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!

Now we're talking. Announced FE mounts

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Is that what really matters? Selection criteria professionals should be guiding themselves with?

(never mind the fact that almost every of XYZ rumor sites is owned by same person and he does such posts every single time something new is announced regardless of the brand in hope of drumming up some affiliate sales)
No not at all but it is for the big marketing machines for these OEMs. We can ask for the moon but your going to get lenses that sell to the bigger niche. A 16-35 will smoke a 85 1.4 everyday of the week on sales. That's what counts and that's what they will build.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Could you please tell us how many lens you carry with you at the time, what are they and how you carry them?

In other words: It is unlikely that you always carry 4 or more lens at the same time. Thus weight "savings" will "quickly" add up to approximately one whole huge pound. That "humongous" saving will be felt only if you carry them all around your neck at the same time. Either that or person is made from cotton candy.
I usually carry 3-5 lenses at a time myself depending on what I may need. On my Safari I brought 7 lenses.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
You are telling it to a wrong person. Read more carefully and you will notice I am not the one that is claiming few ounces of weight "savings" are worth mentioning as Alpha NEX system's "advantage".
Well I was responding to the rant of the lenses only being 100 grams lighter. That can end up being a 1 pound savings in weight when you carry 3-4 lenses not to mention that fact the bodies weigh 1/3 to 1/2 less as well. You can easily save 2-5 pounds in weight out your gear bag but essentially if that's a problem then maybe more people need gym memberships. I appreciate smaller bodies for the more candid nature and inconspicuous nature of a smaller camera. I don't mind owning a faster version and slower version of certain focal lengths if/when speed is a concern.
 

Transposure

New member
I started reading this thread with interest and wanted to chime in regarding the "reasons to switch" to a mirrorless A7R. I can only speak for the A7R since it was the choice I made.

First off, I am a pro shooter. Prior to the A7R purchase, I owned (and still own) a full Canon system with a plethora of L lenses centered around a 1Dx. I also own a Phase One medium format system with a Leaf Credo 60 digital back.

I had a Sony NEX7 as my carry around camera and moved to an A7R instead.

Why?

Well, several reasons...

I wanted a full frame camera instead of APS-C.
I liked the addition of a battery grip.
I wanted a real menu system.
I wanted 36MP.

And the REALLY BIG ONE..
After looking into the entry cost of a tech cam to shoot interior architecture using my high resolution digital back (60MP) for billboards at a cost of about $10,000 all in, I realized I could get a reasonably high resolution using my stellar TSE 17 and TSE 24 II lenses on a $2000 A7R with a Metabones adapter.

Using these same TSE lenses on my 1Dx yielded only HALF the resolution.

So, I have an excellent, lightweight carry around camera that doubles as a tech cam with my TSE's. Win win.

Does the A7R perform as well as the 1Dx? Not by a long shot in terms of speed and accuracy. Different tools for different purposes. Is the file size as large at the Credo 60? Nope. Different tools for different purposes.

But, stitch three TSE shifted A7R interior architecture shots together and the Canon can't touch it. Right Guy? :)

And one final HUGE thing...
Using the built in WiFi in the A7R and the free iPad app, I can wirelessly connect and tap on my iPad to select any point on the screen to focus. It grabs focus and beeps and I take the shot. Wirelessly, flawlessly, every time. It is like a built in "Cam Ranger" (look it up if you are unfamiliar).
For architectural photography, I can walk around with my iPad and a flash and pop light where I need it holding an iPad and a flash and immediately see the results on the iPad. I can change aperture, shutter speed, ISO and tap focus points on the fly using my iPad.
Priceless!

This ability is not available with Canon or Nikon unless you buy a third party, bulky, Cam Ranger.

Those are my reasons for the investment.
 

UHDR

New member
i respectfully disagree with those who think going to the gym helps. I was in the gym camp once, but until i downsize, i realise why not just carry less.

1) no amount of gym will get you through the airport security when your carry-on is too heavy/big. A lot of us needs to travel light and fast, simply do not have the time to wait around for check-in luggage to be delivered on arrival.

2) simple energy balance, on a week-long hike, the more you carry, the more energy you need, the more food/water you need to carry. again, no amount of gym will be more effective than simply carrying less.
 

dandrewk

New member
Try lugging around a bag with a Canon/Nikon battle-rig and three lenses around Paris for a couple of weeks. Make sure it's summer and you spend lots of time on jam packed Metro trains. Do the same in Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, NYC etc. It's not always about carrying a load a few feet from the trunk of a car.

I am in perhaps the best shape of my life, so fitness is not the issue. I'd rather spend my time and energy taking shots, not wasting it on a oversized system. Weight and volume is a HUGE factor. The smaller form factor on the mirrorless systems, along with the additional tech features, is the biggest thing to happen in pro and hobbyist photography since autofocus.
 

turtle

New member
Sure, its scenario dependent. Lets say I'm off to shoot a project far from home. I'm going with a back up body. The weight saving remains valid. I am not going to leave my spare body in hotel room, but mount a second lens on it and shoot the two bodies side by side (on in hand, one in a the bag ready to rock)

Lets say I am going out for an afternoon and only want to take one body and lens. The weight saving is still valid.

Should I pick all the largest FE lenses and shoot it where I would otherwise use a DSLR (say, weddings), there would be some weight and bulk savings still..... but I wouldn't. Id use a DSLR, because its the better tool IMO for the job.

Where a person buys a Sony A7/R for the reasons any sensible person would, I cannot think of any scenario where there are no significant weight and bulk savings over DSLRs. The fact that they are including some larger faster lenses means you can stretch into DSR territory if you want to and don't have to own a DSLR.

When/where/how exactly you carry two DSLR bodies with you? Shooting weddings, doing what ...? Doesn't it all depend on scenario?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Am I the only one that is disappointed in a way? What happened to promise of mirrorless of being lighter/smaller? Maybe in reality that there is no way around laws of physics, that if you want great performing lens for full frame sensor it will be of full frame lens size, is starting to slowly wake us up. I am sure they will be fine but "hey, replace your existing bulky system with one of ours that will be almost equally bulky" is not what was used as marketing pitch, quite the opposite, to do "one step forward two steps back" is not why I got mirror-less.
I happen to agree with you, (up to a point, and in some cases for different reasons:)).

Personally, I'm not an all forgiving Sony fan-boy even though a lot of my systems cameras are Sony verses Canon/Nikon, and have been for some years now.

It seems there are a lot compromises people are willing to accept just to get the camera smaller. My question is why accept it? Why not pressure them to step up their game and deliver on the smaller form-factor?

I think our expectations of mirror-less "systems" were established with smaller sensor cameras, so it has come as a disappointment that lenses with a reasonable max aperture able to cover FF sensors have to be so big.

I also think Sony had to get the expected focal lengths out the door before delivering on the smaller AF optics that would better realize the compact potential. I just hope they do, or I'll be even more disappointed.

For now, I'm fine with the FE35/2.8 and FE55/1.8 … and use of the A7R as a secondary camera to my A99 kit, as well as an adjunct camera in my Leica M Monochrome bag when I select that over a DSLR/SLT/EVF Mirror-less.

As for the future A7 Mirror-less systems and any successors, my with list is small (no pun intended):

> Produce a pocketable 85 to 100mm portrait lens @ f/2.8 or even f/3.5 will do fine if it is small. My M90/2.8 is pretty small, and modern micro tech could keep an AF motor from adding much size.

> An AF pancake 28/2.8 wouldn't kill 'em.

> Considerably improve the EVF performance

> Make a powerful speed-light with full swivel/bounce function that better fits these cameras. The new, slow recycling 2 AA battery HVL-F32M is not cutting it.

For me, until they do at least the above, this system will remain a secondary or an "accessory" to other more capable and complete kit.

- Marc
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Try lugging around a bag with a Canon/Nikon battle-rig and three lenses around Paris for a couple of weeks. Make sure it's summer and you spend lots of time on jam packed Metro trains. Do the same in Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, NYC etc. It's not always about carrying a load a few feet from the trunk of a car.

I am in perhaps the best shape of my life, so fitness is not the issue. I'd rather spend my time and energy taking shots, not wasting it on a oversized system. Weight and volume is a HUGE factor. The smaller form factor on the mirrorless systems, along with the additional tech features, is the biggest thing to happen in pro and hobbyist photography since autofocus.
So the gym membership comment I made was a non malicious joke sort of.

On a more serious note I did several years in the military in the past so I'm not unfamiliar with having to perform "ruck marches" with upwards of 40-120 pounds on my back for extended periods of time. I've also been to plenty of "war zone" having to do the same.
 

turtle

New member
I think everyone would agree to being disappointed that Sony has not rolled out a full range of amazingly good, slow, compact primes alongside larger, faster lenses for studio, portraits etc. However, where we are is not 'all bad' either. I think we're slap bang in the middle, after the release of these lenses. My two biggest issues remain:

Sony lens QC still stinks.
Zeiss has released lenses we don't need, from a system perspective.

I think the 85mm 1.8 will be very welcome and lets hope the 16-35 is better than some fear.

PS I wonder whether the resigned Leica Summarit lenses will be any better on the Sony cameras? Probably not, but you never know.

PPS I'm very fit and athletic; however, I still don't enjoy heavy bags or cameras that are so big I might end up on the receiving end of a US drone strike. When I can 'work light' I can see the benefit in print....
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm not fit , I'm old with aging eyes . I want live view and focus peaking that is actually good. I know what works for me. Nikon does not anymore but having a Sony A77II gives me the speed I need camera so the A7r can be anything it wants to be as long as the files kick ***

Am I saving some weight and helping my poor back after 38 years of carrying this crap all day long. Heck even 5 grams is helpful. Lol
 

ThomasZ

Member
I visited the Photokina today, and of course, my first target was the Sony booth.

I have to admit I was very skeptical about the new 16-35 F4. From the pictures, I thought it would be a big lens. In reality, I found it a nice, small(!) lens. It really matches the size of the A7. In comparison, the Nikon 16-35 looks much bigger. Mechanically, it felt also very good. If it is optically good, I may change my mind about zoom lenses.

I can say the same about the 70-200, I expected it to be much bigger. I left the booth pleasantly surprised. I'm seriously considering to buy both lenses.

The two new Zeiss Loxias are also small lenses, mechanically beautiful (and good looking). I took a few shots with them, but they were handheld and it was very dark there, so I cannot say anything about the qualilty.


In the end I fell in love with a silver Noctilux at the amazing Leica booth, but that is another story...
 

Barry Haines

Active member
I’m pretty surprised at the lack of interest here in the newly announced and newly designed for FF digital sensors – The 35mm F1.4 Zeiss Distagon in ZM mount (381g) + add an adapter.
It doesn’t weigh an awful lot more than a Loxia 35/f2 Biogon (340g), it shaves off in weight 469g off of the ZE 35mm f1.4 Distagon (850g) - it’s tiny compared!
A quick look at the MTF Resolution it looks to be an improvement over the ZE/ZF.2/Contax versions with around the same amount of vignetting.
It’s also pretty obvious looking at the newly announced FE 35mm F1.4 AF Distagon that it’s a lot smaller and lighter than that, plus I expect possibly cheaper.
The downside it’s not all that cheap anyway at $2290 (But still well less than half the price of a 35mm M f1.4 Summilux FE).
It looks to have a slight moustache distortion (No doubt PT lens can correct that later on) and obviously no exif info being transferred back to the camera.
If the Bokeh/CA/flare control is good, I might very well end up selling my CV35 f1.2 and get one of these as a replacement.

A few links for those who maybe interested...Cheers Barry

Zeiss
Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM | ZEISS International

Zeiss Tech Data Brochure
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Ph...nloadcenter/datasheets_zm/distagont1435zm.pdf

Samples
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/sets/72157647037301970/

B&H are taking preorders (A shameless PLUG go through GetDPI above) in silver and black.

Silver
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZM Lens for M-Mount 2109-165 B&H

Black
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZM Lens for M-Mount (Black)
 

turtle

New member
Barry, I am sure the 35mm f1.4 ZM will perform very well, but there is one big fly in the ointment as far as I am concerned: the CV f1.2 II. The Zeiss is not small (looks only a touch smaller than the even faster CV, if at all) and the CV is a remarkable performer, not only on M but on the Sony FE cameras. It is also much cheaper.

Zeiss, IMO, have responded to a niche already filled by the truly superb CV 35 f1.2 II. I have one, was skeptical, but with everything considered, I regard it as quite possibly the most remarkable lens I own (and I have plenty of Leica, Canon L and Zeiss lenses).
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I’m pretty surprised at the lack of interest here in the newly announced and newly designed for FF digital sensors – The 35mm F1.4 Zeiss Distagon in ZM mount (381g) + add an adapter.
It doesn’t weigh an awful lot more than a Loxia 35/f2 Biogon (340g), it shaves off in weight 469g off of the ZE 35mm f1.4 Distagon (850g) - it’s tiny compared!
Barry

I had a similar but lateral thought about the newly announced and revamped Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron. I have been very pleased indeed with my CV 21/1.8 Ultron.

I've been trying to justify owning the new shape CV 50/1.5 but each way I look at it I know it is not going to outshine the 55/1.8 and I can't justify having both.

But I can make a case of kicking the FE 35/2.8 to the curb and investing some of the residual in the CV 35/1.7 instead.

It is great that there are a lot of opportunities in the 35mm space and not just dependent on Sony/Zeiss FE mounts.

LouisB
 

jfirneno

Member
I’m pretty surprised at the lack of interest here in the newly announced and newly designed for FF digital sensors – The 35mm F1.4 Zeiss Distagon in ZM mount (381g) + add an adapter.
It doesn’t weigh an awful lot more than a Loxia 35/f2 Biogon (340g), it shaves off in weight 469g off of the ZE 35mm f1.4 Distagon (850g) - it’s tiny compared!
A quick look at the MTF Resolution it looks to be an improvement over the ZE/ZF.2/Contax versions with around the same amount of vignetting.
It’s also pretty obvious looking at the newly announced FE 35mm F1.4 AF Distagon that it’s a lot smaller and lighter than that, plus I expect possibly cheaper.
The downside it’s not all that cheap anyway at $2290 (But still well less than half the price of a 35mm M f1.4 Summilux FE).
It looks to have a slight moustache distortion (No doubt PT lens can correct that later on) and obviously no exif info being transferred back to the camera.
If the Bokeh/CA/flare control is good, I might very well end up selling my CV35 f1.2 and get one of these as a replacement.

A few links for those who maybe interested...Cheers Barry
Barry:
I guess the lack of data with respect to compatability with the A7 cameras means we'll have to wait before knowing which options work.
I just watched an interview at Photokina where the Zeiss representative stated that the Loxia lenses have been specifically designed to work well with the components (above the sensor) that Sony includes in the A7 cameras. Apparently these components may be responsible for some of the edge smearing that is seen with some lenses that misbehave with the A7 cameras.

I guess everyone is sort of in a wait and see mode.

Regards,
John
 

ggibson

Well-known member
Aren't there issues with corner performance on most adapted Leica M lenses (even longer than 35mm)? I think that was something that Zeiss talked about when designing the Loxia line is that there are improvements to make the lenses perform better across the sensor. I don't know that it's always obvious, but it may be a reason to prefer the native lenses.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

This article covers it well: LensRentals.com - The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses

And this one adds more information: LensRentals.com - Sensor Stack Thickness: When Does It Matter?

Best regards
Erik

Aren't there issues with corner performance on most adapted Leica M lenses (even longer than 35mm)? I think that was something that Zeiss talked about when designing the Loxia line is that there are improvements to make the lenses perform better across the sensor. I don't know that it's always obvious, but it may be a reason to prefer the native lenses.
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Barry, I am sure the 35mm f1.4 ZM will perform very well, but there is one big fly in the ointment as far as I am concerned: the CV f1.2 II. The Zeiss is not small (looks only a touch smaller than the even faster CV, if at all) and the CV is a remarkable performer, not only on M but on the Sony FE cameras. It is also much cheaper.

Zeiss, IMO, have responded to a niche already filled by the truly superb CV 35 f1.2 II. I have one, was skeptical, but with everything considered, I regard it as quite possibly the most remarkable lens I own (and I have plenty of Leica, Canon L and Zeiss lenses).
Turtle, to each to their own!...Everybody’s desires, needs and purse differ from one another.
My reason for the original post was to draw attention to a new lens that seemed to be somewhat overlooked, as Louis pointed out the Voigtlander 35mm F1.7 is yet another new lens for consideration.
Likewise I have owned a largish number of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander M mount glass over the past 30 years (20+ lenses absolutely no problem) and to numerous of everything else to count over my last 50+ years of active photography either professionally or as an amateur.
As I said earlier I already own the 35mm F1.2 Voigtlander (II) and I am a reasonably large fan (certainly on the A7R I am) but definitely not as large as fan perhaps as you’re good self it seems, having previously owned a 35mm Summilux, 35mm Summicron and 35mm Zeiss Biogon I have experienced all their strengths and weaknesses at one time or another, I don’t particularly find the CV35/1.2 perfect either if truth be told, so my search goes on.
MY problem and not necessarily anybody’s else’s is that the CV35/1.2 is a fairly low contrast lens especially compared to modern day Zeiss lenses that have more punch which is what I personally prefer; I also prefer the colours of Zeiss on the whole to Voigtlander lenses that I have experienced to date. The CV35/F1.2 was designed with film in mind and not digital unlike this new ZM it seems (All other ZM’s were designed for film so I understand). See B&H Quote on link earlier. Optimized for digital sensors, and produces an excellent flat image field.
BTW. I said it was tiny compared to the ZE 35mm F1.4 Distagon, it’s certainly a bit lighter at 381g compared to 470g for the CV35/1.2.

Louis...Re: The 55mm FE is one tough cookie to beat; it’s hard to have an excuse to consider buying any other standard lens for the A7/R/S.

John....Photokina is here and yet we are all still waiting it seems to see how it all turns out.

Cheers Barry
 

Viramati

Member
Turtle, to each to their own!...Everybody’s desires, needs and purse differ from one another.
My reason for the original post was to draw attention to a new lens that seemed to be somewhat overlooked, as Louis pointed out the Voigtlander 35mm F1.7 is yet another new lens for consideration.
Likewise I have owned a largish number of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander M mount glass over the past 30 years (20+ lenses absolutely no problem) and to numerous of everything else to count over my last 50+ years of active photography either professionally or as an amateur.
As I said earlier I already own the 35mm F1.2 Voigtlander (II) and I am a reasonably large fan (certainly on the A7R I am) but definitely not as large as fan perhaps as you’re good self it seems, having previously owned a 35mm Summilux, 35mm Summicron and 35mm Zeiss Biogon I have experienced all their strengths and weaknesses at one time or another, I don’t particularly find the CV35/1.2 perfect either if truth be told, so my search goes on.
MY problem and not necessarily anybody’s else’s is that the CV35/1.2 is a fairly low contrast lens especially compared to modern day Zeiss lenses that have more punch which is what I personally prefer; I also prefer the colours of Zeiss on the whole to Voigtlander lenses that I have experienced to date. The CV35/F1.2 was designed with film in mind and not digital unlike this new ZM it seems (All other ZM’s were designed for film so I understand). See B&H Quote on link earlier. Optimized for digital sensors, and produces an excellent flat image field.
BTW. I said it was tiny compared to the ZE 35mm F1.4 Distagon, it’s certainly a bit lighter at 381g compared to 470g for the CV35/1.2.

Louis...Re: The 55mm FE is one tough cookie to beat; it’s hard to have an excuse to consider buying any other standard lens for the A7/R/S.

John....Photokina is here and yet we are all still waiting it seems to see how it all turns out.

Cheers Barry
I would say the CV35/1.2 vII was designed with digital in mind, so much so that it actually focuses closer the RF focusing system can go so that to be able focus accurately closeup you need a digital camera with an LCD/EVF. Yes it is low contrast wide open but stop it down a bit and it really begins to shine with very good micro-detail and contrast
 
Top