For me that's OK Peter. I can see the value of opinions on the quality of lenses. If you don't like the Zeiss ZA lenses I have no problem you saying so. It can be valuable information for others to check reviews and sample images to see if they agree or disagree with you.
However I see no value at all to call things "not a real Zeiss". It adds no value, and while still an opinion is clear humbug.
Since you already had to eat your words on the 135/1.8 it might even be better to further specify your opinions and not make broad sweeping statements. I saw on your website you're a PhD, so you should understand the value of providing precise and accurate information, opinions or otherwise.
I will answer on this thread for the last time, believe me I was just telling my observations, nothing scientific, but the feeling I had while using my Sony 16-35 and 24-70 on my A900 for almost a year. So while I liked the 24MP of the A900 and even how it could handle higher ISO for that relatively high MP count, I was from the very beginning when I unpacked the lenses disappointed.
1) Mainly because of the feeling they gave to me when I held them. Felt for me like pure (and even worse) cheap plastic. Totally different as Contax lenses felt (both for RTS and 645 which I used to own) and not at all to speak about Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, which I really loved to touch and handle. I fully agree that other might feel different, so this is why I say that this is very personal.
2) I was never really happy with the colors resulting of both of these lenses, far away from what I was used with Contax and Hasselblad. There you could literally see the Zeiss glow, not so from the Sony ZA glass. And yes, I tried different setting on the A900 and sure, after tweaking the images a lot in C1Pro I could get finally the results I wanted but it took me too much time. From my E5 and SHG glass I simply get the colors right as I have seen it from the beginning, using both LR3 or C1Pro as RAW converters.
3) Both, my 16-35 as my 24-70 were not sharper than what I am used to from Nikon and Canon counterparts, I actually have the impression that Canon and Nikon drew sometimes really sharper. And this was actually my biggest disappointment.
4) When I looked into the future of FF Zeiss glass for Sony I saw actually not much of a future. At least I would still estimate that they are many years away from getting a similar pro grade lens lineup as Canon or Nikon. And one who likes that flexibility is clearly missing something if not available. I do still not understand why Sony does not get the rules of the game here. But maybe it is not even in the interest of Sony to do so.
As I said these are my last comments in this thread about Sony Zeiss, nothing scientific, just my experiences, anymore would be just waste of time!
I wish all of the users who believe in Sony Zeiss glass that they keep to be satisfied, great pictures and great fun!