jdlaing Posted September 7, 2012 Share #41 Â Posted September 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maybe a 50 f/1.2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here Zeiss promises a ZM "surprise" for Photokina. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted September 7, 2012 Share #42 Â Posted September 7, 2012 A fast 50 would be welcome for M users... the speculation about 100 f2 MAKRO seems to me unprobable... not for the focusing issue (as Jaap said, if one can focus a 75 1,4... and lct observations are also spot on... I add that also Summarex 85 1,5 can be focused well.. ), but for the "Makro" spec : that's really out of range for M... and I think that only Leica can make customers to accept a goggled unit like the Elmar 90 (which, at least, can count on a proper VF frame). Â UNLESS... Zeiss DOES know that a M body with EVF is really to be announced... and they play for first the macro card.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 7, 2012 Share #43 Â Posted September 7, 2012 Zeiss is not that good at making small lenses. The ZE Distagon 35/1.4 is more bulky than a Summicron 90. Not sure if a ZM version would be small enough for a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 8, 2012 Share #44 Â Posted September 8, 2012 Zeiss is not that good at making small lenses. The ZE Distagon 35/1.4 is more bulky than a Summicron 90. Not sure if a ZM version would be small enough for a rangefinder. Â If Cosina can do a 35/1.2 and a 50/1.1 in their current form factors then why can't Zeiss handle with a 35/1.4 or 50/1.2 in a relative smallish package? :-) Â The ZE/ZF.2 35/1.4 for SLRs is a different beast altogether which balances my D4 handsomely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 8, 2012 Share #45  Posted September 8, 2012 I am not disputing the maths. The problem is that the resolving power of the eye varies with the individual. The formula assumes an average ( and ignores vernier vision btw) Which means that 50% of photographers will find the results of the calculation too optimistic and 50% too pessimistic, in a nice bell curve. It's much less to do with the length of the focus throw (although that clearly helps when making very fine adjustments) and much more to do with the effective base length of the RF and the resolving power of the eye. There is a good article about this in LFI (Nov 2004) which discusses the factors involved and has a graph illustrating the minimum RF magnification for a whole range of focal lengths. According to the article a 100mm at F2 is almost on the limit for theoretical accuracy using a 0.72x RF and somewhat beyond the capability of a 0.58x RF (a 90mm at F2 is just okay with the 0.58x RF). The graph suggests a 100mm at F2 might just be okay with a 0.68x RF but the graph is based on acceptable focussing accuracy (and associated CoC) for film usage so I think it is fair to assume that a 100mm at F2 is in fact beyond the focussing accuracy of the M9 RF. By the way, the article is written by Peter Karbe who I think knows what he is talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 8, 2012 Share #46 Â Posted September 8, 2012 If Cosina can do a 35/1.2 and a 50/1.1 in their current form factors then why can't Zeiss handle with a 35/1.4 or 50/1.2 in a relative smallish package? :-) Puts says Zeiss chooses designs with more elements because it allows the lens to be made less expensively. Leica uses more stressed designs with fewer elements. Â In regard to the 55/1.4, Zeiss says it'll be introducing a new family of lenses. The svelte design certainly looks like a new family. But it's a ZF.2 mount, so it's for Nikon. Â Have they added autofocus? That would be big. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 8, 2012 Share #47  Posted September 8, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is a good article about this in LFI (Nov 2004) which discusses the factors involved and has a graph illustrating the minimum RF magnification for a whole range of focal lengths. According to the article a 100mm at F2 is almost on the limit for theoretical accuracy using a 0.72x RF and somewhat beyond the capability of a 0.58x RF (a 90mm at F2 is just okay with the 0.58x RF). The graph suggests a 100mm at F2 might just be okay with a 0.68x RF but the graph is based on acceptable focussing accuracy (and associated CoC) for film usage so I think it is fair to assume that a 100mm at F2 is in fact beyond the focussing accuracy of the M9 RF. By the way, the article is written by Peter Karbe who I think knows what he is talking about.  Ian, I think the graph you mention is the one available at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/customer-forum/257246d1305149411-rangefinder-accuracy-rfdr-accuracy.pdf, as linked from my post at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/181452-rangefinder-accuracy.html#post1700374. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 8, 2012 Share #48 Â Posted September 8, 2012 In regard to the 55/1.4, Zeiss says it'll be introducing a new family of lenses. The svelte design certainly looks like a new family. But it's a ZF.2 mount, so it's for Nikon. Â Have they added autofocus? That would be big. Â Howard, the press release says the 55/1.4 is a manual lens. The way it looks like it's AF integrated may simply because it is a prototype lacking the "clicks". Â Humongous in RF world yes, not so when mated with pro class SLR bodies ... I have several lenses using 82mm filter thread so it's kind of normal to me already. Â Cheers, Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 8, 2012 Share #49  Posted September 8, 2012 Zeiss is not that good at making small lenses. The ZE Distagon 35/1.4 is more bulky than a Summicron 90. Not sure if a ZM version would be small enough for a rangefinder.  The 1.5/50 C-Sonnar and 4.5/21 C-Biogon are very © compact lenses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 8, 2012 Share #50 Â Posted September 8, 2012 Ian, I think the graph you mention is the one available at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/customer-forum/257246d1305149411-rangefinder-accuracy-rfdr-accuracy.pdf, as linked from my post at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/181452-rangefinder-accuracy.html#post1700374. Â Yes, it does seem to be the same graph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 8, 2012 Share #51  Posted September 8, 2012 I am not disputing the maths. The problem is that the resolving power of the eye varies with the individual. The formula assumes an average ( and ignores vernier vision btw) Which means that 50% of photographers will find the results of the calculation too optimistic and 50% too pessimistic, in a nice bell curve.  As I said, the article was written by Peter Karbe – someone who knows what they are talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 8, 2012 Share #52 Â Posted September 8, 2012 Seems a 135 f2 is on the cards. Please be in M Mount also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted September 8, 2012 Share #53 Â Posted September 8, 2012 I am not disputing the maths. The problem is that the resolving power of the eye varies with the individual. The formula assumes an average ( and ignores vernier vision btw) Which means that 50% of photographers will find the results of the calculation too optimistic and 50% too pessimistic, in a nice bell curve. Â It's a practical truth too big to deny that telephoto lenses on a rangefinder are not used very much by the majority. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted September 8, 2012 Share #54 Â Posted September 8, 2012 Seems a 135 f2 is on the cards. Please be in M Mount also. Â It won't be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share #55 Â Posted September 8, 2012 Zeiss is not that good at making small lenses. Â They can make small lenses, but that implies different designs with higher costs. Maybe production in Germany as well. Â Zeiss' strategy for ZM lenses was to develop cheaper lenses, slower lenses, produced in Japan by Cosina. Â The 55m lens' design for DSRL cameras is different than that of the current 50mm f/1.4 lenses, and Zeiss points to an improved performance. Â Maybe Zeiss found a way of producing competitive fast lenses with higher performance, maybe in Japan too. This may have an impact in the ZM line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 8, 2012 Share #56  Posted September 8, 2012 Unusually rude for you Andy. No one has linked the 55 to the M line because its a Nikon F mount lens.  There were these. obviously tying the picture of a ZE (EOS) lens mockup to M use:  The rumour appears to be a ZM 100mm f2 Makro. (In addition to the 55 ZF)  If true, then the next M definitely has live view  Anyway - If I had to bet, I'd think about a 25mm f/2 or 21mm f/2, because:  1) Zeiss and Cosina, as partners, have tried (to some extent) to avoid stepping on one another's toes with the Voigtlander and ZM lines, and Cosina already has 4 different 35 or 40 f/1.4 lenses (counting the coating options), and  2) they'd drive straight at the gaps Leica has left between the pricey 21/24 Summiluxes and slow 21/24 Elmars.  Alternatively, aiming at another hole in the Leica line (and to replace the defunct 85 f/2 Sonnar ZM) - a 75 f/1.4.  Zeiss's 85 f/1.4 for a host of SLRs, starting with the Contarex, has stood the test of time, and it wouldn't take much tweaking to make a 75 version. Which wouldn't really step on Cosina's 75 f/1.8, since it would be nearly a stop faster, obviously much more costly, and would be aimed at "sharp" wide-open, while the C/V is intentionally "portrait-y" wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted September 8, 2012 Share #57 Â Posted September 8, 2012 Andy, I think you misinterpreted those posts, but never mind, it doesn't matter. Â I wouldn't like to bet on which ZM lens Zeiss will produce next, but its nice to have some new lenses to play with in the imagination, to go with the imaginary new camera! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 8, 2012 Share #58 Â Posted September 8, 2012 It won't be. Â Â Wish Leica would make one then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 8, 2012 Share #59 Â Posted September 8, 2012 I think it would have to be a lens that could be a big seller. A 135/2, whilst nice, would not be a big seller. My guess is a fast 35 or 50. Zeiss would have looked at the CV 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 lenses. I am sure with their expertise, they could improve both of these in perceived quality, finish and most importantly sharpness and contrast. If there was a Zeiss 50/1.1, I would buy one right off. All the ZM lenses I have had at various times (35/2, 21/2.8, 25/2.8 and 50/2) have been first class. In that I have a very good 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux, a faster 35 would not be of interest to me but I am sure would be to others. Â Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalpowershot Posted September 10, 2012 Share #60 Â Posted September 10, 2012 A very nice surprise would be a 35mm f/1.4 ZM lens. An amazing surprise would be a digital Zeiss Ikon camera. Â ...and in the end it will be a crop sensor hopefully FF just for a little bit of competition, not that I would buy one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.