Roger Hicks
Veteran
Zeiss reckons (understandably) that there's a good deal of money to be made at the top of the market, for 'no compromise' lenses.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
bensyverson
Well-known
The following rant is not directed at you, Roger, but it does bring up a pet peeve: there is no such thing as a "Zeiss Zeiss" for still photography. Cosina manufactures all of the ZM and SLR Z-series lenses. Sony manufactures their own Zeiss lenses.
What makes a Zeiss a Zeiss is the optical design, period. It's the prescription. Zeiss specifies every surface, coating and the specific optical glass. The design then undergoes "tolerancing" to make it less sensitive to manufacturing variances. ANY competent manufacturer can then manufacture the design. It's like an architectural blueprint and interior design plan rolled into one.
So when someone implies that a Cosina-made Zeiss is not a "true" Zeiss, I have to laugh. Unless you're accustomed to shooting with $20,000 Zeiss Master Primes, all Zeiss lenses are licensed designs.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, as I've actually seen lenses being built at Zeiss, I have to disagree. A VERY few ZM lenses are built at Oberkochen. The 85/2 and 15/2.8 are the only ones so far, but others are planned (including, as I understand it, ZM). Things like hand-lapped focusing mounts and unit-by-unit QC (instead of batch inspection) are what bungs the price up.
No-one disputes that Cosina Zeiss are Zeiss designs, with Zeiss QC input, but Zeiss Zeiss (or Oberkochen Zeiss, if you prefer) and Cosina Zeiss is actually a useful distinction.
Cheers,
R.
kram
Well-known
A fast Zeiss Zeiss lens that is going to be fast: either a 35mm f1.4, of a 50mm f1. Gap in the market (for rangefinder or slr) for a 28mm f1.4 - but as there is no 28mm f2, it would seem odd to do that (but that is no reason not to). It could be a 18mm f2.8!!
Any cosina zeiss lens in the pipe line (85mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 50mm f1.2...)
Any cosina zeiss lens in the pipe line (85mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 50mm f1.2...)
lawa
Member
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a 28mm f1.4
kram
Well-known
In this review, it compares the ZM 50mm f2 against the new leica 50mm f2 ASPH.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/25/leica-50-2-apo-asph/
I found this most interesting
'Remember my earlier article on T stops and f stops? The 50 AA meters the same as the older 50 Summicron, which is to say the Zeiss is 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster still. What this means in reality is that you can use the same aperture, get the same exposure histogram, but use a shutter speed that’s 50% to 75% faster on the Zeiss. It matters because you’re effectively getting more light into the camera, which can be critical especially in marginal situations.'
So if Zeiss produced a 50mm f1, you could (hopefully) shoot at a faster shutter speed than the 50mm f0.95, thanks to the Zeiss coatings.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/25/leica-50-2-apo-asph/
I found this most interesting
'Remember my earlier article on T stops and f stops? The 50 AA meters the same as the older 50 Summicron, which is to say the Zeiss is 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster still. What this means in reality is that you can use the same aperture, get the same exposure histogram, but use a shutter speed that’s 50% to 75% faster on the Zeiss. It matters because you’re effectively getting more light into the camera, which can be critical especially in marginal situations.'
So if Zeiss produced a 50mm f1, you could (hopefully) shoot at a faster shutter speed than the 50mm f0.95, thanks to the Zeiss coatings.
santela
Established
kram
Well-known
Yes, I believe that is what he means.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. That's the exact opposite of the truth. Uncoated lenses boost shadow detail with film (by overcoming the inertia on the characteristic curve) and shorten the subject brightness range at the image plane. This is why uncoated lenses remained popular for shooting slides in the 1950.
Also, stop and think. Do you REALLY believe that Zeiss coatings are better than the best Leica can do? True, Zeiss were the first to experiment successfully with multicoating (early 1940s) but Leica were the first to bring multicoating to the commercial market (mid/late 50s).
Cheers,
R.
fuwen
Well-known
Not really related to the discussion here, but I really miss the Zeiss Rollei HFT multi-coating, and they are always reddish-brownish which is the colour appearance I like personally. The same also for East German Carl Zeiss Jena and Pentacon lenes. The japanese multi-coating is essentially greenish, which the Zeiss Contax C/Y appears to be the same. The current ZMs are also greenish. Leica ones are boring light brown that looks like single coating. But my comments are just based on the look and I do not think the look has a direct relationship to the lens performance. But I am a strange guy where many times I buy things based on the look hahaha
santela
Established
sanmich
Veteran
So, do we have any idea when is the announcement expected?
bugmenot
Well-known
Would a "Zeiss Zeiss" automatically be better than a "Cosina Zeiss"? Why?
When something is made in Germany, does it automatically make it higher quality? I really would like to know, because as far as I am concerned, the Zeiss line of lenses produced in Japan are under strict quality control and carefully observed by the watchful eyes of Zeiss.
Contax Zeiss lenses for the SLR line were also produced in Japan, and so were Contax G lenses. They were not any worse or better than any lenses produced by Zeiss in Germany as far as I know.
Same argument can be seen when people talk about Canadian Leica lenses vs. German ones. They are identical.
Perhaps I don't know enough. Enlighten me.
When something is made in Germany, does it automatically make it higher quality? I really would like to know, because as far as I am concerned, the Zeiss line of lenses produced in Japan are under strict quality control and carefully observed by the watchful eyes of Zeiss.
Contax Zeiss lenses for the SLR line were also produced in Japan, and so were Contax G lenses. They were not any worse or better than any lenses produced by Zeiss in Germany as far as I know.
Same argument can be seen when people talk about Canadian Leica lenses vs. German ones. They are identical.
Perhaps I don't know enough. Enlighten me.
KEVIN-XU 愛 forever
所謂的攝影,就&
That would be awesome if Zeiss produce ZM 50 f1.2/f1.1 and ZM 35 f1.4/f1.2. : )
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'Zeiss Zeiss' lenses are intended to be state-of-the-art 'landmark' lenses, which is the first reason they cost more: they are designed and built with little regard for compromise. The second reason for the higher cost is that they are a LOT more hand-made. This is not necessarily better, though (for example) hand-lapped mounts are better and more durable, but again, it helps explain the higher price. The third is that QC is lens-by-lens, not on a batch basis, and this adds a great deal to the price.
Cheers,
R.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I traded my VC 35mm 1,2 for 35mm 1,2 because of the bulk of the 1,2. I have to say: The performance of the 1,4 is nowhere in the same ballpark "full bore" as the bigger brother. As I shoot still lot of film, I don`t really care...
Of the future releases, I talked to a Zeiss engineer in Photokina. I guess they are waiting what leica does with their rumored APS-C sized interchangeable lens X series camera. Will it have a M mount or fourthirds mount ? That would affect the design parameters considerably.
Of the future releases, I talked to a Zeiss engineer in Photokina. I guess they are waiting what leica does with their rumored APS-C sized interchangeable lens X series camera. Will it have a M mount or fourthirds mount ? That would affect the design parameters considerably.
kram
Well-known
May be, may be not. As the 50mm f2 ASPH is a state of the art lens, I would think Leica would not scrimp on element coating. I was just trying to think what would justify one 50mm f2 lens to allow more light through, than another 50mm f2 lens - any ideas?
I also thought that Leica already made mirror-less compact cameras with interchangeable lenses!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nothing. At least, nothing significant. Yes, a coated lens lets more light through than uncoated, and there are T-numbers (measured transmission) to take account of this: f/2 might be f/2.1 with modern multi-coating and T/2.2 with old, single coating. These are 1/6 stop differences.
The biggest single thing that appears to make one lens transmit more than another is likely to result from the exact opposite: veiling flare. The effect of veiling flare is negligible in the highlights where it is swamped by the image forming light) but can be significant in the shadows, where there is very little image forming light. This is akin to 'pre-flashing' the film, getting it over the inertia point, and therefore making it 'faster'.
In other words, anyone who tells you that one multi-coated lens lets significantly more light through than another, or that one single-coated lens lets significantly more light through than another, is either completely ignorant of the subject or is using 'significantly' in a rather special way.
Of course it is possible that any given lens is slightly faster or slightly slower than its marked speed, and that the aperture has been rounded, i.e. that 'f/2' is really f/1.9 or f/2.1. This has been known but it is nothing to do with coating and, at 1/6 stop, it is not significant anyway.
It is also possible that a given lens design or focal length may combine with a given metering pattern to give higher or lower readings, but again, this is nothing to do with coating.
Cheers,
R.
ChrisC
Established
Roger - Interesting, especially after reading Ming Thein's experience. In his review of the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50/2 ASPH he does a comparison with his Zeiss Zm 50mm Planar :
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/25/leica-50-2-apo-asph/
About 60% down the page, in the paragraph in which he references his; 'earlier article on T stops and f stops?' [it's highlighted in blue so the paragraph is easy to find]. Ming contends that the new Leica APO-Summicron-M 50/2 ASPH transmission loss is similar to the other current 50mm Summicron, but the T stop advantage of the Zeiss Planar is 1/2 to 2/3 f-stop difference better than the 50mm Summicrons.
In the above example, and others too, Ming's experience differs substantially from yours.
................... Chris
I wonder if this is like saying the Summar is a faster lens than the early Summicron due to its lower contrast showing a little more exposure in the shadows... Looking at the teddy-bear comparison with the cigar boxes, it does appear to me that the Summicron AA has higher contrast. Could the lower values in the shadows come from its higher contrast?