FlyPenFly wrote:
The feel of the focus will be quite off though.
AF Macro lenses sometimes have great MF feel but they're still not even as good as $50 legacy MF lenses.
Though I'm basically an AF guy, I've handled quite a few MF lenses from Olympus, Mamiya, Pentax, Zeiss and Nikon. I must confess that to me, the difference is minimal.
I haven't read every post, but are we in agreement that this can only be to comply to the new Ultra High Res bodies and/or to introduce weather sealing (making them more "pro")?
Yakim Peled wrote:
Though I'm basically an AF guy, I've handled quite a few MF lenses from Olympus, Mamiya, Pentax, Zeiss and Nikon. I must confess that to me, the difference is minimal.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I'm more an Alt. user, however, I have to agree that the manual feel in some the AF lenses are excellent, most notably the ZA lines. In fact, they seem to have the same consistency regardless of the focal length. I do notice that with old legacy glass, some focal length tend to be more stiff or loose. This might be because of age, but I did find the Leica 180/2.8 APO too loose while the Contax 35/1.4 too stiff.
hiepphotog wrote:
I'm more an Alt. user, however, I have to agree that the manual feel in some the AF lenses are excellent, most notably the ZA lines. In fact, they seem to have the same consistency regardless of the focal length. I do notice that with old legacy glass, some focal length tend to be more stiff or loose. This might be because of age, but I did find the Leica 180/2.8 APO too loose while the Contax 35/1.4 too stiff.
that's because those lenses haven't been properly maintained. leica R lenses were more heavily damped than c/y lenses.
if you guys can't tell the difference in manual focus between an autofocus lens and a manual focus lens, your either using busted up MF lenses or just not spending any time manual focusing. the ZA line seems to almost all have annoying focus slack to them when changing direction.
The link has a picture. Judge from 82mm filter thread, I can guess this one will be in 70-200mm Canikon territory. I suddenly loose the appetite. Not to mention it definitely cost more than $3500.
On the Leica R case, some suggested that because of the internal focus mechanism that the focus action can't be more dampened. I used to have the Leica 100 APO, and it was just right. My Contax 35/1.4 was serviced by Henry Scherer. He said that a properly lubricated Contax should have quite stiff action. The Contax 21/2.8, an internal focus lens, has a rather loose action as well, at least on my copy.
On the other hand, the focus slack on the ZA line is minimal at best (still way better than the Samyang I have). More importantly, they are while quite consistent: 85 is a normal while the 135 is an internal focus, and they feel the same to me.
One thing about this picture that I noticed is the Zeiss badge engraved on the lens body. The only current Zeiss line-up has this design is the ZA line, at least as far as I have seen. The outer barrel design is quite consistent with how other ZA would look (the small window of distance scale, AF, the barrel texture, etc.) The rubber focus ring is an odd choice as well. But in all, this might as well just the prototype, and they can do whatever they want with it.
hiepphotog wrote:
On the Leica R case, some suggested that because of the internal focus mechanism that the focus action can't be more dampened. I used to have the Leica 100 APO, and it was just right. My Contax 35/1.4 was serviced by Henry Scherer. He said that a properly lubricated Contax should have quite stiff action. The Contax 21/2.8, an internal focus lens, has a rather loose action as well, at least on my copy.
On the other hand, the focus slack on the ZA line is minimal at best (still way better than the Samyang I have). More importantly, they are while quite consistent: 85 is a normal while the 135 is an internal focus, and they feel the same to me....Show more →
hmm, i've never used any of the R's with internal focusing so i can't comment (from a mechanical perspective the idea that they couldn't be damped sounds ridiculous though. maybe harder to service? or maybe leica just though there was a demand for fast focus on that focal length?). all the MF brands i've used have been very consistent unless the there was helicoid or grease problem (which can be common in poorly maintained 50 year old lenses) and none have had any slack whatsoever unless there was helicoid damage or a loose screw somewhere. i find the ZA lenses to be better than any other autofocus lenses i've tried, but still pretty annoying (infinitely better than focus by wire though).
Zeiss says that these new lenses are for the new hi resolution sensors. We already know Nikon has that in the form of the D800. So does this mean Canon will have one too in the near future?
MarkJones wrote:
Zeiss says that these new lenses are for the new hi resolution sensors. We already know Nikon has that in the form of the D800. So does this mean Canon will have one too in the near future?
They won't go long without a comparable model. It's the "me too" rule of electronics.
hiepphotog wrote:
I'm more an Alt. user, however, I have to agree that the manual feel in some the AF lenses are excellent, most notably the ZA lines. In fact, they seem to have the same consistency regardless of the focal length. I do notice that with old legacy glass, some focal length tend to be more stiff or loose. This might be because of age, but I did find the Leica 180/2.8 APO too loose while the Contax 35/1.4 too stiff.
The Leica 180/2.8 APO is designed to be less dampened for faster manual focusing of moving subjects.
It is a lot less dampened than my 100APO but no play.
There is a little play in my ZA 135/1.8 but I still love that lens.
Contax N with Conurus conversion supports Canon AF but has better focus ring feel than normal canon lenses.
