Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: henrikfoto on November 12, 2013, 08:29:05 am
-
Has anyone gotten their Zeiss 55 yet?
-
Yes, received mine today from B&H. Pre-ordered on announcement day.
-
Yes, received mine today from B&H. Pre-ordered on announcement day.
Is it any good?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ordered at the beginning of October in Germany and no info yet.
-
As far as I have heard they have around 1.000 preorders and since every lens is double tested during final quality control they make appr. 5 a day. Go figure....
-
As far as I have heard they have around 1.000 preorders and since every lens is double tested during final quality control they make appr. 5 a day. Go figure....
Let´s just hope they started mass production many months ago... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds like it will be hard to get one before Christmas :'(
-
Anyone in a hurry can always get the Sony E-mount f/1.8 version instead! Buy an A7r to mount it on & still save some cash compared to the Otus. ;)
-Dave-
-
There is a thread on Fred Miranda in the alt section with pics of bokeh....
Alan
-
Yes, received mine today from B&H. Pre-ordered on announcement day.
What was the announcement day?
-
Bernard,
Is it any good?
Looks like they are starting to trickle through to folks. Refer here (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/49385-first-shots-otus.html)
-
Bernard,
Looks like they are starting to trickle through to folks. Refer here (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/49385-first-shots-otus.html)
Thanks for posting the link. Since I ordered one on the day of announcement (Oct-07) from B&H, I am pleased to read that the first reports are positive! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
...I am pleased to read that the first reports are positive!
Indeed.
It will be interesting to see how many lenses, and in what focal lengths Zeiss produces Otus lenses. That several primes will be produced is not in doubt (rumours abound of a wide and short tele). However, I would be very interested to learn if they intend to produce a zoom(s) of (near) comparable quality. Unfortunately a zoom, if it is ever released, would be announced only after the majority of primes in order to capitalise on sales of the latter. :(
In producing a zoom in addition to primes, Zeiss would in essence duplicate the Leica S system (the Zeiss 55mm all but equals the Leica S 70mm in performance), albeit without autofocus or central shutter lenses.
-
I hope the Otus line is a huge success. If so maybe it'll prompt CaNikon to acknowledge that some of their users would benefit from highly accurate VF manual focusing. Or at least more comfortable-to-use articulated rear LCD screens in their top line bodies.
-Dave-
-
I hope the Otus line is a huge success. If so maybe it'll prompt CaNikon to acknowledge that some of their users would benefit from highly accurate VF manual focusing. Or at least more comfortable-to-use articulated rear LCD screens in their top line bodies.
-Dave-
I really was disappointed that, amongst other problems such as overall size/weight, Nikon did not take their "retro" philosophy far enough and give us proper split microprism focussing in the viewfinder of the Df. That really would have suited old legacy lenses (plus new legacy lenses such as the Otus).
-
Images posted in GetDPI. So far, so good. I'm still waiting for some landscapes other than those on the Zeiss site.
I'm waffling on getting one. It would be used for stitching panos for me and I'm uncertain that it would be (and it WOULD have to be) head and shoulders above my 50 Makro. And also my 85 1.4G, come to think about it.
-
I'm waffling on getting one. It would be used for stitching panos for me and I'm uncertain that it would be (and it WOULD have to be) head and shoulders above my 50 Makro. And also my 85 1.4G, come to think about it.
I made the bet that it would, as I use a lot the 2 very same lenses for stitching a lot (the 50mm being my landscape workhorse for panos). ;)
One area of concern for me is flare behavior when sun is in the picture. From the results shown by Lloyd Chambers, it seems that the 50mm f2 Makro and the Otus both have issues, but it seems that the issues of the 50mm Marko might be easier to correct in post.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Roger Cicala tested two copies so far. Seems good, exceptional even.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/otus-is-scharf
-
Bernard, I'm now in line at LensRental, supposed to be delivered second week of December. I realize I could go ahead and order one from B&H and send it back if I'm not satisfied but that would tie up $4K at a bad time of the year!
-
John,
I'm waffling on getting one. It would be used for stitching panos for me and I'm uncertain that it would be (and it WOULD have to be) head and shoulders above my 50 Makro. And also my 85 1.4G, come to think about it.
Why not replace both? ;) According to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvd3_olZhdI) (Time = 2:22) the 85mm f/1.4 will be released in Q1 2014.
-
Why not replace both? ;) According to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvd3_olZhdI) (Time = 2:22) the 85mm f/1.4 will be released in Q1 2014.
Hum... 85mm is a bit too close to 55mm considering the price of the beast.
I would have preferred something about 110mm f2. Now, that is bit close to the 135mm f2...
Hum...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those interested in numbers, DxO Mark has just published their review of the new Zeiss Otus.
Besides for Chromatic Aberations where the Nikkor 58mm f1.4 measures better, it is currently the best lens available for the D800 along most KPIs, sharpness in particular:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-Otus-1-4-55-ZF.2-Nikon-lens-review-Peerless-Outstanding-Optical-Performance/New-Zeiss-takes-first-place-in-rankings
The gap with the excellent Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-S is in fact not huge except in sharpness where it is significant.
Now, look is not measured and this may be where the Zeiss shines brightest.
The only lens in the same ball park overall appears to be the Nikon 200mm f2.0 VRII... another expensive purchase although not that much more than the Zeiss and probably better value all things considered. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
cant help but note that no Canon lenses on DXO site
History there?
BTW; pre-ordered The Otus in Canon mount anyway. Got t use this lens, if just to see the quality and color.
-
cant help but note that no Canon lenses on DXO site
History there?
Easy, the resolution is a key contributor to the rating of lenses and that results from the combination of sensor and lens.
The higher resolving power of the D800 explains this.
It only shows that Canon doesn't have any current offering able to deliver the same level of detail at base ISO. It doesn't mean that some Canon lenses are not excellent, they probably are but nobody really knows how much they can resolve since there is no camera body able to tap into their potential. The Sony a7r might change this though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As noted before, quantitative is interesting but not like tasting the pudding. Thanks for answering. Makes my other post moot.
Poor benighted Canon users... no 50Mpxl to brag about... yet, I suppose.
Guess my images, and those of other Canon users are not as good as we thought.
In any case, after a life of working with very sophisticated equipment I can say that Quants have their way of looking at things and tend to be very rigid. Personally I think both Quant and Qual are important lins to follow...but that's just me.
As always, thanks...
Easy, the resolution is a key contributor to the rating of lenses and that results from the combination of sensor and lens.
The higher resolving power of the D800 explains this.
It only shows that Canon doesn't have any current offering able to deliver the same level of detail at base ISO. It doesn't mean that some Canon lenses are not excellent, they probably are but nobody really knows how much they can resolve since there is no camera body able to tap into their potential. The Sony a7r might change this though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In any case, after a life of working with very sophisticated equipment I can say that Quants have their way of looking at things and tend to be very rigid. Personally I think both Quant and Qual are important lins to follow...but that's just me.
Agreed. Yesterday I received my copy of Edward Burtynsky's new book, Water. The printing is very well done and the photos are reasonably large (12 1/2 x 9 3/8"). It's clear Burtynsky is using high-end equipment to make his photos...and many of them are more about tonality than spatial detail. There are a pair of abstracts taken in Iceland that are just stunning. I'd happily put a big print of either on one of my walls. Neither photo contains much fine spatial detail and in this respect could've been taken with just about any camera currently on the market. But tonally both are bursting with information. It's this aspect of the Otus 55mm that I'm most interested in learning about.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
I am highly skeptical about lenses affecting tonality. I would thing tonality depends on sensor and post processing.
This is one comparison I made with three lenses on a Sony Alpha 99, Zeiss macro Planar 120, Sony SAL 70-400/4-5.6G and Minolta 100/2.8 macro.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77956.0
From what I have seen the Zeiss 55 is truly excellent in most aspects, but I would say that it's greatest strength is extremely good correction at large apertures. DxO has tested it and it seems that it becomes diffraction limited at f/4, about as good as it gets. A major advantage of the lens is that it said to have no longitudinal chromatic aberration, also know as color bokeh, at large apertures.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed. Yesterday I received my copy of Edward Burtynsky's new book, Water. The printing is very well done and the photos are reasonably large (12 1/2 x 9 3/8"). It's clear Burtynsky is using high-end equipment to make his photos...and many of them are more about tonality than spatial detail. There are a pair of abstracts taken in Iceland that are just stunning. I'd happily put a big print of either on one of my walls. Neither photo contains much fine spatial detail and in this respect could've been taken with just about any camera currently on the market. But tonally both are bursting with information. It's this aspect of the Otus 55mm that I'm most interested in learning about.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
You posted a question and Bernard answered it, OK?
DxO tests most third party lenses on both Nikon and Canon. Their ranking is based sharpness. As the Nikon has a higher resolution it will normally have a higher rating. If you take the time to learn to use DxO-mark you can compare lenses and find out about their strengths and weaknesses.
It is a bit unfortunate for Canon that Nikon has better sensors, in most respects. Canon's sensors are great at high ISO, that is much depending on the technology used. On the other hand I would say that mostly, both systems are good enough. My best friend has a Canon 5DIII and I have Sony Alpha 99 and also a 39 MP digital back. I don't think my equipment makes better pictures than my friends camera. Even if the Alpha 99 has better DR and the digital back quite a lot more pixels.
But, I would also not buy an Otus, unless I wanted to shoot at f/1.4. I would also expect that Sigma will come out with a 50/1.4 Art lens that almost as good at one fifth the price.
Best regards
Erik
As noted before, quantitative is interesting but not like tasting the pudding. Thanks for answering. Makes my other post moot.
Poor benighted Canon users... no 50Mpxl to brag about... yet, I suppose.
Guess my images, and those of other Canon users are not as good as we thought.
In any case, after a life of working with very sophisticated equipment I can say that Quants have their way of looking at things and tend to be very rigid. Personally I think both Quant and Qual are important lins to follow...but that's just me.
As always, thanks...
-
Erik,
But, I would also not buy an Otus, unless I wanted to shoot at f/1.4. I would also expect that Sigma will come out with a 50/1.4 Art lens that almost as good at one fifth the price.
Ah, but those who purchase the Otus 55mm f/1.4 have decided for one reason or another that "good enough", in this case isn't. ;)
-
Hi,
Maybee…
Anyway, I'm impressed by the Otus, what I have read. Making a lens that is nearly optimal at f/1.4 is very impressive. Little doubt that the lens works extremely well at smaller apertures.
On the other hand, Sigma started making very high performance lenses at attractive prices. I looked at the DxO figures and found that the Sigma 35/1.4 is a tad weaker in the corners at f/1.4 but at f/5.6 the two lenses are very close. Very obvious that Sigma made a good job on the 35/1.4A.
I presume that we will se more great lenses from Sigma.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Ah, but those who purchase the Otus 55mm f/1.4 have decided for one reason or another that "good enough", in this case isn't. ;)
-
A major advantage of the lens is that it said to have no longitudinal chromatic aberration, also know as color bokeh, at large apertures.
That's the very sort of thing that does have a tonal impact!
I enjoy using uncoated 1930s-era Leitz and Zeiss rangefinder lenses. In many situations they deliver a compressed tonal range, with film or sensor, compared to later coated versions of essentially the same designs. The difference is not subtle. You can expand the tonal range in post–this applies to reflex lenses too–but the compression is what I like about those lenses.
Granted, nowadays lenses are quite homogeneous tonally. But I'm hoping the Otus line will offer something a bit extra in this area. Not compression, mind you, but expansion.
-Dave-
-
As noted before, quantitative is interesting but not like tasting the pudding. Thanks for answering. Makes my other post moot.
Poor benighted Canon users... no 50Mpxl to brag about... yet, I suppose.
Guess my images, and those of other Canon users are not as good as we thought.
In any case, after a life of working with very sophisticated equipment I can say that Quants have their way of looking at things and tend to be very rigid. Personally I think both Quant and Qual are important lins to follow...but that's just me.
As always, thanks...
I understand your frustration, but I only answered your question about the reason why there is no a Canon lens in the top 20 of DxO Mark.
But if you wish to stop talking about technical aspects, how could anyone sensible not agree that those technical aspects are only part of the equation?
What I don't fully understand is why you bother challenging the fairness of DxOMark results considering your views on the lack of relevance of technical data?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Erik,
On the other hand, Sigma started making very high performance lenses at attractive prices. I looked at the DxO figures and found that the Sigma 35/1.4 is a tad weaker in the corners at f/1.4 but at f/5.6 the two lenses are very close. Very obvious that Sigma made a good job on the 35/1.4A.
Yes, everyone agrees that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is not only a great performer, but also great value for money. Having said that, it should go without saying that a future Otus 35mm f/1.4 will outperform the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, even if the latter is "almost as good" as the former - it should, given the price differential. Hence, those seeking that additional step up in performance are again likely to opt for an Otus.
I presume that we will see more great lenses from Sigma.
And equally from other manufacturers.
I confess that besides the 35mm f/1.4 I have not kept abreast of other Sigma lenses that have been released. Which lenses has Sigma released of the calibre of the 35mm f/1.4?
Regards,
-
Hi,
If you check the DxO-mark the Sigma stopped down to f/5.6 will outperform the Otus at f/8. So you can waste all advantage of the Otus by using f/8 instead of f/5.6.
Sigma has a new series of lenses, called the Art series, the 35/1.4A is being the first of them. There is also a 24-120/4. But more lenses will be coming.
Myself, I never use large apertures, as I am shooting stopped down the Otus would have little benefit to me. On the other hand, if you need short DoF it would be important to have good at full aperture. Almost any large aperture lens has axial CA (color fringing) at full aperture.
The reason I took the Sigma for comparison because it seems to be the lens that it closest to Otus in performance.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Yes, everyone agrees that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is not only a great performer, but also great value for money. Having said that, it should go without saying that a future Otus 35mm f/1.4 will outperform the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, even if the latter is "almost as good" as the former - it should, given the price differential. Hence, those seeking that additional step up in performance are again likely to opt for an Otus.
And equally from other manufacturers.
I confess that besides the 35mm f/1.4 I have not kept abreast of other Sigma lenses that have been released. Which lenses has Sigma released of the calibre of the 35mm f/1.4?
Regards,
-
Erik,
If you check the DxO-mark the Sigma stopped down to f/5.6 will outperform the Otus at f/8. So you can waste all advantage of the Otus by using f/8 instead of f/5.6.
If a photographer adopted f/8 for a composition when using an Otus 55mm f/1.4 then they would adopt the same aperture when using any other equivalent lens. The above comparison is meaningless.
Presumably the Otus performs better at every aperture than the Sigma when compared on a like for like basis (though they can never truly be like for like given the difference in focal length)?
Sigma has a new series of lenses, called the Art series, the 35/1.4A is being the first of them. There is also a 24-120/4. But more lenses will be coming.
This reinforces my suspicion that with the release of one, possibly two great performing lenses, photographers have extrapolated that all lenses released by Sigma in future will be groundbreaking. I hope they are correct as it will help to drive down the price charged by competing manufacturers for equivalent lenses. However, in my opinion it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that all lenses released by Sigma in future will wow the photographic community in the way that the 35mm f/1.4 has. I will be very pleased if I am mistaken.
Cheers,
-
Hi
If a photographer adopted f/8 for a composition when using an Otus 55mm f/1.4 then they would adopt the same aperture when using any other equivalent lens. The above comparison is meaningless.
Presumably the Otus performs better at every aperture than the Sigma when compared on a like for like basis (though they can never truly be like for like given the difference in focal length)?
When you stop down, aberrations are reduced until a point where diffraction starts to dominate over aberrations. At that point the lens becomes diffraction limited. Once diffraction limit is reached most lenses are performing pretty similar. Stopping down one stop from the optimal aperture reduces MTF on Otus. What the example shows is that once stopped down to f/5.6 or below differences will be very small.
What I can see in the MTF curves is that Otus has an advantage at maximum aperture, both lenses are equal at f/5.6, both loose drop at f/8-
This reinforces my suspicion that with the release of one, possibly two great performing lenses, photographers have extrapolated that all lenses released by Sigma in future will be groundbreaking. I hope they are correct as it will help to drive down the price charged by competing manufacturers for equivalent lenses. However, in my opinion it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that all lenses released by Sigma in future will wow the photographic community in the way that the 35mm f/1.4 has. I will be very pleased if I am mistaken.
Sigma has a new series of lenses called the "Art" series that are designed with very high performance. There are some APS-C lenses in that series. All lenses in the A-series are excellent performers. Similarly, Zeiss has a new line of lenses called Otus designed for peak performance.
The reason I compared the Sigma 35/1.4 and the Otus 55/1.4 that these are the two top performers in the focal and aperture range and both have been tested by DxO.
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik,
Stopping down one stop from the optimal aperture reduces MTF on Otus
Stopping down one stop from the optimal aperture reduces MTF on any lens.
What the example shows is that once stopped down to f/5.6 or below differences will be very small.
This is true for the overwhelming majority of lenses, yet photographers that typically shoot at f/8 do not always purchase the cheapest lenses. While performance is likely to be the 1st consideration when it comes to lens purchase, it is rarely if ever the only one.
What I can see in the MTF curves is that Otus has an advantage at maximum aperture, both lenses are equal at f/5.6, both loose drop at f/8-
Then the Otus has achieved its original design goal. :)
Regards,
-
Hi,
My point is that I would not spend on the Otus, although it being excellent, because that excellence is diminished where I am shooting. I also would suggest that is worth consideration, with the Otus being something like 5-6 times as expensive as the Sigma. If there is no significant difference at apertures I shoot it makes little sense to pay for something I don't see.
Would I shoot large apertures, I would be more interested, but I don't.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Stopping down one stop from the optimal aperture reduces MTF on any lens.
This is true for the overwhelming majority of lenses, yet photographers that typically shoot at f/8 do not always purchase the cheapest lenses. While performance is likely to be the 1st consideration when it comes to lens purchase, it is rarely if ever the only one.
Then the Otus has achieved its original design goal. :)
Regards,
-
Sorry, I must have phrased that in such a way to make you think I am challenging the "fairness". In truth I was just pointing out that it's difficult for Canonites (with my knowledge base, perhaps I'll figure out what Eric alluded to that Canon results can be inferred from the Nikon data) to say much about Canon lenses on DXO.
But since we're talking... if Canon came out with a 35-50 MP sensor and wrapped a good body or two around it depending upon anticipated use (say a 1Dx and 5DIII or 6D body), would it generate many converts from Nikon?
I understand your frustration, but I only answered your question about the reason why there is no a Canon lens in the top 20 of DxO Mark.
But if you wish to stop talking about technical aspects, how could anyone sensible not agree that those technical aspects are only part of the equation?
What I don't fully understand is why you bother challenging the fairness of DxOMark results considering your views on the lack of relevance of technical data?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just hope Zeiss releases a 14mm Otus, and that Sigma also releases a high-quality lens in the 12-15mm range. Some tilt-shifts would also be nice - at the moment, the Canon TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L are unbeatable, apart from the fact that you can't mount them on Nikon bodies.
-
Hi,
I don't know. The way I see it Canon is the market leader. They may loose a couple of customers to Nikon but marque loyalty is in general strong. I don't think it is about resolution only, most of the Nikons also use sensors of more advanced design allowing better DR. It may depend on fabrication capability (50 nm rules). Canon is said to building a fab with 18nm capability and that may bring new sensors with it.
The difference between 20+ and 36 MP may be hard to see in real prints. Computer screens are about 2MP, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
Sorry, I must have phrased that in such a way to make you think I am challenging the "fairness". In truth I was just pointing out that it's difficult for Canonites (with my knowledge base, perhaps I'll figure out what Eric alluded to that Canon results can be inferred from the Nikon data) to say much about Canon lenses on DXO.
But since we're talking... if Canon came out with a 35-50 MP sensor and wrapped a good body or two around it depending upon anticipated use (say a 1Dx and 5DIII or 6D body), would it generate many converts from Nikon?
-
But since we're talking... if Canon came out with a 35-50 MP sensor and wrapped a good body or two around it depending upon anticipated use (say a 1Dx and 5DIII or 6D body), would it generate many converts from Nikon?
I believe that many Nikon shooters like myself only care about the cost/performance of their equipment, not the least bit the logo on the body.
Considering that my F mount lenses (Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss and Leica) would be mountable on such a Canon high pixel camera with superior DR (nobody would care for 45mp at 12 stops DR), I wouldn't have to "convert", just to buy this new wonder body.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
It is not just MP and DR. What about excellent live view, usable LCD, touch screen focusing, great battery life, excellent lenses, decent firmware? I may think that matters a lot.
My dream kit right now? Hartblei HCam with some Canon TS-lenses and P45+. But, it could be a Sony A7r with Canon TS and a Sigma 24-105/4 zoom. Or something else. We are going to find out.
Best regards
Erik
I believe that many Nikon shooters like myself only care about the cost/performance of their equipment, not the least bit the logo on the body.
Considering that my F mount lenses (Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss and Leica) would be mountable on such a Canon high pixel camera with superior DR (nobody would care for 45mp at 12 stops DR), I wouldn't have to "convert", just to buy this new wonder body.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is not just MP and DR. What about excellent live view, usable LCD, touch screen focusing, great battery life, excellent lenses, decent firmware? I may think that matters a lo.
Yes, to some extend, but Canon and Nikon have been doing that for years, it is taken for granted.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
For me a well working live view implementation is sort of the natural solution to most problems. Using the sensor for focusing. Technical cameras would make even more sense with LV.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, to some extend, but Canon and Nikon have been doing that for years, it is taken for granted.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For me a well working live view implementation is sort of the natural solution to most problems. Using the sensor for focusing. Technical cameras would make even more sense with LV.
Yep, live view is mandatory for critical and reliable focusing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Coming from a 4x5 camera background for many years, I've always missed the ability in 35mm bodies to have a universal mount which can use any lens. At the moment I'm shooting both Canon and Nikon. Rather than switch again from one to the other, I'm using one or the other depending on what I am shooting. The new Sony may be the best solution of all if all brand lenses can be adapted. I hope that is the case so we can buy lenses based on performance rather than brand. Motion picture cameras have had a universal PL mount for years now. Too bad still cameras didn't go the same route. I understand that a PL mount doesn't support AF or aperture but that could have been standardized too if they wanted it.
-
Coming from a 4x5 camera background for many years, I've always missed the ability in 35mm bodies to have a universal mount which can use any lens. At the moment I'm shooting both Canon and Nikon. Rather than switch again from one to the other, I'm using one or the other depending on what I am shooting. The new Sony may be the best solution of all if all brand lenses can be adapted. I hope that is the case so we can buy lenses based on performance rather than brand. Motion picture cameras have had a universal PL mount for years now. Too bad still cameras didn't go the same route. I understand that a PL mount doesn't support AF or aperture but that could have been standardized too if they wanted it.
Not perfect but sigma is starting a 'mount swap' service between canon, nikon and sony. The new lenses like the 35 and 180 are pretty impressive too.
-
Hi,
Sony is rumored to come out with a "hybrid mount" next year, this was shown behind glass at the NAB show:
(http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sony-Prototype-4K-DSLR-NAB-2013-616x409.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Coming from a 4x5 camera background for many years, I've always missed the ability in 35mm bodies to have a universal mount which can use any lens. At the moment I'm shooting both Canon and Nikon. Rather than switch again from one to the other, I'm using one or the other depending on what I am shooting. The new Sony may be the best solution of all if all brand lenses can be adapted. I hope that is the case so we can buy lenses based on performance rather than brand. Motion picture cameras have had a universal PL mount for years now. Too bad still cameras didn't go the same route. I understand that a PL mount doesn't support AF or aperture but that could have been standardized too if they wanted it.