I don't think Ko-Fe mentioned any half truths etc. I have ZM, ZF and CV lenses (as well as Leica stuff etc), and the build quality of the ZM glass is the same as CV, not better. All my ZM lenses have developed the notorious Zeiss wobble, and one of my CVs has too. The ZF lenses seem to be built to a much higher standard than the CV or ZM glass, and I think that this is because in this day and age rangefinder lenses are targeted at amateur photographers, while the SLR lenses are targeted at pros.
Outside build issues, they all take fantastic pics, and where the ZM lenses really shine are in their coatings. They resist lens flare better than any of my other lenses, including my Leica ones.
Their 35 2.8 is still bulky comparing to tiny Skopar 35 2.5. ZM has too large size of the filter for such slow lenses and overall size is big, yet, focus helicoids quality is nowhere near to Leica "silk". Zeiss ZM is nothing special at all. Who need their f4 tele if coated Elmar 90 f4 has better build and costs 200$. They don't have fast 1.1, 1.2 lenses as CV has, no special editions with unique design as CV makes.
I'm sorry but no. What Ko.Fe and so many other people who participate in photo forums and especially regarding Leica are doing is
classic sophistry.
Arguing that the C Biogon isn't compact compared to a slower, inferior, plastic (but still great) CV lens would be a half truth. Arguing that there is something called "Leica Silk" and that ZM lenses are what? Difficult to focus? Have chunky helicals? Unless they're broken, complete BS. All my ZM lenses have perfectly smooth focusing action as well as precise aperture clicks. Arguing that Zeiss has no special editions or unique designs? What? The 50mm C Sonnar is a unique and wonderful lens that he derides at the beginning on his post because of his failure to understand that it was designed to be a classic performer, much like Leica's new 28/5.6, it says exactly what it is
right in the product literature and it has developed a devoted following. All the Biogons are star performers at minimum and class leaders in some cases in their speed. The 35/1.4 is the best 35/1.4 from a technical perspective on the market, and it's less than half the cost of a Summilux. I know because I've shot with one, but reviews agree. Ultimately it was too big IMO for a film Leica, but Zeiss should be applauded for both besting Leica optics and cost, which they do time and time again, of course at the expensive of size and weight.
It's not complicated. ZM lenses use traditional designs (no asphericals save the 35/1.4) to achieve premium optics, often at the expensive of size (but not always). This, and subcontracting Cosina keeps the cost down. As for the wobble, it's kind of unfair to keep waving the fact that some lenses developed an easily fixable issue over and over again. It's not like recent Leica products have been free of problems. OMG the APO Summicron had a flare issue, never buy any Leica product ever again! Take a look at this thread on this very site to see a whole bunch of happy users AND a DIY fix if your lens does loosen up over time: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Guess what, Leica shutters and unreliable and RFs go out of calibration. But I don't rail against my M4 on every forum with sophistic arguments meant to stir up an atmosphere of doubt. Any reasonable photographer should reflect that the RF user today has more choices than ever, in nearly every price bracket. Just because one photographer wants to own all the Summilux lenses (for example) doesn't mean that same photographer should go online and start mudslinging about the Biogons and Planars. It's Trumpian and immature.