Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA

[ggibson]

I kind of agree with the sentiment that the Zeiss brand has been sold too far and wide. While the build quality of Sony's Zeiss lenses appears more high-end than their G lenses or standard lenses, I'm not so sure the optical quality is necessarily any better. There are plenty of examples of "meh" Zeiss lenses like the 24-70/4 and plenty of excellent non-Zeiss optics like the SEL50F18. In my mind, a Zeiss branding suggests more about build and materials than optics.

 

[serhan]

I guess 35mm is a Tamron design comes from this:
Xitek - FE 35mm F2.8 ZA- designed by TAMRON

Sony Tamron 35mm F2.8 Lens Patent Publication - Well, that is Sonnar T * FE 35mm F2.8 ZA. Currently, E-mount lens 10-18, macro 30, 50 / 1.8,18-200LE are designed by Tamron or Tamron/Sony co-design.

 

[philip_pj]

Sony's big 'problem' with lenses is that every user group from every other platform under the sun knows what they should do, and all of us have no reluctance in telling Sony what we think - down to full specifications, weight, size and flavor. Sony very likely know their market very well and set priorities accordingly. After all, they developed the a7 system in the first place, and the above simply indicates how much more appealing these cameras are than what the opposition is offering.

What has Canon or Nikon done lately that is not just another 1-2% on top of what they had already? They just seem to make the same camera and stick a new number on the front of it. They are victims of their own market success, and cannot make any serious changes to their cameras for fear of upsetting the base, which seems made up of the most conservative people, rather intent on keeping the future at bay. Sony are very clear that they welcome competition, they know it is the essence of capitalism. Competition improves the breed. C/N are stuck in an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Ask yourself this: what would the camera market look like without Sony? No sensors for Nikon, no D800/D600, no FF mirrorless, no NEX, no RX series, no RX1, the mirrorless segment still dominated by small sensors in small expensive and quaint attractive bling bodies. Leica M users still complaining about the pricy M bodies. In terms of innovation, market impact and resourcefulness, Sony owns the past 2-3 years.

Full frame would still equal very large, heavy, complex and expensive DSLRs with lens ranges that are as out of date as they are extensive. Made by companies making that exact same thing for the past 40 years. No thanks, I'll take the present situation over that dystopia.

 

[tn1krr]

I picked up a rumor floating around and said "apparently". If you know for sure if Zeiis do anything for Sony/Zeiss branded lenses, feel free to post any evidence. I would like to know other than just the label that is slapped on by Sony.

We know for sure that the Loxias, Touits and Otii are made in Japan with Zeiss not owning any manufacturing facilities there.

Here's an interview of FE 55/1.8 lens designer(s), it sheds some light into Zeiss involvement in "Sony Zeiss" badged lens development process. Sounds like mostly QA/inspiration stuff from Zeiss.

https://translate.google.com/transl...e-meilleur-50-mm-moment-a1818.html&edit-text=

Personally I do not care who made designed/made some lens, only performance matters. Is an Apple iPhone actually Samsung or Foxconn if there is a pile of parts from Samsung (at least used to be) and it is made by Foxconn?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

All I care about is lens build and performance. Names mean very little to me. If Zeiss is designing these and even if built in Japan under another name than I'm totally fine with that. Apple itself does not build iPhones , it not any different. Many companies don't actually build there sensors for instance. Pentax, Phase, Leaf and others are using sensors built in a Sony factory, that does not mean they don't have there own design and specs built into it. They do Sony is just fabricating what they want in each brand.

 

[jfirneno]

All I can say with respect to Zeiss branded Sony lenses, is if Tamron is responsible for the 1ZA 35 1.8 then I recommend that Sony get Tamron to make all their lenses, 'cause that one's a honey!

(Sorry for the typo (see bold face above). I was trying to type ZA 135 F1.8 but sometimes I don't pay attention)

 

[uhoh7]

My understanding is that till now the FE35/2.8 is the highest performing 35 for the A7 series in the view of many.

The Biogon rebuild had been a let down for quite a few. It's a shadow of the ZM35/2 on M bodies.

The real question: if tamron can build small good lenses for the A7 series, where are the rest of them? They should have built everyone a good 12, 20 and 28 while they were at it. LOL

 

[Vivek]

All I can say with respect to Zeiss branded Sony lenses, is if Tamron is responsible for the 1ZA 35 1.8 then I recommend that Sony get Tamron to make all their lenses, 'cause that one's a honey!

I agree. Having the blue tag is a drag on my wallet. It may be agreeable with the others. That is fine.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

One should of course require an invoice with all items specified when buying lenses, like:

Tamron 35mm f/2.8: $498.00
Blue sticker with famous German name: $300.00

Total: $798

Olympus did something similar with the great 75mm f/1.8. It's a Sigma patent if I remember correctly. All this obviously doesn't retract from the quality of the lens, but I'm quite sure Sony adds a little extra to the price when attaching the Zeiss label.

 

[dandrewk]

Well, yeah, if the lens was indeed built by Tamron, and the FE35 2.8 was identical in every aspect.

Thus far, that is only a fantasy, supported by "read somewhere that other Sony lenses were built by xxx." Are we really taking this "Zeiss bashing" to such absurd levels?

The same thing happened to Nikon several years ago, and probably still occurs. Somewhere a rumor is generated, gets repeated and suddenly becomes fact.

Mind you, I am not slamming Tamron, and agree they make premium lenses. I also agree that adding the blue label adds to the cost, but for some this -real, quantifiable- quality is worth the premium. If it's not, then don't click "buy".

 

[Vivek]

Well, yeah, if the lens was indeed built by Tamron, and the FE35 2.8 was identical in every aspect.

Thus far, that is only a fantasy, supported by "read somewhere that other Sony lenses were built by xxx." Are we really taking this "Zeiss bashing" to such absurd levels?

The same thing happened to Nikon several years ago, and probably still occurs. Somewhere a rumor is generated, gets repeated and suddenly becomes fact.

Mind you, I am not slamming Tamron, and agree they make premium lenses. I also agree that adding the blue label adds to the cost, but for some this -real, quantifiable- quality is worth the premium. If it's not, then don't click "buy".

Sound advice for those who may be fooled by the Zeiss sticker! :thumbs:

I agree that it is the wallet speaking and not the XXX number of posts that will determine the scope of these "Zeiss" lenses.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well, yeah, if the lens was indeed built by Tamron, and the FE35 2.8 was identical in every aspect.

Thus far, that is only a fantasy, supported by "read somewhere that other Sony lenses were built by xxx." Are we really taking this "Zeiss bashing" to such absurd levels?

The same thing happened to Nikon several years ago, and probably still occurs. Somewhere a rumor is generated, gets repeated and suddenly becomes fact.

Mind you, I am not slamming Tamron, and agree they make premium lenses. I also agree that adding the blue label adds to the cost, but for some this -real, quantifiable- quality is worth the premium. If it's not, then don't click "buy".

Who builds the lenses is irrelevant. Most Zeiss SLR lenses are built by others than Zeiss anyway, like Cosina. Who designed it is very interesting, since "Designed by Zeiss" tends to imply certain qualities. If the lens is neither designed nor built by Zeiss, one can certainly question what the label is doing there. It certainly dilutes their image.

 

[dandrewk]

Who builds the lenses is irrelevant. Most Zeiss SLR lenses are built by others than Zeiss anyway, like Cosina. Who designed it is very interesting, since "Designed by Zeiss" tends to imply certain qualities. If the lens is neither designed nor built by Zeiss, one can certainly question what the label is doing there. It certainly dilutes their image.

Well, I agree with you there - who actually builds the lens is irrelevant. It's already been mentioned that Apple doesn't build their iPhones. But does anyone think that it isn't still Apple's iPhone?

However, let's dispel the rumor that Zeiss involvement with the FE35 2.8 (or any other lens) begins and ends with the blue label. Honestly, that's an unsupported outrageous claim. However, it seems that you have already made up your mind, lack of evidence notwithstanding. Guilty as charged, sentenced to a "diluted image".

 

[jfirneno]

Who builds the lenses is irrelevant. Most Zeiss SLR lenses are built by others than Zeiss anyway, like Cosina. Who designed it is very interesting, since "Designed by Zeiss" tends to imply certain qualities. If the lens is neither designed nor built by Zeiss, one can certainly question what the label is doing there. It certainly dilutes their image.

Jorgen:
Sony's use of the Zeiss label for some of their lenses is a situation that has existed for about a decade. If you are interested Zeiss has a page that lists the ZA lenses for both the a mount and e mount lenses. The text states that Zeiss provides the auditing of quality control. I would say that they also would be interested in the overall "quality" of the design in as much as it reflects on their brand. Overall I would say that the ZA lenses are a step above the typical Sony lenses (although some of the older "G" lenses from Minolta were very good). I think at least two of the lenses (the a-mount 135 f1.8 and the e-mount 55 1.8) are superb and a couple have been mediocre. I would say that leaves them on par with what Zeiss currently produces under their own name. Whether they possess "zeissness" I would leave to connoisseurs who can define such things. One difference that I would note is that up till now Zeiss manual focus lenses tend to be heavier and stronger than autofocus ZA lenses. But the recent Touits have been maybe a little less "zeisslike" in that area and maybe that is because autofocus lenses by definition are a little more electronic than the classic Zeiss lenses of yesteryear. Either way, I think the future will see Zeiss influenced by its partnership with Sony as well as any "zeissness" rubbing off on Sony.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen:
Sony's use of the Zeiss label for some of their lenses is a situation that has existed for about a decade. If you are interested Zeiss has a page that lists the ZA lenses for both the a mount and e mount lenses. The text states that Zeiss provides the auditing of quality control. I would say that they also would be interested in the overall "quality" of the design in as much as it reflects on their brand. Overall I would say that the ZA lenses are a step above the typical Sony lenses (although some of the older "G" lenses from Minolta were very good). I think at least two of the lenses (the a-mount 135 f1.8 and the e-mount 55 1.8) are superb and a couple have been mediocre. I would say that leaves them on par with what Zeiss currently produces under their own name. Whether they possess "zeissness" I would leave to connoisseurs who can define such things. One difference that I would note is that up till now Zeiss manual focus lenses tend to be heavier and stronger than autofocus ZA lenses. But the recent Touits have been maybe a little less "zeisslike" in that area and maybe that is because autofocus lenses by definition are a little more electronic than the classic Zeiss lenses of yesteryear. Either way, I think the future will see Zeiss influenced by its partnership with Sony as well as any "zeissness" rubbing off on Sony.

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.

 

[turtle]

Especially when the quality control of said lenses is the worst I have, in my extensive personal history of buying lenses, ever encountered.

They are committing brand suicide IMHO. I know that for me, I will not be able to buy a Zeiss lens without thinking, 'Oh goodness, please, please, please may this one not be optically screwy'. It did not cross my mind with the ZMs. I have five and all are spot on. It has taken FIVE Zeiss FE lenses to put two in my kit bag.

The 35mm f2.8 FE is optically brilliant (especially with size and weight considered), but only if you get a good one and my impression is that there are more screwy ones than perfect examples. Canon does far better with their consumer optics for goodness sake.

I don;t care who builds and who brands what, as long as reliability and performance is in keeping with the price tag!

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.

 

[pegelli]

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.

But for me the question is where do you get the information that that is all they're doing. It might sound great as a theory, but I can't make out if it's raising FUD, gossip or hard truth.

 

[Vivek]

Pieter, Is anyone from Sony or Zeiss on the record to say that they (Zeiis) have anything to do with these tags (other than the obvious)?

The patents have no credit to Zeiss. If that isn't evidence enough what is?

 

[pegelli]

Pieter, Is anyone from Sony or Zeiss on the record to say that they (Zeiis) have anything to do with these tags (other than the obvious)?

The patents have no credit to Zeiss. If that isn't evidence enough what is?

I've done enough IP in my life to know that names on patents say absolutely nothing about any future business or licensing arrangement. Obviously everybody can think what he wants, like or dislike Zeiss for what they're doing, but until I see real evidence (and not a combination of gossip, hearsay and Sherlock Holmes style deductions) that all they do is auditing and quality control I'm not believing that statement.

I'm not saying it isn't true, but just a couple of people on the internet saying it is so is not enough for me.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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