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 ; -)
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 ; -)