aizan
Veteran
it's harder and more necessary to make great lenses for 35mm than for medium and large format, isn't it?
Zeiss Ikon prices
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 5K
JohnL
Very confused
$1617 is the same price Adorama has had up for some time, and B&H also more recently. Last time I looked, however, neither had them in stock. Adorama were saying they had temporarily run out, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong, and they've never had any in so far at all. Any updates on availability?
ZeissFan
Veteran
Yes, I've read that it's more difficult to design lenses for 35mm as opposed to medium format. The prevailing opinion has been that a smaller negative provides less room for error.
Addressing the price issue, if you read the Carl Zeiss AG lens assembly tour on the company's site, you'll understand the high price. With hand assembly and rigorous testing at every stage, the cost of skilled labor (compared with let's say unskilled labor on a mass assembly line in China) and a higher rejection rate, you do pay a much higher price. In return, you get a product that is about as perfect as can be expected.
Perhaps it's not the best approach, as other medium format camera makers have been able to produce high quality lenses at lower cost than Zeiss. I don't know their manufacturing or assembly processes, so I can't say if the same meticulous attention to detail and testing is applied.
Although the manufacture of the current lenses (except 15mm and 85mm) for the Zeiss Ikon is in Japan, I would expect that Zeiss has in place a very demanding quality control program, which inevitably leads to a higher rejection rate and possibly a slower rate of assembly and therefore higher production costs.
But when it comes to photography, the Zeiss lenses have always been the industry leaders, going back to the early days of photography up to the Yashica/Kyocera Contax and now presumably the Zeiss Ikon.
And shifting the discussion to digital briefly, you don't see people trying to figure out how to get the Canon kit lens to work with their Leica or Contax -- it's always the other way around. There's a reason for that (aside from the physical issues).
Now, the real question becomes this: Is the consumer willing to pay for that extra attention to detail and quality that goes into a Zeiss product? Are we willing to settle for "good enough?" Or should we expect -- no, demand -- that a company such as Zeiss (or Leica, for that matter) to produce the best that it can?
Regarding digital, if you read the Zeiss brochure on the Zeiss Ikon system carefully, it's clear that Zeiss is waiting for a leveling of the digital technology before deciding whether to move into that market. The market might be approaching that now -- a point where further digital sensor advances don't result in tangible image improvement.
The reason would be clear: A Zeiss digital camera would be priced significantly higher than its mass market competition, and they couldn't compete financially in an 18-month replacement cycle that we now see (even less in the P&S market). It makes sense for Zeiss to wait until the digital technology has reached a level of maturity that will allow them to produce just one product with some shelf life, assuming that it won't be competing in the bargain-bin $1,000 market.
And from a financial standpoint, why not let others spend all of their cash on R&D and then step in when it reaches a level that satisfies you as a corporation? In other words, let the others do the work for you. Brilliant! (as those Guiness guys might exclaim).
As I mentioned, I'm on order for a body plus two lenses (50 and 25). Hoping to see them soon, which means the next couple of weeks. I was really hoping for this week. I'm working on a fairly comprehensive nontechnical review, which I expect to put up in mid-November.
Addressing the price issue, if you read the Carl Zeiss AG lens assembly tour on the company's site, you'll understand the high price. With hand assembly and rigorous testing at every stage, the cost of skilled labor (compared with let's say unskilled labor on a mass assembly line in China) and a higher rejection rate, you do pay a much higher price. In return, you get a product that is about as perfect as can be expected.
Perhaps it's not the best approach, as other medium format camera makers have been able to produce high quality lenses at lower cost than Zeiss. I don't know their manufacturing or assembly processes, so I can't say if the same meticulous attention to detail and testing is applied.
Although the manufacture of the current lenses (except 15mm and 85mm) for the Zeiss Ikon is in Japan, I would expect that Zeiss has in place a very demanding quality control program, which inevitably leads to a higher rejection rate and possibly a slower rate of assembly and therefore higher production costs.
But when it comes to photography, the Zeiss lenses have always been the industry leaders, going back to the early days of photography up to the Yashica/Kyocera Contax and now presumably the Zeiss Ikon.
And shifting the discussion to digital briefly, you don't see people trying to figure out how to get the Canon kit lens to work with their Leica or Contax -- it's always the other way around. There's a reason for that (aside from the physical issues).
Now, the real question becomes this: Is the consumer willing to pay for that extra attention to detail and quality that goes into a Zeiss product? Are we willing to settle for "good enough?" Or should we expect -- no, demand -- that a company such as Zeiss (or Leica, for that matter) to produce the best that it can?
Regarding digital, if you read the Zeiss brochure on the Zeiss Ikon system carefully, it's clear that Zeiss is waiting for a leveling of the digital technology before deciding whether to move into that market. The market might be approaching that now -- a point where further digital sensor advances don't result in tangible image improvement.
The reason would be clear: A Zeiss digital camera would be priced significantly higher than its mass market competition, and they couldn't compete financially in an 18-month replacement cycle that we now see (even less in the P&S market). It makes sense for Zeiss to wait until the digital technology has reached a level of maturity that will allow them to produce just one product with some shelf life, assuming that it won't be competing in the bargain-bin $1,000 market.
And from a financial standpoint, why not let others spend all of their cash on R&D and then step in when it reaches a level that satisfies you as a corporation? In other words, let the others do the work for you. Brilliant! (as those Guiness guys might exclaim).
As I mentioned, I'm on order for a body plus two lenses (50 and 25). Hoping to see them soon, which means the next couple of weeks. I was really hoping for this week. I'm working on a fairly comprehensive nontechnical review, which I expect to put up in mid-November.
Huck Finn
Well-known
JohnL said:
They will be shipped from Sweden within the next 2 weeks. Then it depends on how quickly Hasselblad-USA gets them in the hands of the dealers. Not long to B&H and Adorama I would think, given their proximity to Hassy's New Jersey offices.
Huck
ywenz
Veteran
ZeissFan said:
People are less intersted in mounting their old Leica M lenses on their state of the art DSLR bodies because the M lens doesn't offer any of the fancy AF or stabilization features that their Canons and Nikkors do. The quality difference between top of the SLR lenses and Leica M lenses are small and does not warrante the trouble and shortcoming involved in performing said procedure.
JohnL
Very confused
While I'm generally in full agreement with the post above, I'd like to comment, without disputing, just one point made ...
The main aspect in which Zeiss and Leica seem to be ahead of the competition in quality appears to be in consistency, which comes from manufacture and assembly under a careful QC program which catches and rejects anything that doesn't meet the standards. At least, that is their reputation.
In comparing CZ/Leica with (say) Canon or Nikon, speed is rather a non-issue, as both camps produce both fast and slow lenses. I doubt also if there is much to choose in durability between CZ/Leica lenses and the "pro" lenses from Japan (such as Canon L series lenses). CZ/Leica do not produce "consumer grade" lenses and to compare them with those from other makers would make little sense.
Appearance is another issue, but largely a question of taste. This leaves optical quality ...
Now I have already accepted that CZ/Leica have at least the reputation of better consistency, but for me the jury is still out on the optical quality issue: it would be interesting (for me) to see the result of a series of blind tests of judging the optical quality in real photographs (not 100%+ crops of details from the edges) comparing CZ and/or Leica lenses with decent examples of (say) Canon L lenses or even CV lenses. To make the tests meaningful, sets of photos would have to be similar (but not necessarily identical) in subject, lighting and range, and the lenses would have to be of similar focal length and speed, set at the same aperture, and carefully focused in all cases, using similar film or digital sensor. This would be in order to answer the question above "Are we willing to settle for "good enough?" or should we expect -- no, demand -- that a company such as Zeiss (or Leica, for that matter) to produce the best that it can?" -- to which I would add, after Leica and before matter: "and all the other manufacturers".
Personally, I suspect that the suggested test would be somewhat inconclusive, and I believe this is the reason that other firms may be a little less rigid than CZ/Leica in some ways ... and their market share among all levels of photographer, including pros and serious amateurs, seems to confirm this, namely that they are, in fact, "good enough". Maybe my suspicion should be that "Yes, good enough is indeed good enough". If people can consistently see the difference on a blind test of the sort described above, I'd be wrong, but surprised.
BTW, this is not intended to start a flame war, but I'd be happy to discuss these questions with an open mind --- that's why I wrote this ...
There are many aspects to the quality / price issue, and in lenses the major ones are consistency, optical performance, speed, durability and appearance.ZeissFan said:
The main aspect in which Zeiss and Leica seem to be ahead of the competition in quality appears to be in consistency, which comes from manufacture and assembly under a careful QC program which catches and rejects anything that doesn't meet the standards. At least, that is their reputation.
In comparing CZ/Leica with (say) Canon or Nikon, speed is rather a non-issue, as both camps produce both fast and slow lenses. I doubt also if there is much to choose in durability between CZ/Leica lenses and the "pro" lenses from Japan (such as Canon L series lenses). CZ/Leica do not produce "consumer grade" lenses and to compare them with those from other makers would make little sense.
Appearance is another issue, but largely a question of taste. This leaves optical quality ...
Now I have already accepted that CZ/Leica have at least the reputation of better consistency, but for me the jury is still out on the optical quality issue: it would be interesting (for me) to see the result of a series of blind tests of judging the optical quality in real photographs (not 100%+ crops of details from the edges) comparing CZ and/or Leica lenses with decent examples of (say) Canon L lenses or even CV lenses. To make the tests meaningful, sets of photos would have to be similar (but not necessarily identical) in subject, lighting and range, and the lenses would have to be of similar focal length and speed, set at the same aperture, and carefully focused in all cases, using similar film or digital sensor. This would be in order to answer the question above "Are we willing to settle for "good enough?" or should we expect -- no, demand -- that a company such as Zeiss (or Leica, for that matter) to produce the best that it can?" -- to which I would add, after Leica and before matter: "and all the other manufacturers".
Personally, I suspect that the suggested test would be somewhat inconclusive, and I believe this is the reason that other firms may be a little less rigid than CZ/Leica in some ways ... and their market share among all levels of photographer, including pros and serious amateurs, seems to confirm this, namely that they are, in fact, "good enough". Maybe my suspicion should be that "Yes, good enough is indeed good enough". If people can consistently see the difference on a blind test of the sort described above, I'd be wrong, but surprised.
BTW, this is not intended to start a flame war, but I'd be happy to discuss these questions with an open mind --- that's why I wrote this ...
ywenz
Veteran
Any test you do on these top-notch optics can be thrown out the window if you introduce a sub-par scanning effort in your workflow. For those of us not having access to expensive scanners, these incremental increases in optical quality is really pointless. A "good-enough" lens is really "good-enough" for our purposes, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
CJP6008
Established
Not cheap but nothing compared to Leica for body or lenses IMHO. As far a lens quality goes Irwin Puts speaks highly of the ZMs. Both the Zeiss and their Leica equivalent lenses are superb performers he says and will produce all the right numbers on the MTF graphs etc. The differences in performance and how they draw the image are, he says, more to do with differing design philosophies. see http://www.imx.nl Apparently Zeiss have tended to make 35mm lenses that give a rather different look to Leica. More of a medium format look. Mr Puts puts it better than I. Have a read. I just want to get my paws on one!
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
