View Full Version : ZM Lenses now availble from Cameraquest
If this has been posted elsewhere, I apologise. Zeiss M lenses now available from Stephen Gandy/Cameraquest:
http://cameraquest.com/ZM%20lenses.htm
Trius
JoeFriday
08-02-2005, 17:55
that's news to me!
wlewisiii
08-02-2005, 18:16
Now I just need the pennies for an R2A and those two lenses. :bang:
William
Now I just need the pennies for an R2A and those two lenses. :bang:
William
Make my R2A gray and I'm there with you. Unfortunately that case of GAS will have to wait a while. :mad:
digitalox
08-02-2005, 19:29
Man that is sweet, I would like the gray with one of those myself. Any images or tests on the net taken with the ZMs yet?
I'm interested in the 50/2, but for $600 I would think there are better performers. I'm really new to rangefinders so I could be way off base.
Dave
BJ Bignell
08-02-2005, 20:49
I was actually disappointed to see the new ZM lenses mounted on the gray Bessa; personally, I think it's not an attractive option. The lenses themselves, I think they look a little bland. Not ugly, just sort of "blah".
I'm sure they're wonderful lenses, though. Personally, I'm excited about the Sonnar 85, but I'd need an M-mount camera and deeper pockets... :( It appears to be very similar to the same formula I've lusted over for years, in the C/Y bayonet mount for SLR cameras.
I'm excited about the Sonnar 85, but I'd need an M-mount camera and deeper pockets... :( It appears to be very similar to the same formula I've lusted over for years, in the C/Y bayonet mount for SLR cameras.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/s-85/s-85.jpg
Actually this 2/85, 6-element-6-group ZM lens (actually a Planar design but God knows why they call it a Sonnar) has little in common to any of three 85mm lenses in C/Y mount. The 1.4 was 6-element-5-group, http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/slr/slrmanlenses/a-planar85mmf1.4.gif
the 2.8 was 5-element-4-group, http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/slr/slrmanlenses/a-sonnar85mmf2.8.gif
the 1992 Contax 60 Year Anniv f/1.2 was 8-element-7-group.
The virtual twins are in fact the 2/50 ZM and the 2/45 G Planar.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/p-50/p-50top.jpg http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/gseries/lenses/a-planar45mmf2.gif
Guess what? Kyocera UK AND Tocad USA actually put the diagram for the f/1.2 on the page describing the f/1.4.
This is actually the 60th Anniv f/1.2: http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/slr/slrmanlenses/a-planar85mmf1.4.gif
You can see the f/1.4's block diagram by downloading the pdf here: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/25515aa602bbebcbc12567a80044efd0
Who could have known? (http://www.europe-nikon.com/show_large_image.aspx?countryid=20&languageid=22&prodId=277&imgLink=%2fuploads%2fnjp%2fproducts%2fAPFinder_Jap an%2fPPDD%2fLarge_350x260px%2fLensesAF%2fCutaways% 2fTelephotos%2fC-TP-85-1_8.jpg) :eek:
I'm interested in the 50/2, but for $600 I would think there are better performers. I'm really new to rangefinders so I could be way off base.
Dave
Yes, you are "way off base." No insult intended; just a fact. The new Zeiss 50mm Planar has been consistently reviewed to be as good as the Leica 50mm Summicron, which has traditionally been considered "heads and tails" above the competition. If anything, the reputation of the Summicron is understated -- it is an outstanding lens. You really have to try one to believe the hype. If the Planar is as good as the Summicron, then it is a good value, because the Summicron sells in the $1300 range.
Of course, the word on the street is that the 50mm Summicron has been supplanted as the best 50mm lens by the Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH, which only costs about $2500.
BJ Bignell
08-03-2005, 06:46
Well, regardless of my ignorance of lens design and such, I'm still wanting the new Sonnar 85. Maybe they call it a Sonnar because they just like the name more? Comparing the design to the older Planars and Sonnars, it's most definitely nothing like a Sonnar...
I sent ZI an email with this question; hopefully they'll reply quickly!
hmm.. I'm curious; and while I've heard that the Ikon is made by Cosina for Zeiss (and correct me please if I'm wrong here), but does anyone know if the lenses are also made by Cosina?
Dave
hmm.. I'm curious; and while I've heard that the Ikon is made by Cosina for Zeiss (and correct me please if I'm wrong here), but does anyone know if the lenses are also made by Cosina?
Dave
Nevermind :D
I really should try READING the CameraQuest Site before asking dumb questions!!
So far, all elements of the new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder system (except the yet to arrive 15 and 85 lenses) are produced in Japan by Cosina, thru a Cosina Zeiss partnership using Zeiss designs and quality control.
Cheers
Dave
Well BJ, you are not alone. :) The 85 ZM has also been my object of desire right from the start. I was very disappointed when the very Leica-esque list price was announced. Too bad I will only able to afford it in about 5 years' time when the price will have, hopefully, dropped to a reasonable level like the C/Y and G lenses. :bang:
Huck Finn
08-03-2005, 14:50
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/s-85/s-85.jpg
Actually this 2/85, 6-element-6-group ZM lens (actually a Planar design but God knows why they call it a Sonnar) has little in common to any of three 85mm lenses in C/Y mount. The 1.4 was 6-element-5-group, http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/slr/slrmanlenses/a-planar85mmf1.4.gif
the 2.8 was 5-element-4-group, http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/slr/slrmanlenses/a-sonnar85mmf2.8.gif
the 1992 Contax 60 Year Anniv f/1.2 was 8-element-7-group.
The virtual twins are in fact the 2/50 ZM and the 2/45 G Planar.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/p-50/p-50top.jpg http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/assets/gseries/lenses/a-planar45mmf2.gif
I have to disagree with you on this one, Mazurka. The new 85/2 from Zeiss is clearly a Sonnar. The Sonnar name has been used since the '30s for a family of lenses that were derived from the Ernostar design, which itself was a modified triplet. The triplet is quite evident in the front elements of the lens deign that you posted. The rear elements are somewhat different than others in the Sonnar family, but the rear component has varied over the years as Zeiss has found varying ways to correct aberrations.
The 85/2 is clearly not a Planar, as is evident from the Planar design that you have posted for the 50/2. Planar lenses are symmetrical designs as is the case with the 50/2, i.e. the front & rear components being virtually a mirror image of each other. This is clearly not the case with the 85/2.
Cheers,
Huck
The new Zeiss 50mm Planar has been consistently reviewed to be as good as the Leica 50mm Summicron...
Could you direct me to some of those reviews? I haven't yet seen any reliable writeups of the 50.
The Puts
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c016.html
Planar lenses are symmetrical designs as is the case with the 50/2, i.e. the front & rear components being virtually a mirror image of each other. This is clearly not the case with the 85/2.
Huck, you'd be hard pressed to find any completely symmetrical designs in the last 30 years - despite the present 50 ZM, 45 G and 50 Summicron. The 85 ZM is at least 80% symmetric to me. Like you said, the operative word here is "virtually", not "perfectly."
Look at the 1.4 and 1.2 85 C/Y lenses I posted. They are much more assymmetric than the 85 ZM, still they have the Planar designation. Likewise, most of the G and ZM Biogons are also a lot less symmetric than their 1930s predecessors.
As we all know, Zeiss lens names refer to types (or families) of design , and are not meant to stand for fixed templates.
The Puts
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c016.html
I guess Putzie is "reliable," but I can almost synthesize his reviews in my head without reading them: "Very good performance, but not the equal of L_______"
Worth a read, yes, but is there anything else out there?
He actually did admit that the Konica 35mm f/2 lens in M mount was a better performer than the pre-ASPH Cron. Haven't seen him write that anything is better than the latest generation Leica offerings.
Cheers
Huck Finn
08-03-2005, 20:55
Stephen Gandy's website contains two significant pieces of information.
One of these is that he confirms Zeiss has established a higher standard of quality control fot these lenses than is found on Cosina's Voigtlander line - which should be expected given the price.
The other & even more significant development is Stephen's prices for the lenses. The 35 Biogon is 25% lower than the B&H price and the 50 Planar is an incredible 38% less than B&H!
How does Stephen do it? These must be grey market imports because he is only offering a store warranty, but these are still remarkable discounts even for grey market items. And B&H hasn't even been able to come up with their normal grey market option. If he can come up with a similar discount for the ZI body as well - say about 30% - the selling price would be less than $1150. Such a price would certainly drive up the interest.
Huck
Huck Finn
08-04-2005, 13:31
Huck, you'd be hard pressed to find any completely symmetrical designs in the last 30 years - despite the present 50 ZM, 45 G and 50 Summicron. The 85 ZM is at least 80% symmetric to me. Like you said, the operative word here is "virtually", not "perfectly."
Look at the 1.4 and 1.2 85 C/Y lenses I posted. They are much more assymmetric than the 85 ZM, still they have the Planar designation. Likewise, most of the G and ZM Biogons are also a lot less symmetric than their 1930s predecessors.
As we all know, Zeiss lens names refer to types (or families) of design , and are not meant to stand for fixed templates.
Mazurka, you're quite right about the variations from completely symmetric lenses. Of course, this is especially true of SLR lenses. Unsymmetric (not meaning asymmetric) variations on the double-Gauss design - of which type the Planar is one - have been around since the 1920s. There have also been hybrid versions of the double-Gauss design since the 1930s. The samples you showed of the Zeiss Planars would fall into one of these categores.
The new Zeiss 85/2, however, is a Sonnar. The front component is a triplet, identical to the original Ernostar. The only difference between it & the original Sonnar is that Bertele added a filler element between the second & third front elements to reduce the number of glass to air surfaces & thereby minimize aberrations. Once coatings were invented, this was no longer necessary, so the expensive filler element was no longer used.
You say that the 85/2 is 80% symmetrical. It really isn't because of the differing shapes used in the front vs rear elements, e.g. the second front element is curved while its corresponding element in the rear has one flat surface. If you look at the 85/2.8 diagram, you can see the comparable front component in the two lenses even though the rear component differs because of the higher spped of the new version.
Rudolph Kingslake's book, "A History of the Photographic Lens" discusses all of this in some detail & is a good reference on the subject.
Cheers,
Huck
Huck Finn
08-04-2005, 13:38
Another source for Zeiss lenses at the same prices as Cameraquest is Tony Rose at www.popflash.com. Tony not only has the 35 & 50, but he also has gresat prices on the the 21, 25, & 28, lens shades ($85) & the 25/28 auxiliary viewfinder ($325). They all come with a 2-year international warranty, serviced by Tony & backed by Hasselblad in Sweden. Cameraquest ofers a 1-year warranty. He says that ZI bodies will be available in September.
ddimaria
08-04-2005, 15:58
Popflash seems to be out of stock on the 25/2.8, anyone know who else has it at the grey price level?
Stephen Gandy's website contains two significant pieces of information.
One of these is that he confirms Zeiss has established a higher standard of quality control fot these lenses than is found on Cosina's Voigtlander line - which should be expected given the price.
The other & even more significant development is Stephen's prices for the lenses. The 35 Biogon is 25% lower than the B&H price and the 50 Planar is an incredible 38% less than B&H!
How does Stephen do it? These must be grey market imports because he is only offering a store warranty, but these are still remarkable discounts even for grey market items. And B&H hasn't even been able to come up with their normal grey market option. If he can come up with a similar discount for the ZI body as well - say about 30% - the selling price would be less than $1150. Such a price would certainly drive up the interest.
Huck
I was wondering the exact same thing.
They're a LOT cheaper than B&H; and usually, due to distribution/ordering; B&H will at least have an equal price if not a bit lower.
Weird weird weird.
Dave
Huck Finn
08-04-2005, 17:37
Popflash seems to be out of stock on the 25/2.8, anyone know who else has it at the grey price level?
Patience. These lenses are available in limited supply right now. Tony had the 35 & 50 originally & sold out. He has received a new supply. Re-stocking seems to be slow. on all of the lenses.
The other alternative if you're willing to go to an overseas supplier is Dr. Joseph Yao, a very reliable Hong Kong dealer. You can contact him directly at joseph@yao.com.
Huck
Mazurka, you're quite right about the variations from completely symmetric lenses. Of course, this is especially true of SLR lenses. Unsymmetric (not meaning asymmetric) variations on the double-Gauss design - of which type the Planar is one - have been around since the 1920s.
Sorry Huck, but your arguments are unconvincing. I don't see why the nomenclature/classification of lens types has to be different between SLR and rangefinder lenses.
You say that the 85/2 is 80% symmetrical. It really isn't because of the differing shapes used in the front vs rear elements, e.g. the second front element is curved while its corresponding element in the rear has one flat surface.
Again, I don't see why the 1.4 and 1.2 85mm C/Y Planars can be exempt from the same stringent standard you propose. If anything, they are much closer to Sonnar variants than the 85 ZM lens.
If you look at the 85/2.8 diagram, you can see the comparable front component in the two lenses even though the rear component differs because of the higher spped of the new version.
You are in effect saying only the front half of the lens construction determines its nomenclature. Any two lens can be lumped into the same type of construction, as long as their front components are similar and regardless of how different their rear halves are - I can't imagine this is something to which anyone can agree.
Rudolph Kingslake's book, "A History of the Photographic Lens" discusses all of this in some detail & is a good reference on the subject.
Somehow I expect him to classify lens types by analyzing the complete formulae, not just the front halves. ;)
Besides, Zeiss is not infallible. They can make mistakes like any other mortal. Small and Barringer's Carl Zeiss Compendium recounts in detail how Zeiss Ikon the camera maker shot itself in the foot repeatedly. Mis-naming a particular lens is nothing in comparison.
As for the present 85 ZM lens - if Zeiss deliberately calls it a Sonnar despite the construction, they could be trying to evoke the legendary 85mm lens for the Contax rangefinder. They have done something like this many times before, e.g. calling the Yashica-made SLRs "Contax" (originally a rangefinder brand) instead of Contarex or Contaflex, calling Ernostars "Sonnars", naming a 1990s SLR "S2" (apparently a tribute to the first pentaprism SLR), naming zoom lenses Vario-Sonnars and Vario-Tessars when they have nothing in common to the prime lens designs, using the Planar name on Biotar and Biometar constructions, even using the name of the defunct camera-maker as a current brand/model.....I'm sure there are other instances when Zeiss uses the same trade names for different purposes.
ddimaria
08-04-2005, 18:14
Last word from Popflash is that they haven't seen the 25/2.8 in months!
Patience. These lenses are available in limited supply right now. Tony had the 35 & 50 originally & sold out. He has received a new supply. Re-stocking seems to be slow. on all of the lenses.
The other alternative if you're willing to go to an overseas supplier is Dr. Joseph Yao, a very reliable Hong Kong dealer. You can contact him directly at joseph@yao.com.
Huck
Huck Finn
08-04-2005, 18:18
I was wondering the exact same thing.
They're a LOT cheaper than B&H; and usually, due to distribution/ordering; B&H will at least have an equal price if not a bit lower.
Weird weird weird.
Dave
Dave, I received an interesting reply from Tony Rose when I required about the warranty. In part, it said "We do all (warranty) repairs on Cosina/Voigtlander lenses and bodies." I don't take this to mean exclusively but only on the ones they sell. Reading between the lines, I surmise therefore that they received these lenses directly from Cosina since they refer to this as "Cosina/Voigtlander" warranty service. They seem to anticipate that they will also receive a supply of the bodies some time next month.
Knowing the relationship that Stephen Gandy has with Cosina, it's not much of a stretch to assume that he has the same arrangement. It would appear that Cosina is working with selected grey market importers. Tony rose said that he also has the lenses available with the Hasselblad-USA warranty at 20-25% higher prices. If Hasselblad-Usa is willing to supply him despite the fact that he is importing from the grey market (directly from Cosina?), it's surprising that B&H isn't able to do the same.
Interesting as well is the fact that the Cameraquest/Popflash prices are not only lower than the Hasselblad-USA prices, but also lower than the Japanese MSRP on the Cosina website for most items by anywhere from 3% to 12%. Exceptions to this are the 25/2.8 & the lens shades which are both slightly higher than the listed Japan prices.
The Zeiss Ikon is listed on the Cosina website for 153,000 yen, or $1375 USD, based on current exchange rates. If like most of the other items, it sells for less than that, it should be somewhere between $1300 & $1350 - depending of course on what happens with the exchange rate over the next month.
Huck
Huck Finn
08-04-2005, 18:49
Sorry Huck, but your arguments are unconvincing.
I
As for the present 85 ZM lens - if Zeiss deliberately calls it a Sonnar despite the construction, they could be trying to evoke the legendary 85mm lens for the Contax rangefinder. They have done something like this many times before, e.g. calling Ernostars "Sonnars."
Mazurka, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems plain as day to me that the new 85/2 is a Sonnar, but if you want it to be something else, that's okay with me.
While you're right that Zeiss has shot itself in the foot many times, I have found that they have been fairly faithful in their use of lens names - the biggest stretch being to use a name for a lens that is a derivative rather than an exact rendition of the original lens formula.
To take one example of yours - "calling Ernostars Sonnars" - there is a simple explanation. There was not a single Ernostar design but several - all developed by Ludwig Bertele when he was working for the Ernemann Company. In 1926, Ernemann was taken over by Zeiss Ikon & at that time Bertele became a Zeiss designer. Bertele continued to improve upon his Ernostar design & developed the version that was the first Sonnar at f/2, quickly following with another version at f/1.5. So within a year there were already 2 versions of the Sonnar design & it was only 1932 & they were both 50 mm lenses - and there were several earlier Ernostar versions. At this time Zeiss made the decision to retire the Ernostar name because it was a product from another company & to use the name Sonnar for all designs within this lens family. So, the desision to call Ernostars Sonnars was not a design decision but a business decision & it was made more than 70 years ago. It was never a matter of misrepresentation as a marketing ploy.
There are similar explanations for the other controversies to which you refer. But I'll let it go at that. As I said at the top, I'll leave it as a friendly disagreement.
Cheers,
Huck
<snip>
The Zeiss Ikon is listed on the Cosina website for 153,000 yen, or $1375 USD, based on current exchange rates. If like most of the other items, it sells for less than that, it should be somewhere between $1300 & $1350 - depending of course on what happens with the exchange rate over the next month.</snip>
Huck
Well, all I know is that for $600, if it's got a decent lens formula, and it's anywhere CLOSE to the usual "zeiss" lenses (i.e. Contax G or any of the Blad lenses) then it's a bargoon imho.
Specially if you compare it to new Leica prices.. hmmm.. 50mm.. I don't have one of those yet... ;)
Dave
Huck Finn
08-05-2005, 03:31
Way back when we all speculated about what the cost would be of having Hasselblad in this equation. I guess we now know.
Obviously Stephen Gandy & Tony Rose are selling this Zeiss equipment for a profit, so the difference between their prices & B&H would appear to be purely the mark-up from Hasselblad-USA. Here's a brief rundown.
The most expensive Zeiss lenses (21 & 25) coming out of the Cosina factory have a mark-up of about $150, or about 14 %. It gets better . . .
The mark-up on the 28 & 35 is $240, or 30% & on the 50, it's $200, or 33%.The mark-up on the lens shades & viewfinders is a whopping 50%!
I realize that these are niche items & Hasselblad-USA has to pay for their overhead, but now I understand how Cosina has kept their Voigtlander prices so low. Eliminate the distributor. With the exception of the lens shades, the mark-up on every item is between $150 & $240. I'm holding my breath to see what the cost of the ZI will be, but the difference between the price in Japan & the Hasselblad-USA price is already at the high end of that range & most items have come in below the Japanese MSRP. So, it is likely that the mark-up is between $250 & $300.
Imagine if you tagged on $150 - $300 to the price of every CV lens & body you bought. Things would look a lot different.
Way back when we all speculated about what the cost would be of having Hasselblad in this equation. I guess we now know.
Obviously Stephen Gandy & Tony Rose are selling this Zeiss equipment for a profit, so the difference between their prices & B&H would appear to be purely the mark-up from Hasselblad-USA. Here's a brief rundown.
The most expensive Zeiss lenses (21 & 25) coming out of the Cosina factory have a mark-up of about $150, or about 14 %. It gets better . . .
The mark-up on the 28 & 35 is $240, or 30% & on the 50, it's $200, or 33%.The mark-up on the lens shades & viewfinders is a whopping 50%!
I realize that these are niche items & Hasselblad-USA has to pay for their overhead, but now I understand how Cosina has kept their Voigtlander prices so low. Eliminate the distributor. With the exception of the lens shades, the mark-up on every item is between $150 & $240. I'm holding my breath to see what the cost of the ZI will be, but the difference between the price in Japan & the Hasselblad-USA price is already at the high end of that range & most items have come in below the Japanese MSRP. So, it is likely that the mark-up is between $250 & $300.
Imagine if you tagged on $150 - $300 to the price of every CV lens & body you bought. Things would look a lot different.
VERY interesting information.
Mind you, I'm not complaining about the "low low prices" I tend to see regarding the CV lenses from Gandy but I do know that up here in Canuckville, they are actually distributed and do not come direct from the Manufacturer to the retail outlet.
Pricing, as always, is a wee bit more than the U.S. merely due to population distribution etc.
Still, if it's only (heh.. "only".. boy.. has buying gear ever skewed my benchmark on the worth of material goods!!) $600 USD for the lens, I may just order one from Gandy because his prices are just that much lower.
Cheers
Dave
Huck Finn
08-05-2005, 06:13
Yes, Dave, we've been spoiled with low CV prices from Cameraquest & Photo Village. In Europe, where the retailers receive CV products from a distributor rather than direct from the factory, prices are higher. I think that the presence of CQ & PV has even helped to keep prices down at B&H and Adorama because they don't like to have their prices undercut by anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if they are selling them for cost or even at a loss just to keep customers knowing that their prices can't be beat.
Huck
BJ Bignell
08-11-2005, 08:04
I sent ZI an email with this question; hopefully they'll reply quickly!
Well, boys and girls, I just got my reply from Zeiss regarding the naming of the new Sonnar 85mm ZM-mount lens. Very exciting! The text follows below.
Cheers,
BJ
Dear Mr. Bignell,
With lenses it is sometimes as it is with humans: there are certain types or races, which have their characteristic appearance and distinguishing features. But after centuries of mixing, there are as well nearly all shades in between.
The same is nowadays true for lenses. In the early days of photographic optics some types have been created with a specific layout with respect to curvature and thickness of the lenses, position of cemented surfaces, distribution of the refractive powers and of particular glass materials in the system. And these lens types received names, which the maker reserved as a trademark.
Because of these protected trademarks and because of the gained reputation of some of them these names are still used today. Sometimes however there is no technical similarity between the old type and the modern namesake; this is especially true for zoom-lenses. A Vario-Sonnar has not much to do with the original Sonnar type.
In other cases it is like with a child, where you can see the genes of father and mother. There is a similarity to both of them. The Sonnar 2/85 ZM is an example for that case: The basic layout looks very much like the classical double Gauss lens, which is usually called a Planar in our company. But if one has a closer look to the distribution of the refractive powers, one will notice, that the strongly curved front element has much more power than normally in Planar types, with respect to that feature the lens is more nose-headed, as it is typical for a Sonnar type. If you take a Sonnar, e.g. the 2.8/85 for the Contax and split the cemented rear group into two separate lenses, and if you add a floating rear element for the stabilization of image quality at close focus distance - then you arrive quickly at the scheme of the new 2/85.
So it looks like the father, but has the character of the mother. But since double-names are not common in lens naming, we had to decide for one.
With best regards
Dr. Hubert Nasse
Carl Zeiss AG
Camera Lens Division, Laboratory
[personal info removed]
Internet www.zeiss.de/photo
If Herr Doctor wrote that himself (or even if a minion wrote it and waved it under his nose before sending) I'm quite impressed. This is good customer relations that suggests the new range is product-led and not marketing-led - in that at least they're enthusiastic enough about their range to respond to one-off queries.
BJ Bignell
08-11-2005, 09:56
Yes, I was very impressed with how this was handled. My original request went to the general info email address at ZI, but the response came directly to myself from Dr Nasse.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.