Why Zeiss is concentrated on wide-angles?

Mister E said:
What's a decent price? They released a spectacular 85/4 for around $700 and almost no one has purchased it.
Click to expand...

I suppose decent would be between $1200-$1500. Seems like no one has purchased the f/2 Sonnar either. Maybe Zeiss could discontinue those 2 products and put an f/2.8.
 
Colin G. said:

I suppose decent would be between $1200-$1500. Seems like no one has purchased the f/2 Sonnar either. Maybe Zeiss could discontinue those 2 products and put an f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Whilst it isn't exactly a hot seller, the Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f/2.0 is no slouch in performance. There are a bunch of users out there who actually enjoy this lens. Here are some pictures of mine taken on both film and digital RF.


Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f/2.0 @ f/2.0 by benny ng, on Flickr


Fujifilm GA645Zi + GA645Wi by benny ng, on Flickr


Together by benny ng, on Flickr


Burning slowly by benny ng, on Flickr
 
Glad to see Zeiss indirectly supporting Capa... "if your pictures aren't good enough..."

Previous posters have dialed in on it, but there's a photographically-interest driven reason to focus more on WAs than telephotos. They produce more interesting and engaging photos than telephotos do, *and* they're harder to build with great optical qualities intact in the majority of cases. As such, Zeiss has more bargaining power there.
 
Benny, I know you have this lens and those are great results from it. I don't think anyone is calling either ZM 85mm a slouch!
 
Colin G. said:
If Zeiss released an 85mm 2.8 for the ZM line at a decent price, I'd buy one. Who's with me?
Click to expand...

Get a Hexanon 90/2.8. Pretty much an M-mount copy of the 90/2.8 Sonnar and a great lens at that.

"Why Zeiss is concentrated on wide-angles?": Equ. makers sell what's fashionable and makes more money, not necessarily what's more useful.
 
It always appeared to me that they had a balanced line up of lenses for rangefinders. Which is naturally weighted towards the wide end. Many people don't use 135's on RF, and while I admit that some people prefer 90 while others go for 75, using both is often redundant. And 75 is somewhat of a Leica oddity anyway, so Zeiss just went with 90.

I think thats why Zeiss has two lenses at 50 and two at 90. The questions I'd have are:
1. Why no 90/2.8?
2. Why no modern 50/1.4?
 
Tim Gray said:
It always appeared to me that they had a balanced line up of lenses for rangefinders. Which is naturally weighted towards the wide end. Many people don't use 135's on RF, and while I admit that some people prefer 90 while others go for 75, using both is often redundant. And 75 is somewhat of a Leica oddity anyway, so Zeiss just went with 90.

I think thats why Zeiss has two lenses at 50 and two at 90. The questions I'd have are:
1. Why no 90/2.8?
2. Why no modern 50/1.4?
Click to expand...

They have 85mm not 90mm (in leica M mount). I was asking those questions too. I think for the same reason. They want to keep their high quality-low distortion line of products.

There is SLR mount 50 f1.4 and from the reviews I see that it is not very successful compared to Canon 50mm f1.4 autofocus lens (distortion wise, corners-quality wise) Whereas ZE 21mm beats up all other competitors with a big difference.

Obviously they are also very specialized in wide angle formulas!
 
Last edited:
LeicaFoReVer said:
There is SLR mount 50 f1.4 and from the reviews I see that it is not very successful compared to Canon 50mm f1.4 autofocus lens (distortion wise, corners-quality wise) Whereas ZF 21mm beats up all other competitors with a big difference.
Click to expand...

This is funny. You couldn't give me a Canon 50/1.4 for free and I would pay happily for the Zeiss 50. On the other hand, I wouldn't pay for a Zeiss 21mm ever. It is a big hunk of hyped-up, fashion-motivated doodoo.

But I do love Zeiss and their 3D. (omg! I said it!)
 
the test was on full frame body and the things I said were mostly at f1.4. It suffers from vignetting and distortion at the corners more than others (according to the test, i did not use any of those lenses). Those are technical caveats but it does not change the fact that it is wonderful lens with beautiful zeiss look.

here is one of the reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/537-zeiss50f14eosff?start=1
 
Haha, ok, so I assume you didn't pay for judging by your previous statement? Or were you referring only to the ZE 21?
 
Roger Hicks said:
[...] Finally, focusing an 85/1.4 is pretty marginal [...]
Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tim Gray said:
Haha, ok, so I assume you didn't pay for judging by your previous statement? Or were you referring only to the ZE 21?
Click to expand...

Why I did pay for the C-Biogon, I got it for a steal. And I love this lens.
The latter of your statements is correct. It was the lens in question at the time of posting.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom