In this type of low volume, precision manufacturing, quantity is the name of the game when it comes to cost. It may just be that Sony have committed to a large(r) manufacturing volume. This could be because the 24 f:2.0 does not compete against the OEM as Zeiss WAs do on the Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Leica segments.
edwardkaraa wrote:
As Wayne said, the Zeiss 28/2 is similarly priced. I would have expected at least 300-400$ extra for the AF mechanism. I'm not saying 1250$ is cheap but just comparing to other Zeiss products.
If Sony is giving away this lens at this price as aggressive marketing, I would be crazy not to get it, but if there are compromises, I guess we will know very soon. I'm sure several reviewers have already done the testing and we will soon start to see them published. I particularly trust the tests of JM Sepulchre. I bought the 25 based on his review, and I will be waiting for his 24/2 test to see how it performs....Show more →
Yes, given this comparison, the ZA 24 is suspicious...as is it's design. It just does not look like it was designed by the same company that put 10 elements in both the one stop slower 25 2.8 lens or the longer 28/2. A 24/2 should be more difficult to design (and achieve the same performance) compared to the 28, yet this ZA 24 has only 9 elements (and it's not like Zeiss did not have aspherics or ED glass to use in the design of these other lenses had they so chosen to do so). The closest lens by design to this ZA 24 may end up being the Sigma 24 1.8 I mentioned as it also uses multi aspherical elements (it has 10 elements). I know more elements does not guarantee a better lens but I'm still skeptical of this ZA 24. It does not seem to follow the traditional Zeiss design ethos (but I guess that is the case with all ZA lenses to date!)
edwardkaraa wrote:
I asked Zeiss specifically about why my ZS lenses seem to have different rendering than the ZA, particulary regarding contrast and 3D, and it took them several days to reply, which makes me think they really wanted to chose their words carefully. This was their reply:
" The ZA line is the result of close cooperation with Sony and is optimized to meet the requirements of the target groups addressed by Sony's products. Therefore, it is possible for two similar focal length types to have different designs and deliver different results. What they all have in common is the proven Carl Zeiss quality and the company’s aspiration to ensure the best imaging results in any situation."
This makes me believe there are other differences than color rendering (ZA tend a bit towards Cyan). Perhaps Sony requires softer overall contrast and bokeh to match the existing Minolta designed line up. One thing for sure, while the ZE/F/S are a pure Zeiss product for which decisions about the target IQ and rendering are pure Zeiss decisions, Sony has for sure something to say regarding the ZA line, and it might not always coincide with what Zeiss wants. ...Show more →
Edward, I was thinking about this response you received when I read this Zeiss press release related to what they will show at Photokina:
"Using a number of real subjects, photographers and anyone else interested will have the opportunity to try our various focal lengths and settings. In addition to the entirely new ZEISS lenses, guests will also be able to use Sony lenses featuring Carl Zeiss technology and the coveted Compact Prime CP.2 lenses on HDSLR cameras for video recording."
The distinction between ZEISS lenses (I did not add the emphasis on Zeiss) and "Sony lenses using Carl Zeiss technology" seems fairly clear.
Considering how well the other ZA Zeiss primes have turned out I am not too pessimistic.
Not just yet. I think the price is ... justified if it is up to Zeiss Distagon standards. It is too steep for me to just bite the bullet and try it out but if it does deliver I might very well get one in an instant.
Even Zeiss might be able to perform miracles within a limited cost-per-unit window. I don't think they are running out of tricks just yet and I think optical formulas can still be tweaked and maybe even result in cost cutting as well as high performance lens configurations.
edwardkaraa wrote:
As Wayne said, the Zeiss 28/2 is similarly priced. I would have expected at least 300-400$ extra for the AF mechanism. I'm not saying 1250$ is cheap but just comparing to other Zeiss products.
If Sony is giving away this lens at this price as aggressive marketing, I would be crazy not to get it, but if there are compromises, I guess we will know very soon. I'm sure several reviewers have already done the testing and we will soon start to see them published. I particularly trust the tests of JM Sepulchre. I bought the 25 based on his review, and I will be waiting for his 24/2 test to see how it performs....Show more →
+1
I just looked at his reviews at lemondelaphoto of the Nikon 24/1.4G vs. his reviesws of the Z* 28/2,50/2 MP, and 100MP and ZA 24-70 and ZA 16-35 and the new Nikon 24 did very well on the sharpness/resolution tests and looked good for CA, distortion and vignetting.
Their verdict's minuses for the lens is its bulk and high price.
We will see soon how the new ZA 24/2 compares to that high standard despite its cheap price relative to other zeiss wide angle lenses except the Z* 25/2.8.
Hmm, I've got a trip to Italy mid Oct it would be a great proving ground for such a lens... I hope the "others" are right and it hits by the end of Sept.
My thinking exactly...add the very low price for the new 85/2.8 ($250) and the new well specced and very affordable ($750 to start) 16Mp A55, 440 grams...Sony are making some very decent moves in several market niches all at once. So much for the talk of them exiting the business...
Amazing prices considering the Yen-$US at present, a 15 year high for the Japanese currency, much to the chagrin of their exporters.
philip_pj wrote:
Amazing prices considering the Yen-$US at present, a 15 year high for the Japanese currency, much to the chagrin of their exporters.
I don't think it applies to this 24 or any of their higher end lenses for that matter, but Sony does have a history of buying market share. Thank goodness they are around to offer CaNikon some serious competition.
Sean Mills wrote:
Hmm, I've got a trip to Italy mid Oct it would be a great proving ground for such a lens... I hope the "others" are right and it hits by the end of Sept.
B&H is now taking pre-orders but are listing availability as November! Ouch.
So, now we have everything from late September to November. Seems like I remember buying my a900 directly from Sony many weeks before B&H actually had stock.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
$1250 is not cheap in my book, particularly when judged by what is out there and being charged for similar lenses. The respectable Sigma 24 1.8 Macro goes for $449 and even the 24mm 1.4 Canon L II sells for no more than $1600. So, $1250 for an F2 is a premium price and only worth it if the lens turns out to be a very special, outstanding performer and fully lives up to the Zeiss tradition. Anything less and it's way overpriced.
Pic 4/20 in DPR suggests it has a rather pronounced field curvature. Pic 20/20 in DPR suggests bokeh is rather nervous. If one is planning on taking wide open close up shots these issues may be of some concern. Sadly, that's exactly the type of shots I like.
Yakim: pic 4/20 - the foliage - looks like it is a natural bulge (no funny comments on that line folks) so I would not put too much into that picture.
Pic 13 and 14 look more promising, with the same caveats.
On pic 20/20 I agree it looks a bit rough. Still, that pattern on the chair is tricky and that table edge is looming in - in front of the focal point - so that tends to exacerbate things a bit.
On the whole, that particular shot looks a bit busier than I had hoped for but I need to see some more close up samples before I can judge. I am no fan of the swirl when it comes to bokeh.
Good to see the excellent results shown by Steve's testing at artaphot.ch, as the MTF graphs were a bit worrisome. In fact, the curves don't look significantly better than the 24-70's did at 24 mm. http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/SAL24F20Z/images/prod/m/y_SAL24F20Z_MTF.jpg http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/SAL2470Z/images/prod/m/SAL2470Z_003.jpg
Without really knowing how the test was done (e.g., monochromatic vs white light, focus distance, computed vs sample lens, etc) and with my mediocre knowledge of optics, looks like field curvature takes off after 18 mm, some uncorrected CA, astigmatism, and although hard to tell due to the FC, what i assume is the usual sagittal coma in the corners wide open. Looks like the bokeh is a little ragged too, although a bit tenuous to predict bokeh from MTF.
Wow! The incredible Sony MTF are already out? Thank you for sharing them, e-dawg!
The shape of the curves look very similar to the 25/2.8, except the 2.8 has better extreme corners, and the 2.0 has the incredible values in the center (probably theoretical values for the ZA vs. real life values for the ZS/F as usual).
