Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Being a former 1.5 Nokton owner and now a Sonnar user I think there is a noticable difference in build quality between the two lenses. The Nokton was a good peformer and in some ways I regret selling it but it didn't have a lot of character IMO!
The 35mm 1.2 has always intrigued me ... it seems to be perfection (size aside) in a package that costs a fraction of it's competition ... of which there is none when you think about the speed of the thing!
The 35mm 1.2 has always intrigued me ... it seems to be perfection (size aside) in a package that costs a fraction of it's competition ... of which there is none when you think about the speed of the thing!
ferider
Veteran
I understand the marketing part but not the rest.
Cost is primarily a function of what the market takes. If customers have opinions like the above, a Zeiss lens will cost more, simple as that.
None of the CV M mount lenses have been "backed off for cost savings" any more than CV-manufactured ZM lenses.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That last statement is not supported by the evidence, and some evidence suggests that you are, to put it indelicately, wrong.
If the C-V lenses show more de-centering or other forms of optical variability than the Cosina-manufactured Zeiss lenses (and Eriwin Puts's reviews pretty unambiguously state that this is the case), that is because more care is being put into manufacturing and/or QC on the Zeiss-branded lenses vs. the C-V ones.
That takes labor and costs money, which will raise the price of the product.
It is, to use your phrase, as simple as that.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
we all can believe what we want roland, i have no need to convince anyone...but i'm pretty sure of this one.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
More from Erwin...
There is, after all, a reason that we must routinely spend $5000 to $9000 for a high-performance microscope objective (from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, or Olympus -- doesn't matter, the best lenses are all expensive, though I'm an Olympus partisan), and why cinematographers are prepared to drop $10,000 each for a set of Cosina-Zeiss 35mm primes -- and see these as a good deal compared to some of the competiton...
There is, after all, a reason that we must routinely spend $5000 to $9000 for a high-performance microscope objective (from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, or Olympus -- doesn't matter, the best lenses are all expensive, though I'm an Olympus partisan), and why cinematographers are prepared to drop $10,000 each for a set of Cosina-Zeiss 35mm primes -- and see these as a good deal compared to some of the competiton...
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
How can anyone not personally involved with Cosina's production techniques and intentions make such a statement ... or do you actually have inside knowledge?
You're normally so sensible!
ferider
Veteran
How can anyone personally not involved with Cosina make the counter statement, Keith ? That all CV lenses have been manufactured with cost cutting measures, and ZM lenses not ? Which is what I was responding to.
If you believe that price is determined by labor value, cost of material and QA that you get in return, good luck with your next tax payment
I am not misquoting Puts, but in contrast to you, I am including older reviews in which he rated some CV lenses very highly, for instance the CV 28/1.9 and 50/1.5.
I believe, as you said earlier, you have to look at specific lenses, and what they were designed for - just making a global brand statement is meaningless.
Evidence really suggests that for some specific CV lenses, as well as for specific ZM lenses, there are QA issues. The similar wobbling of 50/1.5 Nokton, 35/1.7 Ultron, 50/2 Planar and 35/2 Biogon come to mind.
When looking at specific lenses of CV and ZM lens lineups, you first realize that there is only minimal overlap (the 35/2.5 vs. 35/2.8, and that's pretty much it). Either the lenses of the two lineups are very different in specs, or the individual lenses have very specific goals (such as the retro fingerprints of Heliars, ZM Sonnar, and 35/1.4 Nokton).
If you then look at the specs and price, who can say if the 50/1.1 was cheaper to manufacture than the ZM 50/1.5 ? Or the CV 35/1.4 and 1.2 when compared to the ZM 35/2. Do they seem cheaper to the user ? Are 2 aspherical elements cheaper to manufacture than none ? And no, CV does not always use resin asphericals as once claimed by our local Leica marketing representative.
We can believe and buy what we want, of course. I love my CV lenses. And I've owned ZM lenses. If you like to pay for brand, it's your money. If, in terms of photographic output, you are able to use the optical difference between 35 Biogon-C and Color Skopar, I salute you.
Roland.
If you believe that price is determined by labor value, cost of material and QA that you get in return, good luck with your next tax payment
I am not misquoting Puts, but in contrast to you, I am including older reviews in which he rated some CV lenses very highly, for instance the CV 28/1.9 and 50/1.5.
I believe, as you said earlier, you have to look at specific lenses, and what they were designed for - just making a global brand statement is meaningless.
Evidence really suggests that for some specific CV lenses, as well as for specific ZM lenses, there are QA issues. The similar wobbling of 50/1.5 Nokton, 35/1.7 Ultron, 50/2 Planar and 35/2 Biogon come to mind.
When looking at specific lenses of CV and ZM lens lineups, you first realize that there is only minimal overlap (the 35/2.5 vs. 35/2.8, and that's pretty much it). Either the lenses of the two lineups are very different in specs, or the individual lenses have very specific goals (such as the retro fingerprints of Heliars, ZM Sonnar, and 35/1.4 Nokton).
If you then look at the specs and price, who can say if the 50/1.1 was cheaper to manufacture than the ZM 50/1.5 ? Or the CV 35/1.4 and 1.2 when compared to the ZM 35/2. Do they seem cheaper to the user ? Are 2 aspherical elements cheaper to manufacture than none ? And no, CV does not always use resin asphericals as once claimed by our local Leica marketing representative.
We can believe and buy what we want, of course. I love my CV lenses. And I've owned ZM lenses. If you like to pay for brand, it's your money. If, in terms of photographic output, you are able to use the optical difference between 35 Biogon-C and Color Skopar, I salute you.
Roland.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
What I'm saying Roland is we can all give our opinions based on our experiences and gut feelings and not necessarily fact ... and of course we can all be wrong!
That's why we love the internet ... after all!
That's why we love the internet ... after all!
ferider
Veteran
Keith, my gut feeling is this: when we buy a ZM or CV lens, and spend X $$, we should just accept that we bought it because we wanted/liked it .... why do we have to explain an overpriced luxury item via quality, price, or even worse brand ? My wife doesn't do this when she buys a pair of shoes .... She just wants and wears them and never tells me they are easier to walk in.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Transfer this philosophy to Leica verses the rest and it starts getting really complicated!
But Olympus SLR's are better than Nikons of course ... we all know and aknowledge that!
But Olympus SLR's are better than Nikons of course ... we all know and aknowledge that!
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
How did the topic stray from the current crop of 'normal' lenses from Cosina Voigtländer to comparing an OM-1 to a Nikon F... the mind boggles!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well that got your attention!
Interesting how you mentioned two specific cameras!
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Roland, I think our wives are very similar in this regard. But I have to say that I've known a lot of women who seem just as obsessed over brands of shoes and purses as some of us get with our camera gear.
Or let's look at the iPhone phenomenon. Certainly the iPhone is a great phone. But the quality of the phone versus its competitors doesn't necessarily justify the rabid following of that product.
I don't know if you've seen this cartoon that pokes fun of this phenomenon. The first time I saw it, I kept thinking that someone could have done a similar cartoon with "Leica" instead of the iPhone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Well that got your attention!
Interesting how you mentioned two specific cameras!
That does it! I am going back into my dark space to mess around with my Efke 25 and Rodinal!
Oh... am I actually allowed to take photographs with my 'normal' lenses... don't want to get in trouble or anything!
aizan
Veteran
how much does it cost to have a lens recentered? can't be that expensive, can it?
cmdrzed
wallflower
I've one like that too. She likes Prada. I prefer Leica (but can only afford CV because of the previous sentence). To each their own.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I think it's fair to assume, Roland, that Erwin has spent a lot more time looking at the measurable optical properties of the Leica, Zeiss, and Cosine lenses than everyone who has posted to this thread combined.
He says that what you're saying is not correct, and I think his statements are based on a wider and deeper set of observations than yours are, and likely also reflect deeper expertise about both optical design and optical manufacturing.
He says that what you're saying is not correct, and I think his statements are based on a wider and deeper set of observations than yours are, and likely also reflect deeper expertise about both optical design and optical manufacturing.
Last edited: