No Carl Zeiss Autofocus Lenses - Why?

<p>Just curious. Does anyone know the reason(s) why Zeiss does not manufacture AF lenses for Nikon?</p>

<p>Is Zeiss tied up in an exclusivity contract with Sony?</p>

<p>Or does Nikon simply not want direct competition from a formidable lens crafter? In which case one could deduce that Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are not feared competitors.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

<p>Cal,<br>

The F-mount has long been out of patent and I think the AF for the F-mount is probably in the same state.<br>

And so,I do not think Sigma and the like colloborated with Nikon for permission to design their AF lenses for the F-mount. Much of the design is probably done thru reverse engineering. That's why the 30mm/1.4 DC needed a firmware upgrade when the D3 came out.<br>

I think Zeiss is unwilling to commit to the resources to do that since there're also the K-mount, Canon mounts, etc.</p>

 

<p>>formidable lens crafter</p>

<p>I think Zeiss is a formidable competitor for Sigma and the like but for Nikon, I doubt so. There's nothing which Zeiss can do that Nikon cannot do. The reverse is probably not true. Nikon can manufacture high quality lenses, like the 35mm/1.8 DX at a ridiculously low cost. I do not think Zeiss knows how to do that.<br>

I also do not see Zeiss being capable of implementing modern technologies, such as aspherical elements, Close Range Correction (CRC) or Floating Element technologies at a reasonable cost.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's just that without Nikon's support it will never work properly. There are so many reports of inaccurate autofocus when using third party lenses that the whole point of making high quality lenses is thrown out of the window if the camera doesn't recognize the lens and apply corrections depending on the optical formula. Only if Nikon collaborates with Zeiss would it work well. And of course since Nikon wants to sell their own lenses, they won't agree to it. I recall a Leica interview in which someone asked Leica why they don't make third party AF lenses for Nikon, Canon etc. and they said they would, but the camera makers response to such negotiations is "absolutely not" or something like that.</p>

<p>When the primary sensor data based "live view" autofocus becomes faster, then all 3rd party lenses can autofocus correctly since no correction to the "live view" data is needed for any lens.</p>

<p>Since Zeiss lenses are made in Japan with basically shared infrastructure, there is no reason why they couldn't make cheap lenses if they wanted to. In fact the current ZF lenses are fairly inexpensive considering the build and consistency (for an idea of how much they'd cost if made in Germany, see the price of the 85/2 ZM for the Leica mount; it's made in Germany). Nikon nowadays basically makes lenses to last a finite time so that they can resell a newer model, along with a new generation of DSLRs. If you just look at the build of most modern Nikkors, it becomes obvious that they were never intended to last for generations. For example the shift lock of my 24mm PC-E stopped working in less than half a year of use. High mechanical quality costs a lot of money. And often it is practically impossible to implement together with autofocus. E.g. the 21 ZF is said to have 5 independently moving (floating) groups that follow their own trajectories when focus is adjusted. How do you do that with a focusing mechanism that has to operate with essentially zero force?</p>

 

<p>Arthur, there is one major item that Zeiss can do while Nikon cannot: putting the Zeiss logo on the lenses, and that means extra profit.</p>

<p>Calvin, if you really want to get an answer to your original question, I suggest write to Zeiss and see how they respond. The reasons you mentioned in your original post are the same (in my opinion) falty reasoning/myth that is posted over and over. If Nikon were able to prevent other parties from producing Nikon F mount lenses, they would have blocked Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc. a long long time ago.</p>

<p>Arthur, you must be kidding about floating elements (or CRC) and aspherical elements.</p>

<p><em>they would have blocked</em></p>

<p>They do. The original AF Nikon SLRs (e.g. my old F-601) had the text in the box which said that only by using Nikon lenses would the user get the full performance of the autofocus system. This is true today just as much as it ever was.</p>

<p>>Arthur, there is one major item that Zeiss can do while Nikon cannot: putting the Zeiss logo on the lenses, and that means extra profit.</p>

<p>That blue dot is beautiful! :)</p>

 

<p>Right, Arthur. If I were Zeiss I guess I'd insist on proper cooperation too.</p>

<p>However I'm not sure I entirely understand why Zeiss is perfectly capable of producing manual focus lenses for Nikon.</p>

<p>Arthur, I think there are many who'd disagree with you on the issue of Zeiss quality. Zeiss seems to have picked up a legendary reputation from somewhere.</p>

<p>"t's just that without Nikon's support it will never work properly. There are so many reports of inaccurate autofocus when using third party lenses that the whole point of making high quality lenses is thrown out of the window if the camera doesn't recognize the lens and apply corrections depending on the optical formula."</p>

<p>This does not really sound like a difficult engineering challenge. Zeiss should be able to make very nice AF lenses that work on Nikon bodies, even without Nikon's cooperation.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=353359">Arthur Yeo</a> "There's nothing which Zeiss can do that Nikon cannot do."</p>

<p>You might want to look at the history of Zeiss, and the inventions made by their employees. Then you might revise your thinking.</p>

<p>The reason for Zeiss not having AF Nikon lenses might simply be that reverse engineering the comms protocol is pretty much impossible to do as they cannot ensure forward compatibility. After all, they have no idea what signalling Nikon might introduce at a future date. And Nikon would not want to licence the mount.</p>

<p>Nikon is not giving the complete specs and info on how to make lenses to fit their electronics and AF, so Zeiss doesn't want to produce a half-baked effort. There are numerous little glitches with 3rd party lenses on Nikon, glitches that are not present on Nikon lenses. The mentality of German lens makers has been not to create mediocre to low quality wares, which explains a bit.<br>

Talking about capability, Zeiss lost to Fuji in the competition to make the lenses for the Hasselblad H-series, but it later turned out that Fuji wasn't able to produce the lenses to spec at the price originally proposed and the final price was similar to the Zeiss offering (quite possibly higher). Also, those cellphone cams with Zeiss lenses are not too expensive. Furthermore, looking at many new Zeiss lenses, they are not that expensive considering what you get. When looking at higher caliber Nikkors the price is not all so low anymore.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also do not see Zeiss being capable of implementing modern technologies, such as aspherical elements, Close Range Correction (CRC) or Floating Element technologies at a reasonable cost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These technologies are pretty routine to Zeiss, e.g. the 50 with CRC for Hasselblad was introduced already in the seventies. Zeiss has also produced many interesting specialty lenses during the years (Hologn, different version of Biogon, 50/0.7, Superachromats...), which Nikon doesn't have any equivalent to.</p>

<p>Thanks for the informed thoughts, Ilkka.</p>

<p>One other thing, camera lenses are just a tiny part of Zeiss. Browse thru their website sometime.</p>

<p>One of their bleeding edge microscope lenses will set you back close to $15,000, and you can hide it in your hand.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Zeiss makes AF lenses for Sony, Sony probably made sure they wouldn't be doing the same with other mounts.</p>

<p><em>This does not really sound like a difficult engineering challenge. Zeiss should be able to make very nice AF lenses that work on Nikon bodies, even without Nikon's cooperation.</em></p>

<p>The autofocus sensor doesn't see exactly the same light as seen by the main image sensor. It sees something that is a substitute of it and by using lens-specific corrections that take place in the camera, Nikon is able to focus their <em>own </em> lenses pretty accurately. It is not a coincidence that Nikon put chips into the first AF Nikkors while all previous Nikkors didn't have them. It is because without the lens identification, AF wouldn't work. The cameras only identify Nikon's own lenses. There are still problems with some samples - e.g. Ken Rockwell claims his F100 didn't autofocus his 180 correctly (I've never had such a problem with mine though)) and my D200 wasn't able to autofocus the 105 DC correctly enough to be useful at wide apertures (<f/3.5; this seems to be a common problem with DC Nikkors though I seem to have been lucky with my other bodies). Nowadays Nikon lets the user set an AF fine tune parameter but the problem is that the correction may depend on focal length, distance, and aperture! So the lens specific correction table would be a function of three scalar parameters.</p>

<p>Zeiss is able to make manual focus lenses for Nikon since the Ai interface is mechanical and involves very little information transfer. Superfast Nikkors like the 50/1.2 reportedly have some mechanical tabs which deliver information that allow some bodies that read this info to correct for exposure issues that arise with the meter reading a subset of the light wide open but I believe the behaviour of these linkages is well documented (I think the FA and F4 read them, if I recall correctly). What is interesting is that the off-center spot meter doesn't work with non-CPU lenses. There is a good physical explanation for this, and it's similar to the AF sensor case. The light that is seen by the meter is not exactly the same as seen by the main imaging sensor. The light going to off-center meter cells is not detected with the same sensitivity as the light that is seen by the center spot meter. What's more, since the off-center areas are affected by the vignetting of the lens (metering normally takes place wide open), the meter reading without correction would be off for all shooting apertures except wide open! These things are corrected by the lens delivering the necessary data for the body so that appropriate "coupling coefficients" can be applied. This I believe is the main reason why Nikon was so reluctant to allow matrix metering to be used with non-CPU lenses. It was present in the FA and F4, and then disappeared. It was not because they wanted us to stop using MF glass. Rather it was a question of how well Nikon thought it must work to be acceptable. Later in the D2/F6 generation it came back, but Nikon notes that the accuracy is not the same as with CPU lenses. With a lens without CPU, if you move the active AF area, the spot meter stays at the center, since that's the only area which can work accurately without a correction table. Some people have made it into a bit of a hobby to scavenge CPUs from lenses and put them into others. There are some cases reported where the meter and even post-processing by Nikon Capture doesn't work correctly when the wrong CPU has been used. I have no personal experience with chipping lenses but these anecdotes just illustrate how complicated the electrical lens-body interface is.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't think there is <em>too </em> much brand specific extra cost in Zeiss products. The cost is what it is and has more to do with precision mechanics, assembly, tolerances than riding with a brand name. Cosina, in addition to Zeiss ZF lenses, also makes the current Voigtländer lineup of lenses. Oskar and I compared the 18mm ZF against the 20mm Voigtländer which is less than half the price of the Zeiss. While the Voigtländer did well and I think it's amazing for such a little lens, the results didn't really leave any doubt about where the extra money that the Zeiss cost, went. As with the 200/2 Nikkor which I think is 10% better than the 180/2.8 costs 300% more, the ZF 18 is maybe 10-15% better than the Voigtländer at 100% greater cost. There is no room for adding to the price just because it's a Zeiss, or a high end Nikkor. The price is what it is, and it has everything to do with how many are made and how difficult they are to make to the quality standard that they're made to. Zeiss knows very well that if they could make the 21mm ZF at $500 a piece, they'd really take the wide angle world by a storm. But they can't - nobody can. It costs what it costs and those who can afford it and want one, buy it. If you're after making money first and foremost, making stuff really well isn't an effective way of achieving your goal!</p>

<p>I'll let everyone know when I hear back from Zeiss, Shun.</p>

<p>>You might want to look at the history of Zeiss, and the inventions made by their employees. Then you might revise your thinking.</p>

<p>Please understand that I am a fan of Zeiss' and Leica's historical achievements as well. And, I still love their products.</p>

<p>But, in terms of innovative refinement and cost management of manufacturing processes, no country in this world can match the Japanese ... yet. That's what I was referring to.</p>

 

<p >I bet that Zeiss has the same problem as BMW. They are both German companies and the problem they share is that the Germans make outstanding mechanical products but bad electronics. The BMW is world famous for their engines which are mostly mechanical. Only until lately has the BMW electronics started to approach the Japan electronic quality. The Japanese have had the title for the best of best micro-electronics. Zeiss probably cannot match the Nikon, Sony or Canon electronics in their lens. They know this an don’t try. Another German product that was designed in Germany but manufactured in Mexico was the new (already) several years old VW bug automobile. I read horror stories about the electronics of these vehicles and it was not a production problem but a design problem. So, again my belief is that Zeiss does not have or cannot afford the expertise to build autofocus lens to compete against Nikon. At least not quality autofocus lens. And, they don’t try because their reputation would suffer.</p>

<p>Again thanks for letting me and others pick your big brain, Ilkka.</p>

<p>Don't be silly. If Sigma, Tokina and Tamron can all make compatible autofocus systems there's no reason at all why Cosina can't. The real reason that there are no AF versions is Cosina's target market, which is niche and elitist. Why do you think that Sony and Cosina have appropriated the Zeiss and Voigtlander names? To compete with Sigma, Tamron, Nikon or Canon on their own terms? No! Cosina want the mystique and marketing pull of a product that's slightly old fashioned and "traditional", and when Leitz finally pulls out of the photographic market, then Cosina will probably buy up the Leica marque as well. It's not technical incompetence, it's sheer marketing genius.</p>

<p>I think the reason Zeiss is in the fast manual lens F mount market is because Nikon neglected it, especially at the wide end. They saw a niche and are filling it. Its a low volume opportunity, so they keep the prices high to support the quality expectation and the value of the name. They are nice lenses all the same. I also think that people who shell out for Zeiss F mount lenses have a use in mind that does not really require AF. I also like the fact that I can mount a new Zeiss on my 30 year old FM as well as my D300. I think thats what they had in mind too.</p>

<p>I think there is one solid business justification for not making autofocus lenses.<br>

These Zeiss lenses are made as premium products, and are only manufactured in relatively small numbers compared with consumer products. Engineering autofocus in the lens body would create additional expenses and challenges. The additional costs would drive the price further up, and the volume down, making it harder to provide the quality they want. Also, lightweight and plastic parts necessary for making a helical move under a small motor would have to be developed. An in-lens motor would have to be adapted for all mounts. A screwdrive would work only with certain cameras and not others. This is more risk than I think they wanted to take.<br>

In their current marketing model, they can provide top optical performance in a stunning jewel-like package that will work (with minor modifications) on all mounts for all customers, with a reasonable expectation of some profit.</p>

<p>Jose, keep in mind Zeiss has no problems producing usable AF lenses for Sony. I don't think it's a technical issue that prevents the German lens maker from working with Nikon.</p>