Some "whit" from Zeiss Ikon

"And because it features an M-mount, you can use your existing M-mount

lenses and upgrade to Carl Zeiss over time"

 

 

 

The Link:

 

 

http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Fram

e/fe76dc25bc93026ac125710a005a55f3

Upgrade??

It is not surprising that they promote and prefer their own products...especially in their own marketing materials. You have to look at statements like this as Ad copy. Nothing to worry about.

 

Look at all the people who post "I'm thinking of 'upgrading' to digital and need to know which camera..."

What if the new Zeiss lenses were indeed much better that their Solms counterparts?

 

Does it make no sense to use the level best? From the previous answers, I am shocked. The scientific/artistic process always runs its own course. No ideologies, please, is all I can say. Just the facts ...

It doesn't specificaly say 'Leica M-mount' lenses, I am shure the Ziess offerings are better than some of the M-mount lenses out there.

Frank Uhlig asked "Does it make no sense to use the level best?"

 

It can make no sense at all to replace a perfectly fine lens with a perfect one. It depends on the cost of the perfect (better, to be sure, than "the level best") lens and on how it is to be used.

 

It isn't true that all cats are grey in the dark and it also isn't true that all lenses shoot alike at f/16. But it is true that differences between good lenses are often swamped by poor technique. Also that improving technique often yields a better improvement in results than getting a better lens and not improving technique.

 

Do you remember the Canon-Minolta-Nikon-Olympus-Pentax SLR innovation arms race of the mid-70s to late 80s? Many photographers replaced and replaced and replaced their gear, to no noticeable effect on the pictures they took. I'm sure camera bodies got more capable and that zoom and long prime lenses got better too, but the tangible benefits were sparse.

 

Good enough is hard to beat.

Most accept the Zeiss-Ikon "ZM" system (body and lenses) as about half way between the Leica M and Voigtlander/Cosina systems.

 

That being an axiom, I suppose that makes this a "half-whit."

["It can make no sense at all to replace a perfectly fine lens with a perfect one. It depends on the cost of the perfect (better, to be sure, than "the level best") lens and on how it is to be used."]

 

Or, for than matter, the corrolary is that it makes good sense to replace overly expensive, "perfect" lenses with less expensive, near perfect ones if you have the chance.

 

Along the way I've owned alot of Leica glass but have found myself selling most of it over the years and replacing it with V/C lenses. The money I've saved has been impressive, and I've yet to see any real decline in the quality of the images produced, although the build quality of most Leica/Leitz lenses is superior to the build quality of the V/C lenses.

 

That being said, the new Zeiss ZM lenses make buying Leica glass even more irrational, because they are inarguably as good as the best of the Leica optics in every conceivable way and still at least half the price.

<i>Most accept the Zeiss-Ikon "ZM" system (body and lenses) as about half way between the Leica M and Voigtlander/Cosina systems.</i>

<p>

I assume you have some polling data on that?

"I assume you have some polling data on that?"

 

If you were any more stiff you would snap like a twig.

I don't want to appear rude or disrespectful, but it has been observed a handful of times in this forum that the build quality of the ZM lenses approximates a halfway point between CV and Leica lenses.

 

And if you can't buy the same premise on image quality then try to accept it as the premise for a punch line.

>it has been observed a handful of times in this forum that the build quality of the ZM lenses approximates a halfway point between CV and Leica lenses.

 

Sounds reasonable, but does that point lie on the same plane as those two? Or is it actually above them?

 

There have been reports on brand-new Leica and Voigtlander lenses having loose front elements, retaining ring or lens mounts, while I have seen none with the ZM lenses.

> RM

 

Between the ROKKOR/ SUMMICRON and the ZM- Planar you have 30 odd years ...

 

That would be a phantastic record indeed for LEITZ/ MINOLTA in case

ZM-glass

would be >on par< only.

 

 

Best regards