Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Distagon Availability Coming in the Next 24 Hours? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
It's good to see that they made the Canon version focus in the Canon direction and the Nikon version focus in the Nikon direction.
Upvote
0
Am I the only one that is surprised to see a ton of halos on their Flickr samples (the full-size ones from the Nikon D800E)? I'm sure the lens is sharp as $#@!, but wonder why they would post over-sharpened samples.
Upvote
0
For those who are saying only a fool would buy this lens...I bet if it were a Canon-built lens, there would be several who would be pouncing on the "fool" name-calling.
For myself, I can't believe Zeiss are doing this, and making it a manual focus lens. Somehow it's ok for them to make autofocus lenses for the Sony-Nex and Fuji mounts, but when it comes to Nikon and Canon mounts...manual focus is all they deserve...and to charge such a high price too? It is comical!!
Again, this not only screams for Sigma to produce a similar optical quality lens at a far lower price...but I say to build something no other manufacturer would ever try. A lens that I personally want, and no doubt there are others who want one. A 90-160mm f/1.0-1.6 zoom with IS...now THAT might almost be worth spending $4000. It could accept 100mm front filters, or else more likely use a rear filter insert of some type. It could probably weigh less than 3.5 pounds. At its announcement, Sigma could claim the suggested retail price would be $4699 or something, then turn around and let all the retailers sell them for under $4k...similar price structure to what they've been doing. They could call it "the Da Vinci Super" or something! If Canon built such a lens, they would charge $12k, and if Zeiss built it, it would be manual focus and would cost $50k !!
For myself, I can't believe Zeiss are doing this, and making it a manual focus lens. Somehow it's ok for them to make autofocus lenses for the Sony-Nex and Fuji mounts, but when it comes to Nikon and Canon mounts...manual focus is all they deserve...and to charge such a high price too? It is comical!!
Again, this not only screams for Sigma to produce a similar optical quality lens at a far lower price...but I say to build something no other manufacturer would ever try. A lens that I personally want, and no doubt there are others who want one. A 90-160mm f/1.0-1.6 zoom with IS...now THAT might almost be worth spending $4000. It could accept 100mm front filters, or else more likely use a rear filter insert of some type. It could probably weigh less than 3.5 pounds. At its announcement, Sigma could claim the suggested retail price would be $4699 or something, then turn around and let all the retailers sell them for under $4k...similar price structure to what they've been doing. They could call it "the Da Vinci Super" or something! If Canon built such a lens, they would charge $12k, and if Zeiss built it, it would be manual focus and would cost $50k !!
Upvote
0
Lichtgestalt said:
I was on my iPad in the morning.. here is the link to the raws: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2yvtrnaphzoodru/4BbG6X43cI
Upvote
0
Lichtgestalt said:infared said:link=topic=17334.msg321114#msg321114 date=1381154877] [quote author=nehemiah said:
by the way.... the question with such stuff always is.. do you need the skills of the photographer or the lens to shot those pictures?
Having both works for me!
yeah well it´s like my "dick" reply....words are cheap.
[/quote]
Jeeeez...lighten up Lichtgestalt...I thought I was making a joke.
Upvote
0
I´m not the expert on MTF charts, but I was expecting something a bit more impressive than what Zeiss has published for this lens, ref:
http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf
I´m sure a lot of you guys are more qualified than me in interpreting this than me, but my expectations were higher. What resolution, contrast, distortion, bokeh etc. can we expect here? The image examples I have seen did not make me very wise.
On the other hand. In every discipline in the world, someone is pushing the envelope. If this lens delivers the quality Zeiss claims, and to be honest, they do have some credit to their name, it´s only natural that they charge us for it. Hifi, flyfishing gear, bicycles, watches, pens ... you name it. Enough people are more than willing to pay for the extra micro dB, milli miles/hour, nano gram saving, having something exclusive ... And the 55/1.4 will be able to trigger most of those urges with the photographiles. Am I one ... eehhh ... probably, so I´d better never read a review or (worse) try one
http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf
I´m sure a lot of you guys are more qualified than me in interpreting this than me, but my expectations were higher. What resolution, contrast, distortion, bokeh etc. can we expect here? The image examples I have seen did not make me very wise.
On the other hand. In every discipline in the world, someone is pushing the envelope. If this lens delivers the quality Zeiss claims, and to be honest, they do have some credit to their name, it´s only natural that they charge us for it. Hifi, flyfishing gear, bicycles, watches, pens ... you name it. Enough people are more than willing to pay for the extra micro dB, milli miles/hour, nano gram saving, having something exclusive ... And the 55/1.4 will be able to trigger most of those urges with the photographiles. Am I one ... eehhh ... probably, so I´d better never read a review or (worse) try one
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
If it were a Canon lens, it would have autofocus (unless it's a TS), so pouncing on them would be warranted.
I honestly can't imagine how anyone puts up with a manual focus lens. Manual focus lenses are fairly specialized pieces of hardware, usable only under fairly controlled environments—studio photography, still life photography, possibly landscapes (but only if you're not in a tour group that must adhere to a schedule), etc. I own a couple of manual focus primes in this range. I bought the pair for something like a hundred bucks plus hardware to adapt them to my camera. They're fun to use in the situations where it is feasible to do so, and if I really wanted to do some controlled (studio) portrait photography, I might pull them out, but otherwise, they are enough of a pain in the backside that a few hundred bucks is an upper bound to how much I'd pay for one.
Lack of autofocus makes a lens cheap in my mind. Sure, I can focus photos by hand, but without a really long focus throw, I'm not likely to hit the focus as precisely as an algorithm can, and with a long focus throw, I can't do it nearly as quickly. When you're doing unposed portrait photography (which is a big part of what I do when I'm touring), a half second means the difference between getting a great shot and a total dud.
So I agree with the folks saying that if this were a $4k lens with autofocus, it might be interesting, but a $4k manual focus lens is a non-starter.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Yup. This is a no-compromises lens... The video says it all. You're basically getting medium format quality on 35mm sensor. And for $4000, that's actually a reasonable price for that caliber of lens.
But what does this REALLY mean? I bet Canon is going to announce their big megapixel camera very soon and possibly show it at Photoplus in New York. Timing seems about right. The only 35mm camera that would benefit from this lens is the D800 and Zeiss would not have poured all this money just for one camera.
Can't wait!
Upvote
0
No no no no no no no!! Once Canon sees the competition selling a ~50mm lens for $4,000 then they will price theirs accordingly. This means that the rumored 50mm f1.8 IS will be in the multi thousand range instead of $500 like people are predicting. ;D
Upvote
0
I really don't think Canon has been waiting for Zeiss to release the 55 so we
Have something to use with a high mp camera. And I don't think Zeiss knows what canon are releasing before it's released, they assume. That being said it's highly likely a few more high mp cameras will come. Not that I in any way think this lens is at all wasted on a 5d2 or 1dx.
Have something to use with a high mp camera. And I don't think Zeiss knows what canon are releasing before it's released, they assume. That being said it's highly likely a few more high mp cameras will come. Not that I in any way think this lens is at all wasted on a 5d2 or 1dx.
Upvote
0
I'm very much looking forward to shooting with this new lens. The other lenses that Zeiss has released for Canon bodies are amazing but cost nothing close to what this new lens will cost.
I have no idea if Canon pays a bit of attention to Zeiss. Canon sells many multiples in the tens of thousands of lenses for one lens that Zeiss sells, the pricing points are worlds apart, and Zeiss not having autofocus eliminates a large segment of the lens buyers.
That being said, there are those of us who absolutely love the Zeiss glass.
I have no idea if Canon pays a bit of attention to Zeiss. Canon sells many multiples in the tens of thousands of lenses for one lens that Zeiss sells, the pricing points are worlds apart, and Zeiss not having autofocus eliminates a large segment of the lens buyers.
That being said, there are those of us who absolutely love the Zeiss glass.
Upvote
0
Is there a technical reason why it is 55mm and not 50mm? Is it not possible to design a fast (i.e. f/1.2-f/1.4) lens with a double gauss design? Is it why the 55 is a reverse-telephoto design?
Upvote
0
I'd be interested to try the lens, as I'm sure many would. I presume at that price copy variation is zero - or at least it better be. The copy variation we see in some of the expensive Canon ( and Nikkor ) lenses is alarming.
But my main worry would be - post processing.
So much can be done with even cheap pp programs to picture quality that I wonder after skillfull pp how much real word difference there would be when using moderate apertures.
But my main worry would be - post processing.
So much can be done with even cheap pp programs to picture quality that I wonder after skillfull pp how much real word difference there would be when using moderate apertures.
Upvote
0
I'd buy it if I had money I'm sure there going to be lot of people who can afford paying 4k for a lens. And for some of you guys who keep criticizing Zeiss for making manual focus lenses for Canon... I think the issue is not with Zeiss, but with Canon not willing to allow the Zeiss to make AF lenses for Canon bodies :-\
I'm sure there going to be lot of people who can afford paying 4k for a lens. And for some of you guys who keep criticizing Zeiss for making manual focus lenses for Canon... I think the issue is not with Zeiss, but with Canon not willing to allow the Zeiss to make AF lenses for Canon bodies :-\
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
From what's reported so far, the big advantage of Zeiss 55 will be corner sharpness wide open. For those who need that, well price could be no object.
It's mentioned that mere mortal lenses can be similarly sharp in the center wide open and when stopped down. Early users are also reporting the Zeiss is perhaps too sharp for portraits, calling it "Portrait for perfect skin" lens, so for non-model adults I shoot, I would be stuck with less post-processing time with my L primes.
Upvote
0
- Status
