Mickey Mantle Loc: New York City

Does anyone have any experience with the Sony Distagon 35mm 1.4 made by Zeiss for a full frame mirror less? I would use it on my a6000 and a7 ii

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

ANY Zeiss lens will be worth it's weight in silver or gold. :thumbup:

Sony Zeiss lenses are the only Zeiss lenses that are autofocus... a double plus.

IF I could afford it, I would have ALL Zeiss lenses for every focal length below 200mm. :thumbup:

Mickey Mantle Loc: New York City

After buying a few Sony Zeiss lenses, I want them all

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^Absolutely. :thumbup:

I want the 24-70mm Z2 in the A mount. It is supposed to have a much faster AF motor and superior coatings to the Z1 which is an OUTSTANDING lens... one of the best in the class.

Don't know if I can justify to the wife spending more money for essentially the same lens though. :(

Mickey Mantle Loc: New York City

I have the 24-70 f4 Zeiss. Love it.

le boecere

Cholly, for us neophytes; what's a "Z2"? (Or, a Z1, for that matter)?

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

I believe Steve Huff has done a review on this one on his site and reckons it's the best 35mm ever made. It's a large lens. I have the 16-35 F4 which is the same size - so held off buying the 35mm.

I do fancy the fast 1.4 though! Zeiss make superb glass.

Mickey Mantle Loc: New York City

Steve Huff says it is the best 35 ever. Very heavy and expensive but tempted

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Have it, love it, and use it on my A7r. Yes it is a tad large, especially compared to the camera, but all in all, worth the $$ IMO.

Love the camera also except for one thing. With poor eyesight, I thought the electronic view finder that has focus assist / peaking would be great. It does what it needs to do and I can always tell when what I want in focus is. Unfortunately the process of focusing (I think it is the contrast detect, but I always get the two methods confused) is slow. Could never use the camera for any action, wildlife, sports, etc. But for landscape and stills it is a great combo.

PS: One thing you might also consider is getting some adapter rings for the E mount so you can can use your other lenses also. I have some other fine glass that is non-Zeiss, and its nice to have that flexibility. Word of caution - I read somewhere that the adapter rings start to have difficulty at about 24mm. Anything wider gets pretty funky at the perimeter, and I have seen this with my 21mm prime. That being said, I can put on my Nikon 70-200 and get some great landscape details.

Mickey Mantle Loc: New York City

Having shot with the Nikon 810 and the holy trinity of lenses, I have now fallen in love with mirror less and the Zeiss lenses. Is the 35mm 1.4 a lens that is worth that cost?

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

According to Steve Huff who has used most cameras out there, and indeed a host of Leica, it's the best 35mm he has ever used - beating Leica. His only negative is the size.

It's the same as my 16-35 F4 and it is a big lens. But, for the cost against a Leica 35mm it is a bargain. But, as you know, the Leica is virtually as good but a lot smaller.

Like all cameras, even Leica drop in value, but their lenses generally hold their price.

The best thing to do is go to a camera shop and handle the 35mm F1.4 and see how it feels.

But for Huff to say it's the best 35mm is praise indeed.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Sony has redesigned the SSM drive motors in it's high end lenses. They are even faster than the original SSM motors, a move designed to take advantage of the super fast focusing module in the A77II and the upcoming A99II.

The new Z2 lenses (and G2 lenses for that matter) also have new coatings that reduce flare, ghosting and chromatic aberration even more than the existing first generation models.

These improvements come at a cost. The already expensive Zeiss and G lenses have been replaced by Z2 and G2 models that are substantially (5-50%) more expensive than the originals. The increased performance may or may not justify the additional expense in the minds of potential buyers.

I know that the 70-400mm f/4 G2 is a FAR superior lens to the original G, and well worth every single penny in cost... and I suspect the new 24-70mm f/2.8 Z2 will be the same in relation to the original 24-70mm which is one of the BEST lenses on the market at any price. :thumbup:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Zeiss is one of the top 2-3 lens manufacturers to be sure. Their lenses are legendary, and justifiably so.

The partnership between Minolta and Zeiss has been continued with Sony Zeiss and it's GREAT that Sony is now including a number of Zeiss lenses in it's E mount format.

A VERY good move in this expanding mirrorless market. :thumbup:

le boecere

Same "idiot" question as yesterday, but I think I got my answer: "Z2", as in "24-70mm f/2.8 Z2" seems to be a very rare term. Google cannot seem to find it. The Sony website directs me to the latest "SSM" with no reference to "Z2". On the telephone, the Sony salesperson seemed a bit confused by the term (Z2), and finally concluded that it's just someone's reference to the most recent (SSM) iteration. I think I've concluded that it must be exclusive "hogger" insider vernacular.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^That "someone" is Sony...


http://store.sony.com/a-mount-lenses/cat-27-catid-All-A-Mount-Lenses

Note the OFFICIAL Sony designation for the last two lenses at the bottom of the page. ;)

Z2 is how they refer to their newly redesigned Sony Carl Zeiss lenses.

For example: THIS NEW LENS compared to THAT OLD ONE....

...Just as G2 refers to the Redesigned G lenses as opposed to the Sony G Original models.

And I'm not sure which Sony salesperson you talked with, but some of these lenses have been on sale for a while now. Perhaps he or she needs to bone up on the current offerings in order to be more effective at their job. ;)