New Zeiss 12 f/2.8 Touit and 32 f/1.8 Touit lenses for Sony E and Fuji X mounts

22 Comments

1. For such premium lenses I prefer to have aperture and manual focus controlled via old style lens rings. At least the x-mount has an aperture ring. Fuji`s 14 mm or Olympus new 17 mm show how it should be done.

   • What I meant above was a MF lens ring with distance scale.

2. I’m sure these will be nice lenses, but will there be enough difference to be worth paying so much? I remember when Zeiss launched the 24mm f1.8 for NEX, and the results posted here and elsewhere didn’t really (in my opinion) show enough difference over even the kit 18-55 to justify spending $1000. The current 50mm f1.8 for NEX is outstanding – super sharp with creamy bokeh – and can be bought for about $300, which is much more in line with the cost of the camera bodies themselves.

   I guess more lenses (and higher quality ones) are always a good thing, and for people with deeper pockets, these will be great. But for those of us a bit more cash-strapped, I’d rather see more $300 lenses, and skip the Zeiss label that seems to add $500 to anything it’s stuck on. The relatively new and unheralded 35mm f1.8 for $450 seems much more in line with the cost of the camera, and it would be REALLY INTERESTING to see a comparison between that lens and the 32mm Zeiss.

   • Yeah, both the 50/f1.8 and 35/f1.8 are excellent. The Zeiss 32/f1.8 needs to be really really good to warrant the price difference, but I’m sure it will still sell well. The 12/f2.8 on the other hand is interesting. I’m currently looking for an UWA lens, and it’s going to be either the Zeiss or the Sony 10-18/f4. I’m really looking forward to hearing Steve’s opinion on the new Zeiss lenses.

   • I am sure that once the Zeiss lenses will be out there will be many owners of the sony 35 wanting to hear that their lens is ‘nearly indistinguishable’ from the Zeiss and many others wanting to hear that the Zeiss is ‘so much better’ than the Sony – just to justify the to buy one 🙂

     But indeed – both 14 and 35 lenses from Sony have a very good reputation and it will not be easy (may not even be possible) for the Zeiss lenses to be ‘much better’ in this case.

     • Don’t forget that the Sony 35 has OSS and the Zeiss does not. I’m still getting the Zeiss, but it was not an easy decision. The Sony tests rather well.

3. Why pay more for the Zeiss 32mm than for the excellent Fuji 35mm f1.4 when the Fuji is lighter, better constructed, closer focussing and optically great? I have one and it’s fantastic.

4. Shows a lot of confidence in the mirrorless market, though I do wonder how many they’ll sell. Maybe it doesn’t matter, that the profits are adequate even selling a small number. I’m sure they’ll be outstanding and wonderful, but I’d really rather see more inexpensive lenses (like Sigma’s discontinued models) filling in gaps, lenses that most people can afford. They don’t have to be perfect to be useful.

   • The Sigmas are outstanding, but slow. I bought the 19 which fills a real void, but pre-ordered the Zeiss 32 and 12. With the existing Sony Zeiss 24 and the Sony 50, all that the NEX system really needs now is a fast 85~90 telephoto.

5. They look like just the lens for those who have been waiting to get around “too it” !
   😉

   sorry guys, couldn’t help it!

6. Perhaps, and only perhaps the zeiss 35mm f1.8 might be built better than the Fuji, and it may have better optical quality, but how do you expect it to surpass the 35mm 1.4 for SPEED.

   • Easy..I was referring to AF speed and accuracy, something the Fuji is not so good with.

     • Without trying to create an argument, I find the Fuji’s speed and accuracy AT THIS POINT to be outstanding. Admittedly it was not always so. If possible, one should spend at least 6 months before commenting on a camera because they all have quirks in some shape or form. And it would give your readers a more complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a particular camera. My primary love of the Fuji is its file quality- it is simply amazing. I enjoy your site very much.

     • Steve – isn’t the camera the main limiting factor to focusing speed and accuracy? You have tested different camera bodies with same lenses – what is your experience?

7. Looks like good stull. I have the Fujionon f2.8 14mm. It is a great lens, if the CZ f2.8 12mm is a better lens, it will be just by a hair. The big difference is how wide you want the lens. I am not into super wides, as a matter of fact the 14mm I have would please me more a 16mm. My next lens to round out my X system should be a short wide, 35-50, so the f1.8 32mm looks real good to me. The Fujionon f1.4 35mm is a good lens, but not great. But then Fuji is coming out with a f1.4 23mm. All I can say is the mirrorless cameras, like Sony and Fuji, are going to have nice glass coming their way. I had a feeling about the 14mm being a great lens. Help me, I think that CZ f1.8 32mm maybe my next lens! How bad can it be!

   • I have sold my CZ 12/2.8 and bought a pre-owned XF 14/2.8, the latter one is a way better lenses.

8. I have been eagerly anticipating these new Zeiss beauties as well as the new 7n which could be announced any day now. I am however somewhat dubious about going back to APS-C since spending the past several months with the Full Frame RX1. I can only hope that these new Zeiss lenses and the new 7n render some magic not previously seen from E-mount products.

9. the 12mm very tempting =P

10. Preorder available on Adorama!! If any of you guys want to be first in line please do so now.

11. Is the 12 a 1.8 or 2.8? The press release says 2.8.

12. Is it just me, or does the Fuji mount lens look smaller than the Sony mount lens?

    • It sure does! Maybe the size (and shape) is different because of the aperture mechanism?

Comments are closed.