New. C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM

Mazurka said:
Volker, check these out:
FAQ no.6: Does Carl Zeiss use aspheric lens elements?
Yes, since 1936. Carl Zeiss was the first optic company in the world to produce aspheric lens elements in series.
Click to expand...


Looks as if they just do it without much advertising :)
 
Mazurka said:
Are you saying Zeiss can't build something like Leica's 35 Lux ASPH, or do you mean the Lux hasn't been selling even after more than a decade? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The 35 Lux ASPH is quite compact for its speed and one of the most advanced Rangefinder lens designs, IMHO. Compared with it, the Zeiss wideangle designs looking a bit old-fashioned, yes. The Biogon design has its limitations: length and less speed. But it's also a matter of cost. Maybe ZEISS can design a lens better than the 35 Lux ASPH but not at half, or say 2/3 of Leica's price.
 
Sonnar2 said:
The 35 Lux ASPH is quite compact for its speed

The Biogon design has its limitations: length and less speed. But it's also a matter of cost. Maybe ZEISS can design a lens better than the 35 Lux ASPH but not at half, or say 2/3 of Leica's price.
Click to expand...

It's hard to generalize. Yes, both the 35 Summicron & Summilux are quite compact; both are shorter than the 35/2 Biogon. But the 28/2.8 Biogon is shorter than the 28 Elmarit & the 25 Biogon is just about the same length as the 24 Elmarit. I suspect that Leica put a lot of resources into its design of the 35 mm focal length because it is a work horse lens.

A rangefinder lens must be small enough to not block the viewfinder. (I suspect that the Sonnar was built as short as it is to avoid viewfinder blockage which could occur at a longer length because of its width.) Other than that, it doesn't necessarily have to be small. It's a matter of personal preference. I certainly prefer small, but some others don't - especially those with big hands.

I think you make an excellent point about cost - which is one of the reasons why I don't think that Zeiss will offer a 35/1.4. Volker, you're right that the C/Y 35/1.4 Distagon for SLR is a beast.
 
Sonnar2 said:
Maybe ZEISS can design a lens better than the 35 Lux ASPH but not at half, or say 2/3 of Leica's price.
Click to expand...

First, it does not have to be better: just look at the C-Sonnar, Planar, and 35 Biogon. They are not "better" than Leica's current offerings but have equivalent or very close performance.

Second, look at the 35mm Voigtlander Nokton and its price. If Cosina can do it by itself, why can't Zeiss come up with an f/1.4 at a slightly higher but still affordable cost?
 
Sonnar2 said:
The 35 Lux ASPH is quite compact for its speed and one of the most advanced Rangefinder lens designs, IMHO. Compared with it, the Zeiss wideangle designs looking a bit old-fashioned, yes. The Biogon design has its limitations: length and less speed. But it's also a matter of cost. Maybe ZEISS can design a lens better than the 35 Lux ASPH but not at half, or say 2/3 of Leica's price.
Click to expand...

I won't dispute that the 35mm Summilux ASPH is a great lens, and is compact for its level of aberration correction and speed. But Sonnar it seems odd to speculate whether or not Zeiss can make a competitive design at a lower price. Do you work for a lens manufacturer and have inside info? Who knows what they may pull off next?

After all, the 21mm and 25mm ZM Biogons are roughly equal in quality to their Leica ASPH equivalents, at about 50-60% of cost. On the other hand the C Sonnar 50mm does not appear to be an attempt to deliver the same level of correction as the 50mm Summilux ASPH, and Zeiss opted to produce a compact lens that is just a bit better than the previous generation of 50mm Summiluxes. So if Zeiss were to produce a faster 35mm, they might aim to produce a lens with optical correction in between the coma-ridden 35mm Summilux and the superbly corrected 35mm Summilux ASPH, and more compact than the latter (perhaps a fast Planar or Distagon).

It's all speculation now, but the telephoto end is the thinnest in terms of choice for parts of the ZI system now. I wouldn't be surprised if the next announcement is a cheaper, lighter 85mm made by Cosina, but not until next year, at he soonest, after people have had a chance to buy the 85mm/2 Sonnar ZM. The Rollei 80/2.8 lens may be overpriced and hard to find as an alternative. But I bet a lot of people are using Leica 90mms and adapted LTM 85mm lenses from Nikon, Canon and Russian Sonnars.
 
SDK said:
The Rollei 80/2.8 lens may be overpriced and hard to find as an alternative. But I bet a lot of people are using Leica 90mms and adapted LTM 85mm lenses from Nikon, Canon and Russian Sonnars.
Click to expand...

Being a lens designed for the 6x6 Rolleiflex, the 80mm Planar is large for its speed when used on a 135 format body. It's not appealing to the average user, unless you are a collector or can get the SLR adapter(s) at the same time without added cost.

As for the 85/90mm already owned by M camera-users, the same thing can be said about any other focal length .

Still, I'm not sure if Zeiss would offer a 2.8/85 any time soon, say within a year.

If you compare the Zeiss and Voigtlander ranges, there is very little overlap except for the 35 Ultron/Biogon and 50 Nokton/C Sonnar. I suspect that this is intentional. A 2.8/85 Sonnar would most likely be another rehash of the C/Y and G versions (which is essentially the same lens with a slight tweak on nominal focal length.) Most Zeiss fans would already own at least one of these two. The Apo-Lanthar, being a more recent design with possibly better colour correction AND a low price, doesn't help either.
 
Mazurka, the Rollei 80/2.8 lens in question was designed for the Rollei 35RF, it was assembled in germay with tubes from Cosina and lenses from Zeiss with Rollei HFT coating.

Somehow I think this Rollei/Cosina connection was one of the reasons for Zeiss to enter into a manufacturing partnership with Cosina.

Come to think of it, the Rollei 35RF may just have been a testballoon, I saw it at the Zeiss booth at Photokina 2002 first :)
 
can't find it anymore in a language I understand ;)

The lensbarrel and mount were made by Cosina and the lenses came from Zeiss, coating and assembly was done in germany.

I don't think the LTM Rollei Planar 80 projects a 6x6 cm frame, a TLR taking lens is not so different from a RF lens, there is no mirror the designers have to take care of.
Although the taking lens on my father Rolleiflex TLR is pretty small.
 
Mazurka said:
If you compare the Zeiss and Voigtlander ranges, there is very little overlap except for the 35 Ultron/Biogon and 50 Nokton/C Sonnar. I suspect that this is intentional.
Click to expand...

I see the lack of overlap as initiated by Cosina way back when they created the Voigtlander. The goal was not to overlap with Leica. Since Zeiss has come along with standard/traditional speeds for their lenses same as Leica, there is of course no overlap.

A 2.8/85 Sonnar would most likely be another rehash of the C/Y and G versions.
Click to expand...

I read your reference to "another rehash" as implying that the ZM line is just the C/Y & G lenses in M-mount. I see it a little differently. None of the ZM lens designs correspond to the C/Y lenses of the same focal length & speed. While there are some that do match with the G lenses, there are also significant differences, such as the choice of a Biogon for the 35 mm focal length & the choice to issue a 50/1.5 Sonnar. This seems to me much more like Zeiss is bringing back its classic old rangefinder designs - in some cases at faster speeds. Even the choice of the 85 mm focal length rather than a more practical 90 from the G series for their portrait lens harkens back to the 85/2 Sonnar for the Contax IIa & IIIa. Mr. K of Cosina loves this kind of nostalgic project as well & I can see why they got on the same page about it so quickly.
 
You can use Google or Babelfish to translate, or just look at these pictures from the same page:

p80_bk.jpg
planar_tt.gif
2.8FX_co.jpg


If this lens doesn't project onto a 6x6 frame, it's because of the narrow barrel and wrong lens mount. :p I believe it still retains the same back focus as its Rolleiflex alter-ego.
 
Last edited:
Easy, Huck, I was merely talking about a possible 2.8/85 ZM lens based on the C/Y and G versions when I used the word "rehash" which never referred to any other ZM lens.

I guess you haven't read or remembered enough of my previous postings. May I remind you that I am a lot different from Cooked Ham or Taipei Metro. ;)

This seems to me much more like Zeiss is bringing back its classic old rangefinder designs
Click to expand...

This is certainly true for the C Sonnar, but the rest of the ZM range (except the 50 Planar, a virtual twin of the 45 G lens) are brand-new computations.

Of course, one can always wonder about the relationship between the 2/85 Sonnar and 1.8/85 AF Nikkor. :p

s-85.jpg
 

Attachments

  • nik.jpg
    nik.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Mazurka said:
Easy, Huck, I was merely talking about a possible 2.8/85 ZM lens based on the C/Y and G versions when I used the word "rehash" which never referred to any other ZM lens.

I guess you haven't read or remembered enough of my previous postings. May I remind you that I am a lot different from Cooked Ham or Taipei Metro. ;)



This is certainly true for the C Sonnar, but the rest of the ZM range (except the 50 Planar, a virtual twin of the 45 G lens) are brand-new computations.

Of course, one can always wonder about the relationship between the 2/85 Sonnar and 1.8/85 AF Nikkor. :p

s-85.jpg
Click to expand...

Sorry. Wasn't meaning to quibble. I think that your insights are quite valuable & I look forward to reading them. Just thought I was looking at this from a different perspective & saw a different possibility. Actually, you're probably right.
 
The Rollei Planar 2.8/80 isn't a real competion because of its price, weight - my 1.4/85 C/Y Planar isn't much heavier! - and medium format design, means it was corrected for large angle of view but not for center sharpness and contrast what is required for 35mm film. MTF graph shows it clearly.

Zeiss already made an attempt to convert its 1970's 2.8/85 Ernostar design first seen on the Rolleiflex SL35 (4 elements), then C/Y (5 elements) for the Contax G. The results were not breathtaking. Cosina covers the market with the cheap, but excellent 2.5/75 and 3.5/90 - both Planar (6 element) designs -leaving not much room for "slow" telephoto lenses. Leica shows that great performance is still possible with just 4 elements (Elmarit-M 2.8/90) - although at weight of a f/2-telephoto lens... which people preferring lenses of some size and weight might prefer.

PS, No I'm not working for a lens designing company. Just speculating like all these folks here..

cheers, Frank
 
ferider said:
Just out of historical interest, was it designed for the Rolleiflex first or
for Hasselblad, or for both ?

Roland.
Click to expand...


IMHO the exchangeable lenses for Hassies have far bigger frontelements than the fixed TLR ones.

So I never had the idea that they could be the same design.
 
Socke said:
So I never had the idea that they could be the same design.
Click to expand...

They can't.

The current Hasselblad Planar 2.8/80 is a 7/5 design (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_102076_d/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_102076_d.pdf) while the classical Rollei Planar is a 5/4 design, see here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar.html (Scroll down to Planar/ Xenotar).
The Rolleiflex Planar is the older design.

cheers, Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom