The end of the line for Zeiss ZM?

[bayernfan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, J.Nordvik said:

I think Zeiss ZM offers better lenses than Leica in 2,8/35, 1,4/35 and 2,0/50. Or at least better value for money.

The ZM 35/1.4, while optically brilliant, is ridiculous is size. Don't get me started on the VF obstruction.  It's an awesome lens for FF mirrorless with EVF.

The ZM 35/2.8 and 50/2 also have impressive optics, but I prefer the images from the Summarit 35/2.4 and the Summicron 50/2.

I'd like to see Zeiss revamp it's ZM lineup with improved exterior designs, improved reliability for internals, and half-stop clicks.  I still wouldn't buy one, but I'm sure those that prefer Zeiss optics would.

Edited June 8, 2020 by bayernfan

[jaapv]

I have used the 35/1.4. It is larger than the Summilux 35, but not that much larger. If it is ridiculous in size, the 21, 24,75 Summiluxes, 90 Summicron and Noctiluxes are hilarious...😂. To name the most obvious candidates...

The weight is 381 gram vs Summilux 327 gram,

The size is 63 x 65mm vs Summilux 56 x 46mm.

I liked the image quality better than the Summilux. Th`e only reason I do not have one is because I already have three 35 mm M lenses plus Summiluxes 24 and 50.
My personal opinion is that Leica made a choice by sacrificing image quality for size  and should have given the designers a bit more breathing space.

 

 

 

[Simone_DF]

8 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Voigtlander seem to make lenses for sony now and as an afterthought make a leica m version of whichever lens they introduce.

Not always, Voigtlander recently released the 75mm f1.5 in M mount first and in E mount a few months later

[adan]

I guess my response to this thread is - what has Leica done for us recently? Outside of exotica (28 Summaron, 90 Thambar, and 75/90 costing in 5 figures).

Once Zeiss (or Leica) has filled all the niches to the best of their ability, there is not a lot of room for more, unless/until their ability changes.

[jdlaing]

What have you done for Leica recently?

[giannis]

On 6/7/2020 at 6:08 PM, james.liam said:

The 4,5/21 you mention is a tiny tour-de-force on film.

Yup indeed. I guess they couldn't maintain the same (lack of) distortion with a more retrofocal design. They have a slightly different, recalculated design which I'm guessing is more telecentric, since it works fine on digital, the 21mm f/2.8 Biogon.

On 6/7/2020 at 6:08 PM, james.liam said:

The 15 has always been this mystery to me, non-RF coupled.

Not sure why they didn't bother with coupling. I guess it's a "cultural" issue, they think you don't need focusing aids at that focal length. For instance, their Hologon camera (15mm lens) not only didn't have focusing aids, but it was fixed focus as well! When they slightly modified the hologon and re-released it as 16mm in G mount for their autofocus rangefinders, it again had the distinction of being the only lens in the system without autofocus, and since it was an af camera, no focusing aids either. 

[Peters]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, adan said:

I guess my response to this thread is - what has Leica done for us recently? Outside of exotica (28 Summaron, 90 Thambar, and 75/90 costing in 5 figures).

Once Zeiss (or Leica) has filled all the niches to the best of their ability, there is not a lot of room for more, unless/until their ability changes.

I understand why, aside from the exotic lenses, there hasn't been much movement from Leica on the M front. After 60+ years we already have one of the most mature lens lineups in history, while they have to work double time getting the new line of L lenses out. Any improvement in optical quality would be indiscernible to most, and the modern lenses as they are now still perform fine on 47 MP beasts.

Having said that, there is a thread anticipating a new generation of M lenses...

Zeiss, on the other hand, still has much room for improvement. Corner performance for the wides on digital sensors are simply not up to scratch, and if Cosina can make a 21mm VM lens that does not need an in-camera profile to rid of color shifts then it can certainly produce a version in ZM. And I think a Zeiss 28mm F2 or 1.4 would sell like hotcakes! 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Peters

[tgray]

One of the reasons I really like the Monochrome cameras is that the 21/4.5 works very well on them. That and the 50/1.5 are unique lenses. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by tgray

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bayernfan]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

The size is 63 x 65mm vs Summilux 56 x 46mm.

Are you telling me 19mm in length is negligible in terms of VF obstruction? 😆

As for the Summilux lenses, the 21 and 24 have the excuse of not being compatible with the built-in VF.  Do the 75 and 90 obstruct the VF?   I wouldn't know.

[jaapv]

Yes they do. And I use my 24 without external viewfinder. How about the Noctiluxes? I had not much of a problem with viewfinder obstruction with the Zeiss, but then I have been shooting M cameras since 1976, so I have learnt to compensate. For instance shooting with both eyes open. 

[james.liam]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:33 PM, steve 1959 said:

I have recently bought the zeiss 25mm f2.8 zm and it produces wonderful sun star effects on city harbour night shots,,,quite smitten with this lens.

Voigtlander seem to make lenses for sony now and as an afterthought make a leica m version of whichever lens they introduce.

The ZM line predates the contract lenses for Sony. 

[stephengv]

The 50 sonnar 1.5 is a unique lens. I think it has no direct counterpart in the Leica lens lineup. 

[lct]

27 minutes ago, stephengv said:

The 50 sonnar 1.5 is a unique lens. I think it has no direct counterpart in the Leica lens lineup. 

The Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph has less focus shift,  the same softness at full aperture and both are virtually flare free. The Summilux is advisable on rangefinders, due to the Sonnar's focus shift issue, but i prefer the lattter's IQ and smaller size on mirrorless cameras personally. Subjective matter though. YMMV.

[tgray]

2 hours ago, lct said:

The Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph has less focus shift,  the same softness at full aperture and both are virtually flare free. The Summilux is advisable on rangefinders, due to the Sonnar's focus shift issue, but i prefer the lattter's IQ and smaller size on mirrorless cameras personally. Subjective matter though. YMMV.

True. On the other hand I was able to purchase a Sonnar new for a fraction of the price.
 

Years ago I tried to buy a the most recent pre-ASPH, but was ultimately able to find a new gray market ASPH for not too much more.  One of my most used lenses, but still, I am enjoying the Sonnar quite a bit and find that the focus shift is not too bothersome for me.

 

[giannis]

On 6/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, Peters said:

Corner performance for the wides on digital sensors are simply not up to scratch,

This is a sensor weakness, not a lens weakness. More like "this sensor's corner performance is not up to scratch with oblique rays".

Modifying the wideangle lenses to compensate for sensor weakness is not a big challenge, a solution (retrofocal) has been found since the '30s with Angenieux, and perfected by the introduction of Distagon and its derivatives, starting from the Contarex versions. But this solution comes with a compromise: size and distortion. It also has some strengths: aperture (fast) and vignetting (less). This is nicely demonstrated if you compare the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon versus the 15mm f/4.5 Voigtlander. The Zeiss is faster and vignettes less, but is much, much bigger and has more distortion (proportionately, a lot more).

So it's a conscious decision for Zeiss not to make that compromise, I guess since at the introduction of the zm lenses, they introduced a film camera and not a digital, so the compromises would be of little benefit for that use case.

I for one would want to see the problem tackled in its root (better microlens arrays for sensors, maybe even a Foveon sensor), rather than see the nice and compact rf wideangles bloat in size and distortion, diluting the strength of an rf system. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by giannis
typos

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

20 minutes ago, giannis said:

I for one would want to see the problem tackled in its root (better microlens arrays for sensors, maybe even a Foveon sensor), rather than see the nice and compact rf wideangles bloat in size and distortion, diluting the strength of an rf system. 

Sure but improvements are possible in lens design w/o too much compromise in size and distortion. See the CV 21/3.5 compared to the CV 21/4 from this standpoint. It has more CA than the latter though.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peters]

4 hours ago, lct said:

Sure but improvements are possible in lens design w/o too much compromise in size and distortion. See the CV 21/3.5 compared to the CV 21/4 from this standpoint. It has more CA than the latter though.  

Same can be said for the 35mm 1.2 version iii. These are relatively small but still high quality lenses. and a 28mm F2 ZM guys. You can do it...

[Harpomatic]

On 6/8/2020 at 5:45 PM, Peters said:

Corner performance for the wides on digital sensors are simply not up to scratch

I think that corner performance is not lacking at all apart from the Biogon 35mm F2, but we are talking about detail recorded. Color shading is at the same level of Leica lenses - have you tried shooting their wides without a corresponding profile in camera? They are no different to their Zeiss counterparts (admittedly the Biogon 21mm F4.5 is beyond repair with in-camera profiles though - but is it fixable with Flat Field Correction? I never owned that one).

In real use a coded Zeiss wide (again, never had ZM 15mm and 21mm 4.5) works like a charm for me. I am blown away by the performance of the Distagon 18mm (not really a retrofocus design that one, notwithstanding the name - that rear element is quite close to the sensor), Biogon 21mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8...and their size is one of their strenghts.

7 hours ago, lct said:

Sure but improvements are possible in lens design w/o too much compromise in size and distortion. See the CV 21/3.5 compared to the CV 21/4 from this standpoint. It has more CA than the latter though.

I agree with you, you can always have improvements. But they come at a price and I for one think that the performance of these lenses is so ahead of the skills most of us have to craft a great photograph that it really doesn’t matter: we should concentrate on the content of the image, not pixel-peep. Mind you, that’s my opinion!

[lct]

2 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

[...] I agree with you, you can always have improvements. But they come at a price and I for one think that the performance of these lenses is so ahead of the skills most of us have to craft a great photograph that it really doesn’t matter: we should concentrate on the content of the image, not pixel-peep. Mind you, that’s my opinion!

i would only use a Lomo at my skills level . It is hard to be happy with a lens suffering from color shifts or smeared corners though. I just wanted to suggest that necessary improvements can be made without too much compromise on size or cost.

[Harpomatic]

5 hours ago, lct said:

lens suffering from color shifts or smeared corners though

Which Zeiss ZM suffers from smeared corners? My Biogon 35mm F2 has mediocre corners across most of its aperture range (it’s the second one I have and it’s the same as the first - not a copy issue!) but that’s due to coma and it’s visible in the MTF chart. I didn’t notice any on the other ones!