Author Topic: Zeiss to introduce an Interchagable lens mount incuding a m4/3 mount! (Read 2553 times)

Em5 Pete · « **on:** April 04, 2011, 10:05:57 AM »

Compact Primes CP.2 - Lenses with interchangeable mount

Another article:
Compact Prime CP.2 lenses available for PL-, EF-, F-mount, Micro 4/3 and A-mount


Cinema 5D Quick Take: Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses For HDSLR's

traveler_101 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2011, 10:53:15 AM »

"This lens will cost you a little bit over 3500 bucks, but we think it's worth it." Give me a break!

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2011, 10:58:06 AM »

Quote from: traveler_101 on April 04, 2011, 10:53:15 AM

"This lens will cost you a little bit over 3500 bucks, but we think it's worth it." Give me a break!

It was made for Professional Cinema use on HD DSLRs... is $3500 a normal price for such a lens?
But the range of lenses starts at $2800.00.... Not much better I guess

tamoio · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2011, 12:41:05 PM »

If it makes any difference. . . I think that this current Zeiss cp/ze/zf line is one of the biggest rip-offs in the long and tawdry history of photographic equipment marketing. These are Cosina lenses (not that there is anything particulary wrong with Cosina) that don't really perform any better than Canon or Nikon primes of the same speed that cost a fraction of the price. Of course they are capitalizing on the old Zeiss reputation of the Zeiss "super speed" MP prime series. People hang these on their cameras to impress clients.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2011, 01:38:26 PM »

Quote from: tamoio on April 09, 2011, 12:41:05 PM

If it makes any difference. . . I think that this current Zeiss cp/ze/zf line is one of the biggest rip-offs in the long and tawdry history of photographic equipment marketing. These are Cosina lenses (not that there is anything particulary wrong with Cosina) that don't really perform any better than Canon or Nikon primes of the same speed that cost a fraction of the price. Of course they are capitalizing on the old Zeiss reputation of the Zeiss "super speed" MP prime series. People hang these on their cameras to impress clients.

While this is true, the Zeiss optical formula and coatings are Zeiss. I own the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar, And I can say that a lot of people buy the Zeiss for the rendition 3D IQ that many Zeiss lenses have. Or, it may be the Bokeh. My ZM lens was produced as a modern version of the 1934 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar made famous by the PJ's of the time. Yes, it optimized for f/2.8, not f/1.5, by f/2.8, it is as any modern lens. On a Digital, you don't get the rendition at f/1.5 and f/2 that was purposely built in, because the focus is TTL not through a RF, that would preserve the slight, but built in front focus of about 1cm, that made the 1934 lens famous.

Anyway, Today, Zeiss is not trying to compete with ultra expensive L glass or Nikkor High end glass, but, a lens of Optical and Build quality at lesser price, at least for the "ZM" line vs Leica, and priced a little higher than Voigtlander Glass in the M mount. There are made by Cosina at a higher build quality per Zeiss partnership.

tamoio · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2011, 02:45:37 PM »

Quote from: M5-User on April 09, 2011, 01:38:26 PM

Quote from: tamoio on April 09, 2011, 12:41:05 PM
If it makes any difference. . . I think that this current Zeiss cp/ze/zf line is one of the biggest rip-offs in the long and tawdry history of photographic equipment marketing. These are Cosina lenses (not that there is anything particulary wrong with Cosina) that don't really perform any better than Canon or Nikon primes of the same speed that cost a fraction of the price. Of course they are capitalizing on the old Zeiss reputation of the Zeiss "super speed" MP prime series. People hang these on their cameras to impress clients.

While this is true, the Zeiss optical formula and coatings are Zeiss. I own the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar, And I can say that a lot of people buy the Zeiss for the rendition 3D IQ that many Zeiss lenses have. Or, it may be the Bokeh. My ZM lens was produced as a modern version of the 1934 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar made famous by the PJ's of the time. Yes, it optimized for f/2.8, not f/1.5, by f/2.8, it is as any modern lens. On a Digital, you don't get the rendition at f/1.5 and f/2 that was purposely built in, because the focus is TTL not through a RF, that would preserve the slight, but built in front focus of about 1cm, that made the 1934 lens famous.

Anyway, Today, Zeiss is not trying to compete with ultra expensive L glass or Nikkor High end glass, but, a lens of Optical and Build quality at lesser price, at least for the "ZM" line vs Leica, and priced a little higher than Voigtlander Glass in the M mount. There are made by Cosina at a higher build quality per Zeiss partnership.

None of the Zeiss prime formulas are proprietary anymore, haven't been for decades. So what do you pay for with the Zeiss label? The Voightlander SL series came out of the same factory, they weren't really a success, now that factory is turning out lenses labeled Zeiss. A Zeiss cp.10 50mm T2.1 lists at B&H for $4900. I've been told by several people in the business that the cp line are rehoused ze/zf lenses and I believe them. There aren't any measurable advantages in the modern Zeiss line compared to other manufacturers, the "Zeiss look" is wine-tasting, and Zeiss is vin de table passing itself off as Petrus. It really was different with the Oberkochen stuff.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2011, 03:33:11 PM »

Off the Zeiss web-site for the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar...
---------------------------------------------------------
Technical Specifications
Focal length   50 mm
Aperture range   1.5 –16 (1/3 steps)
Focusing range   0.9 m – infinity
No. of elements/groups   6/4
Image ratio at close range   1 : 15
Coverage at close range   37 cm x 55 cm
Angular field, diag./horiz./vert.   45.7/38.4 °
Filter   M 46 x 0.75
Dimensions (with caps)   ø 56 mm, length 63 mm
Weight   250 g

Applications & Features
The Fast and Compact Photojournalist
This standard focal length offers special qualities which make it wellsuited for portraiture. The ‘C’ designation in the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM name means both ‘compact’ and ‘classic’. The lens design and aperture geometry reflect its predecessor from the 1930s, the Sonnar 1,5/50, which was the fastest standard lens of its time. The excellent flare control inherent of the Sonnar lens design is further optimized with the ZEISS T* anti-reflection coating. This new lens stays true to its heritage, physically resembling the objectives of by gone days. With its fast aperture, taking photographs with a beautiful ‘bokeh’ that reflect the ambiance of the golden age of rangefinder photography is as simple as pressing a button.

Now, I am sure you are right with the formula info you shared, Except, the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar is the expection, as stated on the Zeiss Web-Site.

The ZM is way cheaper than the SL line, and I tend to agree that they are over priced, my lens costs $1,100.00 new, (Well, I traded my Voigtlander f/1.1 Nokton outright, no cash) a lot cheaper than the $4K 50mm Lux. And very little difference.

And many RF users DO look at the subtle differences in lens rendition, because that is a part of photograph. (which is where I use that lens most of the time: on my M5). I got rid of my Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton in favor of the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar "Because" of the quality of the way the Zeiss has a smoother feathering to OOF areas, and had better edge appearance of OOF hard edges. Very similar to Leitz M lenses, in the Bokeh area. Where the Voigtlander had sharper looking OOF area with rougher edges.... Yes, Like Wine, for some of us.

In the end, we get what we like, and make beautiful Images, hopefully

Peace man

lisandra · « **Reply #7 on:** April 23, 2011, 10:44:06 PM »

Im gonna angrily post that no lens ever made (that can fit in a bag) should cost more than 1000$. And thats overpricing it. Before you think how ignorant I am, think about this: m4/3s has 2 lenses (the voigt and the panna leica) that put out 80+l/ph (which is about the highest of the high) and they still manage to cost around 800$. One of them has an f.95 aperture!
What can possibly justify charging 3500-10000$ for a lens?

popo · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2011, 12:48:30 AM »

Some considerations that may contribute, but may not be the whole story:
Sales volumes. In general, the more you sell, the lower your prices can become. Zeiss probably shifts very few compared even to the more obscure m4/3 lenses.
The Zeiss is probably a full frame SLR lens, with the implication it may have some degree of retrofocus particularly for the shorter focal length models. Increased complexity, increased cost. A native m4/3 has a much shorter back focus distance and smaller image circle which can significantly help make the lens smaller and cheaper to make.
Build: the Ziess has mounts and things for cinematic level video production.
Design intent: resolution is not the single factor people look at. For video resolutions it is probably way down the list. The lenses may be optimised for other aspects.
And finally, I don't have time to look up and give a reference, but I seem to remember these lenses had a significantly higher number of aperture blades compared to photographic lenses, so the bokeh remains round over a much bigger aperture range. Might not be that significant, but it still contributes.

adash · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2011, 04:31:33 AM »

The number of the blades in the aperture stop is not the only thing defining the OOF areas...the more important staff is geometric vignetting and spherical aberration. The aperture stop with more blades is the cheaper thing to implement, and is surely important as the shape of the bokeh areas is the first thing one notices. The amount of geometrical vignetting is however important for the shape of the bokeh away from the center. Geometrical vignetting is usually introduced in order to control off-axis aberrations at large apertures, bu the result is the eaten-up bokeh or even the spiral one in extreme cases.
The amount of spherical aberration defines the light distribution inside the OOF disk. It may become "wild" and distracting, when the amount of light is in excess around edges, or creamy and soft if light is distributed with a peak the center.
So, should your artistic intention demand complete control over more and more of the aspects of a photograph (intentionally not including sharpness), your choice of lenses may become more and more constricted and finally the insane prices of excellent glass may become justified.
Until then - why not grab a kit zoom or a coupe of $300 primes?

tamoio · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2011, 03:10:42 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on April 23, 2011, 10:44:06 PM

Im gonna angrily post that no lens ever made (that can fit in a bag) should cost more than 1000$. And thats overpricing it. Before you think how ignorant I am, think about this: m4/3s has 2 lenses (the voigt and the panna leica) that put out 80+l/ph (which is about the highest of the high) and they still manage to cost around 800$. One of them has an f.95 aperture!
What can possibly justify charging 3500-10000$ for a lens?

$3900 for a Zeiss cp seems pretty joke-like to me too. Yet high profile DP's (and wannabees) often buy the whole set (and their own set of 4X4 or whatever filters). For lowly OMBs like me I just can't justify it unless I was keeping a camera busy way more days a year than I have time for now. In most major cities you can rent anything so owning your own set of primes seems silly . . .unless you are trying to impress clients (which is not always a waste of money).

I was taught that the difference between still and MP lenses was:

-the mechanical interfaces to work properly with all the ancillary gear like follow focus and matte boxes
-Aperture calibrated in T stops and without click detents
-consistant resolution and contrast through the aperture range
-zooms had to be parfocal and all of the above

Many of the issues around these features are artifacts of the film age in that fixing things in the lab was very expensive and a lot of post-production options (fixes) we have today didn't exist. Nowadays I think generally, that still photography requires better lenses than making film/video. The moving image hides a lot of stuff.

Also, even in the film days I have been on sets where the DP who had access to absolutely anything they wanted would put a Nikkor SLR prime on the big Arri BL or Panaflex, particularly fast longer focal lengths. The current Zeiss z series primes are actually quite good (I was just being combative earlier) but focal-length to focal-length I would probably try to find clean Leica R series units that will generally come in at about 1/2 the price of the new Zeiss's.

lisandra · « **Reply #11 on:** April 25, 2011, 08:48:00 PM »

Quote

-the mechanical interfaces to work properly with all the ancillary gear like follow focus and matte boxes
-Aperture calibrated in T stops and without click detents

Its my understanding you can have a lens (any lens) modified to have this. I dont remember the site.

tamoio · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2011, 10:15:01 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on April 25, 2011, 08:48:00 PM

Quote
-the mechanical interfaces to work properly with all the ancillary gear like follow focus and matte boxes
-Aperture calibrated in T stops and without click detents

Its my understanding you can have a lens (any lens) modified to have this. I dont remember the site.

http://ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/Cinemod.html

lisandra · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2011, 02:05:24 PM »

There it is!... and for 250$ its way more reasonable to to convert your canon primes than buying a 10000$ zeiss. Or am I missing something?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2011, 02:27:00 PM »

Shhhhhhhhhhh

That is a trade secret... Lisanda

Panther · « **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2011, 02:29:51 PM »

Hmmm....this is probably a good thing....some of the market associates Zeiss with quality..which in turn might mean more purchasers of µ4/3 products because they can get native Zeiss lenses for them...

Zeiss to introduce an Interchagable lens mount incuding a m4/3 mount!