wwkw
-
Why hasn't Zeiss made a 40mm f/2.0 T* C-Whatever yet? I assume the 40/1.4 Nokton is one of Cosina's most successful lenses, and would have assumed Zeiss would've followed suit by now.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Zeiss made a 40mm f/2.8 T* lens in Contax/Yashica SLR mount once upon a time, and they made other 40mm lenses over the years for other cameras (notably one of my favorites, the Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 in the Rollei 35S).
I suspect they haven't made one in M-mount because the 40mm focal length is not part of the standard set of M-mount frame line options, where 35mm and 50mm frame lines are. Only the CL and CLE had 40mm frame lines in the standard viewfinder, triggered by the 50mm frame-line cam on the lens.
G
wwkw
-
Godfrey,
The practicality of your answer I agree with entirely. Considering the shortcomings of M6 and later viewfinders (and coupled with my way of seeing), makes it seem like the creation of such a lens would be a no-brainer. The 35/2.8 C-Biogon falls short in the evening, but remains a cult status for good reason. How perfect would that sort of performance be in a small 56 degrees diagonal lens, with an extra stop for moonlight hours on our evening walks home? I'm assuming its success, again, would be assured by that of the Nokton's, and the compact 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. At the very least, I posit the Rollei 40mm f/2.8 HFT was not the success hoped for solely because it was missing one stop. The M-Rokkor is now about $500. A T* 40/2.0 with Zeiss' typically extended warranty would no doubt be a top-seller even at around a grand (I'd buy two).
Just wishing...
Daniel
The practicality of your answer I agree with entirely. Considering the shortcomings of M6 and later viewfinders (and coupled with my way of seeing), makes it seem like the creation of such a lens would be a no-brainer. The 35/2.8 C-Biogon falls short in the evening, but remains a cult status for good reason. How perfect would that sort of performance be in a small 56 degrees diagonal lens, with an extra stop for moonlight hours on our evening walks home? I'm assuming its success, again, would be assured by that of the Nokton's, and the compact 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. At the very least, I posit the Rollei 40mm f/2.8 HFT was not the success hoped for solely because it was missing one stop. The M-Rokkor is now about $500. A T* 40/2.0 with Zeiss' typically extended warranty would no doubt be a top-seller even at around a grand (I'd buy two).
Just wishing...
Daniel
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Zeiss makes an excellent 35mm f2.0. I cannot tell the difference between a 35mm and 40mm lens in actual use. In fact, my 40mm CV matches the framelines in my ZM body better than the 35mm Zeiss does.
Also, the CV 40mm f1.4 would be tough competition for a for a Zeiss 40mm f2.0 out there in the marketplace. When I lost my Zeiss 35mm f2.0 several years ago, my replacement was the CV 40mm F1.4 and I have been quite happy.
wwkw
-
So, no lovers of 40mm, T* coatings, and compact lenses on this board? Are you all too old to remember what not settling feels like? Consider this a petition. Because **** coma, and whatever sorry excuses for capitalism you've already resigned yourself to.
Daniel
Daniel
Zeiss did make a 40/2 lens - for Contax rangefinders in the 1930's.
In black for the Contax I, in chrome for the Contax II
T coating had not been invented yet
https://www.cameraquest.com/zeiss414.htm
wwkw
-
Very cool. I actually stumbled upon that via your other site the other day while looking for a 40/2.0 that could be modified by someone like Miyazaki, Stephen. I appreciate you posting a reminder of its existence here, though I can't imagine it coming close to the performance of the Nokton 40/1.4, "Classic" though it may be.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, there is an excellent Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f/1.4 lens available. And the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 (both gen 1 and gen 2) are easily available, as is the Summicron-C 40mm f/2. I have (and use) both the Nokton and M-Rokkor gen 2 ... I don't use them as much on the M-P or M4-2 as on the CL, which has an excellent viewfinder for them. But both perform beautifully ... and I see no reason whatsoever to beg for a Zeiss lens at double the price of the Nokton 40.
G
wwkw
-
I'm surprised. Have you compared the edge detail, veiling flare from spherical aberration in the shadows, and overall flare control of the ZM 50/2.0 Planar and 35/2.8 C-Biogon to the Nokton 40/1.4? Because in my experience, they kick the **** out of it. Surely even your Rollei would give an indication of that.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Personally I cannot tell any difference in prints of photos made with my Nokton 40/1.4. my ZM 50/2.0 Planar, and the Zeiss 35mm/f2.0 that I used to have.
Many people have seen my work in various exhibits. I think many here greatly overestimate the differentiation of the product of one lens vs. another. While I have received many comments about the subjects or content of my photos, no one has ever said "look at that veiling flare from spherical aberration in the shadows"