Are ZM's a "Lifetime" investment?

[Penceler]

With so much talk on the forums about the "Zeiss wobble" I'm curious what the feeling is about the longterm durability of ZM lenses for amateur use. I've used the 50 2.0 for a few years now and love it. I'm planning on adding the 28 and 35 but being mere mortal, I would hope to be using them 20 years from now (like my Contax & OM lenses).

Any thoughts?

John

 

[Turtle]

I would not be too concerned. A couple of mine developed the wobble from light use and I am confident it is merely the locking nut, but being stuck in Afghanistan I have not been able to get a tech to look at them. the 50 planar loosened up suddenly and the wobble came at the same time. Still razor sharp and does not move unless you waggle it with your fingers i.e. it is not floppy, just not locked tight as it should be.

I do not think they are as well made as the average Leica lens (as I own both) but would still argue that the price performance ratio is very good. If you have to pay for a tech to service each one (and use better lube as I find the factory lube a touch sticky), put threadlock on the retainer, you still save a fortune over a Leica lens.

I prefer the build of my 90 elmarit-M, my summarit 35 M and my (now sold) 50 lux asph, but for the money the ZMs are dynamite. Can't make the 35 biogon flare and the 28 is fantastic. Even Leica lenses need services and have some faults. I think the ZM wobble issue is plain stupid and annoying, but it certainly is not a show stopper. For me it has been annoying as I am shooting a long term project and cannot be without my lenses so I have had to wait until the project ends before getting them fixed. If you live somewhere sensible, the worst case is a little postage and being without them for a few weeks. Thats worth a $1K saving per lens if you ask me.

Addition: Each ZM of mine performs incredibly well. No corner softness, no focus shift, very, very resistant to flare, great resolution from wide open (even the 35 f2 biogon is very good contrary to some reports) and with a very nice (and constant from lens to lens) tonality. The actual performance has left me wanting nothing. Now a ZM 35 1.4 would be nice...

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

But do you invest a "life time" amount on the ZM?
I don't think the ZMs have ever been designed to last a life time but for regular amateur use, it should last 20 years easily.

That's my thought.

 

[payasam]

You shouldn't compare them with your Contax lenses, which are good for many lifetimes.

 

[Ronald M]

If they break in a third world photoshoot, they are no good.

I will get shot down for this, but Zeiss never made a quality camera. The lenses are great. The cameras are fine as new, but nothing was ever made for long term durability. Leica is now falling into that same trap. The lens mechanics are cheaper and cheaper. Numerous reports on diaphragm problems on the 50 1.4 `Lux. This is a $3000 lens! Sure they fix it, but I would not want to send it in when it is 2 months old.

 

[varjag]

Fred, CV lenses on average feel better built than ZM series. Yes I know they both assembled at the same place by same people.

Hard to tell how well ZM lenses will do with time: all samples I've seen (with issues and without) were pristine/mint/LN condition.

 

[thomasw_]

Fred, CV lenses on average feel better built than ZM series.

not in my experience. i have used most zm and cv lenses, and the only cv lens that has a build quality as good or better than most zm lenses is the 35/1,2. it is a tank. this is to say nothing of its optical qualities 😉 zm lenses with an adjusted mount would last a long time. even with a leica lens, its durability will show under the type of use it receives.

 

[MCTuomey]

Addition: Each ZM of mine performs incredibly well. No corner softness, no focus shift, very, very resistant to flare, great resolution from wide open (even the 35 f2 biogon is very good contrary to some reports) and with a very nice (and constant from lens to lens) tonality. The actual performance has left me wanting nothing. Now a ZM 35 1.4 would be nice...

My thoughts exactly, emphasis on the consistency of imaging and handling. If they need repair, I'll get them fixed. Plenty of the Leica bodies and lenses I've owned needed servicing, why would I expect mechanical and electrical devices of any kind or make to be different?

Thomas raises an important question: how hard are you on your equipment? Do you service it regularly or neglect it? These factors are rather signficant in assessing the useful life of your gear.

For the kind of soul who dislikes taking on any "beta" risk, buy older well-maintained leica gear. Little to no "investment" risk there.

I suggest the OP buy one ZM used lens from a reputable seller, try it for a reasonable period. If it doesn't make you happy, well you've learned firsthand and you can sell it at little or no loss. As pointed out, the ZM line presents image and handling consistency, so trying one is fairly generalizable to the others (exception perhaps for the sonnar).

Ronald M: with all due respect, do you really expect zero defect performance on any gear you buy that's made today? imho, that's not reasonable at all. it is simply cost-prohibitive as a manufacturing proposition anywhere in the world. i would not want to pay the incremental cost that would be passed through by the maker - and i think that cost could be very large, 1/3 or more easily vs current prices, regardless of make. i prefer the option of buying goods with less than zero defect performance and facing the small probability of a repair or return. it's simply less expensive to me in the long run.

 

[Tom A]

I have the full complement of ZM lenses for M's - the ones made in Japan.
None have given my any problem. It is easy enough to tighten the rear lock-ring if needed, but so far none of mine have needed it.
My CV lenses are holding up fine too, the 15f4.5 Heliar in LTM (early production #) did shed the front ring - but it was easily refastened. My 75f2.5 (one of the first made) is prone to chipping off the paint a bit - but that does not affect performance. My pre-production sample of the 35f2.5 II had the aperture ring slipping - but the ring was replaced under warranty.
My later Leica Lenses has also had its share of problem. Summicron version IV and V had aperture ring drives cracking (replaced under warranty), my 50f1,4 Asph was quite rough initially, but heavy use smoothed it out. My 35f1.4 Asph flared so badly that Leica replaced it (after 5 month), but the 2nd one still flared too much for my taste so I sold it in the end. My last Noctilux had a hood that required herculean efforts to pull out - and if you wanted to push it back in - you had to bang it against something!!!!. The one lens that has functioned flawlessly from day one is the Summicron 75f2.
I dont abuse my lenses - but I dont baby them either. I suspect that any of the new lenses from Zeiss/CV/Leica will hold up fine, even with heavy use. OK, they are not as "solid" as say a early SOOZY 90f2 or a 50Dr - but they dont weigh as much either. For sheer build quality, try to check out prewar Zeiss Contax lenses (Biogon 35f2.8 or Planar 35f3.5) - or, from the sublime to the ridiculous -check the lenses for a Robot Royal 36 - turned from solid stainless steel bars!!!!!
Any equipment that is used heavily - needs to be serviced occasionally. The bane of today is air-travel and airframe vibrations. Even the most stubborn lock ring or set-screw can be shaken loose by a 10 hour flight!

 

[fuwen]

I have the made in Japan ZMs 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2. All have not given me problems of any sort yet (maybe I am lucky but I dun baby my lenses). Although build quality wise I feel that the Contax C/Ys are better than the Cosina.

But to last 20 years I dun see a problem.

 

[redpony]

To ask an obvious question: how often should one expect to service a ZM lens and how much does it generally cost?

 

[Quercus]

I have amix of zm and cv lenses and bodies as well as quite a bit of rollei 2000 and 3003. zm stuff feels different from rollei zeiss but whether it is built as well or not is very difficult to tell. I am very happy with the quality - cosina zeiss lenses feel more metallic as especially compared to rubber shrouded qbm IV rollei - compared to carl/rollei zeiss they feel very similar though knurling on carl zeiss qbm I is sharp by comparison to zm

diaphragm rings and focus feel identical even down to a very slight focusing ring movement that all my carl zeiss qbm I lenses have but rollei zeiss qbm IV do not have the same movement

zeiss lens coating lasts wether T, HFT or even pentax smc (almost the same coating)

but then like everything it depends how you use the stuff yourself - and my zm while used regularly does get wrapped and bagged much more than my pentax dSLRs

two planars

 

[Penceler]

Good to hear about all the positive experiences with the ZM line up. The dark side of the web is that all you tend to hear about are the bad experiences. I've been using my 50 for about 2 years now. I'll be adding to the collection.

I take it the simple answer is yes, maybe, depends?

Thanks for all the comments.

John

 

[Tom A]

With lenses, I dont send them in for service unless something is broken! It is actually quite rare than any lens requires service. Occasionally, if I pick up a used lens, I will have it re-lubed and/or cleaned - but only if it is stiff or "gritty" feeling and has visible haze.
Lenses tend to "fail" progressively and you feel it. Thats when it is time to service them.