Rollei/Zeiss 40/2.8

[bill_marshall1]

Martin, I'm well aware of the differences between the lenses on the T2 & the T3 & that contax had to go back a second time to get it right on that tiny camera.

 

But why would anyone think that the lens on the T3 would be better than the Rollei/Zeiss lens built for an interchangeable lens camera without any of the constraints of building a lens for a tiny compact like the T3?

[godfrey]

Bill, <br>

It's harder to compare relative qualities across different focal lengths, but the Summicron-

M 50/2 is an excellent lens with slightly different imaging qualities compared to the

Sonnar 40/2.8 or Summicron-C 40/2. I tend to prefer the wider field of view between 40

-45mm over a 50mm.

<br><br>

Remember: we're talking in subtleties here. Your good Nikkor lenses and the Canon lens

on the Canonet are good performers too. The SLR and interchangeable lens RF lenses are

built to higher standards than the Canonet's lens and surpass it in terms of flare control,

sharpness, resolution, contrast and other imaging qualities. Nikkor lenses are very good

but image differently from Zeiss and Leica, in ways that are often difficult to define

precisely.

<br><br><br><br>

Andrew:<br>

<i>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? </i>

<br><br>

For a 40mm lens or shorter, and for general picture taking in daylight conditions, yes most

focusing systems are unnecessary. All you need to know is f/11 and two focus settings to

get very sharp results ... 6' for 4-10 feet, 18' for 10' to infinity focus.

<br><br>

I practice focusing all the time too, even with my AF SLR. That way I know I can always get

a sharply focused photograph even when the AF or rangefinder or focusing screen is too

dark to be accurate.

<br><br><br><br>

Bill, <br>

The 35mm Sonnar on the T2 was never quite as good as the 40mm Sonnar in the Rollei

35.

The new one in the T3 is better but I still don't think it measures up to the 40mm in the

Rollei 35.

As far as I am aware, the Sonnar 40mm in Leica mount is identical to the same lens in the

Rollei 35, but beyond design and coatings construction quality might have an effect... I

would expect the RF lens to be at least as well put together, centered, etc as the Rollei 35

lens.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[bill_marshall1]

Godfrey,

 

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.

 

BTW, I have read elsewhere that Leica never made a lens with a Sonnar design for fear of patent infringement so I would assume that there are differences between the Leica CL & Zeiss lenses.

 

For all my attempts to justify this purchase, I have decided to hold off right now because I just can't justify the price that Rollei wants for this lens. At the time that it came out a year and a half ago, word on the Rollei Users Group was that Cosina manufactured the lens barrel & that Rollei produced the glass to the Zeiss optical design & did the assembly at their plant. A brand new Zeiss lens in this focal range with a very good Planar design for the Contax G goes for about $400 - $500 & is a stop faster. I don't see how the Cosina-built hardware in which the Zeiss glass is mounted can do anything to add to the cost of a Zeiss-built lens.

 

Rollei-USA has offered me the kit for $1600, which is about a 15% discount from the street price of $1900. However, a Contax G2 kit is right now $1200; the most expensive kit that CV has ever produced has been the limited edition Bessa T with the spectacular anniversary replica of the 50 Heliar & the most expensive version of that kit went for $1050. Something in this range would probably be reasonable for the Rollei 35 RF kit.

 

I'll give Rollei-USA one more shot to see if they're willing to be more reasonable for either the lens alone or the kit, although I'm not optimistic about that. Otherwise, I'll give up on it & maybe check back periodically to see if the price drops. Adorama has already dropped the price of the kit to $1700 so maybe there's hope.

 

I just can't figure out what Rollei was thinking when they listed this camera & lens @ $2250 with a discounted street price of $1900 - not to mention the 80mm lens which carries an asking price of about $2200 by itself. I don't know if they were thinking of it as a boutique item that would sell to existing Rollei owners who wanted an interesting 35 mm camera or what? It's too bad because the lens is very nicely built & operates quite smoothly. I must say that the Popular Photography lens review has also planted seeds of doubt in my mind & leads me to question whether this new version of the lens is even up to the standards of the one that was on your Rollei 35S. Maybe Chris can give us a progress report as he continues to use it.

 

Thanks for everyone's input to help me think this through

[furcafe]

Bill, I don't know any of the HK dealers, but back on Stephen Gandy's RF list (3/31/04 when it was on Topica, it is now on a different service/server, go to http://www.cameraquest.com/rflist.htm for info), Bennet YT Fung posted:

 

"A kit set (Body + 40mm lens) costs US$1200 here in Hong Kong"

[godfrey]

<i>"At the time that it came out a year

and a half ago, word on the Rollei Users Group was that Cosina

manufactured the lens barrel & that Rollei produced the glass to

the Zeiss optical design & did the assembly at their plant. ... "</i>

<br><br>

Impossible. Rollei does not have glass production facilities to the best of my knowledge.

All the Rollei lenses were always made by Zeiss or Schneider. The Rollei 35S Sonnar 40mm

was made by Zeiss and assembled into the cameras by Rollei; in an effort to cut costs they

worked a license agreement with Zeiss not to use the Zeiss name on the lens.

<br><br>

The only reason for the price of these lenses is that they are made by Zeiss in Germany for

Rollei. All three lenses for the Rollei 35 rangefinder body sourced from Cosina are

traditional lenses made by Zeiss for Rollei cameras over the years.

<br><br>

<i>".. A brand new Zeiss lens in this focal range with a very good Planar

design for the Contax G goes for about $400 - $500 & is a stop

faster. I don't see how the Cosina-built hardware in which the

Zeiss glass is mounted can do anything to add to the cost of a

Zeiss-built lens. .."</i>

<br><br>

The Zeiss lenses for the Contax G system camera are produced in the Zeiss lens works at

Kyocera in Japan. Kyocera is Zeiss' long standing partner now, they are the folks who

license the Contax brand name from Carl Zeiss Group. This is where all Zeiss volume

production components are manufactured nowadays. Their mass production techniques

and volume allow the prices of Zeiss lenses for Contax cameras to be significantly lower

than what comes out of the CZG production facilities in Germany.

<br><br>

The Contax G2 camera and lenses are superb, and the lenses have Zeiss imaging qualities.

The camera is very different in use from the Cosina/Voigtländer/Rollei 35 RF or Leica M

system due to the autofocus system. I had one for a couple of years and found it took

excellent photos, but I preferred the more manually oriented feel of the Leica M.

<br><br>

No, I don't know what Rollei was thinking when it did the Rollei 35 RF camera and lenses.

Too much money for something not sufficiently different from the competition, and in

competition with the rising capability and quality of the digital cameras as well.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[bill_marshall1]

Godfrey, you are a wealth of knowledge. Thanks for all the info!

 

I wonder why the high price for the Rollei 35 RF body since that is completely a Cosina product. It sells at B&H for $1250 with a 2-year warranty. Bessa R2 body sells at B&H for $500 with a 1-year warranty. I have handled the Rollei body & the fit & finish are definitely an improvement over the R2 body; there should be no problem that Bessa owners have experienced with peeling black paint.

 

But for the life of me, i can't figure how they market this for roughly twice the price - either in kit form or as a singleton.

 

Thanks again for all your insights. You have been very helpful.

 

Chris, thanks for the reference to Cameraquest. i will check it out.

[bill_marshall1]

Godfrey -

 

This afternoon I stumbled across the fact that the comment about the manufacture of the Rollei/Zeiss lens originated with Stephen Gandy of cameraquest.com. You can find his comment uner Rangefinder Renaissance & scroll down to Rollei 35 RF. It is as follows:

 

"The lens barrels are believed to be made by Cosina, the glass by Zeiss, while the assembly is done in Germany by rollei."

 

Interesting in light of the discussion on this thread is the following comment by Stephen: "Who wants to buy a $1900 Bessa R2 with a 40/2.8 lens? . . . If they were selling it for half the price, it would be a different story."

[godfrey]

That's a possible scenario, quite plausible if they're not putting the Zeiss name on the

lenses.

 

Godfrey

[bill_marshall1]

Godfrey, you are correct. The name on the Rollei RF lenses is "Rollei Germany."

[bill_marshall1]

The whole question of Rollei prices vis-a-vis Voigtlander prices is very interesting. I read on another message board the following prices for Voigtlander cameras in Spain:

 

Bessa R2 = 695 Euros ($830 USD)

 

Bessa R chrome = 735 Euros ($880 USD)

 

Bessa R black = 610 Euros ($730 USD)

 

Note that US dollars listed are a rough estimate.

 

This may explain the higher Rollei prices for the same body that is going for much less in America. The Rollei price for the R2 body when sold in the kit is pretty much what you'd expect, based on the price in Europe, for a dressed up version with some improvements & with a longer manufacturer's warranty.

 

For some reason, the Voigtlander product line seems to be selling in America for a discounted price. Get 'em while you can!

[MTC Photography]

Why not just get a used Rollei 35S/SE ?

[frank_reidelbach]

The Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8 lens is on my Rollei 35S which I purchased from a dealer for 200$ some years ago. Yes, it's a sharp lens, but not todays standard for a first class lens 1000$ worth. I cannot see the point why to buy an expensive lens with a design of 1970-1975. Yes, Leica-M is also expensive, but at least they are todays standard.. even Cosina-Voigtländer is. Sorry I see no improvement which justifies the high price. Even the coating of my old Zeiss lens is "Rollei HFT" which is comparable to T*. If you want new Zeiss quality buy a G2.

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>It i 2016 now. How do you feel about your Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar M?</p>