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!
It's kind of hard to make a final impression of the lens without a full size sample. Those are dow-res'd to 2.3 megapixels or so.I don't know about you guys but I am not impressed at all with what I am seeing in the samples. I will pass for now.
You are correct _but_ that is exactly what my feeling is based on. Few shots do seem to be non-downsized (for example, one named Berlin, first one in 35/2 set). Resolution is listed as 6000x4000 which implies it has been taken with A7. There is nothing sharp about that picture.It's kind of hard to make a final impression of the lens without a full size sample. Those are dow-res'd to 2.3 megapixels or so.
There is no reason to believe these are not real. It's Zeiss account, samples are labeled as coming from lens, and they are same samples used in Zeiss official brochure for that lens.Not sure if these are real. The seagull supposedly taken with the 50 has the strangest DoF and the bokeh ahead of the subject plane looks like it was done in PP.
phillip_pj, could you please pick any of the samples posted by Zeiss and elaborate what exactly is impressive about it? Could you please point one sharp sample to me? I am not able to find a single one.Very impressive in specs and samples.
that's how they did it in the past, and that's how they still do it.However I doubt guys at Zeiss can be called anything even close to incompetent so I doubt it's that even though their decision to not offer A7R resolutions, further downsize majority of samples, and not offer EXIF makes me scratch my head.
Pay a visit to the websites linked above in the thread :I'm really surprised by the choice of focal length. I thought the Sony-Zeiss 35mm and 55mm were pretty good.
I wonder why Zeiss didn't introduce a wide angle or macro for example. I would have thought that they have also those in their ZM arsenal.
The last time I trusted a camera/lens maker, I ended with the Zeiss-labeled Sony 24-70 F4, the mother of distortion. From that point on, I decided to never buy a lens without checking some extensive tests and reviews prior to buying.... I trust that Zeiss produces some of the sharpest glass available ...
I'm considering the 35 simply because I don't love the 35/2.8 that I currently own. It's a good lens but not anywhere remotely close to what a 35 Summicron ASPH is on my formerly owned M9... Or what my Voigtlander 35/1.2 is for that matter.Any of you @7 users already owning the 35 and 55 going for these lenses? Reasons?