Why Zeiss is concentrated on wide-angles?

[Roger Hicks]

a 135mm f3.5 (let alone f2.8) has even less DOF than a 85 f1.4 at a given distance. Ok, for the same magnification/framing you could back off with a 135, and that buys you DOF. But still, wide open with a 135 on a rangefinder, there is very little room for error.

It's not so much DoF that I was talking about, as the mechanical precision required to couple at all. This is why I especially like the 135/2.8, as the effective base length is increased by 50%.

Of course Leica made an 85/1.5 lens for RFs, the Summarex, but at an impressive price and in small numbers (fewer than 5000).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ljós]

It's not so much DoF that I was talking about, as the mechanical precision required to couple at all. This is why I especially like the 135/2.8, as the effective base length is increased by 50%. [...]

Yes, and I did not think about the (magnifiyng) goggles. They certainly help.

Greetings, Ljós

 

[Luna]

Got it. I thought you were happy with your ZM. I love mine. It's a cool lens. I really like the way it looks in B&W.

I got the ZK 28 too and love it just as much. Both great lenses. Here is some BW ZM 21mm.
flickr

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah I watch your stuff on flickr.

The 28 looks nice but I already got a 28 that I like.

What makes you hate the ZE 21? I find it interesting that some of the SLR folk think the ZM line is weaker than the ZE line, while some of the RF folk think the opposite.

 

[Luna]

Yeah I watch your stuff on flickr.

The 28 looks nice but I already got a 28 that I like.

What makes you hate the ZE 21? I find it interesting that some of the SLR folk think the ZM line is weaker than the ZE line, while some of the RF folk think the opposite.

Oh sweet. Thanks. Yea, the 28 is also big but I like the speed and FL a lot. It works well on my heavy duty LX.

I think each line, ZM & ZE, has everything they really need at the moment. It would be nice to have a Zeiss branded 35/1.4 or something as fast & wide. But with Cosina as the parent company, Voigtlander filling the gaps, I don't think any more toes will be stepped on in the near future.

I don't hate the ZE 21mm, but I find it funny how dumb people go ga-ga over it. While it is a good lens, it does have its downfalls and in respect, gets beat by other lenses in certain departments. But tell this to a ZE 21 follower and you'll be labeled a blasphemer and be killed by a gun that shoots "Zeiss 3D" at you. So I'll just say, I don't like it, and it is a good lens.

 

[Mister E]

I'll say that the only thing I'd use a ZE 21/2.8 for was as a boat anchor.

 

[Tim Gray]

But tell this to a ZE 21 follower and you'll be labeled a blasphemer and be killed by a gun that shoots "Zeiss 3D" at you.

HAHAHA. Exactly my thoughts.

For me, it's a decent lens that is totally killed by distortion. I take too many shots with straight lines in the 15-21mm range.

I misread your bit about the 28mm. I thought you said ZM, not ZK. I've been somewhat interesting in the ZE, but I don't relish the idea of using a manual focus lens on a camera not really set up for manual focus. Maybe I should pick up an old Nikon or Pentax.