Do you expect new m-mount Zeiss lenses?

[haempe]

Do you expect new m-mount lenses from Zeiss?
Just curious. Long time nothing heard.
Perhaps the ZM line was an economic flop for Zeiss?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not many, and not soon.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jarski]

nope. they have usual RF focal lengths all covered. they could add specialty big&fast&expensive lenses but how big the market really would be, remembering Leica and CV already are there.

 

[hellomikmik]

maybe 35/1,4?
or 28/2 or 25/1,4? - not really expectations, just ideas.

I don't think their ZM line was economic flop - their official web shop has several lenses "sold out".

 

[ferider]

I want a googled 180/2.8. Then I'll get a ZI 🙂

 

[John Robertson]

I want a googled 180/2.8. Then I'll get a ZI 🙂

Zeiss tried this pre-war on the Contax, not a huge success.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...ces/RF-Nikkor/Contax_RF/ContaxRF180mmf282.htm

 

[ferider]

That was mirror-box dependent, right ?

The ZI could handle a 180/2.8 RF coupled .... Like a 135/2.8 on a Leica.

 

[John Robertson]

Not the original model, it was r/f coupled as was the 180mm Tele Tessar, but they found it unsatisfactory and introduced the mirror box, look at the other pages on the site.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...F-Nikkor/Contax_RF/ContaxRF180mmTTessar_A.htm
interesting that the Russians copied the 135, but not the 180!!
I have a Jupiter11 135mm, couples well to the Bessa R2.

 

[John Robertson]

Kodak once promised a 257mm r/f coupled lens for the Ektra, they never made even a prototype, but did have a 150mm lens. The cameras zoom viewfinder had settings for both.
The Ektra had a very long base r/f. Sadly it had major reliability problems. Handled one once, weird, all the controls seemed to be in the wrong place, and heavy as hell.
http://www.cameraquest.com/ektra.htm

 

[kossi008]

I'm much more modest, hoping merely for a ZM 85 mm f/2.8, as the f/2 is too big to my taste, and the f/4 just a tad too slow.

That not forthcoming, I might settle on an Elmarit...

 

[sanmich]

would love:
a 35 1.4
a 50 1.4 planar
a 28 2
a reasonably priced 85/90mm f/2
Please...

 

[thegman]

I think all the obvious lenses are covered, one thing I'd love to see though would be be some kind of Tri-Elmar at a Zeiss price. Even a Quad-Elmar 28/35/50/85 to cover all the ZI frame lines. I would not mind if it was as slow as treacle. Or maybe a Bi-Elmar, for just 28 and 50mm, something like that would be great.

 

[philosomatographer]

I personally do not expect any new M-mount lenses from them. Zeiss's lens range for their film-mount rangefinder is quite extensive, and I do not believe that they can be expected to cover all focal lengths in all extremes of aperture (they have never, in their past history, done that).

Zeiss has always (for 35mm photography, anyway) focused on making a conservative range of lenses with extremely stable and consistent performance. I think that they have done this. They have some world-beating lenses in M-mount (15/2.8, 25/2.8, etc) with performance that is not exceeded anywhere.

I don't think they will try to stretch the f/2.8 designs too much, and risk less-than-perfect performance.

 

[jsrockit]

Why wouldn't they make new ZM lenses? It may be few and far between, but something new will eventually appear... they always do.

 

[thrice]

I want them to manufacture the 16/8 Hologon in a new M mount. Not much chance of wobble on that 😛

Used prices on the Contax G version remain high, and converted lenses even higher. As for the native 15/8 M-Hologon... fuggedaboudit.

 

[gustavo peña]

Not particularly. And even if they did - I wouldn't buy one until I know that they've fixed the "wobble issue" with either better design or better QA. Once burned, twice shy. Don't get me wrong, I love my ZMs. But I've had enough.

what wobble issue?

 

[rover]

what wobble issue?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97703