xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I want them to be made in Russia.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
I don't think it's fair to assume that Cosina's Japanese manufacturing facility was in any way, incompatible or no up to the standards of the Zeiss German facility as an explanation for why those two Zeiss lenses are German built.
It could just as well be a business decision and Cosina may have declined to contract manufacture such such specialty lenses which I suspect are made in very low volumes.
As for which country makes the best lenses, I think it varies from periods in history. Early vintage - American and German (probably into pre/post WWII), by the 60s I think the Japanese were making some of the best in the world... by the 70s German lens manufacturing was definitely in decline and although much is made of Canadian vs German made Leica lenses, I suspect that there is no way to differentiate two lenses of the same design and formula made in the two countries. Ergonomics and construction are a different matter as cost cuttings decisions made by a company are not necessarily reflective of the Country of Origin's technical capabilities.
It could just as well be a business decision and Cosina may have declined to contract manufacture such such specialty lenses which I suspect are made in very low volumes.
As for which country makes the best lenses, I think it varies from periods in history. Early vintage - American and German (probably into pre/post WWII), by the 60s I think the Japanese were making some of the best in the world... by the 70s German lens manufacturing was definitely in decline and although much is made of Canadian vs German made Leica lenses, I suspect that there is no way to differentiate two lenses of the same design and formula made in the two countries. Ergonomics and construction are a different matter as cost cuttings decisions made by a company are not necessarily reflective of the Country of Origin's technical capabilities.
3js
Established
Now there we go, you should go after the finnish version of the rifle, that should put a new standart to the Mosin/Nagant´s, if you known what I mean. Simo Häyhä knew...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I owned Konica Hexanon lenses. They beat the pants of the Leica lenses and possibly the Japan-made Zeiss lenses too. Only goes to show, German products aren't debatelessly the best because they come from Germany. Lets not forget the Japanese resurrected their camera industries after WWII and in only 20 years time were (again) able to compete with German-made products
Over the last year I paid premium for Germany-made Zeis lenses: I bought a CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 T and 135/4.0 T, both from 1943. But there were no Japanese alternatives
rustysheepdog
Member
Not sure I should even be posting here as I don't have any Cosina-Zeiss lenses, though I have had three Cosina-Voigtlanders. My 35/1.7 was bought as a cosmetically scruffy ex-pro lens and it's as solid as a rock, has oh-so-smooooth focusing and lovely firm click stops. Both my 21/4.5 and 25/4 LTM lenses showed slight - very slight - loseness when getting hold of the lens front. But both work/worked perfectly when it came to taking photographs. . . for some foolish reason I sold the 25mm when I got the 21mm.
I suspect the losesness in the latter two is as much down to design as anything else, but then I'm no engineer. Two of my Leica/Leitz lenses also have some loseness, but they're over forty years old so it might just be fair wear and tear. Really, I don't care where the gear's made (leaving aside ethical issues for now). If Zeiss can get their stuff made by Cosina at a price that tempts people into the market, then I say that's fine. I doubt that the same lenses fabricated and put together in Germany in the same manner would be any different to the Japanese ones.
So I would only pay extra for a German made Zeiss lens if the higher price brought a demonstrable increase in either optical or mechanical standards, something which I think is not very likely.
I suspect the losesness in the latter two is as much down to design as anything else, but then I'm no engineer. Two of my Leica/Leitz lenses also have some loseness, but they're over forty years old so it might just be fair wear and tear. Really, I don't care where the gear's made (leaving aside ethical issues for now). If Zeiss can get their stuff made by Cosina at a price that tempts people into the market, then I say that's fine. I doubt that the same lenses fabricated and put together in Germany in the same manner would be any different to the Japanese ones.
So I would only pay extra for a German made Zeiss lens if the higher price brought a demonstrable increase in either optical or mechanical standards, something which I think is not very likely.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Party Line:
The Zeiss Germany lenses are 'landmark' or 'state of the art', designed to be the best possible. Not 'the best possible at a price' but 'the best possible'.
One difference, for example, is hand-lapped focusing mounts. QC is also individual, not batch.
I own one Zeiss Germany lens, 38/4,5 Biogon. I've tried the 15/2,8 but not the 85/2 (except for a couple of portraits at Oberkochen). These are all lenses designed to deliver the maximum quality possible at a given moment in time, and to deliver it half way to forever.
So yes, if you want the best possible, and plan on using the lens hard, the German lenses are well worth it. Most people will never see the difference, or at least, not for a good few thousand pictures.
Cheers,
R.
The Zeiss Germany lenses are 'landmark' or 'state of the art', designed to be the best possible. Not 'the best possible at a price' but 'the best possible'.
One difference, for example, is hand-lapped focusing mounts. QC is also individual, not batch.
I own one Zeiss Germany lens, 38/4,5 Biogon. I've tried the 15/2,8 but not the 85/2 (except for a couple of portraits at Oberkochen). These are all lenses designed to deliver the maximum quality possible at a given moment in time, and to deliver it half way to forever.
So yes, if you want the best possible, and plan on using the lens hard, the German lenses are well worth it. Most people will never see the difference, or at least, not for a good few thousand pictures.
Cheers,
R.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I owned Konica Hexanon lenses. They beat the pants of the Leica lenses and possibly the Japan-made Zeiss lenses too. Only goes to show, German products aren't debatelessly the best because they come from Germany. Lets not forget the Japanese resurrected their camera industries after WWII and in only 20 years time were (again) able to compete with German-made products
Over the last year I paid premium for Germany-made Zeis lenses: I bought a CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 T and 135/4.0 T, both from 1943. But there were no Japanese alternatives
+1.
I've used/owned several M-Hexanon lenses. Great manufacturing on those lenses. If anything, I'd argue that they were better made than some of the Leica lenses I've owned from the same era.
axiom
Non-Registered User
I owned Konica Hexanon lenses. They beat the pants of the Leica lenses and possibly the Japan-made Zeiss lenses too. Only goes to show, German products aren't debatelessly the best because they come from Germany. Lets not forget the Japanese resurrected their camera industries after WWII and in only 20 years time were (again) able to compete with German-made products
Over the last year I paid premium for Germany-made Zeis lenses: I bought a CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 T and 135/4.0 T, both from 1943. But there were no Japanese alternatives
Ken's opinion differs
http://kenrockwell.com/konica/index.htm
jmarcus
Well-known
I thought the German lenses were hand ground? Is that true?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Nobody hand-grinds lens elements. The level of precision needed by modern designs is impossible to attain with handwork.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Ken is a pixel peeper. He says so himself in each and every one of those crude M-Hexanon reviews.
I'm not in the habit of Ken-bashing at all, but 3/4 of his arguments came straight from Puts. for Gawds sake, he's complaining about Konica rear caps only fitting on when correctly orientated
There was a time when he reviewed Nikkor lenses (same 'issue') and I've NEVER seen that mentioned.yet, I say he's doing a fine job since he's keeping prices down on brilliant lenses!
Back OT!
Lets not forget the Japanese resurrected their camera industries after WWII and in only 20 years time were (again) able to compete with German-made products
Over the last year I paid premium for Germany-made Zeis lenses: I bought a CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 T and 135/4.0 T, both from 1943. But there were no Japanese alternatives
I do not understand the statement regarding the Japanese camera industry competing with the German industry only 20 years after World War II. The Japanese lenses could compete head-on with the German lenses with the Nikkor-HC 5cm F2, mine is from 1948. It is sharper than my Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F2 Sonnar "T" and Zeiss Opton 50mm F2. The Nikkor-S 5cm F1.4 of 1950 was the speed king, and every bit as sharp (or sharper wide-open) than the Zeiss Opton 50mm F1.5. The Summarit 5cm F1.5 is soft compared to either.
I'm really not seeing the point of this thread. It seems to be more oriented towards a premise that country of origin defines quality of a product, which is ridiculous. I own a lot of lenses, numbering 200+. Date back to 1931 for German and 1948 for Japanese. 1949 for Russian. I have 40 year old Cosina cameras and lenses that work perfectly. I have some Leica lenses that have seen better days, as have others.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
My point exactly Brian, it IS ridiculous. And, I never knew that the Nikkor-S 5cm/1.4 was a 1950 lens... so the twenty years in my post was arbitrary, and off... Oops.
But, there's a lot of folks who do think that 'German' equals quality and the rest of the planet follows at streets lengths distance.
But, there's a lot of folks who do think that 'German' equals quality and the rest of the planet follows at streets lengths distance.
I have Twelve F1.5 Zeiss Sonnars. Pre-war, wartime, post-war East German, Post-War West German. I like them. I also have Twelve 5cm F1.4 Nikkor-SC's.
I would know if one is better than the other.
I would know if one is better than the other.
Last edited:
axiom
Non-Registered User
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.
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.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The Germans are as capable of getting it horribly wrong as anyone so it makes no difference to me. When Leica dropped the M8 with all it's unannounced IR problems on the salivating market then sheepishly offered us a couple of filters to fix our big buck cameras I was a little stunned. Cosina haven't done anything quite that crass yet IMO!
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 on a double Gauss. It is in a 1-3-2-1 configuration, and is sharper and higher contrast than the Summarit. The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 is an original computation done after the war. "Sonnar block Diagram", but a new formulation. Remember the Nikkor lenses are based on the 51.6mm Leica standard rather than the 52.4mm Zeiss standard. They are not "copies". The Nikkor-PC 8.5cm F2 is one of the finest lenses of the 1940s and 1950s, and is an original design. The Nikkor-P 10.5cm F2.5 is even better than the 8.5cm F2 from Nikon and from Zeiss Opton or Zeiss Jena. It is also an original design.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.