percepts
Established
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
thanks! where did you see that info?
anyhow, that's an odd way to go about things! people reading specs will most likely assume it's without caps, and will then assume the lens is a lot larger than it is in practice.
with caps on i got 98mm, so that's it.
but again, this lens is shorter and lighter than the summicron. the only dimension larger is the width.
percepts
Established
They shouldn' assume that because if you look at the zeiss website spec, it says "Dimensions (with caps)".
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
i think that might have been added since this thread started, as i don't remember ever noticing it.
when i was doing research on the 2/85, i also found conflicting dimensions in their literature. the tech specs pdf had one measurement, and the website another.
**edit
i just checked, and the tech pdf lists the length as 82mm. i'm fairly certain that "with caps" was an addition, because i was confused when i first was researching the lens some months ago. there were just two different dimensions listed, and one did not specify "with caps".
Last edited:
percepts
Established
Unfortinately that's the nature of the web. You really can't rely on accuracy of content no matter where or who posts it. And when it comes to the minutiae forget it.
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
The "with caps" thing is odd. They now have it for all lenses on their web-site.
So far I thought industry standard for length is from the mounting flange to the tip of the lens - essentially everything which sticks out of the body. Don't tell me the Hologon for the Contax G is just 11mm with caps (http://contaxcameras.co.uk/gseries/glenses/hologon16.asp)
While I agree what one wants in most cases (space it eats in your bag) by doing the above the Zeiss lenses appear larger than they actually are.
Is the weight also "with caps"?
percepts
Established
I would guess yes because the datasheet pdf says 450 grams and 82mm for the 85/2 lens whereas the onscreen spec says 500 grams and 100mm. Go figure. You would think they would try and be consistent with simple dimensional and weight specs.
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
especially when the weight and length are less than the competitor! i think that's a selling point.
Platinum RF
Well-known
A great canon lens also made in Japan
Last edited:
Rico
Well-known
I'm impressed that CZ attends to the lighter-is-better crowd (that includes me). They even suggest pairing the TT85 with a CB35. 
I agree this new offering is more long than tele in design. Here is the web spec, and measurements I took of two similar lenses on my shelf: CZ Tele-Tessar 85/4 ZM (310g, 95mm); CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 C/Y (290g, 80mm); Leitz 3-element Elmar 90/4 (350g, 94mm). All measurements include caps. The S100 is effectively longer when accounting for its use on SLR. The Elmar is considered a "long lens" and its optical cell is detachable for Visoflex use. Once again, I lament the fashionable short throw: the TT85 DOF scale is rendered worthless.
I agree this new offering is more long than tele in design. Here is the web spec, and measurements I took of two similar lenses on my shelf: CZ Tele-Tessar 85/4 ZM (310g, 95mm); CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 C/Y (290g, 80mm); Leitz 3-element Elmar 90/4 (350g, 94mm). All measurements include caps. The S100 is effectively longer when accounting for its use on SLR. The Elmar is considered a "long lens" and its optical cell is detachable for Visoflex use. Once again, I lament the fashionable short throw: the TT85 DOF scale is rendered worthless.
Last edited:
to me,
a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark.
it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2.
Stephen
a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark.
it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2.
Stephen
JRG
Well-known
" a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark. it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2."
"Certainly f/2.8 at least. I'd have definitely bought one. But f/4 is just a little too dark for my tastes."
I've been sitting here thinking similar things. An 85/4 just isn't that different from the Apo-Lanthar, in terms of angle of view and aperture. And I've got no complaints about the image quality of the Apo-Lanthar.
"Certainly f/2.8 at least. I'd have definitely bought one. But f/4 is just a little too dark for my tastes."
I've been sitting here thinking similar things. An 85/4 just isn't that different from the Apo-Lanthar, in terms of angle of view and aperture. And I've got no complaints about the image quality of the Apo-Lanthar.
QUAsit
Established
This lens design looks like Heliar derivative...
ferider
Veteran
Agreed. The saddest part is that there was the Cosina/Rollei 80/2.8 M mount Planar, more compact than this lens, just a few years back.
Roland.
veraikon
xpanner
It was a Zeiss (optical elements) Cosina (mechanical parts) and Rollei (manufacturing) lens.
But only about 500 pieces were made.
Photon42
burn the box
precisely. For a 90/4 I'd rather take Leica's collapsible lens. It's small and can be updated to close-up photography.
Ivo
Pavel+
Established
It does not miss my mark. I like 85 and I can afford it. Kind of simple, looked at that way, eh?
back alley
IMAGES
such strong negative reactions to this lens is surprising.
no one is being being forced to even consider buying it.
no one is being being forced to even consider buying it.
Photon42
burn the box
It probably shows disappointed desires, so it's emotional
. Speaking for myself, I very much like the chrome look of the lens and - if there'd be a similar one, bit larger, with an aperture of 2.8, I'd seriously considering it.Actually I'm blown away by the fact that a company like Zeiss launched their whole nice market rangerfinder supply years back. Same thing with their SLR lens line up.
Even better, they come out with new lenses every year. I can perfectly accept, they do not always create items which do make a lot of sense for me. Luckily, there are positive comments like Pavel's one as well on that particluar lens.
Kind regards
Ivo