New Zeiss SLR List Prices

CameraQuest

CameraQuest

Head Bartender
Staff member
Local time
5:50 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
6,600
The new Zeiss 50/1.4 in Nikon or M42 mount is estimated to ship in February, with a list price of slightly less than $500 in Japan.

The new Zeiss 85/1.4 in Nikon or M42 mount is estimated to ship in March, with a list price of slightly less than $1000 in Japan.

Selling prices will be slightly below the figures above.

Stephen Gandy
 
rover said:
It is cool having great sponsors posting info like this for us.

Thank you
Click to expand...


I was just thinking that :) I think there may be some GAS-pimping involved :D
 
Hmmm, almost makes me wish I hadn't sold my plain-prism Nikon F to another RFFer! (Note that I did say "almost" -- shooting with an SLR still makes me feel icky, no matter whose glass is on it!)
 
peter_n said:
That 85 sounds very nice. Time to dust off the old F3... :)

Click to expand...

Both C/Y and N versions of the 85 Planar can not compare to the Nikon 85/1.4 and Canon 85/1.2 ... my bet is on the Sonnar 85 ZM if Mr. Gandy has a great price on that. :cool:
 
These prices make me wonder if the lenses are significantly different than their predecessors in the Contax line. I don't remember the Contax lenses being this expensive (correct me if I'm wrong), at least the manual focus ones in C/Y mount. I certainly understand the attractiveness of using Zeiss lenses with full exposure coupling on a modern Nikon digital body, but for film it would be cheaper to buy an old AE or MM 50/1.4 for $200 and even throw in a Contax body all for less than the $500 list price. Do we know if these are different formulations from the old lenses, or is it the same basic design with a new mount? I don't shoot Nikon, so maybe I just don't feel the temptation enough. And what would be the advantage of the M42 mount for Canon shooters over a currently available Contax to Canon adaptor for the old Contax lenses?
 
They do appear to be fresh designs according to construction diagrams posted on Cosina's web site - more simplified than their predecessors - not sure if that's a good sign. :D

I wouldn't mind giving them a shot if the 50 can be had at less than 250 US and the 85 for 500 dollars - as I've already owned more than 10 copies of different short teles in the 80-90mm range.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/index.html
 
Interestingly, in a Cosina press release circulated in Japan, Cosina claims the ZF lenses are fruits of joint development between the two companies. I suspect that means these are actually Cosina lenses only "approved" by Zeiss. :D
 
sdai said:
Interestingly, in a Cosina press release circulated in Japan, Cosina claims the ZF lenses are fruits of joint development between the two companies. I suspect that means these are actually Cosina lenses only "approved" by Zeiss. :D
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're accusing the two companies of mere "badge engineering." That doesn't seem reasonable -- there were no prior Cosina lens designs with these specs, so it's not as if they had something on the shelf on which they could just slap someone else's name.

What I suspect is that Zeiss did the optical designs and Cosina made sure they could be manufactured efficiently -- which would be a pretty good way to apply their respective areas of expertise.
 
Why would I blame any of them? it's pure economics in the work ... I couldn't care less whatever they've done in the process. I was just wondering - if you took a look at the constrcution diagrams - why the new ones are different from the C/Y and N versions?

I'm not an optics engineer, barely a technical person in mind ... can anyone explain to me if and why a simpler optical design could bring some better results than what I can get from a more sophisticated (which may directly translates into technically advanced in my dictionary) construction?
 
How about this as an explanation:

How about this as an explanation:

Three unconnected facts?

  • Cosina suddenly had some spare manufacturing capacity come up unexpectedly -

    Nikon pulled out of MF Nikkor lens manufacturer (related to the above?)

    Zeiss saw what a great job Cosina had done on the ZI lenses and on the Voigltlander SL range.

whaddya reckon?
 
sdai said:
I'm not an optics engineer, barely a technical person in mind ... can anyone explain to me if and why a simpler optical design could bring some better results than what I can get from a more sophisticated (which may directly translates into technically advanced in my dictionary) construction?
Click to expand...

In lens designs, "simpler" (fewer elements, less-complex surfaces, etc.) is always better than "more sophisticated" (more elements, exotic surfaces) all other things being equal.

"All other things" in this context refers to the performance criteria demanded of the lens -- sharpness, contrast, freedom from aberrations and distortion, etc.

In other words, if you're a designer and you can choose from a simpler design or a more complex design, both of which have similar theoretical performance, you always choose the simpler design. Why? Because the performance of a lens inevitably involves a certain amount of randomness. This includes both large-scale variation, such as in tolerances during assembly, and very tiny variation -- the unavoidable quantum randomness in the behavior of individual light photons when they encounter the surface of the lens.

The fewer lens surfaces, the fewer opportunities for these random behaviors to produce undesirable results. Or to put it even more briefly: Simpler designs have less risk of something going wrong.

In the old days of high-performance lens design (say, the 1920s through the 1950s) a lens with ambitious design goals such as large maximum aperture, low distortion, high sharpness, and wide angular coverage inevitably required a complex, "sophisticated" assembly with a lot of elements. (Scale down the goals and the job got much simpler: If you're satisfied with a 2-degree angular coverage and a maximum aperture of, say, f/8 or smaller, a lens with only two elements can do an excellent job.) There were several reasons all this complexity was needed: the range of glass types available was limited, and the fact that all design calculations had to be done manually limited the range of options the designer could try.

Now, however, there is a more sophisticated understanding of how light behaves when passing through a lens, made possible in part by advanced computer modeling; and there also are a wider range of sophisticated glass types, surface shapes, and assembly processes available. This greater sophistication has translated into the fact that a "simpler" lens design (fewer elements, fewer groups, less exotic curvatures) can yield higher performance than a very complicated lens of days gone by.

It has always been true that the simplest lens that will do the job is the best; it only has been recently that technology has advanced enough to make it possible for the lens that will do the job to be simple!

Clear enough...?
 
jlw said:
Clear enough...?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no ... ;)

Their rangefinder lens design seems to be a lot more consistent to me. At least I'm seeing the same numbers of (or more) elements in similar groupings if you compare the ZM to similar G lenses.

If I'm reading you correctly, the simplified design in ZF lens (compared to previous C/Y and N mounts) reflects some technology advance that was not possible in the ZM optics when compared to G glass?
 
85mm f/1.4 Planars

85mm f/1.4 Planars

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for the Contax N1 has 10 elements in 9 groups:
http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?brandid=&parent=141000

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for the RTSIII has 6 elements in 5 groups:
http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?brandid=&parent=123000

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for Rollei QBM had 6 elements in 5 groups:

zeiss_85mm1-4.jpg

source: http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar ZF also has 6 elements in 5 groups:
zf-85top.jpg

source: http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/index.html​

R.J.
 
Last edited:
dgray said:
These prices make me wonder if the lenses are significantly different than their predecessors in the Contax line. I don't remember the Contax lenses being this expensive (correct me if I'm wrong), at least the manual focus ones in C/Y mount. I certainly understand the attractiveness of using Zeiss lenses with full exposure coupling on a modern Nikon digital body, but for film it would be cheaper to buy an old AE or MM 50/1.4 for $200 and even throw in a Contax body all for less than the $500 list price. Do we know if these are different formulations from the old lenses, or is it the same basic design with a new mount? I don't shoot Nikon, so maybe I just don't feel the temptation enough. And what would be the advantage of the M42 mount for Canon shooters over a currently available Contax to Canon adaptor for the old Contax lenses?
Click to expand...

Prices on 85mm f/1.4 MM Planar
McBroom's Bluebook ©2000
$740 new
Orion Bluebook ©2005
$1420 list
Popular Photography Dec 1991
47th St. Photo Ad
$709.95

dunno.gif



R.J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom