[Jonson PL]

Their AF lenses for Sony are also quite state of the art, I guess.

The AF lenses in the Sony system, named Zeiss, are not built by Zeiss, but are Sony lenses produced under Zeiss patent. Zeiss set out some standards, for Sony to be allowed to produce lenses under Zeiss name, and then Zeiss has some overview of it.
It is like the Leica lenses that Panasonic are allowed to produce in auto focus for their bridge-cams.

There are some lenses that are very interesting though. I would love to see an equivalent 135/1.8 Auto Focus lens for Pentax. And the 85/1.4 is good too.


But as Jens R. wrote in an older thread on DPr, regarding a Sony vs. Pentax discussion :
"Knowing that Sony's lens line-up consists of rebadged Tamrons and the Zeiss-badge-engineered lenses, I wonder what attracts you"

[Duplo]

First off.... 18MM isnt "super-wide angle" on an APS-C Digital SLR. heck its not even really "super-wide" on a 35mm camera...

Now I am not sure about that... 18mm is pretty darn wide on 35mm... the rough equivalent of 11-12mm on APS-C.

Sure it is not a 14mm, but I would call it ultra wide territory in 35mm terms.

Prime lenses have a maaaaaaaajor draw back for many of us shooting outdoors. Yes: dust while changing them all the time.
So a good looooong zoom is always welcome for those circumstances.

Well I do a lot of work outdoors, primarily in the arctics, but also travelling a fair bit in a variety of major cities. Have not been to greece for some years, but I would not hesitate to bring primes there, as I did not when trekking dusty Lanzarote this winter.

Primes and zooms differs in how you work with them IMHO, to say that one or the other is not suited for outdoor photography is simply not true.

my sigma is all metal and has a smooth manual focus, also works wonderfully on a film camera...

Yep but sigma does not make them like that anymore

and like i said... many, many, many times in this thread, whether this reincarnation of CZ will be "ground breaking" is up in the air, let them make it, then we will see.

Well I have shot with pretty much the entire ZF range on my D3 and settled for the 28 and 85 as my favourites.
The 50/2 and 100/2 by all acounts are steller in performance too, so is the 35/2 btw. the 50/1.4 and 25/2.8 did not appeal to me, but are far from duds.
So if their reputation and linie up is any indication it will be a very nice lens.
While not useful for me in terms of focal length on neither my Nikon or Pentax gear (prefer the DA21 in terms of FOV on APS-C), then I see no reason for it not to sell.

i am willing to bed that its not going to raise any eyebrows, it will be good image quality, nothing more, and people who buy into the CZ universe are going to buy them, and think they are kings, and i will smile at them as i snap away with my personal choice of gear.

I think you are right, Zeiss lenses rarely do that in general, but the people using them generally praise them highly.
It has nothing to do with Zeiss being king, but with performance delivered and Zeiss is definitely delivering, for landscape work the smooth precision manual focus and solid metal construction is a pleasure to work with and the renderings and resolution from them are definitely in the high end scale.

Carl Zeiss is an outstanding chap, me and him had brunch the other day and he told me the most bizarre tale of one of his nieces and a 10 foot long alligator.


seriously though, my personal life experience (even though it is short lived compared to some of you) is that nothing ever stays the same, change is something we must adapt to, and to a certain degree, expect.

Heroes of the past become nothing more than conversational ice breakers and vague refrences of some sort of standard.

CZ (the person) may have been an innovator then, but CZ (the company) is most definitely far behind now.

for reasons already mentioned by other posters, for CZ to enter the market of electronized and auto focus lenses is... hard to say the least. They lean back and hold on for dear life on nothing more than their name and patented designs.

Just reading a few of the posters comments gives you this sense of this aristocratic perspective of CZ.



but in reality, someone like me has no reason to respect the current CZ image, because i can get the same if not better results, with more versatility, for less investment.

there are many people on this forum that swear by their Super Tac's, or other junk MF lenses, are they fools for having such a perspective?


i but i regress

a 18mm F3.5 lens with no electronic control is dull

other manufacturers have produced lenses in a similar focal length, with larger apertures, that have delivered much enjoyment to many of its users.

ergo, this CZ piece deserves little recognition.


if you (all) feel otherwise, that is your choice, but please do so for the right reasons.



**intermission**

Has it occured to you that they might just serve a different market than manufacturers producing AF lenses only?
A nieche for sure, but does that make it laid back and resting on a glorious past or far behind?

[Jonson PL]

Well I have shot with pretty much the entire ZF range on my D3 and settled for the 28 and 85 as my favourites.
The 50/2 and 100/2 by all acounts are steller in performance too, so is the 35/2 btw. the 50/1.4 and 25/2.8 did not appeal to me, but are far from duds.
So if their reputation and linie up is any indication it will be a very nice lens.
While not useful for me in terms of focal length on neither my Nikon or Pentax gear (prefer the DA21 in terms of FOV on APS-C), then I see no reason for it not to sell.

Hi Thomas,
Let us know how you like it, if you get the 18/3.5 Zeiss. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea; (for a future FF camera).
What didn’t you like about the 25/2.8 ?

You're right that the Distagon 21/2.8 is gonna be very interesting as well.

[Duplo]

Hi Thomas,
Let us know how you like it, if you get the 18/3.5 Zeiss. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea; (for a future FF camera).
What didn’t you like about the 25/2.8 ?

Hi Sune,
I will most likely not be buying it, 18mm is somehow not very useful to me.
if I need to go wider than 28mm on 35mm digital I have another option available that seems to be pretty much the most impressive UWA made to date.
and on pentax I prefer the DA21 in terms of FOV and the results from it are very, very nice too.
That i Dislike the 25/2.8 is a little rough. I just prefer the renderings of the 28/2 over it, plus it fell a little to wide or too narrow to fit my way of shooting.

You're right that the Distagon 21/2.8 is gonna be very interesting as well.

Yep, that is the one lens from zeiss I am keeping my fingers crossed to see someday.

[Jonson PL]

Hi Sune,
I will most likely not be buying it, 18mm is somehow not very useful to me.
if I need to go wider than 28mm on 35mm digital I have another option available that seems to be pretty much the most impressive UWA made to date.

Yup that is the thing, the day that Pentax goes FF, I do not expect an ultra wide angle zoom to be close to the league of the Nikon 12-24/2.8. Canon has tried for decades but never come close. That is one exceptional piece of equipment. Hence prime lenses in the ultra-wide segment are very interesting for users of other systems.

That i Dislike the 25/2.8 is a little rough. I just prefer the renderings of the 28/2 over it, plus it fell a little to wide or too narrow to fit my way of shooting.

Thanks for the update, good to hear.



In the original Press release “Zeiss Introduces ZF-I Lens Series. High-quality optics for precise technical solutions" OBERKOCHEN/Germany, 06.11.2007; they also stated that :
“The imaging properties of the ZF-I lenses are just as excellent as those of the high-end ZF lenses. The silver metal finish immediately identifies the industrial version. Furthermore, the ZF-I series is particularly suitable for rough technical applications. The lenses are protected against spray water and specially sealed against dust. … The first lenses available in this new industrial line are the wide-angle Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZF-I, Distagon T* 2/28 ZF-I and the Distagon T* 2/35 ZF-I”

Zeiss introduces ZF-I industrial lens range for Nikon F-Mount: Digital Photography Review

Are these the lenses we as consumers can buy ? Or are the high-end ZF lenses for Nikon private users, and the ZF-I lenses industrial versions ?
I guess the silver edition are the gasketed ones, and the black ones that can be bought for Pentax and Nikon are not sealed. This would make them extremely expensive for Zeiss lenses.

[thePiRaTE!!]

Hi Sune,
I will most likely not be buying it, 18mm is somehow not very useful to me.
if I need to go wider than 28mm on 35mm digital I have another option available that seems to be pretty much the most impressive UWA made to date.
and on pentax I prefer the DA21 in terms of FOV and the results from it are very, very nice too.
That i Dislike the 25/2.8 is a little rough. I just prefer the renderings of the 28/2 over it, plus it fell a little to wide or too narrow to fit my way of shooting.


Yep, that is the one lens from zeiss I am keeping my fingers crossed to see someday.

I feel much the same way about 18mm. That and the fact that on paper, there doesn't really appear to be anything unique about this new 18mm's properties. For the price, it would be interesting to see in use where in the design the money went though.

I only had a few minutes with the 28/2 to sample it and it was very sharp in close and more balanced out to infinity than the 25 seemed (able to be sharper at distant infinity from wider apertures, where the 25 benefits from stopping down more noticeably). The extreme minimum focus distance of the 25 makes it more interesting to me personally though, its in a league all its own with its 'on-paper' stats. Its a bit more near-sighted if you will - a product shooter for example vs a more traditional wide-angle approach with the 28.

Zeiss Distagon T*25/2,8 - updated Aug 08 - a set on Flickr

[huqedato]

1) Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 ZK

Link here:Carl Zeiss announces new 18mm super wide angle lens
for SLR cameras

2) Sigma 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

....

Those are really really craps!
What should a pentaxian do with such glass while we have such fine equivalents in our system ?!?
I wouldn't give a dime on these.

Those are really really craps!
What should a pentaxian do with such glass while we have such fine equivalents in our system ?!?
I wouldn't give a dime on these.

Hi, Huqedato!

I think there is no way you can judge the same a Sigma consumer zoom and a Zeiss prime, let alone the fact that the latter costs more than any current Pentax lens (1150 Euro). Let's wait and see ...

Radu

[Blue]

The Pentax DA 14mm f2.8 can be had for $560 new in the U.S. While I find Zeiss interesting, is the Slower 18mm MF lens $5-600 better than the Pentax lens? I doubt it.

[thibs]

The Pentax DA 14mm f2.8 can be had for $560 new in the U.S. While I find Zeiss interesting, is the Slower 18mm MF lens $5-600 better than the Pentax lens? I doubt it.

I dunno but the fact that it is "full frame" as such justifies in itself for nice price increase.

[Blue]

I dunno but the fact that it is "full frame" as such justifies in itself for nice price increase.

Until there is a full from dslr from Pentax, that is a Moot point. The autofocus is also a plus on the Pentax glass. And for film camera I'd probably just go with vintage glass. The exception is the Zeiss 85mm and 50mm.

I like Zeiss whether its cameras or microscopes but they aren't a clear cut winner here. I don't see that 18mm beating the Pentax 14mm on the k20d or k200d.

[thibs]

Until there is a full from dslr from Pentax, that is a Moot point.

Well it seems not for those who refuses to buy a single DA (except for wide angle maybe) because of that. I do not agree with thazt, but I know a bunch who does.

[Blue]

Zeiss had a f2.8 20mm lens (Zeiss Flektogon) in screw mount. However, it was f4 in the Exakta mount. At least the ones I've seen.

[thePiRaTE!!]

Until there is a full from dslr from Pentax, that is a Moot point. The autofocus is also a plus on the Pentax glass. And for film camera I'd probably just go with vintage glass. The exception is the Zeiss 85mm and 50mm.

I like Zeiss whether its cameras or microscopes but they aren't a clear cut winner here. I don't see that 18mm beating the Pentax 14mm on the k20d or k200d.

I'd just like to point out that you are only speaking from your perspective, its moot to you, which is fine.

Here's the flip side: FF will come eventually, and many of us who don't want to rebuy glass make it a logical arguement. It might seem strange to some, but AF is a minus from my perspective and I know I'm not alone. I select my subject very inentionally - I enjoy that, but native AF lenses have a feel to them I don't care for as I feel the screw gear turning under my fingers (not damped) and they have short throws to increase auto-focus performance (decreasing my selectivity and precision).

There is literally no better lenses I can purchase in the world for my K20 than these Zeiss Z line and the Cosina Voigtlanders in regards to manual focusing, offering full 'A' compatibility, high order optical performance and a brand new warranty. I can't see why NOT to buy them from my perspective and feel a lot of people waste their money on APS, AF, trade-off performance/build DA stuff, but I sit back and realise the world doesn't revolve around me and others have different needs. Its wonderful we can all get (mostly) what we want.

Anyways, this is the other side of the coin and I don't expect anyone to agree - only to appreciate that there are real reasons people buy this stuff other than vanity, thank-you very much.

EDIT - don't mean to sound like I'm coming down on you specifically Blue, its more a general release of thought, hehe.

[Blue]

I'd just like to point out that you are only speaking from your perspective, its moot to you, which is fine.

Here's the flip side: FF will come eventually, and many of us who don't want to rebuy glass make it a logical arguement. It might seem strange to some, but AF is a minus from my perspective and I know I'm not alone. I select my subject very inentionally - I enjoy that, but native AF lenses have a feel to them I don't care for as I feel the screw gear turning under my fingers (not damped) and they have short throws to increase auto-focus performance (decreasing my selectivity and precision).

There is literally no better lenses I can purchase in the world for my K20 than these Zeiss Z line and the Cosina Voigtlanders in regards to manual focusing, offering full 'A' compatibility, high order optical performance and a brand new warranty. I can't see why NOT to buy them from my perspective and feel a lot of people waste their money on APS, AF, trade-off performance/build DA stuff, but I sit back and realise the world doesn't revolve around me and others have different needs. Its wonderful we can all get (mostly) what we want.

Anyways, this is the other side of the coin and I don't expect anyone to agree - only to appreciate that there are real reasons people buy this stuff other than vanity, thank-you very much.

EDIT - don't mean to sound like I'm coming down on you specifically Blue, its more a general release of thought, hehe.

I'd like to see the FF camera when it comes out and the compliment of lenses that Pentax brings with it. Hell, it may not even support MF pka lenses. Then anyone with a $1000 or > manual focus lens bought in anticipation of it would be a goat. Pentax is no longer an across the board "legacy" compliant platform.

I never said there was anything wrong with using Zeiss on the current Pentax line-up and vintage film cameras but buying them for a camera that doesn't exist yet is just "funny" to me since we are talking about a company that some think is on borrowed time.

Edit: and what I was getting at with the Zeiss 18mm is that it is pretty damned slow for the money when compared to:

Zeiss had a f2.8 20mm lens (Zeiss Flektogon) in screw mount. However, it was f4 in the Exakta mount. At least the ones I've seen.