p.2 #1 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
jcolwell wrote:
I was completely with you until this point. I've owned more Zeiss than Leica (27 vs. 9), and I haven't noticed any tendancy for the Zeiss lenses to be more "tender", and I don't baby them.
that comment was based on taking them both apart and how they are designed mechanically, i doubt either of us have a big enough sample size to say based experience knocking lenses out of spec (i've never managed to do that with any lens without a screw driver). though, i've also encountered a greater percentage of zeiss lenses out of spec.
p.2 #2 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
For build quality of consumer lenses, I would say both CZ and Leitz peaked about 50 years ago in the late 1960s. For Leitz, it was the chrome M lenses and, for CZ, it was the chrome Contarex lenses. CZ lenses for Contax were certainly a step down, but I don't consider them fragile (or apt to disassemble themselves like Cosina-manufactered ZM).
p.2 #3 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
sebboh wrote:
that comment was based on taking them both apart and how they are designed mechanically, i doubt either of us have a big enough sample size to say based experience knocking lenses out of spec (i've never managed to do that with any lens without a screw driver). though, i've also encountered a greater percentage of zeiss lenses out of spec.
I've knocked more than a few lenses out of spec, but I didn't need a screw driver; a bit of gravity was sufficient. LIGO could have registered some of them, if it (they) was up, then.
p.2 #4 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
sebboh wrote:
i would have to see some kind of proof of this. i'll believe coating changes improve flare resistance and contrast, but my experience with leica and zeiss lenses is that there is no real difference over the lifetime of a lenses production in performance unless there is an actual design change. usually glass changes are due to a type no longer being available, this seems more likely to compromise performance if there is not an associated lens redesign.
[...]
From LFI, #2, 2005: "Since its introduction in 1974, the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8 has experienced scores of modifications. The lens is based on a Minolta design, and the original glass types were selected by Minolta. After Leica's adaptation, it occasionally happened that certain types of glass were no longer available and analogous changes had to be made. This explains the various versions of the lens." (pp. 27-28)
From Leica Pocket Book, 7th Edition (Hove Collectors Books, 2002): "The Elmarit 2.8/24mm is a Minolta design that has been adopted and adapted (with different glass) by Leica. In the beginning Minolta supplied the glass elements and Leitz did the assembly. Later, when Minolta stopped production, Leica continued to produce the lens. Purists may debate whether this is a true Leica lens. The fact that Leica has adapted the design and continues to produce it is a sign that it qualifies as a Leica lens." (p.190)
So yes, definitely due to glass no longer being available. But if you substitute with a newer, better, glass type, you can get things like slightly better colour correction, without having to redesign the lens.
p.2 #5 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Sam_W wrote:
From LFI, #2, 2005: "Since its introduction in 1974, the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8 has experienced scores of modifications. The lens is based on a Minolta design, and the original glass types were selected by Minolta. After Leica's adaptation, it occasionally happened that certain types of glass were no longer available and analogous changes had to be made. This explains the various versions of the lens." (pp. 27-28)
From Leica Pocket Book, 7th Edition (Hove Collectors Books, 2002): "The Elmarit 2.8/24mm is a Minolta design that has been adopted and adapted (with different glass) by Leica. In the beginning Minolta supplied the glass elements and Leitz did the assembly. Later, when Minolta stopped production, Leica continued to produce the lens. Purists may debate whether this is a true Leica lens. The fact that Leica has adapted the design and continues to produce it is a sign that it qualifies as a Leica lens." (p.190)
So yes, definitely due to glass no longer being available. But if you substitute with a newer, better, glass type, you can get things like slightly better colour correction, without having to redesign the lens....Show more →
i meant proof of improved performance on the zeiss in question, but this doesn't provide any actual proof of design change over the life of the leica R 24/2.8 either. just changing glass types could just mean they changed who they bought glass with the designated properties from. there is nothing better about new glass if it has all the same properties, if it has different properties than other parts of the design must be changed too account for the difference. fwiw, my understanding is that leica actually made some changes to the front element design on the 24/2.8, but i've never looked into it much. as for proof, i would want see differing mtfs, different optical diagrams, or demonstration of differing performance from multiple copies before and after the change.
p.2 #6 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
jcolwell wrote:
I've knocked more than a few lenses out of spec, but I didn't need a screw driver; a bit of gravity was sufficient. LIGO could have registered some of them, if it (they) was up, then.
i've only ever actually dropped a lens once (i also dropped a bag full of cameras and lenses once [all lenses survived fine]). it was the contarex 85/2 and i'm just glad i moved my foot, that thing could break a toe. the only damage was to the wood floor...
p.2 #7 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
sebboh wrote:
i've only ever actually dropped a lens once (i also dropped a bag full of cameras and lenses once [all lenses survived fine]). it was the contarex 85/2 and i'm just glad i moved my foot, that thing could break a toe. the only damage was to the wood floor...
I've had a few misfortunes, mostly with Canon gear. I dropped a brand new 70-200/2.8L IS (Mk I) in the first week I owned it, and then dropped a 1DII + 300/4L IS on top of it. It cracked the lens barrel open and required a new USM assembly; not covered by warranty. I went "bowling" with a 100/2.8 Macro USM when my swinging arm clipped my pants; the lens went sailing about eight feet through the air; hit the concrete floor, bounced about two feet into the air, and off the wall, to land again on the concrete floor - no damage done, at all. The first day I owned a new EF 1.4x III Extender, it slipped out of my hand and fell about 30" onto a hardwood floor. It was a total write-off, and not covered by warranty. Something happened to my 35/1.4L (probably a bag-related incident) to bend the barrel at the joint between the front element assembly and the focus ring; CPS fixed it for the minimum charge. The one serious incident I can recall with Alt gear was when I fumbled while taking a SMC Pentax 500/4.5 off a tripod; basically, the lens came off the tripod and the camera came off the lens, and I couldn't successfully juggle both of them. The camera hit the ground (gravel road), and picked up some battle scars. The lens was fine.
Of course, this doesn't count things I do on purpose, like shooting the front of a lens with a paintball gun at close range, to see if it's better with or without a "protective" UV filter (it's better without).
p.2 #8 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
for what I know Phillip, the contax AE are the older ones, most of them were made in Germany but when Zeiss and Yashica started to produce the lenses a few AE were made in Japan, then Japan started to produce the MMJ, Germany has some MMG lenses too.
ALL OF THE AE has the NINJA Star Bookeh two stop before wide open, the MMJ OR MMG they do not have ninja star bookeh. the AE versions do not have the small aperture number in green.
The above lenses have been confirmed by Zeiss to have been optically improved with the MM version."
Also:
"Finally, there is at least a couple of lenses that were surely optimized after the switch to MM.
These are the
- Planar 1.7/50
which has certainly been improved optically sometimes around serial number 8x - I have tested several examples numbered 5x, 6x, 7x and 8x, and the improvement with 8x is impressive
- Planar 2/135
which has been completely redesigned for the Planar Anniversary version (after the introduction of MM), because at the time of the Anniversary, a new law prohibited the use of some materials like lead in the optical glass mixture - this forced the Zeiss engineers to redesign the original optical scheme (by Glatzel or Glatzel's team) in order for the new calculations to support the use of different glass.
So we know that the Anniversary edition of the Planar 2/135 is different - what we don't know though is if it's better or worse than the original version... "
p.2 #10 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Just my limited experience with contax planars 50 1.4: the ae versions have tight threads, which basically makes them impossible to be as buttery (some 'whispering'), compared to mm which have much more space for a thicker grease.
Also, the ae versions I had have been better optically (better) than mm. All copies were in very good condition, without any apparent faults. I didn't have any 80+ serial copies however.
p.2 #11 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
zipcode wrote:
Just my limited experience with contax planars 50 1.4: the ae versions have tight threads, which basically makes them impossible to be as buttery (some 'whispering'), compared to mm which have much more space for a thicker grease.
Also, the ae versions I had have been better optically (better) than mm. All copies were in very good condition, without any apparent faults. I didn't have any 80+ serial copies however.
you're talking about the helicoid threading right? you don't have any pictures of the difference do you? are you sure it's not just older or different lube? i've never noticed any consistent difference in the focus feel between the c/y 50/1.4 AE and MM, but i've also never CLA'd them.
p.2 #12 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Yes, the bigger helicoid especially. It's very tight on the ae. I pretty much replace grease on 50% of my lenses because frankly, very few are have good mechanical quality. I even purchased lenses advertised as mint which could not be used (the grease was dry and it felt like skipping on rubber).
When you remove the old grease, and screw the threads without any, you can see how tight or not the threads are. I was surprised to see such tightness on a japanese produced lens, more reminding me of Zeiss Jena.
Hard to say if these changes took place at ae>mm transition or sometimes else. My opinion is that lenses changed all the time without any 'announcement', usually getting better, and sometimes worse to save on costs or due to material restriction(in worse category I'd include russia, east germany).
p.2 #13 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I have a CZ 50/1.4 AE sitting on the desk beside me. Its focus ring is very smooth. It has a bit less resistance than the CZ 35-70/3.4 MM, CZ 25/2 ZE, CZ 35/2 ZE, Leica-R 50/2, and 90/2.8 that I just compaerd it with, but my 50/1.4 AE is very nice.
p.2 #14 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
sebboh wrote:
that comment was based on taking them both apart and how they are designed mechanically, i doubt either of us have a big enough sample size to say based experience knocking lenses out of spec (i've never managed to do that with any lens without a screw driver). though, i've also encountered a greater percentage of zeiss lenses out of spec.
Based on my modest experience of reassembling C/Y and opening Leica R lenses, I am with you Sebboh. C/Y lenses are more finnicky and more fragile than LR lenses in general, which is not to say C/Y lenses are very fragile.
LR lenses seem to have more isolation between mechanical parts, and simple but thoughtful protections against human error. You see this immediately even from the way the bayonets are constructed.
I managed to screw up the aperture actuation mechanism of a C/Y AE lens so that the aperture values became inaccurate and reached f/16 prematurely. Whereas LR lenses don't even let me into the aperture actuation mechanism.
p.2 #15 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
zipcode wrote:
Yes, the bigger helicoid especially. It's very tight on the ae. I pretty much replace grease on 50% of my lenses because frankly, very few are have good mechanical quality. I even purchased lenses advertised as mint which could not be used (the grease was dry and it felt like skipping on rubber).
When you remove the old grease, and screw the threads without any, you can see how tight or not the threads are. I was surprised to see such tightness on a japanese produced lens, more reminding me of Zeiss Jena.
Hard to say if these changes took place at ae>mm transition or sometimes else. My opinion is that lenses changed all the time without any 'announcement', usually getting better, and sometimes worse to save on costs or due to material restriction(in worse category I'd include russia, east germany)....Show more →
hmm, i admit i don't think i've ever tried threading the helicoids without grease, i would think that would be likely to damage them. i would probably be worried if they moved easily without grease that they weren't precise enough. what grease do you typically use out of curiosity?
p.2 #16 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I managed to get a few different Losoid greases by begging a lot. They are quality stuff. Also have the classical #30 and #10 japanese greases from microtools, which are also good.
Usually a good beginner combination is using the light #10 for the external thread (the fine threaded one) and #30 on the internal. This works for 80% of cases and gives a fairly light and very smooth action (varying a bit the amount of grease you use also gives a more dampened action or not).
I don't personally see any reason for helicoid threads to get damaged if you don't use grease. Sure, don't turn them for hours like that or they'll start to grind very slightly. It's pretty much like turning a screw in it's nut. It's never loose enough to go astray and damage the thread.
p.2 #17 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
zipcode wrote:
I managed to get a few different Losoid greases by begging a lot. They are quality stuff. Also have the classical #30 and #10 japanese greases from microtools, which are also good.
Usually a good beginner combination is using the light #10 for the external thread (the fine threaded one) and #30 on the internal. This works for 80% of cases and gives a fairly light and very smooth action (varying a bit the amount of grease you use also gives a more dampened action or not).
I don't personally see any reason for helicoid threads to get damaged if you don't use grease. Sure, don't turn them for hours like that or they'll start to grind very slightly. It's pretty much like turning a screw in it's nut. It's never loose enough to go astray and damage the thread....Show more →
i use the microtools greases, what's the advantage of losoid greases, closer to the originals?
p.2 #18 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Probably better 'specs'. Like separation, temperature range, evaporation rate. Things that will matter if you want to use them for another 50 years. Of course, the japanese ones might be good enough also, after all there are some old lenses that have resisted well, and this is a modern grease which should perform better.
p.2 #19 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I have only AE-lenses, 18 and 35 PC made in West-Germany
Since i have found finally the best affordable C/Y-EOS-adapter(by K+F CONCEPT see my thread with new hints to fit all lenses perfectly) i will restart testing some time in summer. 18, 28,35,45, 50(both 1.7/1.4), 85(both 2.8/1.4), 135/2.8. have some lenses as doubles. for 3dstereo: 28, 45, 50/1.7
The also improved mount. hardened it. Could be the all black is old and black-silver is newer one.
Have only 10mp eos 1000D but was very surprised about sharpness also in corners on this APS-Cam. will not test and scan FF-SRL.
