The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Finally a Carl Zeiss 24 mm f 2.0 coming
- Thread starter peterv
- Start date
Terry
New member
Yeah, I just added the 16-35 for that reason. I needed polarizer and NDs last summer and really couldn't use the 24-70 down at 24 in some situations. If I needed to stack the filters I was easily into the 35mm range. Heading to the Salton Sea next week and I will see what my go to lens will be.
ryc
Member
Well, I for one will get it. I try to stock up on all exotic or good lenses. Unlike cameras, the lenses dont get dated in a year like most dslr's. Lenses are good for a very long time. And who knows, maybe 10 years from now, people will be paying big bucks for a zeiss za lens to adapt to some new camera thats not even out yet 
Remember the 21 distagon was sellingupwards of 4k at one point.
Remember the 21 distagon was sellingupwards of 4k at one point.
B
bruderadler
Guest
Minolta introduced in 1998 AF 200/4 APO Tele Macro which is excellent (I owned it once). I can imagine it can easily be taken into production again.So now, outside of T/S**, I wonder where they'll go next. It seems a 200mm (maybe macro, maybe both) is the logical next move, and that has been rumored. What do you think? I have a feeling it'll be a LONG time before I see any kind of ZA 50mm prime.
**lately, an interesting new Sony patent application for a tilt lens with AF surfaced.
douglasf13
New member
Agreed. The lack of a 200mm prime is a glaring hole in the current line-up, and I wonder which way they'll go with it?
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Just go for Canon or Nikon and you are done
If you have to ask ... well ...
No thanks, I already "Done" with Canon and Nikon ...Just go for Canon or Nikon and you are done
Marc
Dave_Anderson
Member
douglasf13
New member
I didn't say a glaring hole for me. I generally don't shoot 100mm+ lenses, let alone 200mm.Just go for Canon or Nikon and you are done
T
Tony Beach
Guest
This forthcoming Zeiss might just keep me in the Sony camp. I'm very much looking forward to it. What's its advantage over an f/1.4 lens? It will probably cost about $1000 less and it will work on my A850.
BTW Peter, stop trolling here. If you don't like Sony and want to sing the praises of Nikon (or whatever other brand), just go to one of those forums and do it there. Bashing a brand in its forums is tactless.
douglasf13
New member
Don't worry about Peter. He was doing the same with Canon when he left it for Sony last year, if I remember correctly. lol.
Actually, all kidding aside, depending on priorities and finances, I don't see any reason to not be a bi-polar user ... LOL.
Years ago, my mentor once laughed at my narrow, brand oriented affliction. His advice was simple ... "don't let the camera select the lenses, let the lenses select the camera".
Which is exactly why I now primarily use a Sony A900 to get to the Zeiss lenses I've always favored, and a Leica M9 for fast prime wides and 50mm focal lengths.
So, it is conceivable that one could select say Canon for example to fill the holes in the Sony line up. Like a 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, a T/S lens (17 or 24mm?), or the new 100/2.8L IS Macro perhaps ... on a Canon 5D-MKII with Live View for the T/S and Macro applications. Plus the Canon could step in when faced with Low Light scenarios especially with the 50/1.2 and it's excellent flare control.
Why not all Canon? ... personally, I hated Canon Zooms like the 24-70/2.8L ... the 85/1.2L was too big and slow focusing, and the 135/2L isn't IS (actually none of those lenses are IS).
I know, not conventional thinking ... but at least it doesn't fan the flames of partisan Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax/Leica/Hasselbald/Mamiya/Contax arguments :deadhorse:
-Marc-
Years ago, my mentor once laughed at my narrow, brand oriented affliction. His advice was simple ... "don't let the camera select the lenses, let the lenses select the camera".
Which is exactly why I now primarily use a Sony A900 to get to the Zeiss lenses I've always favored, and a Leica M9 for fast prime wides and 50mm focal lengths.
So, it is conceivable that one could select say Canon for example to fill the holes in the Sony line up. Like a 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, a T/S lens (17 or 24mm?), or the new 100/2.8L IS Macro perhaps ... on a Canon 5D-MKII with Live View for the T/S and Macro applications. Plus the Canon could step in when faced with Low Light scenarios especially with the 50/1.2 and it's excellent flare control.
Why not all Canon? ... personally, I hated Canon Zooms like the 24-70/2.8L ... the 85/1.2L was too big and slow focusing, and the 135/2L isn't IS (actually none of those lenses are IS).
I know, not conventional thinking ... but at least it doesn't fan the flames of partisan Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax/Leica/Hasselbald/Mamiya/Contax arguments :deadhorse:
-Marc-
Last edited:
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
.....
Last edited:
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Not sure I agree Marc, there is the backup issue. If you need 3 specific lenses for a wedding (for example) then you need two camera bodies that they can use otherwise you have no backup. It's why I would steer very clear of dual systems unless they complimented each other throughout the range at which point it gets a bit silly (not suggesting that you have 2 Sonys and 2 M9's :ROTFL: ). I've just had to fall back on backup so many times that I'm hugely senstive to it. Most people cannot afford dual backup on dual systems.
Last edited:
Well Ben ... not many wedding photographers here, so it can't be skewed that way for everyone. Plus, as I mentioned on the other thread, weddings aren't enough anymore and I believe it'll only get worse ... so my gear decisions aren't exclusively driven by weddings as much as in the past. More diverse applications is my criteria now.
But your point is well taken, and most people would just stick with one system ... which is why the Zeiss 24/2 is so welcome.
For the past few years prior to focusing on Sony I was a dual system user for weddings. The mainstay now is a Zeiss 24-70 zoom which in itself needs to be backed up. So, as a back-up I could get another Sony zoom (which I did), or the Canon with a 24-105/4 and fill in the holes in the Sony line up with some choice fast Canon primes, and have a lower light camera when needed.
Actually, I'm not doing any of the above. I've focused almost exclusively on my Leica M9 kit ... and can see the day approaching where the only DSLR I'll have with me is a Sony A900/24-70 zoom and maybe a 135/2 (with a A900 back-up left in the truck) ... if even that.
I started wedding photography with a couple of Ms alone, and would relish returning to that bolstered by a MFD like the Hassey H4D/40 to up my game for environmental portraiture, location commercial work, and also use it for more structured wedding shots with a 1/800th sync speed.
Time will tell.
-Marc
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Folks,
not saying that Sony / Alpha is bad or anything.
I for myself could not get nicely along with the operation of the A900 and also the Zeiss lenses did not feel as well in my hands as the corresponding Nikkors. This does not mean that I saw anything bad in the optical quality, but I also could not see anything improved compared to their Nikkor counterparts.
As I was jumping into MF (H3D39) a few months ago, I have now a system with exceptional IQ at high resolution and I really do not need the 24MP DSLR any longer. I rather prefer a faster and for me more flexible system which is currently Nikon. And they did their homework with some great new glass available and in the pipeline.
I missed these improvements at Sony so far, maybe they will come but I cannot see that happen anytime soon. Lenses like a 2/24 or similar are not what would make me buy into a prime, as long as I have a great and reasonably fast zoom in that area - as a 2.8/24-70. Maybe there is more vignetting with the zoom, but that can be easily corrected via any post processing SW.
For those who think I am trolling - please stop such accusations, as this is NOT my intent and I am not religious about any system. My choices is simple: what I can afford, am willing to spend and which I like to use.
All who are happy with their Alpha system I wish them luck and all the best and enjoy! You made the right decisions for you! For me this was no longer the case.
not saying that Sony / Alpha is bad or anything.
I for myself could not get nicely along with the operation of the A900 and also the Zeiss lenses did not feel as well in my hands as the corresponding Nikkors. This does not mean that I saw anything bad in the optical quality, but I also could not see anything improved compared to their Nikkor counterparts.
As I was jumping into MF (H3D39) a few months ago, I have now a system with exceptional IQ at high resolution and I really do not need the 24MP DSLR any longer. I rather prefer a faster and for me more flexible system which is currently Nikon. And they did their homework with some great new glass available and in the pipeline.
I missed these improvements at Sony so far, maybe they will come but I cannot see that happen anytime soon. Lenses like a 2/24 or similar are not what would make me buy into a prime, as long as I have a great and reasonably fast zoom in that area - as a 2.8/24-70. Maybe there is more vignetting with the zoom, but that can be easily corrected via any post processing SW.
For those who think I am trolling - please stop such accusations, as this is NOT my intent and I am not religious about any system. My choices is simple: what I can afford, am willing to spend and which I like to use.
All who are happy with their Alpha system I wish them luck and all the best and enjoy! You made the right decisions for you! For me this was no longer the case.
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Wedding was just an example Marc, I only speak for that which I know, any profession which requires backup on site would be the same would it not?
douglasf13
New member
Makes sense to me, Marc. Granted, your mentor's advice may need a little updating, because we don't all use the same "film" in cameras anymore, so the body makes more of a difference these days.
p.s. Man, I would kill for a couple of M9s!
p.s. Man, I would kill for a couple of M9s!