DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Will we ever see a digital body for our Manual Focus lenses

Thanks for telling they have produced the MTF graph for the new NF lenses.

The MTF graph of ZF 25 2.8 does remind me the one from C-Y 28 2.0, both of them have a good final kick at u=18.

I am even more impressed by NF 100 f2. This lens has a much bigger aperture than my C-Y 100 2.8, its performance at f4 is as good as the C-Y at f5.6.

I believe it is quite sensible for them to choose Nikon because you could use the lens on modern digital bodies as well as those produced 50 years ago.
 
point well taken on the Nikon dSLR + Zeiss NF lenes. Especially on F6 to shoot chrome.

Let me change the subject (but within the thread,) what do u guys think about M8 + ZM or Lecia lenses. The M8 is not full frame, but I can live with 1.3x.

Never own a Leica before, as much as I love my ND and C645, I am thinking to sell my Contax gears to finance this M8 option for travel and PJ work.
 
Marc will be able to tell you more, he will be getting the M8.

I would think the quality of the images will be very comparable to Leica DMR. M8 produces another taste to Canon DSLR, it should be more film like. All the rangefinders including M8 will produce images in better clarity than SLRs, thanks to the absence of mirror.

Go ahead with your M8 project.

I wouldn't go ahead because I am a full frame and scanning guy. I already have 3 M3s, one MP and an Imacon scanner, there is not much point for me to get the M8.

Beware of the lack of wide angle macro in M8. When I travel, I always need a wide angle lens which can focus near Like C-Y 28 f2. It is impossible with the M8 where you can only have Macro-Elmar M of 90mm. The images produced by this lens together with the smaller sensor are rather clinical. Well, I mean, not fun. The images are just less 3D.
 
Hi Albert,

If you do decide to shift to Leica don't forget to post your contax gear here first. Sometimes we get notification of a member selling their gear, say on ebay after it has been listed and when we get there it's already gone!

Paul
 
Hi all,

Apologies for the length of this post, I have time on my hands and this thread brought up so many interesting points, I decided to try to add my slant on most of them...

To Edward's original Q..the answer IMO is NO. I hear that even Canon are struggling to make any meaningful profit from it's FF cameras, so IFF this is true, then you can see why no-one else has entered the arena yet and may never do so...by the way Edward, good luck bidding on the 35/1.4 of mine on the evil place..

To Robert.A..you say Kyocera has been painted as very much the villain when it should not be..could you tell us why? do you have facts to support this, or hearsay?

Marc..you ask why so many people have this burning desire to bin so much lovely gear and turn digital?...I have the simple answer IMO..humans like to belong, they are social beings and want to be liked, they do not like to feel 'out of it', they have a herding mentality, much like sheep...that is why. I do not want to offend any users on here, but this is the reason why so many amateurs in particular have migrated to the pixels. The advertising mongrels also have done a great job. When CD appeared 23 years ago, the initial players were frankly rubbish as well as very expensive, but it did not stop them taking over.

I do see that digital has both advantages & disadvantages compared to film, which also has up & down sides. In the early 1980's I trained at photo college full time to hopefully become a professional photographer. I achieved this and became a studio advertising photo'er. I earned my living shooting mainly product shots on large format, mostly 5x4 and occasionally 10x8. I also did some location work with 6x7 medium format; my point is that I do know what a top quality photograph should look like. I left the pro world some years back to do other things and did not pick up a camera at all for about 12 years, until I bought a Canon F-1 about 7 years back. I just shoot personal work on 35mm slow transparency film and have looked at digital work ever since it first appeared. I have seen much amateur work and also many very large display prints by pro's using the highest quality digital gear, but 99% of it simply looks 'wrong' to my eyes. A lot of it is very impressive at first glance, but the closer and the longer I look, the more I dislike most of it.

Matt in particular has a good point, I can see for wildlife and action shots it has large advantages, but it is not yet for me...although I do believe it will be at some point.

The post by Richard made me laugh long and hard! I am surprised anyone on here rose to the bait. This kind of post is so common on other forums, especially photo.net. The usual quote used on these occasions is "never argue with an idiot".

Re the new Zeiss ZF range, it would seem obvious to produce manual focus lenses for use with MF cameras, so the choice of Nikon AI is an obvious one. However I still am amazed that Zeiss thinks EOS users will buy M42 ZS lenses with adaptors..weird! I cannot see more than a handful selling.

From a business point of view, surely it would make sense to make EOS lenses? or do Zeiss have some mental block making MF lenses for AF cameras? are they too purist?

Their 'arguments' for not also making EOS variants are not IMO real. As others have said, both Tamron and Sigma do, so why cannot Zeiss? the EOS mount is not out of patent, so I believe Zeiss would have to pay Canon to produce EOS lenses..so did Canon refuse? or are Zeiss cheapskates and did not want to pay the asking price? or did they not see enough selling to make profits?

The real interesting point here for me, is one that I have not seen anyone else make yet; Cosina are making the new ZF & ZS lenses. Cosina used to make until recently their own range of MF SLR lenses..the Voigtlander SL range. Many on this forum will be familiar with these, since amongst the mounts they were made in was Nikon AI, Canon FD, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, M42 screw and Contax C/Y. However I also think I am correct in saying that these lenses were also made in Canon EOS mount!...so the current production house making the ZF lenses has experience in making EOS mount lenses.

But the real question is this..if Cosina thought it profitable to make small volume EOS lenses AND were willing to pay Canon the required price, then why do Zeiss think differently?

cheers Steve.M.
 
Zeiss would not behave like Cosina making lenses with so many kinds of mount. She does not start from the commercial point of view.

She worries more whether the lenses would produce great images rather than how or if could be sold.

This is why she produces lenses with Nikon rather than Canon mount. Nikon has been successful in producing cameras with the highest durability over the years. Canon, on the other hand, is only a workhorse. NF lenses and Nikon match very well together like ch&agne and strawberry, whereas Canon does not. The best match is between ZF lenses and Nikon F2, a purely mechanical combination.
 
Although there are important aspects of photography that I don't agree with Erwin. This part of the description fits well with what is going on with Zeiss. The recent introduction of ZM, ZF and ZV lenses are all mechanical lenses resemble classic design.

''It started in Tuscany, Italy about ten years ago. A group of people wanted to restore some of the flavour and style of slow life, a tradition that places value on a slower rhythm in life. The idea is that it takes time to prepare food from the natural ingredients in such a way that the taste is maximized and as a result you need time to experience the quality of the food. This style of life helps you to become aware of the quality of your life and the decisions you make. The slowlife movement is now a world wide phenomenon and its approach and philosophy matches quite well with that special type of photography, that was once the only way of recording images by opto-mechanical means: the black and white silver halide photography.''

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/adox/t005.html
 
Zeiss offers IMHO ZF lenses for Nikon mount, because the patent for the lens mount is not valid anymore after so many years. Exactly the same happened, after the patent of the Leica M mount expired a few years ago (Konica Hexar).

So for both lens mounts, Zeiss does not have to ask anybody to be able to offer those lenses.

The patent of the Canon AF mount is not yet experired, therefore Zeiss can not do anything without Canon's approval.

The reason why Sigma et alii can offer this is another one. There is a kind of "agreement" between some japanese companies. Canon does not care of Tamron or Tokina is selling Canon mount lenses. It is not a thread for their top of the line lenses, which are important for marketing purposes.

But if Zeiss would start with this, this would be a different story and could have negative consequences for Canon (image). So what would be the benefit for Canon at all, if there would be Zeiss ZC lenses with AF? None. No upside, only downside.

I guess Canon looks at it the same way, so they do not allow it.

IMHO Zeiss has only 2 options now: Either they stick with the current mounts and do not touch AF anymore or Sony or any other company with deep pockets has the balls to order new Zeiss lenses with AF or even a total revival of an Contax old system.

Unfortunately, I have currently not the impression, that Sony is really committed to offer more lenses with Zeiss for the alpha system. And although Kyocera has to pay still huge fees to Zeiss for not producing Contax anymore, I have not seen any sign, that they plan to re-enter the market...
 
Very poetic Joseph.

The idea of slowing down is incongruous with 35mm work, which was invented by Leica to be portable and spontaneous. I love slowing down ... with my V series Hasselblads ... slower yet with a 6X7 or 4X5. if portability is needed then a 6X7 Mamiya Rangefinder. ... all of which produce image quality no 35mm camera of any flavor can ever hope to equal.

IMO, what we need from Zeiss is Autofocus lenses of the highest optical quality. They can dabble in retro fits until the cows come home, and it'll just be a slow death of a great photographic name because their consumer base will simply die off ... or be so small that Zeiss will have to become a registered charity to survive.

So, personally I am far more interested in what they do with AF Sony in future, than looking to the past in what they do with MF Nikon. I have the past covered with a superb line of Leica manual focus R lenses, and incomparable M glass with a range of characteristics that meet any subtile need I could ever conjure up. Or one can just keep their Contax manual system.

The N lenses were a good start ... but now Zeiss needs a new outlet. A place to apply their optical magic to a modern full featured DSLR. If Sony rises to the challenge of producing a better camera body, and allows Zeiss to make a full line of AF lenses, it would most definitely be a consideration for the Pro and advanced amateur ... but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.

I am no huge fan of Canon or Nikon, but having used both extensively in conditions and frequency that most here do not experience ... I've found Canon the more durable and reliable ... if only by a small amount. So, the statement that Nikon has the highest durability over the years while Canon is only a workhorse doesn't make sense, nor is it borne out in actual demanding experience as opposed to theory.

One only needs to place their eye to the claustrophobic viewfinder of the Nikon DSLRs to witness what manual work would be like using Zeiss ZF glass. It doesn't matter how wonderful the optics are if you can't frame and focus swiftly and accurately.

IMO, if Zeiss could profitably make AF lenses in the Canon EOS mount, and Canon let them do it, they'd announce it tomorrow. The Achilles heal of Canon are it's wide angle optics, so giving Zeiss permission to use their mount and AF databus isn't likely. If Zeiss AF lenses ever DID become available in an EOS mount, it would sweep through the legions of Canon Pro and advanced amateur users like a tidal wave.
 
Even though Marc raises some very valid points, I myself suscribe to the principle that Zeiss lenses should remain manual focus. A revival of the Contax brand with some updated glass for the same old mount would be great. The MTF graphs for the new ZF glass are impressive.

As for Canon, I don't see Zeiss in direct competiton as the lenses would be manual.
 
Back
Top