Zeiss ZM lens wobble issues

[bobbyrab]

I had a 25mm develop a wobble which Zeiss replaced as they said it wasn't economic to repair it, so I would assume that there may be different causes as I know others have fixed the problem by tightening the back of the lens, I tried myself to do this, but there was no looseness to tighten. i would assume also that most of these bad lenses will show up fairly quickly, and in the UK at least Zeiss cover the lenses for three years. Has anyone had their lens develop a wobble after a longer number of years?

[awilder]

Not problen with ZM lenses but never gave it hard knocks or kept them long enough to tell. I did once get a Titanium 50 Summilux that appeared LN but the lens barrel had play or slight wobble within the mount and was returned for refund. I've also seen some slight play of the lens barrel within the focusing mount of several Leica lenses like the 90/2 pre-asph., 180/3.4 R and even a new 50 Summmicron M SE (special edition). I attribute some of this to the front heavy lens barrel causing play to develop.

[sanmich]

Originally Posted by horosu

I recevied the new Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH FLE just last week.

Well, when shaking the lens one can hear something rattle inside the lens. I didn't know if this was normal, but the lens was also plainly wrong calibrated (it backfocused a lot), so I sent it in for repair.

Was very dissappointed to put down 5000 USD and have such issues out of the box.

None of my Zeiss lenses (bought new or second-hand) developed wobble, rattle and all of them were perfectly calibrated.

Just to put things into perspective...


Horea

I discovered a while ago that some lenses sound like something is free inside when you shake them a bit. I think it has something to do with the aperture blades or mechanism but this is just a wild guess.
Of course yours could be a totally different story related with the focus issue.

[raid]

ZM lenses are modern lenses that have been made in recent years. They should not display any wobble. Comparing a ZM lens to Summicron DR is comparing lenses that are ages apart. Compare a ZM to the last version Summicron.

[MCTuomey]

Not intending to cast aspersions at Zeiss generally, or engage in Leitz v Zeiss quality assurance debates, I would appreciate Zeiss management considering a no-cost or at least discounted repair of any of its ZM lenses that develop barrel wobble or focus ring play, regardless whether the lens is under warranty. I paid about $350 to have Zeiss address play in the focus rings of two ZMs. I don't think it's too much to ask that a focus ring be consistently damped and without play. It's certainly not too much to expect that barrel wobble not occur on relatively new lenses.

[ferider]

Originally Posted by raid

ZM lenses are modern lenses that have been made in recent years. They should not display any wobble. Comparing a ZM lens to Summicron DR is comparing lenses that are ages apart. Compare a ZM to the last version Summicron.

The DR Summicron should be the reference in build quality for all other M lenses and manufacturers ...

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by ferider

The DR Summicron should be the reference in build quality for all other M lenses and manufacturers ...

I think Raid meant that after 50 yrs even the very best constructed things can be worn, especially if used heavily. I've certainly seen old Leica lenses that were in bad mechanical shape. A current Summicron is still a VERY well made lens compared to most modern lenses and is more likely to be in perfect condition because its not as old as a DR.

[raid]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I think Raid meant that after 50 yrs even the very best constructed things can be worn, especially if used heavily. I've certainly seen old Leica lenses that were in bad mechanical shape. A current Summicron is still a VERY well made lens compared to most modern lenses and is more likely to be in perfect condition because its not as old as a DR.

This is what I meant.
In any experiment, you want to hold as many factors constant as possible. Age is such a factor.

If this thread is about reaching some useful conclusions on some new lenses, such as the ZM line of lenses, it is best if we compare lenses of similar vintages and prices.

Roland is right about the incredible craftmanship that went into the rigid Summicron and its DR cousin.

[raid]

Originally Posted by ferider

The DR Summicron should be the reference in build quality for all other M lenses and manufacturers ...

It is understood, Roland, but after many years, "things" can happen with a lens.

[leicashot]

Received my 50 Planar yesterday. Not only is it nice and tight and smooth, but it's sharper wide open than my Cron 50 V5 I just returned, and only a tad behind my Noct 0.95 at the same aperture f/2. For about 1/3 price, I am very very pleased. Really loving the performance for price value of the Zeiss....oh and do I need to remind you all of the UNBELIEVABLE performance of the 100/2 for SLR's?!? That is probably the best performing lens I've ever used.

Go Zeiss and don't look back.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by horosu

I recevied the new Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH FLE just last week.

Well, when shaking the lens one can hear something rattle inside the lens. I didn't know if this was normal, but the lens was also plainly wrong calibrated (it backfocused a lot), so I sent it in for repair.

Was very dissappointed to put down 5000 USD and have such issues out of the box.

None of my Zeiss lenses (bought new or second-hand) developed wobble, rattle and all of them were perfectly calibrated.

Just to put things into perspective...

Horea

This lens should have ZERO wobble. The test sample I received from Leica has zero movement and seemed better built than the previous model.

[raid]

There is so much praise for the optical qualities of ZM lenses that one day I must get me one to try out. I wonder if ZM lenses are any "better" optically than Zeiss lenses for the Contax G1/G2. The G1/G2 lenses are amazingly good lenses.

[Benjamin Marks]

Raid: I have not done a side to side comparison, my sense is that the strengths are distributed slightly different ways. For instance, the 45 mm G-Planar was so good that I actually bought a G2 in order to be able to use it. When the 50 mm Planar came out in M-mount, I ran out and bought one hoping it would have the same magic. It's a great lens, very sharp, and in many ways comparable to the 50 Summicron, but for whatever reason it didn't touch me the same way that the 45 mm lens did. Having said that, my current favorite lenses are Zeiss M-mount lenses. These include the 21 mm Biogon, the 35 mm/f:2.8 C-Biogon and the 50/1.5 Sonanr. Just can't say enough about these lenses. The one way in which they are similar to the G-mount lenses is in their color rendition. As for the G-mount lenses, I loved the 45 but merely liked the 35 and 90. I chalk this up to personal taste, as the images from these lenses were technically excellent but missing a certain something that makes you go, "wow, images from this lens are always just so special." Other lenses that have that quality for me recently have been the Konica Hexar AR 57/1.2, the Nikon 105/2 DC, the Sigma 50/1.4 and the 21 and 35 Biogons I mentioned above.

Edit: I am in the no-wobble camp.

[raid]

Benjamin: I am fond of the 45mm Planar and the 90mm Sonnar from the G1 line.
Still, I favor the very old CZJ 5cm 1.5 over the G1 lenses. I am after a certain overall optical profile from the lenses that I like using the most. The rigid Summicron is a close second to the CZJ lens.

[Krosya]

I keep telling you all - buy Hexanons!

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by Krosya

I keep telling you all - buy Hexanons!

I just returned a brand new Hex KM 35/2 because it back-focused severely on my M9. Honestly while the build quality is good, I don't believe it's at the same level as Leica.

I have had 2/2 issues with Konica on my M9 calibrated to all my Leica and Zeiss lenses, so my confidence in compatibility is diminishing.

I really wanted the 35/2 to work and really disappointed it didn't.

[chris00nj]

All this wobble talk has dampened my interest for a 50/2 Planar

[raid]

I may have to settle for the Zeiss G1 lenses for a while.
There are so many vintage lenses to enjoy that modern lenses may have to wait.

[Olsen]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

Couldn't agree more. My lenses are no more than two years old, yet at least two have to go back. Naturally, they're out of warranty. I know I won't be paying $250-350 each to fix them - that's insanity. Two wobble and seem like the lube is displaced/missing in spots on the helicoid.

ZMs haven't been out that long in general - and having experience with my own and hearing that of others... There's no reason any of these lenses should be exhibiting this problem already.

I think Zeiss should repair any lenses sent in for this issue, as it's clearly a design or a manufacturing problem.

It's a shame, because optically - they're the bees knees.

I would try to contact Carl Zeiss directly. Here in Europe consumers are generally far better protected and a company like Carl Zeiss is used to stricter laws regarding rejects. That so many of us have been hit by this problem it is either a design flaw or a serious quality control issue. I feel strongly that Carl Zeiss has an obligation to help customers out free of charge, leaving the customer only with the transport cost to cover.

[MCTuomey]

Originally Posted by Olsen

I would try to contact Carl Zeiss directly. Here in Europe consumers are generally far better protected and a company like Carl Zeiss is used to stricter laws regarding rejects. That so many of us have been hit by this problem it is either a design flaw or a serious quality control issue. I feel strongly that Carl Zeiss has an obligation to help customers out free of charge, leaving the customer only with the transport cost to cover.

I contacted Zeiss-US. They would not cover the repairs - in my case, play in the focus ring - and charged fully for the work. I agree with you that Zeiss has an obligation, or should have one. The problem is that Zeiss does not agree with us

[raid]

Mike: Check out Leica.
Send Leica the letter that you received from Zeiss.
Then ask them what they would do under the same
circumstances.
If their response is "good", send it to Zeiss.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by raid

Mike: Check out Leica.
Send Leica the letter that you received from Zeiss.
Then ask them what they would do under the same
circumstances.
If their response is "good", send it to Zeiss.

While it might be true that Leica may do more, I can assure you that they include future services into their pricing strategy. In terms of build quality you get what you pay for, but with Zeiss in terms of 'image quality' you get so much more, so one can forgive a lesser tolerance when it comes to longevity of Zeiss products.

Could they be better with their service and build quality? Sure, but they choose to market their products differently, and I for one don't mind paying for a service every now and then considering the price difference to Leica. The equivalent Leica lens is about 3-4 times the price of it's Zeiss counterpart.

I love both brands equally for what they offer but the more I shoot the less I care about having the best brand. My priorities have changed and Zeiss suits those priorities perfectly and without compromising in image quality. Reliability hasn't been an issue for me with either brand, yet.

[raid]

This is a very reasonable explanation of the situation.
It makes sense.

[MCTuomey]

+1 a very reasonable point of view, Kristian. My enthusiasm for Zeiss M-mount lenses has not diminished in any way, despite the repair trips. I've begun to consider trying their ZE-mount lenses on my dSLRs, actually.

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by MCTuomey

+1 a very reasonable point of view, Kristian. My enthusiasm for Zeiss M-mount lenses has not diminished in any way, despite the repair trips. I've begun to consider trying their ZE-mount lenses on my dSLRs, actually.

I have been using the SLR range for some time. I'm going to go all out here and say the 21, 35 and 100 are the best on the market, better than the ZM counterparts and possibly the Leica M range. It's a big call I know, but I only wish that quality was in the ZM range, though it's not far off. IMHO, the ZF/ZE 35mm is the best 35mm f/2 ever made, and same with the 21mm and 100mm. Of course the best 50mm ever made is the Lux ASPH/Noct 0.95 of course.

I use my ZF 100mm as the basis of any sharpness comparison. It is clearly the best performing lens I've ever used.

Anyway with all this praise of the 50 Planar let me give you an example at minimum focus distance of 0.7M wide open on the M9.


100% crop