Just announced at PMA...
No delivery date yet
Just announced at PMA...
No delivery date yet
From the press release:
Shown in advanced pre-production form at PMA is the Distagon T* 24mm f/2 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss wide angle lens. Scheduled for launch in 2010, this bright, wide angle prime is an ideal choice for reportage, naturally lit interiors and other quality-critical handheld shooting applications.
Another picture here: (together with the upcoming 500 mm f 4.0)
Well!, I'm delighted to read the news, it shows they are moving in the right direction. However, considering this focal length is covered twice over in my 16-35 and 24-70 and it's a stop faster, I'm still unlikely to purchase this. A 50 f:/1.2 would have been a no brainer for me.
A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85
A 50 1.2 would have been a no-brainer for me, too.
The ZA 24 makes sense to me, though. It's quite a bit smaller than the zooms, and it should be much cheaper, too. It'll be a good 35mm equivalent for APS-C users, and a good, small-ish, fast-ish 24mm prime for fullframe users. I'd be shocked if the 24 doesn't have outstanding IQ (my 2470 isn't exactly perfect at 24mm.)
Well, the 24 is of no interest to me, but the 500 f4 is exactly what I've been waiting for!
But.......when? I've seen this picture for well over a year now...
Done deal for me. I'll take anything Zeiss they make.
Contrary to every one else ... my hope had been for a Zeiss 35/1.4
What is it with these companies? First Nikon, then Sony/Zeiss 24mm primes ... doesn't anyone get how important a fast 35mm is?
I am with you on this one Marc....
I will buy the Sony 35 1.4 and the ZA 24 2.0 and wait for more Zeiss primes.
This all leads me to wonder what to expect in the future from Sony and Zeiss. Judging by the current lineup, and by what reps have said, it seems that Sony isn't intending to release a full Zeiss lineup (at least anytime soon,) but, rather, fill in gaps, which I personally think is not the right move. So now, in regards to fullframe primes, we have:
24 2 ZA
35 1.4 G
50 2.8 macro
85 1.4 ZA
100 2.8 macro
135 1.8 ZA
300 2.8 G
500 4 G
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.
Granted, a user on another forum mentioned that he saw some presentation from a Sony rep a few days ago, and he hinted that Sony would be bringing a ton of midrange lenses next year. I could deal with a ZA 50 f2. My point above is that I don't expect Sony to duplicate lenses exactly, like a 35mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.4
On a more positive note, I just saw this.
"In a wide-ranging interview, Mr Imamura also told us that the company’s relationship with Carl Zeiss will extend to lenses designed for the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, unveiled at this year’s PMA. However, he refused to be drawn on details of the upcoming camera’s specification, beyond what has already been made public. "
I'm into the idea of a small aps-c cam with a zeiss prime.
Granted my needs are different than Marc's or other shooters who really like to work with primes, like Eion the 16-35 and 24-70 have me well covered at 24 and I don't really need that extra stop at that focal.
The ZA primes simply offer creative choice.
Actually, there are some aspects of the ZA24/2 as yet unknown that could determine whether I add it to the bag ... price, distortion and CA control, vignetting, closest focusing distance, and Bokeh. Close focusing @ f/2 will be different from f/2.8 depending on how close the new 24 will focus.
These days about 1/2 of my wedding work is done with a M9 and fast aperture M optics ... 24/1.4ASPH, 50/0.95 Noctilux, 75/1.4 German for example.
So, in reality, what I need from Sony/Zeiss are lenses that specifically are DSLR territory ... Zooms, Macros, T/S options, longer lenses.
One of the most valuable 35mm DSLR lenses I ever used was the Nikon 90/2.8 T/S Macro. Tilt was invaluable for DOF. Once you use one of those, any regular 100mm Macro just doesn't cut it.
Other than the slower WATE and MATE, there are no quasi zooms for M work nor is there anything above 135mm ... and the Medium Format Zooms are huge, slow and impractical for spontaneous work.
I share Marc's conservative approach to the 24/F2 ZA lens. Most of all I shall be looking for vignetting which is a known for the 24-70 at 24mm.
Perhaps this lens as a prime has re-dressed this situation as 24mm is a useful FL to have for so many different subjects. Amazingly, the 16-35 ZA displays no vignetting at any FL.
Dave - will you PERLEASE stop saying how good the 16-35 is. I really don't need to know .
I hope there are more of these primes too - this one isn't for me, but it's nice to see it there. Interesting that Zeiss will be making lenses for their little camera. I still think it sad that Leica aren't more involved with m4/3 - the 45 macro is such a splendid lens.
Just this guy you know
I find the new 24/2 to be in line with the new Zeiss philosophy that we see in the ZE/ZF line. Zeiss wants to avoid super wide apertures that can produce less than optimal results and want to give us a small compact lens with a maximum aperture that you can use without any second thoughts about the image quality. I expect this 24/2 to be great wide open and only improve in contrast and DOF when stopped down, similarly to the ZE/ZF cousins.
Even though I have both zooms, I will purchase the 24 for sure especially if it is as good as I expect it to be. The zooms are well, zooms. Good for reportage and many other applications, but not the best for landscapes and site photography that I like to do. I would have loved to see a 100 macro and a fast 35 and 50, but maybe they will come later this year.
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
I almost got this 24/1.4 because of my hunger for wide primes...and yes this is the one for me. I am a bit tired carrying 24-70 with a850 all day long so I am trying out 24-50/4. Well done Sony
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.
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?
What is so special about a 2/24 ???
Canon has a 1.4/24 as well as Nikon since recently. And both are outstanding designs, not a bit second to Zeiss for Sony.
α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.
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.
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
Last edited by fotografz; 17th March 2010 at 01:05.
Last edited by Ben Rubinstein; 17th March 2010 at 02:56.
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 ). 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 by Ben Rubinstein; 17th March 2010 at 03:09.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Truth is that each system has its merits and drawbacks and all have their outstanding lenses etc. Unfortunately these are not coming from just 1 system.
M9 is the BEST 35mm camera I've ever used in terms of IQ to my eye. I only wish Leica had produced the AF R10 successor to the CCD DMR, which was the next best 35mm camera I've ever used regarding IQ. I just have never taken to any CMOS sensor camera ... the Sony probably being the closest.
My dream is to off the 35mm DSLRs completely like Jack just did. The latest crop of MFDs has raised my hopes that can be accomplished.
As for Nikon, they don't have a 24 MP DSLR that I can afford. I am inclined to stick with both Sony and Nikon because I don't want to be dependent on just one brand delivering for me. I've been waiting two years for Nikon to deliver a camera like the A900, and it's starting to look like it's not going to ever happen. Besides that, I like the colors I get from my A850 better than anything I've seen from a Nikon camera.
I certainly wouldn't say that the Nikkor 24-70 is a better lens than the Zeiss. Just different strengths/weaknesses. I'm not sure I've ever seen another zoom that has a better "look" to the pictures than the Zeiss.
I guess we should take your opinion with a grain of salt though, because two of the things that you mentioned that you disliked about the Sony, handling and color, are two of the major reasons most buy the camera in the first place.
Adding that all up and have more flexible lens offering from Nikon my decision was clear. Maybe not urgent and I also do not earn my living with photography, because then I maybe would have not invested, but for me as a passionate photographer it was enough to switch.
And I must admit it is always nice to have something new to play with - of course.
As for colors, I have to disagree. On technical terms, the A900 is able to resolve more green hues than any Nikon since the D2x, and the D2x still wasn't quite up to the A900 in this regard. Now, whether you see that or not is, of course, another issue, but I suggest you reconsider your raw converter, profiling, etc. to maximize your A900 files before moving on to another brand, as it seems you may have not been getting the most out of the A900.
I am using a calibrated workflow.
I never liked the colors of the D2X, which was the issue to change finally to A900. So interesting that you put it above the newer Nikon cameras. I have seen numerous samples from D3, D300s, D3X and some D3s on this equipment and I find all of them equal or better to A900.
Either I am doing something wrong or I am color blind - no matter this is my impression and this is what finally counts for me.
PS1: all of these color reproductions can be just forgotten compared to my H3D39. This is also the reason why I am a bit more reluctant about exact color reproduction of my DSLR equipment, as for the real stuff I am using Hasselblad. Maybe I should not think like? Not sure, but this is the way I go.
As I said these decisions are all very subjective and may not be accurate for anyone else of course.
PS2: I actually never found the greens of the A900 so outstanding, I liked more the overall color reproduction, especially in the blues and reds, not the greens, which tended to be too yellowish - in all RAW converters.
Wow, this is incredible - something is wrong. I have owned the D2X, D3, D3X & D3s - all are sold and gone. No one approaches my a900, 24-70 and 135 1.8 in color reproduction.
Douglas told me (thanks a million Douglas) to use Raw Therapee last year and the results always bring a smile to my face.
These are my observations (including Douglas & Marc) and obviously differ from yours.
PS: Has anybody noticed how the build quality of Nikon lenses has fallen in the past few years?
I certainly don't use standard profiles for C1 and LR3 (of course, any adobe converter pre-LR3 isn't even worth mentioning for A900 files.) The C1 profile for the A900 is particularly bad. Anyways, we're confusing color accuracy with profiling. Below is probably one of the most enlightening, single posts about color that I've seen. Everyone should read it, if they haven't already. Peter, you may find the MFDB part particularly interesting: