Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de...s2821.html
Not sure, makes me wonder if they are the old lenses in a new shell, maybe with new formulation coatings at most? The 21mm f2.8 I looked at seems to have the same optics, or slightly different, hard to tell if it is just the drawing of the elements which make it appear a tad different.
At least the 50mm f1.4 is a totally new design (cool!). 50mm f2, similar or same. 35mm f2 similar or same. 85mm f1.4, totally new design (cool!). 100mm f2, similar or same.
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
Otus, Loxia, Milvus, Batis, Touit - any chance to keep an overview by all these colourful, yet difficult to remember names? Modern design, lovely bokeh and the price is - 'sides of sky high - no AF. Thanks, Carl Z. 
Why did they manage to plug in an AF-drive in there Batis' series, but not in Milvus?
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
09-10-2015, 05:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2015, 05:12 PM by Rover.)
The 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 were the ones that needed the overhaul, they weren't very impressive in PZ tests and samples of 50/1.4 that I've seen indicated coke bottle-like sharpness at f/1.4 and not much better anywhere but dead center at f/2. Which isn't surprising, seeing as how these were old designs, and coupled with a fast aperture that was a recipe for trouble. Maybe that'll be fixed now (since the 36~50 megapixel sensors aren't very kind to the lenses).
Quote:<div>
Otus, Loxia, Milvus, Batis, Touit - any chance to keep an overview by all these colourful, yet difficult to remember names? Modern design, lovely bokeh and the price is - 'sides of sky high - no AF. Thanks, Carl Z.
Why did they manage to plug in an AF-drive in there Batis' series, but not in Milvus?
</div>
Maybe because E-mount standard is disclosed, but for Canon and Nikon they would've had to pull a Sigma.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:Otus, Loxia, Milvus, Batis, Touit - any chance to keep an overview by all these colourful, yet difficult to remember names? Modern design, lovely bokeh and the price is - 'sides of sky high - no AF. Thanks, Carl Z.
Why did they manage to plug in an AF-drive in there Batis' series, but not in Milvus?
Because they work together with Sony. Their excuse is that they do not offer licenses for their mount electronics, and they do not want to reverse engineer those.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:The 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 were the ones that needed the overhaul, they weren't very impressive in PZ tests and samples of 50/1.4 that I've seen indicated coke bottle-like sharpness at f/1.4 and not much better anywhere but dead center at f/2. Which isn't surprising, seeing as how these were old designs, and coupled with a fast aperture that was a recipe for trouble. Maybe that'll be fixed now (since the 36~50 megapixel sensors aren't very kind to the lenses).
Very true. But why are the old designes for instance the 50mm f2 and 100mm f2) priced higher than the more expensive to produce 85mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 :ph34r:
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
Quote:Very true. But why are the old designes for instance the 50mm f2 and 100mm f2) priced higher than the more expensive to produce 85mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 :ph34r:
Maybe because the Makro-Planars are actually SHARP as opposed to the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, and everyone knows that (Zeiss included  ).
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:Maybe because the Makro-Planars are actually SHARP as opposed to the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, and everyone knows that (Zeiss included ).
No, the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm. f1.4 are totally new designs, and sharp. And with special elements. So, it is a bit of a mystery to me....
Posts: 87
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
I find the new aesthetic design of the Otus/Batis/etc lenses really not appealing. The funnel shape of the lenses makes them look quite ugly without the lens hood - especially the Batis lenses for Sony. The rubber focus ring will just wear and make the lens look cheap. The classic look of the previous generation and ZM is better and more timeless. Is it just me?
Quote:Otus, Loxia, Milvus, Batis, Touit - any chance to keep an overview by all these colourful, yet difficult to remember names? Modern design, lovely bokeh and the price is - 'sides of sky high - no AF. Thanks, Carl Z.
Why did they manage to plug in an AF-drive in there Batis' series, but not in Milvus?
All of them are still easier that Schnyda Crouch-snatch! :lol:
AF in all these lenses would be great, the same goes for Samyang, lovely sharp bargain lenses, but no AF kills it for me and for many others. People give MF a go but it doesn't take long before they give up and put them on "le bon coin",usually at bargain prices.
It always surprises me that there is a sufficient market to support all these MF lens manufacturers!
Posts: 4,031
Threads: 41
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
22
Quote:Because they work together with Sony. Their excuse is that they do not offer licenses for their mount electronics, and they do not want to reverse engineer those.
Yep, that's the reason. Plus, they don't want to fight against Japanese copyright laws which are stricter when it comes to non-Japanese manufacturers. I simply forgot that. on the other side: Although AF is great to have, the area of those AF points are limiting the whole composition.
I'd like more AF-points or better foucs-screen. The one with microprism I tried was just not as accurate as an adjusted AF sensor.
|
