Zeiss ZM lens wobble issues

[leicashot]

I keep telling you all - buy Hexanons! 😉

I just returned a brand new Hex KM 35/2 because it back-focused severely on my M9. Honestly while the build quality is good, I don't believe it's at the same level as Leica.

I have had 2/2 issues with Konica on my M9 calibrated to all my Leica and Zeiss lenses, so my confidence in compatibility is diminishing.

I really wanted the 35/2 to work and really disappointed it didn't.

 

[chris00nj]

All this wobble talk has dampened my interest for a 50/2 Planar

 

[raid]

I may have to settle for the Zeiss G1 lenses for a while.
There are so many vintage lenses to enjoy that modern lenses may have to wait.

 

[Olsen]

Couldn't agree more. My lenses are no more than two years old, yet at least two have to go back. Naturally, they're out of warranty. I know I won't be paying $250-350 each to fix them - that's insanity. Two wobble and seem like the lube is displaced/missing in spots on the helicoid.

ZMs haven't been out that long in general - and having experience with my own and hearing that of others... There's no reason any of these lenses should be exhibiting this problem already.

I think Zeiss should repair any lenses sent in for this issue, as it's clearly a design or a manufacturing problem.

It's a shame, because optically - they're the bees knees.

:bang:

I would try to contact Carl Zeiss directly. Here in Europe consumers are generally far better protected and a company like Carl Zeiss is used to stricter laws regarding rejects. That so many of us have been hit by this problem it is either a design flaw or a serious quality control issue. I feel strongly that Carl Zeiss has an obligation to help customers out free of charge, leaving the customer only with the transport cost to cover.

 

[MCTuomey]

I would try to contact Carl Zeiss directly. Here in Europe consumers are generally far better protected and a company like Carl Zeiss is used to stricter laws regarding rejects. That so many of us have been hit by this problem it is either a design flaw or a serious quality control issue. I feel strongly that Carl Zeiss has an obligation to help customers out free of charge, leaving the customer only with the transport cost to cover.

I contacted Zeiss-US. They would not cover the repairs - in my case, play in the focus ring - and charged fully for the work. I agree with you that Zeiss has an obligation, or should have one. The problem is that Zeiss does not agree with us 🙁

 

[raid]

Mike: Check out Leica.
Send Leica the letter that you received from Zeiss.
Then ask them what they would do under the same
circumstances.
If their response is "good", send it to Zeiss.

 

[leicashot]

Mike: Check out Leica.
Send Leica the letter that you received from Zeiss.
Then ask them what they would do under the same
circumstances.
If their response is "good", send it to Zeiss.

While it might be true that Leica may do more, I can assure you that they include future services into their pricing strategy. In terms of build quality you get what you pay for, but with Zeiss in terms of 'image quality' you get so much more, so one can forgive a lesser tolerance when it comes to longevity of Zeiss products.

Could they be better with their service and build quality? Sure, but they choose to market their products differently, and I for one don't mind paying for a service every now and then considering the price difference to Leica. The equivalent Leica lens is about 3-4 times the price of it's Zeiss counterpart.

I love both brands equally for what they offer but the more I shoot the less I care about having the best brand. My priorities have changed and Zeiss suits those priorities perfectly and without compromising in image quality. Reliability hasn't been an issue for me with either brand, yet.

 

[raid]

This is a very reasonable explanation of the situation.
It makes sense.

 

[MCTuomey]

+1 a very reasonable point of view, Kristian. My enthusiasm for Zeiss M-mount lenses has not diminished in any way, despite the repair trips. I've begun to consider trying their ZE-mount lenses on my dSLRs, actually.

 

[leicashot]

+1 a very reasonable point of view, Kristian. My enthusiasm for Zeiss M-mount lenses has not diminished in any way, despite the repair trips. I've begun to consider trying their ZE-mount lenses on my dSLRs, actually.

I have been using the SLR range for some time. I'm going to go all out here and say the 21, 35 and 100 are the best on the market, better than the ZM counterparts and possibly the Leica M range. It's a big call I know, but I only wish that quality was in the ZM range, though it's not far off. IMHO, the ZF/ZE 35mm is the best 35mm f/2 ever made, and same with the 21mm and 100mm. Of course the best 50mm ever made is the Lux ASPH/Noct 0.95 of course.

I use my ZF 100mm as the basis of any sharpness comparison. It is clearly the best performing lens I've ever used.

Anyway with all this praise of the 50 Planar let me give you an example at minimum focus distance of 0.7M wide open on the M9.

100% crop

 

[Olsen]

I contacted Zeiss-US. They would not cover the repairs - in my case, play in the focus ring - and charged fully for the work. I agree with you that Zeiss has an obligation, or should have one. The problem is that Zeiss does not agree with us 🙁

Did you contact Carl Zeiss in Europe or in USA?

 

[Peter R]

All this wobble talk has dampened my interest for a 50/2 Planar

Don't stress too much - what's the bet that 9 out of 10 are actually fine. Mine has been perfect - super smooth and solid without being a boat anchor. Just buy from a reputable dealer with a 14-day return policy so there's absolutely no problems if you'd like to return/exchange it, should you be unlucky.

 

[varjag]

Both Planars I seen had issues with focusing: wobble in one case and jamming in another.

ZM are top lenses optically, but for mechanical issues I wouldn't buy one without holding it first. Unless it's a deal at half retail price.

 

[MCTuomey]

Did you contact Carl Zeiss in Europe or in USA?

I contacted Zeiss USA, Mr Richard Schleuning. He was very helpful moving the lenses through a service backlog. He could not address the cost issue because my lenses were not within the warranty period.

 

[Krosya]

While it might be true that Leica may do more, I can assure you that they include future services into their pricing strategy. In terms of build quality you get what you pay for, but with Zeiss in terms of 'image quality' you get so much more, so one can forgive a lesser tolerance when it comes to longevity of Zeiss products.

Could they be better with their service and build quality? Sure, but they choose to market their products differently, and I for one don't mind paying for a service every now and then considering the price difference to Leica. The equivalent Leica lens is about 3-4 times the price of it's Zeiss counterpart.

I love both brands equally for what they offer but the more I shoot the less I care about having the best brand. My priorities have changed and Zeiss suits those priorities perfectly and without compromising in image quality. Reliability hasn't been an issue for me with either brand, yet.

Well, while I agree with you - and I too have used ZM 21/2.8, 25/2.8 and 50/2 - and never had any issues with them, Love thier glass too, I can tell you this - I dont care how good the lens is optically, if it falls apart/fails to perform at the wrong time. Sure, it's not so bad if such a problem develops while you are at home and dont really need to use the lens and have time to have it sent out for a repair. But what if you are on a trip of a lifetime? I'd hate for this to happen.

Oh and your comment about Hexanons, earlier - well, while I have never had a problem with any Hexanon I had - and I had a few over the years : 3x 50/2, 2x90, 2x28, 1x35/2M, 1x35/2UC, and 1x 50/1.2. I can tellyou that even Leica lenses - brand new ones too have issues - just read about all the people that had problems with their 35 and 50 ASPH Luxes.
So - any lens can have a problem. Yet, I still will say that Hex is a best deal out there - super glass and very well made - closer to a "Leica" standard than any other.
Back/front focus you can test for and have it fixed (in most cases, anyway) and not worry about it, but if lens starts to fall apart at a time you cant address the issue, like on a trip, - that would be much worse in my book.
So, I too hope that Zeiss will improve thier built/design AND customer service for those that need to address such issues as wobble/lose parts.

 

[Olsen]

^ Well, to be fair I don't think any ZM has yet "fallen apart" or failed to perform. In fact, even with a case of the wobbles, the lenses still seem to perform perfectly. It's mostly a "user interface issue." Though I suppose if left unattended long enough, this problem could get worse... Still, haven't heard of that happening.

Indeed.

My ZM 50 mm 2,0 performed flawlessly and produced a result far better than my Leica Noctilux 50 mm 1,0. Despite wobbling.

 

[MCTuomey]

A bit OT: I think the used market for ZM lenses reflects these issues fairly well. I seem to see somewhat larger than expected discounts from new prices on used ZMs, on the order of 15-20%, maybe more. Perhaps the risk of repair is part of the reason.

 

[leicashot]

Well, while I agree with you - and I too have used ZM 21/2.8, 25/2.8 and 50/2 - and never had any issues with them, Love thier glass too, I can tell you this - I dont care how good the lens is optically, if it falls apart/fails to perform at the wrong time. Sure, it's not so bad if such a problem develops while you are at home and dont really need to use the lens and have time to have it sent out for a repair. But what if you are on a trip of a lifetime? I'd hate for this to happen.

Oh and your comment about Hexanons, earlier - well, while I have never had a problem with any Hexanon I had - and I had a few over the years : 3x 50/2, 2x90, 2x28, 1x35/2M, 1x35/2UC, and 1x 50/1.2. I can tellyou that even Leica lenses - brand new ones too have issues - just read about all the people that had problems with their 35 and 50 ASPH Luxes.
So - any lens can have a problem. Yet, I still will say that Hex is a best deal out there - super glass and very well made - closer to a "Leica" standard than any other.
Back/front focus you can test for and have it fixed (in most cases, anyway) and not worry about it, but if lens starts to fall apart at a time you cant address the issue, like on a trip, - that would be much worse in my book.
So, I too hope that Zeiss will improve thier built/design AND customer service for those that need to address such issues as wobble/lose parts.

Gotta be honest, I'm not into sending my camera and lenses away for months to DAG just to correct a lens issue. Many Konica lenses have been modified, but this lens was new and had not. I don't think the whole Konica focus issue is a myth, not to say I don't believe your success rate.

Also, why can't I post images within this thread? They keep coming up as links. I have '

 

[Krosya]

Gotta be honest, I'm not into sending my camera and lenses away for months to DAG just to correct a lens issue. Many Konica lenses have been modified, but this lens was new and had not. I don't think the whole Konica focus issue is a myth, not to say I don't believe your success rate.

I dont know of that many people that had to send their camera and Hexanon lenses to DAG for correction. Actually, I can maybe recall just 2 or 3 members here that had to do it for Hex 50/1.2. Which is not uncommon thing to do with Leica's own Noctilux or Summilux 75mm.
As far as Konica vs Leica focus - myth - I dont buy into it. Why? Simple - many more stories about Leica's own lenses having the same problems with Leica cameras. They just get fixed under warranty. So, any lens manufacturer can make a faulty lens or a few. But every time this happens with Konica - people cry incompatibility.
I dont actually think that "Many Konica lenses have been modiefied". Is there any info on that data?
I just think that more and more focusing imperfections show up since M8 and M9 came about. People didnt see this as much on film. And still - many lenses still perform very well on Digital Leicas.
In any case, (sort of getting back on topic here) - I have never had a mechanical or an optical issue with ANY of my Hexanons. Same goes for Zeiss. But there seems to be far more reports of ZM, VM and even Leica mechanical problems - wobble, stiff focus, uneven smoothiness of focus ring, aperture ring issues, etc, than Hexanons.

 

[MCTuomey]

I don't get the partisanship. Maybe I'm unlucky, but I have had to repair or return lenses made by Zeiss, Leitz, CV, and Konica (Hex). They all can produce bad copies, or at least ones that need to made right post-production. In the end, there's far more to like than dislike, so working through an occasional mis-calibration or wobble seems a small price to pay. Yes, I'd like a little more admission by Zeiss that a problem exists with some of its lenses, but it's not going to make me stop using them. Same for any manufacturer's gear that I like and that needs repair.