murrayb53
Established
It seems to me that a tele would be a rather easy lens to produce, especially over an ultra-wide.
So? What's The Deal? I don't understand why Zeiss has to produce their 85mm in Germany, with special equipment not available in Japan, for what I consider to be a common focal range lens.
What's the deal with the price? Is the glass from the planet Krypton?
Steve
So? What's The Deal? I don't understand why Zeiss has to produce their 85mm in Germany, with special equipment not available in Japan, for what I consider to be a common focal range lens.
What's the deal with the price? Is the glass from the planet Krypton?
Steve
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
for rf telephoto, the finder patch would be so small that you probably can't see subject to focus, so it will always be hyper focal or infinity. that's one of main selling point of slr, if you are into telephoto, slr is a must.
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
It incorporates a floating element, like the 50mm Summilux ASPH. I don't know if there are any other rangefinder lenses with floating elements, but remembering some discussions of the lux ASPH I think perhaps not. Because rangefinder lenses must be kept small to avoid excessive viewfinder blockage, I expect the design and engineering challenges of the floating element design are much greater than they would be for a comparable SLR lens. Of course the need to manufacture these mechanically complex lenses in Germany contributes significantly to the high price.
Last edited:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
It might just be that to ensure quality among the mass of the elements in the 85/2 requires a Zeiss factory rather than an outsourced Japanese/Asian factory. That and the focus tolerances for a telephoto are much tighter than for an ultra-wide, Zeiss might have considered this reason enough to produce the lens by themselves rather than contracting the design to another company.
I don't know if there are any special elements (ASPH, ED &etc.) that would require Zeiss manufacture, though others might.
I'm not quite sure the meaning of mervynayan's post.
[edit: Matthew beat me with the special (in this case floating) element idea, and specified what was so special about it]
I don't know if there are any special elements (ASPH, ED &etc.) that would require Zeiss manufacture, though others might.
I'm not quite sure the meaning of mervynayan's post.
[edit: Matthew beat me with the special (in this case floating) element idea, and specified what was so special about it]
ZeissFan
Veteran
Carl Zeiss AG said that the lens is being produced in Germany because it uses floating elements and Cosina wasn't able to handle that. I think that the added complexity of construction plus the cost of German labor (vs. Japanese labor) accounts for the sharply higher price.
The price of this lens is in line with what Leica charges for its lenses, which are made in Germany. I don't keep up with Leica, so I don't know if any lenses in its current lineup are still being made elsewhere (Portugal, Canada, etc.)
I really wish they would make a 135mm Sonnar.
The price of this lens is in line with what Leica charges for its lenses, which are made in Germany. I don't keep up with Leica, so I don't know if any lenses in its current lineup are still being made elsewhere (Portugal, Canada, etc.)
I really wish they would make a 135mm Sonnar.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
A bigger issue is the fact that it is a Sonnar design. The asymetrical design of the Sonnar is much more difficult to get just right, especially at longer focal lengths & wider apertures.
Now there is also the simple marketing fact that Zeiss needs to maintain it's mystique. OTGH, Cosina would have extream difficulty meeting this design's qc. This is not saying anything, as such, against Cosina. It simply reminds us that Cosina is still growing up from it's cheap ass bastich beginning to where it is now as a good solid but not first level manufacturer - much less the fact that it is still just a that bit behind Canon, Nikon, Sony, & etc. Finally though, it's continued improvement (R to R4 via many steps) is vital to film users as all others have abandoned us for at least the time being.
So we have a small handfull of high end companies & _ONE_ low end firm. Thank the universe for Cosina!
William
Now there is also the simple marketing fact that Zeiss needs to maintain it's mystique. OTGH, Cosina would have extream difficulty meeting this design's qc. This is not saying anything, as such, against Cosina. It simply reminds us that Cosina is still growing up from it's cheap ass bastich beginning to where it is now as a good solid but not first level manufacturer - much less the fact that it is still just a that bit behind Canon, Nikon, Sony, & etc. Finally though, it's continued improvement (R to R4 via many steps) is vital to film users as all others have abandoned us for at least the time being.
So we have a small handfull of high end companies & _ONE_ low end firm. Thank the universe for Cosina!
William
W
wlewisiii
Guest
ZeissFan said:
That would be just about as close to perfect as I can imagine... :bang:
Williamn
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
ZeissFan said:
That's the official line but strange Cosina being the largest 3rd party lens manufacturer in the world can't make a lens with floating elements, how precise it may need to be. I think Zeiss AG just did not want to provide to Cosina proprietary knowledge required to make this lens whatever this may be.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
So why is it so difficult to make a Sonnar design, as opposed to whatever other lens design you might have?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Get a Canon 135/2 L, for $900 or so, and an SLR body. It's probably one of the best 35mm portrait lenses in the world. If you don't like autofocus, it's a reasonably good manual focusing lens as well. Or you could get its predecessor, the nFD 135/2, which is a lot cheaper due to the lack of digital options.thomasw_ said:
There is no rangefinder which will allow you to reliably focus a 135/2 wide open. This is beyond Noctilux and 50/0.95 territorry. Fast teles are the home ground of the SLR.
Philipp
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Yeah, I'd only expect a 135/3.5 Sonnar at the fastest for a RF system. But Philipp is right to suggest FD glass. I recently bought a 100/2.8 that is an utterly amazing bit of glass so I can only imagine what that 135/2 L was like.
OTGH, I've never been able to afford L glass. FD or EF... :bang: :bang: :bang:
William
OTGH, I've never been able to afford L glass. FD or EF... :bang: :bang: :bang:
William
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
The FD 135/2 wasn't an "L" lens though, so it should be more affordablewlewisiii said:
I've had the slightly slower FD 135/2.5 S.C. for a while. I got that from a grab desk at the Houten photo fair for 20 EUR and sold it recently (for 60 EUR) because it didn't get much use. It was a nice portrait lens on its own - just that the focal length is not for me apparently. The 1.5m minimum focusing distance was a problem sometimes, necessitating the use of slim extension rings; the 135/2 is a bit better at 1.3m. (Then again, on a rangefinder you wouldn't even have the option of using extension rings.)
Philipp
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Must have misread something then as I was pretty sure that was an L beastiel. Wrong? Who me? Apparently!
More seriously, that 100 is the nicest thing I've used in the past couple of years.
William
as I was pretty sure that was an L beastiel. Wrong? Who me? Apparently! More seriously, that 100 is the nicest thing I've used in the past couple of years.
William
Mazurka
Well-known
Everyone's been making Sonnar/Ernostar types of lenses after WWII, especially in the longer focal lengths.
Keeping in mind the traditional Sonnar is a 3-group lens, the Ernostar 4-group, both very assymmetrical. Then take a look at these virtual twins. Neither look like an Ernostar, let a lone a Sonnar:
85/1.8 AF Nikkor:
Then compare with the following which truly belong to the Ernostar type:
Nikon E 100/2.8:
Canon FD 85/1.8:
Pentax K 85/2:
Zuiko 85/2:
The complexity of the 85 ZM actually lies in the floating elements that must interact with the RF cam perfectly. It has nothing to do with the focal length, aperture or moniker.
Regarding "Cosina being the largest 3rd party lens manufacturer in the world", I don't think that's something to which Tamron agrees.
Keeping in mind the traditional Sonnar is a 3-group lens, the Ernostar 4-group, both very assymmetrical. Then take a look at these virtual twins. Neither look like an Ernostar, let a lone a Sonnar:
85/1.8 AF Nikkor:
Then compare with the following which truly belong to the Ernostar type:
Nikon E 100/2.8:
Canon FD 85/1.8:
Pentax K 85/2:
Zuiko 85/2:
The complexity of the 85 ZM actually lies in the floating elements that must interact with the RF cam perfectly. It has nothing to do with the focal length, aperture or moniker.
Regarding "Cosina being the largest 3rd party lens manufacturer in the world", I don't think that's something to which Tamron agrees.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, while they are trying to figure out how to make this super expensive lens at Zeiss, why didn't they re-issue the old version of Sonnar. Something like a modern version of J-9 - 85/2. If Russians could make it back when, I'm sure Zeiss can make one now at Cosina factory and it would be a lot less $$. And more people would buy it.
V
varjag
Guest
Problem is, few people would want a fancier J-9 for $1K today.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I don't see any problem with that - people buy fancier Leica M2s for $3K all the time (and then call those who don't unrefined barbarians) :angel:varjag said:
Philipp
V
varjag
Guest
Well, my point is, if they'd straight reproduce the original Sonnar 2/85 design, they'd get a lot of complaints about flare and performance wide open. Look at C-Sonnar, no other modern 50 has so much controversy around it.. that made me doubt that many would be prepared to pay through the nose for retro 85 to justify sales in this (notably less popular than 50) focal.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi ZeissFan & Yevgeni,
Philipp
That may have been true in the 1960s, and keeps getting perpetuated among camera enthusiasts, but nowadays I doubt Japanese labour is much cheaper than German labour.ZeissFan said:
Philipp
ZeissFan
Veteran
Carl Zeiss AG has the capacity to make all of its lenses in Germany (not the bodies, however). So why does it pay Cosina to make all but the most complex of the ZM lenses in Japan? If production processes and quality control are similar or nearly identical in each country, the only major variable must be the cost of labor