WJJ3
Well-known
Looking sharp! Is that a Sugino Pista crank I see?
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Ancient photographers such as myself have acquired what we needed long ago. Certainly after the 1990’s I bought no new CZ Hasselblad lenses except for two which I got at a huge discount due to the commercial rush to digital photography.
The only other lenses that I’ve bought, CZJ, are for my Exaktas. These have been relatively low-priced but perform wonderfully.
I have seen this mysterious code, but have not deciphered it.
49mm at f/19?
49 ISO at 1/19 second?
49 shots and 19 keepers?
You have strange equipment.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Good lenses help, but how many good lenses does one need? Buying gear can become a feeble crutch. One is either a good photographer or not, gear will not change that. If gear made the difference the wealthiest would be the best and this just is not so.
Slumgullion
Well-known
I’d assumed the inverse was happening. It could be an awkward translation by Doctor Google, but this interview with the optical designer of the 50mm APO-Lanthar seems to imply that he also designed lenses for Zeiss:
In regards to lenses he designed:
"For Voigtlander, it's all Micro Four Thirds F0.95 series. For VM, it's 21mm F1.8. For VINTAGE, it's 35mm F1.7. And for the retractable 40mm F2.8. For E mount, it's 40mm F1. 2 and the Macro Apolantar 65mm f/2.Zeiss has also designed mainly large-aperture lenses, from telephoto to wide-angle.”
Seems logical enough to me…license your name to trusted designer/manufacturers, sign-off on the design, make money.
bjorke
Designated Driver
Truthfully, we've entered into an era where the technology of lens manufacture has spread via computer simukation and automated production lines. The inexpensive lenses of today are optically superior (spec-wise) to anything HCB ever shot with.
Glad I purchased my ZM's when I could! They're all stellar, and looking forward to new surprises. and ever-better pix.
Glad I purchased my ZM's when I could! They're all stellar, and looking forward to new surprises. and ever-better pix.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
What you say is true. But the old KMZ J8's which are copies/clones of a CZJ 5cm f/2.0 are really good lenses. Well, they are if you get a good copy. I have two, a '57 and a '51. Sonnar Brian assures me the '51 is CZJ glass and guts. They are both good 50's. And Skyllaney has that Bertele project going. Their unstated but obvious goal is to make the CZJ 5cm f/2.0 as close to perfect as the human mind can. And they are doing this with an almost century old design and modern coatings and a good measure of engineering black magic. Sonnar Brian has a copy. He has posted images of it against his primo CZJ 5cm. In the real world there is but one of those primo CZJ 5cms still around. Skyllaney has the ability to make a better lens, several of them.
My pinhead take on all this is that some new lenses are able to make color engravings from. OTOH I have that sweet Cooke Amotal f/2.0 2" which will not do color engravings but has a magic touch with light, giving a glow that does not exist in reality. Whether imperfection or designed in the old vintage lenses have their magic. It is up to us to choose which lens we want.
And it was not lenses that made Bresson great.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I currently own several of each (Leica too) and I've experienced this first-hand. I've done lens tests (non scientific, of course) on my Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses and, while it might be easy to get the impression lens formulas are derived from the same source based on the bayonet nickel-plated rim they have in common, I find no relationship in performance between them.
Slumgullion
Well-known
One time I sent an email to Zeiss asking who designed the 35mm f/1.4 zm. It got bumped up the chain until a polite guy in Oberkochen responded with:
“these are internal details which were not intended to be published.”
I’m my opinion, it was the best of the ZM line and with the 15/2.8 serve as outliers in their m-mount series (with a nod to the 50mm Sonnar…which is a bit of an outlier in the opposite direction).
So who/whomever designed it - great job!
At any rate, it’s kind of a shame we never got a 50/1.4 counterpart to the 35/1.4 - a sort of hyper-advanced-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink kind of design. I’m sure there was a discussion about making something like that. But…clearly the sales aren’t there…and I’m sure UV lithography or whatever makes sooooo much more money.
“these are internal details which were not intended to be published.”
I’m my opinion, it was the best of the ZM line and with the 15/2.8 serve as outliers in their m-mount series (with a nod to the 50mm Sonnar…which is a bit of an outlier in the opposite direction).
So who/whomever designed it - great job!
At any rate, it’s kind of a shame we never got a 50/1.4 counterpart to the 35/1.4 - a sort of hyper-advanced-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink kind of design. I’m sure there was a discussion about making something like that. But…clearly the sales aren’t there…and I’m sure UV lithography or whatever makes sooooo much more money.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The 15mm, 35/1.4 and 85/2 are amazing. A fast normal with a would have definitely been on my list, even though I don’t really need one. The Zeiss design approach and T* coating handle lighting directly on the lens better than a majority of other lenses.
f.hayek
Well-known
A nod to the 2,8/35 Biogon C, not mentioned anywhere on the thread. Having sold a 35 Summicron ASPH because of the focus shift, this little wonder replaced it. Punchy, vivid color, contrast, high-resolving, incapable of flaring (as far as I can tell). Exceeded in resolution only by the much larger ƒ/1.4.
BTW, wasn't the 2,8/15 NOT rangefinder-coupled?
BTW, wasn't the 2,8/15 NOT rangefinder-coupled?
Freakscene
Obscure member
The 15mm was not rangefinder coupled. Guess or use live view, or get the 18mm, which is good, but honestly, nowhere near the 15mm with its floating element.
The only problem with the ZM lenses is that the rendering is so different to Leica M lenses they stand out right away. I find that the difference is sometimes quite jarring. But I pay way too much attention to these things.
Freakscene
Obscure member
You can also always buy one of these - the Zeiss for Contax-Yashica 15mm lens, and an adapter.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Haha, I wish. They are Shimano 600 cranks in 165mm. Not original, but I think somewhat period correct.
D
Deleted member 82967
Guest
LOL. I've seen that code when looking for Zeiss Jena lenses - it means 49mm focal length and f/19 minimum aperture
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I have to agree. The ZM 35mm T* Distagon is one of the best performing (sharp, distortion free, great bokeh and color rendition) lenses in my bag.
lxmike
M2 fan.
Must grab myself a Biogon 35/2.8 ZM for my M2 before prices rocket
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I'm thinking a ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar or 50/2 Planar by the end of the Summer now. Either would be nice...
bjorke
Designated Driver
100% true, but tell that to Leica's marketing dept, heh.
My point was just to compare to the processes of the pre-digital era, I could have said Gene Smith or Eddie Adams or Garry W or...
I wonder if CZ will continue to make lenses for the Sony phone cameras, though?
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I like Zeiss lenses even though I cannot afford them. I do have the 55mm f/1.4 for the Sony E-mount and it is a fine lens. Aside of that I get by with Jupiter lenses. Careful shopping and luck, mostly luck, have gotten me some good Jupiters. These CZJ clones/copies are good. There is something special about them in color and IQ, the 3D rendering. But for most of what I shoot it is still putting lipstick on a pig. I suppose a Baby Brownie would do me as well. It worked fine when I was a kid. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/49/be/fc49bec3552046c52a17668c8feb90a8.jpg
cboy
Well-known
Well said. And a hint of luck! 😉