I agree (although the 35 Zm f2 is about the same size as a 50 cron which most use happily!). some feel the existing Zms to be big but I think if that much smaller they compromise handling IMO. I am prepared to accept that under some circumstances (where I need something to slip under a coat unseen) but not others. I think the prices of the slower lenses is unacceptibly high, however and was peeved to note the 21 4.5C going up yet again, while the CV 21 f4 remains unchanged. The 25 2.8 is rather large and this one could do with an f3.5/4 version perhaps but only if there is a substantial saving, which I doubt there would be (if the 21 4.5 is anything to go by). I would like to see some ultra compact lenses, built to great standards. I personally would pay a premium to have a lens as small as the 25/21 P lenses by CV but GUARANTEED not to have the corner problems that so many samples seem to have had (in P or LTM). When this lens performs as it can (as shown by some examples) it really is amazing, but I am put off because I am as likely to get one with soft corners as without. If Zeiss could produce similarly lenses but to higher QC stds I would pay a premium. For example, if they did 'Zeiss Selected' and guaranteed that the duffs were weeded out (or did final assembly separately) I would be one happy bunny as this lens is tiny (used occassionally it would need to vanish into a pocket for me to want tocarry it), suits my purposes and if it was cheaper than the Zeiss 21 4.5 I would go for it. I dont need a 2.8, but also dont need to pay $1000 for an f4.5 lens.....$6/700 would be bearable.
Originally Posted by Sportera