I would have preferred for the 35mm to be realeased first, but at least Zeiss statement that all lenses available in ZF mount will have ZE counterparts this year is gaining credibility. Now where are the shipments?
RCicala wrote:
I got word today that the 18 and 21 ZEs I've ordered will ship October 20th.
I notice that the 21mm will be close to £1500 inc p&p in the UK. If it performs like my C/Y 21 then it will still be worth the money.
dave chilvers wrote:
I notice that the 21mm will be close to £1500 inc p&p in the UK. If it performs like my C/Y 21 then it will still be worth the money.
Dave
Looking at the characteristics on the Zeiss datasheet would suggest it is even a tad better than the old one. Only problem remains the distortion that is similar to the C/Y. Lets see hot it does in real life tests.
RCicala wrote:
I got word today that the 18 and 21 ZEs I've ordered will ship October 20th.
You ordered both the 18 and the 21? I am facing some decisions as well in this area. I pretty much decided that I want the 35 and the 21. Should I consider other possiblities, such as 18, 25 or 28?
John Black wrote:
The ZE barrel looks considerably different than the ZF barrel (and PK, etc). Does the ZE version have the same optical formula of its ZF/ZK brothers?
As far as I know, yes, ZE, ZF and ZK are all brothers. Or sisters, if you prefer
Oh crap, I guess I'm sexist now... Steven, having used the aperture ring on the ZF's, I thought the ergonomics were ill-desgined because the rings were so close to the camera body, in a recessed valley (at least on the Makro-Planars) and the aperture was "sticky" - meaning it didn't turn smoothly from stop to stop. If the aperture ring were to be a carry over from the ZF implementation, then no thanks.
It's nice to see the ZE announcements gaining momentum. Hopefully the 50/2 and 100/2 are next, but since Zeiss is on a wide angle kick, I'm guessing the 35/2 is next in line. Or maybe the Erwin special - the 35/1.4.
John Black wrote:
Steven, having used the aperture ring on the ZF's, I thought the ergonomics were ill-desgined because the rings were so close to the camera body, in a recessed valley (at least on the Makro-Planars) and the aperture was "sticky" - meaning it didn't turn smoothly from stop to stop. If the aperture ring were to be a carry over from the ZF implementation, then no thanks.
I've owned (now sold) the ZF100/2 and agree completely. But it felt like every other Nikon aperture ring I've used, for obvious reason. It's part of the "Nikon experience". I'm sure if there were an aperture ring on the ZE lenses, it would feel very different. Something like the aperture rings on N lenses would be perfect!
John Black wrote:
The ZE barrel looks considerably different than the ZF barrel (and PK, etc). Does the ZE version have the same optical formula of its ZF/ZK brothers?
Same optics, different focusing helical and aperture mechanism. ZE's focus Canon-style and have electronically controlled apertures.
StevenPA wrote:
John, the ZE21 looks "chubbier" too. My guess is it's due to the electronics.
This is a nitpick, but I wish Zeiss had left the aperture ring on the lens. I hate adjusting the aperture with the finger dial.
They'd lose more than they gained. The biggest advantage of the ZE's is the full electronic coupling, which would be lost with a mechanical aperture ring.
If you want a nicer aperture ring, I'd leverectomy some ZK's. The Pentax-style aperture rings are typically nicer than the Nikon's (wider for the most part).
Well yes, if we could have that aperture and it worked electronically so we could use the Canon dial or the lens aperture ring - then yes, I'd love that too. Right now I'll just be happy to see the 50/2 and 100/2 ZE's. And hopefully someday a FF version of the 7D with a really good sensor.
I tried the 50/1.4 ZE just to see how the ZE integration felt. The ZE's focus ring had a very light, nicely dampened action to it. The ZF's I had were pretty stiff. Hopefully these forthcoming ZE's will continue with the light focus action. Optically I didn't like the 50/1.4, but the lens build and ZE execution was very nice.
The 28/2, 50/2 and 100/2 ZE's will essentially put me back where I was with Contax - but with auto aperture. WIth a 3D type body - it's not exactly an RTS-III, but it's probably as close as we'll get with modern cameras. I'll be quite happy, but the waiting part feels like an eternity.
mawz wrote:
They'd lose more than they gained. The biggest advantage of the ZE's is the full electronic coupling, which would be lost with a mechanical aperture ring.
If you want a nicer aperture ring, I'd leverectomy some ZK's. The Pentax-style aperture rings are typically nicer than the Nikon's (wider for the most part).
I totally agree here. I've done stop-down metering for 5-6 years - I'm tired of it. It's lost its charm (for me).
It's nice to hear your report that the ZE 50/1.4 has a nicely dampened focus ring. This is what I expect from Zeiss, and the ZF100 I had was a bit stiff, especially in colder temperatures (I owned the lens during one fall and winter).
There's no reason Zeiss couldn't add a electronic aperture ring ala N lenses, but I guess that would increase the complexity of the design and the final cost of the lens, but I think I would pay the extra hundred or so for that. For many years now I've thought it would be so nice to have a lens that functions exactly as a C/Y lens does, but that also stops down automatically.
mawz, for clarity, it's not a mechanical aperture ring that I want, but rather an electronic aperture ring with auto stop-down. Just have the functionality moved from the finger dial to an aperture ring. I too am growing tired of manual stop-down.
I was very pleased with the 50/1.4 ZE's fit and finish, so assuming the rest of the ZE's are of equal quality, I think most of us will be very happy. As for no aperture ring, look at this way - it's one less place for rain, etc., to creep into
John, I have both existing ZEs, and the focus ring of my 85 (I had 2) were quite a bit stiffer than that of my 50. So it may be just a bit early to count your chickens...
Steven, having used the aperture ring on the ZF's, I thought the ergonomics were ill-desgined because the rings were so close to the camera body, in a recessed valley (at least on the Makro-Planars) and the aperture was "sticky" - meaning it didn't turn smoothly from stop to stop. If the aperture ring were to be a carry over from the ZF implementation, then no thanks.