What Makes Carl Zeiss So Expensive?

[les_lammers]

<p>"I see. So if I decided to get a Zeiss 100mm f/2 now, it will be the Cosina built one, not actually Zeiss own-built? It's good to be able to own something that is still originally German-made."<br>

Get over the made by elves in the Black Forest issue. The lenses are made In Japan because the facilities there are state of the art. Look at some images from the lens. Zeiss is a large company and still camera lenses are a very small part of their enterprise. It does not apper that this line of lenses will make or break them. It is a niche line to fill a void for quality primes. Zeiss knows a little bit about lenses and it appears they knew that sensors would evolve. When they were initially announced Zeiss stated that these lenses were designed to out resolve film. Are all of the new ones 'the best'? I dunno. But I really like the images from the 25mm Distagon I have and that is what counts.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm"></a></p>

 

[rashedahmed]

<p>I have used 3-4 make of lenses including one german brand ( other than Zeiss).Zeiss has got exceptional sharpness even after a long time use.Also good weather coating resisting fangus. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The only 16-9 test on the 21 vs. 14-24 is using a Canon camera (1Ds Mk III which isn't necessarily similar to the D3X or D700) and the Contax 21mm whereas the Nikon-mount 21 ZF has an additional element and is optically different.</p>

<p>Lloyd's review of the 21 ZF does comment that the Nikon 14-24 has less vignetting, better color uniformity, and lower distortion (at 21mm) than the 21 ZF. But in many cases the Zeiss does give substantially better detail contrast (esp. at f/8 important for landscape photographers) which is its selling point; also it has the possibility of using filters though the thread is 82mm and it's more compact.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 100/2 ZF s at an entirely different level optically than the 105mm Micro-Nikkors - certainly not overpriced.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am a fan of German optics but this the part I don't understand, Ilkka. How different is the 100/2 from the 105VR, optically speaking? What's in the 100/2 that's not in the 105VR? What can Zeiss do optically which Nikon cannot besides spending more money on QA to maintain a low tolerance for variability?</p>

 

[albertdarmali]

<p>So anyone knows about this so called floating element used for the 100mm f/2?<br /> I am not one who is interested in the technical terms or charts, but was just wondering what does it actually do that separates it from other lenses without such feature?</p>

<p>It's a shame that here in Australia we don't get to rent lenses before we buy. So when it comes to purchasing, I rely a lot (exclusively is a better word I think) on sample pictures and user impressions, and draw my conclusions from there.</p>

<p>I see tons of very very nice pictures taken with the lens, but the thing is if I may safely guess, the ratio of Zeiss owners who can take better pictures are higher than those who use "regular" lenses (I think most beginners will be reluctant to invest a lot of money for a manual lens), hence why I am seeing all nice shots.</p>

<p>Anyone wanna lend me one for a weekend?</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>"How different is the 100/2 from the 105VR, optically speaking? What's in the 100/2 that's not in the 105VR? What can Zeiss do optically which Nikon cannot besides spending more money on QA to maintain a low tolerance for variability?"<br />Hi Arthur, the ZF is one stop faster for a start - that's already a <em>huge</em> difference. If you look at their respective MTFs you will see that the ZF also appears to be better across the image area when wide open which is also not insignificant. In other words even though the ZF is one stop faster, and therefore much harder to design, it still outperforms a lens which is significantly easier to make.<br />Whether coughing up the difference is really worth it to you is another matter. :-) It certainly was worth it for me.<br>

As for the 21mm vs 14-24mm question again there is no debate there as far as I am concerned. The 21mm outresolves the zoom discernably although the zoom is much better for distortion. The clincher was the filter problem which is why I sold the 14-24mm with nothing but financial regrets whereas the 21mm is going nowhere.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>I seriously question whether the 21mm is better than the 14-24. Every test I've ever seen shows the 14-24 embarrassing its competition (be it a prime or zoom).</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Josh<br>

In that case do as I did and actually own and use both and then see for yourself!</p>

<p>:-)</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Which test have you seen anyway Josh?<br>

The only tests worth anything on the ZFs are the ones by Lloyd Chambers and to a lesser extent Sean Reid's.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>Some will disagree, I'm sure, but IMO the reason the Carl Zeiss lenses are more expensive is because "Zeiss" is in the name. They do make some unique models but some aren't and still cost more that the equivalent Nikkor. Are they that much better? It's like the people who claimed Crispy Cream Dougnuts were something special when, in fact, it was a matter of people believing the hype that had no real basis in fact. If you can establish some snob appeal for your product you can demand a higher price.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Could photo.net have a kill-file? I have grown weary of posts by people that post strong opinions on products with which they have absolutely zero first-hand experience, and they have to post their opinions in a way that shows utter contempt to people who actually have experience with the products in question?</p>

[spanky]

<p>I've been wanting the 35mm f2 ZF Distagon for sometime now. As mentioned above, it's a niche product line. I've seen the 50mm f1.4 appear on KEH.com and a used 35mm on the auction site. Other then these two examples, finding any second hand is slim indeed and the brick and mortar stores around LA won't give student discounts on these.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>I only partially agree Wayne in the sense that they are expensive because they are"well"-made by Zeiss - not because they are just Zeiss. Objective use of them show that some of them are just plain better than anything Nikon has. The clearest instance of that is the 35mm Distagon which outperforms the 17-35mm, the 24-70mm and the 35mm AFD (all of which I owned until using the the Distagon when I dumped the 24-70mm and the 35mm) in just about every way. Of course you sacrifice flexibility by using a prime but that's another story.<br>

As for the more quirky lenses in the ZF lineup like the 25mm they can still do things the Nikon equivalents can't (close focus that allows an object 6cm away from the front element) but even when used for the types of subjects I typically photograph, landscapes, there is little to fault. The 50mm f1.4 isn't anything too special compared to the new G version by Nikon but it is made a whole lot better and the wide-open MTF is slightly better. Whether that marginal, but nevertheless real, improvement is worth it to you is also a different story.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have grown weary of posts by people that post strong opinions on products with which they have absolutely zero first-hand experience, and they have to post their opinions in a way that shows utter contempt to people who actually have experience with the products in question?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope I am not in that list of people. My questions to you was not meant to demean or to shame any Nikkors or Zeiss products. As I have said, I own both and I love the Zeiss. I just wanted to learn more from you. So, if you can kindly answer the questions, it would help me out to sort out my thots better. No malice intended --- just a learning experience.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<p>Albert asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So anyone knows about this so called floating element used for the 100mm f/2?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe all lenses that allows you to focus really close employs the floating element technology. This technique is no longer a special thing: almost every lens maker in the market has it and can do implement it pretty well.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_morris4]

<p>Arthur, I don't think Ilkka meant you. More likely the fellow who mentioned Crispy Cream Dougnuts.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>So, if I understand this correctly unless someone has hands on experience they aren't entitled to an opinion? Let's take that farther. How about no opinion unless you have been involved in photography since at least 1958 and used at least a dozen brands of cameras and maybe twice as many brands of lenses over those years? Works for me.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Only Ilkka can answer but in my opinion he wasn't directing anything at all at Wayne who makes well-considered posts without fail.<br />However there is one totally unsupported, ignorant, shot-in-the-dark assertion on this thread which the eagle-eyed amongst you won't find hard to locate.<br />And it wasn't one of mine either :-)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I just came across an article in <em>HD Video Pro</em> magazine, praising a new line of "affordable" Cooke lenses for 4K video. A 105/2.8 lens in the new line is only $20,000. Various Angenieux lenses, the industry standard, cost more than $100,000, and are only rented as needed.</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>Yes, you're quite right, James. Silly of me to not remember that. Sorry, Wayne.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>R&D and Q&A.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>I am not a lens designer, physicist etc. I can't predict the rendering of a lens from a chart. I can see a difference between a very good lens and an average lens in a well done print. That is where the rubber meets the road. I have one of these lenses in the Pentax mount and really like it. I would still like it regardless of the name on it. Zeiss has a lot of resources and it appears they used them to produce these. They cost a little more. In ten years I will still enjoy the lens and will have long forgot what I paid for it. Thats what matters.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p >As far as I can tell, there are a lot of unsubstantiated comments made in this thread. For those who own both Nikon and Zeiss lenses of overlapping focal lengths, I wonder why they still haven’t not posted any A/B comparisons to show the difference. If you can demonstrate that, it’ll make it a lot easier to understand.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I have pointed out many times before, the only Nikon mount ZF lens I have ever used is the 50mm/f1.4. It is clearly a high-quality, well made lens, but my main impression is that it is very difficult to focus on my D2X (which does not have live view). Otherwise, my main experience with Zeiss lenses is medium format. I have the Contax 645 with two Zeiss lenses, and I have rented most other Zeiss lenses for Contax 645 as well as a Hasselblad 503 with the 80mm Planar. While they are all fine lenses, I have never experienced anything that unusual with any Zeiss lens I have used. The fact that when Hasselblad moved to auto focus and the digital H system, they asked Fujinon instead of any German brand to make Hasselblad lenses should tell you a lot.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have shown test results among the Nikon 24mm/f2.8 AF-S, 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S and 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S. While the fixed 24mm with an old design is somewhat inferior, it is not going to make any “night and day” difference. With the 24mm, I would stay away from shooting right into the sun and I know its corners are a bit soft. For perhaps 95% of the shots, the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is good enough optically; what it lacks is the flexability of a zoom. I would rather pay more attention to my composition and the lighting; the latter two are making a much much bigger difference to my photography.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Why are Zeiss lenses expensive? You are paying a premium for a German brand name; you are also paying for some high-quality lenses that are made in small numbers for a niche market. Those Nikon lenses of mediocre construction quality but made for the mass market also tend to be a lot cheaper than the highly specialized Nikon lenses that are made in small quantities.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Here is an example of a shot taken at 1:2 with both the 100 ZF and 105 VR at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6. The aperture indicated is the absolute aperture (approximately, since the Nikon lens can only be set using the effective aperture and the Zeiss using the absolute one) and the shutter speeds were equal for both shots for each shot pair. The crops displayed are 100% (D700) and all the images were sharpened using the same settings. The section is near the left edge of the frame, and the focus was set using a focusing rail on the letter "R" using Live View at full magnification.</p>

<p>Advantages of the 100mm ZF include consistency of sharpness and contrast across apertures, focus distances, and corner-to-corner sharpness in the whole frame. For comments on the high-res full-frame cameras (mine doesn't even put the lens into a proper test) read Lloyd Chambers' comments.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 100mm ZF also holds up its performance very well with tubes and bellows, however since I was using long shutter speeds in tungsten light instead of flash I didn't want to start playing my luck wtih high magnifications without flash (my flashes are packed into the car for tomorrow's studio shoot). By the way the high sharpness at wide apertures is very useful for flower work - I used to think that f/11 was necessary for good results when I was using 105mm Micro-Nikkors, but the f/2 opens up new, interesting possibilities. By the way the difference isn't quite a full stop in the close-up range as the 105 loses focal length while the 100 gains it; this narrows the gap in effective apertures.</p>

<p>This isn't a great shot but it illustrates the contrast in detail between foreground and background of the 100mm when used wide open.</p><div></div>