Steve W wrote:Macman4789 wrote:Thank PWPhotography wrote:Steve W wrote:The Sony GM, Sony G, Sony/Zeiss ZA, Zeiss Batis, and Zeiss Loxia all have good FE products with some being better than others but I think with the exception of a few you can fined winners. I own some of each and have found ones in each family I personally like. Right now my best ZA is the 50/1.4 but when I had the 55/1.8, and 16-35/4 they were great as well. Clearly the GM are doing really well but the 90/2.8 Macro and 24-105/4 G's I have are great as well. Also a big fan of both Batis and Loxia which you can see from my gear list here.All depends on what your looking tor.Steve WAgreed, depend on what OP photo areas and in what priority.For ultimate sharpness, prime lenses in Sony GM (such as newly announced 135/1.8 GM), some Zeiss Batis and Loxia.For zoom versatility, Sony zooms (I categorized ZA lenses as Sony lenses as well). The GM zoom are great in sharpness and performance.For special characters such as sunstar - Loxia lenses, pleasing color rendering - Loxia, Batis, ZA lenses, GM (with post processing).Otherwise are comparing apple to orange.A sample from my newly acquired Zeiss Loxia 85mm/f2.4. It's so sharp. It may rival CV 65mm/F2.0 macro well although they are different FL.full sizeAs all other Loxia lenses, it can generate beautiful 10-point sunstar that none of my Sony lenses can match. For example you can viewthissample in Phillip Reeve Loxia 35/2.0review(that I also own) to show the sunstar at the right scene (the bridge). It is stunning beauty of Loxia (as well as Voigtlander) lenses. I have not used Loxia 35 and 85 in real world and will carry them into my next Manhattan trip. The newly announced E-mount Voigtlander 50mm/F1.2 causes my attention. From what I see from M-mount, it has great sharpness, almost perfect circular bokeh at F1.2, very pleasing 12-point (not 10-point as in CV 40/1.2) sunstar, and very pleasing micro-contrast.So as you said depend on what OP wants?Thank you for your comments. My main priority personally when buying a lens is sharpness. I know it has been mentioned but the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 planar is meant to be an incredibly sharp lens. But how does this level of sharpness stack up against GM sharpness? (I know there is no equivalent focal length equivalent). Are Sony Zeiss lenses regarded as ‘pro’ level like the GM line?I own the FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA but only GM zooms currently so I am not the best judge but the 50/1.4 on is a great lens that offers a lot. I can tell you that the Sony/Zeiss is sharper than any Sony GM 50mm out there.SteveSony doesn't have a 50mm GM prime lens, so guess you mean GM zoom at 50mm FL, not a fair direct comparisonProvided Sony redesigned those ZA prime lenses to GM counterparts I have no doubt they will be sharper.In some reviews I read FE Sigma 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as, and even a bit sharper at f1.4 wide open at edges, 20% heavier but much cheaper. Not sure how it compares to Loxia 50mm/F2.0 and recently announced e-mount CV 50mm/F1.2 lens that I am interested (latter)?  Wait and see CV FE 50/1.2 review and may buy it if reviews and owners' experience are good.

PWPhotography wrote:Steve W wrote:Macman4789 wrote:Thank PWPhotography wrote:Steve W wrote:The Sony GM, Sony G, Sony/Zeiss ZA, Zeiss Batis, and Zeiss Loxia all have good FE products with some being better than others but I think with the exception of a few you can fined winners. I own some of each and have found ones in each family I personally like. Right now my best ZA is the 50/1.4 but when I had the 55/1.8, and 16-35/4 they were great as well. Clearly the GM are doing really well but the 90/2.8 Macro and 24-105/4 G's I have are great as well. Also a big fan of both Batis and Loxia which you can see from my gear list here.All depends on what your looking tor.Steve WAgreed, depend on what OP photo areas and in what priority.For ultimate sharpness, prime lenses in Sony GM (such as newly announced 135/1.8 GM), some Zeiss Batis and Loxia.For zoom versatility, Sony zooms (I categorized ZA lenses as Sony lenses as well). The GM zoom are great in sharpness and performance.For special characters such as sunstar - Loxia lenses, pleasing color rendering - Loxia, Batis, ZA lenses, GM (with post processing).Otherwise are comparing apple to orange.A sample from my newly acquired Zeiss Loxia 85mm/f2.4. It's so sharp. It may rival CV 65mm/F2.0 macro well although they are different FL.full sizeAs all other Loxia lenses, it can generate beautiful 10-point sunstar that none of my Sony lenses can match. For example you can viewthissample in Phillip Reeve Loxia 35/2.0review(that I also own) to show the sunstar at the right scene (the bridge). It is stunning beauty of Loxia (as well as Voigtlander) lenses. I have not used Loxia 35 and 85 in real world and will carry them into my next Manhattan trip. The newly announced E-mount Voigtlander 50mm/F1.2 causes my attention. From what I see from M-mount, it has great sharpness, almost perfect circular bokeh at F1.2, very pleasing 12-point (not 10-point as in CV 40/1.2) sunstar, and very pleasing micro-contrast.So as you said depend on what OP wants?Thank you for your comments. My main priority personally when buying a lens is sharpness. I know it has been mentioned but the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 planar is meant to be an incredibly sharp lens. But how does this level of sharpness stack up against GM sharpness? (I know there is no equivalent focal length equivalent). Are Sony Zeiss lenses regarded as ‘pro’ level like the GM line?I own the FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA but only GM zooms currently so I am not the best judge but the 50/1.4 on is a great lens that offers a lot. I can tell you that the Sony/Zeiss is sharper than any Sony GM 50mm out there.SteveSony doesn't have a 50mm GM prime lens, so guess you mean GM zoom at 50mm FL, not a fair direct comparisonProvided Sony redesigned those ZA prime lenses to GM counterparts I have no doubt they will be sharper.In some reviews I read FE Sigma 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as, and even a bit sharper at f1.4 wide open at edges, 20% heavier but much cheaper. Not sure how it compares to Loxia 50mm/F2.0 and recently announced e-mount CV 50mm/F1.2 lens that I am interested (latter)? Wait and see CV FE 50/1.2 review and may buy it if reviews and owners' experience are good.Sorry what I meant was Sony has no 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 GM so the ZA was the best it was going to get.  I've really never compared the GM zooms to the ZA primes in any way.Steve W

Steve W wrote:Thank you for your comments. My main priority personally when buying a lens is sharpness. I know it has been mentioned but the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 planar is meant to be an incredibly sharp lens. But how does this level of sharpness stack up against GM sharpness? (I know there is no equivalent focal length equivalent). Are Sony Zeiss lenses regarded as ‘pro’ level like the GM line?I own the FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA but only GM zooms currently so I am not the best judge but the 50/1.4 on is a great lens that offers a lot. I can tell you that the Sony/Zeiss is sharper than any Sony GM 50mm out there.SteveSony doesn't have a 50mm GM prime lens, so guess you mean GM zoom at 50mm FL, not a fair direct comparisonProvided Sony redesigned those ZA prime lenses to GM counterparts I have no doubt they will be sharper.In some reviews I read FE Sigma 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as, and even a bit sharper at f1.4 wide open at edges, 20% heavier but much cheaper. Not sure how it compares to Loxia 50mm/F2.0 and recently announced e-mount CV 50mm/F1.2 lens that I am interested (latter)? Wait and see CV FE 50/1.2 review and may buy it if reviews and owners' experience are good.Sorry what I meant was Sony has no 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 GM so the ZA was the best it was going to get. I've really never compared the GM zooms to the ZA primes in any way.Steve Whttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-70-megapixel-camera-migth-be-announced-by-end-of-this-year/It appears Canon will leap on mega pixels again and this time will be 70+ mp. That should not be totally surprised as Canon has released and will continue release some top quality RF lenses that can take advantage of such mega pixels. Just hope Canon this time will also improve DR not just squeeze more pixels into old design sensors. I am wondering if this will give Sony pressure to beef up their lenses. Some of older ZA or even very first GM lenses might need to be redesigned from scratch that can truly leverage 100mp as Sony claimed. Fast F1.2 prime lenses and one or two F2.0 zoom lenses maybe possible in the roadmap. Canon on rumor has some crazy lenses in development such as Canon filed patent on RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, no mistake, F1.4, wow, really?Nevertheless competition is good. Personally 42mp is more than enough to me at this moment

PWPhotography wrote:Steve W wrote:Thank you for your comments. My main priority personally when buying a lens is sharpness. I know it has been mentioned but the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 planar is meant to be an incredibly sharp lens. But how does this level of sharpness stack up against GM sharpness? (I know there is no equivalent focal length equivalent). Are Sony Zeiss lenses regarded as ‘pro’ level like the GM line?I own the FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA but only GM zooms currently so I am not the best judge but the 50/1.4 on is a great lens that offers a lot. I can tell you that the Sony/Zeiss is sharper than any Sony GM 50mm out there.SteveSony doesn't have a 50mm GM prime lens, so guess you mean GM zoom at 50mm FL, not a fair direct comparisonProvided Sony redesigned those ZA prime lenses to GM counterparts I have no doubt they will be sharper.In some reviews I read FE Sigma 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as, and even a bit sharper at f1.4 wide open at edges, 20% heavier but much cheaper. Not sure how it compares to Loxia 50mm/F2.0 and recently announced e-mount CV 50mm/F1.2 lens that I am interested (latter)? Wait and see CV FE 50/1.2 review and may buy it if reviews and owners' experience are good.Sorry what I meant was Sony has no 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 GM so the ZA was the best it was going to get. I've really never compared the GM zooms to the ZA primes in any way.Steve Whttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-70-megapixel-camera-migth-be-announced-by-end-of-this-year/It appears Canon will leap on mega pixels again and this time will be 70+ mp. That should not be totally surprised as Canon has released and will continue release some top quality RF lenses that can take advantage of such mega pixels. Just hope Canon this time will also improve DR not just squeeze more pixels into old design sensors. I am wondering if this will give Sony pressure to beef up their lenses. Some of older ZA or even very first GM lenses might need to be redesigned from scratch that can truly leverage 100mp as Sony claimed. Fast F1.2 prime lenses and one or two F2.0 zoom lenses maybe possible in the roadmap. Canon on rumor has some crazy lenses in development such as Canon filed patent on RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, no mistake, F1.4, wow, really?Nevertheless competition is good. Personally 42mp is more than enough to me at this momentWhile a big fan of Canon glass over the years I know three things.1. Won't buy a another Canon camera until I see something better than than the 5D Mark IV2. If Canon's new RF 1.2L  and other RF are more than $2000 for a prime or more than $2300 for a zoom I am not sure I will justify that even though I spent close to that for my Sony GM and Zeiss Batis lenses. Need to be able to find lightly used versions on the forums3. Don't really need anything more the 50 Mpixels or lenses physically bigger than what Sony is offering now which is even testing my limit for size.

Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.ThanksI have Zeiss Batis 25 and 85 and Loxia 21, 35 and 50.Loxia 21 is best lens ever.Batis 25 is very colourful.Batis 85 best portraits I've ever taken.Loxia 35 I like the way it renders. I don't use the 50 much but it seems very good. So is my 55 1.8 plus it works for astro but the Zeiss does not neither does the 35 (too much corner coma).I also have GM 24-70 2.8 - lovely lens, great render, a bit better than Canon L 24-70 28ii especially at 24mm and it renders better than the Canon (which is otherwise an exceptional lens).Sony 24 1.4 GM if a good copy appears to be the best astro lens out there from anyone.There were numerous comparisons between Batis 85 1.8 and GM 85 1.4 when the GM came out with the GM being favoured for its exceptional bokeh.So based on that sample I would agree Zeiss is one step under GM and above the other types of Sony lenses.Would I blindly assume the GM will be better? No, but its likely it will be.Greg.

Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.Sony rates the G series higher than the Sony Zeiss lenses. Batis and Loxia are not included as they are not Sony products.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.It depends on the individual lens, some are better than others. The G series are a premium llne similar to Canon L series, and the GM are Sony's ultimate high end lenses.

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.ThanksI have Zeiss Batis 25 and 85 and Loxia 21, 35 and 50.Loxia 21 is best lens ever.Batis 25 is very colourful.Batis 85 best portraits I've ever taken.Loxia 35 I like the way it renders. I don't use the 50 much but it seems very good. So is my 55 1.8 plus it works for astro but the Zeiss does not neither does the 35 (too much corner coma).I also have GM 24-70 2.8 - lovely lens, great render, a bit better than Canon L 24-70 28ii especially at 24mm and it renders better than the Canon (which is otherwise an exceptional lens).Canon version seems sharper at 70mm side and is clearly better in sunstar that is a weakness in all Sony lenses.Sony 24 1.4 GM if a good copy appears to be the best astro lens out there from anyone.There were numerous comparisons between Batis 85 1.8 and GM 85 1.4 when the GM came out with the GM being favoured for its exceptional bokeh.So based on that sample I would agree Zeiss is one step under GM and above the other types of Sony lenses.Would I blindly assume the GM will be better? No, but its likely it will be.Greg.So your IQ order is from astro photo perspective. Otherwise you cannot simplify like this but lens by lens, FL by FL, feature by feature etc. None of Sony lenses can match Loxia sunstar and color rendering under certain light condition for example. Sharpness is not the only factor in real world photos. Even for sharpness Loxia 85 is as sharp as either Batis 85 of FE 85/1.8 G or GM and will not surprised if a bit sharper.

Pixel Pooper wrote:Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.Sony rates the G series higher than the Sony Zeiss lenses. Batis and Loxia are not included as they are not Sony products.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.It depends on the individual lens, some are better than others. The G series are a premium llne similar to Canon L series, and the GM are Sony's ultimate high end lenses.That’s interesting when you say the G series are rated higher than the Zeiss. I assumed it was the other way around, particularly when they tried to clarify the difference between the Zeiss and GM. I thought this kind of explained Sony we’re putting Zeiss up there with GM quality due to going out of the way to clarify and explain the difference (see link). Thanks for your viewpoint.https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-explains-the-difference-between-the-sony-gm-and-sony-zeiss-lenses/

Macman4789 wrote:That’s interesting when you say the G series are rated higher than the Zeiss. I assumed it was the other way around, particularly when they tried to clarify the difference between the Zeiss and GM. I thought this kind of explained Sony we’re putting Zeiss up there with GM quality due to going out of the way to clarify and explain the difference (see link). Thanks for your viewpoint.On Sony Australia's website they group G and GM together and the Zeiss lenses seem to positioned lower. Also G lenses are more expensive on average and have more features like weather sealing, focus hold buttons and AF/MF switches.

Pixel Pooper wrote:Macman4789 wrote:That’s interesting when you say the G series are rated higher than the Zeiss. I assumed it was the other way around, particularly when they tried to clarify the difference between the Zeiss and GM. I thought this kind of explained Sony we’re putting Zeiss up there with GM quality due to going out of the way to clarify and explain the difference (see link). Thanks for your viewpoint.On Sony Australia's website they group G and GM together and the Zeiss lenses seem to positioned lower. Also G lenses are more expensive on average and have more features like weather sealing, focus hold buttons and AF/MF switches.Please stop calling Sony ZA or Zony lenses 'Zeiss' lenses. They are still Sony lenses, owned and distributed exclusively by Sony. Appear Sony no longer continue creating new ZA lenses and I suspect current ZA lenses eventually will be replaced by respective G or GM lenses.E-mout Zeiss lenses are Batis, Loxia lines for full frame and Touit line for APS-C, owned and distributed exclusively by Zeiss. Despite they are manufactured in Japan they are still Zeiss lenses.

PWPhotography wrote:Please stop calling Sony ZA or Zony lenses 'Zeiss' lenses. They are still Sony lenses, owned and distributed exclusively by Sony. Appear Sony no longer continue creating new ZA lenses and I suspect current ZA lenses eventually will be replaced by respective G or GM lenses.E-mout Zeiss lenses are Batis, Loxia lines for full frame and Touit line for APS-C, owned and distributed exclusively by Zeiss. Despite they are manufactured in Japan they are still Zeiss lenses.The OP was about how Sony rates the lenses in the Sony line up. Batis, Loxia, and Touit lenses are not part of the Sony line up so they are not relevant to the question.

Pixel Pooper wrote:Macman4789 wrote:That’s interesting when you say the G series are rated higher than the Zeiss. I assumed it was the other way around, particularly when they tried to clarify the difference between the Zeiss and GM. I thought this kind of explained Sony we’re putting Zeiss up there with GM quality due to going out of the way to clarify and explain the difference (see link). Thanks for your viewpoint.On Sony Australia's website they group G and GM together and the Zeiss lenses seem to positioned lower. Also G lenses are more expensive on average and have more features like weather sealing, focus hold buttons and AF/MF switches.Good point, it does seem like the G and GM are grouped together. Maybe the Zeiss lenses are grouped separately because of their branding? Yeah the price thing is a bit of a weird one because as you say some of the G lenses are more expensive and have some features the Zeiss lenses do not however if you take the Sony Zeiss 50mm F1.4 Planar that is a really expensive prime which is priced around or above some GM lenses and by some reviews performs just as good As a GM lens. It doesn’t seem very clear!

Pixel Pooper wrote:PWPhotography wrote:Please stop calling Sony ZA or Zony lenses 'Zeiss' lenses. They are still Sony lenses, owned and distributed exclusively by Sony. Appear Sony no longer continue creating new ZA lenses and I suspect current ZA lenses eventually will be replaced by respective G or GM lenses.E-mout Zeiss lenses are Batis, Loxia lines for full frame and Touit line for APS-C, owned and distributed exclusively by Zeiss. Despite they are manufactured in Japan they are still Zeiss lenses.The OP was about how Sony rates the lenses in the Sony line up. Batis, Loxia, and Touit lenses are not part of the Sony line up so they are not relevant to the question.Oh but the subject line is confusing.  People should not call Sony ZA lenses as Zeiss lenses.  They are not.Among ZA lenses, only 50/1.4 ZA is really sharp, follow by 55/1.8 ZA and 35/1.4 ZA (that has QC issue, sharp but not very sharp). ZA zoom lenses are just OK.  Appear Sony stop making any new ZA lenses.  None of these ZA lenses have sunstar character of Loxia line.  Color rendering is pretty good that close to Zeiss but have not carefully studied.  I have owned 3 ZA lenses - FE 16-35 ZA (sold), FE 55 (keep) and FE 35/2.8 ZA (selling now).

Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.ThanksI've been shooting with Canon since 2005. Gradually I've built up my collection of L lenses which IMHO has superb contrast, colour, bokeh, sharpness and fast AF. So when I decided to go with something smaller and lighter primarily for travel and occasionally portraiture and sports, I decided to get into Sony APS-C. Like the L, I gradually built up my collection of Zeiss and Sony-Zeiss for the same reasons I love the L. Thus with the APS-C, I duplicated my L portrait grand slam (35-50-85-135) to Zeiss-Sony/Zeiss grand slam 24/1.8, Touit 32/1.8, 55/1.8 and Batis 85/1.8.

José B wrote:Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.ThanksI've been shooting with Canon since 2005. Gradually I've built up my collection of L lenses which IMHO has superb contrast, colour, bokeh, sharpness and fast AF. So when I decided to go with something smaller and lighter primarily for travel and occasionally portraiture and sports, I decided to get into Sony APS-C. Like the L, I gradually built up my collection of Zeiss and Sony-Zeiss for the same reasons I love the L. Thus with the APS-C, I duplicated my L portrait grand slam (35-50-85-135) to Zeiss-Sony/Zeiss grand slam 24/1.8, Touit 32/1.8, 55/1.8 and Batis 85/1.8.How are you finding those lenses generically? Do you find a significant difference between those Zeiss and your Canon L lenses? Disregarding they are shot APS-C

PWPhotography wrote:Oh but the subject line is confusing. People should not call Sony ZA lenses as Zeiss lenses. They are not.I don't think it's worth getting upset about. The lenses have Zeiss branding on the barrel so people are going to call them Zeiss lenses.Among ZA lenses, only 50/1.4 ZA is really sharp, follow by 55/1.8 ZA and 35/1.4 ZA (that has QC issue, sharp but not very sharp). ZA zoom lenses are just OK. Appear Sony stop making any new ZA lenses. None of these ZA lenses have sunstar character of Loxia line. Color rendering is pretty good that close to Zeiss but have not carefully studied. I have owned 3 ZA lenses - FE 16-35 ZA (sold), FE 55 (keep) and FE 35/2.8 ZA (selling now).Sony says that their Zeiss lenses are designed by Sony and Zeiss, and manufactured by Sony, so Zeiss may actually have more input into these lenses then the Batis lenses that are designed by Tamron and manufactured by Cosina. Either way, Zeiss is mostly a label now.

Macman4789 wrote:José B wrote:Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.ThanksI've been shooting with Canon since 2005. Gradually I've built up my collection of L lenses which IMHO has superb contrast, colour, bokeh, sharpness and fast AF. So when I decided to go with something smaller and lighter primarily for travel and occasionally portraiture and sports, I decided to get into Sony APS-C. Like the L, I gradually built up my collection of Zeiss and Sony-Zeiss for the same reasons I love the L. Thus with the APS-C, I duplicated my L portrait grand slam (35-50-85-135) to Zeiss-Sony/Zeiss grand slam 24/1.8, Touit 32/1.8, 55/1.8 and Batis 85/1.8.How are you finding those lenses generically? Do you find a significant difference between those Zeiss and your Canon L lenses? Disregarding they are shot APS-CNo difference at all. Before shooting with an FF Canon DSLR in 2008, I’ve used L lenses with 1.6x and 1.27x croppers. By mere observation, I don’t see any difference vs. my Zeiss lenses in terms of clarity, rendition, CA control and etc.

Pixel Pooper wrote:PWPhotography wrote:Oh but the subject line is confusing. People should not call Sony ZA lenses as Zeiss lenses. They are not.I don't think it's worth getting upset about. The lenses have Zeiss branding on the barrel so people are going to call them Zeiss lenses.Among ZA lenses, only 50/1.4 ZA is really sharp, follow by 55/1.8 ZA and 35/1.4 ZA (that has QC issue, sharp but not very sharp). ZA zoom lenses are just OK. Appear Sony stop making any new ZA lenses. None of these ZA lenses have sunstar character of Loxia line. Color rendering is pretty good that close to Zeiss but have not carefully studied. I have owned 3 ZA lenses - FE 16-35 ZA (sold), FE 55 (keep) and FE 35/2.8 ZA (selling now).Sony says that their Zeiss lenses are designed by Sony and Zeiss, and manufactured by Sony, so Zeiss may actually have more input into these lenses then the Batis lenses that are designed by Tamron and manufactured by Cosina. Either way, Zeiss is mostly a label now.Don't agree. Cosina is the equivalent of FoxConn. They get no credit for the conception, planning and design of the iphone. Apple does.Corporate relationships are much more complex than you give them credit for. The key questions would be that if Zeiss went away all the lenses with their badging would go away as well. They are the company taking all he financial risk. Tamron and Cosina are taking none of the risk. Only those taking risk on a product should get the credit for it.

Steve W wrote:Corporate relationships are much more complex than you give them credit for. The key questions would be that if Zeiss went away all the lenses with their badging would go away as well. They are the company taking all he financial risk. Tamron and Cosina are taking none of the risk. Only those taking risk on a product should get the credit for it.Building and running a factory is a far greater risk and financial commitment than contracting someone else to manufacture your products.

Macman4789 wrote:Hi,We’ve seen Sony continue to grow it’s lens line up over the last few years and continues to do so. However I was interested in your views in respect to the Zeiss line up.My understanding is it it places it’s lens in this particular order :standard FE lens, then G, then Zeiss and lastly GM.I don’t own any Zeiss lenses but wondered at the quality compared to GM lenses or other equivalent brands I.e. Canon L series? Are they meant to be comparable? Looking at some reviews they produce some excellent photos and wondered on the opinions of those who actually own them.ThanksLenses sporting Zeiss T* coatings have always impressed me with their color, contrast and pop. I own several (including some nice Zeiss binoculars).A firm favorite of mine is the Sony (Zeiss) Distagon 35mm f1.4 - it never fails to put a smile on my face.Anyway those are all still awesome glass. It's only comparatively recently in my experience that Sony began producing truly excellent lenses themselves in response to all the bad press that they were getting at the time about not having any glass.Particularly the Sony GM line of lenses (I now own most of those).All good news for us... the future is indeed bright