Mazurka
Well-known
Now that Zeiss isn't making lenses for Contax in Japan, and Cosina doing the ZM series, what will happen to their lens plant? Why did they decide to give Cosina the job instead of doing it themselves? 
Of course, Cosina has been making Leica mount lenses for some time, but the M mount has been around for more than 50 years and it isn't exactly state of the art. Even Minolta was making them more than 20 years ago. Besides, we still hear horror stories about the latest 40/1.4, meaning Cosina QC and/or build standards (for the Voigtlander series) are still hit-or-miss. The delay in the ZM lens range is another reflection of this, not to mention the ZI body. (I'm lucky to have a good sample of the 35 Ultron.)
Assuming Zeiss insists on their usual standards for the ZM range. Then it wouldn't be much cheaper by "outsourcing." They may not need to invest on tooling, etc, but they also have to split the profits with Cosina, not to mention the lack of direct control over production even though they maintain a supervisory role.
"If you want something done right, do it yourself." I suppose Zeiss would have more control (at least things would be less complicated not involving another company) over the quality and production if they made the ZM lenses themselves.
Of course, Cosina has been making Leica mount lenses for some time, but the M mount has been around for more than 50 years and it isn't exactly state of the art. Even Minolta was making them more than 20 years ago. Besides, we still hear horror stories about the latest 40/1.4, meaning Cosina QC and/or build standards (for the Voigtlander series) are still hit-or-miss. The delay in the ZM lens range is another reflection of this, not to mention the ZI body. (I'm lucky to have a good sample of the 35 Ultron.)
Assuming Zeiss insists on their usual standards for the ZM range. Then it wouldn't be much cheaper by "outsourcing." They may not need to invest on tooling, etc, but they also have to split the profits with Cosina, not to mention the lack of direct control over production even though they maintain a supervisory role.
"If you want something done right, do it yourself." I suppose Zeiss would have more control (at least things would be less complicated not involving another company) over the quality and production if they made the ZM lenses themselves.
phototone
Well-known
AFAIK, there is no "Zeiss" lens plant in Japan. The lenses branded "Zeiss" for the Kyocera made Contax cameras were made by Kyocera (Yashica) probably with the same quality control system Zeiss installed at Cosina for the new Zeiss Ikon lenses.
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
The former Zeiss lens plant in Japan was a Zeiss facility, though affiliated with Kyocera. The lenses made in the plant were intended for Kyocera-made Contax bodies. The managers and supervisors were Zeiss employees. Not sure about everyone else but I assume they all worked for Zeiss too.
The partnership with Cosina is different. Cosina makes the Zeiss M lenses, and will make the ZI body, to Zeiss specs in the Cosina facility. There may be Zeiss people currently at Cosina in a consulting/observing role. I don't know this but I think it's likely.
The "horror story" with the CV 40mm f/1.4 amounted to somewhat stiff focusing with some samples from the initial production run. This has been reportedly fixed with the second run. I have a copy from the first run...the focus ring was initially stiff but loosened up fine with use.
I think attributing the delays in the Zeiss M lenses and the ZI body to issues with Cosina is nothing but speculation. It may turn out to be true, but that doesn't mean anyone currently claiming it as true knows what they're talking about.
-Dave-
The partnership with Cosina is different. Cosina makes the Zeiss M lenses, and will make the ZI body, to Zeiss specs in the Cosina facility. There may be Zeiss people currently at Cosina in a consulting/observing role. I don't know this but I think it's likely.
The "horror story" with the CV 40mm f/1.4 amounted to somewhat stiff focusing with some samples from the initial production run. This has been reportedly fixed with the second run. I have a copy from the first run...the focus ring was initially stiff but loosened up fine with use.
I think attributing the delays in the Zeiss M lenses and the ZI body to issues with Cosina is nothing but speculation. It may turn out to be true, but that doesn't mean anyone currently claiming it as true knows what they're talking about.
-Dave-
Mazurka
Well-known
Anyone who repeats the (unfortunately popular) myth that Kyocera made lenses for Contax, obviously has never owned any new samples. On the instruction sheet of my lowly 50/1.7, it unequivocally states that "This lens was manufactured by Carl Zeiss Foundation of F.R. Germany in Japan." And guess where my late 85 Sonnar MM was made? Not even in Japan but Germany.
AFAIK the repoerted problems with the 40 Nokton are more severe than stiff focusing. Some found the front retainder ring was loose (photo.net), another actually had a hard time attaching 2 new samples of the lens onto M7 bodies: http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/2/138047.html?1118101371
AFAIK the repoerted problems with the 40 Nokton are more severe than stiff focusing. Some found the front retainder ring was loose (photo.net), another actually had a hard time attaching 2 new samples of the lens onto M7 bodies: http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/2/138047.html?1118101371
Mazurka
Well-known
From http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/2EB259A71854B49FC1256E910023D1DF#01
'The "Contax" brand is owned by Carl Zeiss. Carl Zeiss has granted a license to Kyocera - Kyoto Ceramics. In return, Kyocera sources all lenses for their "Contax" cameras from Carl Zeiss.'
The arrangement has sadly become a thing of the past.
'The "Contax" brand is owned by Carl Zeiss. Carl Zeiss has granted a license to Kyocera - Kyoto Ceramics. In return, Kyocera sources all lenses for their "Contax" cameras from Carl Zeiss.'
The arrangement has sadly become a thing of the past.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Mazurka said:Now that Zeiss isn't making lenses for Contax in Japan, and Cosina doing the ZM series, what will happen to their lens plant? Why did they decide to give Cosina the job instead of doing it themselves?
Of course, Cosina has been making Leica mount lenses for some time, but the M mount has been around for more than 50 years and it isn't exactly state of the art. Even Minolta was making them more than 20 years ago. Besides, we still hear horror stories about the latest 40/1.4, meaning Cosina QC and/or build standards (for the Voigtlander series) are still hit-or-miss. The delay in the ZM lens range is another reflection of this, not to mention the ZI body. (I'm lucky to have a good sample of the 35 Ultron.)
Assuming Zeiss insists on their usual standards for the ZM range. Then it wouldn't be much cheaper by "outsourcing." They may not need to invest on tooling, etc, but they also have to split the profits with Cosina, not to mention the lack of direct control over production even though they maintain a supervisory role.
"If you want something done right, do it yourself." I suppose Zeiss would have more control (at least things would be less complicated not involving another company) over the quality and production if they made the ZM lenses themselves.
This question is addressed under FAQ; www.zeissikon.com
Mazurka
Well-known
Huck Finn said:
Q: Why this split-up: 2 types made by Carl Zeiss, 5 by Cosina?
A: To make the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses affordable in price and therefore to open them to an expanded public.
This is just marketing-speak. Lenses for the Contax were perfectly affordable (unless you go to the extreme focal lengths), especially the G series in the past few years. Besides, they mentioned nothing about the Zeiss plant in Japan.
I sent Zeiss.de an e-mail but have yet to receive a reply.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Mazurka, send your e-mail to info@zeissikon.com & you will receive a reply within one business day. This will link you with Hasselblad, which is handling all inquiries regarding the Zeiss Ikon. If you don't receive a reply, post again & I will give you an alternative address.
Regarding affordability, it's always difficult to compare products. Start up costs (R&D, tooling, corporate overhead, etc.) are distributed over the number of products (lenses, cameras, etc.) which the company anticipates that the product will sell in its run. Low anticipated sales will result in much higher costs. All RF products are now in a niche market with low anticipated sales vs the Contax sytem when it came on the market 11 years ago & film sales were booming. In addition, Contax start up costs were in early 1990s' dollars (or Deutschmarks, Yen, etc.) vs today's dollars. Those start up costs don't change over the life of the product, so the company doesn't have to raise prices for those costs a decade later as they do for a new product. Companies also seem to be willing to live with different levels of quality control. QC adds to cost & there is little way of knowing what priority a company places on this. Zeiss standards seem to be high & published articles suggest that this continues to be true for this product line. However, Leica standards also appear to be high, but a visit to the forum on the official Leica website will reveal numerous stories of dissatisfied customers who have had problems with new equipment out of the box. Finally all new camera products seem to set their opening price at a desired target, while many later drop in cost after the initial demand. This has certainly been true with Contax, which is at the end of its run & is selling for comparatively low prices.
In the end, the price is what it is & a potential customer is either willing to pay the price or they're not. If not, s/he can always check back in a year & see if the landscape has changed.
cheers,
Huck
Regarding affordability, it's always difficult to compare products. Start up costs (R&D, tooling, corporate overhead, etc.) are distributed over the number of products (lenses, cameras, etc.) which the company anticipates that the product will sell in its run. Low anticipated sales will result in much higher costs. All RF products are now in a niche market with low anticipated sales vs the Contax sytem when it came on the market 11 years ago & film sales were booming. In addition, Contax start up costs were in early 1990s' dollars (or Deutschmarks, Yen, etc.) vs today's dollars. Those start up costs don't change over the life of the product, so the company doesn't have to raise prices for those costs a decade later as they do for a new product. Companies also seem to be willing to live with different levels of quality control. QC adds to cost & there is little way of knowing what priority a company places on this. Zeiss standards seem to be high & published articles suggest that this continues to be true for this product line. However, Leica standards also appear to be high, but a visit to the forum on the official Leica website will reveal numerous stories of dissatisfied customers who have had problems with new equipment out of the box. Finally all new camera products seem to set their opening price at a desired target, while many later drop in cost after the initial demand. This has certainly been true with Contax, which is at the end of its run & is selling for comparatively low prices.
In the end, the price is what it is & a potential customer is either willing to pay the price or they're not. If not, s/he can always check back in a year & see if the landscape has changed.
cheers,
Huck