philip_pj wrote:
They were very different - the CY mainstream lenses - from the latter ZEF lenses, to long term stills and cine users of the former range. Recall that the CY range began in 1973 and was populated quickly. Maybe you don't agree that 33 years - a massive time span in optical tech (broadly defined) - makes a difference here, so we must disagree.
It was a time of rapid consolidation by Carl Zeiss and it paralleled the development of the magical Super Speed range of cine lenses (1975). The major common ingredient was lead oxide, which for this class of lenses was 45-65%. Those SS lenses, now in huge demand, used the same basic formulas in glass types - they render very similarly, and they appealed to more artistically oriented cine users:
'Zeiss Contax (C/Y) lenses developed an even more enduring cult and prestige status (than the off-the-shelf ZFs used by early DSLR users) specifically for their classic, organic vintage rendering, neutral-yet-rich color science, and cinematic "Contax Zeiss" look (frequently sought after for full-frame vintage rehousings and custom CT.Pro-style conversions).' So they noticed too!
The industry took years to find its feet with new glass formulations to comply with the mandated removal of lead oxide. The catalog of Schott had been decimated - it was reduced, by some accounts, by 75% in the glass types the glass works could offer its clients.
Zeiss only used APD glass very late in the CY era, certainly for the prime lenses outside the exotic telephotos. 21/2.8 - 1994, and 100-300 - 1994 also. The APD glass and forced design recalibrations changed everything internally to the otherwise similar designs - you can't take out half the lenses' 'flint glass' composition and have it be otherwise! It's effectively traditional crystal..
'High Refractive Index and Brilliance: The inclusion of metal oxides increases the material's density, bending and dispersing light more sharply than regular glass. This creates "sparkle" and high clarity.'
The link I posted is for those with an interest in Zeiss lenses, it does not have to include you, and your dismissive comment is noted for this kind of lens comparison - sorely needed today. I made no reference to focus ease. but yes, of course - easier for all of them. cheers....Show more →
I'm not sure of the reference for all your quotes here. Is it AI? It is hard to take quotes seriously without knowing from where they came. If they come from an authoritative source that is one thing, but if they come from promotional materials that is something else entirely.
Anyway I do have an interest in Zeiss lenses. Both C/Y and ZE/ZF and I have owned a number of lenses from each mount. I even posted pictures from one of these lenses on this page. My comment wasn't dismissive, but if you read the article you linked it is hard to miss that the authors were comparing lenses when they were having a hard time focussing the lenses. That doesn't make sense in my book. Any difference could be because of not properly attaining focus. I'm not sure how you can draw any meaningful conclusions from comparing lenses that you don't know whether they were focussed properly. So, I didn't see much value in the article, but of course YMMV.
