The Next Zeiss Lenses? [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12997"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12997">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>More high performance Zeiss primes coming

</strong>I’ve been told by a good source what Zeiss has planned for the coming year or so as far as new prime lenses.</p>
<p>There will be a 28 f/1.4 introduced and an update to the Planar 85 f/1.4 (probably the weakest lens in the lineup). Don’t expect both lenses to be announced at the same time, and there could be a big gap between them. These are going to be on par with the new Distagon 55mm f/1.4 that was announced at Photokina.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[distant.star]

.
I'll take one of each....

After I win that MegaBillions Lottery!!

 

[RGF]

Okay I'll show my complete ignorance about the Zeiss lineup.

What is the difference between Planar and Distagon? I have seen these names often but don't know if there is significance to the names

Thanks

 

[Viggo]

I'll say this is a confirmed rumor:

from 1:10

Carl Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Distagon, Sony NEX, and 135mm f/2.0 APO-Sonnar

Still can't wait for my favorite of these three, the 55...

 

[Dylan777]

Wonder how much the 55mm f1.4 would cost?

 

[Viggo]

Wonder how much the 55mm f1.4 would cost?

I've heard 4000 usd and 3000 eur.

 

[RGF]

Wonder how much the 55mm f1.4 would cost?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it. But then again, great glass (scotch, wine, cars, ...) is worth it.

 

[Don Haines]

Okay I'll show my complete ignorance about the Zeiss lineup.

What is the difference between Planar and Distagon? I have seen these names often but don't know if there is significance to the names

Thanks

I did a search and found:

Planar

Designed by Dr. Paul Rudolph in 1896 based on the double Gauss design (in 1817, C F Gauss described a telescope objective consisting of a pair of meniscus shaped elements, one positive, and one negative.) The design was 4 groups of 6 elements, and a flat field design. Symmetrical optical configuration producing low spherical aberration and astigmatism. The normal wide airspace separating the positive and negative elements in the double gauss design made a large amount of spherical aberration. Rudolph thickened the negative elements and reduced the airspace as much as possible, which corrected the spherical aberration and the sagittal/ tangential astigmatic aberration. Rudolph also inserted a "buried surface" into the thick negative elements of a cemented interface separating two type of glass having the same refractive index, but different dispersive powers. Not widely used until coating processes were available, due to light loss from the large number of transmission surfaces causing very low contrast. Due to it's complexity and high number of transmission surfaces, it really did not come into it's own until coating was developed. The planar was used as a base for lens derivatives, though in asymmetric form. Almost all the high-aperture lenses supplied on Japanese cameras are modification on the Planar..

Distagon

This is a reversed telephoto lens, consisting of a large negative lens in front of an ordinary lens. This allows it to obtain a short overall focal length with elements of a larger and more manageable size, helps design a system that is favorable for both high relative aperture and wild-angular field, and increased the back focal distance beyond it's usual magnitude, which give space for the mirror of a SLR. The downsides are that is must be physically large, and of complex construction to correct all the aberrations, making the lens more expensive to produce. Reversed telephoto designs are rarely over 2 inches in focal length, and then it is only used for specific applications. Compared to the Biogon, it has a larger circle of illumination full aperture, though softer when wide open, though it is sharper when stopped down. Rear element does not interfere with mirrors in SLR's

source http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm

 

[SDsc0rch]

Would a third party lens like this work with Canon's AF

??

 

[Viggo]

Would a third party lens like this work with Canon's AF

??

Absolutely.. But it would have to actually have AF Zeiss for Canon is all MF.

 

[Knut Skywalker]

Absolutely.. But it would have to actually have AF Zeiss for Canon is all MF.

Not only Zeiss on Canon, but Zeiss in general. They don't produce autofocusing lenses. Imagine the cost of a Zeiss lens with some kind of USM autofocus.

 

[Dylan777]

Wonder how much the 55mm f1.4 would cost?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it. But then again, great glass (scotch, wine, cars, ...) is worth it.

I wouldn't give Fletcher Jones saleman my credit card if I didn't ask for the out-the-door price on my wife 2013, White E350.

Don't apply your case to everyone. What make you think I can't afford a $5k lens?

 

[Viggo]

Absolutely.. But it would have to actually have AF Zeiss for Canon is all MF.

Not only Zeiss on Canon, but Zeiss in general. They don't produce autofocusing lenses. Imagine the cost of a Zeiss lens with some kind of USM autofocus.

Zeiss for Sony is AF.

 

[Knut Skywalker]

Zeiss for Sony is AF.

Yeah, you're right! I forgot about that for a minute... I really would love to have an AF Zeiss lens for the EF mount. Not to mention the money to buy such a lens.

 

[chasn]

Interesting comment in the film clip which implies they need to improve the Zeiss standard to cope with new sensors - like the D800 I think he mentions. A lot of people might possibly think Zeiss had some of the best lenses around already especially if you forgive the lack of AF. Hmmm. Can't be a throw away comment as I see it. And if Zeiss think this perhaps Canon and Nikon think the same. I think other threads have latched onto this in terms of speculating the Canon mega pixel camera will be held back until all the lenses are in place. Can't believe Zeiss are making a 3000 euro 50 mm lens MF unless they see more than the D800 in sight. Do people who know more about this sort of thing than me have any views?

 

[ddashti]

Is the 28 f/1.4 really necessary?

 

[RGF]

[I did a search and found:

Thanks

 

[RGF]

A new wide angle prime between 17mm and 21mm would be nice.

Do you want an 18, 19 or 20? Or perhaps something like 19.25 ;D ;D

 

[preppyak]

A new wide angle prime between 17mm and 21mm would be nice.

Do you want an 18, 19 or 20? Or perhaps something like 19.25 ;D ;D

Seriously. They already make a 15mm, an 18mm and a 21mm. Definitely no need for something in between, as most companies only make a 14mm and a 24mm prime

 

[RGF]

Seriously. They already make a 15mm, an 18mm and a 21mm. Definitely no need for something in between, as most companies only make a 14mm and a 24mm prime

Canon 24-70 II is sharp as is the 14. Weak spot is the 16-35. I normally don't use too many primes (I have 14, 180 macro and long glass) but really no experience with the 18 vs 21. If you had to recommend on to complement my 24-70 and 14, which would you pick.

Thanks