The weather here changes incessantly, it's never predictable.
At this point it got down to under minus 13c or so and it became really dark. And it would get colder and windier from here till around 4am. I think this area is the coldest place in Hokkaido.
The future of Sony Zeiss -the ZA designation is dead now:
Many many people in a various camera lens fora often ask : Will Sony still need the Sony Zeiss blue badge when they can make an outstanding lens like the FE24mmf1.4GM , the FE20mmf1.8GM , the FE12-24mm f4G or the FE135mm f1.8 GM in house?
It was a complicated question to answer until they released the lenses like the FE24mm f1.4GM and FE135mm f1.8GM , which would quickly become one of those cult like lenses.
The FE24mm f1.4GM really shocked us long time Sony users. It was that sensational at the time of its announcement, after this lens no camera introductions from other brands seem to do any thing to our decision(at least mine).....
The FE 24mm f1.4GM was a sharp lens even wide open, I've tested at Sony 2 times and I was quite impressed. In fact, even Roger Cicala said it was the best 24mm f1.4 prime ever from any manufacture. So It may have changed the course of lens and camera development of most of the major camera manufactures over the next 2 years. It was a shocking announcement for many Sony haters in a various internet camera fora.
It was maybe unbeatable in this fast wide prime category especially at its launch...
It comfortably outperformed many lenses in its range, the Batis 25mm f2, the Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art, the FE12-24mm f4G at 24mm, the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 at 24mm, the FE16-35mmf4ZA at 24mm etc. And of course it easily outresolved all of the DSLR era fast 24mm primes from Canon Nikon and even the Zeiss Milvus one.
But shockingly it could not beat Sony's own wide zoom FE16-35mm f2.8GM at 24mm at f4 and on or the Loxia 25mm f2.4 or the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8Dn at 24mm f4 or narrower.
Still at the time it was a remarkable lens especially compared to the previous fast 24-25mm lens champion the Batis 25mm f2: At the time I compared many copies of that lens vs the Batis 25mm f2, FE35mm f1.4ZA, FE35mm f1.8,etc. And write:
"I must say at f2 the Sony FE 24 GM is quite much sharper than the Batis, or more precisely the GM is the sharpest lens at 24mm f2 since the only other lens tested opens up to f2 aperture is the Batis 25mm lens(which I consider a bad lens with excessive axial CA).
Compared to the Batis 25, the 24/1.4 GM has far less axial CA (the Batis has some of the most severe purple-magenta / green-cyan fringing I've seen in a modern prime priced way above the US 800 mark and I say it is the worst Batis of the 5 Batis series lenses I have tested) . So for the Sony GM it is a easy fight to win.
The FE24mm f1.4GM produces much smoother bokeh (the Batis has some significant onion ring effect to its bokeh with green like cyan colored circles around it). You can see both these artifacts in all images made with the Batis 25mm. It is simply odious.
The FE24mmf1.4GM is not just sharper than the Batis at 25, but it is also much smoother.
By the way, you could make similar comments comparing it to the FE 35/1.4ZA, which also has a good deal of axial CA (see the purple/green fringing in many of high contrast images shot with it posted online such as sharp and wet blue stones in a fall or water droplets shots) and onion-ring bokeh (actually, the onion ring bokeh is more destructive than the axial CA in the Batis 25)."
In retrospect , I must say at the time I was quite impressed with the FE24mm f1.4GM and I wrote Sony should ditch the Zeiss blue badge as they obviously no longer need it.
Recently I had a chance to retest the FE35mm f1.4ZA vs the FE24mm f1.4GM vs some other lenses like the Zeiss Loxia 25mm f2.4 Distagon and the Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art.
And I must emphasize the so called Zeiss 35mm f1.4ZA is one of the very worst lenses Sony has ever produced in the E mount. Even Roger Cicala said it clearly in his review of the FE35mm f1.8 , which he rated much better than the FE35mm f1.4 ZA or any other 35mm primes for FF except the Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP and the Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art.
To be fair, most wide fast primes have axial CA (well, save for the Canon 35L II, the Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art and the Otus 28mm f1.4 APO ) and it's not always easy to judge comparatively how severe it is without side-by-side shots.
Still, in the FE35mm f1.8 vs the FE35mm f1.4 ZA case, it is very clear the FE35mm f1.8 is a much better corrected much sharper lens than the mediocre so called Zeiss.
The FE50mm f1.4ZA and Voigtlander 65mm f2 APO do not have the terrible magenta and green Lo-CA issue of the FE35mm f1.4ZA, either. But they are in a totally different focal range.
In close range , the FE24mm f1.4GM is obviously sharper than the Batis 25 with a lot smoother bokeh.
At or near infinity range, still the GM is sharper from f2 to f16. In fact, I'd actually say the GM at f1.4 is equally sharp as the Batis 25mm at f2.5. The 24mm GM is that sharp at f1.4.
And that is why it is so special for those who do astro or those into the super thin DoF stuff.
I haven't compared it to the FE35mm f2.8Z side-by-side, but I'd be surprised if the 24mmGM weren't sharper. It's certainly sharper than the FE35mm f1.4ZA, the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Milvus(at least my one copy of it), and most amazingly , the GM is not just sharper than these overpriced f1.4 primes from Sigma , Zeiss and Sony's own Zony line, but also the GM is much smaller than these. And I think it is a remarkable feat.
Now move on and compare it to the also equally amazing Loxia 25mm f2.4:
Compared to the Loxia 25mm f2.4 Distagon I found similar things but it was not as one side game as the previous comparison between the GM vs Batis 25 or the FE35mm f1.4ZA.
At f2.4, the GM(the GM was at f2.5)is a bit better corrected than the Loxia, with slightly less purple Lo-CA at that f stop and much less lateral CA than the Loxia. The Loxia clearly produces a bit more green edged bokeh in close focus distance.
At mid focus point at f2.4, the Loxia gets better but still the GM is a bit better corrected with a bit less Lo CA as it is already stopped down almost a couple of stops. But in terms of sheer resolution they are about equal at f2.4 in mid focus range.
Personally I found the ergonomics of the GM is much better , easier to handle but it is very personal and subjective.....you may prefer the handling of the Loxia, sure and nothing wrong with that.
At infinity or near it , I found the Loxia is a bit sharper (I was shocked to find it as the Sony GM was already stopped down almost a couple of stops here).
Now moving to f2.8, the GM is already tack sharp at this F stop, and it may be a bit better corrected than the Loxia at this F stop especially in close focus distance.
But the GM has a bit more Lo-CA? I will have to measure that with a program I usually use for my CA tests. But in rough casual tests -comparing these two side by side, I found the Loxia better in terms of Lo-CA in long focus distances.......but Sony may have a bit less axial CA.
At f4, the Loxia gets significantly sharper than it was at f2.8 and it clearly beats the GM at this f stop in any focus distances. At this F stop the GM has no more annoying green fringing in the edges or in the high contrasty area of the frame, the Loxia still has a bit of Lo-CA and it is a bit difficult to remove. At f4 the GM seems still a bit smoother than the Loxia 25.
TBH, I do not mind a bit of La-CA since it is easy to fix in post, but the type of CA the Batis and many of Sony ZA designated lenses have (axial CA) is hard to fix.
The Sony 24mm f1.4GM has it too but not really bad at all for a super fast prime.
The 85mmf1.4GM also has it and it is not easy to correct manually but the lens profile will help albeit with a bit of IQ degradation in the corners and edges.
Compared to the Loxia 25mm f2.4 the GM is a bit less sharp stopped down but it is a bit better corrected and much smoother in rendering. So I 'd say the Sony is the overall winner here again.
Now we should move on to the Btatis vs the Loxia 25mm.
The Loxia 25 will render like the 21mm,and like the 24mm GM,it's a better gap for the typical 15mm25mm, 50mm(or 40mm) and 85mm set up than the Batis 25mm because of the Batis 25's wider AOV. I think the Batis 25mm is actually a 22.5mm lens before the lens profile applied. Also, it's worth noting that the Batis is not as well corrected for axial CA and its manual focus feel is very different (to be kind) compared to the mechanical MF with a helicoid from the Loxias. Also, the Loxia is significantly sharper ,with a touch more microcontrast that produces a bit more Zeiss-ness.
So, it looks like the Batis 25mm/2 is one of the worst 24/25mm primes in the current E mount lineup.
It sold well when there was no other option than it in this particular focal range. But now, I think it is an irrelevant lens and almost nothing over the other offerings in this specific FR to justify its rather high price for what it is. IMHO it should've been around 500 US or less as it is clearly a lesser lens than the Sony FE35mm f1.8 or even cheaper FE85mm f1.8.
Optically the Batis 25mm f2 is a terrible lens by the current modern lens standard.
If you want a different rendering, more blur and perhaps more light gathering power for nightscapes, lowlight action,etc., it may be wise to check out the 24/1.4 GM as well.
Chances are you will love it and appreciate the remarkably small size of it for a 24/1.4 glass!
If you do not need both the super fast AF or the extra light gathering power, then the Loxia may still make pretty much sense ?
Now 27 months after the finial test of the FE24mm f1.4GM
I must admit that the FE24mm f1.4GM and maybe the 85mm one too changed a lot of things in this industry and that gather a bit of respect for Sony as a lens maker.
27 months after its launch I must say the FE24mm f1.4GM was a big hit, even now it is a difficult lens to buy in some markets. I think it is over all the best 24mm prime ever made like Roger said in his FE24mm f1.4GM test article.
I really have to say the 24mm f1.4GM was a huge winner for Sony and the best balanced 24mm prime ever made by any manufacture. Even now it is better than most of lenses in its range, and it is remarkably cheaper and smaller than the similar lenses from CNZS.
A year after the FE24mm f1.4GM , we saw the FE35mm f1.8 launch and it was another huge hit for Sony and it deserved all the credits it earned for itself.
It is the best all around kind of 35mm prime right now, it is better than almost anything else in its market. Like Roger says, only the Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art and the Tamron's DSLR mount 35mm f1.4 SP beat it in resolution. And even that defeat was not by a large margin.
Compared to the Sigma it was very close in fact, the Tamron was indeed a bit noticeably better , but it is a huge lens that cost 2 times more than the Sony FE.
Maybe most importantly there is much less copy variation with this lens, Sony has clearly upped their QC game since about 2017. All the lenses released after the FE12-24mm f4G have been strikingly good(consistent) in this regard.
Then, in this past Feb 2020(I am sure Sony were planning to announced it at the cancelled CP+ in Yokohama city in this March) Sony announced the FE20mm f1.8G and it is simply outstanding.
Even DPR rave about it as a near perfect optic......
I think the most shocking(positively) thing about this lens is that it beats the FE24mm f1.4GM ,which was the best wide angle prime of 2018 and 2019.
Just in a year or so Sony could design the 20mm f1.8 lens this good , in fact it seems even better than the previous 20/21mm lens champion the Voigtlander 21mm f1.4.
Now the FE24mm f1.4GM has been dethroned , the FE20mm f1.8G is a bit better lens indeed.
It is super compact(for what it is), super sharp even wideopen, quite well corrected and even does semi macro like close up very well. Sony has raised the bar again with the new 20mm f1.8G. The level of Lo CA on this lens is incredibly low, it is fantastically sharp, with a very low amount of distortion. And to my surprise it even gets Sony's excellent Nano AR coating tech(I think no other under 1000 US lens has it). It is really a remarkable feat.
So now we have to go back to the original question: Will Sony really still need the ZA designation ?
The answer is obvious no. In fact, Sony has increased about 30 percent of their lens market share after dropping the Zeiss blue badge.
As I've said this many times Sony no longer need the blue badge or Zeiss lens inspectors or even the T* coating as they have a better lens coating tech called Nano AR now.
And that is why Sony is now working on the replacement lenses for theZA designated lenses. I think they will release a 35mm f1.4 GM and maybe 14mm f2.8 GM to finalize the plan.
After that, they will slowly replace the current GM line lenses and the only one good ZA lens still remained in the line, i.e., the FE50mm f1.4ZA.
Now we all know that Sony has one of the best lens deign team in the world at least for 1-35mm class ILC lenses like the FE24mm f1.4GM , the FE20mm f1.8G, the FE35mm f1.8 and the FE135mm f1.8GM.
Sure Zeiss and Nikon make stepper lenses that would need to resolve about 5000lines per mm! Amazing to say the least, but that is a huge and extremely expensive industrial lens.
Sure Canon makes one of the best space science related optics for Japan National Space observation center in Tsukuba, but those are gigantic lenses. And no normal people can afford to own it.
Olympus makes amazing medical optics and so do Zeiss and Nikon but those are very limited close focus only kind of lenses, they can never go beyond 30cm focus range.
So, as one of the best Sony lens designers said in his presentation, maybe those companies make better industrial or space or medical use lenses than Sony, but that does not mean they are better than Sony in ILC lens design just like Mclaren does not make a good fuel-efficienct consumer car that runs more than 28km per litter......Renault ,Toyota , Honda and VW ,etc. are much better than Mclaren for that kind of practical consumer cars.
And as for the(so-called) small mount diameter issue of the E mount for which Sony has been always criticized by a huge Nikon fanboy community called NR, it is not a problem as long as they do not want to go brighter than f1.0 lens design for the E mount and most of people do not need such lenses.
In fact, the current E or L mount size is more than enough for most of lens designs for practical purposes, and I even go further to say the E mount is fine and probably a bit better balanced than the Nikon Z, which is needlessly oversized even for FF and thus won't work well for so-called DX sensor.
Many Nikon guys trash Sony and Panasonic and always say something like: the bigger mount diameter an ILC mount gets,the better it is for designing a fast lens, thus in the long run Nikon wins. But I think this is completely wrong, or at least too much of simplification of it. The Nikon guys have suffered from having inferiority complex of having been restricted into a trap of the most restricted narrow FF mount system for a few decades, and now they suddenly got the widest FF mount system. So now they may feel like to use it as their most formidable weapon to shoot Sony and Pana ,or even Canon R, which has a slightly smaller mount than the Nikon Z.
Sure there are many goods going for the big mount throat , but there are also many bads going for it which they never talk about(b/c admitting it means admitting the advantage of the Sony system over the Nikon Z).
The wider you make it , the more susceptible it becomes to sensor dusts, the more restrictive to APS-C lenses, etc. Also the mount strength becomes weaker as well.
Nikon guys say Sony E mount cannot have a set of great fast primes, but the reality is all their fast primes are good or great , or even outstanding , nothing is really bad. Even the always criticized FE35mm f1.4ZA is not as bad as the Nikon AF-S35mm f1.4G , for example.
So as long as Sony keeps it to a great f1.4 or even a f1.2, it is fine, there is no practical issue with the Sony E mount, let alone the L mount. These two mounts are just fine for most of practical lens designs for the 35mm sized sensor.
Sure f1.0 or f0.95 may sound interesting or exciting, but the current micro lens tech cannot take full advantage of the light gathering power of a f1.0 prime or faster anyway, so what is the point of having such a lens?
Now Sigma has actually proved that designing a great f1.2 prime for the Sony or the L system is not that difficult , let alone impossible. The Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art is an incredible lens that Nikon may never get.
Sigma has also proved that they can design a great f2.8 super wide zoom for the E or the L system with the 14-24mm f2.8Art.
Nikon has nothing in that range, their Z14-30mm f4S is a good practical lens, but for sheer resolution the Sigma will always beat the crap out of it.
Sony also has their own set of fantastic lenses : the FE20mm f1.8G their very best so far, the FE12-24mm f4G , the FE16-35mm f2.8GM, the FE85mm f1.4GM, the FE135mm f1.8GM , the FE100mm f2.8 STF GM, and the FE24mm f1.4GM....they are a quite incredible set of lenses and as a set they make the E mount quite amazing for many of us.
So I am pretty sure we will never see any more new ZA designated lens from Sony for the foreseeable future.
The blue badge just makes their lenses unnecessarily more expensive. That is why their first 8 lenses were so overpriced.
Remember the FE24-70mm f4ZA? The FE35mm f2.8ZA?
FE35mm f1.4ZA? Those were the lenses gave Sony a bad name. If these were really Zeiss designed lenses, Sony definitely do not need Zeiss, they can do better without Zeiss.
