zeiss 85MM AF vs MF

<p>is the 85mm AF on a sony the same design as the MF on a canon/nikon?</p>

<p>It's a slightly different design as far as I know.</p>

<p>Radically different, as in every single element changed. The Sony AF version is a rear focusing, while the Cosina MF version is unit focusing. The AF has a couple more elements, too.</p>

<p>interesting, so which has better image quality</p>

<p>'better image quality'? Do you really want to go down that muddy road?</p>

<p>Yes let's get muddy</p>

<p>Someone took my wellies months ago though :(</p>

<p>The one used on a tripod will have better quality.</p>

<p>I am going to speculate from ignorance having not actually used any Nikon/Canon lenses. But I do know that there are a number of professionals who have picked up the Sony A900 and one of the prime reasons they have is because of the Zeiss lenses. They are using the Sony system in parallel to whatever they were using before. Now there aren't very many Zeiss lenses so one can only presume that there is something about the Zeiss look that they can't get from Nikon/Canon and are willing to pay the price of running a parallel system.</p>

<p>Come on Richard, join me in my muddy speculation.</p>

<p><em>[T]there are a number of professionals who have picked up the Sony A900 and one of the prime reasons they have is because of the Zeiss lenses. . . . [O]ne can only presume that there is something about the Zeiss look that they can't get from Nikon/Canon and are willing to pay the price of running a parallel system.</em></p>

<p>Actually, although I would like for the Sony / Zeiss relationship to succeed and produce happy results for both companies, I think the more reasonable presumption (if we are going to presume, as you suggested) is that some photographers (or photo equipment fetishists) like the idea or even the snob appeal of the Zeiss lenses. There are more than a few people on these forums who will state dogmatically that Zeiss (or Schneider or Leica or whatever) lenses are clearly far superior to otherwise-comparable high-end lenses, and/or that they provide some unique "look" that other lenses cannot provide. While I'm confident that all of those companies have produced many excellent lenses, I do not think there is substantial evidence to show that such lenses have a unique, unquantifiable "look", or that their measurable performance is, <em>on the whole, across product lines</em>, much better than the top-end modern lenses from others (e.g., Sony or Minolta G-line, Canon L-line, Nikon professional, Mamiya medium format, Fuji medium format).</p>

 

<p>Dave, I agree with you that there is a certain snob factor, particularly with Leica users and high-end amateurs. In the case of Sony, I doubt that Sony has too much snob factor, if anything I would suggest that a lot of people look down on Sony compared to Nikon/Canon, Zeiss lenses or no Zeiss lenses. Now obviously it isn't that straight forward an equation as the A900 itself does have particular advantages such as lots of MP and dynamic range.</p>

<p>Most professionals I find who actually use their equipment to make a living tend to want to spend as little as possible whilst getting as much as possible from their equipment. So they obviously see enough value in the Sony system/Zeiss lenses to put some money into it.</p>

<p>Actually I do think that different lenses and sensors do produce different looks. It is not to say that lens system is better than another, just different. For me personally, I love the look that I get from my ZA135. It isn't necessarily the sharpest lens (I have a couple which I think are sharper in the absolute sense) but it seems to have that great combination of thin DOF, great bokeh and still LOOKS razor sharp.</p>

<p>I use Canon and Sony and I dunno, I'd be hard pressed to be able to spot differences in images in a blind test ... I guess I want the snob factor LoL ... I only have the 16-80mm Zeiss though at this point</p>

<p>if i spent 30K on a leica S2 system, i think i would have bought the right to be a snob. lol. its included in the price.</p>

<p>I have never used Zeiss or Leitz glass on digital, however, I have used a fair bit of it on old film bodies, in particular rangefinders. I had the chance of comparing some of them to the excellent Cosina-Voightlander glass. The Zeiss and Leitz look, feel and above all quality in film would have been incomparable to the FD and Nikkor lenses.</p>