raid
Dad Photographer
I am not planning to spend thousands of Dollars on converting several lenses to M mount. The high cost is "needed" only if I really want very badly to continue use my Leica cameras with several lenses, including the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4. I may in the end no do it.
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't own a digital Nikon camera and my old F mount film Nikons have not been used for years.
Orthogonal
Established
If you're planning on using this lens on film I'd suggest a C/Y body, if you're adapting to M because you want to shoot digital I'd suggest buying a full frame mirrorless body from Canon/Nikon/Sony or a 5D2 with the appropriate focusing screen.
The M mount converted 50 1.4 is pretty ungainly, significantly larger than equivalent native M mount options. it'd only make sense if you're both a total Leica M and C/Y fanatic.
raid
Dad Photographer
It is not in C/Y mount. It is in QMB mount for Rollei SLR 35mm cameras.
It is not worth it to me to get into yet another digital camera system because of this lens.
It is not worth it to me to get into yet another digital camera system because of this lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
I can use this lens on my Rollei SL35 cameras. I want to use it with a digital Leica. That’s all.
awilder
Alan Wilder
My understanding is that the optical the design of the 50/1.4 Planar for either the Rollei QBM or Zeiss C/Y mount is practically the same, the only real difference being the proprietary multi-coating; Rollei's HFT vs Zeiss' T* which I suspect would practically perform the same. One thing that always puzzled me about Rollei's QBM 35/1.4 or 85/1.4 was their triangular shaped aperture. Considering the expense of such lenses, it seems like a strange cost cutting idea leading to some unusual bokeh.
raid
Dad Photographer
QBM lenses have become costly for some reason. They may cost more than the corresponding CY lenses. Maybe they are "rare" when compared with CY lenses. The two lenses have three aperture blades, and I don't know why Zeiss chose this design for the 35mm Distagon and the 85mm Planar.
gabrielelopez
Established
I don't know but they are really the only glass that reminds me of that contax g image kind...I have only the 50, that's more than enough to me.
raid
Dad Photographer
Are these ZF lenses made by Cosina?
awilder
Alan Wilder
All ZF lenses are made by Cosina under the close supervision of Zeiss which of course does all the optical designing. The same was true when Yashica/Kyocera collaborated with Zeiss and made most of the lenses for the Contax RTS and G system. The only exception may have been a few more complex RTS lenses like the 35/1.4 or 55/1.2 lenses that came out of Germany. The Cosina and Yashica made lenses from the 60s-70s lenses prior to Zeiss' collaboration were nothing special but once Zeiss teamed up with them using their proprietary designs, it became a game changer.
raid
Dad Photographer
My QBM lenses are all Zeiss made in Germany lenses.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I'm assuming the early or premium QBM lenses like the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 were made in Germany. Maybe that also applies to the early 50/1.4 as well.
raid
Dad Photographer
Yes, my 50mm 1.4 Planar was made in Germany too. The Rolleinar lenses in QBM were made in Japan.
I have a Schneider 50/1.8 QBM that was made in Germany.
I have a Schneider 50/1.8 QBM that was made in Germany.
awilder
Alan Wilder
In the beginning of the SL 35 line, the QBM (type 1?) mount had some CZ lenses that started their career from the Contarex line such as the 18/4 Distagon as well as some Schneider lenses like the 50/1.8 SL-Xenon. Regarding the CZ 50/1.4 Planar, it was probably the same design as the C/Y Planar since Contarex only had a 55/1.4 Planar which was never multi-coated (T*). This was all very confusing period since the RTS system arrived in the mid-1970s so I expect there was much overlap in lenses made by Zeiss for both the C/Y RTS and the Rollei SL35 systems.
raid
Dad Photographer
There were one pin lenses by QBM and then two or thee pin lenses.
Dogman
Veteran
I have a Nikon mount CZ 50/1.4 Planar. Of course, it's made by Cosina but it's beautifully built and I love the look. My eyesight is poor, however, so I don't use it as much as the AF standard lenses I also have--several AF Nikkors and a very nice Tamron 45/1.8 with VR. I'm always impressed with the results from the Planar and I wish I could utilize it better.
There's also a CZ 25/2 in my lens cabinet, also Cosina-made. And it also has a beautiful rendering but I have the same focus limitations with it.
There's also a CZ 25/2 in my lens cabinet, also Cosina-made. And it also has a beautiful rendering but I have the same focus limitations with it.
Pretty similar lineup here, though mine are the ZK variant in Pentax KA mount. The 1.4/50mm Planar ZK is really excellent, as are my other two in the ZK line: 1.4/85mm Planar ZK (weighing 570g), and 2.0/28mm Distagon ZK (weighing 530g). As you can tell, these are large heavy lenses. The 50mm Planar ZK is the "baby" at only 330g!
raid
Dad Photographer
I also have a QMB 85/2.8 Sonnar and a 35/2.8 too. The lenses are well made and they are a little heavy.
awilder
Alan Wilder
From what I've read the premium 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 were available for all QBM versions and only made in Germany, most likely in Braunschweig at the Voigtlander Optical Works, not the Zeiss facility in Oberkochen. They did the same thing for Icarex lenses labeled as Carl Zeiss. The 35/2.8 and 85/2.8 were made in either Germany or Singapore depending on year, both were lighter in weight than the 50/1.4.
raid
Dad Photographer
I just read online that the QBM 35/1.4 shows 3 aperture blades but in fact each two blades were connected, so in fact it has 6 blades. In the 85/1.4 each three blades were connected, so a 3-blades aperture is in fact with 9 blades.