visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
The following is a quote from the Zeiss website. They're saying the Sonnar 85mm will be delayed. It doesn't, however, say when we may see this lens. Too bad - it would have made a tasty addition to the line up.
Ron
"Further delay of Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM
In June 2006 we announced that the market introduction of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens was postponed due to mechanical improvements. Extensive prototype testing of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens for the Zeiss Ikon camera had indicated that improvements were needed to the long term ruggedness of this first internal focusing tele lens for a rangefinder camera.
After several attempts to achieve modifications which could have been implemented in the relatively short term and did not fully deliver the intended results, we decided to perform a major redesign. This redesign will significantly increase the durability and long term precision of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens.
Due to the high standards demanded by Carl Zeiss on the precision of our products, volume production of the Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM could not start as scheduled. We will inform you accordingly when the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens becomes available."
Ron
"Further delay of Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM
In June 2006 we announced that the market introduction of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens was postponed due to mechanical improvements. Extensive prototype testing of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens for the Zeiss Ikon camera had indicated that improvements were needed to the long term ruggedness of this first internal focusing tele lens for a rangefinder camera.
After several attempts to achieve modifications which could have been implemented in the relatively short term and did not fully deliver the intended results, we decided to perform a major redesign. This redesign will significantly increase the durability and long term precision of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens.
Due to the high standards demanded by Carl Zeiss on the precision of our products, volume production of the Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM could not start as scheduled. We will inform you accordingly when the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/85 ZM lens becomes available."
back alley
IMAGES
pity
x-ray
Veteran
Darn! Can't wait.
FanMan
Established
"a major re-design" - that sounds not good
peter_n
Veteran
"Improvements were needed to the long term ruggedness". At least they're honest about it.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Sonnar 2.8 lens?
Sonnar 2.8 lens?
Looking at this, I am actually wondering whether they should re-release either of the Sonnar 90/2.8 or 85/2.8 (former Contax G or MM) in ZM mount to offer their users something. These lenses are a lot simpler, not needing any floating elements. This would offer their users a short and lightweight telephoto without going Leica or CV. I still have to see someone who is unhappy with either of the old Sonnar lenses.
Sonnar 2.8 lens?
Looking at this, I am actually wondering whether they should re-release either of the Sonnar 90/2.8 or 85/2.8 (former Contax G or MM) in ZM mount to offer their users something. These lenses are a lot simpler, not needing any floating elements. This would offer their users a short and lightweight telephoto without going Leica or CV. I still have to see someone who is unhappy with either of the old Sonnar lenses.
I just think they like to make announcements.
Loose lips sink ships, they should keep um tight until the lenses are on the boat heading to be grounded off the England and then we can all hope that Mango gets to that container that washes ashore before the bobbies close the beach.
Loose lips sink ships, they should keep um tight until the lenses are on the boat heading to be grounded off the England and then we can all hope that Mango gets to that container that washes ashore before the bobbies close the beach.
Sparrow
Veteran
rover said:
Now that would be treasure trove
Huck Finn
Well-known
FanMan said:
Why?
Huck Finn
Well-known
joachim said:
I wonder if they haven't had this in mind all along. We have seen them come out with a second, slower version at the 21 mm focal length, so why not at the 85/90 for just the reason you suggest? Perhaps the delay would be the very reason to move onto the front burner something that they had planned to do all along anyway.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I imagine they're trying to make this lens a "Leica killer" and designing yet another f/2.8 lens just isn't going to cut it.
Ron
Ron
jano
Evil Bokeh
My wallet thanks them
FanMan
Established
Huck Finn said:Why?
it seems that I have to wait longer for the lens than expected.
OTOH, maybe they are going this way: "hey, what we originally planned is sooo sophisticated - either the lens will cost much more than originally announced or we'll make a loss with every lens sold. So, let's start new, build something good and reliable, a lens that will simply will do its work for some years, a lens that's sharp and will not wobble ...... and with a sexy lens-cap
"
peter_n
Veteran
Hard to do. Leica has two excellent 75s and 90s on either side of the 85. I think its good they're saying they need more time to get it right.visiondr said:
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
peter_n said:
You're absolutely right Peter. But, I assume the Zeiss price will be much lower than the Leica lenses. Given that and a fantastic lens, it could be stiff competition for the Leica glass.
Ron
visiondr said:
I do not believe the German made ZM 85mm was slotted to be priced much less than the Leica competition. This and one other lens right from the start were to be priced pretty substantially compared to the other ZM lenses.
Berliner
Well-known
I have both the 90 G and 85 MM...Stellar lenses for the money. But I agree, 2.8 would be a little bit of a let down. I bought the ZI in anticipation of this lens, so I'll wait for the little gem and squander my savings on life's little luxurys like food, and heating oil until it's released...
Nachkebia
Well-known
Price of ZM 85 is around $2300, from my understanding delay was due mechanics and not optical design just imagine if $2300 lens would start wobbling
just imagine if $2300 lens would start wobbling 
Sonnar2
Well-known
Joachim got it right. I'm even happy with my 1970' 2.8/85 Rolleiflex Sonnar which just has 4 elements... but this was a relatively slow, small, and cheap lens these days.
What they want now is the opposite, to attack the APO-Summicron 2/90. And that seems not so easy. Coming out now with a f/2.8 would be absurd, and Cosina/Voigtlander already has a 2.5/75 which isn't bad either.
I appreciate that "major redesign" and hope for a different spec, because I wouldn't have seen a good reason why to buy this "Sonnar" which is as bulgy as the old SLR-Planar 1.4/85 lens - and no bad performer even for today's standards - for a price similar to a nice, comparatively compact and simple constructed lens like the Apo-Summicron, which only disadvantage is price.
What they want now is the opposite, to attack the APO-Summicron 2/90. And that seems not so easy. Coming out now with a f/2.8 would be absurd, and Cosina/Voigtlander already has a 2.5/75 which isn't bad either.
I appreciate that "major redesign" and hope for a different spec, because I wouldn't have seen a good reason why to buy this "Sonnar" which is as bulgy as the old SLR-Planar 1.4/85 lens - and no bad performer even for today's standards - for a price similar to a nice, comparatively compact and simple constructed lens like the Apo-Summicron, which only disadvantage is price.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
It isn't really 2.8 or 2.0
It isn't really 2.8 or 2.0
Hi,
I wasn't really suggesting that they should drop the 85/2.0 in favour of a 2.8 design. It is "horses for causes" or personal preferences. For me the proposed 2.0 design is to heavy and to bulky. I prefer to compromise on the speed in favour of a smaller design. I appreciate that others want/need the 2.0 speed. Hence Leica offers a choice of 90/2.0 and 90/2.8. Why shouldn't Zeiss do the same? Actually they do with the 50ies and are about to do with the 21s, why not with the 90ies as well?
From what is published so far, I got the impression that their 85/2.0 design proves to ambitious for a rangefinder, purely relying on mechanical precision. Complicated floating element designs are easier on SLRs, where the user (or AF system) can correct for mechanical imprecisions from the finder system. A 2.8 design would not need complicated floating elements and Zeiss should be able to marked that quite quickly. If they go for the existing designs this would not involve much research either (this is done) and these lenses could be offered at an attractive price. They better hurry up with this. The way things are, newcomers will buy either a CV 90/3.5 or a Leica 90/2.8 or 90/2.0 for their telephoto needs. Neither of them is known as particular bad. Not sure about the CV 75/2.5 since this is quite a stretch from the 85 frame of the Zeiss Ikon.
It isn't really 2.8 or 2.0
Hi,
I wasn't really suggesting that they should drop the 85/2.0 in favour of a 2.8 design. It is "horses for causes" or personal preferences. For me the proposed 2.0 design is to heavy and to bulky. I prefer to compromise on the speed in favour of a smaller design. I appreciate that others want/need the 2.0 speed. Hence Leica offers a choice of 90/2.0 and 90/2.8. Why shouldn't Zeiss do the same? Actually they do with the 50ies and are about to do with the 21s, why not with the 90ies as well?
From what is published so far, I got the impression that their 85/2.0 design proves to ambitious for a rangefinder, purely relying on mechanical precision. Complicated floating element designs are easier on SLRs, where the user (or AF system) can correct for mechanical imprecisions from the finder system. A 2.8 design would not need complicated floating elements and Zeiss should be able to marked that quite quickly. If they go for the existing designs this would not involve much research either (this is done) and these lenses could be offered at an attractive price. They better hurry up with this. The way things are, newcomers will buy either a CV 90/3.5 or a Leica 90/2.8 or 90/2.0 for their telephoto needs. Neither of them is known as particular bad. Not sure about the CV 75/2.5 since this is quite a stretch from the 85 frame of the Zeiss Ikon.