Rollei/Zeiss 40/2.8

I'm interested in the Rollei/Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8 lens. Forget about

framelines & speed. I'm attracted by the classic lens design. Does

anyone have any idea whether this lens gives a different"look" to

your pictures? Anyone have any experience with its overall quality?

 

I know that it's based on the design of the old Rollei 35S Sonnar,

but it is a different build & I don't know that I can make

assumptions about the quality of this lens from that one.

 

Popular Photography is the only review that I've been able to find.

While they said that it was outstanding, they noted that it has some

pincushion distortion, light fall off until 5.6, and was not great

at its closest focusing distance. While the review was otherwise

very positive (aren't they all at PP?), this is a $1000 lens, which

puts it in the same price range as the 50 Sumicron. At this price, I

would expect to be blown away by a lens review to make it worth the

cost.

 

I'm really looking for that different look that a German lens should

offer vs a Japanese lens, including the Voigtlanders. Thanks for

your thoughts.

Bill

 

Why not save your money and get the 40mm Summicron-C/Rokkor? These are superb lenses, German designed and a stop faster. If you get the later CLE 40mm Rokkor (same German design) you also have multicoating. I have to say the Rollei 40mm seems to me to be unexceptional and yet carries an exceptional price.

Bill, I recently got the 40/2.8 Sonnar (used mint condition for considerably < $1000 via eBay, BTW) but haven't shot enough w/it to give you any meaningful feedback. So far, so good--build quality is very nice (kind of like the CV 50/3.5 Heliar) & I haven't experienced anything noticeably bad (flare, distortion) that could be attributed to the lens. As many folks here probably know, I'm a big fan of the original Zeiss Sonnars for the Contax RFs, but I don't have enough 40/2.8 material to compare it w/its illustrious ancestors (I have no experience w/the Rollei 35 Sonnar).

 

Per Robin's post, I can say that the 40/2 M-Rokkor is an excellent lens. And an excellent value.

FWIW, here's a night shot w/the 40/2.8 Sonnar:<div></div>

And here's a color shot:<div></div>

Thanks for the comments, guys. Chris. is your 40/2.8 Sonnar an old Zeiss lens or is it the new Rollei/Zeiss?

They have the same optical formula AFAIK. The interchangeable version should perform better because it is rangefinder-coupled and presumably have updated coatings.

 

However, I agree that the Minolta CLE Rokkor is a better choice - it costs less and is a whole stop faster.

I read on another thread somewhere that the old Rokkor lenses have developed a problem with white spots appearing on them with age in increasing numbers. The poster said that they would all develop this problem eventually. I don't know anything about this, but I would feel more comfortable with a new product vs one that is 25 years old - as long as this lens is up to normal Zeiss standards. If it is, I can live with one less stop in exchange for the more compact lens size. Down the road I would anticipate getting either a 50 Sumicron, a Voigt Nokton or the new Rollei 50/1.8 when it comes to market next year as my fast lens if I feel the need for more speed.

As far as I know at present the spot problem is peculiar to the 28mm Rokkor. I have heard of no similar problem with either the 40mm Rokkor or its equivalent the Summicron C. I have used the �cron for over twenty years and have had only superb results, regardless of its sloped cam design and 5.5 series filters; but if that bugs you, then opt for the Rokkor which has a flat cam and uses more easily obtained filters.

Bill, my 40/2.8 Sonnar is the new 1 made for the Rollei 35 RF (the new pimped-up version of the CV Bessa R2); AFAIK, there was never a 40mm version of the Sonnar made for the Zeiss Ikon Contax RF (or in LTM), only the 50/1.5, 50/2, 85/2, & 135/4.

Thanks, Harry & Chris, for yur comments."

 

Robin Smith said:

"The Rollei 40 seems to me to be unexceptional and yet carries an exceptional price." Robin, a part of me agrees with you. Below I'll provide some additional quotes.

 

In addition to the limitations of the lens they tested, as I mentioned above, Popular photography also said this about the lens:

"An outsanding classic . . . Test slides were sharp & contrasty from center to corners at all apertures."

 

On his website which includes an homage to the Rollei 35 series, John Lind says the following about the 40/2.8 Sonnarlens:

"It is a stunning lens noted for near zero distortion in a very flat field, very low falloff, exceptional resolution and very high contrast. In spite of the age of this lens (design), it is still a world class lens and holds its own with the best of modern lenses."

Modern Photography's tests back in the '70s also used superlatives in describing this lens.

 

Herein lies my dilemma. Will I get Popular Photography's lens with pincushion distortion & light falloff at 2.8 & 4.0 or John Lind's lens which excels in these same areas? Did Rollei not get it right in building the lens this time? Thus my search for anyone who might be a user of the current model.

 

Again, your thoughts are much appreciated!

The Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8 offered in M-bayonet mount is the identical lens to what Rollei

fitted in the Rollei 35S, 35SE and 35 Classic cameras. They just put it into an M-Bayonet

mount. I have loved this lens in the Rollei 35 models for a very long time ... It's very sharp

and contrasty, produces stunningly beautiful images.

 

I had a Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2 a few years back and did a lot of comparisons

between the two lenses. I made a series of 11x17" prints in B&W and color with both,

mounted them and showed them to many photo-savvy friends. No one could tell me which

lens took which photograph reliably.

 

Now, I don't know that it's worth $1000 or more. It's a darn good lens but that's a lot of

sheckles for a 30 year old lens design. The extra stop of the Summicron-C 40/2 is useful,

up to a point. So I can't really advise you one way or the other.

 

Actually, I can advise one thing: If you buy a mint Rollei 35S for $300-350, you get the

same lens and the camera for free. That's what I'd do... ;-)

 

Godfrey

>If you buy a mint Rollei 35S for $300-350, you get the same lens and the camera for free.

 

I'm sure one gets better results from a Yashica T4/T5 for an even lower cost, simply because the more precise focusing.

 

Considering the focal length/lens speed combination, $1000 for a 2.8/40 lens is simply unacceptable. (No offence, Christopher.) But that's just me.

Interesting . . . $1000 is unacceptable for a lens that "produces stunningly beautiful pictures."

 

Is $745 acceptable for the Leica Elmarit? That the going price for it at B&H - & I'm sure you can pay more elsewhere. $1000 is the current price for this lens at B&H, although I think I can get it for less. Anyway, I expect that the price will come down to be more in line with the Elmarit.

 

I'm not interested in buying an old fixed lens rangefinder. I already have one. And a discontinued point & shoot from Yashica? I don't think so. The first thing about the Yashica T5 when I did a quick search was a comment from a dissatisfied owner, upset . . . Why? Focus problems.

 

My real interest in this lens is the Sonnar design No one else makes one in a normal/moderate wide lens. I'll be interested in Chris's continuing experiences with his lens to see if their is a different quality or "look" to photos taken with it.

 

Godfrey, did you notice a difference in the nuances of your pictures with the Rollei? Saying it compares favorably with the Leica is high praise indeed. I don't need a 4o mm lens, but it would be worth it to get one that produces not just sharp pictures but ones whose subtleties are different.

Chris,

 

"the pimped-up version of the CV Bessa R2"? I fell off my chair laughing when Iread that one. Classic line! LOL

 

I prefer to think of it as the Bessa R2 Silver LE (limited edition). LOL

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Kubayashi of Cosina isn't the one who took the initiative with this project. I expect that he saw an opportunity to sell his cameras to a more up$cale clientele than he was otherwise reaching. I suspect that he went to Rollei & said we've got the body, you've got a name & a lens we can put on it. No R&D, very little to capitalize. Why not? It also offers a distribution & service network that Cosina doesn't currently have. CV products have to be considered essentially "gray" market. No domestic importer. No manufacturer's warranty. No authorized service & repair centers. Difficult for domestic repair technicians to get parts. I have seen store warranties that range anywhere from 60 days to 1 year. The "pimp" version comes with a 2-year manufacturer's warranty supported by a domestic Rollei subsidiary. That offers more value than the essentially discounted CV products - although CV is a great way to go to save money. Dante Stella has an article on his website explaining why a grey market product is likely to cost you more in the long run than a product imported through regular channels - more so for a camera body with a lot of moving parts than for a lens which has relatively fewer. Certainly none of this makes a Rollei kit worth the price they're asking ($1900 street) - although I have found it for as low as $1600 - unless it is a world class lens.

Godfrey, 1 small correction, the 40/2.8 is actually in LTM, not M-mount (it comes w/a generic 50/75mm LTM-M adapter).

 

Andrew, as I stated, I didn't pay $1000 for the lens (nor would I ever pay that amount for it).

 

Bill, I think the best place pricewise to get the Rollei/CV 35 RF line is probably Hong Kong (where the guy who sold me my 40/2.8 resides--he was selling the body separately). I think the actual target market for the line is probably Asia, as the Rollei name still has a lot of prestige among camera buffs in Japan, HK, etc.

I actually like the fact that the Rollei is silver, the way the Good Lord intended cameras to be, IMHO! ;-) I wish Cosina offered the R2/R2S/R2C in a chrome/silver finish instead of that awful olive.

 

-------

 

"Chris,

 

"the pimped-up version of the CV Bessa R2"? I fell off my chair laughing when Iread that one. Classic line! LOL

 

I prefer to think of it as the Bessa R2 Silver LE (limited edition). LOL "

I didn't realize that they were putting it into an LTM mount instead of the M-Bayonet.

Seems odd to me. Thanks for that.

 

A Rollei 35 gives you PRECISE control of focus and DoF. You just have to learn how to

estimate or measure distance, which isn't that hard.

 

Can't do that with a Yashica T4 Super. And the T4 Super is fitted with a Tessar lens ...

which is nowhere near the performer that the Sonnar is. The Yashi's Tessar has only

modest sharpness and resolution at corners and edges until stopped down to f/8 or

smaller, hot-center illumination until f/8-/11, etc... About what you'd expect from any

good Tessar lens, but you have no precise control of f/stop or focus given the program-

only nature of a point and shoot. You also have to contend with P&S grade shutter lag and

film transport motor noise.

 

The Rollei 35 is not a point and shoot ... It's a precise, rugged, manual camera capable of

professional quality results, and gives all the control to the photographer.

 

As I said, the imaging character between the Leica Summicron-C 40/2 and Zeiss Sonnar

40/2.8 is very hard to distinguish. If you already have a good Leica 35mm or 40mm lens,

there's really no reason to pay the bux for the Zeiss. If you don't, however, it could be

worth it.

 

And the high price of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 as well as the fact that it isn't really all that

compact is what prompted me to buy the Summicron-M 50/2 instead. The f/2 is a much

better lens at not a lot more money. $1000 for the Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8 seems an awful lot

of money, but I guess if you will otherwise spend a grand for something similar it's not

that far out of line. I cannot compare it against the other Cosina/Voigtländer offerings

since I've never shot with any of them. It is a fine lens in the Rollei 35S and compares well

with my Canon EF28/1.8 USM used on a Canon 10D body, however ... It's imaging

signature is a little different and produces a different look with similar field of view.

 

Godfrey

I don't know what their reasoning was, but it is nice to be able to mount the 40/2.8 on my screw mount bodies (a couple of Tower/Nicca 45's), as it is a small lens (amount the same size as the 40/2 Summicron/M-Rokkor for CL/CLE). I guess it also gives the owner the option of using different adapters to bring up either the 35mm or 50mm frames on a standard M body depending on one's preference.

 

-------

 

"I didn't realize that they were putting it into an LTM mount instead of the M-Bayonet. Seems odd to me. Thanks for that."

I agree with the above points. The 40mm Sonnar IS a good lens - I had one on my Rollei 35, but $1000 for an f2.8 standard lens seems excessive. Even Leica don't charge that for their collapsible 50mm. I doubt you will notice any difference between it and the 40mm Summicron or Rokkor, both are not too dissimilar ages (design-wise), both German in design, and both designed and manufactured to a high standard. Still it sounds as though the word "Sonnar" is perhaps something you want on your 40mm, in which case you clearly have to get it!

I went to the Rollei-USA office this week. They said that the choice of screw mount was so that it could have the most versatile application in terms of what cameras it can be mounted on. Seems to make sense.

 

Chris, can you give me a reference for the dealer you used in Hong Kong? My son-in-law is Chinese, so he & my daughter took the kids for a visit to the home land last year. Too bad I wasn't looking for this then. Maybe they could have picked it up for me.

 

Robin, I do agree that the price is excessive, just not as excessive as it might seem until you think of the price that I'd pay for a Leica alternative. It's not just that I want the word Sonnar on the lens (chuckle), it's that I want "Sonnar" only if Sonnar will produce a different kind of result when I take a picture - something that I can't achieve with another lens. Since you had one, did you notice this kind of subtle picture quality? Or was it just another sharp lens?

 

Godfrey, my other option is the 50 Sumicron. I actually came across a used one today in mint condition, a year & a half old, serial # 3,9 something for $895. Reading between the lines in your comment, it sounds like you find the Sumicron to be a better picture-taker than the Sonnar? My past rangefinder experience is with a Canonet QL17 GIII; otherwise, it's been all Nikon SLRs. So, I'd like to put my toe in the water with an interchangeable lens rangefinder system & figured Leica or Zeiss were the place to get started. Which of the 2lenses is more likely too give me results that are different than what I can get with the equipment I already have?

 

PS - Chris, I agree with you that the silver body is the cat's meow! Fitted with the chrome lens, they make a nice pair.

>Andrew, as I stated, I didn't pay $1000 for the lens (nor would I ever pay that amount for it).<P>

 

<b>Christopher</b>: Well obviously there is someone who will, if not you or me. (Do you find this particular lens better than that of the Contax T3? It'd be very surprising if it's not the other way round.)<P>

 

Jay's right - many (or at least some) post here simply for affirmation of their choices. Well it's a free society and fortunately it's their own money (or at least not mine) that they're spending.

>A Rollei 35 gives you PRECISE control of focus and DoF. You just have to learn how to estimate or measure distance, which isn't that hard.

 

Godfrey, you may not think otherwise but I'm not knocking the Rollei 35. But do you always scale focus even when you're not using the Rollei, simply because "it's not that hard" to do? Or do you find all focusing systems totally unnecessary?

Andrew, why would you expect to find the lens on the T3 better? Do you have experience with either lens? Both are moderately wide Sonnar lenses, designed by the same lens makers for use on viewfinder type cameras.

 

My question on this post is really not about whether one lens is better than another. I'm specifically interested in what the unique optical fingerprints of this lens are, what its defining characteristics are. Each lens has them. Unless picture quality is degraded, these characteristics are more about differences than about being better or worse, they are about what effects you can achieve with one lens vs another.

 

I don't have prior experience with a Sonnar lens in this range, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Cost is a secondary issue for me.

 

By the way, I haven't made a decision yet to purchase this lens or to go in a diffferent direction.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

"why would you expect to find the lens on the T3 better ?"<p>

 

I know for sure the Zeiss Sonnar 35/2.8 lens of Contax T3 IS better than the Sonnar 38/2.8 on Contax T2. I own both T2 and T3<p>

 

5 element Sonnar lens ofT2 has slight color fringing and slight vignetting, T3 Sonnar lens was redesigned into a 6 element lens

and corrected these.