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!

Have Zeiss lost the plot again

I wonder what the technical difficulties are in making dual AF/MF lenses really are. None of the dual systems I've used to date were all that fast at AF. The N system was okay, but better at MF than at AF. Canon abandoned really good MF in favor of AF that is lightening fast. The trade off is sloppy MF control that's almost useless. Nikon lenses with decent MF are a bit slower than more dedicated AF designs.

The other aspect of modern lenses is electronic aperture linkage rather than mechanical. It was for this reason that the N lenses must be used on a N camera and cannot be adapted for use on other mounts ... which now traps the owner in a dead system that will no longer evolve in performance. A fine camera system for sure, but doomed to extinction unless Zeiss does something with the N mount ... which just isn't going to happen IMO.

The facts as they now stand are that a fine MF lens with well d&ened control will compromise AF performance, and fast AF will more than likely present bad MF control.

This is further heightened by viewfinders designed to maximize AF controls. Arrays of AF points and the screen designs themselves are a hindrance to really fine MF ability.

One of the best compromises for this has been cameras with focus confirmation. The RX for one, and now the Nikon F-6 with Zeiss glass that (I assume) provides full aperture linkage so stop-down metering is avoided. The Contax 645 also provided AF confirmation when other non-AF lenses were mounted ... but being an electronic based camera, also forced stop down metering. Another camera that provides this is the Hasselblad H1 & H2. When using the CF adapter on these cameras, the fairly decent AF indicator in the viewfinder acts as a focus confirmation for MF Zeiss lenses ... but unlike the C645 provides full aperture metering.

I think for Zeiss to survive into the future they will have to make fast AF lenses designed to work with the existing AF sensor technology inside Canon and Nikon cameras, or work with someone else to make a camera that does.

BTW, Canon wide angle lenses are pretty bad, with Nikon not far from being pretty bad. Every time I use the C/Y 28/2 I'm reminded of that fact.

As to the Canon long lenses being excellent ... This is true in terms of sharpness in the Japanese fashion of achieving it with edge sharpness. I still prefer Zeiss and Leica lenses which employ micro contrast to achieve the perception of sharpness. Plus, I like the color rendition by Zeiss glass over that of Canon.
What really pushes Canon and Nikon forward in telephoto performance is IS and VR technologies. More images are made poor by camera movement than all other lens performance aspects combined.

But when the light allows, Zeiss and Leica glass is much favored by me over all my Canon choices ... like this quick snapshot I took yesterday upon arriving in Santa Monica to supervise the filming of a TV commercial (Leica DMR/9, Leica 180/2.8 APO). I took it to e-mail/torture friends still back in Detroit where it was snowing and cold ; -)

419307.jpg
 
Hi graham,
That sounds great -thanks. I shall look into that and keep an eye out for news of the E1 replacement.
John
 
As always we strayed off the original topic - but this is fun!

Marc! Leica Digital M would not be designed from the scratch - it is still a legacy system based on an old lens mount. But anyway. Zeiss Icon M mount digital rangefinder is indeed a real possibility - BUT with a crop factor. Full frame M mount digital is still quite a few years away - there is no technology yet that allows the light to hit the plane of sensor at an acute angle. (Although RD-1 is a crop camera, the light falloff problems are reported to be quite pronounced). Even, if such full frame sensor appears, then in a sense it will not be Leica that will or will not make it to the market in time. The fundamental change in the market is that all now hinges on the sensor technology. The owners of superior optical designs can take a back seat for a while until "good" digital sensor technology becomes ubiquitous. The question is whether companies like Leica will survive that long. Kyocera did not.
 
I've noticed the sloppiness in AF manual focus rings on lenses I've looked at and often the ring is too narrow as well. I had thought that the manufacturers didn't think it was really necessary but I would think your point about compromise difficulties is spot on. I would think that it is important because I understand that AF relies on dof rather than getting focus dead on.

The other point about focusing screens concerns me too as I like a nice bright, large split microprism screen and I cannot see the need for multiple focus points. I would rather focus on what I want and then recompose in the traditional manner. I don't think I am just a luddite!

I wish we had weather like that here at the moment. Note my clothing for typical UK weather in the picture.
We are even threatened with some of what the poor Russians are currently suffering next week!
 
Didzis,
Your last sentence is very much to the point.

Marc,
The color in the tree/moon picure reminds me of slides, wonderful. Is it the lense or the sensor that's doing the trick (or is it just a super-colorful sunset)?
 
I wonder if it will be Sony who crack it. They seem to be determined to be one of the leading digital lights or maybe Olypus could bring one out with dedicated lenses using their 4/3rds system. That might be good!?
 
Kyocera wasn't in the camera/lens business. It was a diversion and corporate hobby ; -) Leaving the photographic world will have no effect on their existence as a company.

in comparison, Leica will cease to exist as a company if they cannot compete in the optical/photographic world.

I fully understand that full frame sensors as they exist today prohibit full frame rangefinder capture. That will be conquered in short order, if by nothing more than RAW software designed to accommodate varying specific lens characteristics matched with the constants of the sensor characteristics. The vignette controls in PSCS2 and ARC are already pretty sophisticated and those are generic in application rather than specific to a given lens. The concept is similar to the center filters designed for super-wides of many makes ... like the 30mm for the X-Pan and many Schnider W/A optics... only it would be a much more finely tuned digital application.
 
Hi,

I think the existance of the Braun C/Y mount camera surely proves my assumption that Kyocera simply own the rights to the 'Contax' brand name, but not the C/Y mount? therefore anyone including Zeiss are free to make any C/Y cameras or lenses, but not with the Contax name on them. But Zeiss did say they fully intend the Contax name to continue. You would have thought even new C/Y lenses would make more sense than M42 ones?

I too stick with manual focus as I find af irritating and actually slower for my use and the size of af gear truly a step backwards compared to camera gear of the 1980's.

I would have thought that new Zeiss four thirds lenses may also make good sense...
 
Hi,

I just found a Japanese website taking orders for the ZF 50/1.4 & 85/1.4.....50/1.4 is Yen 58,800 (approx £293 GBP) and the 85/1.4 is Yen 117,600 (approx £586 GBP) if this is realistic then Zeiss indeed are sticking to Nikon price levels, although I bet the poor suffering brits will get nailed as usual with higher prices than anyone else!
 
Those seem pretty good prices. Last time I looked, I thought that some Nikon lenses were very expensive.
I wonder if Dirk knows the definitive situation on the C/Y mount.
 
Back
Top