i hope this is Planar 50/f1.4 ....

Considering the crossover to mirrorless, I'd think it a 24mm, 25mm or 28mm in f/2.0 or faster. Zeiss has been fond of 25mm (as am I) as a focal length.

Since the fast Leica's at those lengths also cost a fortune, I bet there is significant middle ground.

To minimize color shift and corner problems, I guess they would aim for 28mm. But boy would I love something around 35mm f1.4 or f/2.0 equivalent that would work on a NEX! And that lens would have to start life at wider than 28...

Extremely interesting. A new high end range of ZF and ZE slr lenses - that 55mm f1.4 is VERY interesting.

+ announcing AF lenses for mirrorless cameras!

+ the M mount fast lens!

This is more exciting than the other manufacturers announcements!

Personally, I'd love to see a 35/1.4 in the $1500-2000 range.

+10000000000000

hope it's either one of these:

50 1.4
35 1.4
28 2

Yes, I think the rangefinder sweet spot is here. I hope Zeiss understands that, this time around, and doesn't come up with some exotic 25/2, 90/2, etc lens.

Why not try to cater to the middle part of the Gauss curve for a change?

With a me-too lens? Why?

Cheers,

R.

+1 on all of the above.

But of course Zeiss already has the 24/1.8 Sonnar for the Nex (=36/1.8).
And I can attest that it functions beautifully.

A 35/1.4 would be amazing.

I think you misunderstood my remark: I just wanted to suggest to stick to a focal length that would be most useful to rangefinder users: 35/50

Another exotic 15/2.8 or 85/2 is not needed, IMHO

Cheers, Horea

Anyhow the lens will be announced on the 18th and will be available early 2013, so it's not like we can do anything about it. However, 11 days is a very long time.....

Dear Horea,

No, I see your point: I just don't agree. There are LOTS of really good 35mm and 50mm lenses, old and new, so it's a VERY crowded market segment. The 1,5/50 C-Sonnar is different enough, but really, where's the need for another (conventionally) very good 50 or 35?

Alas, it would probably not be safe to couple the new 2/135...

Cheers,

R.

I believe we are missing a middle priced, middle sized high quality and fast 35.

As I stated on the other thread, a 24mm or 25mm f/1.4 would be sweet.

<<I believe we are missing a middle priced, middle sized high quality and fast 35.>>
CV 35 Nokton and 1.4 and 1.7 don't qualify here? (Of course I don't know which of these is still in production...)

I think they might surprise everybody with a 40mm or a 75mm. If not those then I'm guessing 25, which has been a specialty of theirs. Or maybe a 50/1.0?

Roger,
Sorry, but I disagree..
There are some excellent 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/2 but they are all Leica and cost an eye.
The only one to compete in this segment is VC with lenses that are far from being that good (Not as sharp, plagued by distortion or by QC issues), or the Sonnar with it's inherent limitations (focus shift, min focus distance).
I am sure these lenses have their afficionados (Nokton 1.2, Sonnar etc..), but they are not a true competition to a Summilux 50 ASPH or a 28mm Summicron.
Proposing a cheaper option of something that is already available IS something important in my eyes.

Dear Roger,
will all due respect, I say YES: there is a clear need for another good 35/50 1.4 lenses, My arguments:

1) There are basically two high-performance (on digital bodies speaking) 35/1.4 lenses: The current Summilux and the Nokton (1.2). Both have significant shortcomings.

- The first still has focus-shift (it was quite clear with my two copies on the M9. I now have a third copy but use it on analog bodies). Plus it costs a lot. Sizewise, however, it is perfect.

- The Nokton does not suffer from focus shift, but is very bulky.

=> what is needed is a new lens, with a lower price than the 'Lux, less hefty than the Nokton and with high performance. In the latter regards I trust Zeiss: their currently developed ZM lenses have no focus shift and are really optimized for digital bodies. The exception is the C-Sonnar, but this is an old formula. I don'w know if Zeiss can deliver that in a smaller sized body than the Nokton, though

2) The are currently, in production exactly two 1.4/1.5 50mm lenses: the Summilux and the C-Sonnar (the Nokton discontinued, as far as I know).

I think there is quite a difference between the two, performance-wise, price-wise, etc. The gap is huge: there is clearly room for a 50/1.4 Planar, IMHO

I think that the 35/1.4 lens is the better choice for Zeiss to make: usable on APS-C and mirrorless bodies, but on a FF rangefinder system, too, an all-round lens.

Just my opinion.

Cheers, Horea

Dear Horea, Dear Michael,

I fear that we are back to the question of what it costs to make a 'really good' lens, and possibly to the question of what 'really good' means. We have already seen that German-built Zeiss lenses (15/2.8, 85/2) are comparable in price with Leica, because that's what it costs to make a 'state of the art' all-glass lens (no 'hybrid aspherics') with hand-lapped focusing mounts.

In other words, I think we are looking at the same problem as I raised in another thread, "And I want it to cost $1000..."

But, of course, none of us is a lens designer or manufacturer, so we could all be mis-reading the situation in our own ways.

Cheers,

R.

Not 1000$
But I think you would agree that the Zeiss offer is priced significantly lower than Leica's while offering 99% (some say 101%) of Leica Optical performance.
Today, with my type of budget, I could never afford a new Leica lens, but I could buy a 50 Planar or Biogon 35 instead of summicrons. The same should hold for 1.4 offerings...

No, of course not $1000, but you see my point.

On reflection, you may be right about the possibility of a new, fast Japanese-built Zeiss 35 or 50, perhaps (in effect) a Nokton replacement. Commercially, this would explain the discontinuation of the Nokton. On the other hand, I don't think Zeiss would go for a hybrid aspheric design, so it would probably cost a lot more than the Nokton.

As for "99% (some say 101%) of Leica Optical performance", my feeling is that at the highest levels you are looking at differences rather than improvements. I'm not sure there's ANY 50 I'd rather have than my C-Sonnar, even including a Noctilux, because I like what the C-Sonnar does and it's so much smaller than the Noctilux.

The Summilux is nice, but I just can't get that excited about lp/mm and so forth any more, and I prefer the 'look' of the C-Sonnar. Or at least, I think I do: I've never had a Summilux for long enough to get to know it, and I've taken (I think) one shot with the latest Summilux. My own view is that at the high end, preference and skill counts for a lot more than technical specs.

Cheers,

R.

I am glad to see lots of GAS among RFF members, but I do not find myself missing any lens that I do not have. Just recently, many people were raving about CV lenses. What has happened to make you dump confidence in CV and move on to Zeiss lenses? Is the economy getting better? Is Zeiss so much better glass?

I'm very happy with my 35/1.4 Nokton and 28/1.9 Ultron; reliable performers - any shot doesn't come out, it's usually due to me not the lens. I had the C-Sonnar once, but like my current fast 50s better (Lux v2, Pentax 50/1.4).

The only two fast lenses that I would be interested in are a 28/1.4 (I won't shell out 10k for the upcoming Leica lens) or a googl'ed 180/2.8. Heck, I would even buy a new camera for the 180

Anybody wondering if KobayashiSan has something new for us at Photokina ?

Roland.