Huss
Veteran
I just picked up a Zeiss Makro ZF 50mm 2.0 lens for my Nikons.
I also own two ZM lenses - Planar 50 and Sonnar 50 - and my surprise was that the ZF Zeiss lens seems much better built. It feels much more solid, the focus is heavier but much smoother, and the aperture ring feels better.
Anyone else experience this?
I also own two ZM lenses - Planar 50 and Sonnar 50 - and my surprise was that the ZF Zeiss lens seems much better built. It feels much more solid, the focus is heavier but much smoother, and the aperture ring feels better.
Anyone else experience this?
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
The 50 MP is a monster of a lens, while the ZM are designed to be used on lighter smaller RF cameras.
struene
Established
Hallo,
the ZF/ZE lenses are designed for very high precision focusing, the rangefinderlenses for quickfocusing (simply speaking, but you get the point). That might be, why the SLR lenses have a heavier and smoother focusring. Still i find my ZM lenses much preciser in focusing (and not "loose" at all) than the Voigtländers which are a bit looser/quicker on the focusingring,.
Then you have the size and trough that the weight difference. On the MP you have bigger surfaces to grab and feel, maybe this gives the impression of better build. Im no expert but i assume that generally the zeiss lenses are build to a comparible degree, though of course the RF-lenses are designed as light fieldlenses.
schöne Grüße,
Johann
the ZF/ZE lenses are designed for very high precision focusing, the rangefinderlenses for quickfocusing (simply speaking, but you get the point). That might be, why the SLR lenses have a heavier and smoother focusring. Still i find my ZM lenses much preciser in focusing (and not "loose" at all) than the Voigtländers which are a bit looser/quicker on the focusingring,.
Then you have the size and trough that the weight difference. On the MP you have bigger surfaces to grab and feel, maybe this gives the impression of better build. Im no expert but i assume that generally the zeiss lenses are build to a comparible degree, though of course the RF-lenses are designed as light fieldlenses.
schöne Grüße,
Johann
Archlich
Well-known
Having used many Cosina built products both SLR and RF, I agree with op that even the Voigtlander SL SLR lenses (especially the old SL I series) seem to be better built than their ZM/CV RF counterparts. The ZF/ZE lenses are on the same level as the SL ones.
The ZF/ZE lenses have a much broader consumer base than the ZM lenses, yet I have never heard of one having the wobbling issue or a loose aperture ring.
The ZF/ZE lenses have a much broader consumer base than the ZM lenses, yet I have never heard of one having the wobbling issue or a loose aperture ring.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Keep in mind that the manufacturing of the ZMs is "outsourced" to Cosina, while the ZE/ZFs are done at Carl Zeiss Oberkochen
Pioneer
Veteran
My ZM lenses are very solid. Since they are built to rangefinder specs and do not need to be designed around the needs of the slr mirror box they are smaller and lighter, but I can't see how that makes them less of a lens.
I also own the CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar in SLR mount and Leica Thread Mount. One is certainly smaller and lighter, but both are very well built.
I also own the CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar in SLR mount and Leica Thread Mount. One is certainly smaller and lighter, but both are very well built.
kxl
Social Documentary
Not really a fair comparison. The ZF 50mm Makro would feel more solid and better built even compared to the ZF 50mm Planar.
Huss
Veteran
Nope, mine is made in Japan, just like the ZM lenses.
I think the difference is because the ZF and ZE lenses are aimed at pros, and let's be honest, the ZM lenses are more for 'enthusiasts'.
While some pros do shoot with RF cameras, the vast majority shoot with DSLRs, and thus these lenses are built for a higher level of abuse.
This is not a knock on the optics, my ZM glass is wonderful, but the build is not the same.
Pioneer
Veteran
Irregardless of your request for comments based on experience you had already assessed the issue and determine your own opinion.
I think that your opinion of pro vs no pro has no bearing in fact and that you have not considered the simpler conclusion. Simple question. How much does the ZF Makro-Planar 50 cost in comparison to the ZM Planar 50? The true answer usually lies in the money.
Huss
Veteran
Simple answer:
My Zeiss Sonnar 50mm ZM is $1200
My Zeiss ZF Makro Planar is $1280
My Zeiss Planar ZM 50 is $860
The Planar ZF 50 1.4 is $684
All the ZF lenses include a chip and electronic contacts so the lens can communicate with the camera (even though they are manual focus lenses). That would add to the cost of the lens.
This is incorrect. Cosina makes nearly every ZF lens. I believe that only the 15mm ZF lens is made in Germany. ALL others say "Made in Japan".
arseniii
Well-known
I have a ZE 35mm for Canon and 25mm ZM Biogon. I also noticed ZE lens is of a better build and focus is much more smooth compared to ZM counterpart. Non the less they both produce wonderful images than I cannot be more happier with. I am looking to get a ze planar and 25mm distagon sometime in my affluent future...
YYV_146
Well-known
The 15mm ZE/ZF is also made in Japan. The only photographic Zeiss lens currently made in Germany is the excellent 15mm Distagon ZM.
I own the lens and I can say that build quality is indeed a notch above everything I've ever touched, Leica included. However it is currently in Germany for repairs of the Zeiss "wobble", so I have to wonder how durable it actually is...
YYV_146
Well-known
IMO the ZM design approach is very different from Ze/ZF.2, going for lightness and compactness over feel and sheer quality. The ZM lenses are like the Ikon in this regard. I don't they are bad lenses - far from it - but if you want the feel of steel and brass Zeiss M-mount lenses are probably not for you.
uhoh7
Veteran
mfogiel
Veteran
Well, ZF lenses feel certainly more solid, not to mention the weight. I feel the main difference is in the grease - they do not seem to develop any uneven focusing action over time, as it happens with ZM lenses, particularly if they are not used regularly. The MP 50 along with the MP 100 are two of the finest lenses I have, and I have many lenses, so enjoy.
20136232 by mfogiel, on Flickr
20136232 by mfogiel, on Flickr
fleetwoodjazz
Established
I had the ZK 50mm 1.4 and ZK 85mm 1.4 and they were noticably built better than my ZM 50mm 1.5 and ZM 35 2.0. Recently I bought the VM 35mm 1.2 and I also feel the build quality is better than Zeiss ZM. These lenses are in the price range of 1200 dollar and built in the same factory so I dont understand the difference.
Plus, once we start considering that the ZK and VM lenses require more materials to build...then I dont know anymore.
Plus, once we start considering that the ZK and VM lenses require more materials to build...then I dont know anymore.
Huss
Veteran
yeah, my Nokton 35 1.2 V2 is much better built than my ZMs.
Richard G
Veteran
My Zm C Sonnar is marvellous. And I've dropped it THREE times. Still flawless. (one filter and one hood not so flawless...) My 25 biogon is stiff with a slight wobble. I'm getting tired of that and will get it serviced. The 18 Distagon, 21 4.5 and the 35 C Biogon are all perfect.