philip_pj wrote:
It's sad the rumor about an M mount Zeiss camera looks like it got mixed up with the 'Zeiss RX1' to be announced today. You just know they can do it when they want to. From their data sheet for this 10 year old, 310 gram one-of-many ZM jewels:
'The imaging quality of the Tele-Tessar T * 4/85 ZM is equal to the high aperture models in the lens program. It is almost distortion free and adjusted to field of curvature as well as to all other defects in color.'
It's a lens they did not undervalue, still goes for nearly $1000 new. Different from the Sonnars, it's virtually as good wide open as best aperture - a dedicated landscape lens....Show more →
True, when I say it's optimum at f/6.3, it does not mean it isn't already amazing at f/4!
I would not hesitate shooting landscapes wide open with this lens.
philip_pj wrote:
It's sad the rumor about an M mount Zeiss camera looks like it got mixed up with the 'Zeiss RX1' to be announced today. You just know they can do it when they want to. From their data sheet for this 10 year old, 310 gram one-of-many ZM jewels:
'The imaging quality of the Tele-Tessar T * 4/85 ZM is equal to the high aperture models in the lens program. It is almost distortion free and adjusted to field of curvature as well as to all other defects in color.'
It's a lens they did not undervalue, still goes for nearly $1000 new. Different from the Sonnars, it's virtually as good wide open as best aperture - a dedicated landscape lens....Show more →
One of the things that annoys me (although I understand why it makes commercial sense) is that so many companies have premium fast glass, and budget slower models.
This means we miss out on the chance to have lenses which are in principle *better* than the fast lenses, and are much more compact, for the times when we don't need the speed.
The tele tessar is great example of just the kind of lens I wish we had more of at every focal length. (and they could be even better using some of the optical methods developed since the TT). I'm hoping the CV 3.5/21 is another..
DavidBM wrote:
One of the things that annoys me (although I understand why it makes commercial sense) is that so many companies have premium fast glass, and budget slower models.
This means we miss out on the chance to have lenses which are in principle *better* than the fast lenses, and are much more compact, for the times when we don't need the speed.
The tele tessar is great example of just the kind of lens I wish we had more of at every focal length. (and they could be even better using some of the optical methods developed since the TT). I'm hoping the CV 3.5/21 is another.....Show more →
The ZM 85/4 is a great example of what you are describing and the Batis 135/2.8 is another. However, it's curious that the used price of these lenses are very discounted even though both are superb optics...Perhaps the marketing of "faster is better" wins at the end.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The ZM 85/4 is a great example of what you are describing and the Batis 135/2.8 is another. However, it's curious that the used price of these lenses are very discounted even though both are superb optics...Perhaps the marketing of "faster is better" wins at the end.
That’s my fear.
Though maybe the person who is keen on these lenses is likely to snap one up new?
DavidBM wrote:
One of the things that annoys me (although I understand why it makes commercial sense) is that so many companies have premium fast glass, and budget slower models.
This means we miss out on the chance to have lenses which are in principle *better* than the fast lenses, and are much more compact, for the times when we don't need the speed.
The tele tessar is great example of just the kind of lens I wish we had more of at every focal length. (and they could be even better using some of the optical methods developed since the TT). I'm hoping the CV 3.5/21 is another..
...Show more →
And it's precisely why the price of the CV125mm and 180mm APO Lanthars are so high in the used market.
Well, I hope I am not jinxing myself, by posting before the lens is in my hands, but I ordered a pre-owned 4/85 Tele-Tessar, from Adorwin’s evil-bay store. Silver finish, of course, with the hot Texas sunshine being kept in mind.
RexGig0 wrote:
Well, I hope I am not jinxing myself, by posting before the lens is in my hands, but I ordered a pre-owned 4/85 Tele-Tessar, from Adorwin’s evil-bay store. Silver finish, of course, with the hot Texas sunshine being kept in mind.
You'll love it I think, as long as you're okay with f/4. I shoot landscapes at f/5.6 and it's brilliant there. f/4 is good, but doesn't have maximal bite. I really like if for portraits as well so long as I'm not going for extreme isolation that an f/1.4 lens would afford. The rendering is typical Zeiss ZM, so it pairs really nicely with my ZM 35/2.8 and ZM 25/2.8. The one fault I've noticed is flare with the sun just outside the frame. Even with the hood it is pretty dramatic.
uscmatt99 wrote:
You'll love it I think, as long as you're okay with f/4. I shoot landscapes at f/5.6 and it's brilliant there. f/4 is good, but doesn't have maximal bite. I really like if for portraits as well so long as I'm not going for extreme isolation that an f/1.4 lens would afford. The rendering is typical Zeiss ZM, so it pairs really nicely with my ZM 35/2.8 and ZM 25/2.8. The one fault I've noticed is flare with the sun just outside the frame. Even with the hood it is pretty dramatic.
It also pairs well with the Loxia lenses in rendering and in size.
uscmatt99 wrote:
You'll love it I think, as long as you're okay with f/4. I shoot landscapes at f/5.6 and it's brilliant there. f/4 is good, but doesn't have maximal bite. I really like if for portraits as well so long as I'm not going for extreme isolation that an f/1.4 lens would afford. The rendering is typical Zeiss ZM, so it pairs really nicely with my ZM 35/2.8 and ZM 25/2.8. The one fault I've noticed is flare with the sun just outside the frame. Even with the hood it is pretty dramatic.
I am starting to really like my 4/85mm ZM. When I first received it, about half a year ago, I was not finding rangefinder focusing easy, so put the lens away, pending the acquisition of an add-on EVF. Well, with an M10, rangefinder focusing is working better, probably because the M10 has a better viewfinder for those of us wearing eyeglasses.
Regarding the hood situation, I am wondering whether to use a 43mm-threaded hood, or a step-up ring, plus a hood threaded for a somewhat larger diameter, rather than the uncommon, expensive Zeiss bayonet hood.
