[youpii]

The lens is so big that I thought it was a SLR lens with a built-in tube to fit the E mount but the side cut on display at CP+ shows that the rear elements are almost at the back of the lens.

 

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/02/13/ne...irst-look/

 

It's still quite odd to see it so big with a 72mm filter while the new Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM is only with 49mm filters. The ZA also seems to have 12 elements while the ZM has "only" 10.

[Scythels]

The new lens is a retrofocus design with a very strong negative front element.  There are then two doublets (=color correction) that make up the first bit of the "P" group of a retrofocus design.  Following that is the focusing group which has been made into a triplet.  Optical power in there and around it is somewhat mild - expect low focus breathing.  Then there is a classic gauss doublet and a triplet construction for the rear element. 

 

In theory this all allows a very good performance, especially low CAs.  We will see.  Interesting choice to go with the retrofocus form when the flange distance would accommodate a biotar.

 

...yadda yadda optics stuff...

[dave9t5]

The lens is so big that I thought it was a SLR lens with a built-in tube to fit the E mount but the side cut on display at CP+ shows that the rear elements are almost at the back of the lens.

 

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/02/13/ne...irst-look/

 

It's still quite odd to see it so big with a 72mm filter while the new Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM is only with 49mm filters. The ZA also seems to have 12 elements while the ZM has "only" 10.

 

Some good looks at the ZA 35/1.4, 90 Macro, 24-240, 28/2 lenses over at DPreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0490644...prime-time

 

They are all pretty big.

 

Their coverage of CP+ has been pretty good this year.

[Klaus]

Some good looks at the ZA 35/1.4, 90 Macro, 24-240, 28/2 lenses over at DPreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0490644...prime-time

 

They are all pretty big.

 

Their coverage of CP+ has been pretty good this year.

 

 

Well, the bodies are pretty small so the lenses appear to be big.

Size-wise I continue to have doubts that full format mirrorless systems make sense.

[Guest]

Gee I do think that size wise full frame mirrorless makes perfect sense. They are about the same size as the OM cameras of yore. With the smaller lenses you get a decently small system; with the larger ones I don't find that having more camera to balance to lens is overall desirable (except perhaps with superteles).

 

And most of all I much prefer a decent EVF for manual focus (and prefer the accuracy of on-sensor AF, even if it's slower, for very fast lenses.

[youpii]

Well, the bodies are pretty small so the lenses appear to be big.

Size-wise I continue to have doubts that full format mirrorless systems make sense.

It would make sense if Sony made small lenses like Leica but for whatever reasons they don't.

 

With large lenses, I'd rather use my old A900 for better balance & overall ergonomics.

[JJ_SO]

Well, the bodies are pretty small so the lenses appear to be big.

Size-wise I continue to have doubts that full format mirrorless systems make sense.

 

Could you just give me a link for an explanation of your doubts? At first glance and having no experience with FF mirrorless, I don't see a reason for them being less senseful than FF with mirror?

[Brightcolours]

It would make sense if Sony made small lenses like Leica but for whatever reasons they don't.

 

With large lenses, I'd rather use my old A900 for better balance & overall ergonomics.

Possible reasons: AF, IS, to prevent the heavy vignetting at the borders of the FF sensor? The 35mm f2.8 is really small, optics wise?

[Brightcolours]

Could you just give me a link for an explanation for your doubts? At first glance and having no experience with FF mirrorless, I don't see a reason for them being less senseful than FF with mirror?

Why go mirrorless? To have a very compact camera. Now add heavy and bulky lenses, and that main idea is gone?

[Brightcolours]

Gee I do think that size wise full frame mirrorless makes perfect sense. They are about the same size as the OM cameras of yore. With the smaller lenses you get a decently small system; with the larger ones I don't find that having more camera to balance to lens is overall desirable (except perhaps with superteles).

 

And most of all I much prefer a decent EVF for manual focus (and prefer the accuracy of on-sensor AF, even if it's slower, for very fast lenses.

A DSLR has good ergonomics and a good grip, usually. Easy to operate the not so tiny buttons and such. So just shrinking the body to a more clumsy size but having bigger, heavier lenses, I don't really see the sense in that either.

 

It is fine if you prefer an EVF. Personally I prefer an OVF. And I have no problem manual focussing 55mm f1.2 lenses on it, and the very fast PD AF seems to be spot on.

Tastes differ...