What is a Carl Zeiss lens exactly?

[Alex_B]

In the 1930's, Germany developed both talented engineers and scientists

We still do, to be honest!

I know some examples.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Some of the new Zeiss Icon rangefinder lenses are being being made in Japan.

http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0806zeiss/

 

[Don Simon]

Some of the new Zeiss Icon rangefinder lenses are being being made in Japan.

Yep. The Zeiss Ikon rangefinder lenses are being made in Japan by Cosina, just like today's "Voigtländer" lenses, just like the new Zeiss primes for Nikon and Pentax mounts. I'm sure that some would consider these 'cheap' lenses; they obviously have extremely high standards and even deeper pockets. But most people who have seen these lenses consider them very well built and optically superb, in no way a disservice to the Zeiss or Voigtländer names.

Now are there cheap and average lenses labelled Zeiss? Of course there are. They're on point-and-shoots, what do you expect? And this, IMO, is precisely why you shouldn't go just by brand name... the Zeiss name on a lens now means the same as the names Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma etc... which is to say that the name doesn't mean much. You can find very good lenses with the Zeiss name and very unexceptional lenses with the Zeiss name (and this is not just about the country of origin)... just like there are good Canon lenses and less good ones, ditto Nikon and the rest. Many of these companies have worked with third-parties or used their designs as well. It's not about the name, it's about the quality of the lens, and the one does not always guarantee the other.

By the way, someone mentioned Schneider-Kreuznach... I have a Schneider-Kreuznach lens for my SLRs. Except its actually a Pentax lens rebadged for Samsung, and labelled this way because Samsung understandably think that the name "Schneider-Kreuznach" will sell lenses and cameras better than the name "Samsung". Now this probably annoys fans of German lenses because the name is being devalued by being used on lenses made by a (shock horror) Japanese optical company. And maybe I should care that my Pentax lens doesn't say Pentax on it; maybe I should have bought exactly the same lens with the Pentax name on instead of Schneider. But I don't, because it's a very good lens and that's what shows in my images, not the name.

My point? Don't assume that a brand name - any name - is always going to guarantee anything. Choose equipment based on your needs, your means and what appears to be the best available to you (that means doing a bit of research)... not just the name...
... of course, since most of us here are brand fans in one way or another, I'm probably just peeing in the wind

 

[toyotadesigner]

Yep. The Zeiss Ikon rangefinder lenses are being made in Japan by Cosina

No, Cosina manufactures only the parts of the ZI lenses, which are shipped to Germany and assembled by Zeiss. This way Zeiss is in full control of quality for the lenses.

 

[Garbz]

We still do, to be honest!

I know some examples.

Now if this isn't self advertisement I don't know what is . Mind you our software engineer in team project 2 at university did a phenomenal job this semester.

 

[Don Simon]

No, Cosina manufactures only the parts of the ZI lenses, which are shipped to Germany and assembled by Zeiss. This way Zeiss is in full control of quality for the lenses.

Fair enough, so Cosina still manufacture the parts... if I give you two slices of good bread and quality beef and you put it together, does that mean I had nothing to do with the making of a good sandwich? Besides this, the Zeiss ZF and ZK lenses for Nikon and Pentax mounts are indeed made in Japan, so I still argue that Cosina does not only make "cheapos".

 

[Mike_E]

At what point did the Japanese stop being able to make world class products?

Just curious.

 

[Helen B]

At what point did the Japanese stop being able to make world class products?

Just curious.

When their pride wouldn't let them lower their standards?

 

[Alex_B]

Now if this isn't self advertisement I don't know what is . Mind you our software engineer in team project 2 at university did a phenomenal job this semester.

lol, I always do this from time to time ... it is part of my cunning plan for world domination.

 

[SnakeVnzl]

Evidently you guys aren't talking about a Rolleiflex. :lmao:

i got one of those rolleiflex SL35

 

[RacePhoto]

Well, lots of today's submarine technology is based on inventions made towards the end of WW2, and so is a lot of today's rocket science.

Some technology is based on old technology, because something better isn't needed, not because the old technology was so good.

Quantum mechanics, what today's computers are based on, is almost one century old.

Pure hogwash!

One can program a conventional computer to select -- according to the laws of probability -- one of several possible computational paths to arrive at an answer. In any specific instance of the calculation, only one of the potential paths is taken, and the choices not made have no influence on the calculation's outcome.

In contrast, if it was quantum based computation, all the possible paths would interfere with one another in much the same way that overlapping waves of water can cancel or reinforce each other. Such quantum interference, or superposition, adds a logical element that's missing from classical computation.

So old does not always mean bad And "new" does not always mean "better".

Nor does old have some lost value when it's replaced with something NEW which is much better, but some people can't embrace chance or adjust to the new, because they are stuck is their old ways?

In fact quality standards for many sorts of products were way better 40 years ago than today.

No argument here! :thumbup:

And if you see the problems Canon and Nikon have with their quality end-control with their lenses ... well, that tells the whole terrible story of extreme mass production

Do they have real problems, or perceived problems?

I find the quality of both to be quite good. I'd take a Nikon or Canon camera or lens of today over any that I owned in the last 40 years. By the way, I owned an 85mm Carl Zeiss lens for my Canon FT back then. Do you remember what SLR cameras were like 40 years ago? And you are defending that against an affordable DSLR for the same price, with better lens selections and technology, which equates to more affordable pictures for the average person, as well as the professional.

Remember the disk camera? Polaroid? 124 and 127 film. Instamatics. And you find that better than todays point and shoot digital cameras. I find that hard to defend.

I agree with you. New isn't always better. But neither was old, always better, even though some people cling to the past.

 

[Don Simon]

Nor does old have some lost value when it's replaced with something NEW which is much better, but some people can't embrace chance or adjust to the new, because they are stuck is their old ways?

Er... I don't think anyone here suggested that all older gear was inherently better... I'm not really sure what you're referring to here... if the bit about people being "stuck in their old ways" and refusing to embrace change is about people choosing to use film instead of digital, or older lenses instead of newer ones... well, a bit off-topic, no?

Do they have real problems, or perceived problems?

Well since he was referring to quality control I would say the problems are real as long as people are having to return lenses for recalibration or reassembly. Admittedly quality control was not 100% perfect decades ago either, and without pixel(or grain)-peeping consumers complaining on internet forums you were less likely to hear about these problems... also the fact that lenses now include auto-focus and auto-metering technology means there is simply more to go wrong. So I admit it's not simply a case of quality control being poorer now, and to some extent that is perception (but it doesn't mean quality control can't be improved either).

Do you remember what SLR cameras were like 40 years ago? And you are defending that against an affordable DSLR for the same price

Eh... no he isn't. Saying that less effort is put into build quality or quality control is not the same as saying an old SLR camera is in all ways better than a new dSLR. Yes you get more for your money now... but again, not really sure what the point is here?

Remember the disk camera? Polaroid? 124 and 127 film. Instamatics. And you find that better than todays point and shoot digital cameras. I find that hard to defend.

Where did anyone say those were better than modern point-&-shoots? Yes it's hard to defend... so it's a good thing no-one tried

I agree with you. New isn't always better. But neither was old, always better, even though some people cling to the past.

And who would they be? I can't see them in this thread All anyone has said in that regard is that some of today's products aren't as solidly built, and quality control could be better; and this has been from people who very happily use new technology too... You make some very good points but I honestly can't see what they have to do with what's been said here. Perhaps you could elaborate