What happened to the “surprise” Zeiss ZM Lens

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Last year at Photokina, Zeiss told us to expect a special surprise ZM lens in 2013. Time is running out. Anyone heard anything more? I have just checked on the Zeiss website and nothing new for ZM is shown.

 

Wilson

[Joakim]

I think it got delayed because of the release of lenses for Sony was more important (and maybe Otus as well)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

I was hoping for a fast 50 Zeiss other than the specialist 50/1.5 Sonnar. I was playing with my 1954/55 50mm/f1.5 Opton Sonnar on the M240 today but the contrast is too low to trigger focus peaking until between f4 and f5.6. A modern 50/1.1, 1.2 or even 1.4 would I think, be a reasonably good seller. Hopefully it would be higher contrast than the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.1, which again will not trigger focus peaking until you close the diaphragm down to f2.8 or smaller. The Nokton 50/1.5 Asph, suffers from soft corners and vignetting when wide open and could be described as medium contrast at best (it is an old design). These are the main reasons I would not buy either the 1.1 or 1.5.

 

The most obvious focus peaking on all my various Zeiss and Leica lenses is on the 50/f2 Planar, so Zeiss can do very high micro contrast lenses. We have seen how good the Otus 55mm/1.4 lens is.

 

Wilson

[TomB_tx]

I have two of the older LTM Nokton 1.5, and have tried two of the new M-mount version. While the chrome M-mount is wonderful mechanically, both of the M-mount I tried were lower contrast wide open, more "veiled" looking and less sharp than my LTM versions. Almost like there are more internal reflections in the new body than the old. Too bad, as the new body is really nice. I used one a lot for a month hoping it would grow on me, then swapped to one of my LTMs and immediately saw the improvement.

But I agree, my 50 Summicron and Planar are clearly higher contrast. So a fast Zeiss new design would be nice.

[CrisRose]

Last I heard, it's now a 2014 release due to the Sony lenses.

[leica lux]

I would rather say it will be a 2014 announcement and a 2015 release ^^

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that ZI cameras are discontinued it is not clear why Cosina Zeiss would invest on new models of ZM lenses anymore.

[earleygallery]

To sell to the growing number of Leica M users perhaps?

[wlaidlaw]

I can see I am going to have to bite the bullet at some time and get a Noctilux 50/.95, if the Zeiss lens is far off in the future and may not even be a fast 50mm but something useless like a 135 or 180mm. I personally don’t like the way the 50/1.4 ASPH draws. Maybe the one I had was a Friday one but mine had very stiff jerky focusing, that a visit to Solms did not improve and very prominent purple fringing. I swapped it for a MATE to use on holidays and car rallies, where I only want to carry one lens and/or not change lenses to keep out dust.

 

Wilson

[Guest]

Since the images of your 1.4/50 Aspherical were not to your liking maybe you don't rush to get a 0.95 Noctilux. Solms was proud to anounce some years ago, that the new Noctilux draws very similarly to 1.4A. I can confirm this, having tested a loaner 0.95 with my 1.4A on a tripod. At f:1.4 and at 2.0 the Summilux is a tad sharper; as expected 0.95 stands for a narrower DOF, with exactly the same characteristics - very unlike the "painterly" 1.0.

 

Flickr is imo the best source for learning about a lens, from countless pictures rather than from pictures put into words, which sometimes sound like a "dégustation des vins" or a Vienese concert review.

 

Mark Norton attributes the focus stiffness of the 1.4/50A to the more complicated helicoid, that includes FE. This might be the main reason why most pros kept their trusted 2/50 on, apart from the price.

 

Best regards

 

Simon

Edited November 24, 2013 by tri

[jaapv]

Some focus stiffly, some don’t. I think it is not the construction as such but the way the tolerances work together or against one another.

[wlaidlaw]

It may be coincidence but the black 50 ASPH Summiluxes I have tried seem to focus more smoothly than the chrome ones. Mine was a chrome one (ex-Jono).

 

The Noctilux 0.95 I tried did not have the super high edge micro-contrast that the 50 Summilux does, which I guess is one cause of the purple fringing. For my hands, the 0.95 Noctilux is also much more comfortable to use than the 1.0 Noctilux, which I used to have but found physically painful to focus, even with a Leica-Goodies STEER. The M240 seems slightly less prone to this fringing than the M9 was, certainly with my 35 ASPH Summilux, which can get it with brightly lit edges taken at large apertures, albeit not as bad as the 50mm.

 

Wilson

[georg]

OT: the focus stiffness-issue was solved due to a new process, existing lenses can be repaired.

[lct]

Interesting thanks. Any link about this new process?

[wlaidlaw]

OT: the focus stiffness-issue was solved due to a new process, existing lenses can be repaired.

 

Georg,

 

That is what Leica told me but my chrome 50 ASPH Lux came back from Solms no better that I could notice, so I let it become someone else’s problem. A recent one I used (mid 2013 lens) was far better than the one I had. However I am so pleased with my 50 Planar (off at Malcolm Taylor at the moment for coding), that I am not minded to pay £2,000+ to part exchange for one stop. I think the purple fringing on the Lux is no better and this is far less of a problem with the Planar.

 

Wilson

[lct]

...the purple fringing on the Lux is no better and this is far less of a problem with the Planar...

Interesting indeed. The Summilux asph has not much CA though and the Planar is not immune from it either. When you compare both fringings are you doing so at the same aperture, say f/2? Just curious.

[wlaidlaw]

Interesting indeed. The Summilux asph has not much CA though and the Planar is not immune from it either. When you compare both fringings are you doing so at the same aperture, say f/2? Just curious.

 

The purple fringing on my Lux was I think worse at f2 than it was wide open. Someone else explained it as an inevitable consequence of Leica using as few as possible elements of high refractive index and complicated form, against the Zeiss philosophy of doing the optical processes in a larger number of smaller steps with simpler elements of lower refractive index glass. The downside is that Zeiss lenses are pretty much always larger and heavier than the equivalent Leica lens. You can see this in the size of the Planar against the size of the equivalent 50 Summicron, the 35 Biogon against the 35 Summicron and the 28-90/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R against the 28-85/3.3 Contax Vario Sonnar. Whether the above theory is correct, I don’t know but it seems logical.

 

Wilson

[lct]

The purple fringing on my Lux was I think worse at f2 than it was wide open...

I don't recall having got significant fringing problems at f/2. I will check closer. Thanks for sharing.

[farnz]

… The Noctilux 0.95 I tried did not have the super high edge micro-contrast that the 50 Summilux does, which I guess is one cause of the purple fringing. ...

Wilson,

 

I'm surprised to hear that your 50 Summilux asph had fringing (not doubting you though) because its designer, Peter Karbe, mentioned that although it's not named as such it's an APO lens. I haven't noticed any fringing with mine, which I've had for 7 or 8 years, so perhaps there was a contributing factor with yours.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

LCT/Pete,

 

That is why I suspected I may have had a “Friday" one! When you had tree branches against a bright sky, it was dreadful. I am not alone. Others have mentioned having problems with purple fringing on the 50 ASPH and even worse on the FLE 35. We all know that there are “Friday” lenses out there. Just think how many of them poor old Tim Ashley has had.

 

Wilson