Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION]
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yahvel wrote:
Will anyone here choose a Zeiss Planar ZE or ZF 50/1.4 Lens over a Contax Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ???


In this case, what does 'Zeiss' mean? Apparently, nothing at all. The Cosina lens is no match for the Contax.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Anyone who believes all Ken Rockwell says deserves to end up with a boring, modern AF lens with flat colours and boring rendering Wink

How about this for a quote:

Quote:
This lens can't autofocus and makes no sense to use on for any digital or AF Nikon.


Perhaps you should read Ken's quote in the context of the introduction to his site ..

Quote:
This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. ... this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."


I don't believe everything that Ken says ... but that doesn't mean that everything that he says is untrue. I find his site to be very useful - as well as entertaining !


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
The Cosina lens is no match for the Contax.


The Contax lens isn't a single screw more Germanic than the Z lens.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Oreste wrote:
The Cosina lens is no match for the Contax.


The Contax lens isn't a single screw more Germanic than the Z lens.


I know that. Duh! The Contax lens was made by Yashica.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Orio wrote:
Oreste wrote:
The Cosina lens is no match for the Contax.


The Contax lens isn't a single screw more Germanic than the Z lens.


I know that. Duh! The Contax lens was made by Yashica.


Yet both are Zeiss.
Your remark could be applied to Leica also. Several Leica cameras were built in Portugal, and several Leitz lenses were made and designed in Canada
(All Zeiss lenses for Contax and for Z line were designed in Germany).
The place of production is not important. The design, the materials, the procedures are.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yahvel wrote:
Will anyone here choose a (Cosina) Zeiss Planar ZE or ZF 50/1.4 Lens over a (Contax Yashica) Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ???

By the way, who manufactured the "Made in Japan" Zeiss C/Y lenses?

Ah sorry, too late, there was the answer already. Wink I really thought about replacing the C/Y with a ZE, but since I hardly use the C/Y because of the Cron 50 I quickly skipped that thought.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:05 pm    Post subject: Made where? Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Orio wrote:
Oreste wrote:
The Cosina lens is no match for the Contax.


The Contax lens isn't a single screw more Germanic than the Z lens.


I know that. Duh! The Contax lens was made by Yashica.


Yet both are Zeiss.
Your remark could be applied to Leica also. Several Leica cameras were built in Portugal, and several Leitz lenses were made and designed in Canada
(All Zeiss lenses for Contax and for Z line were designed in Germany).
The place of production is not important. The design, the materials, the procedures are.


Not only severel lenses are made for the Leica R elswhere, for example by Zeiss, Schneider, Angenieux, Minolta, Sigma, Kyocera! But you're right the place of production is not so important, but the quality controls is very important!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting topic. I didn't know that current Zeiss lenses are very similar to C/Y lenses from 70. It is quite disappointing if it is so. Leica didn't stop innovating, their current lenses are markedly different from the 70's offering. So despite silly prices, modern Leica lenses are worth considering (for people that can afford them). I'd have thought that Zeiss must continue pushing the boundaries if they want to remain photographically relevant.

I don't agree with those saying that one should not compare prices for C/Y and ZF/ZE glass. ZF/ZE are sold second hand too. There is no functional benefit (such as AF) to ZE/ZF and if the performance is similar to C/Y stuff, then comparing second hand prices makes perfect sense. Well, actually there is an exposure automation on ZF/ZE, so this has to be worth some extra quid. Yet KR says that mechanics on ZF/ZE is second rate, if this is true, then this automation might not be worth a whole lot.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Interesting topic. I didn't know that current Zeiss lenses are very similar to C/Y lenses from 70. It is quite disappointing if it is so. Leica didn't stop innovating, their current lenses are markedly different from the 70's offering. So despite silly prices, modern Leica lenses are worth considering (for people that can afford them). I'd have thought that Zeiss must continue pushing the boundaries if they want to remain photographically relevant.


If you take the time to compare the optical schemes of the C/Y lenses with their equivalents in the Z line, you will find that nearly all of the new Z lenses are different - sometimes even significantly.
The case of the 1.4/50 is a limit case: nearly all the fast 50mm lenses in the world share this same optical scheme, except for those which use aspherical elements, that however are still closely related,
except in price (compare the price of the cheapest of Leica aspherical 50mm lenses and you'll understand).
If you compare the new Z Planar 2/135 with the old C/Y predecessor designed by Glatzel, you will see significant differences, starting with the Apo designation of the new lens.
Even the truest classics of the C/Y line, such as the 2.8/21 Distagon and the 2/28 Distagon, have been redesigned for improvement, although most people would have been perfectly happy
with re-buying the very same old and beloved lens designs in one of the new updated mounts.
The old 3.5/15 has been made faster, and the same went for the old 4/18.
Brand new lenses have been introduced, such as the 2/100 Makro-Planar or the 2/25 Distagon.
So it's simply not true to say that Zeiss did not innovate.

fermy wrote:
I don't agree with those saying that one should not compare prices for C/Y and ZF/ZE glass. ZF/ZE are sold second hand too. There is no functional benefit to ZE/ZF and if the performance is similar to C/Y stuff, then comparing second hand prices makes perfect sense.


The comparison may work for the buyers (to a certain extent: not for Nikon users, for instance, and they are not a small share of the total), but it's not fair to compare a used price -which fluctuates freely-
with a new item price that starts from a fixed base value decided by the company and which can shift only marginally depending on the seller.
And no, the new Z lenses are not easily availlable in the used market: they show up rarely, and if I was a buyer, I would be careful about buying them used. If you don't know the seller, the risk that such new items
are put for second-hand sale because of assembling or misuse problems is comparatively much higher than with old lenses that are out of production since 20 or more years.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All good points, Orio.

I think the point that most modern 50mm are of very similar design needs clarification though. It is true that Canon/Nikon 50s are all tried and tested double Gauss lenses. Olympus though made 4/3 50mm f2 macro with 11 elements in 10 groups and m4/3 45mm f1.8 with 9 lenses in 8 groups. True this is for crop, but then there are m4/3 Panasonics 20 and 25mm. Both are aspherical designs, not double Gauss, and they should scale up to FF normals.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2