[MRRiley]

Thanks DogLover. I have a friend photographer who over the years (before digital) acquired a lot of Zeiss lenses, now he uses a DSLR (Nikon) with a couple of zoom lenses and that's seems to satisfy his needs, but doesn't want to give up his Zeiss lenses and always speaks with reverence about them, essentially using your words. I asked him if he wants to sell them to me so that I could try to use them on K-7 with adapter, but he said he will part with them only when he dies.
I used to use manual focus back 30 years ago with Canon AE1-Program (still have it) and was pretty good at it, but it had a nice split screen and "dots circle" that helped in focusing a lot. I find that with current K-7 design, it's more difficult for me, unless it's a really close shot and I can see the details well. Anyway, I was asking because I am looking for prime lens between 28mm and 35mm. So far DA35 seems a good candidate.

Thats like keeping a Stradivarius violin or a Les Paul guitar locked in your attic. You may own something exquisite in and of itself but you are preventing it from serving it's purpose... Really sort of sad!

[Zav]

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Lens_Production/$File/Lens_Production.pdf

Thanks

[clark]

It's somewhat related to manual focussing? *shrugs*

it's everything related to manual focussing- how the hell are you supposed to MF without a viewfinder, and a good viewfinder makes it a lot easier

I do use a split screen, but the pentamirror finders are so dark and small that it doesn't really help much, i'm young and have good eyes so I actually find the standard matte to be a better screen for quick focus, the split screen is better for critical accuracy though

but the k7 finder (it is brighter) is still small compared to the competition, yes a small camera will have a small finder- but the k7 and k5 could be differentiated by body size/size of the viewfinder.
but i'm going off topic, I'll stop

[DogLover]

I used to use manual focus back 30 years ago with Canon AE1-Program (still have it) and was pretty good at it, but it had a nice split screen and "dots circle" that helped in focusing a lot. I find that with current K-7 design, it's more difficult for me, unless it's a really close shot and I can see the details well. Anyway, I was asking because I am looking for prime lens between 28mm and 35mm. So far DA35 seems a good candidate.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to steer you away from the DA35, as from all accounts that's a very satisfying lens. But you may want to try installing a split screen in your K7 and getting a dedicated MF lens sometime. Who knows, it may rekindle an old flame for you. As you probably recall, MF just seems to make you feel much more involved in the capturing of an image.

I highly recommend KatzEye screens. If your not comfortable installing it yourself you can send them your camera and they'll install it for you. They are a very reputable outfit.

[DogLover]

it's everything related to manual focussing- how the hell are you supposed to MF without a viewfinder, and a good viewfinder makes it a lot easier

I do use a split screen, but the pentamirror finders are so dark and small that it doesn't really help much, i'm young and have good eyes so I actually find the standard matte to be a better screen for quick focus, the split screen is better for critical accuracy though

but the k7 finder (it is brighter) is still small compared to the competition, yes a small camera will have a small finder- but the k7 and k5 could be differentiated by body size/size of the viewfinder.
but i'm going off topic, I'll stop

Not sure from your post if you have a K7 or just tried one, but assuming you have one, have you tried a magnifying attachment for the VF? It may give you that last little push that makes the VF more to your liking. I've always had these on all my bodies and wouldn't be without them. The Pentax OME-53 is quite good. There are also some third-party models available that seem to have a more comfortable and light-sealing round eyecup. I can't vouch for them as I've never tried them, but I may someday. The other major advantage to these things is that they get your oily nose (well, my oily nose anyway) off the screen.

If I had to guess, though, I would say that the K5 will probably have the same body and VF of the K7.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I've never been called a fan-boy before in my life. I'm just standing up for a lens that is faced with a lot of ignorance. I have 6 Pentax lenses and only 2 Zeiss. If I'm a fan-boy, then I apparently lack commitment.

And, since you obviously don't want to concede the point, there are several new Porsche models that can be beat 0-60 by several family sedans. But 0-60 (just like 1:1) ain't the whole story.

Let me assure you that Blue isn't the right person here to call ignorant.

But I agree the Zeiss lenses look good. I might start buying them as soon as I'm done getting all the A* lenses

[séamuis]

I have been tempted by the current ZK lineup (would prefer the m42 versions but generally cant find them) but the prices are simply more than I can justify. schott glass or not, they are still just japanese manufactured lenses. and as such I don’t see any reason why Zeiss can charge as much as they do. if they were still made in Germany, by Zeiss from beginning to end, I can accept that. but as it stands, you are over paying in my opinion. and despite the fact that I feel I shouldn’t have to reiterate it, that is my opinion and my opinion only, so take it as you will.

as for cosina, its funny that people are always up in arms, that the japanese brands are having lenses manufactured outside Japan because the japanese lenses have better QC. yet with the Zeiss name on the lenses, they don’t trust the japanese or the lenses they manufacture until they are hand inspected by some german. stupid logic if you ask me. I do commend Cosina though for all they are doing for the world of manual focus cameras and lenses in the 21st century, being surrounded by the over sized and over priced world of AF SLRs and their respective oversized and over priced lenses.

also, it sounds to me after reading through this thread that DogLover is simply trying to justify the high prices he spent, not defending Zeiss. if the lenses and the company behind them are as good as claimed (and im not saying they aren’t) then his purchases and Zeiss in general would need no defending from one customer in Tennessee. ‘fan boy’ is a term thrown around on the net, and sadly enough in the real world far too often. god knows I delt with it just for purchasing a macbook pro earlier this year. so I wouldn’t go so far as to say you are one, but your constant defending of a company that needs no defending isn’t making you look good.

---

Last edited by séamuis; 08-26-2010 at 12:34 PM.

[DogLover]

I have been tempted by the current ZK lineup (would prefer the m42 versions but generally cant find them) but the prices are simply more than I can justify. schott glass or not, they are still just japanese manufactured lenses. and as such I don’t see any reason why Zeiss can charge as much as they do. if they were still made in Germany, by Zeiss from beginning to end, I can accept that. but as it stands, you are over paying in my opinion. and despite the fact that I feel I shouldn’t have to reiterate it, that is my opinion and my opinion only, so take it as you will.

as for cosina, its funny that people are always up in arms, that the japanese brands are having lenses manufactured outside Japan because the japanese lenses have better QC. yet with the Zeiss name on the lenses, they don’t trust the japanese or the lenses they manufacture until they are hand inspected by some german. stupid logic if you ask me. I do commend Cosina though for all they are doing for the world of manual focus cameras and lenses in the 21st century, being surrounded by the over sized and over priced world of AF SLRs and their respective oversized and over priced lenses.

also, it sounds to me after reading through this thread that DogLover is simply trying to justify the high prices he spent, not defending Zeiss. if the lenses and the company behind them are as good as claimed (and im not saying they aren’t) then his purchases and Zeiss in general would need no defending from one customer in Tennessee. ‘fan boy’ is a term thrown around on the net, and sadly enough in the real world far too often. god knows I delt with it just for purchasing a macbook pro earlier this year. so I wouldn’t go so far as to say you are one, but your constant defending of a company that needs no defending isn’t making you look good.

I actually agree with you on much of this. I tell people all the time that if they like something, that's all that matters. Yet here I go for the second time on this forum letting myself get into these arguments about the merits of Zeiss. Part of it is that I never just volunteer negative comments about another person's gear, yet folks seem to come out of the woodwork to do so at the mere mention of Zeiss. But you are right that Zeiss does not need me to defend their honor.

I totally get that to many, Zeiss is overpriced. I certainly wish that they were cheaper. But this is the price of admission, and until I get something besides overwhelming satisfaction from one, then I'm willing to pay it. YMMV.

You are also right that some of this comes from me defending something I have spent a considerable amount of money on. But isn't that human nature? It's hard not to take it at least somewhat personal when someone goes out of their way to insult something in which you find immense satisfaction. But, realistically, I don't even know these people. They may be decent folks. On the other hand, it's quite possible that I wouldn't even give them the time of day in real life, so I shouldn't let it bother me.

So I won't. Anymore.

[séamuis]

just enjoy your glass is all I can say. many folks who might bash your for paying the high price for the Zeiss lenses, likely secretly want them. I have come plenty close to purchasing a ZK 50mm. but with all the 55mm’s I have its really just overkill no matter how good it may be. the 85 though is what id really like. to have the 85 in m42 would just be incredible. id sell my Leica M3 to have one of those! (well maybe, that would be a tough call) maybe its a limit of the m42 mount, or something but Zeiss doesn’t make the 85 ZS, so no luck for me.

[SergioFromSF]

I must admit, I am not a closeted ZK admirer, I would like to own a few, but even with DA35 that I am eyeing, I had to make a choice - buy this lens or send my kid to piano lessons for next 3 months. Well, I chose not to buy the lens..

[DogLover]

I must admit, I am not a closeted ZK admirer, I would like to own a few, but even with DA35 that I am eyeing, I had to make a choice - buy this lens or send my kid to piano lessons for next 3 months. Well, I chose not to buy the lens..

You made the right choice. No gear is worth making your family do without.

[mawz]

The Zeiss lenses are not shipped to Germany for the final QC check, Zeiss has a QC installation at the Cosina factory which does this (Zeiss employees and equipment).

As to the ZK 100/2 Makro-Planar, it is unique in several ways.

1. It is the only K mount lens available near that focal length faster than f2.5
2. It is sharper at wide apertures and better corrected for CA than the D-FA 100/2.8
3. It is significantly better built than the D-FA or D-FA WR lenses.

What it is is an exotic, close-focusing fast 100 with macro capabilities. The 100/2.8's cannot match the wide-aperture performance of the Makro-Planar. That said, if you don't need f2, look elsewhere, this is a specialist lens at a specialist price. The entire Zeiss ZK lineup is pretty much specialist glass. They're almost all best-in-class lenses (even the 18 and 25 are among the best lenses at their focal lengths) and some, like the 21/2.8, 35/2 and both Makro-Planars stand as among the best lenses ever made at those focal lengths. Sure they're good, but unless you need that last 5% of performance, they're probably not what you want. Especially for Pentax shooters as the Z* line is oriented entirely towards FF shooters.

The D-FA and D-FA WR 100/2.8 Macro's are quite good lenses, but they do not perform at the same level as the CV APO-Lanthar 125mm f2.5 or the Makro-Planar 100/2. If you want that level of performance from a Pentax macro, get one of the 200/4's. Of course that's gonna cost similar money to what an APO-Lanthar or a Makro-Planar cost.

[Zav]

1. It is the only K mount lens available near that focal length faster than f2.5

Well...


(just kidding)

[Blue]

The Zeiss lenses are not shipped to Germany for the final QC check, Zeiss has a QC installation at the Cosina factory which does this (Zeiss employees and equipment).

No comment on this part

As to the ZK 100/2 Makro-Planar, it is unique in several ways.

1. It is the only K mount lens available near that focal length faster than f2.5
2. It is sharper at wide apertures and better corrected for CA than the D-FA 100/2.8
3. It is significantly better built than the D-FA or D-FA WR lenses.

Regarding #1: For someone simply trying to fill the gap between 77mm and 135mm, you may be correct about the f2 part. However, from a macro standpoint, you lose speed at the close focus distance and given this is a 1:2 native reproduction ratio, that makes this a fast portrait tele. As far as #2, goes, I haven't seen in formal lens tests comparing the ZK next to the D FA WR side by side. #3 is an opinion, especially in regards to the build quality of the D-FA WR. Its aperture blades are very unique in the Pentax lineup and it is built more like a limit lens than in other current lens in the Pentax lineup plus WR. I doubt you have held one based on that statement.

What it is is an exotic, close-focusing fast 100 with macro capabilities. The 100/2.8's cannot match the wide-aperture performance of the Makro-Planar. That said, if you don't need f2, look elsewhere, this is a specialist lens at a specialist price. The entire Zeiss ZK lineup is pretty much specialist glass. They're almost all best-in-class lenses (even the 18 and 25 are among the best lenses at their focal lengths) and some, like the 21/2.8, 35/2 and both Makro-Planars stand as among the best lenses ever made at those focal lengths. Sure they're good, but unless you need that last 5% of performance, they're probably not what you want. Especially for Pentax shooters as the Z* line is oriented entirely towards FF shooters.

No one is arguing that they aren't excellent or well made. But for the prices, they damn well better be.

The D-FA and D-FA WR 100/2.8 Macro's are quite good lenses, but they do not perform at the same level as the CV APO-Lanthar 125mm f2.5 or the Makro-Planar 100/2. If you want that level of performance from a Pentax macro, get one of the 200/4's. Of course that's gonna cost similar money to what an APO-Lanthar or a Makro-Planar cost.

Why did yo slop the out of production APO-Lanthar in and the Pentax 200/4 lenses in here? This thread has been about the current production ZK and focal length counter parts. You low mouth the WR for being f2.8 and then offer up an f2.5 and f4 as an alternative for native 1:1 lenses.

All of these lenses in this post are the top guns and what it comes down to is the end use of the user and personal preference. It essentially comes down to that and what one is willing to pay for them. None of these lenses are cheap per se. Some times people need to remember that there are differences in fact and opinion. Factor in personal preference and art and it isn't so cut and dry.

My perspective in this particular lens is from a macro perspective. f2 at 1:1 and ~12" would be a seriously thin DOF. If I were using it at a short tele, I'd just go with my FA 77.

[rparmar]

All of these lenses in this post are the top guns and what it comes down to is the end use of the user and personal preference. It essentially comes down to that and what one is willing to pay for them. None of these lenses are cheap per se. Some times people need to remember that there are differences in fact and opinion. Factor in personal preference and art and it isn't so cut and dry.

One also needs to mention the Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5. No-one beats the focus control of that lens. And f/2.5 is much the same as f/2. (Not that I am often using a macro lens wide open.)

It doesn't cost a grand or two either.