Trius
Waiting on Maitani
If this has been posted elsewhere, I apologise. Zeiss M lenses now available from Stephen Gandy/Cameraquest:
http://cameraquest.com/ZM lenses.htm
Trius
http://cameraquest.com/ZM lenses.htm
Trius
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
that's news to me!
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Now I just need the pennies for an R2A and those two lenses. :bang:
William
William
Jason_K
Shooter
wlewisiii said:
Make my R2A gray and I'm there with you. Unfortunately that case of GAS will have to wait a while.
digitalox
RF Extraordinaire
Man that is sweet, I would like the gray with one of those myself. Any images or tests on the net taken with the ZMs yet?
dkapp
Established
I'm interested in the 50/2, but for $600 I would think there are better performers. I'm really new to rangefinders so I could be way off base.
Dave
Dave
BJ Bignell
Je n'aurai plus peur
I was actually disappointed to see the new ZM lenses mounted on the gray Bessa; personally, I think it's not an attractive option. The lenses themselves, I think they look a little bland. Not ugly, just sort of "blah".
I'm sure they're wonderful lenses, though. Personally, I'm excited about the Sonnar 85, but I'd need an M-mount camera and deeper pockets... It appears to be very similar to the same formula I've lusted over for years, in the C/Y bayonet mount for SLR cameras.
I'm sure they're wonderful lenses, though. Personally, I'm excited about the Sonnar 85, but I'd need an M-mount camera and deeper pockets...
It appears to be very similar to the same formula I've lusted over for years, in the C/Y bayonet mount for SLR cameras.Mazurka
Well-known
BJ Bignell said:I'm excited about the Sonnar 85, but I'd need an M-mount camera and deeper pockets...
Actually this 2/85, 6-element-6-group ZM lens (actually a Planar design but God knows why they call it a Sonnar) has little in common to any of three 85mm lenses in C/Y mount. The 1.4 was 6-element-5-group,
the 2.8 was 5-element-4-group,
the 1992 Contax 60 Year Anniv f/1.2 was 8-element-7-group.
The virtual twins are in fact the 2/50 ZM and the 2/45 G Planar.
Mazurka
Well-known
Uh-oh...
Uh-oh...
Guess what? Kyocera UK AND Tocad USA actually put the diagram for the f/1.2 on the page describing the f/1.4.
This is actually the 60th Anniv f/1.2:
You can see the f/1.4's block diagram by downloading the pdf here: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/25515aa602bbebcbc12567a80044efd0
Uh-oh...
Guess what? Kyocera UK AND Tocad USA actually put the diagram for the f/1.2 on the page describing the f/1.4.
This is actually the 60th Anniv f/1.2:
You can see the f/1.4's block diagram by downloading the pdf here: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/25515aa602bbebcbc12567a80044efd0
Mazurka
Well-known
Guess who's the unlikely twin of the 85 ZM?
Guess who's the unlikely twin of the 85 ZM?
Who could have known?
Guess who's the unlikely twin of the 85 ZM?
Who could have known?
sgy1962
Well-known
dkapp said:
Yes, you are "way off base." No insult intended; just a fact. The new Zeiss 50mm Planar has been consistently reviewed to be as good as the Leica 50mm Summicron, which has traditionally been considered "heads and tails" above the competition. If anything, the reputation of the Summicron is understated -- it is an outstanding lens. You really have to try one to believe the hype. If the Planar is as good as the Summicron, then it is a good value, because the Summicron sells in the $1300 range.
Of course, the word on the street is that the 50mm Summicron has been supplanted as the best 50mm lens by the Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH, which only costs about $2500.
BJ Bignell
Je n'aurai plus peur
Well, regardless of my ignorance of lens design and such, I'm still wanting the new Sonnar 85. Maybe they call it a Sonnar because they just like the name more? Comparing the design to the older Planars and Sonnars, it's most definitely nothing like a Sonnar...
I sent ZI an email with this question; hopefully they'll reply quickly!
I sent ZI an email with this question; hopefully they'll reply quickly!
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
hmm.. I'm curious; and while I've heard that the Ikon is made by Cosina for Zeiss (and correct me please if I'm wrong here), but does anyone know if the lenses are also made by Cosina?
Dave
Dave
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
dcsang said:
Nevermind
I really should try READING the CameraQuest Site before asking dumb questions!!
So far, all elements of the new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder system (except the yet to arrive 15 and 85 lenses) are produced in Japan by Cosina, thru a Cosina Zeiss partnership using Zeiss designs and quality control.
Cheers
Dave
Mazurka
Well-known
Well BJ, you are not alone. The 85 ZM has also been my object of desire right from the start. I was very disappointed when the very Leica-esque list price was announced. Too bad I will only able to afford it in about 5 years' time when the price will have, hopefully, dropped to a reasonable level like the C/Y and G lenses. :bang:
The 85 ZM has also been my object of desire right from the start. I was very disappointed when the very Leica-esque list price was announced. Too bad I will only able to afford it in about 5 years' time when the price will have, hopefully, dropped to a reasonable level like the C/Y and G lenses. :bang:Huck Finn
Well-known
Mazurka said:
Actually this 2/85, 6-element-6-group ZM lens (actually a Planar design but God knows why they call it a Sonnar) has little in common to any of three 85mm lenses in C/Y mount. The 1.4 was 6-element-5-group,
the 2.8 was 5-element-4-group,
the 1992 Contax 60 Year Anniv f/1.2 was 8-element-7-group.
The virtual twins are in fact the 2/50 ZM and the 2/45 G Planar.
I have to disagree with you on this one, Mazurka. The new 85/2 from Zeiss is clearly a Sonnar. The Sonnar name has been used since the '30s for a family of lenses that were derived from the Ernostar design, which itself was a modified triplet. The triplet is quite evident in the front elements of the lens deign that you posted. The rear elements are somewhat different than others in the Sonnar family, but the rear component has varied over the years as Zeiss has found varying ways to correct aberrations.
The 85/2 is clearly not a Planar, as is evident from the Planar design that you have posted for the 50/2. Planar lenses are symmetrical designs as is the case with the 50/2, i.e. the front & rear components being virtually a mirror image of each other. This is clearly not the case with the 85/2.
Cheers,
Huck
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
sgy1962 said:
Could you direct me to some of those reviews? I haven't yet seen any reliable writeups of the 50.
Mazurka
Well-known
Planars and Biogons are no longer perfectly symmetrical
Planars and Biogons are no longer perfectly symmetrical
Huck, you'd be hard pressed to find any completely symmetrical designs in the last 30 years - despite the present 50 ZM, 45 G and 50 Summicron. The 85 ZM is at least 80% symmetric to me. Like you said, the operative word here is "virtually", not "perfectly."
Look at the 1.4 and 1.2 85 C/Y lenses I posted. They are much more assymmetric than the 85 ZM, still they have the Planar designation. Likewise, most of the G and ZM Biogons are also a lot less symmetric than their 1930s predecessors.
As we all know, Zeiss lens names refer to types (or families) of design , and are not meant to stand for fixed templates.
Planars and Biogons are no longer perfectly symmetrical
Huck Finn said:
Huck, you'd be hard pressed to find any completely symmetrical designs in the last 30 years - despite the present 50 ZM, 45 G and 50 Summicron. The 85 ZM is at least 80% symmetric to me. Like you said, the operative word here is "virtually", not "perfectly."
Look at the 1.4 and 1.2 85 C/Y lenses I posted. They are much more assymmetric than the 85 ZM, still they have the Planar designation. Likewise, most of the G and ZM Biogons are also a lot less symmetric than their 1930s predecessors.
As we all know, Zeiss lens names refer to types (or families) of design , and are not meant to stand for fixed templates.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
rover said:
I guess Putzie is "reliable," but I can almost synthesize his reviews in my head without reading them: "Very good performance, but not the equal of L_______"
Worth a read, yes, but is there anything else out there?