underwhelmed by new Zeiss offerings

I was down at my local camera store this evening, and I asked to take

a look at the new "Zeiss" lenses. They look very cheap and tacky, and

there is a really cheezy blue plastic dot in the place where the Leica

red dot usually is. The focusing was rough, and gritty. The paint

looked plasticky. It was a universe of difference from any leica lens

I have ever seen. Optically they may be very good, (if they are even

in the same ballpark as the contax G lenses then they should be

excellent) but I would be hard pressed to buy these over the real thing.

 

At this point if you want Zeiss rangefinder lenses, for me the Contax

gear is looking really good. Quite dissapointed. I wish they had kept

the construction in Germany. I think Zeiss has been had by Kobayashi

and Co.

did you check out the camera?

You know, they "gave away the goods too soon." Why does Zeiss have so much trouble getting it right? That new plastic Hasselblad was depressing enough, and now this? At least Kyocera made well finished equipment. Why did they jump in the sack with Cosina!? What is Cosina's track record?

 

They make nice cheap lenses to put on a Leica. But I would be a bit leery of any company that needs to put "Voigtlander" on their gear to sell it.

 

Man this sure is the night of the long knives for the German camera and optics manufacturers, what with Leica on the operating table, and Zeiss lenses being made by a second tier Japanese company...

 

Sorry to come off as such a snob, but I am dissapointed. They should have kept the work in germany, Hell, why didn't they just buy Leica, and call it Zeica or something?

Sorry, Paul, not yet. However, I never expected very much of this either. Any fool knows that a decent rangefinder has a cloth shutter, so they blew it when they put that metal clanky shutter in there.

 

Jesus, I need to go to work as a consultant and make sure these fools talk to me before they go to work on one of their cockamamy projects.

Cosina makes some pretty good products, but I would say not up to Leica or an original Ikon. Their optics are very good. Many smaller camera makers bought SLRs made by Cosina to sell as their own. The entry level Nikons (F10, FM, FE, etc) are all made by Cosina, so they must be pretty decent. I once had a Vivitar XC-E (I think)SLR which was made by Cosina (Surprise! Cosina made cameras and lenses under the Vivitar name) an an interm camera when my Nikon was stolen in Mexico and was very impressed with the over all build quality and the very high optical quality. That camera was stolen in Santo Domingo, The new Rollei RF is a Cosina camera ( Voight-Bessa R2), so now that Yashica is out of the SLR bussiness, Zeiss needed a new partner fast. The Zeiss lenses may be made by Cosina as well. Bid the barrel say Made in Japan or Germany?

If all the Zeiss lenses had been made in Germany, then they would cost as much as the Leica lenses. We all know what Leica's financial situation is today! Do we want Zeiss to be in the same boat as Leica?

"really cheezy blue plastic dot in the place where the Leica red dot usually is"

 

You're kidding right? A blue dot is cheezy, but a red one is? What, a different color? How does paint look plasticky? Paint is paint.

Leica fetishism has hit a new low (or high depending on your viewpoint).

Let me be sure I understand, Claude. A blue dot is "cheezy" and a red dot is not? Blue happens to be Zeiss's corporate color.

 

They should have kept the construction in Germany? They long ago decided to build their rangefinder lenses in Japan, i.e Contax G. Two of the lenses, by the way, are being built in Germany at the Zeiss' factory.

 

"Any fool knows that a decent rangefinder has a cloth shutter." So, I guess that the Nikon SP isn't a decent rangefinder. And who might the "fool" be who knows . . . Nah, I won't go there.

 

I'm sorry, Claude, but this is a new low when the lense are being critiqued because of dot colors & whether the paint looks good. I thought that the point was supposed to be whether the pictures look good.

Re Cosina: The lenses they make today for Leica M/LTM cameras are remarkably good and very cheap, compared to the equivalent Leica offerings. Just because Cosina lenses are made in Japan does not make them inferior to Leica lenses made in Germany. Cosina's product offerings in recent years has created a resurgence of interest in rangefinder cameras.

Forget Sean Reid's upcoming review on the Luminous Landscape, this is just

what we need. All together now: "Red dot good! Blue dot bad!"<p>

<p>

I actually feel sorry for Leica. The Zeiss offerings look to be well-designed,

particularly the camera - which will allow you to focus 85/2 and 28mm lenses

using the built in VF, something impossible with any single MP or M7.

Whereas Leica haven't delivered a ground-up design since the M5 - 30 years

ago.

whether the paint looks good.

 

For the sort of money Cosina are asking i would expect the paint to be good! I've never looked or handled one so i can't really sit in judgement....I just hope we are not talking badge technology,again.

 

Anyway best of luck to them more choice is only for the better.

incremental changes yes. even Ferrari re-tools once in a while. how would Ferrari stand if they only ever changed the look of the headlights? eventually people would look to something else, yes, maybe? And why would we want 3 differnt mag cameras? I had enough trouble raising money for 1.

 

as far as cheap VC lenses - I'm glad they make them. At least it offers some options. I don't want to pay schilling for a lens I hardly use, but with VC I have that option. It's called staying in business.......

Claude,

 

Could you be more specific - which Zeiss lens did you examine? The 35mm? The 28mm? The 50mm?

 

A number of PN members have reported on the 50mm Planar and say that it's well made.

 

Also, some of the highly regarded Canon RF bodies had metal shutter curtians. My Contax IIa has a metal shutter curtians. The Bessas have a metal curtian. How many of these have holes in them from the sun shining through a lens?

"A number of PN members have reported on the 50mm Planar and say that it's well made."

 

PN members say the same thing about C/V rangefinder lenses. I have one and I can say it is only well made when compared to plastic AF lenses, it is not well made by Leica standards. What they really mean is that it is well made for the price, which is probably true.

 

Now the ZI lenses are priced (most of them) at about 1/3 less than the corresponding Leica lenses (except for the 85/2, which is priced higher than Leica's 90/2 APS-ASPH), and that doesn't include the fact that the lenshood is separate (another $ 127) and you don't get a passport.

 

All in all, you are entitled to get a product that is pretty close in construction quality and workmanship to Leica standards. Claude is saying the lens he saw is not. That's his opinion and just as valid as any of the Zeiss "guns" that cry in dismay when anyone dares to criticize the latest ZI products. I haven't seen one in person (only pics) so I can't comment for myself.

 

But handling and a general impression of the quality of construction is just as big an issue when someone is selling a 50/2 lens (plus shade) at $ 850-900 as at $ 1200. You are entitled to think you should have an extremely well made product.

<Any fool knows that a decent rangefinder has a cloth shutter.>

 

 

My Konica AF is a rangefinder, albeit infrared electronic, and its shutter is

leaf- and metal. Guess it must not be "decent." However, the photos I get from it are far, far better than decent, at least in technical quality.

I have 4 CV lenses - 15, 21, 28 f/1.9, and 35 II. All are as well made as my Leica 90mm TE, 50 Summitar, and Canon 50mm f/1.2. I don't have an AF plastic lens but I do have a bund of OM Zuikos. The CV lenses IMHO have held up as well as any that I have used over the last 25 years. I've only had them since the end of 2001 (I got the 35 II last year) so I don't have 10 years of wear on the yet but so far they have been great.

 

I would expect the Zeiss ofering to be as good if not better than the CV optics.

 

We will just have to wait and see how they hold up.

I have 4 CV lenses - 15, 21, 28 f/1.9, and 35 II. All are as well made as my Leica 90mm TE, 50 Summitar,..

 

Anthony, with all due respect, I have many old and new Leica lenses and if you really believe that, you are not a discriminating consumer. There is a world of difference. Saying it doesn't make it true.

CV lenses, excellent bits of kit, OK they are not quite as well made as Leica offerings but I bet only Al would ever wear one out. I am waiting for CV to bring out their version of the Icon, that long baseline would be a killer at R2/3 prices. What Zeiss have done is put a very high price on their name for what are in essence CV products, worth CV money but not Ziess.

I guess no one will ever agree on the subjective quality of 'quality': after all,

no one can agree on the maths:<p>

"the ZI lenses are priced (most of them) at about 1/3 less..." (Sam Shohan

sells a Leica 28/2.8 for $1895, and a Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 for $1042, and

these are typical comparisons for the two ranges).

<p>

You would have thought Leica diehards would appreciate the fact that Zeiss

breathing down their necks might stimulate them to raise their game and

lower their prices. These are the same people, of course, who were insistent

that the ZI was a warmed-up Bessa 3a, on the basis of no evidence

whatsoever - I wonder who it was who first cooked up <i> that </i> particular

red herring?

"that the ZI was a warmed-up Bessa 3a, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever" it is, same body, similar (if not the same) shutter, modified rangefinder just a longer baseline, same maker... er... no evidence?

I madea new red dot for my 1960 90 'cron from an LED top, looks much better than the Leica one, might go for green next time.

"It is, same body, similar (if not the same) shutter, modified rangefinder just a

longer baseline..." <p>

So Stephen Gandy, who looked at the VC production lines for both the Bessa

and ZI, and reported there were no parts in common except, if memory serves,

the shutter, was wrong?? Have you examined both cameras, Huw, or are you

believing second-hand disinformation, too? <p>

BTW, I've no particular affinity with Zeiss products, bar the fact that my Carl

Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 is a terrific lens, and I think competition, and more choice,

can only be good for users. Do you disagree?

What's the point about the ZI vs Leica 28/2.8? You guys always conveniently forget to add in the lenshood $ 127. Leica provides it Zeiss doesn't. Neither does Zeiss provide a Passport warranty. So lets compare apples with apples. Zeiss is charging 2800+127 for the 85/2 = 2927, more expensive than Leica. Want to average the prices together and tell me how much the savings are?

 

BTW Paul, are you aware that the Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit has been discontinued a number of years ago. Sam Shoshan just happens to have one new in box. And of course Leica will still homor the passport warranty, only if the lens needs to be replaced, the owner will receive a new 28/2 Summicron. I'd go with the Leica, but that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :-)

>>Whereas Leica haven't delivered a ground-up design since the M5 - 30 years ago.<<

 

Is that so, well how about the R8?

??? Aren't all of the current generation of APO and ASPH lenses from Leica all ground-up new designs? Why leave out lenses? What about the Tri-Elmar, isn't that a new concept? Seems to me that that one came up in the past 30 years. What about the 90/4 Macro-Elmar, not new.

 

You might want to take a look at some of Nikon's designs in the same focal length range, like their 50/1.4, and tell us how old they are?

 

What a bunch of crap is being spewed here.