Why Zeiss is concentrated on wide-angles?

LeicaFoReVer

LeicaFoReVer

Addicted to Rangefinders
Local time
7:27 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,372
Location
Turkey
View My Gallery
Has anyone wondered or have an answer why there are so many wide angle lenses but few 50mm, 85mm or even no 135mm?

they have a good range of 21, 25, 28, 35 even 18mm and 15mm lenses but just two 50mm and 85mm and no 135mm.

wouldnt it be nice to have a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 and 85mm 1.4 lens???
 
Look at the price of used 135, and at the (ill-deserved) contempt in which they are held by so many on RFF alone.

There are two 85mm lenses, and two 50mm. How many more do you want? What do you want them to do?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
1. RF people like to shoot wide. That's what these cameras are made for IMO.
2. Cost. The "bigwigs" (15 and 85) are made by Zeiss in Germany and very expensive. I think the same would hold true for ultra fast versions of ZM lenses. Cost and size would be prohibitive. No market.

The Zeiss range, as it stands, is excellent. I don't think there's any need for them to make anything else.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Look at the price of used 135, and at the (ill-deserved) contempt in which they are held by so many on RFF alone.

There are two 85mm lenses, and two 50mm. How many more do you want? What do you want them to do?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I wrote in my post what would I like. a faster 50 would be nice! a zeissilux 🙂

CV has nokton 1.1 zeiss does not have anything similar.

Also Zeiss never produced anything at f1.4

50 f1.4
50 f1.2
35 f1.4
.....
 
Last edited:
LeicaFoReVer said:
I wrote in my post that a faster 50 would be nice! a zeissilux 🙂

CV has nokton 1.1 zeiss does not have anything similar.

Also Zeiss never produced anything at f1.4

50 f1.4
50 f1.2
35 f1.4
.....
Click to expand...

The difference between f/1.5 and f/1.4 is trivial. You could mark an f/1.5 as an f/1.4, and vice versa, and still be within normal commercial tolerances. The main reason for 'f/1.5' is nostalgia.

Next, consider who makes all ZM lenses except the 15 and 85/2.

Are you REALLY willing to pay made-in-Germany Zeiss money for a 50/0.95? And why would the same manufacturer (Zeiss-made-by-Cosina) offer a more expensive, slower lens than the 50/1.1? Finally, focusing an 85/1.4 is pretty marginal and again it would probably need to be made in Germany to make Zeiss happy.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The difference between f/1.5 and f/1.4 is trivial. You could mark an f/1.5 as an f/1.4, and vice versa, and still be within normal commercial tolerances. The main reason for 'f/1.5' is nostalgia.

Next, consider who makes all ZM lenses except the 15 and 85/2.

Are you REALLY willing to pay made-in-Germany Zeiss money for a 50/0.95? And why would the same manufacturer (Zeiss-made-by-Cosina) offer a more expensive, slower lens than the 50/1.1? Finally, focusing an 85/1.4 is pretty marginal and again it would probably need to be made in Germany to make Zeiss happy.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

A reason for asking f1.4 is for the signature of these lenses, besides 1.5 has bad reputation of focus shift.

35mm f1.4 would make a real difference as there are complains from CV 35mm f1.4 and there is no other cheaper alternative than leica.
 
Last edited:
Leica 90 and 135s just haven't held their value like their wide counterparts have. Why buy a $1000 Zeiss 90 when you can get a nice used leica 90 for $400?

Leica wides are expensive. Even used. Zeiss can compete here.

@Roger: I'd love to try a 135 one day. Except that I use an M2 and don't fancy the huge 135 2.8. One day...
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
A reason for asking f1.4 is because of the signature of these lenses, besides 1.5 has bad reputation of focus shift.

35mm f1.4 would make a real difference as there are complains from CV 35mm f1.4 and there is no other cheaper alternative than leica.
Click to expand...

What you mean is that some people throw hissy fits over this particular design of f/1.5, which is designed the way it is for a particular look. How would you like a Zeiss 50/1.4 to differ from the Voigtländer 50/1.5?

Again, how big is the market for a Zeiss 50/1.4 that is different from the Zeiss 50/2, Zeiss 50/1.5, Voigtländer 50/3.5, Voigtländer 50/2.5, Voigtländer f/2, Voigtländer f/1.5 and Voigtländer f/1.1? That's SEVEN 50mm lenses from ONE manufacturer in about 15 years. Asking for more is surely asking a bit much.

What makes you think that a Zeiss-Germany-built 35/1.4 would be cheaper than a Summilux? And even if a Cosina-built 35/1.4 'Zeiss' lens were to appear, it would have to be quite a bit better than the Voigtländer version (or nobody'd bother) and quite a bit more expensive than the Voigtländer version (or it would kill the Voigtländer stone dead -- why would anyone buy a significantly inferior lens for only a little less money?)

The question I'd ask is more along the lines of "How on earth has Cosina managed to bring out as many lenses as it has for a relatively tiny market, let alone competing with itself on several focal lengths?"

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
See also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96986 for anti-135 prejudice.
Click to expand...

As one of the posters to that thread, I'll say only that I specified that my bias against the 135mm FL reflects a personal preference. I had a 135 for my SLR for over 20 years and just never meshed with it despite numerous attempts, while I love both the 85/90 and 180mm focal lengths.

That is the polar opposite of a prejudice, because there was no pre-judgement. Rather, I have a personal bias that comes from two decades of direct experience. My 135 AIS is currently on consignment.
 
Last edited:
I think Zeiss made the RF lenses in the range where they are most useful. Also, they chose Biogon designs for most of the line. Zeiss invented the modern wide angle lenses with the Biogon design, so they have built on theit own strength. If you want superb longer fast lenses fom them, get the Planar 85/1.4 Zf or Makro Planar 100/2 ZF. More useful than rangefinder designs, and a pleasure to use.

MP 100/2 ZF, f 4.0

1558660052_74a844d95c_b.jpg
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
Has anyone wondered or have an answer why there are so many wide angle lenses but few 50mm, 85mm or even no 135mm?

they have a good range of 21, 25, 28, 35 even 18mm and 15mm lenses but just two 50mm and 85mm and no 135mm.

wouldnt it be nice to have a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 and 85mm 1.4 lens???
Click to expand...

There are 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 zeiss lenses but they are for contax. I have the 85 1.4 and a 135 2.8 for contax.
 
There is a video interview floating around from Photokina. One of their top marketing guys was asked this question.

Answer:

They need the OK to make autofocus and image stablization due to patent ..etc. They are working on this, but at this time have not secured the OK from the major players, so they are providing manual focus lenses. Longer lenses might be used for fast moving sports and autofocus/stablization is desirable, so they are going after a part of the market that they think they can get and will continue to talk to the other players about further opening up their systems to third parties.
 
bwcolor said:
There is a video interview floating around from Photokina. One of their top marketing guys was asked this question.

Answer:

They need the OK to make autofocus and image stablization due to patent ..etc. They are working on this, but at this time have not secured the OK from the major players, so they are providing manual focus lenses. Longer lenses might be used for fast moving sports and autofocus/stablization is desirable, so they are going after a part of the market that they think they can get and will continue to talk to the other players about further opening up their systems to third parties.
Click to expand...

was the question regarding leica-m mount lenses or in general? I was talking about ZM lenses. I know there are SLR mount f1.4 lenses.
 
Roger,

So it is more logical to produce a 75mm f1.8 from cosina rather than zeiss producing a decent 35mm f1.4? It could be around 1000$-1200$ range. Can you find a summilux at that range?

And even more logical to produce two the same lenses one SC other MC from CV?...

It does not make sense...
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
The question I'd ask is more along the lines of "How on earth has Cosina managed to bring out as many lenses as it has for a relatively tiny market, let alone competing with itself on several focal lengths?"
Click to expand...

For that, I'm thankful. If it weren't for Cosina, I probably won't have tried rangefinder photography.

I think for the ZM Line, Zeiss is pretty clever in it's market strategy. On the ZI, there is only a 85mm, no 75, no 90. So there is only one focal length to take care of in it's portfolio instead of 2. Whilst Leica owners won't mind using a 85 with their 90 frameline. A lot of Zeiss Ikon owner will steer towards a 85mm option to match the framelines. And Zeiss's original 85mm has always been well respected and highly regarded.

Zeiss will most likely not introduce a 135mm in their stable because there isn't a 135mm frameline in the Zeiss Ikon. I understand that they have some nice optical design in that focal length, but the economics of it wouldn't make this a financially feasible option for the company's bottom line.

As such, I think that Zeiss' ZM line do have a fairly balanced offering in terms of focal lengths with 4 out of 12 lenses in the 50mm and above segment. Personally, the only thing I feel I would have like to buy from Zeiss is a faster 35mm instead of the current f/2.0 or f/2.8 offering.

Cheers,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom