than an entire line-up (a decision more worthy of criticism), Sony needs to ensure that the entire Sony lens line is consistent in terms of overall imaging appearance. To the extent that the existing Minolta-based lens line produces a look that is different than Zeiss' this sets up a challenging choice. Do we make the new Zeiss ZA lenses look like Minolta lenses, or do we let them look like Zeiss lens (a look that many buying the lenses might find appealing)? As I implied in an earlier post, I think the most important aspect of this is how the lenses render color. The lenses need to handle color the same was, with the same overall color temperature (which is just one aspect of this). Reds, etc., need to look the same whether someone used the Minolta 35/1.4 or the Zeiss ZA 24/2. I don't think Sony, however, has an interest in, to need to "limit" the micro-contrast of the lenses (as some have seems to imply). The Zeiss ZA lenses, which cost more, NEED to look better, and every lenses line has lenses that are better than others -- in terms of micro-contrast and other aspect of performance. I don't think Sony would intentionally limit the performance of Zeiss lenses in ways that don't affect lens line cohesiveness -- if they did why bother with Zeiss lenses? If it is just the application of the Zeiss brand, that wouldn't last in the consumer's eyes, and I don't think Zeiss would accept that kind of situation on lenses that would directly impact their reputation.
The other area where Sony asserts its role in the ZA lens design is setting the price point and deciding what compromises to make to meet that price point. This area is directly affected by Sony's perspective on who is in their "target group". I don't think anyone here will dispute the view that the ZA 24/2 was designed to meet a price point. (let's call it US$1299-1399). Sony knows what it will cost them to manufacture the lenses and what different lens features will cost them. This is a necessary input into the design process. If Zeiss started with a 24mm f1.4 FLE design, which probably would have retailed somewhere north of US$2000, what did Sony subtract from the design (design compromises) to produce a $1300 product that it thinks its target group would buy? Clearly a full stop slower, maybe FLE, maybe other things.
Sony set the constraints on the design, and chooses the compromises to make. I don't however believe that Sony (or Minolta or Tamron as their proxy) is actually involved in designing the lens. These are, in fact, Zeiss-designed lenses. Sony is just giving them the terms of reference that controls what will be designed.
This isn't bad if you've correctly identified and profiled your target group. To me this is negative, because I clearly would have preferred that US$2000+ 24/1.4 FLE design. But its not negative overall. If you're a Sony customer and you're cheering that ZA24/2 because it is relatively affordable at US$1300 and don't mind giving up the extra stop of speed, etc., then Sony did their job well.
This of course, brings back a point I've made when the Sony DSLR collaboration with Zeiss was first made public. That the terms of this collaboration, and the constraints and limits on what Zeiss can do, both with individual lenses and with the lens line overall, is not completely satisfying for Zeiss. I continue to suspect that their aspirations in the market goes beyond what they do for Sony alpha (and beyond the ZF/ZE/ZS product line effort).
|
