If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
I have one made in Japan. I have never seen one made in Germany even in the Hong Kong second handed market. They used to have 85 1.2,55 1.2,100 2,28 2,85 2.8,85 1.4,60 2.8,15 3.5,25 2.8,all these made in Germany. I have seen 200 2 but it was made in Japan. Nobody has identified any optical difference between lenses made in these two places.
The quality control of Zeiss in Japan is good enough such that even Cosina made Zeiss lenses acquire the optical characteristics of Zeiss,instead of Voigtlander.
I have certainly never seen a 200 f2. I bet that was expensive.
Is that right that Cosina made CZ lenses? I don't see why not when I think about it but it is somehow surprising. It is an interesting thought that that they can make lenses acquire the characterics of individual makes. How extremely clever!
200 2 was the Aposonnar in C-Y mount made in Japan by Kyocera. I was thinking about buying it but it was a bit much. I rather spent my resources on the M-system.
Well, most of the Zeiss M-mount lenses are made by Cosina. I have two of these, 50 2 and 35 2. These new generation of Zeiss lenses have exterior structures looking like Voigtlander. They have the same kind of silvery lens shade mount. They have exactly the same symbol for infinity. They even have the same paint and same chrome surfaces. Fortunately, these Zeiss lenses are better than Voigtlander in terms of their optical performances, they are truely Zeiss, even though they are made by Cosina.
Hello again Joseph,
I had a look for the 200 f2 on the internet and found it at $6000. Ah! very nice but very expensive.
Sorry, I didn't realize you meant the new Zeiss Icon lenses but thought you were referring to C/Y lenses. Cosina seem to be doing pretty well.
I read today that silver could be preferred to black as it disperses heat more.
I would love to try them but there seems to be no opportunity.
They used to have 300 2.8 Tele-apotessar as well,this is even more expensive than 200 2.
I prefers black more than chrome because the chrome one does not look elegant at all. The chrome of Voigtlander,Zeiss Ikon are the same and I hate it,the chrome of Leica,on the other hand,looks a lot better. I am selling two Zeiss Ikon lenses in e-bay. The aution of 50 2 chrome will end soon, 35 2 chrome has one more day to go.
John, where did you read about the silver one dispersing more heat ? Why is that important ?
I think that I prefer black too although I have the black G2 and rather wish it was the titanium version as the black does show fingerprints.
The remark about there being an argument that a silver finish reflects more heat was made by Geoffrey Crawley in a recent Amateur Photographer test of the Leica APO-Summicron-M 75mm f/2.0 ASPH lens. He didn't say any more than that but perhaps he meant that it stays cooler to handle and is better for the glues and so on in the lens. The 75mm is in black only and he says that he prefers black too.
What a lens! It received a 96% rating in the test.
I brought the 75 2 two weeks ago,but my MP ran into trouble as soon as the new lens arrive. I am now keeping the lens but not able to use it.
These in between focal lengths provides a very good perspective. Another interesting focal length is 60mm. Portriats from these lenses at 1 m is excellent. My Leica R60 2.8 certainly gives very dimensional and interesting images. Today, I brought C-Y 60 2.8 Makro-Planar, second handed of course. I wish to see how different it is from Leica.
For Leicas, I certainly prefers chrome. Leica's chrome has a very elegant classic feel and appearance. For Zeiss Ikon, I prefer black for reasons I explained earlier
I will send my MP to Solms to get it fixed.
Now I have some results for my Makro-Planar 60 2.8. It is a very good lens,good colour and good contrast. Unlike those 50 1.4, 50 1.7 and 85 1.4,it has no astigmatism. If it is compared to R60 2.8 Makro-elmarit,you can't tell which wins,they just have different taste. I find sometimes that the Elmarit could give too much contrast for portraits,particularly at 5.6. In terms of bokeh, Makro-Planar surely wins,it is well balanced,no astigmatism. Elmarit has a bit of this problem.