Why Zeiss is concentrated on wide-angles?

We're lucky to have so many lenses being offered in RF mount, between Cosina Voigtlander, Zeiss, and Leica. Wide-angle lens selection was relatively sparse among vintage lenses, and the modern ones are greatly improved. Vintage telephoto lenses such as the Nikkor 85/2 and Nikkor 105/2.5 are quite good, and many excellent examples are available at $300 and $400.
 
Though I gave away my m4p some time ago I find this discussion interesting. My 'standard' lens was the 90 and using the 135 was not unusual. For my taste the 50 (dr) was a wide angle and seldom got used unless I was doing a close up.
 
I actually like the 135mm length. And it's sort of ironic that the 135mm length used to be extremely popular among amateurs before zooms became prevalent.

I'm sort of babbling, and I wouldn't mind seeing a 135 in a ZM mount. But I don't see it being produced because I don't think the demand is there. So I'll just make do with the other 135 Sonnars. Boo hoo -- poor me.
 
See also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=96986 for anti-135 prejudice.
Click to expand...

Prejudice meaning what? Opinion based on experience? I found the Summicron 90 to be a lovely lens, but the loveliness was negated by the low success rate shooting wide open. For wedding work, any Canon EF 85 was superior just because they were more effective tools working in those conditions. Under some circumstances, the technical superiority of rangefinder lenses is only a theoretical advantage.
 
I can focus the Nikkor 85/2 more accurately with a Nikon SP than I can on a Nikon F2 or F3. Same with the 105/2.5. I've never had trouble with them on the M3, or M8 with a 1.25x magnifier. I can use a 135/3.5 wide-open on the SP without problem, it of course has a 1x viewfinder.

The Nikkor 105 and 135 retained the same optics in F-mount. Since the rear element can clear the mirror, no reason to redesign most telephoto's between SLR's and RF's. I have a 200mm RF coupled lens in LTM- the trick they played was a 20ft minimum focus. Not very practical, but for $50 at a camera show- no complaints.

Up through the 1950s, "RF's Ruled" and if you wanted a telephoto for it, 135 was the longest practical lens to use unless going to a Viso-Flex type arrangement.

Nikkor 8.5cm f2, wide-open on the M8 using the 1.25x finder.

picture.php


Picked this shot as the subject is in motion. Being able to watch what is going on outside of the frame can be an advantage. That is something I miss when using the EVF on the EP2 or an SLR for these kinds of shots.
 
Last edited:
Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5, wide-open on the M8.

picture.php


picture.php


100% crop of above.
picture.php


This lens was under $300 here from the RFF classifieds, near mint condition. A Modern RF lens would run $2000 to compete with it, would have to be equal to the ZM 85/2. I would not pay 6x as much for what would be a marginal improvement- how many people would?
 
Now you have competition from the new 75/1.8 Voigtlander lens from Cosina. A 75/1.4 from Zeiss would most likely cost more than the 85/2. So, at least triple the price of the Voigtlander lens for a little over 1/2 of a stop.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to know how well the Zeiss 85/2 is doing sales-wise.

These are with the Nikkor 8.5cm F2, wide-open, on the M8.

picture.php


100% crop:

picture.php


This LTM lens was under $300, near mint condition.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Now you have competition from the new 75/1.8 Voigtlander lens from Cosina. A 75/1.4 from Zeiss would most likely cost more than the 85/2. So, triple the price of the Voigtlander lens for a little over 1/2 of a stop.
Click to expand...

well the oof areas from cosina not so pleasing compared to summulix...would I pay that much difference for this, no..but if there was a zeiss alternative closer to the signature of summilux, I would consider...it is not only +-1 or half stop case...at least for me, character of the lens is important too...
 
Thanks!

I just looked up the price of the ZM 85/2: Over $3,300. Eleven times what I paid for the Nikkor 85/2. I suspect it has to do with the sheer amount of glass and surface area that has to be finished. A Zeiss ZM 75/1.4 is would likely cost as much as a Summilux 75/1.4.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Thanks!

I just looked up the price of the ZM 85/2: Over $3,300. Eleven times what I paid for the Nikkor 85/2. I suspect it has to do with the sheer amount of glass and surface area that has to be finished. A Zeiss ZM 75/1.4 is would likely cost as much as a Summilux 75/1.4.
Click to expand...

The Summilux is out of production, right? The new C/V 75/1.? will fill the void.
The Nikkor 85/2.0 would be a bargain at twice the price.
 
Zeiss keeps cost down by using traditional lens formulations and not pushing the limits of those designs. The Biogon 21mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens and they could physically have made it an f/2.0 design but the company believes that they will compromise image quality by stretching the Biogon design. They could introduce aspherics or they could make the lens huge or they could just drop a long retrofocus Distagon formulation onto a ZM mount with RF coupling and call it a day. These are not optimal though.
Aspherics cost a ton of money which is why the 15mm f/2.8 costs more than many Leica lenses.
Bigger size lenses can keep cost down in the face of bigger maximum apertures but RF users want smaller optics so that would be a market detractor.
Putting the Distagon on an RF would just not be optimal due to size and long focus throw. Possible, but not optimal in the least.
Zeiss knows that once they price a lens above the $1500-2000 mark, their direct competition is Leica and Leica will win often on the name alone. The marque is why a lot of people own those lenses. If Zeiss could put out a perfect diffraction-limited lens a bit under Leica cost, handmade in Germany, the Leica focal equivalent would still outsell it.
Zeiss lenses are for people who want excellent performance at a decent price with better quality control than CV. They don't nor will they ever have the character of Leica lenses because they are all different designs. The lenses that Dr. Mandler designed are the ones that give special "character" to an image & they're all used anyways these days.

And why not a Zeiss 135? Because Zeiss would make it a conservative design with a smaller aperture. Why buy an expensive new Zeiss 135 when I could have a Leica 135 Tele-Elmar in near mint condition for less than the Zeiss lens new?

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Zeiss keeps cost down by using traditional lens formulations and not pushing the limits of those designs. The Biogon 21mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens and they could physically have made it an f/2.0 design but the company believes that they will compromise image quality by stretching the Biogon design. They could introduce aspherics or they could make the lens huge or they could just drop a long retrofocus Distagon formulation onto a ZM mount with RF coupling and call it a day. These are not optimal though.
Aspherics cost a ton of money which is why the 15mm f/2.8 costs more than many Leica lenses.
Bigger size lenses can keep cost down in the face of bigger maximum apertures but RF users want smaller optics so that would be a market detractor.
Putting the Distagon on an RF would just not be optimal due to size and long focus throw. Possible, but not optimal in the least.
Zeiss knows that once they price a lens above the $1500-2000 mark, their direct competition is Leica and Leica will win often on the name alone. The marque is why a lot of people own those lenses. If Zeiss could put out a perfect diffraction-limited lens a bit under Leica cost, handmade in Germany, the Leica focal equivalent would still outsell it.
Zeiss lenses are for people who want excellent performance at a decent price with better quality control than CV. They don't nor will they ever have the character of Leica lenses because they are all different designs. The lenses that Dr. Mandler designed are the ones that give special "character" to an image & they're all used anyways these days.

And why not a Zeiss 135? Because Zeiss would make it a conservative design with a smaller aperture. Why buy an expensive new Zeiss 135 when I could have a Leica 135 Tele-Elmar in near mint condition for less than the Zeiss lens new?

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

That is the answer I was thinking!

I agree that it might be due to formula/price+marketing.
 
Colin G. said:
If Zeiss released an 85mm 2.8 for the ZM line at a decent price, I'd buy one. Who's with me?
Click to expand...

Since they already had one in Contax/Yashica mount, I was all but convinced that's the direction they were heading.

But I suppose from a marketing point of view the aperture spread wasn't far enough from the 85/2 (whereas the C/Y line went to the famous 85/1.4).

One thing is for sure: that 85/4 tele-tessar isn't the star of the ZM product line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom