Do you miss a ZM 35mm f1.4?

Do you miss a ZM 35mm f1.4?

  • I will buy one, if it comes....

    Votes: 107 65.6%

  • I wait for a summilux asph or asph II

    Votes: 8 4.9%

  • I do not miss any ZM 35mm 1.4. I go for a pre-asph.

    Votes: 20 12.3%

  • Zeiss has their attention on SLR lenses, there will be no ZM 35/1.4

    Votes: 28 17.2%
  • Total voters
    163
  • Poll closed .
Bob, it doesn't 'need' to be bigger. The 35 Summilux ASPH is no bigger than the Biogon. May even be a tad smaller, but the Biogon in it's defense was designed for distortion control and field flatness, where it beats the Summilux. If a Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 is to be made, don't expect it to have the same qualities as the Biogon, in a small size, at least.

If the ZF/ZE SLR lens is anything to go by, a ZM version could be large, like the Nokton 35/1.2, but with a quality that could possibly exceed the Leica's quality. That merit alone may warrant it's success, even at a price point not too far away from the Leica.


Bob Michaels said:
Sure I would consider buying a ZM that was a stop faster than my ZM 35mm f2.0 if it was not much bigger and did not cost much more money. Oh, it needs to have the same optical qualities as well.

But I know the laws of optics will require it to be much larger and heavier. And the laws of economic production costs will require it to cost much more as well. So the harsh realities of physics and economics tell me that it is not really possible.

I guess that if I really wanted a 35mm f1.4, I would have bought one of those CV's to try. But since I have never done that, it probably won't happen with a ZM either.

My guess is that Zeiss has concluded that while there are may who wished they would make a lens like this, very few would actually buy one.
Click to expand...
 
JSU said:
Now you're talkin', doesn't even have to be reasonably compact, but sharp and NO focus shift. Aspheric would likely be essential.

I'd buy one even it came from Cosina Voigtlander. At the price points for the Summiluxes, I doubt that I would jump on one from Solms.

Just as a M9 is the only solution for a fast RF coupled 21 (faster than my 15/4.5 on my M8.2) it may well be the only game in town for an effective 35mm FoV as I have a Nokton 35/1.2 and there is no 28/1.4.
Click to expand...

While that would be a crowd pleaser and fill a market gap, I'm not so sure it would sell as well as the 35/1.4.
 
Zeiss and Cosina could just team up to 're-issue' the 35/1.2 under a Zeiss name, improve the ergonomics a bit (the aperture ring on the ZM lenses is much smoother than CV lenses), charge double what that CV lens used to cost, and voilà, people would bite.

Now that the Nok 35/1.2 is gone, there is a definite gap in the market between the CV 35/1.4 and Leica. A ZM 35/1.4 made in Germany or Japan (hopefully the latter) wouldn't compete with the CV offering.

The little CV gives an impressive compromise/performance ratio (a ratio that any consumer lens must negotiate), but in the end it wasn't the right ratio for me, compared to the CV 35/1.2

But having the chrome CV 35/1.2 that I got new for $800 (a steal if the CV 35/1.4 is $579 w/o hood), even if a ZM 35/1.4 came out, I doubt I would get it. The CV doesn't have focus shift, is really fast, usable at all apertures, and has a unique signature.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I am curious how many who say they want at ZM 35mm f1.4 have actually tried the CV 35mm f1.4 Nokton for only $579 to see if it would do the job?
Click to expand...

People interested in a Zeiss 35/1.4 at a premium aren't in the market for a lens that 'would do the job'. They want the best, or they'd have the 35/1.4. I'm sure a Jupiter or less would also do the job, but those that this market wants a 35/1.4 that performs at the top level wide open, similar to the Leica, but at a lower price.

For me, the CV 35/1.4 has a signature that I don't appreciate wide open, but it sure is a bargain for what it offers at that price point, no doubt. I really wanted to like the CV 35/1.4, but carry around the much larger 35/1.2 because it's rendering is much nicer IMHO.
 
leicashot said:
People interested in a Zeiss 35/1.4 at a premium aren't in the market for a lens that 'would do the job'. They want the best, or they'd have the 35/1.4. I'm sure a Jupiter or less would also do the job, but those that this market wants a 35/1.4 that performs at the top level wide open, similar to the Leica, but at a lower price.

For me, the CV 35/1.4 has a signature that I don't appreciate wide open, but it sure is a bargain for what it offers at that price point, no doubt. I really wanted to like the CV 35/1.4, but carry around the much larger 35/1.2 because it's rendering is much nicer IMHO.
Click to expand...

Kristian: fair enough! You tried it and found the optical quality not what you wanted.

I guess I am just too practical. I believe that you are a bit unique. I continue to believe that the number of people who say they would like to see something made is a much larger group than those who would actually buy such when they realize the tradeoffs (size and/or optical quality as well as price). Maybe it is a bit like Kodachrome where the masses wailed over it's discontinuance but still did not buy enough to convince Kodak to making it.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Kristian: fair enough! You tried it and found the optical quality not what you wanted.

I guess I am just too practical. I believe that you are a bit unique. I continue to believe that the number of people who say they would like to see something made is a much larger group than those who would actually buy such when they realize the tradeoffs (size and/or optical quality as well as price). Maybe it is a bit like Kodachrome where the masses wailed over it's discontinuance but still did not buy enough to convince Kodak to making it.
Click to expand...

I believe that the market is much larger than what you may think, and it's only growing. I believe the new Fuji X100 will have a HUGE impact on this market, and initially it may chew into M8/M9 sales, but eventually will build enthusiasm for 'real' rangefinders, which is probably why Leica 'may' be happy that 'they' didn't make it and someone else did. The 35mm lens is the biggest selling fixed lens in the world, so there is room for various versions in the market place.

Exciting times indeed
 
if the market is so large why did cosina discontinue the 35/1.2?

my guess is that it hit its saturation point and maybe there is something new coming that will encourage owners to sell the 1.2 and buy it.
it's a cycle...a small cycle.
 
leicashot said:
People interested in a Zeiss 35/1.4 at a premium aren't in the market for a lens that 'would do the job'. They want the best, or they'd have the 35/1.4.
Click to expand...

If they want the best, they can buy a 35 Summilux ASPH.

It's not as though a ZM could or would improve substantially on that lens. I mean, really. It's nearly as good as the ZM Biogon-C, two stops faster, MUCH smaller and lighter than the 1.2 Nokton, and has impeccable ergonomics. And the new version is apparently even better.

Sigh. Still trying to figure out why I sold mine.
 
semilog said:
If they want the best, they can buy a 35 Summilux ASPH.

It's not as though a ZM could or would improve substantially on that lens. I mean, really. It's nearly as good as the ZM Biogon-C, two stops faster, MUCH smaller and lighter than the 1.2 Nokton, and has impeccable ergonomics. And the new version is apparently even better.

Sigh. Still trying to figure out why I sold mine.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Zeiss couldn't make a better 35/1.4? I believe they could. In some ways the Nokton 35/1.2 is better than the Summilux ASPH for a fraction of the price. I also think the new ZF/ZE will be the best 35/1.4 made to date. CV/Zeiss have proven their abilities and I have no reason to doubt them.
 
Cant miss something I never had, but I think that poll is missing an option - No need for ZM 35/1.4 as I'm very happy with my CV 35/1.2. 😉 And seriously - if ZM 35/fast ever does come out - it'll still be hard to beat CV 35/1.2. This goes for any brand for that matter. Unless, they just will take CV 35/1.2 and re-brand it Zeiss and sell for a lot more (something they should have done to begin with), but good for us - we can have a super lens like no other from CV at a decent price, yet unfortunatelly no longer made. But I'm sure there will be plenty used. I do wonder how many of them were made over the years? Anyone knows? But if M-Hexanon 50/1.2 can be found and only 2000 of those were made - CV 35/1.2 will not be hard to find either, I believe.

As you can tell from my reply - I have no plans for Zeiss M mount 35/1.4 if it ever comes.
 
A CZ distagon 35mm f1.4 would be exactly what I am looking for, provided it's in a smaller package than the f1.2 nokton. I just wish zeiss would carry the same optical formula from the c/y mount into the ZM mount (the Z-x versions simply don't have as much charm, to refined perhaps...), I would be sold.
I would also like to see the classic f1.4 planar in 50mm and 85mm as well.

Though I'd rather sell my M6 kit for a Nikon SP reissue anyway.
 
Krosya said:
Cant miss something I never had, but I think that poll is missing an option - No need for ZM 35/1.4 as I'm very happy with my CV 35/1.2. 😉 And seriously - if ZM 35/fast ever does come out - it'll still be hard to beat CV 35/1.2. This goes for any brand for that matter. Unless, they just will take CV 35/1.2 and re-brand it Zeiss and sell for a lot more (something they should have done to begin with), but good for us - we can have a super lens like no other from CV at a decent price, yet unfortunatelly no longer made. But I'm sure there will be plenty used. I do wonder how many of them were made over the years? Anyone knows? But if M-Hexanon 50/1.2 can be found and only 2000 of those were made - CV 35/1.2 will not be hard to find either, I believe.

As you can tell from my reply - I have no plans for Zeiss M mount 35/1.4 if it ever comes.
Click to expand...

Gonna remember you saying this mate 😉
 
None of the above. They may well make one or they may well be wrapped up in their SLR lines. Be that as it may be, I'd rather get my hands on another Canon 35/1.8 instead.

And I certainly have no interest in the Asph or Pre-Asph lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom