Archiver
Mentor
My Zeiss lenses:
Biogon 21mm f2.8 - bought in 2009, secondhand. Smooth overall, but showing a tiny bit of focus ring friction.
Biogon 25mm f2.8 - bought secondhand in Australia around 2011, focus ring is very stiff and scuffy, currently in need of repair
Biogon 28mm f2.8 - bought brand new from Hong Kong in 2008. Terrible stiffness in the focus ring, Internally the helicoid has swirling scratches from this friction.
Distagon 35mm f1.4 - bought secondhand in Australia in 2020. Beautifully smooth and well damped, no sign of friction or wobbling at all.
Sonnar 50mm f1.5 - bought secondhand from Hong Kong in 2012. The focus ring barrel has a tiny bit of play, but there is no effect on the smoothness of the focus ring.
I cannot recommend Zeiss ZM lenses unless you check them out yourself, and have access to a lens tech. None of my M mount Voigtlanders have had any issues at all. Even my Leica Elmarit 28 Asph has a tiny bit of focus ring stickiness, but all my Voigtlanders are smooth as a well oiled machine. I'd much sooner recommend M mount Voigtlanders than Zeiss ZM except for the Distagon 35, which is the best lens I've ever owned.
Biogon 21mm f2.8 - bought in 2009, secondhand. Smooth overall, but showing a tiny bit of focus ring friction.
Biogon 25mm f2.8 - bought secondhand in Australia around 2011, focus ring is very stiff and scuffy, currently in need of repair
Biogon 28mm f2.8 - bought brand new from Hong Kong in 2008. Terrible stiffness in the focus ring, Internally the helicoid has swirling scratches from this friction.
Distagon 35mm f1.4 - bought secondhand in Australia in 2020. Beautifully smooth and well damped, no sign of friction or wobbling at all.
Sonnar 50mm f1.5 - bought secondhand from Hong Kong in 2012. The focus ring barrel has a tiny bit of play, but there is no effect on the smoothness of the focus ring.
I cannot recommend Zeiss ZM lenses unless you check them out yourself, and have access to a lens tech. None of my M mount Voigtlanders have had any issues at all. Even my Leica Elmarit 28 Asph has a tiny bit of focus ring stickiness, but all my Voigtlanders are smooth as a well oiled machine. I'd much sooner recommend M mount Voigtlanders than Zeiss ZM except for the Distagon 35, which is the best lens I've ever owned.
An optimal selection of material is based on requirements and assumptions set for the product. I'm going to guess that an engineer did a trade-off analysis of use of Teflon parts versus the more traditional all-metal construction and concluded the use of Teflon would deliver smooth operation without the necessity of relubrication of the lens as often over the life of the product. Having relubed hundreds of lenses- that's the thought that comes to mind. Having made a lot of design decisions myself, after seeing trade studies presented to me and ignoring them, and going by "just experience"- sometimes engineers get caught up in the process and just want to be different.
x-ray
Mentor
Any items value is what someone is willing to pay. Forums like RFF have helped push up the price of the 35mm V4 and even more so the V1.
I owned a V4 for quite a while and it was one of the Leica lenses that developed mechanical problems. I read, who knows how true it is, that the V4 has some plastic components and rather than using set screws Leica used glue in places to hold some subassemblies together. I’ve not dismantled one so I can’t confirm.
All of my ZM lenses have been excellent with no problems. I hope they last many more years but realistically they weren’t expensive lenses so I look on them as disposable. If the break and can’t be fixed I’ll sell them for parts and be happy I had them as long as I did.
Consider this, manufacturers have taken a different attitude about design and manufacturing. Do you know what the 10 symbol is. It’s on Nikon lenses and indicates the lifecycle of that lens. Nikon and possibly others consider them to have a 10 year lifecycle and some of these are pretty pricy.
To some degree the 10 year life is based on how long it will take for tin whiskers from tin soldering to disable the lens. Lead solder on circuit boards is now taboo thanks to environmental regulations a seriously doubt lens designers would have made this choice themselves.
I owned a V4 for quite a while and it was one of the Leica lenses that developed mechanical problems. I read, who knows how true it is, that the V4 has some plastic components and rather than using set screws Leica used glue in places to hold some subassemblies together. I’ve not dismantled one so I can’t confirm.
All of my ZM lenses have been excellent with no problems. I hope they last many more years but realistically they weren’t expensive lenses so I look on them as disposable. If the break and can’t be fixed I’ll sell them for parts and be happy I had them as long as I did.
Consider this, manufacturers have taken a different attitude about design and manufacturing. Do you know what the 10 symbol is. It’s on Nikon lenses and indicates the lifecycle of that lens. Nikon and possibly others consider them to have a 10 year lifecycle and some of these are pretty pricy.
To some degree the 10 year life is based on how long it will take for tin whiskers from tin soldering to disable the lens. Lead solder on circuit boards is now taboo thanks to environmental regulations a seriously doubt lens designers would have made this choice themselves.
Attachments
Last edited:
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The aperture ring on my 35/2 v4 is so fragile, I think the lens was assembled in an elementary school classroom when the kids had 30 minutes to build something from scraps on the table. Somehow Leica grabbed it and sold it. To the lens’ credit, it does form an image which somewhat resembles what I was looking at.
I searched for information on this. On dpreview there is a thread and a posting by PaulV,
Nikon Lens Longevity and the Recycling Symbol: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
where he read about the “10 year life” on Ken Rockwell’s site. He called Nikon and got this response:
”I called Nikon tech and they were quite helpful. "10" in a recycling logo stands for a particular type of plastic, just as any other number does. It means that, when you do recycle it, you need to recycle it with "10" type plastics. Now, the tech guy explained that, since all Nikon lenses everywhere are the same, this "10" and its inclusion on the lens barrel might be more significant for other markets than the US. He also noted that "How many people actually recycle a camera lens?"
I know “tin whiskers” are a problem in modern electronics. Don’t get me started on the idiocy of so many of these “environmental” regulations...
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
Type 10 plastic is Acrylonitrile-chlorinated polyethylene-styrene. It is a RIC (Chinese) code outlined in GB 16288-2008.
Having detected lead at way above the maximum residue limit (mrl) in marine animals used as seafood outside a plant that produces lead solder, in a developed country, those ‘stupid’ environmental regulations seem like a very, very good idea.
Having detected lead at way above the maximum residue limit (mrl) in marine animals used as seafood outside a plant that produces lead solder, in a developed country, those ‘stupid’ environmental regulations seem like a very, very good idea.
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
Agreed! I think it's worth a bit of inconvenience if it means our grandchildren might have a habitable planet. We've all seen where greed and the lack of regulation lead.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
It was a general statement. Some of those regulations are sensible; others are insane.
This isn’t the place to discuss it.
This isn’t the place to discuss it.