Zeiss RF lenses?

[Dave Wooten]

Two questions:

1. According to the Zeiss info page on the new camera, some of the lenses designed for the camera are made at Zeiss, the remainder are made by Cosina. Reason given was to make the lenses less costly.....which lenses are made at Zeiss?

2. Any Apugers with experience with this camera.

thanks as always
Dave in Vegas

 

[Robert Budding]

Mike Elek has written extensively on the new Zeiss Ikon camera and lenses:

http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon/

 

[Dave Wooten]

thanks Robert!

 

[Robert Budding]

No problem. Mike's a good guy - I've exchanged emails with him a number of times (discussions about Zeiss Ikon rangefinders from the 1950's). You should contact him if you have questions that he hasn't addressed on his site.

 

[Biogon Bill]

Two questions:

1. According to the Zeiss info page on the new camera, some of the lenses designed for the camera are made at Zeiss, the remainder are made by Cosina. Reason given was to make the lenses less costly.....which lenses are made at Zeiss?

2. Any Apugers with experience with this camera.

thanks as always
Dave in Vegas

1. The 85/2 sonnar and the 15/2.8 Distagon are made in Germany.

2. I have the camera, am delighted with it, & recommend it highly. The viewfinder alone sold me. I wear glasses & can see the 28 frame lines. Combined with the long rangefinder baseline, this is a real treat. It weighs less than a Leica M, but I like the light weight better. The shutter doesn't have to be depressed as far as a Leica, so this balances nicely with the weight. But it's not a "hair trigger" either. Meter is very accurate. All in all, a very well thought out design.

 

[Biogon Bill]

Two questions:

1. According to the Zeiss info page on the new camera, some of the lenses designed for the camera are made at Zeiss, the remainder are made by Cosina. Reason given was to make the lenses less costly.....which lenses are made at Zeiss?

2. Any Apugers with experience with this camera.

thanks as always
Dave in Vegas

1. The 85/2 Sonnar and the 15/2.8 Distagon are made in Germany.

2. I have the camera, am delighted with it, & recommend it highly. The viewfinder alone sold me. I wear glasses & can see the 28 frame lines. Combined with the long rangefinder baseline, this is a real treat. It weighs less than a Leica M, but I like the light weight better. The shutter doesn't have to be depressed as far as a Leica, so this balances nicely with the weight. But it's not a "hair trigger" either. Meter is very accurate. All in all, a very well thought out design.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Next week, I will receive my black Z1 with Planar T* 1.4/50 ZF lens.

From the Zeiss Website:

http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/024b91f46d590a3fc125711c00693b3f


The new ZEISS ZF lenses went to test for resolving power recently. Attached to a Nikon F6, which was mounted on a Sachtler heavy duty tripod, we exposed our Eastman resolution test chart onto Kodak Imagelink HQ film. The best we had ever achieved before with any SLR lenses was 250 lp/mm.

The new Planar T* 1.4/85 ZF achieved that same resolution at f/5.6, and even down to f/2.

The new Planar T* 1.4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2.

And: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/30536193ed0c97a7c125711c006fc2c2
Resolving Power Record with ZEISS Biogon T* 2.8/25 ZM

When Hasselblad staff photographer Jens Karlsson took demo photos for the first Zeiss Ikon brochure in 2004, his photo of the carousel, taken with the ZM-Biogon 25 stood out for its enormous detail and clarity. So we used a ZM-Biogon 25 in a recent test to determine maximum resolving power. The high resolution film of choice was the SPUR Orthopan UR supplied and processed by SPUR.

The result was a whopping 400 lp/mm on film, recorded with the Biogon 25 at f/4 in the center of the image. This value, 400 lp/mm, corresponds to the maximum resolution theoretically possible at f/4; in other words it represents the calculated “diffraction limited” performance at this aperture. It is noteworthy that this test was conducted with a production lens on a production camera, indicating that the film was precisely positioned and flat.

Let’s just say that this test is relevant to everyday photography the same way the top speed of a Formula 1 race car relates to everyday personal transportation. Of course, many people enjoy watching Formula 1 races ...

 

[gnashings]

...Let’s just say that this test is relevant to everyday photography the same way the top speed of a Formula 1 race car relates to everyday personal transportation. Of course, many people enjoy watching Formula 1 races ...

Tom, you made my day! To read that from one as educated and experienced in this discipline as yourself is truly enlightning! I have often thought of a good way to put my thoughts on this issue, and that is pretty much spot on!
And I do like F1 - both literally and figuratively

Peter.

PS Absolutely fascinating results!

 

[Fotohuis]

Some very critical notes about this test are comming from Mr. Puts, who has been tested Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses in the past very extensively. (http://www.imx.nl)

It is reality stupid!

For film to survive we need an honest appraisal of its outstanding features and characteristics. A recent claim by the marketing department of Zeiss, that they had succeeded in resolving 400 linepairs per mm with the new 2.8/25mm ZM lens on yet another special and super film (yawn yawn) and developer, this time one of the Spur developers by the German company Schain is far beyond honesty. It is simply impossible. The 2.8/25mm has been tested by me quite extensively and will deliver at most 200 linepairs per mm on aerial (projected) resolution. There is no way that this lens can come close to the mythical 400 lp/mm on film. To deliver 400 lp/mm on film, the lens must be capable of doing at least 600 lp/mm and that is even for a Zeiss lens designed for general photography several bridges too far. This yardstick has been introduced by the infamous Gigabit film/developer, the creator/manufacturer of which simply stated that if you cannot get this result you are not worth using the film. Strong opposition to this type of reasoning came from a small German company that marketed very good developers for TechPan films. They were fully correct in claiming that (a) resolution is not the alpha and omega of film quality and (b) such a high-resolution figure is nonsense. This small company was Schain. It is ironic that the company now supporting the same claims that the Zeiss marketing people make, is that same Schain company!
Zeiss marketing made the same type of claims in previous articles, then for the Contax lenses. The subtle difference is that the statement then was that the resolution could only be made visible by special enlarger lenses made by Zeiss and now the claim is that the resolution is only visible with high magnification microscopes. The pattern in all these claims from Gigabit to Zeiss marketing is the same: the performance is claimed, never substantiated and when challenged the answer is always most evasive.
We should forget about these claims, they do more harm than good in the current climate of assessing film as being fit for the future.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The truth will be somewhere in the middle because I do not think there are a lot of companies, persons who can do a regular test on these high end lenses and film and reproduce spec's like Zeiss or Leica can do.

I think the differences with the Zeiss/Leica M7/MP and their lenses are so small that 99,5% can not distinguish it on a perfect print of 30X40cm and a good regular slow speed B&W film.

If you want to buy a high end RF (film) camera now, you have an extra choice. The question is for how long period of time these kind of cameras will be available on the world market. Let's hope there a still enough people who like a high end film camera product in the future.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Roger Hicks]

No camera can reliably deliver much over 100 lp/mm ON THE FILM with any lens, simply because film location is not good enough. I have seen 125 lp/mm more often than not with a 75/2 Summicron and I have never seen better. To get the vaunted Zeiss 200 lp/mm you must 'bracket focus' which is hardly realistic in the real world.

The Zeiss lenses are very, very good (I have tried all except the 85/2). I would not hesitate to use any of them for the most critical applications -- and I have tried them on Zeiss Ikon, Leica and Voigtlander. My wife Frances Schultz and I have reviewed them for Shutterbug magazine; she has reviewed then for Black and White (UK); and we have also reviewed them on www.rogerandfrances.com, but unfortunately it's $2 or you have to subscribe to read the review on the site.

At this level, considerations such as size, weight and handling matter more than image quality, and the only reasons I would hesitate for an instant about Zeiss lenses is that I prefer more speed (such as 35/1.4) and obviously they have not the decades of proven durability that Leica lenses have.

The former (speed) cannot be challenged; the latter (durability) is probably an unnecessary reservation, because I have used Voigtlander lenses hard since they came out and have yet to have a problem.

Cheers,

Roger Hicks

 

[Dave Wooten]

Nice to hear from you on the forum Roger!

 

[aoresteen]

Tom,

From the ZI pages, the 50mm Planar is an f/2 not 1.4. Zeiss has just announced a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar for the ZI.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Tom,

From the ZI pages, the 50mm Planar is an f/2 not 1.4. Zeiss has just announced a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar for the ZI.

You are correct aoresteen, my 50mm Zeiss Planar (M mount) is an f2.0.

It is the new Nikon SLR mount Zeiss Planar 50mm lens that is an f1.4.

Sorry for the confusion.