Carl Zeiss 16-35mm

[Jonathan K]

Dear all,

I suppose most of you have seen the leaked photos of the "long-time rumoured" 16-35 Carl Zeiss lens for the Alpha mount.
Just in cases:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... d=29213659

Well, it looks like the replacement for the Minolta 17-35G is there and it looks like we just saw the second lens which will be shown at Photokina (next to the 70-400 which seems to be a G-lens). Just wonder whether it is a 2.8? On the pics we see the focal lenght set to 23 (+/-) and the A900 display says 3.5....

Does anybody have an idea (or the wish to speculate along), how the repartition between G-lenses and Zeiss lenses could be looking in the future?
I mean, the ZA lenses are all in the "classical" perimeter of focal length. I don't remember having seen a Zeiss lens above 135 mm. (please prove me wrong...)

So could it be: "standard" high quality zooms and short primes: ZA, long high quality zooms and long primes "G", and next to that a more or less similar setup for consumer lenses? That would mean that in a few years we could expect a ZA Planar 50mm/1,4 or a ZA Distagon 18mm/3,5...

That would also make sense if the rumours about Zeiss producing MF lenses for Canon-mount are true indeed.
So "everybody" would have access to the Zeiss MF lenses, but Sony would have a similar line-up with AF lenses?

I know, all speculation, but sometimes dreaming is nice...
Better even, if somebody has information about the direction Sony and Zeiss are taking here, I would gladly hear about them.

Have a nice weekend,

Jonathan

[KevinBarrett]

So could it be: "standard" high quality zooms and short primes: ZA, long high quality zooms and long primes "G"

That leaves the 34/1.4 as a bit of an oddball, and the 135 isn't exactly short, but I think it's a fair assessment. I think the ZA line is for premium quality lenses that are conceivably within the reach of a consumer/non-professional. Even a very excited wealthy amateur may splurge for the 24-70 ZA, and it sure doesn't hurt that the Zeiss name adds excitement. Similarly, the "G" designation might indicate premium, professional quality lenses that fall out of the reach or rationalization of most amateurs. This leaves the 70-300 G SSM as a bit of an odd duck too, as I might conceivably go out and get one myself, as soon as my hobby starts paying for itself. There are two explanations for that in this model: first, that it is the entry-level, "attainable" G lens, or second, that the "G" is a way to set apart a lens from 3rd party offerings which might cost half as much or less.

[David Kilpatrick]

In the later years of Minolta, 'G' was a label used for lenses designed and built by the Sakai workshop team. After the event, Minolta said that this team also designed the first AF lenses - the beercan, 28-135mm, 75-300mm, 35-70mm, 16mm fisheye, 20mm f2.8 etc. They reckoned these were really 'G' lenses but not labelled that way, since all the first wave AF lenses were designed by the elite Sakai team. I visited the works in 1986 and the production method was unusual - each lens design was the responsibility of a group of 8 workers, with a team leader. They were described as 'Quality Circles'. Every lens was hand built, and at intervals, the production teams would switch lenses to avoid boredom. They got awarded points according to the tested quality of the lenses, and the circles competed with each other. So, the emphasis was like a competition - which team could do the best run of 70-210mms, etc.

I visited Hasselblad in 1992 and they operated on a nearly identical principle. The Hasselblad works in Gothenburg is gone - closed for ever. I was lucky enough to enjoy a Santa Lucia (December 13th) Swedish celebration before they shut down. The Sakai works of Minolta continued, and as I understand, has been taken over by Sony. Their Quality Circle methods probably still continue - along with the right to call their hand-built lenses 'G'.

Alternatively - it is all marketing hype...

David

[Winston]

Looks huge. Can't say I care for the trend. I need all my gear to fit in one bag that meets airline carry-on standards. What's the 100-400 going to look like? A howitzer?

[Javelin]

it's big because it'll have a large aperture. probably 2.8. I have the minolta 17-35 and it's too big for one of my bags too 77mm filter size. the CZ looks as big

[Winston]

I should withhold judgment until weights and measures are known.