What Makes Carl Zeiss So Expensive?

[albertdarmali]

<p>Speaking of which, the aussie dollar is strong at the moment - maybe it's a good time to get the lens afterall....</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Since I also suggested you pay for the name (and so agree with Shun)... Let's be clear: there is nothing wrong with that. Premium products can carry premium prices, and that gives a premium experience. Maybe part of that experience is in the brand name, but as long as the premium product is indeed one of the better, if not the best, product, then it all neatly aligns.<br>

It would be bad if one of the Zeisses was a mediocre lens with a premium price. But as all users can testify: does not seem the case at all.</p>

<p>So paying a bit for the brand name does not automatically you pay too much - it just means you do not mind paying to get a quality product and do not want to cut corners.</p>

<p>And damn, now I want that ZF 35 f/2 even more...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To suggest that one pays extra for a brand name is akin to suggesting that people who buy lenses of a certain brand are stupid. It gets really tiring to see this kind of disrespectful comments. You pay for the quality, not the name. To achieve that quality, the costs are higher. High price => low sales numbers => even higher costs per unit. I just bought a 45mm f/2.8G PC-E Nikkor and it was filthy expensive for what it is and certainly the markup is at least what Zeiss lenses have. It is a relatively specialized low volume product and Nikon isn't afraid to price the product so that they make profit; the same is true of Zeiss etc. No one can afford to overprice their products unnecessarily since there are so many lens makers. The brand name may help you identify products which you think may have the quality you want, but in practice people very carefully evaluate the reviews a lens has gotten and what the word on it is, before buying a lens, rather than saying: "Hey, it'a a Nikon/Zeiss/whatever lens, it's got to be great." Most people who care about quality know from experience that it is not a good idea to assume that all products by a brand are great. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be much activity on forums like this one.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p><em>"</em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054"><em>Ilkka Nissila</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 08, 2009; 11:45 a.m.</em></p>

<p><em>To suggest that one pays extra for a brand name is akin to suggesting that people who buy lenses of a certain brand are stupid. It gets really tiring to see this kind of disrespectful comments." </em><br /><em><br /><br /></em>

<p>In which part of the <em>state of denial</em> do you reside? <em>Marketing</em> has <em>a lot</em> to do with it. Not just cameras, but cars, boats, pretty much any durable goods. Look up the principle of supply and demand and do a little reading before you get "tired"</p>

</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>in fact you don´t need to include marketing in an explanation of price differences.<br>

<em>Things cost what people will pay.</em> Marketed or not.<br>

Iikka: To me, there is nothing wrong with paying for a brand name. Sometimes everyone agree that a brand name is synonymous with quality, sometimes most people agree that it´s a rip-off. But although you could argue that these customers were stupid, they could also possess a very discriminating taste. Who´s to argue? I would never buy an M9. But even the X1 I am contemplating to buy will have some of my friends conclude that I finally snapped.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>"In which part of the <em>state of denial</em> do you reside? <em>Marketing</em> has <em>a lot</em> to do with it."<br>

Marketing does have a lot to do with it if you can't separate the hype from the fact Scott - but blindly believing the hype is the realm of the rank beginner. Someone with experience and a keen eye, like Ilkka, has no problem in separating the two.<br>

I researched all my ZF lens purchases carefully, tested them all carefully and used them extensively and that has led me to make the determinations about these lenses I have listed higher up this thread. So to hear that I somehow bought into the hype in spite of all that makes me join in the ranks of the 'tired' too.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>James, it can be tiresome to belong to an elite (no irony).<br>

A lot of danes consider the high prices of Bang&Olufsen products as "brand hype". To me, these people are not disrespectful, they simply fail to appreciate the design, build quality and user interface that my wife and I like so much. You just have to shrug.<br>

It is a question of priorities. The price difference between their Audi and my Ford has paid all my consumer electronics and camera gear - twice.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ilkka, James, if you mean my comments are disrespectful.... Well, not the intent of my post at all. I'm not doubting your expertise (seen too many sensible posts), and I do concur that none of the Zeiss lenses offers bad performance, as far as I can tell, and stated that in my last post. Nowhere did I imply it was stupid to buy Zeiss lenses. In fact, it's not unlikely I'll go after one soon enough since I've grown to love the 35mm FL and the Zeiss to me seems as the best one to get.</p>

<p>So if my comment ticked you off, then sorry. In no way it was meant with disrespect to any of the posters owning a ZF lens. Is it wrong to call Zeiss a premium brand anyway?</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Hi Wouter at least for my part it was nothing to do with any individual at all so no need to apologise for anything.<br>

Mine was a generic response to the idea that people blindly buy into a brand just because of its perceived status. In some things I suppose I am guilty of that but absolutely not when it comes down to photographic equipment where I am utterly ruthless about what I find to be good/useful/practical and what isn't - irrespective of who makes it.</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>My 35mm ZF arrived a couple of days ago, and it's fantastic. So far, I've been able to determine that, without a doubt, it will demonstrate that I am able to take bad and boring pictures with even the finest equipment. I've not done any photography for the past couple of years -- since decent film processing and scanning got too inconvenient -- but my wife recently convinced me to just go ahead and get the camera I wanted and to stop making excuses. So now I have the 35mm ZF on a D700, and I'll have only myself to blame for bad pictures.<br>

The D700 works perfectly with the Nikkor AF and AIS lenses that I already had, but I needed a fast 35mm lens. The obvious choices were the Nikkor 35 f/2 AF-D, Nikkor 35 f/2 AIS, Nikkor 35 f/1.4, Voigtlander (Cosina) 40 f/2, and Zeiss (Cosina) 35 f/2. It's possible that the Zeiss name made some difference in my choice. It's also possible that I would have passed over a wonderful lens of the same specs if labeled "Samyang", especially at $800 -- it would probably depend a lot on how many fabulous user reviews I could find. But a lot of my choice for the Zeiss came down to user reviews and the satisfaction I've had with several Cosina lenses in Leica screw mount.<br>

My experience with those Cosina (Voigtlander) lenses has been that they are really nice lenses that could use better coatings and barrels (and some decent paint!). But, for their prices, I was happy to have nice lenses with bad paint instead of the other way round. In particular, I really love the way images from the 35 f/1.7 and 50 f/1.5 lenses look, even thought the lenses themselves are now looking a little banged up. (I wish I could get the 50 f/1.5 in Nikon SLR mount, but I know it's too deep.) So even without the Zeiss name, I can understand that really good lenses with good construction and excellent coatings, made by the same manufacturer, would cost more.<br>

I may yet get the 40mm CV lens, too -- the size is really appealing. But now I'll enjoy the Cosina Zeiss, which turns out to feel really nice on a D700 (I was worried it would be too big). I got it to use in the dark, and with bright backlighting, so I think I'll be happy.</p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>Here's a crop from that picture. It's clear that the lens outresolves the sensor, but that's no big surprise.</p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>OK, so it's not really clear that the lens outresolves the sensor. How would you know, without a better sensor? But reviews of the lens on cameras with denser sensors (and film) suggest there's breathing room, so I won't worry about whether the lens will still do well with a better camera several years from now.<br>

Here's a 100% corner crop, just for fun.</p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>Just a little bit more. :-)<br>

This is at f/2, with strong lights just outside the frame, with well lit kids on the field and their directors watching from the dark. (Well, one kid on the field, but I can't justify the 21mm Zeiss to myself.)</p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>And an almost-edge 100% crop. This is handheld at 1/60, and I'm suspicious that the focus may be a little past the people. Anyway, I'll never fault this lens for bad pictures -- they'll always be my fault.</p><div></div>

[james_symington1]

<p>Congratulations on your purchase John. You will get to love this lens more each time you use it although you will quickly come to learn that even the smallest focusing error will destroy what these lenses are really capable of. Use Live View whenever you possibly can.<br />As for what it can resolve-if you still have a film camera shoot a film of something like Provia 100F through it using an aperture of f4 - to f8 and get it scanned very well. You get considerably more detail out of that than you can a D700 in spite of popular 'wisdom' to the contrary although you get grain of course. The point being that when the D700X does show up your 35mm ZF will easily keep up with it.</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>Thanks, James. Wish I had Live View on my FM2.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>" The point being that when the D700X does show up your 35mm ZF will easily keep up with it."<br>

Agreed. :-)<br>

Here is one I snapped in Okeechobbe, Florida last night on the way home.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>" The point being that when the D700X does show up your 35mm ZF will easily keep up with it."<br />Agreed. :-)</p>

<p>Here is one I snapped in Okeechobbe, Florida last night on the way home. 25 Distagon on Pentax K20D w/monopod. I simply like the lens.</p><div></div>

[michael_dean5]

<p>I have a Rollie with a f3.5 Zeiss Planar. It is a magic lens, and photos taken with it are 3 dimentional. I had a Rollie with a f2.8 Planar. Not quite as good, but great. It didn't survive my layoff in 99. I think one of the things that contributes to the price is the testing. I think Zeiss scraps lenses that don't meet their standards. Rollieflex also tested and culled the ones that didn't meet their standards.<br>

I have a Hasselblad with a 2.8 Planar and It is great, but not as good as the Rollie f3.5. Not sure about sharpness, but the Hasselblad just doesn't have the image qualities of the Rollie. It is very subjective, but a lot of photography is just that.</p>

[jphotog]

<p>The question why Zeiss cost what is does is interesting. Undoubtebly, Zeiss produces excellent lenses.</p>

<p>My personal interest is the 21mm f/2.8 distagon and the 100mm f/2 planar. I am pretty sure I will aquire the latter soon, but I hesitate regarding the wide-angle because of the distortion issue (not fun with a moustasche shaped horizon line). I have read many tests in magazines and photo.net members such as Ilkka Nissila (I especially appreciate your notes on performance with extention tubes with the 100mm).</p>

<p>However, back to the question about the prize. Most companies set a price they believe customers are willing to pay. I looked at Zeiss´website and found their latest Annual Report from 07/08 (I believe they have since been aqcuired by a venture capital company and do not release reports anymore not sure though). This is just for fun so I took the liberty of doing some rather unsubstatiated assumptions. I don´t know anything about the financials of SLR lenses and not even the comsumer products are reported separate. Thus, assume, SLR lens financials are the same as Zeiss financial.</p>

<p>The year I looked at (the broken year of 07/08), Zeiss´ gross profit margin was at a very healthy 13%. Their sales and marketing costs were 21% of their renevues, excluding income from capital. Thus, we may conclude that Zeiss themselves believe that their branding activities and marketing are important enough to spend 1/5 of their income to reach the optimal profit. Sorry, Ilkka.</p>

 

[bob_cook]

<p>Jonas' post is correct. The lenses are priced where they are because that is the highest price people will pay. If there was evidence that people would pay more, the price would be higher. Profit is the motive, and I'm glad they command a high price and commensurate profit. Remember, wether it is lenses or legumes, the buyer always sets the price.</p>

[laur1]

<p>There are few Zeiss lens reviews available online. Here's one I found recently:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

Sven said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is a question of priorities. The price difference between their Audi and my Ford has paid all my consumer electronics and camera gear - twice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:) - that's exactly the example I give to people complaining about prices of photographic equipment - it turns out that very often they drive more expensive cars than mine. As a different exercise, you can look at mortgage interest and calculate how many Leica kits that money could have bought - pure fun!<br>

BTW Sven, things could be reversed if you'd go for the GT40 ;)</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>By the way, imaqe quality wise, is it the consensus that the 100mm f/2 is the best among Zeiss' offerings at the moment?<br>

I like the 21mm WA, but pictures from 100mm seem to catch my eyes more often.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>For years, I have used a 180mm f/2.8 pre-ED lens that I had AI'd by Nikon and a 105mm f/2.5 AIS Nikon.</p>

<p>Recently, I have been shooting more stage performances and found the need for a high quality telephoto with more light gathering. To meet my need, I decided to try the Zeiss 135mm f/2 because for years I had heard so much about the construction and performance of the expensive Zeiss lenses in general and the Zeiss Sonnar lenses in particular. I also decided to try the Nikon 135mm f/2 AIS lens.</p>

<p>Both lenses were well built. I was displeased and surprised that the image quality (resolution and contrast) of the 135mm Nikon was not as good as the 180 and 105mm Nikon lenses. I was very pleased and surprised to discover that the image quality (contrast and resolution) of the 135mm Zeiss f/2 was not only superior to the 135mm Nikon but also superior to my 180mm and 105mm Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>In fact, I was so impressed with the performance of the 135mm Zeiss that I decided to also purchase a Zeiss 28mm f/2. However, the image quality of the 28mm Zeiss was no better than my 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikon lens.</p><div></div>