Zeiss ZK updates?

DogLover · 08-24-2010, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Actually, your analogy is bogus. I am comparing macro lenses to macro lenses here. By your analogy, its more like having a $250,000 sports car and getting beat at the line from 0 to 60 by a family sedan. To get to 1:1 it will require an extension tube which probably costs another $500 for a matched one.

Furthermore, you would be surprised how many people actually by macro lenses for macro work. That would be the primary reason I would buy one.

No, I wouldn't be surprised that most macro lenses are bought for macro work, that is exactly what you would expect. I'm saying that I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the case with the Zeiss. I'm really tired of people that have never had this lens bash it because it's expensive. I've never heard of anyone who has actually owned this lens that wasn't in love with it. If you don't get that, then great. Luckily, no one is going to force you to buy one.

Incidentally, there are plenty of expensive sports cars that can get beat 0 - 60 by plenty of family sedans. Doesn't make the sedans more satisfying to drive.

Blue · 08-24-2010, 04:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DogLover

No, I wouldn't be surprised that most macro lenses are bought for macro work, that is exactly what you would expect. I'm saying that I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the case with the Zeiss. I'm really tired of people that have never had this lens bash it because it's expensive. I've never heard of anyone who has actually owned this lens that wasn't in love with it. If you don't get that, then great. Luckily, no one is going to force you to buy one.

Incidentally, there are plenty of expensive sports cars that can get beat 0 - 60 by plenty of family sedans. Doesn't make the sedans more satisfying to drive.

Like wise, I'm tired of fan-boys that like to piss and moan and tell me that the Zeiss Macro-Planar is $1200 better than my DA 35mm ltd macro or 2x better than the D FA 100 WR. As far as your sports car goes, you didn't name a slow sports car, you specifically named a Porsche. I'm fairly certain a Porsche guy would be embarrassed to get taken off the line by the Buick loaded with groceries. People get both these lenses for other uses as well. The Zeiss offerings that interest me are the 28/2 and 35/2 but especially the 28. For the record, I wasn't bashing it because it was expensive but because it came up oddly short in the specs category for current production macro lens.

DogLover · 08-24-2010, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Like wise, I'm tired of fan-boys that like to piss and moan and tell me that the Zeiss Macro-Planar is $1200 better than my DA 35mm ltd macro or 2x better than the D FA 100 WR. As far as your sports car goes, you didn't name a slow sports car, you specifically named a Porsche. I'm fairly certain a Porsche guy would be embarrassed to get taken off the line by the Buick loaded with groceries. People get both these lenses for other uses as well. The Zeiss offerings that interest me are the 28/2 and 35/2 but especially the 28. For the record, I wasn't bashing it because it was expensive but because it came up oddly short in the specs category for current production macro lens.

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.

Blue · 08-24-2010, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

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.

The only Porsche the interests me is the Cayenne and it won't get beat by the family Buick. I didn't say the 1:1 was the whole story, but in the macro realm, it is a big deal. I agree that the Zeiss 100 is a very fine, well made lens. However, the Pentax 100 WR isn't chopped liver.

DogLover · 08-24-2010, 07:27 PM

Couldn't agree with you more, the DFA100WR is a great lens, I said so earlier. When I sold it, I did so with no glee whatsoever. It's just that I almost never shot 1:1, and the DFA just didn't give me the utter "joy" that the Zeiss does. Having said that, there's an excellent chance that I will purchase the DFA WR again one day to join my three limiteds as part of my travel kit. But it won't be for the 1:1. That lens has a lot going for it besides that. I do wish the AF were quieter, though.

clark · 08-24-2010, 09:54 PM

i don't get the appeal of the Zeiss lenses

manual focus, manual aperture,
100x the price of pentax M,
often slower, and most likely comparable image quality?

blende8 · 08-25-2010, 12:58 AM

Not manual aperture, the Zeiss have the A button.
Also "often slower" is not correct.
Check this out:
Welcome to Carl Zeiss Camera Lenses

But I agree, manual focus is appealing to a minority only.
I must admit, I love it, I love the feel of manual lenses. I grew up with them.

Regarding the mentioned "accessories": Perhaps split image screens?

gazonk · 08-25-2010, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by blende8

I must admit, I love it, I love the feel of manual lenses. I grew up with them.

Me too... (using MX, ME Super and LX) but I must admit that the VF of the K10D makes me prefer AF. Focussing is such a pain with the small viewfinder and without the split screen and the micro prism ring

blende8 · 08-25-2010, 02:25 AM

That's why I find the new Sony A55 particularly interesting for manual focus shooters. Imagine, you can shoot with the camera at your eye, which is a more stable position compared to the standard lifeview handholding, and you can focus on a zoomed, ISO enhanced image.
All the disadvantages of an EVF notwithstanding, isn't this an interesting perspective?

FlashCube · 08-25-2010, 09:29 AM

It is good to see Zeiss ZK lenses as an option for quality primes given the reduction by Tamron and Sigma. It would be good to see Voightlander ramp it up some.

SergioFromSF · 08-25-2010, 10:53 AM

DogLover, can you elaborate on the benefits of the ZK lenses? If you have 35/2, how does it compare with DA35? Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible?
Thanks,
-s

ewalk · 08-25-2010, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by SergioFromSF

Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible?

The entire Zeiss line-up (for Nikon, Pentax and Canon) was made for manual focus and manual focus only.

gazonk · 08-25-2010, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by blende8

That's why I find the new Sony A55 particularly interesting for manual focus shooters. Imagine, you can shoot with the camera at your eye, which is a more stable position compared to the standard lifeview handholding, and you can focus on a zoomed, ISO enhanced image.
All the disadvantages of an EVF notwithstanding, isn't this an interesting perspective?

It is indeed. Not sure if it would be enough to tempt me to buy a camera with an EVF, though (especially if it doesn't really give you a size advantage).

DogLover · 08-25-2010, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by SergioFromSF

DogLover, can you elaborate on the benefits of the ZK lenses? If you have 35/2, how does it compare with DA35? Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible?
Thanks,
-s

I have never had either the ZK 35/2 or the DA35 but I have seen enough from them and read enough about them to know that they are both excellent lenses.

The appeal of the ZK's for me are two-fold:

1. You know that you are getting state-of-the-art IQ (the current 25 and 18 are possible exceptions). If you take a bad image, it's your fault.

2. There is an overwhelming feeling of quality that, in my experience, is unsurpassed. The way the focusing ring turns is just sublime. AF ability would absolutely destroy that. There is a heft and solidity that just oozes quality. Even the way the metal hoods click on and off gives me goosebumps.

You do have to be comfortable with MF. If you're not, you won't care for them. I have found that a split focus screen helps, though some don't like them. Many will say that Voigtlanders or even old Pentax give the same feeling, and that may be true, I don't know. I have latched onto Zeiss because I do know what I get from them and I love it. I sometimes wish I had latched onto these alternatives as I could save a lot of money! (though I'm too anal to buy anything used) But I'm not someone who wants a huge amount of lenses anyway. Somewhere around 10 feels about right to me. I'm definitely a "quality over quantity" kind of guy. In that respect, I am probably exactly in Zeiss's target market, and that's fine with me as long as they continue to deliver. Hope this sheds at least a little light for you, though you may have to use one to truly understand.

Zav · 08-25-2010, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Many will say that Voigtlanders [...] give the same feeling, and that may be true, I don't know.

Considering that they are made in the same japanese factory, this is normal ;-)
A friend who used extensively both Voigt and Zeiss lenses told me that the main difference is not in construction but in image rendition. Zeiss lenses being more "cold" and Voigt lenses giving more "lively colors" (its words, not mine).

08-24-2010, 05:08 PM	#18
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Blue Like wise, I'm tired of fan-boys that like to piss and moan and tell me that the Zeiss Macro-Planar is $1200 better than my DA 35mm ltd macro or 2x better than the D FA 100 WR. As far as your sports car goes, you didn't name a slow sports car, you specifically named a Porsche. I'm fairly certain a Porsche guy would be embarrassed to get taken off the line by the Buick loaded with groceries. People get both these lenses for other uses as well. The Zeiss offerings that interest me are the 28/2 and 35/2 but especially the 28. For the record, I wasn't bashing it because it was expensive but because it came up oddly short in the specs category for current production macro lens. 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. Last edited by DogLover; 08-24-2010 at 05:29 PM.

08-24-2010, 09:54 PM	#21
clark Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 301	i don't get the appeal of the Zeiss lenses manual focus, manual aperture, 100x the price of pentax M, often slower, and most likely comparable image quality? Last edited by clark; 08-24-2010 at 10:01 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Km firmware updates?	mvecchi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	03-23-2010 05:20 PM
K-X firmware updates	xmen	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	1	01-19-2010 02:43 AM
SD HC Driver Updates	ivoire	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	11	10-18-2008 03:16 AM
Firmware updates	cupic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	05-12-2008 07:58 PM
Firmware updates	jimbrechin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	08-08-2007 11:35 PM

08-24-2010, 04:06 PM	#16
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Blue Actually, your analogy is bogus. I am comparing macro lenses to macro lenses here. By your analogy, its more like having a $250,000 sports car and getting beat at the line from 0 to 60 by a family sedan. To get to 1:1 it will require an extension tube which probably costs another $500 for a matched one. Furthermore, you would be surprised how many people actually by macro lenses for macro work. That would be the primary reason I would buy one. No, I wouldn't be surprised that most macro lenses are bought for macro work, that is exactly what you would expect. I'm saying that I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the case with the Zeiss. I'm really tired of people that have never had this lens bash it because it's expensive. I've never heard of anyone who has actually owned this lens that wasn't in love with it. If you don't get that, then great. Luckily, no one is going to force you to buy one. Incidentally, there are plenty of expensive sports cars that can get beat 0 - 60 by plenty of family sedans. Doesn't make the sedans more satisfying to drive.

08-24-2010, 04:15 PM - 1 Like	#17
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by DogLover No, I wouldn't be surprised that most macro lenses are bought for macro work, that is exactly what you would expect. I'm saying that I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the case with the Zeiss. I'm really tired of people that have never had this lens bash it because it's expensive. I've never heard of anyone who has actually owned this lens that wasn't in love with it. If you don't get that, then great. Luckily, no one is going to force you to buy one. Incidentally, there are plenty of expensive sports cars that can get beat 0 - 60 by plenty of family sedans. Doesn't make the sedans more satisfying to drive. Like wise, I'm tired of fan-boys that like to piss and moan and tell me that the Zeiss Macro-Planar is $1200 better than my DA 35mm ltd macro or 2x better than the D FA 100 WR. As far as your sports car goes, you didn't name a slow sports car, you specifically named a Porsche. I'm fairly certain a Porsche guy would be embarrassed to get taken off the line by the Buick loaded with groceries. People get both these lenses for other uses as well. The Zeiss offerings that interest me are the 28/2 and 35/2 but especially the 28. For the record, I wasn't bashing it because it was expensive but because it came up oddly short in the specs category for current production macro lens.

08-24-2010, 06:19 PM	#19
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by DogLover 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. The only Porsche the interests me is the Cayenne and it won't get beat by the family Buick. I didn't say the 1:1 was the whole story, but in the macro realm, it is a big deal. I agree that the Zeiss 100 is a very fine, well made lens. However, the Pentax 100 WR isn't chopped liver.

08-24-2010, 07:27 PM	#20
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Couldn't agree with you more, the DFA100WR is a great lens, I said so earlier. When I sold it, I did so with no glee whatsoever. It's just that I almost never shot 1:1, and the DFA just didn't give me the utter "joy" that the Zeiss does. Having said that, there's an excellent chance that I will purchase the DFA WR again one day to join my three limiteds as part of my travel kit. But it won't be for the 1:1. That lens has a lot going for it besides that. I do wish the AF were quieter, though.

08-25-2010, 12:58 AM	#22
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Not manual aperture, the Zeiss have the A button. Also "often slower" is not correct. Check this out: Welcome to Carl Zeiss Camera Lenses But I agree, manual focus is appealing to a minority only. I must admit, I love it, I love the feel of manual lenses. I grew up with them. Regarding the mentioned "accessories": Perhaps split image screens?

08-25-2010, 02:12 AM	#23
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by blende8 I must admit, I love it, I love the feel of manual lenses. I grew up with them. Me too... (using MX, ME Super and LX) but I must admit that the VF of the K10D makes me prefer AF. Focussing is such a pain with the small viewfinder and without the split screen and the micro prism ring

08-25-2010, 02:25 AM	#24
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	That's why I find the new Sony A55 particularly interesting for manual focus shooters. Imagine, you can shoot with the camera at your eye, which is a more stable position compared to the standard lifeview handholding, and you can focus on a zoomed, ISO enhanced image. All the disadvantages of an EVF notwithstanding, isn't this an interesting perspective?

08-25-2010, 09:29 AM	#25
FlashCube Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: In Transition Posts: 173	It is good to see Zeiss ZK lenses as an option for quality primes given the reduction by Tamron and Sigma. It would be good to see Voightlander ramp it up some.

08-25-2010, 10:53 AM	#26
SergioFromSF Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: San Francisco Photos: Albums Posts: 45	DogLover, can you elaborate on the benefits of the ZK lenses? If you have 35/2, how does it compare with DA35? Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible? Thanks, -s

08-25-2010, 11:09 AM	#27
ewalk Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 316	Originally posted by SergioFromSF Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible? The entire Zeiss line-up (for Nikon, Pentax and Canon) was made for manual focus and manual focus only.

08-25-2010, 02:25 PM	#28
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by blende8 That's why I find the new Sony A55 particularly interesting for manual focus shooters. Imagine, you can shoot with the camera at your eye, which is a more stable position compared to the standard lifeview handholding, and you can focus on a zoomed, ISO enhanced image. All the disadvantages of an EVF notwithstanding, isn't this an interesting perspective? It is indeed. Not sure if it would be enough to tempt me to buy a camera with an EVF, though (especially if it doesn't really give you a size advantage).

08-25-2010, 03:54 PM	#29
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by SergioFromSF DogLover, can you elaborate on the benefits of the ZK lenses? If you have 35/2, how does it compare with DA35? Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible? Thanks, -s I have never had either the ZK 35/2 or the DA35 but I have seen enough from them and read enough about them to know that they are both excellent lenses. The appeal of the ZK's for me are two-fold: 1. You know that you are getting state-of-the-art IQ (the current 25 and 18 are possible exceptions). If you take a bad image, it's your fault. 2. There is an overwhelming feeling of quality that, in my experience, is unsurpassed. The way the focusing ring turns is just sublime. AF ability would absolutely destroy that. There is a heft and solidity that just oozes quality. Even the way the metal hoods click on and off gives me goosebumps. You do have to be comfortable with MF. If you're not, you won't care for them. I have found that a split focus screen helps, though some don't like them. Many will say that Voigtlanders or even old Pentax give the same feeling, and that may be true, I don't know. I have latched onto Zeiss because I do know what I get from them and I love it. I sometimes wish I had latched onto these alternatives as I could save a lot of money! (though I'm too anal to buy anything used) But I'm not someone who wants a huge amount of lenses anyway. Somewhere around 10 feels about right to me. I'm definitely a "quality over quantity" kind of guy. In that respect, I am probably exactly in Zeiss's target market, and that's fine with me as long as they continue to deliver. Hope this sheds at least a little light for you, though you may have to use one to truly understand.

08-25-2010, 05:16 PM	#30
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	Originally posted by DogLover Many will say that Voigtlanders [...] give the same feeling, and that may be true, I don't know. Considering that they are made in the same japanese factory, this is normal ;-) A friend who used extensively both Voigt and Zeiss lenses told me that the main difference is not in construction but in image rendition. Zeiss lenses being more "cold" and Voigt lenses giving more "lively colors" (its words, not mine).