Finally and official statement by Zeiss on the 85/4

[joachim]

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/529A495DB287B5B5C12574C2003F8E6A

Finally. I started wondering whether it was all just a leak and not really intended for public consumption yet. New picture but no data which I haven't seen so far. So weight and size still unknown.

[Andrew Sowerby]

Now that's interesting! The list price seems reasonable too ... under $1000 CDN once you back out the VAT.

[nyx]

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

[joachim]

Hmm, this is larger and heavier than the Sonnar 90/2.8 for the Contax G. It is a lot longer. See

http://contaxcameras.co.uk/gseries/glenses/sonnar90.asp

and

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

So the M-mount seems to add quite a bit to the weight and size or am I missing something?

Ta
Joachim

[Krosya]

From the Zeiss site:
"Thanks to its small size, this lens is ideal for portrait and landscape photography. "

Can anyone tell me what does it's size have to do with being ideal for portrait or landscape photography? Travel - maybe, but portrait and landscape? As I see it - another flop from Zeiss. Why can't they just copy and maybe improve either Jupiter -9 for thier 85/2 lens or M-Hexanon 90/2.8? And keep the price down?
Sorry, but no matter how stellar this lens may be - I see no reason AT ALL to buy it!

[noimmunity]

The dimensions are not bad but just average. I was hoping the tradeoff in aperture would translate into an exceptionally compact lens.

Length is a full 95mm long (ZM measurements include the flange), only 5mm less than the Sonnar 85/2 (!). Not so bad for a 90, but is it really the "extremely compact" size that Zeiss claims?

The dimensions are similar to the M-Hexanon 90/2.8 ... And the CV 90/3.5 would probably be similar without the hood.

Weight at 310grams (11 oz) is okay, but nothing special.

Filter size is 43mm, kind of the odd size out in the ZM line up, but convenient for pairing up with the 35s in the ZM lineup.

It will be fun to see images from this lens when it finally comes out.

[enochRoot]

the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm long. if anything, that dimension is for a fully extended lens. the 85/2 is actually shorter than the 90 summicron. and for the record, the photo of this new one is not to scale. just check out the size of the flange. and finally, not sure why they photographed this w/ the barrel fully extended either. it makes it look longer than it actually would be to carry around.

[Paul T.]

FWhy can't [Zeiss] just copy and maybe improve Jupiter -9 for thier 85/2 lens?


good joke!

[joachim]

good joke!

Paul, I think you need to explain to Krosya how the Contax and the FSU cameras & lenses are related for him to understand the joke he made.

[jaap]

It's a nice little lens But they better had made the sonnar 90mm f2.8 (G-series) In M mount. That thing is sharp at f2.8

[dberger]

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/529A495DB287B5B5C12574C2003F8E6A

Finally. I started wondering whether it was all just a leak and not really intended for public consumption yet. New picture but no data which I haven't seen so far. So weight and size still unknown.



http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081


Hmmm . . . very Heliar-like. The images this lens makes should be quite nice indeed.

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/TeleTessarT4-85ZM_1/$File/linsenschnitt.jpg


Cheers,


David

[JRG]

The FOV is shown as 29 / 25 / 17 (D/H/V) degrees. If the reference is 24mm (V) x 36mm (H), then my HP calculator says that the focal length is closer to 82mm than to 85mm.

A piddling point, I know! :D

[Turtle]

Excellent. If it performs well I will sell my Elmarit M, which altho perfectly wonderful, produces less contrast than my other ZMs and I want them to be matched. I wont miss the stop for scenics. Hmmmm, but the built in hood on the elmarit M is nice....

[Double Negative]

Sweet! Finally it's official.

Honestly though, I'm not sure if I were buying an 85/90mm lens today (despite my predisposition towards ZM lenses) that I'd have chosen it - over the choice to go with the Leica 2,8/90 Elmarit-M. The latter should be just as good (though perhaps in a slightly different way), is brighter at f/2.8 vs. f/4 and at least the same size if not smaller. Price-wise they also compare favorably. As turtle mentions above, there's also the built-in hood.

Hmmm...

[Roger Hicks]

Doesn't look like a tele design to me.

Cheers,

R.

[Platinum RF]

It looks like an old long lens design, The black late Canon 100/3.5 is about $120 why Zeiss 85/4?

[percepts]

the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm long. if anything, that dimension is for a fully extended lens. the 85/2 is actually shorter than the 90 summicron. and for the record, the photo of this new one is not to scale. just check out the size of the flange. and finally, not sure why they photographed this w/ the barrel fully extended either. it makes it look longer than it actually would be to carry around.

It does look like the lens is extended but the focus mark is on infinity. Maybe its a prototype they loosely assembled for the photo in a hurry since now the speculation has started, they will deflect a lot of enquiries by putting up the specs.

[Andrew Sowerby]

I love the internet. If people spent as much time shooting as they do complaining about the size and weight of lenses that they've never handled, the world would be a much better place.

[peter_n]

Looks like it has a nice short focus throw. However I think I'll stick with my Nikkor 85/2.

[enochRoot]

It does look like the lens is extended but the focus mark is on infinity. Maybe its a prototype they loosely assembled for the photo in a hurry since now the speculation has started, they will deflect a lot of enquiries by putting up the specs.


you're right...i didn't notice that. kooky.

[JRG]

I love the internet. If people spent as much time shooting as they do complaining about the size and weight of lenses that they've never handled, the world would be a much better place.


Maybe. But going out to shoot is not an option at the moment: I'm stuck at my desk, waiting for yet another teleconference to commence. So, why not pass the time pondering a new lens from afar?

[noimmunity]

the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm long. if anything, that dimension is for a fully extended lens.

yup, the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm, it is 100mm. But as i'd mentioned Zeiss measurements include the flange.

so, the 85/4 is not a huge lens, but not exceptionally compact, either.

[ZeissFan]

It looks like an old long lens design, The black late Canon 100/3.5 is about $120 why Zeiss 85/4?

Why, because it's not a Canon POS. It's 85mm. It's an original Carl Zeiss design, not a ripoff of a Carl Zeiss design. It's multicoated. It should be built to a higher standard. It's new. It won't need to be serviced.

I wouldn't be concerned with performance. These days, Carl Zeiss doesn't make lenses that are dogs.

[Solinar]

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/TeleTessarT4-85ZM_1/$File/linsenschnitt.jpg

Cheers,

David

Wow - something old is something new! Very classic, indeed.

[back alley]

i hope it comes in silver...

[Trius]

I love the internet. If people spent as much time shooting as they do complaining about the size and weight of lenses that they've never handled, the world would be a much better place.

My thought exactly. It's almost as bad as Damien Cox's columns on the Leafs. :D :bang:

[back alley]

i hope it comes in silver...

oh thank goodness, it does come in silver.

available in december...i think i know what i'll be getting myself for the holidays!!

joe

[enochRoot]

sorry, but no it's not. at infinity it measures 75mm not counting the flange or 81mm counting the flange. at close focus it is around 92mm w/ the flange. not sure where you got your info, but it seems to be wrong.


yup, the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm, it is 100mm.

[noimmunity]

sorry, but no it's not. at infinity it measures 75mm not counting the flange or 81mm counting the flange. at close focus it is around 92mm w/ the flange. not sure where you got your info, but it seems to be wrong.

the info is right there on the official zeiss site. under the technical specifications, the length of the 85/2 sonnar is listed as 100mm.

you'd better write a message and tell Zeiss they are wrong.

[enochRoot]

i measured the actual lens, so mine are correct.

mistakes are made on websites all the time, but i don't have the time to email zeiss about it. i have much more important things to do such as reading this forum :p


the info is right there on the official zeiss site. under the technical specifications, the length of the 85/2 sonnar is listed as 100mm.

you'd better write a message and tell Zeiss they are wrong.

[noimmunity]

i have much more important things to do such as reading this forum :p

Ain't that the truth! ;) More power to ya!

Thanks for sharing the info. Would be great to see some photos from the lens, too, but given the climate on RFF lately, I'd advise against it, actually, for the time being, unless you put it in W/NW.

Wonder if that means there are discrepancies in the other measurements, too? Or perhaps Zeiss march to their own beat and measure with their own yardstick?

[Tony Rose]

Yes it does!

[noimmunity]

I went and measured a bunch of my ZM lenses and the measurements are indeed all significantly different from what is listed on the Zeiss website. :eek:

[jonmanjiro]

FYI the ZM lenses I've weighed (25/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.5) have all been about 15-20 grams lighter than the weight listed on the Zeiss website.

[back alley]

FYI the ZM lenses I've weighed (25/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.5) have all been about 15-20 grams lighter than the weight listed on the Zeiss website.

now that's strange eh?

[BillBingham2]

now that's strange eh?

Special gas placed between the elements (;->>>>

B2 (;->

[BillBingham2]

The photo of it does make it look like it will be looking like it's very happy to see your model when it's focused close up. It's a niche that I filled with an old 90/4 Leica lens. That was even smaller and could go in just about any pocket without issues.

B2 (;->

[joachim]

Doesn't look like a tele design to me.

Cheers,

R.

Same here. If it weren't for the cemented front group, this looks like a "plain" Tessar. I am at a loss, why they call it Tele-Tessar.

[percepts]

I suspect that the zeiss lens photos on their website may not be photos at all. With todays cad programs used with ray tracing software, it is easily possible to create photo realistic images from designs and without the use of a camera.
Look at the filter thread on the enlarged versions of the images. Most of them are just parallel lines. And also many of those images have the lens fron element protuding up into where the filter glass would go.
Yes I should have better things to be doing:)

[infrequent]

yeah a lot of product photography these days is mostly vector art. the apple website is a prime example.

[Nachkebia]

Very nice indeed, I want it :) how are you guys?

[percepts]

the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm long. if anything, that dimension is for a fully extended lens. the 85/2 is actually shorter than the 90 summicron. and for the record, the photo of this new one is not to scale. just check out the size of the flange. and finally, not sure why they photographed this w/ the barrel fully extended either. it makes it look longer than it actually would be to carry around.


Zeiss web site says meassurements are with caps on

[Double Negative]

FYI the ZM lenses I've weighed (25/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.5) have all been about 15-20 grams lighter than the weight listed on the Zeiss website.

Maybe they weigh the lens with the caps and hood on...

...Or stacked with the bundle of cash it costs to buy them. :p

[enochRoot]

Zeiss web site says meassurements are with caps on

thanks! where did you see that info?

anyhow, that's an odd way to go about things! people reading specs will most likely assume it's without caps, and will then assume the lens is a lot larger than it is in practice.

with caps on i got 98mm, so that's it.

but again, this lens is shorter and lighter than the summicron. the only dimension larger is the width.

[percepts]

thanks! where did you see that info?

anyhow, that's an odd way to go about things! people reading specs will most likely assume it's without caps, and will then assume the lens is a lot larger than it is in practice.

with caps on i got 98mm, so that's it.

but again, this lens is shorter and lighter than the summicron. the only dimension larger is the width.

They shouldn' assume that because if you look at the zeiss website spec, it says "Dimensions (with caps)".
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

[enochRoot]

They shouldn' assume that because if you look at the zeiss website spec, it says "Dimensions (with caps)".
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

i think that might have been added since this thread started, as i don't remember ever noticing it.

when i was doing research on the 2/85, i also found conflicting dimensions in their literature. the tech specs pdf had one measurement, and the website another.

**edit

i just checked, and the tech pdf lists the length as 82mm. i'm fairly certain that "with caps" was an addition, because i was confused when i first was researching the lens some months ago. there were just two different dimensions listed, and one did not specify "with caps".

[percepts]

i think that might have been added since this thread started, as i don't remember ever noticing it.

when i was doing research on the 2/85, i also found conflicting dimensions in their literature. the tech specs pdf had one measurement, and the website another.

Unfortinately that's the nature of the web. You really can't rely on accuracy of content no matter where or who posts it. And when it comes to the minutiae forget it.

[enochRoot]

Unfortinately that's the nature of the web. You really can't rely on accuracy of content no matter where or who posts it. And when it comes to the minutiae forget it.

don't i know it. i'm often the guy scrambling to change something and repost it :D

[Double Negative]

It's listed amongst the ZM lenses now. Direct link:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/9E6B7B49E7BEDBC0C12574C0004BF081#12

Though you could get to this through the press release previously, I believe.

[joachim]

i think that might have been added since this thread started, as i don't remember ever noticing it.

when i was doing research on the 2/85, i also found conflicting dimensions in their literature. the tech specs pdf had one measurement, and the website another.

**edit

i just checked, and the tech pdf lists the length as 82mm. i'm fairly certain that "with caps" was an addition, because i was confused when i first was researching the lens some months ago. there were just two different dimensions listed, and one did not specify "with caps".

The "with caps" thing is odd. They now have it for all lenses on their web-site.

So far I thought industry standard for length is from the mounting flange to the tip of the lens - essentially everything which sticks out of the body. Don't tell me the Hologon for the Contax G is just 11mm with caps (http://contaxcameras.co.uk/gseries/glenses/hologon16.asp)

While I agree what one wants in most cases (space it eats in your bag) by doing the above the Zeiss lenses appear larger than they actually are.

Is the weight also "with caps"?

[percepts]

I would guess yes because the datasheet pdf says 450 grams and 82mm for the 85/2 lens whereas the onscreen spec says 500 grams and 100mm. Go figure. You would think they would try and be consistent with simple dimensional and weight specs.

[enochRoot]

especially when the weight and length are less than the competitor! i think that's a selling point.

[Platinum RF]

A great canon lens also made in Japan

[Rico]

I'm impressed that CZ attends to the lighter-is-better crowd (that includes me). They even suggest pairing the TT85 with a CB35. :) I agree this new offering is more long than tele in design. Here is the web spec, and measurements I took of two similar lenses on my shelf: CZ Tele-Tessar 85/4 ZM (310g, 95mm); CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 C/Y (290g, 80mm); Leitz 3-element Elmar 90/4 (350g, 94mm). All measurements include caps. The S100 is effectively longer when accounting for its use on SLR. The Elmar is considered a "long lens" and its optical cell is detachable for Visoflex use. Once again, I lament the fashionable short throw: the TT85 DOF scale is rendered worthless.

[CameraQuest]

to me,
a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark.
it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2.

Stephen

[Double Negative]

^ Certainly f/2.8 at least. I'd have definitely bought one. But f/4 is just a little too dark for my tastes.

[JRG]

" a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark. it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2."

"Certainly f/2.8 at least. I'd have definitely bought one. But f/4 is just a little too dark for my tastes."

I've been sitting here thinking similar things. An 85/4 just isn't that different from the Apo-Lanthar, in terms of angle of view and aperture. And I've got no complaints about the image quality of the Apo-Lanthar.

[QUAsit]

This lens design looks like Heliar derivative...

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Heliar_1950_3.jpg

[ferider]

to me,
a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark.
it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2.

Stephen

Agreed. The saddest part is that there was the Cosina/Rollei 80/2.8 M mount Planar, more compact than this lens, just a few years back.

Roland.

[veraikon]

Cosina/Rollei 80/2.8 M
It was a Zeiss (optical elements) Cosina (mechanical parts) and Rollei (manufacturing) lens.
But only about 500 pieces were made.

[Photon42]

to me,
a ZM 85/4 really misses the mark.
it should have been a ZM 85/2.8 at half the price of the 85/2.

Stephen

precisely. For a 90/4 I'd rather take Leica's collapsible lens. It's small and can be updated to close-up photography.

Ivo

[Pavel+]

It does not miss my mark. I like 85 and I can afford it. Kind of simple, looked at that way, eh? :)

[back alley]

such strong negative reactions to this lens is surprising.
no one is being being forced to even consider buying it.

[Photon42]

such strong negative reactions to this lens is surprising.
no one is being being forced to even consider buying it.

It probably shows disappointed desires, so it's emotional :rolleyes:. Speaking for myself, I very much like the chrome look of the lens and - if there'd be a similar one, bit larger, with an aperture of 2.8, I'd seriously considering it.

Actually I'm blown away by the fact that a company like Zeiss launched their whole nice market rangerfinder supply years back. Same thing with their SLR lens line up.

Even better, they come out with new lenses every year. I can perfectly accept, they do not always create items which do make a lot of sense for me. Luckily, there are positive comments like Pavel's one as well on that particluar lens.

Kind regards
Ivo

[jaap]

Obviously they would do something different than relaunce that beautiful sonnar 90 F2.8 again. (85mm F2.8 Contax/yashica mount).

[Photon42]

Obviously they would do something different than relaunce that beautiful sonnar 90 F2.8 again. (85mm F2.8 Contax/yashica mount).

what makes you believe that?

[ZeissFan]

If you take a step back, you can see that Zeiss is slowly releasing its classic Contax offerings back onto the market. The 21mm and 35mm C-Biogons, the C-Sonnar, the f/2.0 85mm Sonnar.

The f/4.0 Triotar was the budget offering in Contax mount to the f/2.0 Sonnar in 85mm. This time around, rather than come back with a triplet (the Triotar), Zeiss's lower-cost alterntive to the Sonnar is the Tele-Tessar, presumably a more advanced lens than the Triotar.

That said, I took my Triotar out for a walk this week and as much as possible, tried to shoot it wide open. I was shooting color print, so it wasn't possible to shoot every shot wide open as I don't have an ND filter in 40.5mm. Performance was exceptional, and I'll post some photos, once I finish scanning everything.

But as expected, everyone wants something different. I find the Triotar an excellent compromise in price and weight to the Sonnar. I have come to the same conclusion for the Tele-Tessar, although I want to try the lens before saying more.

[Turtle]

I think is is reasonably clear that this is a travel lens a reflected by the aperture. Many people use RFs in this more general role and so its less than ideal suitability for portraits is not a major issue for many. If I was seriously interested in shooting portraits, a RF with 85/90 would be last on my list of kit to use! Seems they focused on price, size, performance with more of a travel/landscape/places function in mind. I bet it is crisp as hell wide open too, so worries about having to stop it down are likely unfounded (as with 21 4.5, 35 2.8 etc). Often the way with slow lenses in that they often perform as well at their max aperture than a faster lens stopped down to the same aperture, assuming they are of a first rate design, rather than one with a few elements and made to a real budget.

I think a collapsible f4 would have been cool. still, it does appeal as the price is good and the performance is likely to be truly superb in its intended role. The elamrit Ms are coming down in price though.

[ferider]

such strong negative reactions to this lens is surprising.
no one is being being forced to even consider buying it.

1) because I had hoped for an 85-90/2.8 Sonnar. I'm disappointed.
2) because (like with the C-Biogon) Zeiss marketing tries to make you believe this is a compact/"travel" lens, which is just simply hype.

Just like with the C-Biogon, you can get smaller, better, cheaper from CV.

Roland.

[enochRoot]

hey roland, why do you keep saying it's not a travel lens? seems pretty compact to me. remember the 95mm is with both caps. i would guess it's only 70mm long when mounted without caps.

[ferider]

Nobody can comment on optical performance, obviously.

But for sure, the competition (90/2.8 (Tele)Elmarit, M-Hexanon, Apo-Lanthar, 75/2.5 Heliar, 90/4 C-Elmar and Rokkor, Summarit 90/2.5, the list goes on ....) are pretty damn good lenses.

Not saying it is big. Just bigger than the Tele Elmarit (v2), Heliar, and Rokkor. 43mm filter thread ....

Interestingly, the lens design is almost identical to the 50/3.5 Collapsible Heliar, supposedly the sharpest 50 of all times. Since it comes from the same factory, one could expect stellar resolution from the new Tessar.

http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg6/VC10153.jpg

It could turn out to be the best 35mm landscape lens out there.

We'll see ....

Cheers,

Roland.

[Solinar]

[QUOTE=ZeissFan;898573]If you take a step back, you can see that Zeiss is slowly releasing its classic Contax offerings back onto the market. The 21mm and 35mm C-Biogons, the C-Sonnar, the f/2.0 85mm Sonnar./QUOTE]

Also, once I saw the number of elements and the way they are grouped, my bet is that Zeiss is aiming for more classic signature with this lens.

If I didn't already have an 85/2 Nikkor and just recently purchased a first version Elmarit - I'd seriously consider getting one - based on the Heliar-like design.

[jaap]

what makes you believe that?

Wouldn,t that be the most logical choice ? To take the sonnar f2.8 of the shelf?

[ZeissFan]

The f/2.8 Sonnar was an SLR lens, I believe. It's not a matter of simply refitting the lens elements to a different barrel.

[jaap]

The Contax G 90mm and the C/Y are opticly at least for 99% the same imho

[ZeissFan]

Those were made by Kyocera.

So you take them off the shelf. What shelf? Kyocera's shelf? How any of the lens blanks are left? Let's say there are 100 matched elements.

You still have to design a lens barrel, aperture mechanism and assembly process to refit a limited supply of lens elements so that when you run out of lens elements, you now have to make more ... to the identical specification of the original lens.

From a financial standpoint, that's illogical.

It makes better sense to create a new lens from the ground up that isn't limited by the mechanics or supply of a previous product.

Optically the same and spec-wise identical are two different things when it comes to manufacturing.

[joachim]

Those were made by Kyocera.

So you take them off the shelf. What shelf? Kyocera's shelf? How any of the lens blanks are left? Let's say there are 100 matched elements.

You still have to design a lens barrel, aperture mechanism and assembly process to refit a limited supply of lens elements so that when you run out of lens elements, you now have to make more ... to the identical specification of the original lens.

From a financial standpoint, that's illogical.

It makes better sense to create a new lens from the ground up that isn't limited by the mechanics or supply of a previous product.

Optically the same and spec-wise identical are two different things when it comes to manufacturing.

Zeiss is about to (re-)release a tweaked version of the famous CYMM Distagon 21/2.8 in ZF, ZK and ZE mount. So there seems to be a "shelf to pull stuff" from. Most likely a shelf of ideas.

Many people here think, why did Zeiss not start with the Sonnar 85/2.8 (CYMM mount) or Sonnar 90/2.8 (Contax G), do a an update and ask Cosina to produce this? Alternatively, if they wanted something new, which is designed from the ground up, why did they not design a f/2.8 lens? You are right still they need to design a new barrel but so they did for the 85/4 as well. I think for an 2.8 lens there would have been much more of a market. The spec of the old lenses show that a 2.8 lens would have been only insignificantly heavier and larger. I think that is the key point.

On the other hand if you want the Tele Tessar and can afford it, buy and enjoy it. I am pretty sure it will not disapoint if the f/4 spec doesn't bother you. If you get one and report back here, I am sure many, me included, will be happy to read it. So far, despite not being interested (now) in upgrading from my Contax G Sonnar, to me the 85/4 is one of the more interesting anouncements fro Photokina. Is seems quirky in a nice way.

[Doug]

It does seem quirky and interesting, and probably kept to f4 to better control aberrations that might crop up with this classic construction if higher speed were attempted. This is not quite a Heliar, though the overall effect should be very similar, the difference showing in the negative-positive front pair rather than the Heliar's positive-negative.

I bought a 50mm Heliar Classic for an interesting and different look, and for the same reason picked up a used Pentax K-mount 4/100mm macro that is a Heliar design as well. Like the classic Planar, the Heliar is a near-symmetrical construction, and thus more suitable than usual for macro applications.

I'll be looking forward to seeing some user samples from this interesting new Tele-Tessar!

[Photon42]

Wouldn,t that be the most logical choice ? To take the sonnar f2.8 of the shelf?

Sure. I understood you don't believe in this and I wanted to know, why.

Regards
Ivo

[jsuominen]

It was a Zeiss (optical elements) Cosina (mechanical parts) and Rollei (manufacturing) lens.
But only about 500 pieces were made.

Hmm, according to this thread only 90 pieces of Planar 80/2.8 were made (40 in black and 50 in silver):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22770

[ZeissFan]

As I thought about this while replacing the trap in my bathroom sink, I considered the question: "Why not an f/2.8 Sonnar?"

And then it seemed obvious: It's too close in speed and performance to the f/2.0 Sonnar. A Japanese f/2.8 version of the Sonnar would be much cheaper than the f/2.0 German-made lens, and that would eat into sales of the German lens.

Could Zeiss make an f/2.8 lens in Japan? Most certainly, they could. But who then would purchase the much more expensive f/2.0 Sonnar? Probably not enough to justify its continued production.

Way back when the system was first conceived, and plans were being drawn up for lens production, they probably could have thought about a less-expensive f/2.8 85mm Sonnar. But it appears that Zeiss took a no-compromise approach to this lens in its effort to produce an f/2.0 version.

If they had produced the f/2.8 Sonnar, would users then be asking, "Why not an f/2.0?" Well, probably, because it's not about what we can get, it's often about what we want, even if we don't plan to buy it.

TRIOTAR: My general feeling about this lens is that it was a lower-cost alternative to the Sonnar, just like the 5cm/50mm Tessar was a lower-cost alternative to the 5cm/50mm Sonnar.

And so there are compromises in performance. However, for a triplet, it's outstanding. I have an Elmar that I will shoot this week to see how it compares with the Triotar.

In the meantime, results from the Triotar (http://elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/triotarfeb2006/). Go to the bottom of the page for this week's shots (in color).

[veraikon]

@jsuominen thanks for the link and the clearance.

[Dan States]

Perhaps market research found that Japanese collectors, who are Zeiss' top market, prefer the concept of a Tele Tessar. Keep in mind that none of these lenses would exist if not for that market.

Best wishes
Dan

[joachim]

And then it seemed obvious: It's too close in speed and performance to the f/2.0 Sonnar. A Japanese f/2.8 version of the Sonnar would be much cheaper than the f/2.0 German-made lens, and that would eat into sales of the German lens.

But how about the 35mm? There is a Zeiss 2.8 and 2.0 lens. They are extremely close in price.

[35mmdelux]

why bother when you can snag a 90mm Elmarit-M, a stop faster and sharp, for circa $700 on the pre-owned market?

This is about what I paid for my mint 90mm EM, complete box, leather case and all. and it has the slide out hood which is really nifty.

[ZeissFan]

But how about the 35mm? There is a Zeiss 2.8 and 2.0 lens. They are extremely close in price.

I had a different reply, as I was looking at your question incorrectly. That was my fault.

Now, regarding the two versions of the 35mm lens. If you notice the price, they are separated by just 200 euros. So, the buyer decides, speed or money. The difference in price is worth considering for the would-be buyer.

But with the 85mm lens, the difference in price is about 1,800 euros between the f/2.0 Sonnar and the f/4.0 Tele-Tessar. And again, it's speed vs. money (quite a bit of money).

Sure, Zeiss could design an f/2.8 85mm Sonnar to be made in Japan. And certainly, the cost would probably significantly less than the German-made version. Let's say it costs 1,000 euros.

That would seriously cannibalize the sales of the German Sonnar. Who here would buy the f/2.0 Sonnar when you could buy an f/2.8 version and save yourself 1,600 euros? Very few.

It doesn't make good business sense to do this. It's a simple concept to understand.

An f/4.0 85mm Tele-Tessar does make good business sense. You decide if you want a very fast lens for a premium price or a slower lens with a much smaller price tag.

Now, this doesn't mean that in the future, Zeiss halts production of the German-made Sonnar and creates a less-expensive Japanese-made f/2.8 version. Might happen. Might never happen.

In the meantime, there is now a choice in that focal length. Not a bad thing at all.

[ZeissFan]

why bother when you can snag a 90mm Elmarit-M, a stop faster and sharp, for circa $700 on the pre-owned market?

This is about what I paid for my mint 90mm EM, complete box, leather case and all. and it has the slide out hood which is really nifty.

Not everyone wants Leica glass. Not everyone wants to buy used.

[back alley]

it's like the 21, 2.8 or 4.5, for me it was size or speed more than speed or price.
the 21/4.5 is a small jewel and there is no contest, for me, between the 35/2.8 and the 2.

and like zeiss fan says, i don't care for used lenses and i like the renderings of zeiss lenses and i have no need for leica lenses.

i plan to get the new zm 85.

[Turtle]

I will be very interested to hear how it performs and it should be somewhat smaller than the elmarit M as well as about 150g lighter (which after all is the entire weight of my 21 CV P) so this is not irrelevant. Although the Leica sliding hoods are great, I have not needed hoods on any of my Zeiss glass yet. I have rarely used my Elmarit M and suspect that a 75 would be more useful to me as a replacement for the 50mm FL, which I am not a great fan of. 35mm and 75mm is more my thing I think. Just as I am glad Leica is producing hugely expensive ultra fast ultrawides (which I wont every own) I am glad Zeiss is gradually cornering leica's orginal market of small street type lenses and they are doing so with decent prices. Just looking at some old shots off the ZMs reminds me of how breathtaking those lenses really are ... and how I still want the 21 4.5...and a 0.58MP and... :O

[jaap]

At zeiss they could have gone the easy road by turning a G sonnar into a M mount 82mm f2.8 And they would have a fantastic complementary 85mm lens. Very LOGICAL AND EASY

[noimmunity]

Here is a link to a photo taken from Farkas' blog of the lens mounted on a ZI showing its relative length:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xyB6bJuuc-0/SNyv0uVC6KI/AAAAAAAAAN0/ckVWqNZzDn0/s1600-h/L1020426.JPG

[joachim]

Here is a link to a photo taken from Farkas' blog of the lens mounted on a ZI showing its relative length:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xyB6bJuuc-0/SNyv0uVC6KI/AAAAAAAAAN0/ckVWqNZzDn0/s1600-h/L1020426.JPG

Thanks for sharing. Just a comment: that image is with the lens focused at 1m. If it were set to infinity it will be considerably shorter.

[kram]

Just a personnal guess, I predict that the f4 85mm will sell as well as the Mamiya 7 210mm f8 lens, which was produced to be a light weight small(ish) telephoto for the M7.

Mamiya should have made it a rangefinder coupled f5.6, and Zeiss should have made a f2.8. Will the next lens from be a f4 25mm to go against the new leica 24mm f3.8? Yours in a state of mild confussion.