Pixel Pooper wrote: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.I understand your position if your only manufacturing the products you define and design. That investment is substantial and risky. If your a "gun" for hire like Foxcon or Cosina or TSMC where you build for others as a service only I am not sure I agree. I am sure Cosina builds for more than just Viogtland and Zeiss.  TSMC has hundreds or probably thousands of customers.Steve W

Steve W wrote: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.Still Sony lenses. Sony itself doesn't call them Zeiss lenses but ZA lenses. They are listed under Sony site not Zeiss site.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.All Batis lenses are designed exclusively by Tamron? Likely just cooperation between two companies but under Zeiss standard, coating etc. They are Zeiss lenses and Zeiss exclusively own and distribute the lenses. I only own one Batis lens, 135 Batis and no plan to get another one.How about Zeiss Loxia lenses? They are very different from Sony ZA, Tamron lenses or even Batis lenses from design and character perspective such as 10-point sunstar that none of Sony ZA or other Sony, Tamron lenses look alike. I have 3 Loxia lenses now as I need their characters that not from my other lenses - color rendering and sunstar in landscape and cityscape.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.Exactly that called globalization. They are still Zeiss lenses as long as under Zeiss logo, own and distribute exclusively by Zeiss.

aSevenArr 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.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 brightYes I’ve seen people say the 35mm Distagon is the best 35mm lens they’ve used however I don’t have any first hand experience with it. Do you find a significant difference between the Zeiss and GM lenses?

Foto4x4 wrote:Some use the phrase “you get what you pay for” with Sony lenses, but my experience is varied.In fact it's the other way around. I.e.you don't get what you don't pay for.Anyone can have the misfortune to pay for an expensive lens and get one that either has a problem (rarer than online fora suggest, but it can happen) or is unsuitable to their needs for a variety of reasons such that they don't get whatever it was that caused them to pay the asking price. So you certainly don'y always get what you pay for.But there are definitely aspects of the design, optics and build of certain lenses that can't be produced cheaply. If you want those things you won't find them in an older design or in a cheap current model. Lens 'bargains' come with compromises.

It seems that it depends a lot on which specific lenses are compared.  For example the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a lot of variety in reviews.  Most seem to rate it below the GM (which is twice the price) and some even consider it little better than the "kit" 28-70.  Others have a lot higher opinion of it though showing that opinions on lens comparisons in general vary greatly.

Macman4789 wrote:aSevenArr 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.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 brightYes I’ve seen people say the 35mm Distagon is the best 35mm lens they’ve used however I don’t have any first hand experience with it. Do you find a significant difference between the Zeiss and GM lenses?Mostly I personally notice that the color and contrast qualities of each are different. I like the Zeiss T* coloration and rendering straight out of the camera (of course everything changes immediately in post and you can make the results from each one look identical with a few simple steps in Lightroom).I wouldn’t agonize over this... Zeiss and Sony high end glass is all excellent and your failings will never be the fault of your lenses by choosing either one.

PWPhotography wrote:Pixel Pooper wrote: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.Still Sony lenses. Sony itself doesn't call them Zeiss lenses but ZA lenses. They are listed under Sony site not Zeiss site.Sony does call them Zeiss lenses, and they are listed on the Zeiss website under the category "Zeiss Camera Lenses". If Zeiss says they are Zeiss lenses then they are Zeiss lenses.Guess what? I have a Zeiss lens on my RX1 and I post to this website from a smartphone with a Zeiss lens.Zeiss Zeiss Zeiss.Sony WebsiteZeiss Website

Depends on your point of view. I recently had a discussion with someone on another thread about the 24-70, f/4. I posted some pics which I found acceptable. He made some accurate observations about the quality of the images I posted and he posted some pics (at my request) of some pics which he found unsatisfactory. We just had different criteria of what we found acceptable. It helps if images accompany a critique of a lens.

aSevenArr wrote:Macman4789 wrote:aSevenArr 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.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 brightYes I’ve seen people say the 35mm Distagon is the best 35mm lens they’ve used however I don’t have any first hand experience with it. Do you find a significant difference between the Zeiss and GM lenses?Mostly I personally notice that the color and contrast qualities of each are different. I like the Zeiss T* coloration and rendering straight out of the camera (of course everything changes immediately in post and you can make the results from each one look identical with a few simple steps in Lightroom).I wouldn’t agonize over this... Zeiss and Sony high end glass is all excellent and your failings will never be the fault of your lenses by choosing either one.Thank you for your perspective.

Jerry R wrote:Depends on your point of view. I recently had a discussion with someone on another thread about the 24-70, f/4. I posted some pics which I found acceptable. He made some accurate observations about the quality of the images I posted and he posted some pics (at my request) of some pics which he found unsatisfactory. We just had different criteria of what we found acceptable. It helps if images accompany a critique of a lens.Yes good point, a lot is perspective and personal taste. Thank you for your insight.

JohnNEX wrote:Its a difficult comparison since there is not a lot of overlap.On zooms, there is only one Zeiss lens, the 24-70 f/4. There is no GM equivalent lens.The FE 16-35 f4 is also a ZA.On primes, the GM lenses have no Zeiss equivalents:True - if you mean equivalent in both focal length and maximum aperture.There's still plenty of opportunity to compare lenses of the same focal length by matching the apertures and seeing how the TQ and rendering stacks up.When doing that, I think it's fair to say that the lenses measure well against slightly different criteria. The GM lenses may have the edge overall, but not everyone will prefer them.

PWPhotography 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 35/2.0 review (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?Not all GM lenses have the best sharpness at respective FL. I see in some reviews the Sigma FE 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as Sony FE 50/1.4 Planar and actually slightly sharper at F1.4 wide open at edges.The new 24/1.4 GM is very sharp while 85/1.4 GM is sharp but not the sharpest. Much cheaper FE 85/1.8 actually is a bit sharper or as sharp as. Then Sigma 85/14 Art is a bit sharper but not sure if it's sharper than Loxia 85/2.4? CV 65/2.0 macro is also very sharp. The 85/1.4 GM has the best bokeh and background rendering nevertheless. The new Sony 135/1.8 GM likely is sharpest or one of sharpest lenses at 135mm and below.Sharpness is not the only factor in IQ but some other characters are also important such as sunstar and color rendering. None of Sony GM lenses, zoom or prime can match to Loxia and Voigtlander lenses' sunstar for example that is an important character in evening cityscape photos.So is case by case as you cannot simply to categorize one brand of lenses is always better than another that really depends on what FL and what type of photos you shoot?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.

CatalinaSmith wrote: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.I agree with this.In addition to those you mention, the (relatively) recently released FE 12-24 f4.0 G lens from Sony is also excellent and hangs well with the ZA and GM lenses.As with the 24-105, I suspect that the only reason it's designated G rather than GM is that it's f4 rather than f2.8. In IQ and every other respect (build, AF functionality etc) it seems comparable.

CatalinaSmith wrote:PWPhotography 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 35/2.0 review (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?Not all GM lenses have the best sharpness at respective FL. I see in some reviews the Sigma FE 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as Sony FE 50/1.4 Planar and actually slightly sharper at F1.4 wide open at edges.The new 24/1.4 GM is very sharp while 85/1.4 GM is sharp but not the sharpest. Much cheaper FE 85/1.8 actually is a bit sharper or as sharp as. Then Sigma 85/14 Art is a bit sharper but not sure if it's sharper than Loxia 85/2.4? CV 65/2.0 macro is also very sharp. The 85/1.4 GM has the best bokeh and background rendering nevertheless. The new Sony 135/1.8 GM likely is sharpest or one of sharpest lenses at 135mm and below.Sharpness is not the only factor in IQ but some other characters are also important such as sunstar and color rendering. None of Sony GM lenses, zoom or prime can match to Loxia and Voigtlander lenses' sunstar for example that is an important character in evening cityscape photos.So is case by case as you cannot simply to categorize one brand of lenses is always better than another that really depends on what FL and what type of photos you shoot?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.50/1.4 ZA is the best ZA that is in GM optical quality but with Zeiss colors and rendering.  But provided Sony redesigned from scratch with a GM F1.4 or even a F1.2 version it could be even slightly sharper but just hope retain Zeiss rendering.

Jerry R wrote:How the hell can you shot this picture with a 24-70 zoom?

Jerry R wrote:and you are still alive?

PWPhotography wrote:CatalinaSmith wrote:PWPhotography 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 35/2.0 review (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?Not all GM lenses have the best sharpness at respective FL. I see in some reviews the Sigma FE 50/1.4 Art is as sharp as Sony FE 50/1.4 Planar and actually slightly sharper at F1.4 wide open at edges.The new 24/1.4 GM is very sharp while 85/1.4 GM is sharp but not the sharpest. Much cheaper FE 85/1.8 actually is a bit sharper or as sharp as. Then Sigma 85/14 Art is a bit sharper but not sure if it's sharper than Loxia 85/2.4? CV 65/2.0 macro is also very sharp. The 85/1.4 GM has the best bokeh and background rendering nevertheless. The new Sony 135/1.8 GM likely is sharpest or one of sharpest lenses at 135mm and below.Sharpness is not the only factor in IQ but some other characters are also important such as sunstar and color rendering. None of Sony GM lenses, zoom or prime can match to Loxia and Voigtlander lenses' sunstar for example that is an important character in evening cityscape photos.So is case by case as you cannot simply to categorize one brand of lenses is always better than another that really depends on what FL and what type of photos you shoot?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.50/1.4 ZA is the best ZA that is in GM optical quality but with Zeiss colors and rendering. But provided Sony redesigned from scratch with a GM F1.4 or even a F1.2 version it could be even slightly sharper but just hope retain Zeiss rendering.Thanks for this. Would you say similar about the 35mm 1.4 Distagon?

I usually shoot GM zooms and if I’m running out of light I switch to ZEISS Loxia 50 or 35mm, shooting wide open. The rendition is brilliant and shows its own character and Sharpness. If I wouldn't have to shoot this for work I’d prefer to work with these as it looks 3 dimensional..,  but the zooms are much more preferable for BTS reportage work I’m shooting i with my A9...

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 don’t believe Zeiss ever planned or made some kind of a marketing decision to be considered ‘2nd best’.That’s just how it’s panning out with Sony continuing to make these amazing ‘native’ GM’s.Zeiss glass is excellent ! Make no mistake. I’d use it in a heartbeat .

aSevenArr wrote:A firm favorite of mine is the Sony (Zeiss) Distagon 35mm f1.4 - it never fails to put a smile on my face.Ditto. I never use it because (i) auto focus was hit or miss using Tech-Art Pro and I don't like manual focus for street work, (ii) have been exclusively using my Leica Q for street work and (iii) I just ordered the Sony 24/1.4 GM. Nonetheless, I just can't get rid of the Distagon because it's images are magic to me more than any of my other lenses.