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

[Ko.Fe.]

Please tell me how Zeiss has bad pricing practices vs. Leica or CV (when you haven't used them)?

Sure and with respect and pleasure!
I've had choice to make recently for M-E. Simply as 50 fast lens. What Ziess Cosina has? Just one lens which isn't capable of close focusing on 0.7, which suffers from focus shift and needs to be "optimized" to have shift at one apperture, but not at another. And this is above 1K$ USD price mark. Just because it has Zeiss name on it. While CV has at least two fast 50, I'm aware of, no focus shift, at least one has 0.7m focusing distance and costs way bellow of lens with Zeiss sticker on it.
Slow ZM 35 2.8 cost 1/3 more comparing to twice faster 35 1.4 CV, which is very nicely build and worn out nicely as well.
And ZM, just because it is Zeiss label prices I have seen fo UWA, tele slow lenses is 😱, comparing to CV offerings.

 

[brbo]

Oh really?

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/zm-lenses-build-quality-and-wobble.92779/ (solution at bottom of thread)

Yes, really*!

But, of course, we'll have to trust you and the internet on this one. Same as with the proverbial Leica smoothness.


* Did you ever had a Zeiss with a wobble (not just filter ring play (as in the link you posted) or loose rear retention ring)? Cause I tried this fix before paying Zeiss to fix it...

 

[jsrockit]

Sure and with respect and pleasure!
I've had choice to make recently for M-E. Simply as 50 fast lens. What Ziess Cosina has? Just one lens which isn't capable of close focusing on 0.7, which suffers from focus shift and needs to be "optimized" to have shift at one apperture, but not at another. And this is above 1K$ USD price mark. Just because it has Zeiss name on it. While CV has at least two fast 50, I'm aware of, no focus shift, at least one has 0.7m focusing distance and costs way bellow of lens with Zeiss sticker on it.

Ok, that's the Sonnar... I agree with you there, but how about the Planar?
It's one of the best deals in M lenses out there. I love the CV 50mm lenses too (those being the other great M mount deal), but the Planar is a very nice lens at a very reasonable price.

Slow ZM 35 2.8 cost 1/3 more comparing to twice faster 35 1.4 CV, which is very nicely build and worn out nicely as well.

Ok, let's be fair here. Slow and bad are not the same thing. That Zeiss C-Biogon is a hell of a lens at a great price as well. One of my favorite M lenses of all time. And if we are going to call out the Sonnar for shifting, let's be honest about the 35mm CV 1.4....it shifts as well.

And ZM, just because it is Zeiss label prices I have seen fo UWA, tele slow lenses is 😱, comparing to CV offerings.

Sure, I can understand that, but you cannot say that Zeiss, categorically, is overpriced and does not make some nice items.

 

[rajmohan-fotograf]

Ok, that's the Sonnar... I agree with you there, but how about the Planar?
It's one of the best deals in M lenses out there. I love the CV 50mm lenses too (those being the other great M mount deal), but the Planar is a very nice lens at a very reasonable price.



Ok, let's be fair here. Slow and bad are not the same thing. That Zeiss C-Biogon is a hell of a lens at a great price as well. One of my favorite M lenses of all time.

+1 and +1 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...how about the Planar?
It's one of the best deals in M lenses out there. I love the CV 50mm lenses too (those being the other great M mount deal), but the Planar is a very nice lens at a very reasonable price.

Sure, I can understand that, but you cannot say that Zeiss, categorically, is overpriced and does not make some nice items.

Plannar 50 f2 is listed 828$ at BH and Nokton 501.5 is 779. Slow, old design lens cost more than modern, ASPH lens which is not over-contrasty as Zeiss.
Planar gives f2 and weights 210gm, Nokton (black) 220 gm.

If I would go for modern 50 2 now, it would be Heliar 50 f2 which is still available at 779$. I knew what this lens is special, and not Zeiss sharp. I'm not only seen electronic examples provided to me, but I also printed from negates exposed with this lens. But I needed faster lens this time at good price and less shifting issues. It isn't Zeiss for sure.

 

[Huss]

Y If you are insecure enough to need to justify your choices at least stick with arguments that have a basis in reality.

It seems starting this thread is a sign of insecurity.

Why do you care about what others think of your lens choices?

 

[MCTuomey]

Regardless from what I've read there is a DIY fix that takes about a half hour to get you back in business and involves disassembly and screw tightening.

Not the binding or wobble issues. I've had three ZM lenses with these problems repaired over the last 5-6 years, all out of warranty, two by just a few months. C-Sonnar 50, Biogon 35/2, Planar 50. Cost approx. $200-250 and took 4-6 weeks each. Each got progressively worse pretty rapidly before I sent them in. Also have had a couple of M lenses repaired, pretty expensively, so I have no bias.

I am not hard on my gear at all, maybe I'm just unlucky, I don't know. I figure photo gear needs repair, adjustment, cleaning from time to time. I take care of my stuff, so I get 'em fixed. No whining, just realistic.

If I had to judge the issue of smoothness, on the basis of the lenses I've used, I'd probably say I like the aperture ring movement on ZM lenses and I like the focus ring movement on Leica lenses. Focus rings on ZM glass seem tight when new, my Planar 50 was this way, but they get better with use. Leica aperture rings can be a bit loose for my taste. Just a generalization though. They all are sweet.

 

[SaveKodak]

It seems starting this thread is a sign of insecurity.

Why do you care about what others think of your lens choices?

Ah, the indefatigable "no you are!" argument. Well played.

This isn't about MY personal lens choices. I have some ZI, CV and a Leica body. This is about truth and fantasy. And this is a gear forum, we talk about gear, we share pictures of our gear, and we compare gear. This is a conversation about the comparison. If you want to take part in it I'd try to think of something productive to say.

 

[JHutchins]

Don't want to attack the ZM lenses in any way as I've liked mine and there are some I've never owned that I'm very fond of in the hands of others (the C-Sonnar) but everything fond thing you say of ZM lenses and every caustic thing you hear could both be right. That is what you'd expect with quality control issues. When something sells in the thousands or tens of thousands and there is bad quality control then there are thousands of happy people out there but also hundreds or even thousands of people who get something that is really not nearly as nice as what you have and one of the things that makes it less nice could be rough focus? Those with problems are more likely to be the ones who speak -- that's just the nature of people and forums like this so reputations develop on bad examples.

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".

Unless whatever lens they're using is physically BROKEN...what are they talking about???

All my ZM lenses rotate through the helical in one fluid motion from infinity to MFD. All the aperture 1/3rd stops click normally and they do not shift easily by mistake. I've used a couple of the cheaper CV lenses that start off with a few rough spots in the focusing range, but even they generally clear up with use. Never have my ZM lenses exhibited this, and I would put the quality I saw in the 35/1.4 up against anything.

I find these sophistic arguments particularly irritating. If you are insecure enough to need to justify your choices at least stick with arguments that have a basis in reality.

 

[SaveKodak]

Plannar 50 f2 is listed 828$ at BH and Nokton 501.5 is 779. Slow, old design lens cost more than modern, ASPH lens which is not over-contrasty as Zeiss.
Planar gives f2 and weights 210gm, Nokton (black) 220 gm.

If I would go for modern 50 2 now, it would be Heliar 50 f2 which is still available at 779$. I knew what this lens is special, and not Zeiss sharp. I'm not only seen electronic examples provided to me, but I also printed from negates exposed with this lens. But I needed faster lens this time at good price and less shifting issues. It isn't Zeiss for sure.

Your personal bias is coming into this now. Planar overly contrasty? Who set the standard for the appropriate amount of contrast?

One could make the argument that the Planar is a modern optic, sharp at all apertures, which balances size, quality, and cost in one package. The Nokton is a fabulous lens but it is larger, and not everyone wants a 1.5 aperture when ƒ2 will do. The same could be applied to the Sonnar. Zeiss is clear about what it is and what it does. Sounds like that's just not what you want. Totally fine, but it's not a problem for those who have and love the lens. It's still cheaper than a Canon 50mm 1.2, or a Nikon 58mm 1.4, or a Leica 50mm 2.4. I would love it if it were cheaper, but I can't also say that they're crazy (Leica prices help with that).


Back on topic, it seems like the only thing people can say is that if ZM lenses develop play in the helical then they're not smooth. I would agree that any RF lens would play should be repaired, but I won't go so far as to say that's standard and to be expected from ALL ZM lenses.

 

[Daryl J.]

Much of Internet information can be summed up as "rinse, repeat." vs "long term personal experience."

I cannot tell the difference between my smooth Leica Silk and my Zeiss Silk and my Voighty Silk on my M-mount. Old Juptier Silk feels more like Thrift Store Silk and old Industar Silk feels more like Car Shop Silk. But that's just my experience. Smooth as Silk.

Mr Product now announcing the finished product "Mr Silk". Applying Mr Silk to your lens helicoids will guarantee the silkiest tactility for your lens that matches the best of the best. Mr Silk erases internet cliches with remarkable effectiveness that is as slick as silk as well. Mr Silk by Mr Product, for lenses. For Internet misnomers. Certain to satisfy. Mr Silk.
Satire mode: now off.
Back to regular programming.

 

[jsrockit]

Plannar 50 f2 is listed 828$ at BH and Nokton 501.5 is 779. Slow, old design lens cost more than modern, ASPH lens which is not over-contrasty as Zeiss. Planar gives f2 and weights 210gm, Nokton (black) 220 gm.

Seems like minutiae to me. Both great lenses.

 

[rajmohan-fotograf]

Much of Internet information can be summed up as "rinse, repeat." vs "long term personal experience."

I cannot tell the difference between my smooth Leica Silk and my Zeiss Silk and my Voighty Silk on my M-mount. Old Juptier Silk feels more like Thrift Store Silk and old Industar Silk feels more like Car Shop Silk. But that's just my experience. Smooth as Silk.

Mr Product now announcing the finished product "Mr Silk". Applying Mr Silk to your lens helicoids will guarantee the silkiest tactility for your lens that matches the best of the best. Mr Silk erases internet cliches with remarkable effectiveness that is as slick as silk as well. Mr Silk by Mr Product, for lenses. For Internet misnomers. Certain to satisfy. Mr Silk.
Satire mode: now off.
Back to regular programming.

Don't forget Rokkor-M Silk 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Your personal bias is coming into this now. Planar overly contrasty? Who set the standard for the appropriate amount of contrast?

One could make the argument that the Planar is a modern optic, sharp at all apertures, which balances size, quality, and cost in one package. The Nokton is a fabulous lens but it is larger, and not everyone wants a 1.5 aperture when ƒ2 will do. The same could be applied to the Sonnar. Zeiss is clear about what it is and what it does. Sounds like that's just not what you want. Totally fine, but it's not a problem for those who have and love the lens. It's still cheaper than a Canon 50mm 1.2.

Canon 50 1.2 LTM is with same price range with ZM Planar.

"Personal b" has to be addressed to you, not to me. RFFFMs have described Planar as high contrast lens, well before you ever knew about Leica and Zeiss.

 

[Huss]

Back on topic, it seems like the only thing people can say is that if ZM lenses develop play in the helical then they're not smooth. I would agree that any RF lens would play should be repaired, but I won't go so far as to say that's standard and to be expected from ALL ZM lenses.

Hmm, my ZM 35 1.4 is definitely not as smooth as any of my Leica lenses.
It doesn't wobble, but has a slightly sticky feeling to it in the focusing mechanism, as if there is a touch more drag than there should be.
My ZM 50 1.5 has a drier feeling than any of my Leica lenses.
My Zm 50 Planar feels slightly gritty compared to my Leica lenses.

My ZF (Zeiss for Nikon) lenses - both the 35mm f2 and the 50mm Makro Planar - on the other hand feel incredible. A match to my Leica glass. In my experience the ZF series are built to a higher standard, most probably because more pros shoot with that than with Zm lenses.

So as someone who uses Zeiss and Leica, there you have it.
But what do you expect? Leica costs far more.

I am very happy with my Zeiss glass and they give wonderful results. That's what matters.

Here is what I have with me today:

 

[uhoh7]

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".

Unless whatever lens they're using is physically BROKEN...what are they talking about???

All my ZM lenses rotate through the helical in one fluid motion from infinity to MFD. All the aperture 1/3rd stops click normally and they do not shift easily by mistake. I've used a couple of the cheaper CV lenses that start off with a few rough spots in the focusing range, but even they generally clear up with use. Never have my ZM lenses exhibited this, and I would put the quality I saw in the 35/1.4 up against anything.

I find these sophistic arguments particularly irritating. If you are insecure enough to need to justify your choices at least stick with arguments that have a basis in reality.

Are you sure they are taking about the focus ring? More likely it's the pop....still just a stereotype.

Humans need to feel they understand...it's so sad.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I'd love to have a ZM Planar 50 but have been scared away by the wobble issues which I have read about here and elsewhere. I have a number of CV lenses and none of them have any mechanical blips. My only Leica glass is the LTM variety and they are splendid lenses.

 

[helen.HH]

Yes haha. I wondered how long I should string you along and remembered that sarcasm doesn't translate well through the web haha. I've used most of everything from every manufacturer and they all have their own set of issues. Leica seems to get a pass though, like SaveKodak is saying.

ha on me.... though Thereare those who are firm believers
hehehe.... very naughty of You indeed !

 

[helen.HH]

I'd love to have a ZM Planar 50 but have been scared away by the wobble issues which I have read about here and elsewhere. I have a number of CV lenses and none of them have any mechanical blips. My only Leica glass is the LTM variety and they are splendid lenses.

just bought one
for the 2nd time... LOVE it

i have never had any issues of the dreaded wobble
buying new or used gear... call me Lucky or who knows what
have used 28 Biogon, 35 Biogon, 35 C biogon, 50 C Sonnar, 50 Planar

 

[Huss]

I'd love to have a ZM Planar 50 but have been scared away by the wobble issues ...

Do it, it is a fantastic lens. Far better flare resistance than my Lux 50.
If u buy new - no issues as I think Cosina tightened up their QC. If you buy used, just check it out first.