What new ZM lens would u like 2.

[kram]

Folks- just dreaming now but Roger H hinted at new goodies at photokina.
In my last poll on the want list, a ZM f1.4 35mm came tops, f1.2 second and f2 28mm third.
As an extention of this and pushing the boat out a bit further, I propose the following lens which coud appear!
f1 50mm, with cose focus at 0.7m (be careful now - small depth of field).
f1.4 28mm, no nikkor 28mm f1.4 lens so this would be the only 28mm f1.4 one on the market - its got to be better than the nikkor- and smaller.
f2 25mm (or could we go for a f1.4 as Canon have a f1.4 24mm which is pretty good).
And a first (they have a f4.5 and a f2.8) how about a f2 21mm?

f4 135mm lens?, I don't think a ZM 135mm would sell very well, lets stick to the rangefinder good pionts with wider angle lens.

A vari focal length lens, its going to cost. How about a f4.5 21,25, 28,35. Fits in betwen the two leica lens.

I would vote for the 50mm or 28mm.🙂

 

[mervynyan]

I wouldn't mind if they can come up a multi-focal lenght 28-35-50-75-90 f/4.

 

[kshapero]

Man a 50mm/f1.0 that wasn't as big as an 18-200 Nikon and doesn't washout at full bore. That would be right nice.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

I'm wondering if things might not go the other way, say a ZM 50/2.8 C Tessar or a ZM 85/2.8 C Sonnar maybe.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

a true tessar would rule.

 

[back alley]

i vote for an affordable 85!

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I would love a 35-50 f/2.8 lens. It probably wouldn't be a big seller though.

 

[Kristopher]

Yes,

A Tessar, Carl Zeiss is not Carl Zeiss witout a Tessar, a 3.5 single coated would be really nice!

Seriously, what can beat this lovely design?

 

[Doug]

Nobody has yet offered digital-only M-mount lenses... Would there be enough enthusiasm from M8 and Epson owners to justify a Zeiss 2.0/21mmD and/or 1.4/25mmD?

 

[noimmunity]

Like I said last time, a Tessar 45/2.8 (that allows hyperfocal shooting like the one for C/Y mount) and an 85/2.8 Sonnar. I'd buy both. I'm a sucker for ZM lenses.

 

[Harry S.]

75mm f/2. Something to give the APO 'cron a run for its money.

 

[Avotius]

A 85 f2.8 would be great or maybe a 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 planar design lens with 0.7 m focus. No rangefinder lens should have min focus of 0.9 now.

Also a tessar 50 2.8 would really please the folks here. I wouldn't mind seeing a few distagon designs in the line up either, I quite enjoyed the optics in my distagon 50mm on the hasselblad.

 

[nzeeman]

yes tessar would be nice - i wonder if it is possible to make it faster than f2.8. cosina made that fast heliar - that is pretty close to tessar design.

 

[yzblog]

My vote for a reasonable priced 85/2.8

 

[Roger Hicks]

A word of warning: the really exotic Zeiss lenses would usually be made in Germany and therefore be quite expensive.

Oh: and Tessars are pretty much at their limit at f/2.8 -- that's why symmetrical designs and Sonnars are used for faster lenses. In fact, I'm happier with an f/4.5 Tessar than with an f/3.5, and the best Tessar I ever had was a 150/6.3.

A Tessar is essentially a Cooke triplet with the back glass split into a cemented doublet; a Sonnar is usually a triplet with two glasses (middle and rear) split into cemented doublets/triplets, though the 250/5.6 Sonnar is a triplet with the front glass split into two uncemented elements. The original Heliar and Apo-Lanthar are triplets, but with the front and rear glasses split into cemented doublets.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nzeeman]

oh thanks roger - i dont know much about limits of designs. and how much can type of glass improve fstop?

 

[hyun5suk]

I'm wondering if things might not go the other way, say a ZM 50/2.8 C Tessar or a ZM 85/2.8 C Sonnar maybe.

As far as I know, there was no Sonnar 85/2.8 for Contax.
Am I wrong?

Of course, "C" can be compact, But all ZM "C"s are have same spec. with old contax lens...

and I am also waiting for "C-Tessar".....
(Now I use Industar 61L/D.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

oh thanks roger - i dont know much about limits of designs. and how much can type of glass improve fstop?

Both new glasses and aspherics make it possible to build a better lens with fewer elements, but the advantages can easily be exaggerated. It is often easier/cheaper to use common curves, cheaper glass melts, and another element or two, especially with a relatively cheap and (to many eyes) pedestrian lens such as a Tessar.

Exotic glasses, aspheric surfaces and moving elements/groups are useful for wringing the last ounce or two of performance out of a lens that has already exhausted every other trick in the book, but they are hellish expensive.

Moulded aspherics (including compound aspherics, optical resin moulded onto glass) are a lot cheaper than ground aspherics, but as far as I recall, less versatile because of the limited choice of optical characteristics (refractive index, dispersion) available in optical resins, to say nothing of very long term considerations about degradation over decades. But that's all from memory; I'm not an optical designer; and I could easily be wrong.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kross]

35/1.0.....😛

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course, "C" can be compact, But all ZM "C"s are have same spec. with old contax lens...

I don't think so.

At the least, different glasses, different coatings, and (I am reasonably confident) recomputed or even redesigned. Certainly the 50/1.5 Sonnar is a significantly different lens from its Contax forebear.

Cheers,

R.