p.3 #1 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
Distagon 35mm f/1,4 ZM has wonderful out-of-focus background smoothness, while being otherwise very “sharp” and “modern.” It complements my Leica Summilux-M 50mm ASPH quite nicely.
Biogon C (or, is it C Biogon?) 21mm f/4.5 ZM has VERY low distortion, making it perfect for city images, images with horizons, and images with man-made vertical and horizontal lines. Plenty sharp enough! (This one will cause color shift, when used with a number of digital cameras, including pre-M11 Leica digital M cameras.)
APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 ZF.2 and ZE. These were my first two Zeiss lenses, so, have defined what I see as perfect Zeiss images. I know that other, earlier Zeiss SLR lenses have different character, but, I have not yet tried them, so, the APO Sonnar 135 remains my point of reference. With folks descring the APO Sonnar as being an Otus without the Otus label or Otus price, I proceeded to buy an Otus 85 ZF.2, next.
Even though I use “modern” Zeiss lenses, such optical results are not my only interest. Based upon its reputation, and to try something different, optically, I would like to add a Zeiss 28mm “Hollywood” lens, or one of its better derivatives, in a mount yet to be determined.
p.3 #2 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
modlin wrote:
auto focus??
this is a manual focus lens only.....did you mean find / lock in focus 25%?
I used a techart adapter on my A7Rii, and am certain that somehow it auto focused. However if you tell me that is impossible with an auto focus lens, then I must have been experiencing flashback recurrence from my drug addled youth
p.3 #3 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
brick33308 wrote:
I used a techart adapter on my A7Rii, and am certain that somehow it auto focused. However if you tell me that is impossible with an auto focus lens, then I must have been experiencing flashback recurrence from my drug addled youth
dont do drugs
zeiss 35 1.4 zm is a manual focus lens only...or tell us what drugs you used, so we all can have our zeiss manual focus distagons/milvuses/otuses/biogons in an auto-focus mode as well
p.3 #4 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
modlin wrote: dont do drugs
zeiss 35 1.4 zm is a manual focus lens only...or tell us what drugs you used, so we all can have our zeiss manual focus distagons/milvuses/otuses/biogons in an auto-focus mode as well
p.3 #5 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
weezintrumpete wrote:
There's a Techart adapter that allows autofocusing of manual focus leica m mount lenses. You can see it here: https://techartpro.com/?product=lmea9
p.3 #6 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
One of my favorite all-time lenses is the ZE 35/1.4. I had an absolutely stellar copy that had no hint of fringing and was just amazing for rendering. It felt off balance, due to its weight, on mirrorless but still produced great results there.
In the Sony lineup, the ZA 50/1.4 was not stellar in AF speed, but the lush images it produced were really special. Even though I have and love the 1.2GM, I have often pondered buying the ZA again, for some subjects. You can never have too many 50s!
Although I have never owned or shot it, the Carl Zeiss Jena 55mm f/1.4 is in the rarified space of creating unbelievably beautiful portraits, seemingly at will. It is a hefty chunk of cash to find a nice one, but if I shot portraits, I would have plunked down for one. Not my images, but this link will give you a sense of its truly unique rendering:
p.3 #7 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
weezintrumpete wrote:
There's a Techart adapter that allows autofocusing of manual focus leica m mount lenses. You can see it here: https://techartpro.com/?product=lmea9
hooray, maybe it wasn't drugs. Seriously I recall that the adapter was what made it auto focus.
p.3 #9 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
Simpler for me to list the one Zeiss lens that I have owned that don't exhibit Zeiss magic of some sort to me: the Contax 45/2.8 Tessar. And some people love that one. Steve Spencer and Nehiamiahphoto have done a masterful job at naming specific lenses, and specifying the why's, I won't do that as I have too many in too many different mounts. But, would like to put in a plug for all the Contarex lenses, except perhaps the 135/4. The Contarexes are a Zeiss sweet spot for me, though it's a matter of rendering and not ultimate mtf charts, so it's a personal opinion only. They're subtle.
p.3 #10 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
Each and every Carl Zeiss lens range had its own house style. Their overall history has seen their lenses transforming from artistic to modern, in the process becoming harsher in contrast, bolder and brassier.
The new full tech ML series will continue this trend, which was most noticeable in the digital transition from CY and the MF lenses to ZM and ZEF, later called Classic. Otus 1.0 grafted some magic back into the mix a decade later.
I prefer their 20th century lenses in Contarex and CY and medium format - these were the ones that propelled them to the top. Modern Zeiss would be horrified by the Modern Vintage design movement. Unlike Leica M, they walked away from their roots.
p.3 #11 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
philip_pj wrote:
Each and every Carl Zeiss lens range had its own house style. Their overall history has seen their lenses transforming from artistic to modern, in the process becoming harsher in contrast, bolder and brassier.
The new full tech ML series will continue this trend, which was most noticeable in the digital transition from CY and the MF lenses to ZM and ZEF, later called Classic. Otus 1.0 grafted some magic back into the mix a decade later.
I prefer their 20th century lenses in Contarex and CY and medium format - these were the ones that propelled them to the top. Modern Zeiss would be horrified by the Modern Vintage design movement. Unlike Leica M, they walked away from their roots....Show more →
I agree on those 3 lines. And I would add Contax G.
p.3 #12 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
philip_pj wrote:
Each and every Carl Zeiss lens range had its own house style. Their overall history has seen their lenses transforming from artistic to modern, in the process becoming harsher in contrast, bolder and brassier.
The new full tech ML series will continue this trend, which was most noticeable in the digital transition from CY and the MF lenses to ZM and ZEF, later called Classic. Otus 1.0 grafted some magic back into the mix a decade later.
I prefer their 20th century lenses in Contarex and CY and medium format - these were the ones that propelled them to the top. Modern Zeiss would be horrified by the Modern Vintage design movement. Unlike Leica M, they walked away from their roots....Show more →
I'm guessing ( as I don't know) the Zeiss modern( post 20th century) design "trend" is probably less emotional and similar to Leica modern optical design, more in general about designing modern lenses to meet the demands of digital sensors vs film.
All is not lost. Plenty of 20th Century optics can be adapted to modern mirrorless mounts ( as many of us do) and modern optical design technology can be and has been used to recreate the 20th century/film look in some modern lenses too. Win-win IMO.
p.3 #13 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
philip_pj wrote:
Each and every Carl Zeiss lens range had its own house style. Their overall history has seen their lenses transforming from artistic to modern, in the process becoming harsher in contrast, bolder and brassier.
The new full tech ML series will continue this trend, which was most noticeable in the digital transition from CY and the MF lenses to ZM and ZEF, later called Classic. Otus 1.0 grafted some magic back into the mix a decade later.
I prefer their 20th century lenses in Contarex and CY and medium format - these were the ones that propelled them to the top. Modern Zeiss would be horrified by the Modern Vintage design movement. Unlike Leica M, they walked away from their roots....Show more →
Do list some of those and explain...
Maybe they are actually worth looking at and searching for them on ebay..
Nostalgia is a drug..
Mar 25, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
philip_pj wrote:
Each and every Carl Zeiss lens range had its own house style. Their overall history has seen their lenses transforming from artistic to modern, in the process becoming harsher in contrast, bolder and brassier.
The new full tech ML series will continue this trend, which was most noticeable in the digital transition from CY and the MF lenses to ZM and ZEF, later called Classic. Otus 1.0 grafted some magic back into the mix a decade later.
I prefer their 20th century lenses in Contarex and CY and medium format - these were the ones that propelled them to the top. Modern Zeiss would be horrified by the Modern Vintage design movement. Unlike Leica M, they walked away from their roots....Show more →
I see more continuity between C/Y lenses and ZE/ZF lenses than you do. Sure there were some very artistic C/Y lenses. The 35 f/1.4 to my eye had a very artistic rendering, for example. There were also some very modern looking lenses in the C/Y line, however. The C/Y 21 f/2.8, for example, was super high contrast and still has a very modern look. It also had a lot (I believe 6 - anomalous partial dispersion elements) and it was and still is renown for what I see as a very modern look.
Many of the ZE/ZF lenses were pretty moderate revisions of C/Y lenses. The 18 f/3.5 (from the 18 f/4), the 21 f/2.8, the 28 f/2, the 50 f/1.4, the 85 f/1.4, even the 100 f/2 Macro is clearly based on the 100 f/2 Planar and the 25 f/2.8 and 35 f/1.4 seem to my eye to be at least inspired by the C/Y lenses and I used the ZE 35 f/1.4 a lot and it is not a highly corrected lens.
My point is that you can emphasize continuity or you can emphasize divergence, but in my view there was development at Zeiss and it started long before the turn of the 21st century and the introduction of the ZE/ZF lenses, and although the ZE/ZF lenses were a new approach they also were deeply connected to the C/Y lenses too.
p.3 #15 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I see more continuity between C/Y lenses and ZE/ZF lenses than you do. Sure there were some very artistic C/Y lenses. The 35 f/1.4 to my eye had a very artistic rendering, for example. There were also some very modern looking lenses in the C/Y line, however. The C/Y 21 f/2.8, for example, was super high contrast and still has a very modern look. It also had a lot (I believe 6 - anomalous partial dispersion elements) and it was and still is renown for what I see as a very modern look.
Many of the ZE/ZF lenses were pretty moderate revisions of C/Y lenses. The 18 f/3.5 (from the 18 f/4), the 21 f/2.8, the 28 f/2, the 50 f/1.4, the 85 f/1.4, even the 100 f/2 Macro is clearly based on the 100 f/2 Planar and the 25 f/2.8 and 35 f/1.4 seem to my eye to be at least inspired by the C/Y lenses and I used the ZE 35 f/1.4 a lot and it is not a highly corrected lens.
My point is that you can emphasize continuity or you can emphasize divergence, but in my view there was development at Zeiss and it started long before the turn of the 21st century and the introduction of the ZE/ZF lenses, and although the ZE/ZF lenses were a new approach they also were deeply connected to the C/Y lenses too. ...Show more →
To me what is most interesting, and scientific as we are going to get, is shooting a CY than ZF lens which share the same optical forumla (or extremely close). For instance, shooting a CY 28/2 MMJ versus a ZF 28/2, the MMJ easily had more "magic" while the lens of overall correction were extremely similar. The 85/1.4 is the same. The optical blocks looks nearly identical, and the MFT show minor differences with a very similar overall performance. Though perhaps some of the elements have been coated differently.
Regardless, despite the similarity, to my eyes, the CY's have a much different and preferable feel. I guess mostly coatings. I wish I better understood what those differences are caused by beyond higher contrast or better flare resistance type observations.
p.3 #16 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
I would like to see the same image taken, for example, with CY 28/2 MMJ and ZF 28/2 using the same camera to see if the claimed differences are real, or subjective, or due to the use of a different medium (film/sensor).
p.3 #17 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
Can not resist, but the discussion is almost analogue to those on audio forums discussing speaker cables and their impact on 'producing' different sounds...soft, harsh, deep, 'magical' etc etc..it's a wire, less resistance the better sound...as clear as possible
With my modern Otus 55 I get exactly what my eyes see...not softer, artistic, harsh contrasts or soft contrasts, not detailed enough or detailed too much micro-contrasts etc etc...And imo that is what a lens is supposed to do.
That other outcome I can create in post processing if I wish so.
p.3 #18 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
modlin wrote:
Can not resist, but the discussion is almost analogue to those on audio forums discussing speaker cables and their impact on 'producing' different sounds...soft, harsh, deep, 'magical' etc etc..it's a wire, less resistance the better sound...as clear as possible
A good friend of mine has been an avid audiophile for decades and is in contact with electronic engineers who build unique, very limited run pieces for their own (and friends) enjoyment. He assures me that even the quality of capacitors in an amplifier can modify (i.e., deteriorate) the sound. Cables do not have only a resistance, but also inductance and capacitance.
His Hi-Fi system is quite good (and expensive) He also taught me that the most expensive equipment is not always the best.
There are very expensive stereo equipments (amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, loudspeakers, etc) that should be thrown out the window.
You have to know what you put together and how to avoid “bottlenecks”. In the Hi-Fi world there are few very competent people and many quackers
modlin wrote:
With my modern Otus 55 I get exactly what my eyes see...not softer, artistic, harsh contrasts or soft contrasts, not detailed enough or detailed too much micro-contrasts etc etc...And imo that is what a lens is supposed to do.
That other outcome I can create in post processing if I wish so.
The out-of-focus rendition, bokeh, etc. of lenses may be visibly different. Even field curvature does affect background rendition, as several @Fred Miranda@ tests have shown.
I own both AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8G and Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar. The Zeiss is not perfect, but is visibly better to my eyes. This doesn't mean the Micro-Nikkor is not a good lens. Actually, I still use it when I need AF, VR, 1:1 or automatic focus stacking.
To see the differences, we need trained eyes; the same way we need trained ears to listen music
p.3 #19 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
Hmmm I have the following lenses which all exhibit that Zeiss magic:
- Zeiss 35/2 Distagon
- Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar
- Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar
- Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar
- Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar
All of these have:
- amazing 3D look, lots of micro contrast or intertonal details or whatever you call it
- both excellent sharpness and contrast throughout the aperture range (except for the 85, that one starts from f/2.5 onwards)
For some reason I always revert back to the 100, I don't know, but it seems that it has the most appealing look to the 3D-look if you know what I mean.
The differences lie in:
- color reproduction; the 85 Planar is the real winner here with the 35 as runner-up and 100 as 2nd runner-up when it comes to color saturation and warmth. The 135 is fairly neutral (but still very good).
- chromatic aberration control: all of the above, except the 135 (and to lesser extend also the 35) exhibit one of the worst CA I've ever seen. The 100 and 85 are the king and queen when it comes to uncorrectable CA that often leaves thick grey halo's when try to correct them. The 50 is the runner-up. Even at f/2.8 there is CA (but correctable).
I am really glad with all my Zeiss lenses here despite the unfavorable characteristics like SA and CA.
I typically only seek out lenses with that magic, so I guess I haven't bought them all yet . It seems the Otus lenses, despite the number of lens elements, also have that strong magic, although I never tried any Otus. But it is out of my reach budgetwise anyway...
Although I almost never use them, I just cannot sell the EF 70-200L IS II and EF 16-35/4L IS...
Too bad we don't see enough of the strong Voigtlander APO lenses on Canon RF (or EF) mount.
Of all lenses they could make in the RF mount, we only have a 50/1.0 Nokton and 75/1.5 Nokton, but I want the APO's! Everybody is asking for it and my guess is they know it but they just don't do what we want
p.3 #20 · What Zeiss lenses have the most Zeiss "magic"?
The comprehensive review is very much appreciated. It might seem that the shift in style correlates to year of design with Zeiss. As a ghastly thought, some of us might think that relationship goes back to Contarex times - eek! There is a mega comparo of the 85/1.4s (CY/Otus/ZF) by Victor something, one of the reviewers bought a CY afterwards. The Contarex is a classic, CZ did their best work in the SLR sphere, opposite of Leica.
The journey continues - Zeiss have been busy with the Supreme Primes ($$$$$$$) before and after their time away from photo lenses. So those will inevitably influence the new ML lenses, like them or not.
The company is probably too proud to look backwards. They see themselves as industry leaders after all. But hear this: re-releases of many early CZ lenses would both enhance their standing and make them a lot of money. Few know how good they were, and popular tastes in manual focus lenses are moving in that direction as well. Everyone knows Mandler et al because Leitz celebrate their past, whereas Zeiss push ahead regardless.
Leitz are the inspiration in design and execution for the burgeoning Chinese surge in optics (which will change the entire landscape). They (Leitz) use photo lenses as the basis for their cine ranges, but Zeiss do the exact opposite.
dont do drugs
