Is the Zeiss Ikon still coming?

aizan said:
the ultraprimes are for movie cameras, so they won't be made in m-mount.
Click to expand...

I read the hype on the website again:

"Chapter II: The Partner for our Ideal Camera

We at Zeiss are enthusiastic photographers. Demanding optics for photogrammetric, cine lenses for movie production, lenses for exploring the universe, optical measurement equipment, etc. – in all our daily technical developments and advances, we are always thinking of ways to make the technical highlights of these systems useful for photography.

Primarily, we wanted to provide photographers with the strengths of our UltraPrime™ for ARRI. The extremely high image definition enables pictures so crisp they can be displayed at the size of a movie screen without a loss of detail. Thanks to the long-lasting design, they can be used forever and anywhere – in the burning heat as well as the icy cold; in humid rain forests and in the desert – they will be with you for decades. The UltraPrime™ lenses enable intense, pure colors in the picture without annoying reflections and without fog. However, none of our camera manufacturers had a suitable camera in their product lines. And we alone would not have been able to develop and produce such a camera within such a short time. A solution to this dilemma presented itself at photokina 2002."

Zeiss Ikon wants to give us the STRENGTHS of their UltraPrime™lenses, not the actual UltraPrime™ lenses themselves. That's very clever!
 
<<The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.>>

The article in question has some serious inaccuracies. The earliest Nikon cameras were quite different from the Contax. They used a Leica-inspired shutter, but it was much louder and so wasn't a direct knock-off. Their viewfinders were different from both the Leica and Contax. Their internal workings were quite different -- I taken apart both Nikons and the Kiev rangefinder, which is made with Zeiss-Contax tooling. Canon copied the Leica mount (as did numerous other camera makers) while Nikon copied the Contax mount. The article suggests that photojournalists covering the Korean war were entranced by $10 lenses and so convinced their editors that these were better than German originals selling for hundreds of dollars. A few problems here: 1) These correspondents had mainly covered World War II five years earlier using exclusively German lenses -- they knew their equipment; they already owned the German lenses and were trading them for the NIkkors; 2) Most people getting paid for cutting-edge imaging use the best possible equipment they can find, not only is money not an issue, but typically a professional photographer isn't even paying for his or her equipment; 3) The German lensesm both prewar and postwar were also readily available at very usable prices due to the simultaneous occupation of Germany -- the United States was awash with German cameras.
The article also calls the lenses in question exact copies of German designs. That's simply not accurate. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, introduced in 1950, is based on a Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 but is faster and with an entirely different construction. I own and use both lenses and the Nikkor is simply faster and sharper. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 has no German equivalent and is a totally different design from the Biogon. The Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 is perhaps most like the Zeiss equivalent, but then, this is the lens that first caught the eye of those American photojournalists. Within five years of introducing serious consumer and professional-level cameras, the Japanese companies were making a myriad of distinct designs with no German equivalents. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8; the 50mm f/1.1; the legendary 105mm f/2.5.
The truth is that Zeiss/Contax made a phenomal camera in the 1930s, had its staff and workshop gutted after World War II, rebounded nicely, but never really recovered from or matched the increased usability of the Leica M3, the Nikon S2 and later models as well as the later Canon L-series rangefindersm, which had a dizzying number of innovations and product models.
VinceC
 
VinceC said:
<<The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.>>

The article in question has some serious inaccuracies. The earliest Nikon cameras were quite different from the Contax. They used a Leica-inspired shutter, but it was much louder and so wasn't a direct knock-off. Their viewfinders were different from both the Leica and Contax. Their internal workings were quite different -- I taken apart both Nikons and the Kiev rangefinder, which is made with Zeiss-Contax tooling. Canon copied the Leica mount (as did numerous other camera makers) while Nikon copied the Contax mount. The article suggests that photojournalists covering the Korean war were entranced by $10 lenses and so convinced their editors that these were better than German originals selling for hundreds of dollars. A few problems here: 1) These correspondents had mainly covered World War II five years earlier using exclusively German lenses -- they knew their equipment; they already owned the German lenses and were trading them for the NIkkors; 2) Most people getting paid for cutting-edge imaging use the best possible equipment they can find, not only is money not an issue, but typically a professional photographer isn't even paying for his or her equipment; 3) The German lensesm both prewar and postwar were also readily available at very usable prices due to the simultaneous occupation of Germany -- the United States was awash with German cameras.
The article also calls the lenses in question exact copies of German designs. That's simply not accurate. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, introduced in 1950, is based on a Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 but is faster and with an entirely different construction. I own and use both lenses and the Nikkor is simply faster and sharper. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 has no German equivalent and is a totally different design from the Biogon. The Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 is perhaps most like the Zeiss equivalent, but then, this is the lens that first caught the eye of those American photojournalists. Within five years of introducing serious consumer and professional-level cameras, the Japanese companies were making a myriad of distinct designs with no German equivalents. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8; the 50mm f/1.1; the legendary 105mm f/2.5.
The truth is that Zeiss/Contax made a phenomal camera in the 1930s, had its staff and workshop gutted after World War II, rebounded nicely, but never really recovered from or matched the increased usability of the Leica M3, the Nikon S2 and later models as well as the later Canon L-series rangefindersm, which had a dizzying number of innovations and product models.
VinceC
Click to expand...

Marc James Small is a Virginia attorney and the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium. You could be 100% correct. :confused:

1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.
 
>>1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.<<

I think the operative words here are "similar" -- the Nikon I very simply isn't a copy of the Contax, though it clearly is inspired by the Contax and sought to emulate its "look" just as, say, today's CV Bessas try to emulate a certain Leica "look" that is associated with quality. In fact, the Nikon I had some real ideosyncracies like a "better idea" for the shape of the negative that was eventually rejected by U.S. import authorities because it wasn't campatible with Kodacromes. In the copying of the lens mount, don't forget that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are differences of opinion on whether Nippon Kogaku (NiKon) botched their copy of the Contax mount or did it on purpose so that only their own longer lenses would fit on their cameras.

I wasn't around during the Zeiss-Nikon wars of the early '50s, but it's a battle that has long since been decided by the marketplace. Apparently, Zeiss contended that their 20-year-old camera and 5cm lens had been copied and cried foul. Within months, Nikon so advanced and improved the design that there was nothing to dispute. Nikon and Kwanon/Canon then began producing a wide array of new lens products and bodies (Canon has a dizzying number of cameras that start as copies of screwmount Leicas and continuously improve the design). By the end of the 1950s, Nikon put a mirror box and new lens mount on their latest SP rangefinder to create the Nikon F and unintentionally created the SLR revolution (not the first SLR, but the first really useable one that remained in shooter's kit bags for decades). Leica's screwmount cameras and lenses were very, very widely copied. Leica's response was to create the M-series, a design so usable it would dominate rangefinder cameras for half a century. Zeiss kept making a refined 1930s camera while Nippon Kogaku and Kwanon/Canon kept up a fairly relentless campaign of product improvement known as Kaizan -- the philosophy of constant refinement of the product and process. A nearly identical war took place between Detroit and Tokyo in the 1970s and '80s, with comparable cries of 'foul' and a similar outcome in the automobile marketplace. I, like a whole lot of other people, used to drive a Chevy and now drive a Toyota, not because it's a good copy of the Chevy but because it's a vast improvement.
 
Also, Stephen Gandy's site has a nice overview of the Nikon I.

http://www.cameraquest.com/NRFOne.htm

He describes it as a cross between a Contax II and a Leica III.

It's important to remember when looking back into history that decision-makers at the time had little idea what the future would hold. Nippon Kogaku made optics for an outlawed military industrial complex and was desperately searching for a way to stay in business and took a stab at consumer cameras because the only people in Japan with money at the time were American military personnel, and they all wanted to buy a camera. That's way so many old Nikons have an "EP" marking, designating them for sale in a military exchange.
 
I agree w/you that Small overstates his case in that article, but he has responded to some of your points in other fora, so for the record: 1) the problem wasn't that there weren't any German lenses available, just that in the early '50s there was still a shortage of the then-high tech *coated* German (particularly Zeiss) glass, which made them expensive; 2) unlike today, many photojournalists back then were expected to furnish their own equipment; 3) see #1. Again, I think he overstates it when he says the Japanese "stole" the German technology (& Small acknowledges that it was all w/the approval of the American Occupation authority, which wanted to speed the revival of Japanese industry), but there's no question that many, if not all, of the early post-WWII Japanese cameras & lenses were closely based on German technology. Nor does Small, or anyone else, dispute the fact that the Japanese rapidly improved their product to the point where they left the Germans, especially the lethargic & perfectionist Zeiss Ikon, in the dust. I say, if the Carl Zeiss Foundation doesn't have a problem having the new Zeiss Ikon camera & (most) lenses made in Japan, as they did w/the Kyocera Contax stuff, who am I to complain? ;-)

As to the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S being faster & sharper than the post-WWII 50/1.5 Sonnar, that hasn't been my experience @ all. I've never taken the lenses apart, but the diagrams I've seen look pretty darn close. Faster? Probably, in a technical sense (how much of a difference is there between f/1.4 v. f/1.5?), but I can't see it in my slides & negs, even when scanned @ 4800 dpi or viewed through a grain focuser. Re: sharpness again I can't say I've seen any difference either; in my field use, they perform the same to the extent that they have identical boke & flare. Perhaps someone w/the abundance of free time & access to multiple lens samples & perfectly collimated bodies could do a lab test to answer things once & for all!

VinceC said:
<<The nIKON S was a clone of the Contax rangefinder camera. There is an interesting article HERE by the author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium.>>

The article in question has some serious inaccuracies. The earliest Nikon cameras were quite different from the Contax. They used a Leica-inspired shutter, but it was much louder and so wasn't a direct knock-off. Their viewfinders were different from both the Leica and Contax. Their internal workings were quite different -- I taken apart both Nikons and the Kiev rangefinder, which is made with Zeiss-Contax tooling. Canon copied the Leica mount (as did numerous other camera makers) while Nikon copied the Contax mount. The article suggests that photojournalists covering the Korean war were entranced by $10 lenses and so convinced their editors that these were better than German originals selling for hundreds of dollars. A few problems here: 1) These correspondents had mainly covered World War II five years earlier using exclusively German lenses -- they knew their equipment; they already owned the German lenses and were trading them for the NIkkors; 2) Most people getting paid for cutting-edge imaging use the best possible equipment they can find, not only is money not an issue, but typically a professional photographer isn't even paying for his or her equipment; 3) The German lensesm both prewar and postwar were also readily available at very usable prices due to the simultaneous occupation of Germany -- the United States was awash with German cameras.
The article also calls the lenses in question exact copies of German designs. That's simply not accurate. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, introduced in 1950, is based on a Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 but is faster and with an entirely different construction. I own and use both lenses and the Nikkor is simply faster and sharper. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 has no German equivalent and is a totally different design from the Biogon. The Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 is perhaps most like the Zeiss equivalent, but then, this is the lens that first caught the eye of those American photojournalists. Within five years of introducing serious consumer and professional-level cameras, the Japanese companies were making a myriad of distinct designs with no German equivalents. The Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8; the 50mm f/1.1; the legendary 105mm f/2.5.
The truth is that Zeiss/Contax made a phenomal camera in the 1930s, had its staff and workshop gutted after World War II, rebounded nicely, but never really recovered from or matched the increased usability of the Leica M3, the Nikon S2 and later models as well as the later Canon L-series rangefindersm, which had a dizzying number of innovations and product models.
VinceC
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hey, considering what cine lenses cost (makes Leica stuff look dirt cheap), I'll be happy w/glass that has just some of the UltraPrime tech.

RJBender said:
I read the hype on the website again:

"Chapter II: The Partner for our Ideal Camera

We at Zeiss are enthusiastic photographers. Demanding optics for photogrammetric, cine lenses for movie production, lenses for exploring the universe, optical measurement equipment, etc. – in all our daily technical developments and advances, we are always thinking of ways to make the technical highlights of these systems useful for photography.

Primarily, we wanted to provide photographers with the strengths of our UltraPrime™ for ARRI. The extremely high image definition enables pictures so crisp they can be displayed at the size of a movie screen without a loss of detail. Thanks to the long-lasting design, they can be used forever and anywhere – in the burning heat as well as the icy cold; in humid rain forests and in the desert – they will be with you for decades. The UltraPrime™ lenses enable intense, pure colors in the picture without annoying reflections and without fog. However, none of our camera manufacturers had a suitable camera in their product lines. And we alone would not have been able to develop and produce such a camera within such a short time. A solution to this dilemma presented itself at photokina 2002."

Zeiss Ikon wants to give us the STRENGTHS of their UltraPrime™lenses, not the actual UltraPrime™ lenses themselves. That's very clever!
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for helping to clear some of that up. I've always suspected I have a less-than-perfect example of the 5cm Sonnar, because both of my 5cm 1.4 Nikkors are noticeably sharper at or near wide-open aperatures. I've always found the bokeh of the Sonnar to be gorgeous, stunning even, while the Nikkors have very unpleasant doubling of out-of-focus highlights and a very busy blur pattern, especially in the middle aperatures. For that reason, I much prefer the Sonnar for color-slide work, though I seldom do that any more. I perhaps over-reacted, but the article had some pretty strong statements about Nikons being exact copies of Zeiss, which was simply untrue.
 
furcafe said:
Hey, considering what cine lenses cost (makes Leica stuff look dirt cheap), I'll be happy w/glass that has just some of the UltraPrime tech.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can see the hype went straight to your head. :p
I PRAY that Roger Hicks asks ZI how much of their UltraPrime technology went into these lenses.

R.J.
 
Hey, for all I know, I could have some turkey Nikkors! As far as boke, I think a lot of variables go into that (e.g., type of background, distance from subject to background, etc.) so that it's hard to compare lenses without a direct 1-to-1 test (i.e., on the same body, under the same conditions, which I'll have to try to do some time). My only point is that I haven't seen enough difference between the Nikkor-S & the Sonnars that jump off a print or light-table or anything, but YMMV. I agree w/you that Nippon Kogaku didn't just make exact copies of the Zeiss designs. Why would they? After all, 1 of the advantages of being the latecomer is that you can break new ground & improve things.

VinceC said:
Thanks for helping to clear some of that up. I've always suspected I have a less-than-perfect example of the 5cm Sonnar, because both of my 5cm 1.4 Nikkors are noticeably sharper at or near wide-open aperatures. I've always found the bokeh of the Sonnar to be gorgeous, stunning even, while the Nikkors have very unpleasant doubling of out-of-focus highlights and a very busy blur pattern, especially in the middle aperatures. For that reason, I much prefer the Sonnar for color-slide work, though I seldom do that any more. I perhaps over-reacted, but the article had some pretty strong statements about Nikons being exact copies of Zeiss, which was simply untrue.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
How can I not buy into the hype? It's UltraPrime, damnit . . . not just prime, but Ultraprime!! :p

But seriously, my guess is that the only thing that they'll port over from the UltraPrime stuff is something relatively minor, like some new & improved coating materials.

RJBender said:
Ok, I can see the hype went straight to your head. :p
I PRAY that Roger Hicks asks ZI how much of their UltraPrime technology went into these lenses.

R.J.
Click to expand...
 
Flattery will get you...

Flattery will get you...

VinceC said:
>>1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.<<

I think the operative words here are "similar" -- the Nikon I very simply isn't a copy of the Contax, though it clearly is inspired by the Contax and sought to emulate its "look" just as, say, today's CV Bessas try to emulate a certain Leica "look" that is associated with quality. In fact, the Nikon I had some real ideosyncracies like a "better idea" for the shape of the negative that was eventually rejected by U.S. import authorities because it wasn't campatible with Kodacromes. In the copying of the lens mount, don't forget that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are differences of opinion on whether Nippon Kogaku (NiKon) botched their copy of the Contax mount or did it on purpose so that only their own longer lenses would fit on their cameras.

I wasn't around during the Zeiss-Nikon wars of the early '50s, but it's a battle that has long since been decided by the marketplace. Apparently, Zeiss contended that their 20-year-old camera and 5cm lens had been copied and cried foul. Within months, Nikon so advanced and improved the design that there was nothing to dispute. Nikon and Kwanon/Canon then began producing a wide array of new lens products and bodies (Canon has a dizzying number of cameras that start as copies of screwmount Leicas and continuously improve the design). By the end of the 1950s, Nikon put a mirror box and new lens mount on their latest SP rangefinder to create the Nikon F and unintentionally created the SLR revolution (not the first SLR, but the first really useable one that remained in shooter's kit bags for decades). Leica's screwmount cameras and lenses were very, very widely copied. Leica's response was to create the M-series, a design so usable it would dominate rangefinder cameras for half a century. Zeiss kept making a refined 1930s camera while Nippon Kogaku and Kwanon/Canon kept up a fairly relentless campaign of product improvement known as Kaizan -- the philosophy of constant refinement of the product and process. A nearly identical war took place between Detroit and Tokyo in the 1970s and '80s, with comparable cries of 'foul' and a similar outcome in the automobile marketplace. I, like a whole lot of other people, used to drive a Chevy and now drive a Toyota, not because it's a good copy of the Chevy but because it's a vast improvement.
Click to expand...

Well Vince, was ZI flattered?
Some Chevy and Toyota models are made at the same plant in Freemont, CA.
Don't you agree that the Nikon S3 2000 resembles the Contax II more than the new model from ZI?

R.J.
 
>>Some Chevy and Toyota models are made at the same plant in Freemont, CA.
Don't you agree that the Nikon S3 2000 resembles the Contax II more than the new model from ZI?<<

It's interesting that Geo Prizms sell for less than the identical Corollas on the new and used market. Shows what's in a name.

The S3 2000 is an exact replica of the 1958 camera, so it would make sense for it to have the older look. The new Zeiss Ikon has the benefit of 50-odd years of camera development to borrow from. And as far as flattery, take a look at the new ZI's viewfinder. The first time I saw a picture of it, I immediately thought "that looks like a Nikon S3 finder!" Big, big, big for showing spacious views of the world.

Whatever happened half a century ago, it's been my experience that classic Contax users and Nikon RF users (and Kiev folks, too) have a lot of respect for each others' cameras. They're all in an slightly eccentric orbit that got eclipsed by the Leica M-mount world and the SLR juggernaut.
 
From standard retail outlets, the price is $2442 for body & 50/2 lens. Expect to pay less at grey market outlets like www.popflash.com & www.cameraquest.com. The 50/2 lens is selling for $600 at these outlets but the price of the body has not yet been announced. Expect the combination of the two to be less than $2000.

Huck
 
VinceC said:
>>1) The Contax and Nikon bayonet mounts are almost identical. Some Contax lenses fit on the Nikon S and some don't.
2) The nIKON name: "In fact, the name 'Nikon' was once a legal claim from Zeiss Ikon that it is not supposed to be used on camera bodies, so the name 'Nikkor' was used instead for some of the Nikon's products in some countries in Europe during those early years." SOURCE
3) The overall appearance of the bodies are very similar.
4) Similar backs with double locks.
5) Similar focusing wheels.
6) Similar rangefinder designs.<<

I think the operative words here are "similar" -- the Nikon I very simply isn't a copy of the Contax, though it clearly is inspired by the Contax and sought to emulate its "look" just as, say, today's CV Bessas try to emulate a certain Leica "look" that is associated with quality. In fact, the Nikon I had some real ideosyncracies like a "better idea" for the shape of the negative that was eventually rejected by U.S. import authorities because it wasn't campatible with Kodacromes. In the copying of the lens mount, don't forget that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are differences of opinion on whether Nippon Kogaku (NiKon) botched their copy of the Contax mount or did it on purpose so that only their own longer lenses would fit on their cameras.

I wasn't around during the Zeiss-Nikon wars of the early '50s, but it's a battle that has long since been decided by the marketplace. Apparently, Zeiss contended that their 20-year-old camera and 5cm lens had been copied and cried foul. Within months, Nikon so advanced and improved the design that there was nothing to dispute. Nikon and Kwanon/Canon then began producing a wide array of new lens products and bodies (Canon has a dizzying number of cameras that start as copies of screwmount Leicas and continuously improve the design). By the end of the 1950s, Nikon put a mirror box and new lens mount on their latest SP rangefinder to create the Nikon F and unintentionally created the SLR revolution (not the first SLR, but the first really useable one that remained in shooter's kit bags for decades). Leica's screwmount cameras and lenses were very, very widely copied. Leica's response was to create the M-series, a design so usable it would dominate rangefinder cameras for half a century. Zeiss kept making a refined 1930s camera while Nippon Kogaku and Kwanon/Canon kept up a fairly relentless campaign of product improvement known as Kaizan -- the philosophy of constant refinement of the product and process. A nearly identical war took place between Detroit and Tokyo in the 1970s and '80s, with comparable cries of 'foul' and a similar outcome in the automobile marketplace. I, like a whole lot of other people, used to drive a Chevy and now drive a Toyota, not because it's a good copy of the Chevy but because it's a vast improvement.
Click to expand...


Hey Vince,

Check this out:

CLN: And why did Zeiss decide on the Nikon F mount?
Dr. Scherle: We had three main reasons:
1) Nikon has, for half a century, earned a great reputation with professional photographers. They began with copies of Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinder cameras right after the World War II. In the 1960's they introduced their famous Nikon F SLR and with this legendary camera and its successors Nikon established the standard for professional 35 mm SLR's worldwide.
Click to expand...

source: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/5abd5bc6297eb165c12570f900407e35

R.J.
 
2007 will mark the 75th anniversary of the Contax name. It'll be a real shame if no camera bearing that marque is around for the commemoration.

BTW, as for Ultra Primes, the differences are not so much optical as mechanical. There is a more "linear" spacing of marked focusing distances so that some focus can be done by feel if need be and always result in the same degree of focus change, unlike our still lenses, which move 5mm between 10 meters and infinity and 5mm
between 1 meter and 1.5 meters (I hope I'm explaining this clearly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom