A900. Your Best Set Of Lenses

[edwardkaraa]

Understood

We all want basically the same

 

[memories]

@ptomsu

I do think that we should differentiate your impressions of image quality and build quality of the Zeiss lenses. Otherwise this discussion will have no benefit.

Regarding build quality: Every manufacturer has its own strategy what they want to offer with which build quality and with which price tag. Obviously this is one of the few main criterias how they can increase their margin. The good thing is, that everybody can verify for himself immediatley whether this is "good enough" for him. If you do not like it, simply send it back. You made your choice and that is fine.

But please bear in mind that it does not make sense to compare old Contax manual focus "metal" lenses with new AF-constructions. When Contax introduced the N-system (autofocus), similar discussions appeared all over the net. As soon as you decide to offer autofocus, you have different limitations in the selection of the material you use and how to make a compromise between manual focus feeling/accuracy and autofocus speed & accuracy. So RTS system lenses were made for a different purpose. Canon A1 lenses had also different material then they use nowadays for their AF lenses

And do not forget that the small production number of Zeiss ZA lenses limit also the possibilty in higher build quality compared to Nikon and Canon. But IMHO it is above all a decisison of Sony. The price tag of ZA lenses is already very high. There is no Antishake in the lenses. Therefore they could make it better for the same price. So I agree with you on that point.

Regarding image quality: It is almost impossible to match the look of modern Zeiss lenses with older RTS-designs. Some glasses are not available anymore, some are forbidden because of ingredients (plumb) etc. So as soon as you pick different glasses in the production, you will have a different appearance in the image quality. That does not have to be worse. But it will be different.

Compare Zeiss ZF lenses with film-bodies with ZA and with RTS and N-lenses. You will be suprised, how the ZF lenses match the green/yellow cast of original Nikon lenses. This was IMHO a big mistake of Zeiss. They tried to please the Nikon users with it. RTS and N-lenses are more the same in colour reproduction. I can not compare RTS/ N with ZA lenses, because the sensor makes too much difference in colour reproduction. But if you have the time, use an analogue Minolta body with ZA lenses and a Fuji Velvia or Provia. This will show you whether there a significant differences in colour reproduction.

I do think that all manufacturers can make sharp lenses nowadays. But there are still differences apart of sharpness. Colours, bokeh, flare control etc. And there IMHO Zeiss is still shining

At the end of the day, it is a very personal, subjective decision. Either you like the image made with lens xyz and use it therefore again or you don't

 

[fotografz]

Bill, it's good to see that we are on the same wave length

But don't get me wrong. Despite the mentioned problems, I am quite happy with the A900 and I think I would have had to shed 8000$ for a D3X to be happier. But for sure a 5D2 or D700 would be out of question.

If the AA removal was available in Thailand, I wouldn't have hesitated to do it, but it's not feasible for me to send it to the US and ship it back.

But as it is, the camera is great and has so far given some of my best files .

I seriously doubt you would have been "happier" with a D3X. Same sensor and based on using both cameras side-by-side, even flatter response. I never had a camera that required so much post to get to the end product ... at least where color work was concerned.

None of the CMOS sensor cameras deliver the full effect of micro contrast IMO. We got spoiled by the response of film, had hopes for digital with cameras like the Contax ND and Leica DMR, and see it realized to greater effect with the Leica M9 with FF 18 meg. All CCD sensor cameras BTW.

Of the CMOS sensor cameras, I prefer the A900 over all of the others. Not sure I totally agree that it is an effective 16 meg output, but that is neither here nor there for me, since it currently is the best of the lot, so it is a moot point.

I have zero idea what side effects you'd get by removing the AA sensor from the A900, but once someone else tries it I'd give it a go.

As to the lenses, which is a subjective view no matter how you present it: The 135/1.8 is without peer in any other system, and is A900 stabilized on top of that, which none of the others are. The 85/1.4 could be better and isn't quite the lens that the N85/1.4 was, exhibiting more CA than the N did, and isn't built quite as well ... but it still sure delivers a nice 3D effect. The ZA zooms are necessary evils that do their job in the same manner that the competition ... better in some areas and not in others. The type of distortion the ZA 24-70 produces is easily corrected compared to the aging Canon 24-70/2.8L, and the ZA color is superior to the Nikon nano-coated 24-70/2.8 but not quite as sharp to the corners wide open. I just use the ZA24/2 when shooting wider work anyway.

The sleeper lens in the Sony system is the 70-200/2.8APO ... which I found better than both Canon and Nikon IS and VR zooms ... however, I admit that I may have lucked out with my sample.

The biggest hole in the ZA line-up is a 35/1.4 ... with a 24/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 PLUS a 1.4X for the 135, I wouldn't even bother with zooms.

-Marc

 

[edwardkaraa]

FWIW, I will be completing my Zeiss line up with a 35/1.8 equivalent. That would be the Nex 7 with the Zeiss 24/1.8. I would still need the converter for the 135 though. The Sony one doesn't fit, and I tried the kenko tele plus which produces excellent results with other lenses, but not with this one unfortunately.

PS: thank you Marc. I feel much better to know that the 8k Nikon isn't really any different

 

[ptomsu]

I seriously doubt you would have been "happier" with a D3X. Same sensor and based on using both cameras side-by-side, even flatter response. I never had a camera that required so much post to get to the end product ... at least where color work was concerned.

None of the CMOS sensor cameras deliver the full effect of micro contrast IMO. We got spoiled by the response of film, had hopes for digital with cameras like the Contax ND and Leica DMR, and see it realized to greater effect with the Leica M9 with FF 18 meg. All CCD sensor cameras BTW.

Of the CMOS sensor cameras, I prefer the A900 over all of the others. Not sure I totally agree that it is an effective 16 meg output, but that is neither here nor there for me, since it currently is the best of the lot, so it is a moot point.

I have zero idea what side effects you'd get by removing the AA sensor from the A900, but once someone else tries it I'd give it a go.

As to the lenses, which is a subjective view no matter how you present it: The 135/1.8 is without peer in any other system, and is A900 stabilized on top of that, which none of the others are. The 85/1.4 could be better and isn't quite the lens that the N85/1.4 was, exhibiting more CA than the N did, and isn't built quite as well ... but it still sure delivers a nice 3D effect. The ZA zooms are necessary evils that do their job in the same manner that the competition ... better in some areas and not in others. The type of distortion the ZA 24-70 produces is easily corrected compared to the aging Canon 24-70/2.8L, and the ZA color is superior to the Nikon nano-coated 24-70/2.8 but not quite as sharp to the corners wide open. I just use the ZA24/2 when shooting wider work anyway.

The sleeper lens in the Sony system is the 70-200/2.8APO ... which I found better than both Canon and Nikon IS and VR zooms ... however, I admit that I may have lucked out with my sample.

The biggest hole in the ZA line-up is a 35/1.4 ... with a 24/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 PLUS a 1.4X for the 135, I wouldn't even bother with zooms.

-Marc

1) Equivalent output:
Not sure what equivalent resolution output you get with the 24MP and strong AA filter as seen in the A900 and D3X either. It might be something around 14-18MP non AA filter equivalent. The one thing I can tell is that images taken with my Olympus E5 which is 12MP but very weak AA filter and optimized processing engine look more detailed and than the A900 and D3X samples I compared. Sure you just have 12MP but you can generate larger outputs as there is more information there and the Zuiko lenses are just stellar performers. This is also where I put lot of hope for the next gen FF DSLRs in order to get rid of their AA filter. Because then I do not think there will remain any difference to CCD sensor cameras, in fact CMOS should be technically superior.

2) Sleeper lens:
I fully agree to the 2.8/70-200, which is an absolutely great design and lens. I really enjoyed using this lens, as much as I disliked using the 16-35 and 24-70 from Zeiss.

3) Zeiss 35 and 50:
They would indeed urgently need a 1.4 version of a Zeiss 35 and 50, then the whole system would already look much more matured.

Additionally what I do not understand is, that there is not at least a 2.8/300 from Zeiss in this lineup, as this is a prominent and already many years calculated Zeiss design which only had to be adopted to the Alpha mount. Same BTW true for the 2.0/200 from Zeiss, which was one of my favorite RTS lenses. I even preferred it to the 2.0/180 APO from Leitz.

There is hope that we might see the one or the other addition, but most important I would consider a new FF Body without AA filter!

 

[memories]

In the meantime use the Zeiss ZS 35/2.0 and ZS 50/1.4 with an adapter on the A900...

 

[roweraay]

But the 2/135 L from Canon is at least on par with that Zeiss lens.

Having used the 135mm f/2L USM extensively, I know that it is a great lens and is one of the sharpest of Canon's lenses....however, having used the Zeiss 135/1.8 on the A900, I can state unequivocally that the Zeiss will thrash the Canon optically, to kingdom come. Granted the Zeiss is larger/heavier, being an f/1.8 lens but optically there is not even a contest there. You can take that to the bank.

But form the other lenses, especially the zooms, none of them comes only close to their Nikon and Canon counterparts.

I have used both the 24-70/2.8L and also the 16-35 f/2.8L (both I and II) and either of these don't compare optically or mechanically (AF performance etc) to the Zeiss equivalents. Have you used those Canon lenses ?

But is the Zeiss 24-70ZA perfect ? Absolutely not ! There are several weaknesses in the lens, including at 24mm, the extreme corners needing the lens to be stopped down to f/11 etc for absolute sharpness etc (even though 80-90% of the frame is blameless from around f/4).

I do agree that the Sony/Zeiss lenses (specifically the zooms) have been built to a certain pricepoint, which in turn accounts for the presence of some plastic in their casing (albeit of high quality), than the lenses being full metal etc. The question is, did Sony have an option, especially when comparing against cheap-as-chips 24-70/2.8L USM, to introduce a $2500 24-70ZA ? Who would have even bought such an optically perfect but huge/unwieldy/heavy/expensive lens made of full metal ?

 

[roweraay]

that these new Zeiss / Sony lenses are far away from the quality and flare other (former) Zeiss lenses had.

I believe the Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4ZA Planar in particular, has a higher resolution than the Nikon mount 85/1.4 Planar, which in turn has a slightly higher resolution than the Contax version of the 85/1.4 Planar.

Sure, the rendering is slightly different among these too, in addition to the resolution itself, but to suggest that the Sony Zeiss lenses are not "real Zeiss" is going a bit over the top.

 

[Bill_Green]

Mark and Edward, I find a lot of faults with the A900, but on the whole for what I do, it is the best camera on the market for me. My next lens will be the 200/2.8 and 1.4x.

 

[ptomsu]

@roweraay

so you say that the 1.8/135 Zeiss is a better and sharper lens than the 1.2/135 L from Canon? I cannot comment on this as I never really used the Zeiss.

Also the 1.4/85 Zeiss for Alpha - would you say it is sharper than the Nikon 1.4/85G?

Thanks

Peter

 

[Lonnie Utah]

 

[edwardkaraa]

It is true what they say that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. We are never satisfied with what we already have, and somehow tend to forget the shortcomings of previous gear and why did we sell it in the first place.

After my rant about the A900 real resolution of the other day, a friend asked me to send him a copy of an old photo I have taken of him with my ex 1Ds2 and Contax glass a few years ago. After having processed the file in Canon DPP with quite a lot of frustration and disappointment, especially that skin tones looked horrible to my eyes spoiled with the Sony files, and resolution not exactly as good as I remembered it. Now I'm very happy again with my A900.

 

[picman]

It is true what they say that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. We are never satisfied with what we already have, and somehow tend to forget the shortcomings of previous gear and why did we sell it in the first place.

After my rant about the A900 real resolution of the other day, a friend asked me to send him a copy of an old photo I have taken of him with my ex 1Ds2 and Contax glass a few years ago. After having processed the file in Canon DPP with quite a lot of frustration and disappointment, especially that skin tones looked horrible to my eyes spoiled with the Sony files, and resolution not exactly as good as I remembered it. Now I'm very happy again with my A900.

That is exactly my experience too. A year ago I looked long and hard at the many slides from my contax days, I had several professionally processed to have digital versions and had them printed. I am soooooo happy with my A900 and its devastating AA filter and that awful Sony Zeiss glass :ROTFL:


These were my contax lenses (all Made in Germany 15mmf3.5, 28f2, 50f1.4, 60macrof2.8, 85f1.4, 100f.2, 200f3.5)

 

[jcoffin]

I have to agree with ptomsu: the ZA 85/1.4 is *not* a real Zeiss. One of the fundamental characteristics of a "real" Zeiss 85/1.4 is that it has major flare problems. The ZA 85/1.4 clearly does not share this problem, so it's obviously not a "real" Zeiss -- and thank God for that!

 

[das_schlechte_gewissen]

Hello,

from my own experiences with Minolta and Sony lenses I would say that ptomsu could be partial correct but didn't provide any proof.

At first I'm still convinced since many years that it doesn't make much sense to expect that zoom lenses deliver the same quality that prime lenses can demonstrate. A Sony/Zeiss zoom can't be as good as a Sony/Zeiss prime lens.
Original Zeiss lenses (for Nikon, Canon...) are only primes and should be better than Sony/Zeiss zoom lenses. Both lens types shouldn't be put into a competition.

The Sony/Zeiss 135/1,8 is very good, visible better than other DSLR lenses from Sony, Minolta.
The Sony/Zeiss 85/1,4 is visible below the 135/1,8. I would say that there are a some other Sony/Minolta primes that are equally good or better, but have other focal lengths. It could be very well that Canon, Nikon, Zeiss have an equally good or better 85mm lens.
I've seen tests that compared both 85/1,4, the Sony/Zeiss and the Zeiss for DSLR's. They both were roughly equally good.

I would be happy if Zeiss would offer it's DSLR lenses with the Sony mount since these lenses look much more beautiful and should be better mechanical wise.

 

[roweraay]

Here is what SAR (SonyAlphaRumors), who mentioned about the 24MP APS-C sensor in October 2010 and also accurately predicted the upcoming announcement months back, tells about the future Sony Cameras (Full-frame related):

==============
One more thing: The future rumors: The same sources that gave me correct info about all the new Sony cameras are already sending me bits of info about the next DDAY in 2012. The event will be important for everyone seeking full frame cameras and lenses. And that will be the new rumor adventure we will have to go the next months. As I said, there are at least three new FF cameras coming and the new lens quantity is much bigger!
==============

Link below:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-hours-from-sonys-dday-a-message-to-all-of-you/

 

[douglasf13]

Here is what SAR (SonyAlphaRumors), who mentioned about the 24MP APS-C sensor in October 2010 and also accurately predicted the upcoming announcement months back, tells about the future Sony Cameras (Full-frame related):

==============
One more thing: The future rumors: The same sources that gave me correct info about all the new Sony cameras are already sending me bits of info about the next DDAY in 2012. The event will be important for everyone seeking full frame cameras and lenses. And that will be the new rumor adventure we will have to go the next months. As I said, there are at least three new FF cameras coming and the new lens quantity is much bigger!
==============

Link below:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-hours-from-sonys-dday-a-message-to-all-of-you/

I've said many times that I don't expect Sony to bring a 135 sensor NEX camera (although I hope I'm wrong,) but if Sony can manage to bring an A55-ish sized SLT with a 135 sensor in it, that would be very tempting to me.

 

[roweraay]

At first I'm still convinced since many years that it doesn't make much sense to expect that zoom lenses deliver the same quality that prime lenses can demonstrate. A Sony/Zeiss zoom can't be as good as a Sony/Zeiss prime lens.

Agree. We need to separate the Zeiss primes in the A-mount (135 and 85 and the 24mm) from the Zeiss zooms. The zooms are good performers as far as zooms go but the primes are certainly a cut above.

The Sony/Zeiss 135/1,8 is very good, visible better than other DSLR lenses from Sony, Minolta.
The Sony/Zeiss 85/1,4 is visible below the 135/1,8. I would say that there are a some other Sony/Minolta primes that are equally good or better, but have other focal lengths. It could be very well that Canon, Nikon, Zeiss have an equally good or better 85mm lens.

For absolute best performance on a high-resolution full-frame, the 85mm will need to be stopped down a bit, while the 135/1.8 is already outstanding, right at f/1.8.

I've seen tests that compared both 85/1,4, the Sony/Zeiss and the Zeiss for DSLR's. They both were roughly equally good.

Except that the Sony version of the 85/1.4 Planar provides Auto-focus on the Sony bodies, while the other Canon/Nikon versions are less challenging manual-focus versions. Apples-and-oranges. I like having Auto-focus.

I would be happy if Zeiss would offer it's DSLR lenses with the Sony mount since these lenses look much more beautiful and should be better mechanical wise.

I don't mind getting some of these ultra-wides (21mm Distagon for instance) in the A-mount but for the longer lenses, I like to have auto-focus.....not interested otherwise.

 

[roweraay]

@roweraay

so you say that the 1.8/135 Zeiss is a better and sharper lens than the 1.2/135 L from Canon?

Unequivocally, yes ! The Canon is smaller and lighter (which are certainly advantages in my mind), since it only has f/2 (f/1.8 in a 135mm lets in almost 24% more light than an f/2 version), and comes with SSM focusing (also an advantage) but optically, the Zeiss 135/1.8 will send it back to elementary school to learn to catch up with it.

I curse the Zeiss 135's weight (full-metal body with a large metal hood) but those images just talk volumes.....no translation needed !

Also the 1.4/85 Zeiss for Alpha - would you say it is sharper than the Nikon 1.4/85G?

Not familiar with the Nikon 85/1.4 and hence can't comment.

 

[das_schlechte_gewissen]

Unequivocally, yes ! The Canon is smaller and lighter (which are certainly advantages in my mind), since it only has f/2 (f/1.8 in a 135mm lets in almost 24% more light than an f/2 version), and comes with SSM focusing (also an advantage) but optically, the Zeiss 135/1.8 will send it back to elementary school to learn to catch up with it.

This part was funny to read.
Lenses send lenses back to school to learn something.

What I hadn't seen before this 135 came to me was to what an extend this lens brightens up everything and works out details very contrasty, despite what weather conditions there are. Bright sunshine or foggy days.
I know the lenses of the Sony/Minolta system, but if anybody knows lenses like this 135 with shorter focals lenghts, I would be more than happy to receive one or two recommendations. I would try to adopt such a lens to the NEX system.

I'm not sure about a Sony/Zeiss 50mm which was rumored some time ago, but if it comes, there should be a chance that it offers qualities similar to the 135.