Response from Zeiss re: ZM lenses on the M8

[grober]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As you may know, the Zeiss Biogon 2.8/25mm ZM lens, when used on the M8 invokes the 28mm frame and not the more desirable 24mm frame. Pondering a solution to this problem, I launched a query in the direction of Carl Zeiss AG in Germany. Today I received the following answer from the company:

 

"Currently, we are checking the technical feasibility of exchanging the mount in order to use the Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM with a suitable viewfinder frame in the Leica M8. In case the exchange should be not possible we will develop a practical solution to circumvent this problem. This process might take some time. Therefore, we ask you to have some patience. We will contact you as soon as we are able to offer you a convenient solution for this matter."

 

This Biogon is a lens I enjoy using very much. I hope the company arrives at a sensible solution soon. (I will continue to use the lens on film cameras too where I don't care what frame it brings up because I ALWAYS use their auxilliary viewfinder when shooting with film.)

 

-g

[Advertisement]

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

[lxlim]

As you may know, the Zeiss Biogon 2.8/25mm ZM lens, when used on the M8 invokes the 28mm frame and not the more desirable 24mm frame. Pondering a solution to this problem, I launched a query in the direction of Carl Zeiss AG in Germany. Today I received the following answer from the company:

 

"Currently, we are checking the technical feasibility of exchanging the mount in order to use the Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM with a suitable viewfinder frame in the Leica M8. In case the exchange should be not possible we will develop a practical solution to circumvent this problem. This process might take some time. Therefore, we ask you to have some patience. We will contact you as soon as we are able to offer you a convenient solution for this matter."

 

This Biogon is a lens I enjoy using very much. I hope the company arrives at a sensible solution soon. (I will continue to use the lens on film cameras too where I don't care what frame it brings up because I ALWAYS use their auxilliary viewfinder when shooting with film.)

 

-g

 

Thanks, Grober. I'm considering the zeiss due to cost considerations in moving to rangefinder territory from DSLR.

 

Alex

[grober]

Alex,

 

Just to be clear: I would prefer to use only Leica glass on all my Leica bodies. However, the Zeiss 25 Biogon offers such good quality at such an acceptable price point that it became the logical choice when I elected to get a new lens in this focal length. (I actually traded up from an old Canon 3.5/25mm LTM lens!)

 

Welcome to RF land!

 

-g

[robsteve]

Zeiss kind of dropped the ball on this one. You would think that when they were fitting a mount to it, they would make it compatible to the Leica 24mm mount so it brought up the same frame lines as the Leica 24mm.

 

Did the Zeiss body have automatic frame lines or were they selected with a switch? It may explain the mount problem.

[grober]

Robert,

 

Don't know anything about the Zeiss body. I've held the camera and admired it but my only bodies are made by Leica and CV Bessa.

 

I was pleased to get a response from Zeiss Germany since, in the USA, there's no one to query on this issue. We'll see what solution they finally decide to implement.

 

-g

[lxlim]

Alex,

 

Just to be clear: I would prefer to use only Leica glass on all my Leica bodies. However, the Zeiss 25 Biogon offers such good quality at such an acceptable price point that it became the logical choice when I elected to get a new lens in this focal length. (I actually traded up from an old Canon 3.5/25mm LTM lens!)

 

Welcome to RF land!

 

-g

 

Why so if I may ask? The preference for Leica glass vs others. I assume that you would pick the Leica 24mm if price is not an issue.

 

Alex

[grober]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alex,

 

As a "systems guy" in my day job, I've always known that components built by the manufacturer usually work just a wee bit better if only BECAUSE that manufacturer designed and built everything with a total system in mind from the very beginning. In the case of Leica glass, their individual "specialness" has been proven to me though forty years of field experience with a thousand examples in my memory when the Leica glass added their own uniqueness in recording the moment.

 

The lenses I use most of the time will always be Leica glass because then I'm using the total system as designed from the get-go by the manufacturer. (For me, my primary lenses are 35 and 75 which are both Summmicrons, purchased new from authorized sources.)

 

But when branching out to the focal lengths I use less often, I'd be foolish not to let price/performance play a role. Here the Zeiss 25 Biogon and the CV 50 Nokton provided, for me, very attractive alternatives. The 1.33x viewfinder "shift" posed by the M8 throws all this learning and experience back into the blender. Only usage over time will determine what lenses remain or which become my new primary optics in the new world offered by the M8.

 

But to answer your question: yes, if I had the bucks, I'd use only Leica glass.

 

-g

[fotografr]

Why so if I may ask? The preference for Leica glass vs others. I assume that you would pick the Leica 24mm if price is not an issue.

 

Alex

 

Alex--All due respect, the answer to that question is the reason most of us are registered at this forum.

[lxlim]

Alex,

 

As a "systems guy" in my day job, I've always known that components built by the manufacturer usually work just a wee bit better if only BECAUSE that manufacturer designed and built everything with a total system in mind from the very beginning. In the case of Leica glass, their individual "specialness" has been proven to me though forty years of field experience with a thousand examples in my memory when the Leica glass added their own uniqueness in recording the moment.

 

The lenses I use most of the time will always be Leica glass because then I'm using the total system as designed from the get-go by the manufacturer. (For me, my primary lenses are 35 and 75 which are both Summmicrons, purchased new from authorized sources.)

 

But when branching out to the focal lengths I use less often, I'd be foolish not to let price/performance play a role. Here the Zeiss 25 Biogon and the CV 50 Nokton provided, for me, very attractive alternatives. The 1.33x viewfinder "shift" posed by the M8 throws all this learning and experience back into the blender. Only usage over time will determine what lenses remain or which become my new primary optics in the new world offered by the M8.

 

But to answer your question: yes, if I had the bucks, I'd use only Leica glass.

 

-g

 

Thanks, Grober. A very good answer. Somewhat similar to my gut feeling especially with the M8. I want to shoot fast and instinctively. My problem with zeiss is the aperture is indented in 1/3 stops and Leica glass are in half stops.

 

The other problem might be chromatic aberration. Don't think the zeiss will have a big problem with that, though.

 

Alex

[sean_reid]

Zeiss kind of dropped the ball on this one. You would think that when they were fitting a mount to it, they would make it compatible to the Leica 24mm mount so it brought up the same frame lines as the Leica 24mm.

 

Did the Zeiss body have automatic frame lines or were they selected with a switch? It may explain the mount problem.

 

I spoke with my contact at Zeiss USA some weeks ago and got the ball started on the alternate bayonet for the 25. What they did in designing it to trigger the 28 frame lines made a lot of sense at the time. Before the M8, no RF showed framelines for a 24, and an accessory finder was needed. For those photographers who wanted to use the 25 without an accessory finder, Zeiss designed the lens to bring up the next closest frame lines - 28. It made sense at the time but now, obviously, needs to be reconsidered.

 

The Ikon selects frame lines automatically.

 

I actually prefer the Leica 24 but the Zeiss 25 is a wonderful lens and a bargain to boot.

 

I got permission to try to swap the 25 bayonet with one from the 35 but the screws holding that bayonet to the body must be affixed with the equivalent of locktite. I can't budge them even with the correct screwdriver. I have several ZMs here awaiting testing.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[lxlim]

Alex--All due respect, the answer to that question is the reason most of us are registered at this forum.

 

 

Can't argue with that, Brent. Came from using Sinars(LF), Rollei (MF) and Canon. Never considered a Leica till the M8. Different work different needs then. Now my current jobs makes it possible to consider the M8.

 

Don't know the Leica mystic though. Best lens I ever used was the Macro Sironar by Rodenstock on the Sinar C2. Had to starve a few months for it

 

Grober's initiative and reply was helpful as I had planned my kit. Its an expensive investment if everything was a Leica but if "system" is what makes a difference in the heat of the job then I have to factor that in.

 

Thanks.

 

Alex

[grober]

I agree with Alex (earlier in this string) that the Zeiss 1/3 stop increment is an odd departure from Leica's 1/2 stop increment or detent. Something I'll get used to of course but, none the less, it's a bit odd. I've made my 24/25 wide-angle bed and must therefore now lie in it with a smile on my face.

 

I have shot film (Fuji 800color neg; street shots in SFO) with a borrowed Leica 24mm but didn't see enough difference between it and the results from my 25mm Biogon to make me regret buying the latter. We'll see if I have the same opinion after using the Zeiss lens on the M8 for six months or so.

 

-g

[robsteve]

Grober:

 

On the M, one of the three bayonet lugs engages the frameline mechanism. Which frameline is engaged is determined by the width/circumference of this lug. If it needs to be smaller, the existing mount lug could be filed down. If it needs to be bigger, you would need a new mount.

 

For good PR, Zeiss should just replace the mount on the 25mm.

[scott kirkpatrick]

That's a useful fact. Does the tab get wider to indicate a wider lens or to indicate a longer lens (I assume this correlates with the finder selection lever's movement).

 

Also, is Zeiss having trouble with some standards they set for their own use of the M mount on their own cameras and the new frames selected on the M8 that were not on the M6 and M7?

 

scott

[Gerd5404]

I have the Distagon 2.8/15 ZM and on Monday I will get my M8. Does anybody know, if this lens could be used on the M8? I'm using it already with the MP and therefore I would expect that it could also be used on M8.

[ho_co]

That's a useful fact. Does the tab get wider to indicate a wider lens or to indicate a longer lens (I assume this correlates with the finder selection lever's movement).

 

Also, is Zeiss having trouble with some standards they set for their own use of the M mount on their own cameras and the new frames selected on the M8 that were not on the M6 and M7?

 

scott

Scott--

You'll notice that when you remove a lens, the preview lever moves all the way to the outside. That's where it stays when you put a 35mm (or 135mm) lens on. Put on a 50mm (or 75mm) and it moves to the center, put on a 90mm (or 28mm) and it moves all the way toward the lens. Same mechanism since the M3.

 

And here's the point: Since the M8's 24mm frame is paired with that of the 35mm, you've got a way out: The ZM 25 has the full-length bayonet lug (keying the 28mm frameset); so it can be machined down to the point that it doesn't press against the frame preview lever at all.

 

I've known people who did such modifications, though in this case I'm sure Zeiss will soon come out with a new bayonet for the 25mm to match the M8'S frames.

 

And the second question--I wouldn't say Zeiss is 'having trouble.' Leica certainly didn't tell Zeiss ahead of time what the M8 finder would look like.

 

--HC

[grober]

Grober:

 

For good PR, Zeiss should just replace the mount on the 25mm.

 

Zeiss probably will. I'm hoping they'll tell me: "Mail the lens to such and such address with a check for US$50 and we'll fix the problem."

 

I'd be OK with that as long as it doesn't take too many weeks before the Biogon is back on my M8.

 

-g

[scott kirkpatrick]

Scott--

You'll notice that when you remove a lens, the preview lever moves all the way to the outside. That's where it stays when you put a 35mm (or 135mm) lens on. Put on a 50mm (or 75mm) and it moves to the center, put on a 90mm (or 28mm) and it moves all the way toward the lens. Same mechanism since the M3.

 

And here's the point: Since the M8's 24mm frame is paired with that of the 35mm, you've got a way out: The ZM 25 has the full-length bayonet lug (keying the 28mm frameset); so it can be machined down to the point that it doesn't press against the frame preview lever at all.

 

--HC

Hmm. I don't have an M3, but did the preview lever sit in the middle for 50, to the right for 90 and to the left for 135? That would seem odd. Or did they change the preview ordering when the M2 appeared and more or less keep it after? (Move 50 from left to center, 90 from middle to right level position.) Idle curiousity, I guess, but we don't often get to see this sort of mechanical evolution.

 

By saying "Zeiss have trouble," I meant were they caught because they had made a decision to fit the requirements of their own cameras and now find Leica going a different way. It sounds as if they simply tried to key the 28 frame.

 

scott

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[robsteve]

 

By saying "Zeiss have trouble," I meant were they caught because they had made a decision to fit the requirements of their own cameras and now find Leica going a different way. It sounds as if they simply tried to key the 28 frame.

 

scott

 

Leica wasn't going another way, just continued on with their long standing tradition of backward compatibility. The Leica 24mm has been out for years. If they made the lug the same as the 24mm they had a really good chance of it being compatible.

 

I think the whole problem starts with nobody believing Leica would make a digital M so similar to their normal Ms. I am sure some were expecting something totally different, but accepting M lenses.

[ho_co]

Hmm. I don't have an M3, but did the preview lever sit in the middle for 50, to the right for 90 and to the left for 135?

Scott--

Lever on M3 just as now. M2 simply put a 35mm frame in the place of the 135.

 

35mm lenses made for M3 keyed the 50mm framelines and used a set of minifying goggles in front of the viewfinder.

 

That means that when those lenses were used on an M2 or M4 they still keyed the 50mm frames, even though the camera already had 35mm frames. Some people didn't like the goggles arrangement and wanted the goggles removed and the lenses modified to key the 35mm frame.

 

So we've been through all this before. Leica creates a solution and some people want to do it another way.

 

And as to your question--"wasn't it odd to put the framelines in that order?"--I can only say that's the way it was. Always been that way. Don't know why.

 

--HC