Why do people keep saying Zeiss lenses aren't smooth?

[Daryl J.]

Ok...I'm back to the genuine stuff:

I bought my 1,5/50 C Sonnar used but in like new condition.
Supposedly.
But when I focused it, the rotation had uneven pressure as it turned and had a grit like feel.
So in looking at the back of the lens, I noticed a bit of lubricant at the terminus of the helicoid threads and there literally was what looked like dirt in it. Carefully it was wiped off. And the lens was rotated through its full focus throw many times. I'd remove the lubricant that extruded out the back. And, fortunately, the grit came with it.
Now the lens is absolutely even during the focus throw, silky smooth, and has stayed like that for a year.
And yes, the lens is on and off my Leica regularly. It is my favorite lens for the 35mm format.

Could what is mentioned above be part of what a few have noticed, complained about, and others have repeated and as such have created an urban myth? A superstition that's for the most part both not really relevant and even bogus?

 

[Out to Lunch]

After 5 years of regular use my 2.8/28 Biogon developed a ''wobble''. With advice from some RFF members I could fix it by tightening the back-end black inner ring. I have the 18, 28, 35 and 50 Zeiss ZM lenses and love them all.

 

[Huss]

Could what is mentioned above be part of what a few have noticed, complained about, and others have repeated and as such have created an urban myth? A superstition that's for the most part both not really relevant and even bogus?

Not when actual people have experienced it. Like me. Like Peter above this post. And others here who have chimed in.

But the important thing is we deal with it and continue to use these lenses as their price/performance ratio is so good.

 

[user237428934]

I have the Biogon 35, Planar 50 and had the C-Sonnar 50. All are not as smooth as the budget-friendly Leica lenses I have (Elmarit 28, Summarit 75).
I dropped the Biogon 35 a few years ago and it was repaired by Zeiss and now it is much better.
it's not so bad that I could not live with it but the difference is noticeable.

 

[TennesseJones]

I wouldn't worry either way! Luck of the draw.
I use two Leica lenses and both have issues.
An old 28mm Elmarit whose focus is a little rough and a 35mm 1.4 whose aperture clicks have gone all haywire.
Optically they are awesome though.
Hexanon-M lenses are built brilliantly I find. And old Ai-s Nikkors, they are the business in build quality..

 

[Robert Lai]

I have ZM 21 2.8 and 50 1.5 C-Sonnar. They are wonderful lenses, and as physically smooth and optically as wonderful as my Leica lenses.

Many of my lenses were bought used, and they may have individual problems. However, that is probably due to their past history of (ab)use. A quick visit to DAG has sorted out all problems.

 

[MIkhail]

I cannot tell the difference between my smooth Leica Silk and my Zeiss Silk and my Voighty Silk on my M-mount.

Indeed. Same experience.
I also have bunch of Minolta MD lenses that to me as silky as any other, no wobble, nothing.

 

[Huss]

Funny thing is some people have written how mechanically perfect old Nikon non AI, AI and AIS lenses are. My old Minolta and Leica glass feels much smoother than my old Nikon lenses.
I gotta say, for me the most surprising thing is how good old Minolta lenses are.

 

[Robert Lai]

Old Nikon helical lube dries up and becomes so light that there is no longer any focusing resistance.

Old Canon FL/FD lubes ran into the diaphragm linkage, causing the diaphragm blades to be stuck wide open.

Old Leica grease dries up and becomes hard, making focusing stiff.

All can off-gas and cause haze internally.

That's why I usually get my problem lenses off to their respective repairers to get the modern synthetic lubes that aren't supposed to have these issues. As well, to get the haze out, and rangefinder cams recalibrated as needed.

 

[faris]

Your senses are obviously not sophisticated enough to notice or understand the intricacies of Leica ergonomics and image quality.

Showing how 26 years old you are. Sheesh!

 

[Robert Lai]

I think he just forgot the /sarcasm/ indicator.

 

[Richard G]

(sarcasm is difficult to transfer over the internet)

I got it from your first post. But then, I am known to be similarly sophisticated.

 

[______]

You hear it all the time when people talk about the ZM line up. "They don't have that Leica silk" and "they're just not as smooth as Leica" or (my favorite) "the IQ of xxx lens is great but it's just not smooth like my Lux".

We must travel in different circles. To trot out an old saw, you must be talking to too many dentists.

 

[Richard G]

After 5 years of regular use my 2.8/28 Biogon developed a ''wobble''. With advice from some RFF members I could fix it by tightening the back-end black inner ring. I have the 18, 28, 35 and 50 Zeiss ZM lenses and love them all.

I have a similar line up but I have your 28 problem in a 25. It annoys me enough not to use it much. Never get round to fixing it. The pictures with it are stunning.

My newish Leica 28 really is smoother than everything else, but ideally there'd be a bit more resistance to moving the focus. My 2000 Elmar M 50 is perfect in this regard. Can't fault anything on my C Biogon 21 and 35 or the 50 C Sonnar, which I have dropped three times.

Can someone describe in detail the wobble? My 25 Biogon has more of a 'knock'.

 

[YYV_146]

My 5 cents:

The 50mm planar ZM is a fine lens, but mechanically clearly not on par with the 50mm APO summicron. Bokeh is noticeably harsher. Then again, it seems unfair to judge a $700 lens against a $7,000 one...

The 35mm distagon ZM is about as sharp as the Lux FLE on center. But IMO the lux FLE has better bokeh. The draw is more pleasing but that may just be me being a long-term owner for the FLE.

The 15mm Distagon ZM is wonderfully sharp, super-contrasty and built as good (if not better) as the Noctilux ASPH. Maybe someone might consider the contrast "harsh", but I certainly don't. Leica doesn't have anything that is even roughly comparable at the superwide end.

 

[:: Mark]

Indeed. Same experience.
I also have bunch of Minolta MD lenses that to me as silky as any other, no wobble, nothing.

Same here. In fact, I prefer the build of the C-Sonnar and 35mm distagon to the 50mm summilux that I have. The summilux hood mechanism feels fragile, and the aperture ring is so loose that it gets easily moved accidentally.

My only complaint against the distagon is that the focus ring takes more force to move than other lenses, making it more difficult to focus using a single finger via the tab. There is no stiction, however, and the focus movement is smoother than the summilux...

I also very much agree about the Minolta lenses. I have an amazing 1970's 24mm f2.8 prime that is built as well as any other lens that I have and which is still perfectly smooth after all these years. I purchased that along with a 50mm f1.4 and mint condition XDs body (also superbly built) for 100ukp via ebay! The trick with Minolta is to look for equipment made before the X300/500/700 era, when a more fragile plastic build was introduced (still great optics - though I may be biased as my first camera was an X300 + 50mm f1.7 🙂

 

[Huss]

The 15mm Distagon ZM is wonderfully sharp, super-contrasty and built as good (if not better) as the Noctilux ASPH.

The 15mm Distagon is made in Germany by Zeiss, most of the other ZM lenses are made in Japan by Cosina.