What happened to the “surprise” Zeiss ZM Lens

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rick,

 

I think an Otus quality fast Zeiss 50/55 would be a whole different “kettle of worms” to a CV Nokton, which would not pose much competition either in quality or the price. There is not a single Zeiss ZM lens which bears any optical resemblance in design to the nearest equivalent CV. I find it suspicious just how many lightly used 1.1 Noktons are for sale on Fleabay.

 

Wilson

[Rick in CO]

Rick,

 

I think an Otus quality fast Zeiss 50/55 would be a whole different “kettle of worms” to a CV Nokton, which would not pose much competition either in quality or the price. There is not a single Zeiss ZM lens which bears any optical resemblance in design to the nearest equivalent CV. I find it suspicious just how many lightly used 1.1 Noktons are for sale on Fleabay.

 

Wilson

 

I agree, my speculation was if Zeiss might think differently. They are obviously tied up with new Sony E-mount lens releases (made by Sony?), plus the recent Touit 4/3 releases, and with the new CV 50/1.5, my conjecture was how a new Cosina-made ZM lens could be in the works. A new ZM lens made in Germany could be a possibility? To be the quality level of "Otus", the "Adler" (humor me) would be German-made and probably hush-hush.

[wlaidlaw]

Rick,

 

I wish the Touits were 4/3rds lenses. They are Sony Nex fit and Fuji. I am hoping they will bring out a high quality micro 4/3rds AF, zoom, mid speed lens to replace my adequate (but no better than that) Olympus 12-50 for my EP-5. I know there is the Olympus 12-40/f2.8 but it is rather big and heavy.

 

Wilson

[Rick in CO]

Rick,

 

I wish the Touits were 4/3rds lenses. They are Sony Nex fit and Fuji. I am hoping they will bring out a high quality micro 4/3rds AF, zoom, mid speed lens to replace my adequate (but no better than that) Olympus 12-50 for my EP-5. I know there is the Olympus 12-40/f2.8 but it is rather big and heavy.

 

Wilson

I'm just wishing for my "Adler"!

[sdk]

Zeiss might as well start making 75mm, 90mm and perhaps 135mm ZM lenses now that they discontinued the ZI rangefinder and there is money to be made mainly selling to Leica camera body owners. Good 75mm/2.8 and 90mm/2.8 lenses seemingly would sell better than the 85mm/4 that is Zeiss’ only currently produced ZM telephoto.

[wlaidlaw]

However when you can buy barely used 75/2.5 Summarits and 90/2.8 Elmarit-M’s for less than the cost of a new Zeiss lens, why would you bother? I also believe that the 75mm CV lens is one of their better efforts and has lower sample variation that some of their other lenses.

 

Wilson

[Rick in CO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

However when you can buy barely used 75/2.5 Summarits and 90/2.8 Elmarit-M’s for less than the cost of a new Zeiss lens, why would you bother? I also believe that the 75mm CV lens is one of their better efforts and has lower sample variation that some of their other lenses.

 

Wilson

For the "Zeiss Look". However, in my neighborhood the 75 Summarit sells used for $1,400US and the 90 Elmarit-M for $1,200. That's really not less than new ZM.

I have owned the 75 Summarit, 90 pre-AA Summicron, and tried out the 90 Elmarit-M and earlier Tele-Elmarit. The 75 Summarit was a very satisfying lens, but I needed something longer (I found the marginal difference from 75 to 85/90 to be significant). The others I tried are simply not as good as my 85/2 ZM Sonnar.

Although one could argue why we need another 50mm prime lens in a ZM mount, plus that it might not be less expensive than the Summilux ASPH, Zeiss might like the prestige of an "Otus"-type lens (again I don't specifically mean a Distagon type) in the ZM mount that could also be marketed towards the various adaptable "mirrorless" cameras (esp. A7R).

Simply put, a 50mm f1.4 lens in ZM mount with the performance of "Otus" and without any focus shift, retaining that "Zeiss Look" ("The Eagle Eye of your Camera", or "Adler").

[Guest Marc G.]

For the "Zeiss Look". However, in my neighborhood the 75 Summarit sells used for $1,400US and the 90 Elmarit-M for $1,200. That's really not less than new ZM.

I have owned the 75 Summarit, 90 pre-AA Summicron, and tried out the 90 Elmarit-M and earlier Tele-Elmarit. The 75 Summarit was a very satisfying lens, but I needed something longer (I found the marginal difference from 75 to 85/90 to be significant). The others I tried are simply not as good as my 85/2 ZM Sonnar.

Although one could argue why we need another 50mm prime lens in a ZM mount, plus that it might not be less expensive than the Summilux ASPH, Zeiss might like the prestige of an "Otus"-type lens (again I don't specifically mean a Distagon type) in the ZM mount that could also be marketed towards the various adaptable "mirrorless" cameras (esp. A7R).

Simply put, a 50mm f1.4 lens in ZM mount with the performance of "Otus" and without any focus shift, retaining that "Zeiss Look" ("The Eagle Eye of your Camera", or "Adler").

 

And how could you focus the Otus (or a lens with comparable performance) on a rangefinder?

 

Zeiss is not known for creating compact lenses. Given the size of their 50/2 and the issues with the smaller 50 there is no chance that Zeiss creates a Otus-like lens that can be focused on a rangefinder, due to the enormous size of their current design.

[albireo_double]

For a new ZM lens, I'd like it to be something that Leica doesn't sell now - a superior 28mm, f1.4-1.5 lens, with no "red edge" & no heavy vignetting wide open.

[wlaidlaw]

And how could you focus the Otus (or a lens with comparable performance) on a rangefinder?

 

Zeiss is not known for creating compact lenses. Given the size of their 50/2 and the issues with the smaller 50 there is no chance that Zeiss creates a Otus-like lens that can be focused on a rangefinder, due to the enormous size of their current design.

 

 

Marc,

 

If you mean the way that the 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar-C draws, that is deliberate by Zeiss and is not a problem. In that I am a big fan of the pre-ASPH Summilux, I might consider getting a 50 Sonnar at some point as its imaging performance is very similar. I do have an older Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar that I can use with an Amedeo Muscelli focusing mount adapter on my various M’s but the focus is not quite 100% accurate at some distances and due to contrast not being up to modern standards, it will not trigger focus peaking on the M240 until between f4 and f5.6.

 

Wilson

[Guest Marc G.]

Marc,

 

If you mean the way that the 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar-C draws, that is deliberate by Zeiss and is not a problem. In that I am a big fan of the pre-ASPH Summilux, I might consider getting a 50 Sonnar at some point as its imaging performance is very similar. I do have an older Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar that I can use with an Amedeo Muscelli focusing mount adapter on my various M’s but the focus is not quite 100% accurate at some distances and due to contrast not being up to modern standards, it will not trigger focus peaking on the M240 until between f4 and f5.6.

 

Wilson

 

My point was mainly about people wanting lenses that simply are not possible to create.

 

He poster I answered to wants a 50/1.4 design with the performance of the 55/1.4 Otus. The small Sonnar is certainly not up to the standard we're talking about here given the performance at wide apertures and the focus shift.

[adan]

And how could you focus the Otus (or a lens with comparable performance) on a rangefinder?

 

Zeiss is not known for creating compact lenses. Given the size of their 50/2 and the issues with the smaller 50 there is no chance that Zeiss creates a Otus-like lens that can be focused on a rangefinder, due to the enormous size of their current design.

 

Why not?

 

Yes, the SLR version of the Otus is big. But if you look at the cross-section, there is a lot of "excess barrel" surrounding the glass (especially the flare-out on the front end), which could easily be slimmed down for a rangefinder version.

 

Just as Leica slimmed down the 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R to create the M version in 1990 (same glass, different barrel). Slicing the filter size from 55mm to 46mm.

 

It looks to me that the OTUS glass could be fitted into a barrel no bigger (!) than a 75 Summilux or a 135 Elmarit (goggled). E60-62 filter size. It would certainly intrude into the 50mm frame lines, but not into the focusing patch.

 

The only tricky part, perhaps, would be finding room for a focusing cam alongside the rear elements. But keep in mind that the barrel of an M version would have an extension of 10-15mm behind the rear elements (difference between SLR mirror box depth of ~42mm vs M body depth of ~28mm - essentially a built-in "SLR-M adapter ring").

 

Whether Zeiss would think it worth the effort, for the M market, is a different question.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wlaidlaw]

Andy,

 

The question in my mind is how much appetite there would be for a 55mm lens for a rangefinder. My personal preference would be for a 45mm, as I really like my 40 Summicron-C on the full frame M’s and I used to really like the 45mm Planar G on my G1 and G2. 55mm is a bit long for a standard lens but not long enough for a portrait or technical lens (I use my 75mm Summarit mainly for technical photography). I know 55mm is a traditional Zeiss focal length, as the lens on the Bulls-eye Contarex the family bought my father for his 60th birthday, had a 55m f1.4 Planar.

 

Wilson

[Guest Marc G.]

Why not?

 

Yes, the SLR version of the Otus is big. But if you look at the cross-section, there is a lot of "excess barrel" surrounding the glass (especially the flare-out on the front end), which could easily be slimmed down for a rangefinder version.

 

Just as Leica slimmed down the 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R to create the M version in 1990 (same glass, different barrel). Slicing the filter size from 55mm to 46mm.

 

It looks to me that the OTUS glass could be fitted into a barrel no bigger (!) than a 75 Summilux or a 135 Elmarit (goggled). E60-62 filter size. It would certainly intrude into the 50mm frame lines, but not into the focusing patch.

 

The only tricky part, perhaps, would be finding room for a focusing cam alongside the rear elements. But keep in mind that the barrel of an M version would have an extension of 10-15mm behind the rear elements (difference between SLR mirror box depth of ~42mm vs M body depth of ~28mm - essentially a built-in "SLR-M adapter ring").

 

Whether Zeiss would think it worth the effort, for the M market, is a different question.

 

If you keep the optical formula and try to fit this into such a huge (for M mount) barrel and add a hood it would certainly either be very very close to the focusing patch or block part of it (probably anyway when focusing close due to the small rangefinder window on the right side).

 

Other than that 55mm is an odd focal length which is not covered by the framelines so they would need to change the optical formula anyway.

[Rick in CO]

OK, I see I shouldn't have mentioned "Otus" or "Distagon"!

"Simply put, a 50mm f1.4 lens in ZM mount with the performance

of "Otus" and without any focus shift, retaining that "Zeiss Look" ("The Eagle Eye of your Camera", or "Adler")."

We'll see if Zeiss is interested in continuing their ZM series. No new release "this year" (as I quoted their email response) suggests they are not. If not, I guess I'll just have to ante up for a 50 ASPH Summilux.

I'm off to Italy for a photo vacation, I think we have beat this issue to death. (The only hope is that Zeiss might be listening!)

[adan]

....Other than that 55mm is an odd focal length which is not covered by the framelines so they would need to change the optical formula anyway.

 

You do realize that Leica's own "50mm" lenses are nominally 51.6mm, and occasionally even longer (production variation)?

 

Which is why they have the small "exact" focal length codings engraved on the barrels?

 

e.g., this "50mm" Summicron is actually a 52.2mm lens ("22" marking on the barrel beside the "feet/m" mark): http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/50mm-f2-m/D3S_8143-1200.jpg

 

Additionally, the M framelines are notoriously smaller than the actual field of view - except at minimum focus distance. To prevent cutting off heads or feet due to finder parallax error. The "50mm" lines actually frame about a 57mm field of view, when framing distant subjects.

 

Per Leica's own instruction manual....

 

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/003/003xIq-10016784.jpg

 

A true 55mm lens would be well within the margin of error of the lines at most distances.

[wlaidlaw]

I am actually thinking of getting a Zeiss Contax 50/f1.4 Planar in CX/Y mount (the later MMJ model with the improved T* coating). You can get these very reasonably now, in fact less than I sold mine for a few years ago. I already have a Novoflex CX/Y to M adapter to use with my Contax Vario Sonnar 28-85 and Tele-Tessars 300 and 600mm. The Planar for years was the highest MTF scoring “standard” lens on the Photodo website. Certainly the Vario Sonnar works very well with the M240 but at f3.3, is a little slow.

 

Wilson

[Guest Marc G.]

You do realize that Leica's own "50mm" lenses are nominally 51.6mm, and occasionally even longer (production variation)?

 

Which is why they have the small "exact" focal length codings engraved on the barrels?

 

e.g., this "50mm" Summicron is actually a 52.2mm lens ("22" marking on the barrel beside the "feet/m" mark): http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/50mm-f2-m/D3S_8143-1200.jpg

 

Additionally, the M framelines are notoriously smaller than the actual field of view - except at minimum focus distance. To prevent cutting off heads or feet due to finder parallax error. The "50mm" lines actually frame about a 57mm field of view, when framing distant subjects.

 

Per Leica's own instruction manual....

 

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/003/003xIq-10016784.jpg

 

A true 55mm lens would be well within the margin of error of the lines at most distances.

 

I do realize all of this as this is basic rangefinder knowledge to me. nominally a 52.5mm lens could still be called a 50mm as, if I remember correctly, a 5% error margin is acceptable. So the Zeiss could be of the same focal length with 55mm - 5% and it could also be close to a 58mm.

 

It could especially be a PITA when one has a usual 50mm and the 55mm design.

 

Given my current framing accuracy I'm quite good with a 50 and wouldnt want to try a slightly narrower lens. But that's just me.

[SiriusLux]

Does anyone have an idea whether Zeiss will announce or even supply the long awaited new lens for Leica M?

 

Regards, Siriuslux

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Does anyone have an idea whether Zeiss will announce or even supply the long awaited new lens for Leica M?

 

Regards, Siriuslux

 

I did wonder if they could produce a prime focus version of the Otus 55mm f1.4? However it would be a similar price to the Summilux ASPH, so a difficult sell for Zeiss, no matter how good it was.

 

Wilson