ZI camera + Tri-Elmar lens is a bad match

[mr roberts]

I'm sorry..,

I'm sorry..,

but still I don't get it. If the Tri-Elmar brings up the correct frame lines on an M why would it not bring up the correct frames on a ZI?

If you mount the ZM 50 Planar on a ZI you get the 50 lines and if you mount it on an M you get the 50 lines. If you mount a 50 Summicron on either body I would assume that you'd get the 50 frame. So why doesn't the 50 position on the Tri-Elmar produce the same result on the ZI that it would on an M body?

Same with the mentioned 35 issue. If the individual lenses bring up the appropriate framelines on both ZI and M bodies why the issue with the E3?

Lots of good discussion on 75 framelines though.

 

[boilerdoc2]

Thanx Kyle. Also hefty price ($2750) according to Adorama. But the quality of these lenses is amazing. At least the 25/4 I have is (400 lpm), and that is Japanese, not German, made. I'm still going to look at the Leica M7 this evening.
Steve

 

[triplefinger]

cheap(er) 85s, i tested a couple 85s

cheap(er) 85s, i tested a couple 85s

Hello, just my 2 cents here.
i started testing 85s in anticipation of a yet to be purchased ZI RF. and tried to find a reasonable lens $ vs sharpness and look. I have a great and wonderfully sharp OLD 90/4 elmar but there's just something about having an 85 where an 85 is intended.

jupiter-9: good, not near as sharp as the elmar but really looked cool.
nikkor 85/2 silver: awesome, sharp, contrasty and nice intangibles.

i shot the kodak 400 pro(c-41) black and white for the tests and did a few head shots recently with the nikkor. pleased.

I kept the nikkor and would recommend it to anyone. I think I paid $285 with case and shade on ebay.

All that said, if a pile of money fell on me, i'd still go get the ZM 85, because it would match!
😀

I don't think that Zeiss is excluding 75 frame lines in order to sell 85 lenses. Pick up the April issue of Shutterbug. Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz do a nice job in their ZI review of comparing frame line size from various cameras. Surprisingly, the ZI 85 frame is actually smaller than the 90 frame from some other RF cameras! In other words, any M-mount 90 mm lens will work just as well with the ZI 85 frame as it will with a frame labeled "90". The 90 lens will also call up the 85 frame automatically. So, the ZI user is far from limited to just the ZM 85/2. There are all those great 90s out there to choose from.

Huck

 

[Doug]

Additionally when I put my new CV 50 Nokton on I get the 28/85 lines. What's that all about? I am taking it back and get the M7 on the shelf at Jack's Camera.

Hi Steve -- I expect it's because you have the wrong screw-to-bayonet adaptor on your 50 Nokton; specifically the 28/90 adaptor. This is not an issue with the Bessa cameras because the frameline selection is manual. But on a Leica M or the Z-I with automatic framelines it does matter. If you put the 50/75 adaptor on your Nokton I'd say your problem is solved without an expensive trade-in. FWIW, I used to work at Jack's Camera... but that was long ago and far away in Rapid City SD. 🙂

 

[JoeFriday]

I think Zeiss should have designed the ZI for the Helios-103 with 53mm framelines.. and if you put a 50mm lens on it, the 35mm frame would show up.. ha!

 

[Huck Finn]

I have a great and wonderfully sharp OLD 90/4 elmar but there's just something about having an 85 where an 85 is intended.

Traditionally 85 has been the Zeiss portrait length - Contax G excluded. So, yes, 85 is what's intended. But this is also an M-mount camera, so it was also intended that M-mount lenses be used. Any 90 M-mount lens will bring up the 85 frame.

Take a look at the current (April) issue of Shutterbug where Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz do an interesting comparison of frame lines as part of their review of the ZI. In most cases, the "90" frame lines are actually wider than the "85" frame lines on the ZI, which is supposed to be accomodating the wider 85 field of view. bottom line . . . the ZI will work as well with a 90 as just about any other camera out there. These frame lines are not that precise.

Huck

 

[back alley]

has anyone tried the collapsible 90/4 elmar on the zi?
can it collapse all the way?

i have film in mine so can't do a check just now.

 

[Doug]

These frame lines are not that precise.

Yes, typical, and what's more they don't change size as you focus to correct for field-size changes. Precise framing is just not there... yet somehow that doesn't prevent us from making well-framed photos. 🙂

 

[back alley]

do you think a 100mm lens with 85mm fl would be pushing it too much?

 

[hth]

It should work. Have you tried it on more than one ZI body? Have you tried wiggling the frame selector and see if it changes its mind?

/Håkan

but still I don't get it. If the Tri-Elmar brings up the correct frame lines on an M why would it not bring up the correct frames on a ZI?

 

[hth]

It should work. Have you tried it on more than one ZI body? Have you tried wiggling the frame selector and see if it changes its mind?

/Håkan

but still I don't get it. If the Tri-Elmar brings up the correct frame lines on an M why would it not bring up the correct frames on a ZI?

 

[Gman]

Yup- I wiggled and jiggled, but no change. They're just not compatible :bang:

Jeff