What Makes Carl Zeiss So Expensive?

[pictureted]

<p>Regarding pricing, the 100/2 Zeiss is where you would expect it - between Nikon's 105/2.8 and 200/4. Both are autofocus, except the autofocus on the 200 is extremely slow, plus for macro work AF is not useful. The only shortcoming on the Zeiss is that it only focuses to 1:2.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>What Ilkka said about manual focus. I'll add that many ZF lens snap into focus easier than the majority of Nikkors; it seems to be an effect of the optical properties, probably intentional.<br>

Personally I do prefer the handling of lenses like the Zeiss 100/2 or the Nikkor 105/4 for macro; the 105/2.8 AF was awful, the focus throw was ridiculous for MF (and MF is a must for macro). The 105/2.8 VR is better, but the barrel is unusually thick and the MF feel isn't as good as with the Zeiss. Small things perhaps, but those kinds of things that need to work just right when out in the field.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of them are metal barrels. Built to last. My 3 wedding lenses, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, have lasted way beyond my 25 years of weddings shooting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hear, hear! I read that the Zeiss CFi lenses for Hasselblad had shutters designed for 500,000 actuations! And that's for a film camera that typically uses rolls with 12 pictures each. The build quality of Zeiss is superb, whereas especially Nikkor AF primes have a fairly pedestrian build quality.</p>

[sk_arts]

<blockquote>

<p>On the nikon vs zeiss price issue, people need to remember than the nikon lenses are AF which is a pretty big deal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well. This is a big deal if you use auto focus. Many photographers who shoot stationary objects who don't "need" AF prefer MF. Furthermore, if you prefer the convenience of AF over the precision of MF then having a tad of extra sharpness isn't going to be worth it.</p>

<p>For others, on the other hand, who prefer the precision of MF over the convenience of AF it does become very important. The bottom line is how much does it really matter in the end?</p>

<p>I shot/will someday continue shooting with Zeiss (I just bought my first DSLR) because of the contrast and color rendering. This doesn't really have anything to do with the objective chartable performance, per-sey, rather, I just like the subjective qualities of the lens design.</p>

<p>If there were a Sony/Minolta A -> C/Y mount adapter, I'd buy cheap, older Contax lenses. But as it stands, I just cannot fork out $1,400 for a lens. Maybe someday.</p>

<p>Also, I really appreciate that people here have resisted the temptation to go on about "overpriced japanese zeiss lenses" I was in another forum that went of on a nasty and racist tangent. We're not talking about pre-war Japan here, Japan is a first-world country at the very top of technology and manufacturing. I have absolutely no reservation about buying a Cosina-made zeiss lens. Most of the BMW's bought in the US are made in the US and central america. But nobody says that BMW isn't a German-engineered car.</p>

<p>Just like cars, Zeiss optics are good because of the talent of the engineers in Germany. Who puts them together, so long as quality control can be achieved, does not really matter. Are US or Mexican built BMWs any less safe? Being that, even if we happen to be using a german-built digital camera, 97% of the components of that camera will be Japanese made. If the Japanese can handle microprocessors, I'm pretty sure they can handle manufacturing optics.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Part of it is they are <em>top notch glass in very sturdy barrels</em>, the other part is the <em>Zeiss name</em>. Like Hasselblad, I have a 500C/M with a 150mm f/4 Sonnar C T*and absolutely love it and use it for most of my formal portrait work, but just the name <em>Victor Hasselblad</em> adds a good bit to the price!</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Shawn said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of the BMW's bought in the US are made in the US and central america. But nobody says that BMW isn't a German-engineered car.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just a minor correction: this statement is not true about the US-made BMWs. The only BMWs that I know which are assembled in the US are the SUV models. The rest are made in Germany: 1-series, 3-series, 5-series, 6-series, 7-series. Sorry for OT interjection.</p>

 

[don_giles1]

<p>They are better but less convienient. I use the 18, 25, 35, 50, 100 for slow contemplative work. I use AFS zooms for action or events. <br />Don</p>

<div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>Thanks for the picture, Don. My 35mm f/2 just arrived today, and I can't wait to try that with stadium lights.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>To say the least, Zeiss-lovers are some what more level-headed and more down-2-earth than the religious background of Leica aficionados. :) Pleeeeeeease ... no flames.</p>

 

[walterh]

<p>I do not know any statistics (since not released) but what I hear from Zeiss people (industry sales) is that more Nikon mount Zeiss lenses are sold for industry applications than for Nikon photographers. The Nikon F mount is a de facto standard for many imaging applications that use other cameras than Nikon. In industry applications AF is often not required or realized in a different way than using a Nikon body. Considering the mechanical quality alone Zeiss lenses are not "expensive" for such applications.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>"To say the least, Zeiss-lovers are some what more level-headed and more down-2-earth than the religious background of Leica aficionados. :) Pleeeeeeease ... no flames."<br />Wheres's my gas can and lighter? :-)<br>

You want a lens priced out of this world?<br>

<a href="http://www.popflash.com/index.php?p=product&id=4136&parent=0">http://www.popflash.com/index.php?p=product&id=4136&parent=0</a><br>

Here is an interesting read:<br>

<a href="http://exposureroom.com/members/RyanEWalters.aspx/blogs/post/222/">http://exposureroom.com/members/RyanEWalters.aspx/blogs/post/222/</a></p>

[tri-x1]

<p>A couple more observations:<br>

First, I apologize if my tone offended anyone. My problem is I get more irritated than I should about equipment attitudes. For instance: when someone who obviously doesn't know much about photography asks what zoom they should get and a dozen people immediately recommend an 80-200 f/2.8 that costs around two grand. The person asking the question obviously doesn't need that sort of glass--in fact a lot of the people who own such lenses don't. But they often come across with the attitude that "well, that's the only lens worth using."<br>

Yes there are folks, I'm sure that can benefit from using the professional Nikkors or the Zeiss lenses--probably almost as much from the extra durability as better image quality. Let's face it. There aren't many "bad" lenses being made today. Yes, some lenses are better than others but most folks aren't going to push the camera and/or lens to the point where most people will notice the difference in images.<br>

There are people who use the high end lenses because photography is how they make their living and they need to make sure they produce the best images possible. There are also advanced amateurs who can afford to pay for the best and enjoy using those lenses. But I think most will agree there are folks who buy the best simply so they can say they have the best--like the thousands of people back in the day who bought Nikon Fs after the song "Kodachrome" came out, then mostly just hung the cameras around their necks to impress friends.<br>

Anyhoo, I did get carried away. But I urge all posters to keep in mind that not all people who enjoy photography need or can afford to always get only "the best."</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Wayne Cornell: Well Said and thanks for helping to keep things in perspective :</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Zeiss make cine (movie camera) lenses in the same price league as those from Angenieux. Those are 100% made in Germany, for sure.<br>

Cosina is a very effective partner for Zeiss to make cost-effective lenses at high quality standards.<br>

Two of the Zeiss ZM lenses are made in Germany, because Cosina couldn't make precise enough barrels and mounts. They are the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon, and the 85mm f/2 Sonnar. They aren't $10,000, but they are in the $3000 to $4000, where the rest of the Cosina-manufactured ZM lenses are in the $1000 range.<br>

Of course, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon are both able to make some of the absolutely best lenses in the world. The ones that are used in "steppers" to expose the photoresist masks on integrated circuits. Anyone care to compute how many line pairs/mm it takes to expose 45 nanometer features on an integrated circuit? Well, the lens can't really resolve that, since it's less than half a wavelength of light. But the exposure masks are distorted in complex ways to make the phase of the light come out right...<br>

It's all about picking a price point and a volume goal. Zeiss picks a different one from Canon and Nikon. Market segmentation is the word for this. They're not just selling a name.</p>

 

[les_lammers]

<p>Wayne,<br>

You are correct. Having the best gear does not automatically get you in Magnum. I bought one Zeiss in my favorite focal length because Pentax does not have an offering. I doubt I'll get more...but I am pleased with the 'look' of the images the lens produces. In the world of lenses these are certainly not the most expensive but they are very, very good. As an old film guy I find the lens very easy to focus...and sometimes AF is distracting. It cost a little more than most of my lenses...but it ten years I won't remember...or care.<br>

I imagine if you tried one of these you would like it a lot too. :-)</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>So looks like the strengths of Zeiss are mainly in CA tolerance and sharpness? Bokeh wise is it better than the competition in general? (eg. compared to Nikon's 85mm 1.4 or 135mm f/2 DC)</p>

<p>I honestly not trying to be a troll, but the bokeh of Zeiss reminds me of my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 diMacro (not an insult because this lens really have a nice bokeh)</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>I think "smooth" defines a Zeiss out of focus area, and also the transition from sharpness to the out of focus area. One Nikon lens that accomplishes this in a similar fashion is the 105/2.5, which gradually fades to its out of focus area. My 85/1.8 seems to shift more abruptly, just by way of contrast. </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Wayne, I understand what you're saying but I don't see how it relates to this thread. The topic is why Zeiss lenses are expensive, not why do people recommend expensive lenses. And your first post clearly stated that the lenses are expensive because of the name, which is sure to tick off some people. One could just as well argue that Nikkor lenses are expensive because of the name.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Osakr, brand names sell products; that is a simple fact. If Wayne pointing that out ticks anybody off, don't blame him. Of course Nikon products are expensive partly due to its brand name also; as it was pointed out earlier, the 85mm/f1.4 AF-D is now more expensive than the ZF version.</p>

<p>Why do you think Cosina licenses the Voigtländer brand name to give that line of their lenses a false German impression even though they have absolutely nothing to do the old Austrian/German lens manufacturer? In these days, given the right budget, a lot of companies can make excellent lenses. Cosina has demonstrated that, and as I mentioned earlier Fujinon is making those expensive Hasselblad H system lenses, not Zeiss. However, the Cosina brand is associated with cheap products; e.g. people dismiss the Nikon FM10 since Cosina makes them for Nikon. They would have a hard time selling those exact same lenses if they were Cosina instead of Voigtländer.</p>

[johnvphoto]

<p>I seem to remember reading somewhere that when Hasselblad approached Zeiss for the H series lenses, Zeiss said they were too busy with the AF lenses for the Contax 645. Kind of seems they aren't terribly busy on that contract any more? You have to remember that Ziess isn't exactly mass market, they don't build 200,000 units every month, for just one camera mount, ( like Canon, Nikon), more or less.<br>

When Nikon and Canon changed their lenses to AF, they "managed" to keep the prices "similar" to those of the MF which proceded them. I can guess where the cost cuttings hit hardest. I've used Nikon and Canon as well as Contax Zeiss, and I can say with hand on heart, the former two don't have the solid feel of the latter.<br>

The later lenses, (MM), for Contax were mostly assembled in Japan, though no quote was ever made available for just how much of a kit, or how much assembly was done in Japan. Result? Lenses every bit as good as those produced in Germany, I suspect BMW has found the same with their cars in the US, which are "assembled" in the US from parts shipped from Germany.<br>

Another superlative I have for the Bokeh, especially on the 85mm f1.4, is creamy, or perhaps silky smooth, hhhmm, I'll need to think on that one.</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<blockquote>

<p>Another superlative I have for the Bokeh, especially on the 85mm f1.4, is creamy, or perhaps silky smooth, hhhmm, I'll need to think on that one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cream-machine, smooth and silky ... latte-machine ... :)</p>

 

[dstate1]

<p>I had the pleasure of touring the Cosina factory in Nakano Japan where Zeiss lenses are made and I can tell you that the quality of assembly work is at least on par with Leica. The lenses are hand assembled and tested on all Zeiss equipment. The assembly room is very small, befitting the low production numbers. In comparison to my tours at Leica I could see no discrepancy in the facility or the work environment.<br>

There ARE more men doing assembly in Japan vs the Leica plant...so if there are quality issues we know where the blame lies!)<br>

Zeiss chose Cosina to make these lenses for several basic reasons: 1. Cosina is set up to do custom batch production. It's their bread and butter for OEM. 2. The overwhelming market for Zeiss lenses is Japan. 3. The owner of the company is a camera fanatic and truly loves mechanical equipment.<br>

I have found that the ZF lenses seem to be built to an almost "industrial" standard compared with the ZM range. They are large for their specs and the construction quality is unmatched. While the ZM range is quite good, they are more prone to impact damage and focus mount problems in my experience.</p>

<p>Best wishes<br /> Dan</p>

<p> </p>

[john_morris4]

<p>The ZM lenses are expected to be a lot smaller, since you want them to not block the viewfinder too much. Even so, the 35mm Biogon is bigger than the Leica equivalent, and bigger than the CV 35 f/1.7 lens.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Shun, don't confuse marketing using a brand with pricing according to the brand. For example, the Voigtländer lenses for Nikon are quite cheap and the obvious reason for that brand is that nobody associates the Cosina name with high quality lenses. The Zeiss name is prestigious, but I haven't seen any proof that the name only brings a premium to the price, which is how I interpreted the comment.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Oskar, about 10 years ago Fuji (I beieve it was Fuji) made some digicam and they sold it for about $600 or so. (Back then digicams were still very expensive, compared to today.) The exact same camera made by Fuji is also sold as a Leica model for about $100 more. I am talking about 100% identical except for the Leica logo and some minor color difference.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>I do not know about the ones 10 years ago but the current models sold by Leica and Panasonic are not 100% the same. The firmware, for one thing, is different. I forgot what they are but there are other tweaks Leica made. And, so the difference in pricing.</p>

<p> </p>