Would you pay the premium for German made Zeiss?

Would you pay the premium for German made Zeiss?

  • The German made version is well worth the premium. I am willing to pay double.

    Votes: 15 20.0%

  • Waste of money, the made in Japan ones are equally good.

    Votes: 60 80.0%
  • Total voters
    75
Status
Not open for further replies.
axiom said:
Regarding to the Japanese lenses after WWII.
To my knowledge, because Germany lost WWII, somehow they had to give up the then patents, in particular the patents in optic designs. Only after then, Japan started copying those reputable German designs like crazy, and gained their own reputation in optics.

The focus in photography shifts to Japan in the SLR or electronic era, when Japan figured that they could rely their blooming electronics to leap ahead of the traditional German mechanics. The general public also liked the idea of the "automatic" offered by electronics rather than being "manual", the photography market automatically focuses on the Japanese products.

I would subjectively sum it up as follows:
Japanese electronics are great,
German mechanics are great, and I consider optic designs and manufacturing(or whatever the right verb) to be "mechanics", hence German lenses are more superior.

Totally subjective and personal, don't flame me.
Click to expand...

The Japanese cameras that built the postwar reputation of the Japanese camera industry had no electronics at all. The Rangefinders like the S2 and SP had no meter, and the Nikon F didn't have one at first, though meter prisms with extremely simple CdS Match needle metering came out soon after. This was in the 1950s and early 1960s. Even into the 70s cameras like the Nikon F2 and Canon F1 were mechanically impressive. It was only in the late 1970s that electronics became really important but by then the Japanese had their reputation solidly built.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Your information is incorrect. Japan and Germany were Allies in the war, and shared technology. The Nikkor-HC 5cm F2 was completed before the war. My Simlar 5cm F1.5, also from Occupied Japan, is an original computation based ona double Gauss. It is in a 1-3-2-1 configuration, and is sharper and higher contrast than the Summarit.
Click to expand...

When one thing is true, it does not necessarily falsify the other. Does it?

While the statement that "They were allies, and the Nikkor-HC 5cm F2 was completed before war" may be true, it doesn't mean that Japan wasn't copying those Germany lenses after war. Does it?
 
Japan could not have copied the Zeiss lenses after the war because they did not have a supply of German glass. Their lenses are built to the Leica focal length, and not the Zeiss focal length. This requires that the prescription for the lens to be computed for the Japanese glass used and for the focal length selected.

So NO, the Japanese lenses were not copies of the German lenses.

I've taken quite a few of these lenses apart. The optics are different, and the fixtures are different.

The early Russian J-3's are copies of the German lenses. I have interchanged groups of glass between the German and Russian lenses. This is true up until ~1956, when the supply of German glass available to the Russians ran out.
 
Last edited:
axiom said:
The general public also liked the idea of the "automatic" offered by electronics rather than being "manual", the photography market automatically focuses on the Japanese products.

I would subjectively sum it up as follows:
Japanese electronics are great,
German mechanics are great, and I consider optic designs and manufacturing(or whatever the right verb) to be "mechanics", hence German lenses are more superior.

Totally subjective and personal, don't flame me.
Click to expand...

As good as Fuji lenses and the H series AF cameras no doubt are, I think the world lost something special when Hasselblad switched away from 6x6 and those Zeiss lenses.
 
And to add- I have also made lenses from combinations of Japanese and Russian parts lenses, and Russian and German parts lenses. The German+Russian lenses are well corrected together. The Japanese+Russian lenses are "interesting". They are not matched, so you get some interesting effects.
 
My Cosinon 50/1.8 did quite well 40 years ago, and is still in good useable conditon. Now, the Schneider Roemar from about the same age- not as good as the Cosinon.

Anyone shoot with 1960s German SLR's that were in the same price range as the Cosina STL1000? I have. Rollei SL35- about the same quality. The later SL35m, a real clunker. SL26, Contaflex 126, Retina Instamatic Reflex, these were the competitors to Cosina "in the day".

The Instamatic Reflex was truly an "electronic Camera", did not rely on trap-needle automation. It featured an electronically controlled between lens shutter and was aperture preferred. Too bad it used 126 film, the paper-backed Kodak cartridge did not keep the film as flat as the 35mm Retina Reflex cameras, and did not do the lenses justice. My my two Instamatic Reflexes still work.
 
Last edited:
Quality is set up at the factory.
All the tools have settings for degrees of tolerance's that they have allowed for each market segment..Consumer, Med level of Pro... Standard consumers get a lower tolerance line (Lens material/coatings, body material and finishes)..IE..Kit lens etc...Mid level consumers get a higher tolerance and better material choice. High End get the tightest tolerance and best material choice.
Look at the Olympus 4/3 line... it has 3 tiers of quality from the same factory. Olympus can, as others, determine the "who" is the market, and makes the lens quality and durability fit that market.

I have had both Voigtlander and Zeiss/Cosina lenses. The Zeiss is made to a slightly higher quality than Voigtlander... it shows if you have both. You can tell. Cosina has the ability to make very high quality if they want to. But, they decided to stay with high quality to grab a market that Leica would not build to, and never has.

Their trio of modern Summarit's are still $600 more than the Voigtlander offerings. Not really a competitive offering for the rest of us.

You can guess how I voted. ;)
 
Last edited:
My Canadian Leica lenses and body are still going on strong and will most likely outlast me, and oddly enough they cost me about 1/2 of a German version... :D
 
Last edited:
my buddy's 24 lux from germany had to go back there as the front element came off. his german m4-p had to go to sherry to fix the film transport. the 35 lux ASPH that i sold lost the snap in the aperture ring and would turn very easily. my vc/35/1.4 MC is beautiful, compact, sharp, and i traded the 35 lux for the 35 vc and a nikon 9000. One german for two beautiful japanese products. very, very happy
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
A lot of corners are cut to reduce the price of Cosina-made lenses. Making them at Zeiss Germany would likely result in them being designed better to justify the high price. Worker's wages aren't much different, I imagine. Japanese workers are well paid. Another Japanese company could build them to a higher quality standard too if we were willing to pay for it. Look at the Kyocera-made Zeiss lenses for the Contax SLRs.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what your needs are. The Zeiss lenses are incredible. I only have the 50mm f/1.4 T* as I can't afford the others, good as they are. But I also have several Fujinon lenses for great quality. I can't place one over the other as they each have different strengths.

I try to pick lenses that are very good, regardless of who made them. There are plenty of those out there too. Some by manufacturers who aren't normally considered great.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Sorry. That's definitely not true. If you employ a new process it costs a lot of money. Every process change costs money. From most changes you benefit not short term but mid- to long term.
Click to expand...

I'll rely on my several decades of experience in high-tech manufacturing, quality, and reliability, thank you.
 
oftheherd said:
I think it depends on what your needs are. The Zeiss lenses are incredible. I only have the 50mm f/1.4 T* as I can't afford the others, good as they are. But I also have several Fujinon lenses for great quality. I can't place one over the other as they each have different strengths.

I try to pick lenses that are very good, regardless of who made them. There are plenty of those out there too. Some by manufacturers who aren't normally considered great.
Click to expand...

I think they're incredibly optically, but mechanically they're crap. One of mine wobbles, there's absolutely no excuse for that kind of mechanical failure in a lens that cost over $1000 and is only a couple yrs old.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Bull****. Manufacturers love people like you who make excuses for them. The mechanical parts of an RF lens are simple, 80 year old technology that should be no problem to do right. Zeiss simply f--ked up the design and has dug in their heels refusing to fix it. Even the cheaper Cosina-made Voigtlander M-Mount lenses do not start wobbling.
Click to expand...

I have seen a couple of Cosina lenses starting to fall apart / wobbling and a couple of Zeiss lenses, too ... ;)
 
I was wondering what the point of this thread was. Basically, as per the OP's post, it is "trolling around RFF".

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99291&highlight=trolling

And it looks like it worked. At least we used it to clear up the misconception that the Japanese lenses were copies of German lenses. So, it has served some useful purpose.

Now it is degrading.

Step 1: off to "Off-Topic".

Step 2 will be to close it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom