Contents
Conclusion
Pros:
- Sharp across the whole frame straight from f/2.8
- Very good color and contrast
- Very low distortion for an ultra-wide angle lens
- High quality construction
- Autofocus is very accurate
Cons:
- Lens is rather large for a mirrorless lens
- Smooth rubber focus ring is awkward to use and provides limited tactile feedback
- Autofocus is slow
- Expensive
Overall, the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon is a very fine lens. It provides nice sharp images with good color and contrast with surprising evenness of quality across the image frame at all apertures. However, I found the lens a little too large in the field, making getting it in and out of my bags difficult. While sharp, the images aren’t quite at the level of resolution provided by its closest competitor in the Fuji X-mount: The Fujinon 14mm f/2.8. I’m not a fan of the smooth rubber used on the focus ring, and the autofocus is relatively pokey. Plus, at $1,250, it’s rather expensive.
For Fuji users, it’s hard to recommend the Touit over the 14mm f/2.8 unless you absolutely need the extra width offered by the Zeiss. The Fuji has similar color and contrast, faster autofocus, better manual focus, is slightly sharper, costs $350 less and is smaller to boot. However, if you need 12mm, then the Zeiss is your lens. Despite its handling flaws, the Zeiss is ultimately a very high quality optic and an excellent addition to the Fuji X system.
Image Samples
Click on an image to enlarge it.
nicest article ive seen so far on the web about this new touit…..its nice ,but ill keep my 14
thanks for your effort
Very nice review, Jordan! And nice pics, too. Your findings, however are slightly at odds with mine (on a NEX 7). My Touit is definitely sharper at f:4.0 and beyond than wide open, to the extent that I only use f:2.8 when I have to. Conversely, it is really sharp (for a UWA lens, that is) at that point, to the extent that I wondered whether this extra measure of sharpness was not at the expense of micro-detail. My findings is that it is more biased towards putting color first than detail or sharpness, which is not unlike the “traditional” Leica rendering.
But the context for NEX is slightly different from that on a Fuji, because the only competition is the Sony 10-18 zoom, in itself, almost as expensive as the Zeiss, and not quite as good on all fronts. But, of course, it is a zoom for those who need it/prefer it.
What camera bag did you decide on to carry all your fuji x equipment.Ihad think tank mirroless mover 2.0,but with the addition of xf55-200 don’t know what small bag to purchase.Thanks,david.
Thank you for your superb assessments of these fine lenses. You are very accurate and fair. I appreciate your site.
Nice review. It would be nice an optical comparison of this lens with the same focal distance, one stop brighter, Rokinon 12mm f2. Just a suggestion.
Since the price has dropped to about USD/EUR 800 the Touit 12mm has become a very interesting alternative to the Fujinon XF 14mm. Esp. now with the stunning Fujinon XF 16mm it is a much better focal length combination. As the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm is manual focus only and doesn’t support automatic aperture, it’s no viable alternative to me.
Justin, thanks for this review. I did purchase an open-box 12mm for my X-T2, and agreed with your review on all points. I’m curious if you have ever tested it against Fuji’s 10-24 at 12mm, just for IQ, flare and contrast.
Thank you for your honest and detailed review of a lens that I’m seriously considering at the moment. I had always assumed that Zeiss lenses were completely out of my own price range, but for the next couple of weeks or so in the UK there is hardly any difference between the cost of this lens and the Fuji 14mm f2.8, which I’ve previously owned and been very satisfied with. Of course price is a factor for practically everyone and I suppose your own expectations would also have been partially influenced by comparable results from the same manufacturer on alternative camera systems. For what it’s worth, none of the five lenses I’ve thus far tried with my X-Pro1 have delivered much in the way of micro-contrast and so I wouldn’t have expected this one to be any different. It’s interesting though that many other Fuji users with prior knowledge of Zeiss have come to broadly similar conclusions as yours, but to be honest I find it puzzling how a previous Canon shooter, for example, could hope to mirror results from a Fuji camera by simply adding a Zeiss lens. It’s unrealistic and rather unhelpful for everyone else, but I found your own thoughts, by contrast, to be reasoned and most valuable. So thanks once again.