Zeiss and their wonderful lenses.... and the 21mm....

[haagen_dazs]

(I had to post this here because I wanted to touch on the G ZM, ZF/ZS and CY lenses.. .so if the mods want to move it somewhere else.. its ok 🙂 )

1
I was wondering if someone could clarify something for me.
Zeiss has a very complicated 😕 history..
Was it the same Carl Zeiss company ( ie i am referring to the basic culture of the company even though the company worked with many others) that designed their lenses for the G series, ZM lenses as well as the ZF/ZS and C/Y (SLR lenses) ?
(for that matter, the ZA too?)

2
If Zeiss is really controlling all the design and construction, that is really cool
I want to touch more on the 21mm lens.
Perhaps it is because I am attracted to only outstanding WA lenes.
I am highly disappointed at Canon's wide angles selection (anything less than 24mm). Perhaps it is really due to the film-flange distance... but That is another story.

I have seen samples from the CY 21mm lens. It is simply outstanding and beautiful. The optics are apparently redesigned and Zeiss has really put alot of engineering work into it their wide angle lenses. The distortion is unique in that it displays an upside down U shape graph (from their white papers)
What that means is that as the image proceeds from the center to the corner, the photograph gets abit of distortion but then it "redistorts" back to normal.
I find that kind of image very pleasing and not grossly out of proportions.
However that lens is whopping expensive.

I am considering the G 21mm lens. It seems that that lens too displays similar characteristics. This forum suggests many happy users. The distortion profile looks non existent 😛

Anyhow, I was wondering if the ZM and G optics build from similar designs. The have the same elements and many similar/same characteristics.
( I know it cant be the same as the CY because the CY is a distagon and there is no 21mm for the ZF at this time)


Lastly, being technical in nature, I just would like to know the technical optical details of lenses i use. For those who dont like to dwell into such details (MTFs, pixel peep), please dont flame me. Continue your passion to love photography and just shoot.
Cheers!
🙂

 

[sircarl]

You won't be able to use the G 21 mm lens (which I have, by the way, and is superb). It only fits the Contax G1 and G2 cameras, and does not have an M mount. It's possible that some sort of G to M adapter has been made, but I doubt it, as it is designed to work with an autofocus camera.

 

[haagen_dazs]

i forgot to add
i mean .. most really good WA lens (eg leica and zeiss 15 etc etc) have some sort of the upside down U shape distortion graph.
But the CY CZ 21mm lens has the graph returning to the zero base point furtherest from the center.

now
that is the coolest part

 

[haagen_dazs]

You won't be able to use the G 21 mm lens (which I have, by the way, and is superb). .

I do have a G2 body to consider getting the G 21mm lens.
thanks

 

[sircarl]

Oh, that's a different story. You only show the R3A in your signature.

 

[Huck Finn]

With regard to your first question, it is the same Carl Zeiss AG of Germany that designed the G, ZM, ZF/ZS, & C/Y lenses.

With regard to the optical designs of the G & ZM 21/2.8 lenses, have you looked at the lens diagrams on the Contax & Zeiss websites & compared them?

When Zeiss gives a lens a name, it means that the lens is a version of the optical design represented by that name - unlike some other companies. So, the fact that both are Biogons means that yes, both are built from similar designs. However, a look at the diagrams of the 2 lenses shows that the designs have been tweaked because there are obvious differences between the them. In addition, the dimensions & filter size are different. Zeiss has said that the ZM lenses were designed for use with digital cameras, so this may be a factor in the differences. However, I would expect similar performance in both lenses.

 

[jaap]

The Contax G 21 mm is the better lens over the ZM 21mm. The G-lens is really made pure for film and that's why it can point much further in the camera body then the ZM Biogon.

 

[visiondr]

let's let biogons be biogons

let's let biogons be biogons

The Contax G 21 mm is the better lens over the ZM 21mm. The G-lens is really made pure for film and that's why it can point much further in the camera body then the ZM Biogon.

Interesting, though, how the Zeiss Biogon 25mm/2.8 ZM is a better performer (via MTF charts only) than the 21mm/2.8 Biogon G and they appear to have the same optical cell.

 

[jaap]

maybe after all the difference isn,t that much!

 

[Quercus]

The differences between different cz designed lenses I think is very much subjective. I use zm, cyT* and rollei zeiss HFT, of all i personally prefer the HFT lenses for colour and the zm for bw but between the cyT to me the G series perform more like rolleis than the slr lenses. Oddly though given the chance i would swap all for a set of ikon/voigtlander in TM and stick them on a pentax mx with adaptor if I could afford a full set that is - german ikon/voigt (1960s) not cosina ikon /voigt btw

 

[Pherdinand]

your acronyms are a bit difficult to follow, at least at midnight.

 

[Dan States]

I've owned both the G and ZM 21mm lenses and they are both outstanding. The ZM is a BIT better wide open to my eyes, but after that I can't tell the difference in the negatives.

They both have that ultra clear Zeiss look and neither need a lens hood because it's just plain hard to make them flare. If there is any optical fault with them it would be light falloff, which is a tradeoff of the design. No problem unless you underexpose Velvia or some other high contrast slide film.

Regarding distortion...Both Biogon lenses have so little distortion that it is not detectable by the human eye. The CY lens is a completely different beast altogether, though great for it's purpose (SLR).

Best wishes
Dan

 

[Doug]

When I was looking for the best fast 21, I was attracted to the Biogon-G due to the low price, even counting in a cheap used G1 body to put it on. This was before the ZM series, and so if I have one regret about my purchase it would be a wish that my 21 were in M mount and thus not requiring the G body. Still, dedicating a particular lens to a body is accepted practice in the LTM and M-mount communities too. And the lens is delightful, particularly gratifying at the economical price. 🙂

 

[fuwen]

I believed all lenses of Zeiss were designed by Zeiss with Zeiss German tradition, even though many of them were made by Japan, and some Singapore.

In terms of distortion the G series top the rest, and it was because the rear elements were allowed to protrude more towards the negative. The ZM series, which pushed the resolution and contrast MTFs further, lost to the G series in terms of distortion (except the 35f2). For some reasons more space was required for the Cosina based bodies.

Life is always a compromise. While the M mount lenses have better distortion control, they loose out to the SLR counterparts in terms of light fall off. SLR designs when adequately stop down light fall off improves drastically. The ZM15 was even designed with uniform light fall off characteristics at all apertures so that a centre filter can be used with uniform effect for all f stops.

Every Zeiss lens each has its unique character. U probably won't go wrong by collecting all of them. They were probably not technically perfect, but it is their characters that will get u hooked, if they are to your taste.

 

[haagen_dazs]

Thank you all for your insights!!

maybe after all the difference isn,t that much!

that is true... but i sometimes i like to pay attention to the technical details.
at other times, i just spend more time taking photos and improving oneself...

With regard to your first question, it is the same Carl Zeiss AG of Germany that designed the G, ZM, ZF/ZS, & C/Y lenses.


However, I would expect similar performance in both lenses.

Zeiss is really doing very very well in the WA department 🙂
thanks for answering the first question...

And the lens is delightful, particularly gratifying at the economical price. 🙂

hmm i am looking around for one.
actually i just saw a black one on ebay ... but the starting price is kind of high at 850USD
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEWA:IT&viewitem=&item=110101943622&rd=1&rd=1

 

[jaap]

Nice in Black !

 

[Seele]

I believed all lenses of Zeiss were designed by Zeiss with Zeiss German tradition, even though many of them were made by Japan, and some Singapore.

Ever since Zeiss started making photographic lenses in 1890-1891, it has a licensing arrangement with other lens makers to have lenses made to Zeiss designs. The first licensee was Voigtländer, and others included Bausch & Lomb, Ross, Koriska, Kodak, Goerz, Krauss, etc etc.

After WWII, both Jena and Oberkochen still practised this licensing, although the latter was (and still is) more active. The major post-war Oberkochen licensees include Tomioka (who made Contax Zeiss lenses), Cosina (current maker), Sony/Tamron, Nokia (the camera phone part which could be made by Kodak), and perhaps others. Before unification, Jena was not very much into licensing itself, but only in a very limited way through the British subsidiary, and makers included Sigma (for the Jenazoom series) and even Chinon.

In that sense, some Zeiss-branded lenses not made at the factories (Oberkochen or Jena) can be true-blue Zeiss ones, but there are also those which have little - if anything - to do with Zeiss. For instance Zeiss never claimed to have designed the Zeiss-branded lenses on Sony digital still and video cameras.

I believe the lenses from Singapore you're referring to are those made by Rollei during its Singaporean period. While they retained the Zeiss design and appellations, they were never branded as Zeiss lenses, but instead, "Made by Rollei".

 

[haagen_dazs]

For instance Zeiss never claimed to have designed the Zeiss-branded lenses on Sony digital still and video cameras.

But Zeiss does have the alpha lenses (for still cameras) on their official website...
😕 😕
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/42b1e57ea6944280c12572820048463e

 

[Seele]

But Zeiss does have the alpha lenses (for still cameras) on their official website...
😕 😕
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/42b1e57ea6944280c12572820048463e

... at least not those fixed lenses on Sony digital compacts, thats for sure. The two fixed focal-length ones are more like those of Zeiss design originally for the Contax/Yashica but I am convinced that they are now made by Tamron.

 

[Nachkebia]

From my understanding current ZM lenses from zeiss are the best once they ever had for 35mm film, that makes them one of the best available with Leica M lenses, there is or was anything better for 35mm film 😀