Do you miss a ZM 35mm f1.4?

[MCTuomey]

Thanks for taking the time to post. Couple questions

1. Would it be reasonable to think the summilux still needs further work/would you consider sending it back for a re-check?

2. What was the focus distance for the last test shots?

 

[italy74]

No
I wouldn't get it.
Biogon 35 / 2 is the most and the best 35 you could think of in terms of sheer performance... and it's expected to be !
Actually, maybe Zeiss might refine and stretch to f/1.7 - f/1.8 (replacing the f/2) but going further would mean a loss in terms of lens goodness. Besides, on a RF camera - which takes advantage of much slower shutter times - it's more a collector item than something really useful. The next truly interesting step will be having a polarizing + uv or skylight lens already integrated in the lens itself. The UV/skylight might follow the front "meniscus" principle - to be protection for all the others, while the polarizing might be selectable from 0 (absent) to 1 or 2 EV with a dedicated ring. Given lens size, however, it might be easier to see such things on a SLR lens where it would be unfortunately useless. However, that's an idea to make something new and original with future lenses.

 

[horosu]

Thanks for the replies.

I have since sold the lens, thinking that since it was adjusted, it should be OK and did not have any "problems". The backfocus and slight focus shift which is apparent (look at the Summilux FLE samples at f2 and f4. The f2 is obviously sharper) I think are inherent features of this lens design.

The distance was around 2-2.5 m for the last shots.

BUT: I dearly miss the f1.4 aperture of the 'Lux!!!!

So much so, that I will check another sample of this lens (which I have ordered at Leicashop in Vienna 8 months ago), which has finally arrived. I will, however, go there with the M9 and the Biogon and will throughly check the new lens personally before making a payment.

This is why Zeiss clearly has an oppurtunity there: the most used FL of the rangefinder system, the most versatile FL does not have a satisfactory lens in the current Zeiss/Leics/CV offerings: a f1.4 lens with no focus shift, back focus etc and with a reasonable size (the CV was too big IMHO).

Kind regards, Horea

 

[ChrisC]

......Biogon 35 / 2 is the most and the best 35 you could think of in terms of sheer performance... and it's expected to be !
Actually, maybe Zeiss might refine and stretch to f/1.7 - f/1.8 (replacing the f/2) but going further would mean a loss in terms of lens goodness. .....

Dino

Interestingly I think, Erwin Puts is on record as stating he believed the Zeiss f2.0 is a slightly over-stretched design and he suggested that it would have been better lens if designed for f2.8 max. aperture. Since then, the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon has been released, and received with great enthusiasm by those of us fortunate to have one.

For me, the C-Biogon is a 'classic' lens, it doesn't get in my way of making pictures with various flaws, or 'character' as others might say.

.............. Chris

 

[leicashot]

Dino

Interestingly I think, Erwin Puts is on record as stating he believed the Zeiss f2.0 is a slightly over-stretched design and he suggested that it would have been better lens if designed for f2.8 max. aperture. Since then, the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon has been released, and received with great enthusiasm by those of us fortunate to have one.

For me, the C-Biogon is a 'classic' lens, it doesn't get in my way of making pictures with various flaws, or 'character' as others might say.

.............. Chris

The Biogon-C is a great lens for daylight, but wide open creates some of the worst vignetting I've ever experienced, which is very bad indoors. Thats the only reason I no longer have it.

 

[ChrisC]

.......
This is why Zeiss clearly has an oppurtunity there: the most used FL of the rangefinder system, the most versatile FL does not have a satisfactory lens in the current Zeiss/Leics/CV offerings: a f1.4 lens with no focus shift, back focus etc and with a reasonable size (the CV was too big IMHO)........... Horea

Well ......... there are exemplary lenses to choose from, but your measure of 'satisfactory' is not a universal one. Whilst I'd use an ultra fast lens for low light, necessarily wide-open work, for all other occassions I'd want a slower lens for all it's design, weight, size, cost, performance, advantages over faster options.

It's just a thought, but maybe the reason there aren't the inexpensive, light, small, non field curvature, non CA wide open, non focus shift 35mm lenses for the 'M' platform that some wish for is; maybe such a thing is a tad hard to make? I could be wrong ........ it's just a thought.

Meanwhile, for my work, I prefer exemplary rather than satisfactory.

............... Chris

 

[horosu]

Chris,

You are of course right. But I didn't ask for an inexpensive, small, light and all other qualities lens. I just want it to be a potent performer at 1.4, have no focus shift and it shouldn't be too big (I know that this is vague, but nevertheless).

The perfect lens does not exist, true.

But, for instance, for the 50mm FL you have the Summilux ASPH which is very, very good.

I am only asking for a comparable lens in the 35mm FL, but I realize that I may ask for too much.

Horea

 

[ferider]

What's wrong with the 35 Summilux ASPH, Horea ?

 

[horosu]

Well, it still has focus-shift for one, isn't it?

While I agree that in practice in some type of photography this is not very important, I for one would like the left eye to be in focus if I choose so and not the right one

 

[italy74]

Dino

Interestingly I think, Erwin Puts is on record as stating he believed the Zeiss f2.0 is a slightly over-stretched design and he suggested that it would have been better lens if designed for f2.8 max. aperture. Since then, the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon has been released, and received with great enthusiasm by those of us fortunate to have one.

For me, the C-Biogon is a 'classic' lens, it doesn't get in my way of making pictures with various flaws, or 'character' as others might say.

.............. Chris

Chris, you're right and of course I agree. Mine was more an hyperbole than a real advice or suggestion to Zeiss just because I know that usually performances lies on the smaller aperture lenses (if designed with criterion)
Actually I find the F/2 of the actual biogon the best compromise between performances, size and cost

 

[leicashot]

Agree with the former, not the latter. Give me my Summicron v4, it is sufficient, unless I need f-1.2.

The reason I'd take the Biogon is for the lack of distortion, field flatness and even performance across the field wide open. Though I do love the Summicron for the size and focus tab.

 

[Doug]

What's wrong with the 35 Summilux ASPH, Horea ?

Well, it still has focus-shift for one, isn't it?
While I agree that in practice in some type of photography this is not very important, I for one would like the left eye to be in focus if I choose so and not the right one

I'd prefer not to have to deal with focus shift too. Unfortunately, the 35/2 Biogon ZM has similar focus shift as the 35/1.4 ASPH type I, the way I read Sean Reid's review on the M9, and the new type II still has some shift. But these have much less than the 35/1.4 Nokton, and the C-Biogon and 1.2 Nokton appear free of focus shift. This doesn't seem to matter as much on film, but the digital-M users may either need to get choosy or learn to cope! For the most part, I just need to learn to deal with it...

 

[horosu]

Well Doug,

The focus-shift of the Biogon isn't too much apparent in my pics, isn't it? On the other hand, the other lens is another matter....

 

[Doug]

The focus-shift of the Biogon isn't too much apparent in my pics, isn't it? On the other hand, the other lens is another matter....

I agree; the focus shift on the 35/2 Biogon is so little it doesn't bother me, and the same for the 35 'lux ASPH type I. If Zeiss made a 35mm f/1.4 Planar/Biogon/Distagon ZM, then it might have somewhat more focus shift like the C-Sonnar, or alternatively the concern to avoid that without aspheric surfaces might result in a large complex expensive lens.

TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[leicashot]

I agree; the focus shift on the 35/2 Biogon is so little it doesn't bother me, and the same for the 35 'lux ASPH type I. If Zeiss made a 35mm f/1.4 Planar/Biogon/Distagon ZM, then it might have somewhat more focus shift like the C-Sonnar, or alternatively the concern to avoid that without aspheric surfaces might result in a large complex expensive lens.

TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Doug why do you think a Zeiss 35/1.4 would have more focus shift? I doubt CV would discontinue the Nokton 35/1.2 to bring out a 35/1.4 with focus shift.

 

[horosu]

Who said something about free lunch: give us a damn good lunch and we'll gladly pay for it 😀

TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[ChrisC]

Some might be interested to read this 'interview' with Zeiss lens designer Christian Beder in Camera Lens News No. 36 [July 2010 -Zeiss website] :

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/785c9ff1f55c808ac125774c00590b19

The article inevitably covers some of the ground in this thread's discussion.

.............. Chris

 

[Paul Luscher]

Perfectly happy with my f2 Biogon. That's been fast enough for me in the situations I shoot, which often involves low light work.

 

[Doug]

Doug why do you think a Zeiss 35/1.4 would have more focus shift? I doubt CV would discontinue the Nokton 35/1.2 to bring out a 35/1.4 with focus shift.

Hi- As we know, the lens design hits more problems the faster the aperture, and wider the angle of view. Not all things can be corrected as we'd like, within size and cost constraints.

Zeiss appears unwilling to use aspheric surfaces, as far as we know... as this reminds me Pentax has been known to not always mention their aspheric elements. The f1.2 Nokton has three aspheric surfaces. Without aspheric surfaces a Zeiss 35 f1.4 might be large and complex.

Faster lenses seem more likely to suffer from focus shift. The Biogon 35 f2.8 has virtually none, the 35 f2 has a little, the Sonnar 50 f/1.5 has quite a bit. It just seems likely that a Zeiss 35 f1.4 might have some focus shift in the mix of characteristics.

The f1.2 Nokton is clearly a masterpiece, and with no noticeable focus shift too. Yet it's so big and heavy that some won't buy it. So I think a fast Zeiss 35 would have to be smaller than that. We're used to Zeiss lenses being a little larger than the competition, but here other compromises might need to be reached. Or maybe Zeiss will simply decline the available compromises in a 35 f1.4 ZM...

 

[italy74]

The f1.2 Nokton is clearly a masterpiece, and with no noticeable focus shift too.

Ciao Doug
I'm not an expert but I knew exactly the opposite... however I tend to assume you're right, since I had a very few info about that lens, and neither recently, so I might have misread them. Are you sure about the optical quality of the CV ? ( Just to reassure me, not to start a flame nor a debate ) Can you elaborate a bit more what you know about this lens ?