Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't buy this argument for a second. I have MANY Nikon lenses that cost much less than the Zeiss ZM lenses, and which I have had for nearly 20 years and NONE of them have these kind of stupid mechanical faults. How come Nikon, also a Japanese company, can build lenses with very high build-quality for LESS than Cosina charges for their crappy-made Zeiss lenses. I refuse to believe that you must pay Leica prices for lenses that do not fall apart. That's just plain dumb when Nikon can do it. I have Olympus OM lenses that are 20-30 yrs old that also do not wobble and they were cheap too. Pentax Screwmount lenses, even older, no wobble!
By making excuses for these companies, you give them license to keep screwing us with shoddy crap at high prices. Don't do that, it is not in your best interests.
brbo
Well-known
I don't think it's about making excuses for Cosina/Zeiss but more a fact of the state of the market. You want trouble-free M lens, buy Leica. If you can't afford that and want a modern M lens, you have no other choice but to buy a Cosina-made lens.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You have other choices. Konica M-Hexanons. Cosina Voigtlanders, which seem to have far fewer problems than the more-costly Zeiss lenses. The Zeiss lenses are made to a different design than the Voigtlander lenses and its a bad one. Zeiss's refusal to fix them or redesign them shows a lack of concern for the customer that we ought to discourage.
Krosya
Konicaze
I have to agree with Chris here. While I had 3 ZM lenses at one time or another - none had any issues and all were great optically, I would be hesitatnt to purchase one now, seeing that Zeiss/Cosina are not really addressing this issue nor do they take care of their customers that have lenses affected by this by fixing them for free. I will not say that Leica lenses dont have such problems, but as it seems - not nearly as much as we hear from ZM owners. I have several Voigtlander lenses and never had any issues with them, but with most of them I did some "preventative procedures". Only lenses that are and were truly trouble free are Hexanons for me. So, if they could do it at their price point - why ZM cant? No manufacturer has a "trouble-free" products, but question is - how they address these problems and how well they take care of the customer, so those customers will return. At this point - they lost my business, and I loved thier lenses. And I didnt have problems with them. Maybe I'm too unfair to them? I dont know. But I manage to find other products - current and vintage to be able to avoid ZM line and not be affected by such a fact......
Drago
Established
I don't think that Zeiss designed lenses with optical quality comparable with Leica but they can't design the mechanical part of them - something that they are famous for just like Leica. So i think it's all about quality control of the actual assemble made by Cosina and that's the problem. I hope that both companies acknowledge that and will figure it out somehow. I too think that noone should pay that much money for servicing that problems but let's hope the quality control in Germany is better and that would never be a problem again.
brbo
Well-known
Yes, instead of "modern" I should've said "currently produced".
In the last year I've bought 5 M lenses (1 Leica, 2 CV, 2 Zeiss), all used though. Only one (Leica) lens was perfect mechanically. And only one (Zeiss) was so bad that it wasn't usable (for me) without getting it fixed.
All the moaning here, obviously, is not enough to force Cosina/Zeiss to improve QC, design or build, especially if they can't produce enough M lenses to feed the market at current prices.
If every Zeiss lens that started to show a problem or signs of a problem would be returned to Zeiss for repair within warranty period, I'm quite sure, Zeiss would change the design and QC. People simply put up with small problems because Cosina produced lenses are several times less expensive than Leica. The fact that it would be possible for Zeiss to produce better ZM lenses is irrelevant on this market. In DSLR market they are considered to have better build quality as they must compete in a competitive market.
ChrisC
Established
Chris - Hmmm. As you quoted me, I should respond. I had replied to this Quote :
THE SAME MECHANICAL STANDARDS [as Leica], which isn't in doubt; Erwin Puts makes interesting reading on the mechanical differences of the two brands, and the inherent savings made by Zeiss which are reflected in their price. The only Zeiss lens I own is a C-Biogon and it is well priced, well made, and I expect it to 'see me out'.
You don't ["refuse" indeed] believe that one has to pay Leica prices for lenses which don't fall apart, nether do I; and I hope you aren't suggesting otherwise. And yes I too have fabulous Olympus lenses over 35 years old which are still perfectly usable. But my experience of Zeiss is only a good one and not in the slightest "crappy", and my Zeiss is at a different level to the two cheaper CV lenses I've owned [again, Mr. Puts makes interesting reading on CV lens construction]. My actual position is that all lenses [all goods] purchased, at whatever price point, should be 'fit for purpose'.
You are totally in error to state that I am "making excuses for these companies" and giving them "license to keep screwing us with shoddy crap at high prices", I have done no such thing; I only referred to the higher engineering & construction standards of Leica which is reflected in their price. But having said that; even Leica 'cocks it up' from time to time -------- but such rogue lenses, though infuriating for the purchaser, wouldn't neccessarilly make Leica 'crappy'.
........... Chris
Archlich
Well-known
I'm also wondering why the modern Zeiss SLR lens line - the ZF/ZE/ZK lenses, also made by Cosina - are so much better built. They are among the best lenses I have used mechanically.
Those are big chunks of metal and glass. How come the ZM lenses, which are smaller, built by the same company (and are of the same brand) and cost almost the same, comes so inferior in terms of build quality?
Those are big chunks of metal and glass. How come the ZM lenses, which are smaller, built by the same company (and are of the same brand) and cost almost the same, comes so inferior in terms of build quality?
Rezultz
Established
I have a Zeiss Biogon 35/2 that has a slight wobble and some focus ring play. It's out of warranty and I would love to finally get it serviced. Has anyone had luck sending a newer generation zeiss lens to DAG or Golden Touch or any other shop in the US? Thanks.
Turtle
Veteran
call me stupid, but getting the lens overhauled by the people who cannot build them right in the first place does not sound like a recipe for trouble free shooting. Presumably they use the same awful lube and do not use threadlock....
Mine will be overhauled by someone who knows the problems and knows how to fix them. Using different lube would be a good start.
Aluminium helicoids? Really? I would hope not. Aluminium surely is a poor choice for this purpose.
Mine will be overhauled by someone who knows the problems and knows how to fix them. Using different lube would be a good start.
Aluminium helicoids? Really? I would hope not. Aluminium surely is a poor choice for this purpose.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
A lot of lenses have aluminum helicoids. I've seen a lot of SLR lenses from the 70s and 80s...manual focus ones, not the modern AF lenses, that have aluminum helical threads too.
Archlich
Well-known
I received a quote from Zeiss USA last month that an overhaul (which is the only thing they would do) on my ZM25 costs $319.
Just a note.
Just a note.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
DAMN!!!!!!
dabick42
Well-known
I've just read this thread all the way through from its start on 11-12-2010 and can only shake my head in amazement and disbelief.
I presently own 23 Nikon lenses (mostly early pre-AI), 13 Canon FD (mostly breechlock), 16 Leica lenses (M and LTM, the newest 40 years old), and 7 Pentax M42 lenses.
All were bought secondhand, all have been well (but carefully !) used by myself and previous owners, and none - repeat NONE - has a wobble or a loose/tight/uneven focus ring.
I've only had 3 lenses serviced - 2 Summitars and a collapsible Summicron - and all three were over 50 years old at the time.
I'm an oldtimer myself, with oldtime cameras and lenses that were made the oldtime, old-fashioned way - carefully, with precision, by highly skilled technicians and engineers.
I get the impression that much modern camera hardware is hurriedly assembled by recently recruited farm girls and maybe 1 piece in a 1000 gets checked for quality.
A new lens that exhibits wobbles, slackness or focussing ring problems in just 1 or 2 years of (mostly) amateur use is a crap lens, irrespective of optical quality, and Cosina/Zeiss ZM lenses have a mini-epidemic of these defects it would seem.
Chris Crawford called it right - A company will only respond positively to criticism if it is confronted by heavy-duty table thumping and bellyaching from dissatisfied customers.
People-power wins every time... !
I presently own 23 Nikon lenses (mostly early pre-AI), 13 Canon FD (mostly breechlock), 16 Leica lenses (M and LTM, the newest 40 years old), and 7 Pentax M42 lenses.
All were bought secondhand, all have been well (but carefully !) used by myself and previous owners, and none - repeat NONE - has a wobble or a loose/tight/uneven focus ring.
I've only had 3 lenses serviced - 2 Summitars and a collapsible Summicron - and all three were over 50 years old at the time.
I'm an oldtimer myself, with oldtime cameras and lenses that were made the oldtime, old-fashioned way - carefully, with precision, by highly skilled technicians and engineers.
I get the impression that much modern camera hardware is hurriedly assembled by recently recruited farm girls and maybe 1 piece in a 1000 gets checked for quality.
A new lens that exhibits wobbles, slackness or focussing ring problems in just 1 or 2 years of (mostly) amateur use is a crap lens, irrespective of optical quality, and Cosina/Zeiss ZM lenses have a mini-epidemic of these defects it would seem.
Chris Crawford called it right - A company will only respond positively to criticism if it is confronted by heavy-duty table thumping and bellyaching from dissatisfied customers.
People-power wins every time... !
Rezultz
Established
That's absurd. You pay 1/3 of the price of the lens and don't get it back for several months. No thanks. I'd rather find someone in the States who knows how to fix the Zeiss wobble and do a CLA on these lenses. I spoke to Youxin Ye. He's says he's never worked on this lens but is willing to try. I'd rather give it to someone with experience.
Platinum RF
Well-known
First, what is the reason that causes wobble? If it is the focus helical pats were poorly made, A CLA will not help. If you look at the back of the lens, there is a ring hold the optical unit, tight it can get rid of wobble problem, however, if the helical parts is the problem, a CLA will not help.
MCTuomey
Veteran
$319 doesn't sound right. I had 2 ZM's repaired last year, specifically one for slackness and the other for stiffness in the focus ring. Total cost for both was about $340. I would suggest direct contact with Mr Richard Schleuning of Zeiss USA. In my case, he was very helpful.
Archlich
Well-known
Yes I was contacting with Dr. Schleuning, and he was indeed very helpful.
I feel strange too: I once had a Zeiss Ikon's whole baseplate replaced and its rangefinder adjusted by Zeiss, and was charged 90 Euros. No clue why this specific lens costs a fortune to work on.
Turtle
Veteran
I won't buy a ZM again. There is a serious issue with the wobbles appearing in so many lenses and no it is not acceptable. If CV lenses don't have this trouble, don't expect me to swallow the argument 'well if you dont want to pay Leica prices you cannot get decent build.'
Zeiss should be ashamed to charge $300 to rectify design/construction shortfalls not present in lenses 1/3 the price.
Zeiss should be ashamed to charge $300 to rectify design/construction shortfalls not present in lenses 1/3 the price.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Put me in the bliss category, even with a problem here and there. I have a number of ZM lenses and I'm very pleased with all of them. I've had a couple serviced, yes. I've also had a few Leica and CV lenses serviced over the years. I recall a 35 Cron with an aperture ring that repeatedly worked itself loose. Also a 35 Ultron that took itself apart in my bag. So what? I like the way my equipment images - I am kinda crazy for Zeiss but that's just me - and I'm not dumping anything I like because something needs a repair. Gear gets used, gear breaks down, gear gets fixed. Life is short and no place for whining.
I just love indignant gear comments, can you tell? As if buying equipment involved entitlement to a lifetime of grace and freedom from sh*t happening ...