Why no more "standard" lens from Cosina?

[P. Lynn Miller]

I know that decentering is an well known issue with Cosina Voigtländer lenses, at least according to several well-regarded authorities on such things. I prefer the Cosina Voigtländer lenses to the Zeiss lenses for several reasons, none of which related to the price differential between the two brands. All the Cosina Voigtländer lenses that I own have been good performers, although I am not a pixel-peeper, but have wondered how a perfectly centered 35/1.1 or 50/1.1 would perform. I would consider paying a premium for perfectly centered and optimised specimens, maybe even the same price as a Zeiss lens, but Zeiss does not make any of these lenses.

There is the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and the Cosina Voigtländer Nokton 50/1.5, both lenses have the same focal length, maximum aperture and are made in the same facility. You can buy about 3 for the price of one. I can see no difference between the performance of the two lenses other personal preference regarding the individual rendering of each lens. I happen to prefer the Nokton over the Sonnar. Both lenses share some of the same build troubles and the Sonnar has a dubious reputation regarding focus shift that does not plague the Nokton.

I find it difficult to justify the price difference between the two brands on the simple premise of the two lenses mentioned.

 

[semilog]

^-- an eminintly reasonable position.

 

[Tom A]

For M mount cameras use, Voigtländer has made:

40 1.4
50 3.5
50 2.5
50 2
50 1.5
50 1.1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not forget that the 50f3.5, the 50f2.5 and the 50f1.5's were also made in Nikon Rf Mount!
How many variations of 50's do we need? Yes, I could see a 50f1.5 Asph Nokton in a M-mount in some distant future - but as there are plenty of used LTM ones around - I would not hold my breath!
Considering the fact that CV has only been in business making LTM/M lenses for 11 years - that is not a bad selection.
By the nature of the RF market - it is small and Cosina will design and make a lens, produce X copies and go on to something else. The trick is to buy them when they show up - or have to pay premium for a used one later ( like black 28f3.5 Color Skopar's) - waiting for the "cheap" or reduced price ones can be expensive!
Ok, there are bargains to be had, Cameraquest's offering of Nikon Rf mount 50f2.5, 50f1.5 and 85f3.5 for $500 is one of the great ones. It makes it palatable to pick up a Nikon S2/S3 and add those lenses! Just wait another two to three years and the individual lenses will cost $500 each - and a lot of moaning about that price. Limited production usually results in higher prices later on.
It is OK to be frugal - being plain "cheap" is a different thing - and carries it's own penalties in the long run.

 

[robbeiflex]

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.

Sorry ferider, but IMHO this is mixing up price and cost. "Price" is what we pay and it is determined by what the market is willing to pay. "Cost" is defined by material inputs and labour rates. This changes as we change perspective, of course. We think of the price as the cost, because that's the way it hits us in our wallets, but to Cosina they are two very different things.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[robbeiflex]

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.

But here I very much agree with you, we certainly should accept that we buy things to use and enjoy. This brings me back to a common theme in my posts - what a nice problem it is have to choose between multiple fantastic normal lenses! (See Tom A's post for example)

 

[ferider]

Sorry ferider, but IMHO this is mixing up price and cost. "Price" is what we pay and it is determined by what the market is willing to pay. "Cost" is defined by material inputs and labour rates. This changes as we change perspective, of course. We think of the price as the cost, because that's the way it hits us in our wallets, but to Cosina they are two very different things.

Cheers,
Rob

Agree, Rob - I meant price = cost for the consumer.

Come to think of it, for CV and ZM lenses, while the manufacturer's costs might be similar (depending on the lens), the price for CV lenses includes profit margins for a single company, while for ZM there are obviously 2.

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

My opnion

My opnion

is that CV and Zeiss lenses are "value priced" not "margin priced" If CV scores a deal on some glass or plastic found in a warehouse in the outskirts of Gunma, are they going to pass those savings on to us? I don't think so.

It doesn't matter if CV is selling "factory direct" which they aren't, or if Zeiss is selling it's Cosina manufactured Sony E series "Zeiss" branded lens through a dozen channels.

You get what you pay for. Lately, in my experience with several dozen CV and Zelss lenses, CV and Zeiss Japan lenses are not up to the qualtiy, feel build, and optical excellence of either '70s and '80s Japanese optics, nor Leica optics of any generation.

That said, the value of certain CV lenses, notably the LTM 15 and 21 with finders included, they are a good deal. Just like my padded tactical lunchbox from Costco.

Agree, Rob - I meant price = cost for the consumer.

Come to think of it, for CV and ZM lenses, while the manufacturer's costs might be similar (depending on the lens), the price for CV lenses includes profit margins for a single company, while for ZM there are obviously 2.

Roland.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

Sorry ferider, but IMHO this is mixing up price and cost. "Price" is what we pay and it is determined by what the market is willing to pay. "Cost" is defined by material inputs and labour rates.

Yes, I sensed that too (that Ferider confused price and cost, or that we didn't get what he meant). Price is what the customer pays for a product; cost is what the manufacturer paid to manufacture that product.

I believe that Back Alley is correct, as I’ve read it somewhere else, although I don’t remember the source: CV starts with a top-notch lens design, then makes compromises to that design for the sake of reducing cost so that CV can make a profit on that lens at the price they eventually charge.

 

[jbf]

there are five hundred million 50 millimeter lenses out there. cosina doesnt really need to make another 50mm... we could use some nice, fast wide angle lenses though.

 

[robbeiflex]

I believe that Back Alley is correct, as I’ve read it somewhere else, although I don’t remember the source: CV starts with a top-notch lens design, then makes compromises to that design for the sake of reducing cost so that CV can make a profit on that lens at the price they eventually charge.

It's probably true, and I have no problem with that. They are a business after all, and if we want them to continue offering us great lenses then we had better support their ongoing profitability. As a satisfied owner of two CV lenses and one ZM lens I'd have to say they are doing a great job of it and I hope they keep it up for the sake of both lines. One day maybe I can afford Leica lenses too (actually am already considering a used one) but anyone who complains of CV and ZM lens build quality is obviously comparing to Leica rather than to the majority of cheap plastic consumer products we are inundated with every day.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[robbeiflex]

there are five hundred million 50 millimeter lenses out there. cosina doesnt really need to make another 50mm... we could use some nice, fast wide angle lenses though.

Good point, 15 or 21 f2 anyone? I hope Mr. K visits these forums once in a while. 😉

 

[ampguy]

confused here?

confused here?

Lexus = high end Toyota

Honda = low end Acura

Can you imagine paying more for a Canon L lens than one from their equivalent non-L line? Would you consider paying more for a Lexus than a Honda? For a BMW vs. a Mini?

We're talking about products with different designs that require different materials and processes to manufacture, and that are subjected to different quality control procedures. The more expensive products are not always better but very often, they are. Some non-L lenses are better for some applications than the comparable L lenses. A Lexus is definitely different in some respects from a Honda (I'd get a Honda, but I wouldn't dismiss the Lexus). You get to decide whether the differences matter to you.

The Planar is one of the better 50mm lenses ever produced, probably comparable to the current Summicron, and a new Planar is a hell of a lot less money than a new Summicron. In this comparison the Zeiss lens doesn't look bad at all. I currently shoot a Summicron (purchased used a dozen years ago), but if I were buying a new 50 today, it would be the Planar. Without question.

 

[semilog]

Lexus = high end Toyota

Honda = low end Acura

Oh, yeah. 😱 I haven't bought a new car in a long time, and last time it was a Subaru.

 

[sanmich]

I am no specialist, but the "quality tango" (aiming to top quality, then one step back) doesn't sounds right to me.
Of course a very complex design to squeeze an extra something from a product, or the use of top quality material can bring up the production costs very much.
That being said, once the nominal values of a design are set, a very important part of a design remains tolerances. These are set based on a choice of the designer to work on a certain point on one/several trade-off curves between cost and quality. The very same optical design can cost much much more if one decides to tighten tolerances. Machining is slower, the inspection plans are tighter and more work consuming. More samples are found out of specs. Production processes are found out of control more often and stopped for retuning, etc.
My point is: the quality variance we witness from CV is probably a design choice in the first place, not a random loosening from some (impossible) optimal design. The aforementioned decentring is probably perfectly OK by CV specs and allow them to sell their lenses at the prices we know.
I would also guess that some optical designs are more robust than others and can still deliver top notch imagery even when the sample is edgy, while others are much more sensitive to production variability. The other option would be CV setting the QC of certain important lenses on a different level than others.
Just guesses though...

 

[semilog]

Lately, in my experience with several dozen CV and Zelss lenses, CV and Zeiss Japan lenses are not up to the qualtiy, feel build, and optical excellence of either '70s and '80s Japanese optics, nor Leica optics of any generation.

To claim that the ZM lenses (or, for that matter, some of the C-V lenses) are not up to the optical standards of '70s and '80s Japanese lenses is just silly. The C-V 50/3.5 is by all accounts one of the best, if not the best, 50 ever made. Ditto the ZM 25's and the 50 Planar, and both of the 35 Biogons. For sheer optical performance, any of these lenses equals or betters Leica lenses of any generation.

For example: at f/2 the 35/2 Biogon is just a hair softer than the Summicron ASPH. But by f/4 that gap is done, and across the board the ZM has less field curvature, less geometric distortion, and less astigmatism than any of the current Leicas. In fact, it probably has less geometric distortion than any 35 mm focal length full-frame lens ever manufactured.

 

[semilog]

My point is: the quality variance we witness from CV is probably a design choice in the first place, not a random loosening from some (impossible) optimal design. The aforementioned decentring is probably perfectly OK by CV specs and allow them to sell their lenses at the prices we know.

Right. They'd be fools (and poor engineers) if that were not the case, and Kobayashi & Co. are most assuredly neither fools nor poor engineers.

I would also guess that some optical designs are more robust than others and can still deliver top notch imagery even when the sample is edgy, while others are much more sensitive to production variability.

Absolutely. Zeiss uses the term "design relaxation."

 

[Bruin]

I'm convinced, sooner or later we'll get a new CV 50/1.4.

Yup, I think there's room for a CV version of the pre-asph 'lux.... M-mount, 0.7m min focus, reasonable size, "character" at f1.4.

 

[ferider]

It will be either released as a CV lens (with immediately following internet reports and "reviews" complaining about harsh OOF, "focus shift" or Q+A problems).

Or it will be sold at higher overall margin and as ZM lens with glowing reviews by some. Puts will find that it is almost as good, but just not quite, as the Summilux ASPH. As when comparing 90 Summicron to 85 Sonnar, he will show wide open shots of the Summilux, and compare them to f4 shots of the new lens, and point out that the OOF performance of the two lenses is dramatically different, but of course liking or disliking it is up to the user.

If released as ZM lens, two months later, we'll get first reports on mechanical problems or light leaks.

All hypothetically speaking, of course 🙂

 

[back alley]

The question is if it will be released as a CV lens (with immediately following internet reports and "reviews" complaining about harsh OOF and "focus shift"), or as ZM lens with glowing reviews by some, and others, like Puts, finding that it is almost as good, but just not quite, as the Summilux ASPH. 🙂 🙂

you sound skeptical sir...😉

 

[semilog]

^-- @ferider, LOL 🙂.