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

[back alley]

I have the same dilemma, Joe. Unfortunately I don't think it replaces the 50/2, given the closer minimum focus distance of the latter as well as the different fingerprints.

my thoughts exactly.
but i may have to depend on the elmar 50 for a more 'normal' 50.

with the 40/1.4, i'm thinking of selling the 50/1.2 now.
the 40, i think, fits better in my low light plans.

ah decisions, decisions...

 

[Huck Finn]

I've liked the 40/1.4 for a long time. Have you tried it with the ZI?

 

[Kyle]

Man, this is tempting as the only thing I really feel I'm missing is a faster lens. I don't think I can part with my 50 Planar or my Summicron, though, and owning three really nice 50s seems excessive.

I would like to see Zeiss make a fast 35, that'd be sweet!

 

[Dougg]

I would like to see Zeiss make a fast 35, that'd be sweet!

Y'know, that's not farfetched at all, seems to me! Offering a relatively compact 35mm f/1.4 would excite the next level of buyer, those like us (like me anyway) who resisted the f/2, wanting more speed. But unwilling to pay the tab for the Summilux or suffer the bulk of the Nokton.

 

[ghost]

can't wait for a small 28/2 over here!

 

[back alley]

I've liked the 40/1.4 for a long time. Have you tried it with the ZI?

just to check what fl pops up but no pics yet.

 

[Dougg]

can't wait for a small 28/2 over here!

That should be a good seller too, and while we're at it, let's ask for a 25/2 as well and upstage Leica! I already bit the bullet on the 28 though, getting NOS 28 Summicron... <ouch>

 

[back alley]

i keep thinking i should look for cv 28/3.5 for the cl but then wonder what the sense in that is?
i have the zm 25 and i like that lens alot.

 

[LeicaLux]

Y'know, that's not farfetched at all, seems to me! Offering a relatively compact 35mm f/1.4 would excite the next level of buyer, those like us (like me anyway) who resisted the f/2, wanting more speed. But unwilling to pay the tab for the Summilux or suffer the bulk of the Nokton.

"Compact?" Have you seen the size of the 35/2....a Zeiss 35/1.4 would be bigger than a Noctilux!

 

[Dougg]

One can hope... 🙂 Note the 28 'cron is no larger than the Elmarit...

 

[SDK]

One can hope... 🙂 Note the 28 'cron is no larger than the Elmarit...

And the 28mm Biogon ZM is about the same size as the 28mm Elmarit and Summicrons too, so it's hard to say how big the next Zeiss ZM lens would be.

I think they really should do a small 85mm/2.8 Planar, as an economy telephoto next.

 

[Huck Finn]

"Compact?" Have you seen the size of the 35/2....a Zeiss 35/1.4 would be bigger than a Noctilux!

Not necessarily although my guess is that it would be wider. Zeiss chose to use the Biogon design for the 35/2 in this series. A Biogon is really at the limit of its design capabilities at f/2. The design is what detrmined the size, which actually isn't all that large.

If Zeiss chooses to make a 35/1.4, they would in all likelihood use a Planar design, which is their name for the same double-Gauss design that Leica uses on most of its lenses & which would offer the same design capabilities.

Leica consciously specifes size requirements into their design specifications. It is a restriction that challenges their designers. It is difficult enough to achieve the lens capabilities that they do, but to do so in as compact a size as that of the 35 Summicron is truly amazing . . . and expensive! Almost anything can be achieved optically if size is not limited. Size restriction is one of the factors that drives up the cost of designing Leica glass.

Personally I have my doubts that Zeiss will make a 35/1.4. AFAIK they never made a wide angle lens at this speed for rangefinder cameras although they have done so for SLRs. It seems to me that part of their motivation in this project has been to make classic Zeiss rangefinder lens designs available to a new generation of photographers & obviously to do so in M-mount - something which was never before available. Thus, offering Biogons & Sonnars, for example, gives photographers the choice of a different look which isn't available from any other manufacturer. However, a 35/1.4 Planar would simply be offering under the Zeiss logo what is already available from other manufacturers. Since it is somewhat new territoty for them, it would also mean additional design costs which would drive up the price & make it even less competitive & therefore less attractive to the consumer.

 

[Huck Finn]

And the 28mm Biogon ZM is about the same size as the 28mm Elmarit and Summicrons too, so it's hard to say how big the next Zeiss ZM lens would be.

Good point. In fact the 28 Biogon is slightly shorter than the 28 Elmarit.

I think they really should do a small 85mm/2.8 Planar, as an economy telephoto next.

A Zeiss 80/2.8 Planar, made by Rollei in LTM-mount & sold with M-mount adapter, is still available & at half the price of the 85/2 Sonnar. But it's not small.

 

[jano]

If Zeiss chooses to make a 35/1.4, they would in all likelihood use a Planar design, which is their name for the same double-Gauss design that Leica uses on most of its lenses & which would offer the same design capabilities.

I'm sure you know the 35 on the G-series is a planar and was considered not the optimal design for that focal length, right? At least, that's what I've read. The general consensus on that lens is that it's the least-sharp of the bunch (considering only the primes, not the zoom). Of course, in practice, I've found the lens to be perfectly fine 🙂 Perhaps they'd be sacrificing some of the "sharpness" then, with this design, in order to reach that 1.4? *shrug*

 

[Huck Finn]

I'm sure you know the 35 on the G-series is a planar and was considered not the optimal design for that focal length, right? At least, that's what I've read. The general consensus on that lens is that it's the least-sharp of the bunch (considering only the primes, not the zoom). Of course, in practice, I've found the lens to be perfectly fine 🙂 Perhaps they'd be sacrificing some of the "sharpness" then, with this design, in order to reach that 1.4? *shrug*

Let me just say first that I don't think that they will make a 35/1.4.

I don't have a Contax G, so I can't speak from personal expeience. I do know that the reputation of the 35 Planar was that it was the weak link in this lens line. As I recall, the Contax G did not have a lens in the 35 mm focal length when it first came out. I believe that the 35 Planar was a later addition to the line-up due to consumer demand.

Perhaps Zeiss did not take the time necessary to perfect this design before they brought it to market. Perhaps they were rushed to meet the demand. However, this is a good example of the fact that excellence is not in the design per se, but in the execution. The Planar is a double-Gauss design. The 35 Summicron & the 35 Summilux are both double-Gauss designs. So, clearly this design is capable of yielding excellent results.

Traditionally there's always been some some sacrifice in sharpness to achieve the creation of super fast lenses although aspherical elements seem to have made a big difference. But it wasn't the Planar design that was the problem with the G lens IMO. If Zeiss chose to make an excellent lens at this focal length with the Planar, they could do it. One other factor with the G lens is that it is quite compact. Size restriction always makes it more difficult to achieve top notch performance. The G lenses also had to be light weight as do all AF lenses. Perhaps this had something to do with the glass types they could use?

For some reason the 35 mm focal length is a tricky FL to achieve excellent results. This focal length is also the weak link in the Nikon line-up. They have just never had great success with a 35 mm lens. And yet they have made some great 28 mm lenses.

I wonder what effect Zeiss' experience with this lens on the Contax G had on Zeiss decision in choosing the Biogon design instead for its ZM lens. I'm glad they did because the Biogon can only be made for use on rangefinder cameras & it is'nt offered by anyone else. To me, this kind of justifies the decision to produce it. Before the Contax G, Zeiss had no experience with fast Planar/double-Gauss designs for rangefinder cameras at the 35 mm focal length. (They offered a 35/3.5 Planar for the Contax IIa & IIIa.) I doubt that they will start now.

 

[Mazurka]

The 35 Summicron & the 35 Summilux are both double-Gauss designs. So, clearly this design is capable of yielding excellent results.. . .

Zeiss had no experience with fast Planar/double-Gauss designs for rangefinder cameras at the 35 mm focal length. (They offered a 35/3.5 Planar for the Contax IIa & IIIa.) I doubt that they will start now.

The 35mm G lens bears an uncanny resemblance to the pre-ASPH Summicron, only with stronger curvatures.

The current ASPH versions of the Leica 35's are retrofocus -- to quote Puts: they came out of the shadow of the Planar at last.

Like Leica, Zeiss can easily design a 1.4/35 Distagon with modern CAD. Great performance can also be achieved much more readily than a traditional double-Gauss design at f/1.4, I believe.

Who knows? If there is sufficient demand, Zeiss may well bring out an updated version of the SLR Distagon for the ZI, just like they did with the G lens.

 

[Sonnar2]

A Rangefinder 35mm lens has to be small and compact. I think this is one of the reasons why the 4th generation (pre-ASPH.) Summicron has their fans. Planar's can be build small, Biogon's and the advanced double-concave designs can't (at f/2 or faster). Nobody would by a RF 1.4/35 Distagon sized like the Contax C/Y SLR lens.
I think the biggest drawback of the Planars for the user isn't sharpness falloff to the edges due to astigmatism (which *is* an issue) but *flare*. This is not to say some of the newer designs wouldn't flare badly. The main reason I divorced from my C/V 1.7/35mm. But some showing noticeable less flare and improved contrast. IMHO, it's acceptable if the ZM-Biogon 2/35mm is a bit overstressed wide open (the MTF charts say it works good nevertheless) as long as flare at f/4-8 is well controlled, which is the case as user reports.
cheers, Frank

 

[Mazurka]

Planar's can be build small, Biogon's and the advanced double-concave designs can't (at f/2 or faster). Nobody would by a RF 1.4/35 Distagon sized like the Contax C/Y SLR lens.

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? 🙄

 

[Socke]

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? 🙄

Believe it or not, the Vario Tessar in the Yashica T-Zoom has two aspherical elements. As far as I know, that's the only Zeiss (photo)lens featuring this.

 

[Mazurka]

Volker, check these out: http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58...99A0032AC9E?OpenDocument&Highlight=aspherical

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58...569770054A20D?OpenDocument&Highlight=aspheric

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58...5710A0058E2A5?OpenDocument&Highlight=aspheric

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58...1E004AD17F?OpenDocument&Highlight=aspheric#06

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.

Of course, whether ASPH elements are a must for a retrofocus, reasonably-sized 1.4/35 is also debatable. After all, there is no magic to them. Each ASPH surface merely saves you one spherical surface.

Each of Leica's current 35s has merely one ASPH element.