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!

Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I guess the ultimate question is still "does it matter." That of course is if you find the optical qualities and performance agreeable. The amount of people that like the 55FE is far great than the ones that don't. The numbers are quite a bit different for the 35/2.8 but I think a lot of that has to deal with expectations of the lens. There are a lot of great 35's so a good one will be scrutinized a lot more if the user is used to great ones.
 

jfirneno

Member
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but if Zeiss allows their logo to be used on lenses where their only involvement is "auditing of quality control", they are diluting their brand. I believe the Zeiss/Sony relationship is much older than a decade btw.
Sony bought Minolta in 2005. Before that their cooperation would have involved video camcorders. Is that the relationship we are discussing or the ZA lenses?

First of all aren't you a Nikon/micro 4/3rds kind of guy? Why should you care? The Zeiss lenses available to you are the manual focus classics and Otus lenses. Those should be standard enough to allay your fear of "dilution." Secondly, anyone with any sense knows that each lens design should be evaluated individually. And lastly from what I've heard every brand has its quality problems. Didn't Nikon have a serious quality problem with their D600? Seems like a real brand dilution situation. Better dump them and get an i-phone. Now that's real branding! You'll even get a mouse pad to match.
 

Lucille

New member
Im buying the lens regardless who owns the patent but the patent will be in Sonys name as they pay Zeiss to design for them. That includes the patent.

This is no different than Phase, leaf, Pentax hiring Sony to fabricate there sensors. These companies own the patent, they are buying a service. Just like Sony is buying a design service from Zeiss


I am going to score this lens also, and while others are making Zeiss/Sony claims and rants, I'll be shooting, as always. :clap::thumbup:
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I am going to score this lens also, and while others are making Zeiss/Sony claims and rants, I'll be shooting, as always. :clap::thumbup:
Yup mine is already paid for so I'm just waiting on it to come in. I think it's going to be great large size or not.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Folks bought the A7 series mostly for the size advantage is my main guess on it and I did a little as well but my main reason was for me manual focusing and making sure I nail everything was my tipping scale over my Nikon D800e. Okay I got a smaller body but what I did not get was really smaller lenses per say but I also got the best lenses equal to what I was shooting or better, that will never come as a size advantage. You want best and fast you will pay for it both in the wallet and on your back. That's a given even 40 years ago when I started this journey . Things like this have not changed and I really don't have a size issue with any of it. But I can get two bodies in Sony brand far easier than I could with 2 Nikons in a bag. That obviously helps somewhat. After that I'm only after quality of file and look. If I don't feel that need to go back to medium format than that's a big bonus on my wallet. 1600 for a fast lens is dirt cheap compared to 6k per copy. It makes my wife happy. You know the saying happy wife makes a happy life. LOL
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Guy you almost have to find it humorous because the first cries were for a small FF NEX and Sony gave us the RX1 while they were working on the FE system. Then the conversation was where are the fast lenses because f/1.8 and f/2.8 aren't fast enough plus my wide angle M lenses don't work as well. Then it was why are all the zooms f/4? Then it was I don't like focus by wire... give me mechanical focus... wait but I don't want MF lenses. Then it was I want faster lenses but not those because they're too big. Now we've come full circle to I'll just take slow lenses as long as I deem the optics good enough... but I better not suspect or hear you're letting Tamron make them to your specs.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I've done enough IP in my life to know that names on patents say absolutely nothing about any future business or licensing arrangement.
Pieter, IP isn't a joke. What you are saying is incorrect. I say this because I am very close to the EPO that governs intellectual property (at least here in the EU). :)

Use of a trade mark has nothing to do with the design and performance of a product. ;)
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Vivek, I agree that a trade mark has nothing to do with the design and performance of a product, but I don't think I have even mentioned trade mark in what I said. I don't think anything I've said is incorrect. I've worked half my career in R&D and IP acquisition and have been closely involved with the IPO as well as other patent offices. On the patent there are always the names of the individuals who made the invention, but the company (or companies) named on there is just the one(s) who's paying for the acquisition and prosecution which is not necessarily the employer of the inventors. Also before, during and after the patent acquisition companies can make deals, sell the IP asset, license it (exclusive or non exclusive), pool it together with other assets etc. etc. The options are almost limitless. So what I have said is 100% correct, the company name on the patent says absolutely nothing about the future business or licensing arrangements.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sony bought Minolta in 2005. Before that their cooperation would have involved video camcorders. Is that the relationship we are discussing or the ZA lenses?

First of all aren't you a Nikon/micro 4/3rds kind of guy? Why should you care? The Zeiss lenses available to you are the manual focus classics and Otus lenses. Those should be standard enough to allay your fear of "dilution." Secondly, anyone with any sense knows that each lens design should be evaluated individually. And lastly from what I've heard every brand has its quality problems. Didn't Nikon have a serious quality problem with their D600? Seems like a real brand dilution situation. Better dump them and get an i-phone. Now that's real branding! You'll even get a mouse pad to match.
Yes, what they did on the video and p&s side before Minolta is interesting. What kind of business relationship they have also dictates the agreements they have for production, quality control, use of brand name etc. I believe even Kyocera closing down their camera business is relevant to this question. I don't think it's a coincidence that they shut down Contax at the same time as Sony bought Minolta's camera division.

What cameras I use is irrelevant. I use whatever cameras that are practical for me. The only Zeiss lens I own is the one in my Nokia (which was obviously hand assembled by a German Doktor-Ingenieur :D ). Industry and trade practices tend to spread. If companies like Zeiss become labels only, others might get similar ideas. I don't see an immediate problem, but the selection of quality camera and lens products hasn't increased lately.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Yes, what they did on the video and p&s side before Minolta is interesting. What kind of business relationship they have also dictates the agreements they have for production, quality control, use of brand name etc. I believe even Kyocera closing down their camera business is relevant to this question. I don't think it's a coincidence that they shut down Contax at the same time as Sony bought Minolta's camera division.

What cameras I use is irrelevant. I use whatever cameras that are practical for me. The only Zeiss lens I own is the one in my Nokia (which was obviously hand assembled by a German Doktor-Ingenieur :D ). Industry and trade practices tend to spread. If companies like Zeiss become labels only, others might get similar ideas. I don't see an immediate problem, but the selection of quality camera and lens products hasn't increased lately.
I'd say the selection of quality cameras has increased dramatically. There simply aren't many bad cameras being made today. You just choose the subjectively best camera for your needs that you can also afford.
 

dandrewk

New member
Yes, what they did on the video and p&s side before Minolta is interesting. What kind of business relationship they have also dictates the agreements they have for production, quality control, use of brand name etc. I believe even Kyocera closing down their camera business is relevant to this question. I don't think it's a coincidence that they shut down Contax at the same time as Sony bought Minolta's camera division.

What cameras I use is irrelevant. I use whatever cameras that are practical for me. The only Zeiss lens I own is the one in my Nokia (which was obviously hand assembled by a German Doktor-Ingenieur :D ). Industry and trade practices tend to spread. If companies like Zeiss become labels only, others might get similar ideas. I don't see an immediate problem, but the selection of quality camera and lens products hasn't increased lately.
... the take away here being you don't actually own or have used the lenses you are criticizing, instead relying of on internet forums and reviews that match your pre-dispositions.

Nothing wrong with that, this is the World Wide Web. But then you make broad, unsupported assumptions that Zeiss does little or nothing except put their labels on lenses and double the price.

It seems your anti-Sony bias extends to Zeiss. I seriously doubt there are many who think the Zeiss brand has been diluted.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'd say the selection of quality cameras has increased dramatically. There simply aren't many bad cameras being made today. You just choose the subjectively best camera for your needs that you can also afford.
It depends, but I'm not going to count :)

The positive side is that technology has made it much cheaper to make high quality products, but those last 5% is still hard to achieve, which is clearly shown by the size of current 35mm f/1.4 lenses (just to keep this ever so slightly on topic), Oti (that's plural for Outus, isn't it?) etc. So if Zeiss is a group of Doktor-Ingenieurs in Oberkochen or a gang of venture capitalists based in the Cayman Islands... that may not be terribly important for the image quality anymore.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
It depends, but I'm not going to count :)

The positive side is that technology has made it much cheaper to make high quality products, but those last 5% is still hard to achieve, which is clearly shown by the size of current 35mm f/1.4 lenses (just to keep this ever so slightly on topic), Oti (that's plural for Outus, isn't it?) etc. So if Zeiss is a group of Doktor-Ingenieurs in Oberkochen or a gang of venture capitalists based in the Cayman Islands... that may not be terribly important for the image quality anymore.
Are you seriously equating optical quality of the product based on the mass/size!?! Regarding the Otus - whether you feel the size is agreeable or not the product is outstanding and it was the lens that probably started the whole push towards higher resolving lenses for DSLR's. The Sigma Arts offer 95% of the optical performance with the added benefit of AF at 1/5 the price but again they are large.

This might be the weakest anti-Sony argument you've contrived... this month... I won't make the blanket statement though because the month is still early. :D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Are you seriously equating optical quality of the product based on the mass/size!?! Regarding the Otus - whether you feel the size is agreeable or not the product is outstanding and it was the lens that probably started the whole push towards higher resolving lenses for DSLR's. The Sigma Arts offer 95% of the optical performance with the added benefit of AF at 1/5 the price but again they are large.

This might be the weakest anti-Sony argument you've contrived... this month... I won't make the blanket statement though because the month is still early. :D
No, I'm not equating optical quality of the product based on the mass/size, but it's apparently the way things are heading. If I should guess, it's done because it's the easiest way to achieve ultimate quality, and everybody except Leica seem to be going in that direction, in spite of camera bodies getting smaller, at least compared to what they were 5-10 years ago. Leica is the living proof that high quality lenses don't need to be large.

This is not an anti-Sony argument. All high quality, large aperture lenses for the 35mm format (again, except Leica) seem to grow larger, regardless of brand, even those that are only f/1.8, like the new Nikkor primes, 20/28/35/50/85. It's a paradox, since cameras are usable at much higher ISO than before, which means that the market for f/1.4 lenses should be diminishing. Apparently, it's not.

For me, a complete setup of moderately sized f/2.0 lenses that are sharp across the frame from f/2 to f/11 is much more interesting. The Zeiss ZF/ZE range offers that, as do Leica with the Summicrons. Nikon isn't too far off with the above mentioned primes, although they are a bit larger and with a distinct feel of plastic. They are quite lightweight though.

Sony could have done something like this too. As soon as they knew that the A7 would become reality, they could have made a phone call to Zeiss, asking them to design FE mount versions with AF of an assortment of ZM lenses, modified to suit the sensor, the mount etc. They could have had something like 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/2.0 and 85/4.0 within months, or at least a year. I can assure you they would have grabbed my attention. But they didn't.
 

dandrewk

New member
Sony could have done something like this too. As soon as they knew that the A7 would become reality, they could have made a phone call to Zeiss, asking them to design FE mount versions with AF of an assortment of ZM lenses, modified to suit the sensor, the mount etc. They could have had something like 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/2.0 and 85/4.0 within months, or at least a year. I can assure you they would have grabbed my attention. But they didn't.
But I thought, according to you, that Sony needn't communicate with Zeiss about lens design, etc. They just call them when they need a fresh batch of blue labels.

:grin:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Vivek, I agree that a trade mark has nothing to do with the design and performance of a product, but I don't think I have even mentioned trade mark in what I said. I don't think anything I've said is incorrect. I've worked half my career in R&D and IP acquisition and have been closely involved with the IPO as well as other patent offices. On the patent there are always the names of the individuals who made the invention, but the company (or companies) named on there is just the one(s) who's paying for the acquisition and prosecution which is not necessarily the employer of the inventors. Also before, during and after the patent acquisition companies can make deals, sell the IP asset, license it (exclusive or non exclusive), pool it together with other assets etc. etc. The options are almost limitless. So what I have said is 100% correct, the company name on the patent says absolutely nothing about the future business or licensing arrangements.
Pieter, This is getting to be argumentative so, let us leave it. If/when we meet in person I can add details . :)


On the other stuff posted-


I do believe that Sony themselves make those Zeiss blue tags and do not order it from Carl Zeiss. I will change my mind if there is evidence to the contrary. :)
 

tn1krr

New member
No, I'm not equating optical quality of the product based on the mass/size, but it's apparently the way things are heading. If I should guess, it's done because it's the easiest way to achieve ultimate quality, and everybody except Leica seem to be going in that direction, in spite of camera bodies getting smaller, at least compared to what they were 5-10 years ago. Leica is the living proof that high quality lenses don't need to be large.
Sony is also living proof that high quality lenses do not have to be large. Take a look at lenscore.org, they test all lenses on same custom-made 200 MP digital back. The score of (rather moderately-prized in comparison to Leica) FE55 and FE 35 beats handily a pile of Leica lenses, there is in fact only 3 or so Leica lenses that rate better than those 2.

This is not an anti-Sony argument. All high quality, large aperture lenses for the 35mm format (again, except Leica) seem to grow larger, regardless of brand, even those that are only f/1.8, like the new Nikkor primes, 20/28/35/50/85. It's a paradox, since cameras are usable at much higher ISO than before, which means that the market for f/1.4 lenses should be diminishing. Apparently, it's not.
IMO this is kind of a child of "benchmark age". To get positive reviews etc. lenses need to be ultrasharp and well corrected from wide open even in the corners. This leads to increasing size. As the Zeiss Otus is sometimes referred as "medium format lens that uses FF size sweet spot to get superb performance".

Big portion of so called high quality Leica small/fast lenses have corner performance that really is nothing to write home about.

Sony could have done something like this too. As soon as they knew that the A7 would become reality, they could have made a phone call to Zeiss, asking them to design FE mount versions with AF of an assortment of ZM lenses, modified to suit the sensor, the mount etc. They could have had something like 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/2.0 and 85/4.0 within months, or at least a year. I can assure you they would have grabbed my attention. But they didn't.
IMO Sony is on this road though the speed could be faster. Zeiss is making Loxias with heavy ZM heritage. The problem is that the 35 and 50 Loxia have quite hard time beating the "Sony Zeiss" offering despite pile of R&D put into them on top of ZM line. Below 35 mm the ZM-heritage only makes things even harder for UWA Loxias to perform well due to increasing ray angle issues.
 

serhan

New member
I don't care who designs/makes the lens as long as the end product matches or better then what Zeiss puts it out there esp with the small sizes. Size is the reason I use mirrorless...

Here is a interview with the designer of the FE 55mm & 70-200:
Meet Naoki Miyagawa, father of the best 50 mm of the moment

and the interview with a Zeiss Master:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9cnEnRADDLo

Interesting video and interviewer asked about the best Zeiss lenses other then the Otus and he comes with Zeiss 135mm, 15mm, and 21mm. Nothing about Sony FE lenses esp 55mm which competes with Otus lenses with its smaller size. I am sure he would talk about it if Zeiss designed it...
 
Top