New Zeiss SLR List Prices

[CameraQuest]

The new Zeiss 50/1.4 in Nikon or M42 mount is estimated to ship in February, with a list price of slightly less than $500 in Japan.

The new Zeiss 85/1.4 in Nikon or M42 mount is estimated to ship in March, with a list price of slightly less than $1000 in Japan.

Selling prices will be slightly below the figures above.

Stephen Gandy

[hiwatt]

..time to get hold of an FM3...*drooling*

[sdai]

I have only one question ... when they'll make a Distagon 21, or maybe a PC Distagon 35?

[rover]

It is cool having great sponsors posting info like this for us.

Thank you

[Stephan]

It is cool having great sponsors posting info like this for us.

Thank you


I was just thinking that :) I think there may be some GAS-pimping involved :D

[peter_n]

That 85 sounds very nice. Time to dust off the old F3... :)

[jlw]

Hmmm, almost makes me wish I hadn't sold my plain-prism Nikon F to another RFFer! (Note that I did say "almost" -- shooting with an SLR still makes me feel icky, no matter whose glass is on it!)

[sdai]

That 85 sounds very nice. Time to dust off the old F3... :)



Both C/Y and N versions of the 85 Planar can not compare to the Nikon 85/1.4 and Canon 85/1.2 ... my bet is on the Sonnar 85 ZM if Mr. Gandy has a great price on that. :cool:

[dgray]

These prices make me wonder if the lenses are significantly different than their predecessors in the Contax line. I don't remember the Contax lenses being this expensive (correct me if I'm wrong), at least the manual focus ones in C/Y mount. I certainly understand the attractiveness of using Zeiss lenses with full exposure coupling on a modern Nikon digital body, but for film it would be cheaper to buy an old AE or MM 50/1.4 for $200 and even throw in a Contax body all for less than the $500 list price. Do we know if these are different formulations from the old lenses, or is it the same basic design with a new mount? I don't shoot Nikon, so maybe I just don't feel the temptation enough. And what would be the advantage of the M42 mount for Canon shooters over a currently available Contax to Canon adaptor for the old Contax lenses?

[sdai]

They do appear to be fresh designs according to construction diagrams posted on Cosina's web site - more simplified than their predecessors - not sure if that's a good sign. :D

I wouldn't mind giving them a shot if the 50 can be had at less than 250 US and the 85 for 500 dollars - as I've already owned more than 10 copies of different short teles in the 80-90mm range.

http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/index.html

[sdai]

Interestingly, in a Cosina press release circulated in Japan, Cosina claims the ZF lenses are fruits of joint development between the two companies. I suspect that means these are actually Cosina lenses only "approved" by Zeiss. :D

[jlw]

Interestingly, in a Cosina press release circulated in Japan, Cosina claims the ZF lenses are fruits of joint development between the two companies. I suspect that means these are actually Cosina lenses only "approved" by Zeiss. :D

It sounds like you're accusing the two companies of mere "badge engineering." That doesn't seem reasonable -- there were no prior Cosina lens designs with these specs, so it's not as if they had something on the shelf on which they could just slap someone else's name.

What I suspect is that Zeiss did the optical designs and Cosina made sure they could be manufactured efficiently -- which would be a pretty good way to apply their respective areas of expertise.

[vincentbenoit]

I was just thinking that :) I think there may be some GAS-pimping involved :DYep, looks like a typical example of "offer creating demand" to me...

[sdai]

Why would I blame any of them? it's pure economics in the work ... I couldn't care less whatever they've done in the process. I was just wondering - if you took a look at the constrcution diagrams - why the new ones are different from the C/Y and N versions?

I'm not an optics engineer, barely a technical person in mind ... can anyone explain to me if and why a simpler optical design could bring some better results than what I can get from a more sophisticated (which may directly translates into technically advanced in my dictionary) construction?

[HamSW]

Three unconnected facts?

Cosina suddenly had some spare manufacturing capacity come up unexpectedly -

Nikon pulled out of MF Nikkor lens manufacturer (related to the above?)

Zeiss saw what a great job Cosina had done on the ZI lenses and on the Voigltlander SL range.


whaddya reckon?

[jlw]

I'm not an optics engineer, barely a technical person in mind ... can anyone explain to me if and why a simpler optical design could bring some better results than what I can get from a more sophisticated (which may directly translates into technically advanced in my dictionary) construction?

In lens designs, "simpler" (fewer elements, less-complex surfaces, etc.) is always better than "more sophisticated" (more elements, exotic surfaces) all other things being equal.

"All other things" in this context refers to the performance criteria demanded of the lens -- sharpness, contrast, freedom from aberrations and distortion, etc.

In other words, if you're a designer and you can choose from a simpler design or a more complex design, both of which have similar theoretical performance, you always choose the simpler design. Why? Because the performance of a lens inevitably involves a certain amount of randomness. This includes both large-scale variation, such as in tolerances during assembly, and very tiny variation -- the unavoidable quantum randomness in the behavior of individual light photons when they encounter the surface of the lens.

The fewer lens surfaces, the fewer opportunities for these random behaviors to produce undesirable results. Or to put it even more briefly: Simpler designs have less risk of something going wrong.

In the old days of high-performance lens design (say, the 1920s through the 1950s) a lens with ambitious design goals such as large maximum aperture, low distortion, high sharpness, and wide angular coverage inevitably required a complex, "sophisticated" assembly with a lot of elements. (Scale down the goals and the job got much simpler: If you're satisfied with a 2-degree angular coverage and a maximum aperture of, say, f/8 or smaller, a lens with only two elements can do an excellent job.) There were several reasons all this complexity was needed: the range of glass types available was limited, and the fact that all design calculations had to be done manually limited the range of options the designer could try.

Now, however, there is a more sophisticated understanding of how light behaves when passing through a lens, made possible in part by advanced computer modeling; and there also are a wider range of sophisticated glass types, surface shapes, and assembly processes available. This greater sophistication has translated into the fact that a "simpler" lens design (fewer elements, fewer groups, less exotic curvatures) can yield higher performance than a very complicated lens of days gone by.

It has always been true that the simplest lens that will do the job is the best; it only has been recently that technology has advanced enough to make it possible for the lens that will do the job to be simple!

Clear enough...?

[sdai]

Clear enough...?

Unfortunately, no ... ;)

Their rangefinder lens design seems to be a lot more consistent to me. At least I'm seeing the same numbers of (or more) elements in similar groupings if you compare the ZM to similar G lenses.

If I'm reading you correctly, the simplified design in ZF lens (compared to previous C/Y and N mounts) reflects some technology advance that was not possible in the ZM optics when compared to G glass?

[RJBender]

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for the Contax N1 has 10 elements in 9 groups:
http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?brandid=&parent=141000

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for the RTSIII has 6 elements in 5 groups:
http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?brandid=&parent=123000

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for Rollei QBM had 6 elements in 5 groups:

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/zeiss_85mm1-4.jpg
source: http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar ZF also has 6 elements in 5 groups:
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/zf-85top.jpg
source: http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/index.html

R.J.

[eric]

T

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/zeiss_85mm1-4.jpg
source: http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar ZF also has 6 elements in 5 groups:
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/zf-85top.jpg
source: http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/index.html

R.J.

OMG! I feel like a kid with pRoNo mag. I'm printing these pix out and going to the bathroom now. 85mm 1.4....droool.

[RJBender]

These prices make me wonder if the lenses are significantly different than their predecessors in the Contax line. I don't remember the Contax lenses being this expensive (correct me if I'm wrong), at least the manual focus ones in C/Y mount. I certainly understand the attractiveness of using Zeiss lenses with full exposure coupling on a modern Nikon digital body, but for film it would be cheaper to buy an old AE or MM 50/1.4 for $200 and even throw in a Contax body all for less than the $500 list price. Do we know if these are different formulations from the old lenses, or is it the same basic design with a new mount? I don't shoot Nikon, so maybe I just don't feel the temptation enough. And what would be the advantage of the M42 mount for Canon shooters over a currently available Contax to Canon adaptor for the old Contax lenses?

Prices on 85mm f/1.4 MM Planar
McBroom's Bluebook ©2000
$740 new
Orion Bluebook ©2005
$1420 list
Popular Photography Dec 1991
47th St. Photo Ad
$709.95

http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/dunno.gif


R.J.

[ch1]

So here's what I am wondering....

If all of these CZ lenses are now being made in Japan, are they still German glass? :D

[RJBender]

So here's what I am wondering....

If all of these CZ lenses are now being made in Japan, are they still German glass? :D

Good question, George. Was the glass grinding and coating work done in Germany or was everything done at Cosina's facility.

R.J.

[Stephanie Brim]

Wow...I thought they'd be higher than that.

[SDK]

Interesting, RJ. :cool: The diagrams are different from the CY mount versions, but not hugely so. There are slight changes in the surface curvature, but the major differnces seem to be in the parts of the elements that would be attachment points for the barrel and would not affect the image much, assuming their edges are properly blackened. The simpler shapes of the sides of the elements would simplify manufacturing and presumably reduce costs. without degrading performance much, if any.

I expect that the new ZF lenses also have new and different glass types too, since I read somewhere Zeiss, Schött and Leica have been collaborating in recent years to produce a lot of new glass formulations. It would be cool of the 85mm/1.4 uses some anomalous partial dispersion elements to provide apochromatic correction like the Leica M 75/2 AA and 90/2 AA Summicrons and some of the Apo R lenses.

It's too bad Cosina and Zeiss have not released MTF tests yet. I hope Zeiss' engineers have surpassed their Contax designs. If Zeiss does market a 28mm/2 Distagon in ZF mount with a good MTF wide open, it may well find a buyer here, though I will have to trade for it, as my significant other has put his foot down and I'm not allowed to spend any more money on equipment. :o

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for the Contax N1 has 10 elements in 9 groups:
http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?brandid=&parent=141000

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for the RTSIII has 6 elements in 5 groups:
http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?brandid=&parent=123000

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar for Rollei QBM had 6 elements in 5 groups:

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/zeiss_85mm1-4.jpg
source: http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/

The 85mm f/1.4 Planar ZF also has 6 elements in 5 groups:
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/zf-85top.jpg
source: http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/co/zf-85/index.html

R.J.

[Huck Finn]

Three unconnected facts?

Cosina suddenly had some spare manufacturing capacity come up unexpectedly -

Nikon pulled out of MF Nikkor lens manufacturer (related to the above?)

Zeiss saw what a great job Cosina had done on the ZI lenses and on the Voigltlander SL range.


whaddya reckon?

I see no evidence that the first 2 items on the list are factual. I doubt that any of us knows what Cosina's manufacturing capacity is one way or another, but we do know that Nikon has not pulled out of MF Nikkor lens manufacture. Nikon fans will still have 9 MF lenses to choose from that will continue in production.

Huck

[Huck Finn]

So here's what I am wondering....

If all of these CZ lenses are now being made in Japan, are they still German glass? :D

My guess is that the glass will be produced in Japan. It doesn't make economic sense for them to manufacture glass in one country & ship it to another 5000 miles away to complete production. I read somewhere in the past that all aspects of production for Contax cameras & lenses were based in Japan for this very reason. Also sited was the problem that any disruptions in shipping between the two countries would then disrupt manufacturing operations as well.

Huck

[Mazurka]

I wonder whether the lenses are made of Schott Japan (http://www.schott.com/japan/) glass or Hoya glass? :p

[RObert Budding]

Good question, George. Was the glass grinding and coating work done in Germany or was everything done at Cosina's facility.

R.J.

Why is that a good question? The Japanese are every bit as good at manufacturing lenses as are the Germans.

[RJBender]

Why is that a good question? The Japanese are every bit as good at manufacturing lenses as are the Germans.

Just trying to justify the prices of these lenses.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/smileys/i.gif

R.J.

[RJBender]

I'd like to have more information on these lenses. The Zeiss brand is not enough for me.http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/bandito.gif

R.J.

[RJBender]

Wow...I thought they'd be higher than that.


Shhhhhhh.








http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/blingbling.gif

R.J.

[ch1]

Just trying to justify the prices of these lenses.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/smileys/i.gif

R.J.

Hey R.J. - where've you been?

On another thread I noted that it's interesting to see Zeiss/Cosina is now producing imitation Nikkors! :D

Imagine spending $100 more for a Cosina-made/Zeiss-badged 50/1.4 MF F-mount than getting the "real McCoy" Nikkor!

As they say, "A fool and his money...."!

George

[leafy]

Hey R.J. - where've you been?

On another thread I noted that it's interesting to see Zeiss/Cosina is now producing imitation Nikkors! :D

Imagine spending $100 more for a Cosina-made/Zeiss-badged 50/1.4 MF F-mount than getting the "real McCoy" Nikkor!

As they say, "A fool and his money...."!

George
It all seems strange to me that you seem to imply "Cosina made == crap" or "Cosina made == it must be cheap else it's crap". Implying that even before seeing the lens or the picture it produces is really beyond me. Where did you get such reasoning?

[Doug]

Leafy, I think George just enjoys a bit of trolling...

[Huck Finn]

Leafy, I think George just enjoys a bit of trolling...

No doubt. :rolleyes: :)

[CameraQuest]

Guys and Gals,

There is SO much speculation in this thread that is just BS and inaccurate , it's a real shame because this thread does not live up to the normal high RFF standards.

Cosina is one of only two lens makers that I know of that makes its own glass. The other is Nikon. Neither Zeiss or Leica presently have this capability. In turn Cosina has supplied special blends of glass to many lens makers. The abiltiy to turn out relaively small quantities of special purpose glass is a MAJOR reason that Cosina was an attractive partner to Zeiss for the ZM camera and the new ZF lenses.

Cosina and Zeiss are PARTNERS on the project. Look around the net. I know of no other photography websites other than Cosina's and Zeiss that you will find the Zeiss logo.

While the new Cosina made Zeiss camera and lenses are primarily Zeiss designs (they do have the Zeiss name afterall), there is considerable Cosina input.

The new Zeiss products are NOT rebadged Cosina designs. Anyone suggesting otherwise is so far off the mark that I'm embaressed for them.

EACH Cosina made Zeiss item passes Zeiss quality control. Each serial numbered camera or lens has a signed Zeiss quality control tag in the box, signed by a Zeiss inspector at the Cosina factory.

The ZM lenses were designed to be as good or better than Leica's more expensive M lenses. Users reports seem to confirm this for the ZM 21, 25, 28, and 50. The 35/2 is almost there, but not quite. Cosina has succeeded in supplying the high end Leica RF market with Zeiss, and the best buy Leica RF market with Voigtlander -- something NO other RF maker has ever done!

Zeiss is extremely proud of their optics, and more than a little ticked off that many people believe that upstart microscope company in Solms is making the best camera lenses. You can be sure Zeiss and Cosina have done their best to make the best SLR lenses currently availalbe. IF they have not succeeded, there is no doubt in my mind the new SLR lenses will be among the very best. Time and user reports will tell.

In short folks, even if you don't ever buy one, be happy that Zeiss and Cosina have teamed up for a new lineup of high peformance manual focus 35mm SLR lenses. All it can do is help raise the bar a little higher for every new lens. Just when many are seeing film as dead, there is a new player in high end SLR lenses and Leica mount lenses! Things are gettting interesting.

Stephen Gandy

[MP Guy]

The hammer has fallen!

Stephen,

Thank you for stepping in and stating the facts. There is no question that what you say comes with the highest respect in the industry. Having said that, my next lens will be the new 15. :) Again thank you for your contributions to the forum.

[yossarian]

With respect to Mr. Gandy the statement about Zeiss not making their own glass is a little misleading. Schott supplies glass to Zeiss (and Leica), but Zeiss has had a majority interest in Schott for decades. So, while technically Zeiss doesn't make their own glass, they control the company which does.

This remark obviously only applies to Zeiss lenses manufactured in Germany. As the
Contax line progressed over time, all those lenses were re-formulated as necessary
for Japanese glass types. There have probably been additional changes to allow for any differences between Hoya and Cosina glass.

Cosina has since its inception manufactured everything except the Copal shutters they use in-house.

Fred

[Frank Granovski]

The ZM lenses were designed to be as good or better than Leica's more expensive M lenses. Users reports seem to confirm this for the ZM 21, 25, 28, and 50.There ya go---something I suspected for a long time. Zeiss is better than L-glass but at a fraction of the cost! Now my Leica glass will be posted on the sales forum but not before I buy some Zeiss Ms.

[ch1]

It all seems strange to me that you seem to imply "Cosina made == crap" or "Cosina made == it must be cheap else it's crap". Implying that even before seeing the lens or the picture it produces is really beyond me. Where did you get such reasoning?

I don't believe this!

I am not implying that Cosina makes crap at all! If you think that then you have no understanding of what I am trying to say!

What I am saying is that it is Zeiss has sold its brandname to Cosina. Now thos of us who have used Nikkors for years are supposed to think we are finally getting something better!

B.S. (Which is plain old American for Bull ****!)

Nikon has made better glass than Zeiss (and Leitz) for fifty years. The fact that old time Europhiles will only now buy Japanese glass because Zeiss is selling their brand is what is "crap"!

I've been using Nikon gear and Nikkors for over thirty years - and I am P'd off that folks now think that "knock offs" from third party manufacturers are somehow better.

BS

[Frank Granovski]

Well, I have 2 nice Nikon cylinders. The rest is so-so, minus a a couple of notches. I believe I'll be replacing these 2 also. It'll make my FM2T shine again. :cool:

[ch1]

Leafy, I think George just enjoys a bit of trolling...

Doug,

Perhaps you could explain your comment?

Thanks,
George

[yossarian]

I've been waiting for this to devolve into a battle of the True Believers. Some
Questions:

Who makes the best cars? Nobody

Who makes the best TVs? Nobody

Who makes the best cameras? Nobody

Clearly I could go on, but is there anyone anywhere who actually believes that ONE
company is superior in all ways in all products all the time?

Nikon has made great stuff. Nikon has made lousy stuff. So has everybody else--
GM, Benz, Boeing, Proctor & Gamble....Everybody.

I've used the Summilux 80/1.4, the Nikkor 85/1.4, and owned the Planar 85/1.4.
Not a lot of difference between them. But my beloved Zeiss was edged out by the Summilux, just as it in return edged out the Nikkor. Could be sample variations,
differences in humidty, shifts in the earth's magnetic field. But now just to be even more infuriating, it's my pleasure to announce that the Zuiko 100/2 beat them all.
Infinity shots were close, but at minimum focus it wasn't even close. Will something
else out there smack down the Zuiko? Of course. So what?

I revel in the news that new manual focus lenses are in the offing, whether Zeiss or
Petri. It means the apocalpyse has been postponed.

And now if you'll excuse me I need to load film into my Ricoh.

[Taipei-metro]

Guys and Gals,

There is SO much speculation in this thread that is just BS and inaccurate , it's a real shame because this thread does not live up to the normal high RFF standards.

Cosina is one of only two lens makers that I know of that makes its own glass. The other is Nikon. Neither Zeiss or Leica presently have this capability. In turn Cosina has supplied special blends of glass to many lens makers. The abiltiy to turn out relaively small quantities of special purpose glass is a MAJOR reason that Cosina was an attractive partner to Zeiss for the ZM camera and the new ZF lenses.

Cosina and Zeiss are PARTNERS on the project. Look around the net. I know of no other photography websites other than Cosina's and Zeiss that you will find the Zeiss logo.

While the new Cosina made Zeiss camera and lenses are primarily Zeiss designs (they do have the Zeiss name afterall), there is considerable Cosina input.

The new Zeiss products are NOT rebadged Cosina designs. Anyone suggesting otherwise is so far off the mark that I'm embaressed for them.

EACH Cosina made Zeiss item passes Zeiss quality control. Each serial numbered camera or lens has a signed Zeiss quality control tag in the box, signed by a Zeiss inspector at the Cosina factory.

The ZM lenses were designed to be as good or better than Leica's more expensive M lenses. Users reports seem to confirm this for the ZM 21, 25, 28, and 50. The 35/2 is almost there, but not quite. Cosina has succeeded in supplying the high end Leica RF market with Zeiss, and the best buy Leica RF market with Voigtlander -- something NO other RF maker has ever done!

Zeiss is extremely proud of their optics, and more than a little ticked off that many people believe that upstart microscope company in Solms is making the best camera lenses. You can be sure Zeiss and Cosina have done their best to make the best SLR lenses currently availalbe. IF they have not succeeded, there is no doubt in my mind the new SLR lenses will be among the very best. Time and user reports will tell.

In short folks, even if you don't ever buy one, be happy that Zeiss and Cosina have teamed up for a new lineup of high peformance manual focus 35mm SLR lenses. All it can do is help raise the bar a little higher for every new lens. Just when many are seeing film as dead, there is a new player in high end SLR lenses and Leica mount lenses! Things are gettting interesting.

Stephen Gandy

The $149 Sony S-40 has a 3X Zeiss V-Sonnar on it. The Zeiss may well be supplied by BenQ of Taiwan.(BenQ and a few lens co. in Taiwan export more than 10 million digital lens a year)
I just bought Sony HC-1000 w a 12X V-Sonnar. This $1,500 camera was made in Japan, The Zeiss on it I doubt was made by Cosina, or Q-controled by Zeiss, I didn't get any certification, document from Zeiss in the box. Sony made their own Zeiss lenses presumably by some design input from Zeiss.
So many Zeiss on Sony digitals( check out the new R1 lens), how for a user to know which Zeiss was strictly controled?
Sakuraya of Tokyo want you to reserved the Feb 2006 released ZF 50 1.4 for Y58,800 or $509, the selling price is going to be less then $450, street price one month from Feb for this Japanese lens, as my experience tells me, is going to be
less than $400, not a lot of difference from a new Ai-S 1.4 for $299, thus all the guessing game of it's design/make originality.
You are a Zeiss merchant you speaks for Zeiss, it's you and Zeiss to be blamed for the confussion.
I don't think any cameraman has doubt about the lens quality of Zeiss, it's just that the inability of Zeiss to make their own lenses in their own land, regardless of the price they're charging that creat the confussion. did Nikon ever made lenses in Germany?
In the past 46 years Nikon has designed and made thousands of SLR lenses, many of them surpass Zeiss counterpart w lower cost.
It's the Big-deal-ness that Zeiss put out that caused the negativity and doubt.
So the 85 1.4 came out Apr. 2006, retail Y117,600 or $1,018, again, Sakuraya want you to reserve yours.
Chosen by Asahi Camera Sept 2005, one of the best Nikkor is the Ai 85mm f1.4-S(5-g 7-element), retail Y112,350, since it was issued in 1981, this lens street around $650.

[Huck Finn]

I don't believe this!

I am not implying that Cosina makes crap at all! If you think that then you have no understanding of what I am trying to say!

What I am saying is that it is Zeiss has sold its brandname to Cosina. Now thos of us who have used Nikkors for years are supposed to think we are finally getting something better!

B.S. (Which is plain old American for Bull ****!)

Nikon has made better glass than Zeiss (and Leitz) for fifty years. The fact that old time Europhiles will only now buy Japanese glass because Zeiss is selling their brand is what is "crap"!

I've been using Nikon gear and Nikkors for over thirty years - and I am P'd off that folks now think that "knock offs" from third party manufacturers are somehow better.

BS

Pathetic drivel. :(

[Huck Finn]

it's you and Zeiss to be blamed for the confussion.


Don't assume that anyone else is confused just because you are. You are responsible for your own confusion. :rolleyes:

[Huck Finn]

did Nikon ever made lenses in Germany?

No, but they make lots of Nikon stuff in China & Thailand.

[Taipei-metro]

It all seems strange to me that you seem to imply "Cosina made == crap" or "Cosina made == it must be cheap else it's crap". Implying that even before seeing the lens or the picture it produces is really beyond me. Where did you get such reasoning?
Well, Cosina is crap 10, 12 years ago, COMPARE to Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Minolta lenses.
Today, saved by the bell, Cosina gets to produce German brand Voigtlander and Zeiss. Because they've done "good" (R, R2, 2a 3a and lenses). In the other hand they also do Phoenix, Promaster, Dakoda, Vivitar... stuff, users can only say, not bad for the money's worth.
In the mean time Today's Sigma, Tokina, Tamron's consumer or pro grade lenses are considered to be "better" than that of Cosina counterparts.
No one says Zeiss is bad, this is not the first issue Japanese-Zeiss, contax G, MM, N, Zeiss on Yashica T, T2, T3, T4, T5, or on countless Sony digi-cams confused users about the originality of the brand.

[raid]

I have to accept the fact that my only Zeiss Planar 85mm/1.4 will still be the one for my Rolleiflex and so will the Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.4. In fact, I also have a Zeiss Distagon 35mm/1.4 in Rolleiflex mount. All are multicoated and take beautiful photos.

[Taipei-metro]

No, but they make lots of Nikon stuff in China & Thailand.
Don't you think I know that?
There is a big Nikon factury in Taichung, Taiwan because the weather is dry and clear almost all year which is vital for lens and camera productions.
Many China factories were owned and OEM-ing for Taiwan's BenQ, which is a giant digital camera and computer co( do you have a lap-top? Acer? guess who is the original designer/manufacturer?) Your 3,4,5, MP digital cams 90% I'd say were made in China by BenQ.
Labor cost is of course is the reason for Nikon to move, Canon, is the MAJOR reason Nikon goes Thailand. canon move their production to Taichung decade before Nikon.
In early 70s, Nikon is pro choice #1 gear, they do higher priced gears, that's why there is no Nikonet GIII 17, their Nikonmat, F series beats the sh-- out of Canon's FT, FTb even the F-1, NO pro used Canon.
Today, the wheel has turned, Nikon is playing catching up game. Thailand's not so good q-control lenses, N80, are no match for Canon's Elan7, 7n made in Taiwan, now they have dicontinuted the best, made in Japan Nikon, F100. bad.

BTW, Did you sell your Rollei rf and that Sonnar 40 yet? Good luck!

[Taipei-metro]

Don't assume that anyone else is confused just because you are. You are responsible for your own confusion. :rolleyes:
Don't you think you're too old to look for a fight?
Or is your initials are F.H. instead of H.F?
You never have a Sony w Zeiss lens on, right? So tell me, who made/designed the 7.9-23.7mm 2.8-5.2 Vario-Zeiss on the W7? I don't think you have any clue. grandpa!
Hey, we respect the elderly in this part of the world, behave!

[Frank Granovski]

Yes, yes; I will be going Zeiss for my new Cosina Voigtlander. I trust the camera and I trust the Zeiss lenses, especially the 50mm. However, tomorrow I have to use my Leica 40mm because I don't have any Zeiss yet. But the Zeiss are coming. :)

[RJBender]

I have to accept the fact that my only Zeiss Planar 85mm/1.4 will still be the one for my Rolleiflex and so will the Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.4. In fact, I also have a Zeiss Distagon 35mm/1.4 in Rolleiflex mount. All are multicoated and take beautiful photos.


Raid,

Your Rollei Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar is the one with the triangle shaped iris. Do you only use it wide open? I heard the bokeh has many triangles in it. I almost got one 8 years ago but got the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor instead. I love the 85 Nikkor however I like my 35mm f/2.8 Distagon better than my 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor.

R.J.

[raid]

Raid,

Your Rollei Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar is the one with the triangle shaped iris. Do you only use it wide open? I heard the bokeh has many triangles in it. I almost got one 8 years ago but got the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor instead. I love the 85 Nikkor however I like my 35mm f/2.8 Distagon better than my 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor.

R.J.

RJ: I have no other option but use it wide open since the aperture mechanism is broken and I have not been able to find anyone willing/able to repair the lens due to spare parts that are nearly impossible to find these days. I like the bokeh of the lens, but now will look more carefully for the trinagles you mentioned. I also have the 35mm/2.8 in addition to the 35mm/1.4, which is absolutely awesome.

[RJBender]

RJ: I have no other option but use it wide open since the aperture mechanism is broken and I have not been able to find anyone willing/able to repair the lens due to spare parts that are nearly impossible to find these days. I like the bokeh of the lens, but now will look more carefully for the trinagles you mentioned. I also have the 35mm/2.8 in addition to the 35mm/1.4, which is absolutely awesome.

Raid,

You won't see the triangle shapes unless you stop down. There is more information here (http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf).

R.J.

[Doug]

Your Rollei Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar is the one with the triangle shaped iris.Even if the lens is marked Rollei Planar and not Zeiss Planar this seems very hard to believe, as an outrageously cheap feature in a supposed top-quality lens. Truly only three aperture blades??

[RJBender]

Even if the lens is marked Rollei Planar and not Zeiss Planar this seems very hard to believe, as an outrageously cheap feature in a supposed top-quality lens. Truly only three aperture blades??

Yes, I agree. Rollei was having some financial difficulties at the time. It seems like Carl Zeiss should have stopped the production of this lens or, at least, instructed Rollei to leave the sacred CZ name off the lens. http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/bowdown.gif

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/zeiss_85mm1-4.jpg
source: http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/sl35/lenses/images/zeiss/

More information on Steve Gandy's website (http://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm):
85/1.5 HFT Planar, Germany, Contarex derived design with triangular aperture,

R.J.

[raid]

The lens is labeled Carl Zeiss and not Rollei, by the way.

[yossarian]

It's a bit strange. There are far more than three blades, but somehow as the lens is stopped down, a triangle with slightly convex sides is formed. This is true of the 85 in both Contarex and Rollei mounts.

I have seen this elsewhere. Occasionally in movies I've noticed that OOF highlights will have this same odd shape, suggesting is was characteristic of other Zeiss lenses,
perhaps those initially made in the '70s.

But I couldn't begin to explain how the mechanism worked or why Zeiss created such
a peculiar shape.

[RObert Budding]

RFF really seem more and more like pnet. Why bother!

[Frank Granovski]

That's pnut or peanut. :)

But the folks here are much nicer and the moderating is professional. Plus there's almost no personal attacks.

[raid]

This is true; personal attacks are not there, but don't expect to receive only praises either. Some people here are very honest when it comes to offering criticism.

[RJBender]

That's pnut or peanut. :)

But the folks here are much nicer and the moderating is professional. Plus there's almost no personal attacks.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/prank/repuke.gif http://www.acuraworld.com/forums/images/smilies/bash.gif Frank is correct. http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/twak.gif http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/xnuts.gif
R.J.

[Flow]

RFF really seem more and more like pnet. Why bother!


I agree...

[Mazurka]

RFF really seem more and more like pnet. Why bother!

Rabies is not very common on photo.net

[AGN]

Hmmm, almost makes me wish I hadn't sold my plain-prism Nikon F to another RFFer! (Note that I did say "almost" -- shooting with an SLR still makes me feel icky, no matter whose glass is on it!)

And that member will be forever grateful.

[Palaeoboy]

Taiwan_metro, yet again you contradict yourself. You complain that Zeiss doesnt make lenses in its own land and then claim you already know Nikon does the same?

"they do higher priced gears, that's why there is no Nikonet GIII 17" And what about the three Nikkorex models made by Chinon for Nikon at that time? Dont presume to lecture when you havent even got your facts correct.

Copakeham, you claim that Cosina bought the Zeiss logo to put on lenses? You and Taiwan_metro should get together as study partners to do some accurate research for a change.

You both should be reminded that the Nippon Kogaku KK was formed in 1917 starting with some 200 employees and 8 "German" optical engineers. The first cameras copied the German Contax mount and the Leica shutter design, and many of their famous rangeinder lenses like the 50mm f1.4 and 85f2 were also copies of Zeiss designs. You both seem to take it as a personal afront that Zeiss is offering lenses in F mount, when you should take it as a compliment that Zeiss recognises the strength of Nikons MF bodies. At last count I had 8 or so Nikon cameras and 15 Nikon lenses, but I dont believe that any one lens manufacturer makes the best lens in every focal length. Every lens maker has a lens of a particular focal legth that could be considered best in its class, sometimes it was Nikon, sometimes Olympus sometimes Zeiss, sometimes Leica. Personally in SLR lenses I find Nikon a bit weak in the 35mm focal length and the 50mm f1.4 AI bettered by a few different maufacturers. In fact its the old 50mm f2 thats their best 50 but few ever consider that lens. The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and 21mm Biogons were considered best in their class. To deny that in some circumstances that Zeiss can surpass Nikon in some focal lengths is to bury your heads in Nikon sand.

[Huck Finn]

Taiwan_metro, yet again you contradict yourself. You complain that Zeiss doesnt make lenses in its own land and then claim you already know Nikon does the same?

"they do higher priced gears, that's why there is no Nikonet GIII 17" And what about the three Nikkorex models made by Chinon for Nikon at that time? Dont presume to lecture when you havent even got your facts correct.

Copakeham, you claim that Cosina bought the Zeiss logo to put on lenses? You and Taiwan_metro should get together as study partners to do some accurate research for a change.

You both should be reminded that the Nippon Kogaku KK was formed in 1917 starting with some 200 employees and 8 "German" optical engineers. The first cameras copied the German Contax mount and the Leica shutter design, and many of their famous rangeinder lenses like the 50mm f1.4 and 85f2 were also copies of Zeiss designs. You both seem to take it as a personal afront that Zeiss is offering lenses in F mount, when you should take it as a compliment that Zeiss recognises the strength of Nikons MF bodies. At last count I had 8 or so Nikon cameras and 15 Nikon lenses, but I dont believe that any one lens manufacturer makes the best lens in every focal length. Every lens maker has a lens of a particular focal legth that could be considered best in its class, sometimes it was Nikon, sometimes Olympus sometimes Zeiss, sometimes Leica. Personally in SLR lenses I find Nikon a bit weak in the 35mm focal length and the 50mm f1.4 AI bettered by a few different maufacturers. In fact its the old 50mm f2 thats their best 50 but few ever consider that lens. The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and 21mm Biogons were considered best in their class. To deny that in some circumstances that Zeiss can surpass Nikon in some focal lengths is to bury your heads in Nikon sand.

Well said. :cool:

[Mazurka]

"they do higher priced gears, that's why there is no Nikonet GIII 17" And what about the three Nikkorex models made by Chinon for Nikon at that time? Dont presume to lecture when you havent even got your facts correct.

Copakeham, you claim that Cosina bought the Zeiss logo to put on lenses? You and Taiwan_metro should get together as study partners to do some accurate research for a change.

Two small things: first, it was Mamiya who made the Nikkorex bodies.

Second, Joel is too much of an optimist. ;)

[Sadimmock]

"why there is no Nikonet GIII 17, their Nikonmat, F series beats the sh-- out of Canon's FT, FTb even the F-1, NO pro used Canon".


As a general rule I don't post in threads that are getting a bit hot under the collar; in fact I don't post that much at all ;) I do however feel the urge to reply to this statement. Firstly Photography is a very broad church so I'm sure that most major brands (and some obscure ones) could claim at least some kind of pro following. Secondly (and more importantly) the Canon F-1 was very popular with certain sections of the press; mostly sports photographers. This was mostly because the Canon long-tele's were percieved to be better than the Nikkors of the time.
Thirdly the whole Canon v Nikon argument seems to be a little irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. Personally I'm sure that the ZF lenses will be of excellent quality in the same way that the ZM ones were. The one thing that I don't understand though is what's happened to the Zeiss factory in Japan where the C/Y mount (and I think the G mount) lenses were made. It seems odd that Zeiss would sub-contract the work to Cosina (no matter how good they are) when they have their own factory (with the same labour costs) already tooled up to make the lenses.
By the way in response to an earlier comment Minolta also make some of their own optical glass (or at least used to until recently) and Canon make their own Fluorite (and strangely sell small amounts of it to Nikon, Zeiss, Leica and Olympus for use in microscope objectives).

[Huck Finn]

By the way in response to an earlier comment Minolta also make some of their own optical glass (or at least used to until recently) and Canon make their own Fluorite (and strangely sell small amounts of it to Nikon, Zeiss, Leica and Olympus for use in microscope objectives).

Minota's out of business since being bought up by Konica a year or so ago & Konica is now out of the camera business. If Konica is using Minolta's glass making capabilities, it's not to make consumer camera lenses.

[Sadimmock]

Minota's out of business since being bought up by Konica a year or so ago & Konica is now out of the camera business. If Konica is using Minolta's glass making capabilities, it's not to make consumer camera lenses.


Good point :o

[Palaeoboy]

it was Mamiya who made the Nikkorex bodies

Yes! Thats who it was. I had a Nikkorex F once that took F mount lenses in my collection, it was quite poor build quality too. The other 2 models one had a fixed lens the other took that 36-72 Zoom that Nikon put out. The Canon Q's were far better made.

Huck, Minolta isnt dead its just been bought by Sony. Like Ericsson phones we may well see Sony Minolta. Sony buys these companies to make additions to its product line not to close the company down. Minoltas "in body" image stabilization technology is highly sought after. Sony hasnt a digi SLR line with a proven Mount. Minolta does. Sony with its sensor technology and Minoltas SLR camera technology may combine to challenge Canon and Nikon in the Digi SLR Market. This could be a good thing not bad. Maybe I then can hold on to my dream for a CLE2 CLE(D). Oh your right Mazurka, I am too much of an optimist. But we all need our dreams dont we?

[Huck Finn]

Huck, Minolta isnt dead its just been bought by Sony.

Wow, things change fast! When did Sony buy Minolta? It was only a year ago that a friend of mine who worked for Konica was transferred because Konica was consolidating after merging with Minolta after a buy-out. This led my friend to quit Konica after a few months & return home to a new job because the old Minolta people wanted to keep doing things the old Minolta wasy that hadn't worked & his superiors at Konica wouldn't bring the Minolta people in line. Then we read recently that Konica-Minolta was getting out of the camera business. So, is that when Konica sold off Minolta to Sony?

Whew, I just can't keep up with all of these changes. :eek:

Huck

[Doug]

The one thing that I don't understand though is what's happened to the Zeiss factory in Japan where the C/Y mount (and I think the G mount) lenses were made. It seems odd that Zeiss would sub-contract the work to Cosina (no matter how good they are) when they have their own factory (with the same labour costs) already tooled up to make the lenses.That was the Tomioka plant that made Tominon lenses for Polaroid among others and even made a Cosina-branded lens... If I follow the history correctly, this lens plant was purchased by Yashica to expand their production capacity, and then Yashica made the move upmarket by licensing the Contax name and arranged in cooperation with Zeiss to manufacture Carl Zeiss lenses in that old Tomioka facility. Then Yashica got swallowed up by Kyocera, and things seemingly remained ok until Kyocera decided they were behind the technology curve on digital and decided to get out of the camera business last year. So the Kyocera/Zeiss lens plant at Tomioka closed down. The mystery to me is that Tomioka wasn't purchased by Cosina for their expanding lens production needs!

[Mazurka]

Wow, things change fast! When did Sony buy Minolta?

I believe Sony bought the photographic business of Minolta, not the whole company.

[Mazurka]

That was the Tomioka plant that made Tominon lenses for Polaroid among others and even made a Cosina-branded lens... If I follow the history correctly, this lens plant was purchased by Yashica to expand their production capacity, and then Yashica made the move upmarket by licensing the Contax name and arranged in cooperation with Zeiss to manufacture Carl Zeiss lenses in that old Tomioka facility. Then Yashica got swallowed up by Kyocera, and things seemingly remained ok until Kyocera decided they were behind the technology curve on digital and decided to get out of the camera business last year. So the Kyocera/Zeiss lens plant at Tomioka closed down. The mystery to me is that Tomioka wasn't purchased by Cosina for their expanding lens production needs!

As a company, Tomioka is long gone. The lens plant was all that was left.

I guess the plant itself was co-owned by Zeiss and Kyocera. Kyocera has yet to relinquish (evidently exclusive) rights to the Contax name. It would not be surprising if they also refused to sell off their share of the lens plant.

[Patman]

Check out their Zeiss Ikon website, where they state that they have more new lens ideas than there are camera platforms available.

More to the point, Carl Zeiss' traditional camera partners have recently either gone belly-up or are shifting away from Zeiss...

1. Kyocera pulled the plug on Contax killing 4 Carl Zeiss lens lines in 1 stroke, Contax RTS manual focus 35mm SLR lenses, Contax N AF 35mm SLR lenses, Contax G 35mm RangeFinder lenses, and Contax 645 MF-AF lenses. That's a hugh hit to Carl Zeiss.

2. Hasselblad currently seems more keen on pushing the Fuji/Fujinon derived H system cameras & lenses, at the expense of their more traditional V system using CZ lenses.

3. Rollei 6008 system started with CZ lenses, but subsequently began to offer Schneider lenses as well, also eroding sales of Rollei/Zeiss MF lenses.

4. Alpa switched from the Biogon 38mm lens to a Apo-Helvitar 48mm lens made for them by Schneider.

The last decade had not been too good for Carl Zeiss stills camera lens production... So it would be only logical for Carl Zeiss to look towards the creation of a premium niche lens line for the millions of Nikon F mount cameras in use.

[ed1k]

Looks great:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/01/$File/01.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/02/$File/02.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/03/$File/03.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/04/$File/04.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/05/$File/05.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/06/$File/06.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/07/$File/07.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/08/$File/08.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/09/$File/09.jpg

[Gabriel M.A.]

Rabies is not very common on photo.net
I take it you mean to say that rabies is more common here? I'm confused.

[Patman]

Why are some of the top camera manufacturers dropping Zeiss?
Hasseblad, Rollie and Alpha

1. Kyocera pulled the plug on Contax killing 4 Carl Zeiss lens lines in 1 stroke, Contax RTS manual focus 35mm SLR lenses, Contax N AF 35mm SLR lenses, Contax G 35mm RangeFinder lenses, and Contax 645 MF-AF lenses. That's a hugh hit to Carl Zeiss.

2. Hasselblad currently seems more keen on pushing the Fuji/Fujinon derived H system cameras & lenses, at the expense of their more traditional V system using CZ lenses.

3. Rollei 6008 system started with CZ lenses, but subsequently began to offer Schneider lenses as well, also eroding sales of Rollei/Zeiss MF lenses.

4. Alpa switched from the Biogon 38mm lens to a Apo-Helvitar 48mm lens made for them by Schneider.

The last decade had not been too good for Carl Zeiss stills camera lens production... So it would be only logical for Carl Zeiss to look towards the creation of a premium niche lens line for the millions of Nikon F mount cameras in use.

[RJBender]

Looks great:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/01/$File/01.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/02/$File/02.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/03/$File/03.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/04/$File/04.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/05/$File/05.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/06/$File/06.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/07/$File/07.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/08/$File/08.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/09/$File/09.jpg

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/01/$File/01.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/02/$File/02.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/03/$File/03.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/04/$File/04.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/05/$File/05.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/06/$File/06.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/07/$File/07.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/08/$File/08.jpg
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/09/$File/09.jpg

There we go! http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/bounce2.gif

R.J.

[Uncle Bill]

Just what is it about this alliance between Carl Zeiss and Cosina that has everyone in a tizzy. CZ provided the design and quality control, Cosina makes it. I got no issue paying the street price for a 50/1.4 or the 85/1.4 if it performs. Hell at some point I want to get a 50/2 Mount for my Leica M3. I love my CV 35/2.5 and I use it often.

Bill

[ch1]

There we go!
R.J.

R.J.

Nice pics - I cut them here - no need to repeat them in the quote here.

The big questions: 1) are they available; 2) if not yet, when? ; 3) how much?

Hey if it gets folks to buy the F6 and FM-10, thereby keeping Nikon in the film camera biz for a while longer I think it's great.

Anyway, I'm continuing to corner the F3 market so when all the Zeissians want to get a Nikon to try out these lenses - they'll drive up the price of used Nikon classics! :cool:

[ed1k]

There we go!

R.J.

Thanks R.J.
I do not really know anything about those lenses. I've just stolen those links to the pics from some russian speaking forum, those guys are interested in these lenses also :)

[RJBender]

R.J.

Nice pics - I cut them here - no need to repeat them in the quote here.

The big questions: 1) are they available; 2) if not yet, when? ; 3) how much?

Hey if it gets folks to buy the F6 and FM-10, thereby keeping Nikon in the film camera biz for a while longer I think it's great.

Anyway, I'm continuing to corner the F3 market so when all the Zeissians want to get a Nikon to try out these lenses - they'll drive up the price of used Nikon classics! :cool:

George,

I think ed1k had some trouble getting the images in his post.
I never thought I'd ever see a Zeiss lens with rabbit ears (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/nikonfmount/lens1.htm) on it.

http://bestanimations.com/Cartoons/WarnerBros/BugsBunny/Bugs-01-june.gif
http://www.corvetteforum.com/images/smilielol.gif

R.J.

[RJBender]

Just what is it about this alliance between Carl Zeiss and Cosina that has everyone in a tizzy. CZ provided the design and quality control, Cosina makes it. I got no issue paying the street price for a 50/1.4 or the 85/1.4 if it performs. Hell at some point I want to get a 50/2 Mount for my Leica M3. I love my CV 35/2.5 and I use it often.

Bill


http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/dunno.gif Which posts are you referring to, Bill?

R.J.

[RJBender]

Those DigiPrime® lenses look interesting. http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/bandito.gif DigiPrime®'s are cinematography lenses and they're built at CZ HQ in Oberkochen, Germany. Hmmmm. Is there a B4 to Nikon F mount adapter available? MORE (http://www.fvesco.com/rental/video/zeissdigipack.htm)

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/09/$File/09.jpg

R.J.

[leafy]

Those DigiPrime® lenses look interesting. http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/bandito.gif DigiPrime®'s are cinematography lenses and they're built at CZ HQ in Oberkochen, Germany. Hmmmm. Is there a B4 to Nikon F mount adapter available? MORE (http://www.fvesco.com/rental/video/zeissdigipack.htm)
R.J.

I don't think so. Those lenses have very little back-flange distance (something like the C-mount lenses that are used on CCTV video cameras) so converting it to Nikon F mount won't be reasonable.

Also I have heard that you could buy cars for the cost of some Digiprimes.

[Stephanie Brim]

I can proudly say that this is what will make me think about perhaps buying an Nikon SLR again (as soon as I have some money). A manual focus SLR with a good 50mm and 85mm lens should probably be in my arsenal...as much as I love rangefinders, the closer focusing ability of an SLR is something I miss on occasion. Very seldom, though.

[leafy]

I can proudly say that this is what will make me think about perhaps buying an Nikon SLR again (as soon as I have some money). A manual focus SLR with a good 50mm and 85mm lens should probably be in my arsenal...as much as I love rangefinders, the closer focusing ability of an SLR is something I miss on occasion. Very seldom, though.

Will you consider FM10/FE10? That will make a perfect Cosina combo! LOL!

[RJBender]

I don't think so. Those lenses have very little back-flange distance (something like the C-mount lenses that are used on CCTV video cameras) so converting it to Nikon F mount won't be reasonable.

Also I have heard that you could buy cars for the cost of some Digiprimes.

If the lenses cannot be used on the Nikon F6, Zeiss must be using the DigiPrime® lenses as props (theatrical property). You can rent one for $1200 PER DAY here:
http://www.fvesco.com/rental/video/zeissdigipack.htm http://www.ubbcentral.com/ubb/eek.gif

http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/jester.gif

R.J.

[RJBender]

Will you consider FM10/FE10? That will make a perfect Cosina combo! LOL!


Why don't they just paint it black, put the Voigtlander - Germany name on it and sell it as the Bessa F ?

http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/B0001DQKYQ.09.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/1zhelp.gif

R.J.

[leafy]

Why don't they just paint it black, put the Voigtlander - Germany name on it and sell it as the Bessa F ?

R.J.

Nah, people would call it "Rebranded FM10" then.

[leafy]

If the lenses cannot be used on the Nikon F6, Zeiss must be using the DigiPrime® lenses as props (theatrical property). You can rent one for $1200 PER DAY here:
http://www.fvesco.com/rental/video/zeissdigipack.htm http://www.ubbcentral.com/ubb/eek.gif

http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/jester.gif

R.J.
It's like those commercials for liquor and cigars, they all come with buxom girls, but you can never buy them in the stores.

[yossarian]

George,

I think ed1k had some trouble getting the images in his post.
I never thought I'd ever see a Zeiss lens with rabbit ears (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/nikonfmount/lens1.htm) on it.

http://bestanimations.com/Cartoons/WarnerBros/BugsBunny/Bugs-01-june.gif
http://www.corvetteforum.com/images/smilielol.gif

R.J.

R.J., not only "rabbit ears", but "backward" focusing as well.

Fred

[ch1]

I can proudly say that this is what will make me think about perhaps buying an Nikon SLR again (as soon as I have some money). A manual focus SLR with a good 50mm and 85mm lens should probably be in my arsenal...as much as I love rangefinders, the closer focusing ability of an SLR is something I miss on occasion. Very seldom, though.

Stephanie,

I think the jury remains out as to whether these CZ-branded, Cosina F-mounts will equal, much less surpass Nikkor primes. Particularly since the CZ/Cosina's are still nothing more than web pics right now.

But if their introduction raises used Nkon SLR body prices - okay with me. I'm "long" on bodies right now!

[RJBender]

Nah, people would call it "Rebranded FM10" then.


http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/jester.gif http://www.corvetteforum.com/images/smilielol.gif http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif

R.J.

[ch1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by leafy
Nah, people would call it "Rebranded FM10" then.


http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/jester.gif http://www.corvetteforum.com/images/smilielol.gif http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif

R.J.

I like that Bessa F idea. Then they could out with a "stripped down" version and call it the Bessamat FTN! :D

[Huck Finn]

Stephanie,

I think the jury remains out as to whether these CZ-branded, Cosina F-mounts will equal, much less surpass Nikkor primes. Particularly since the CZ/Cosina's are still nothing more than web pics right now.

But if their introduction raises used Nkon SLR body prices - okay with me. I'm "long" on bodies right now!

I have to agree with Stephanie on this one. There is every reason to be optimistic that these lenses will equal or surpass the Nikkor primes - & I say that as a guy who owns a lot of Nikkor lenses.

There aren't too many comparative lens tests out there, but we can use photodo as a starting point. They have tested both Nikkor & Zeiss lenses in C/Y mount. There is no reason to expect that these ZF lenses will be any worse than the CZ C/Y lenses. The CZ C/Y lenses surpassed the comparable Nikkors at both of these 2 focal lengths on photodo tests. - not by a lot, but their results were better. The difference tended to be at wider apertures & in resolution of finer detail. If those are your needs, you'll probably get better results with the CZs.

[RJBender]

Even if the lens is marked Rollei Planar and not Zeiss Planar this seems very hard to believe, as an outrageously cheap feature in a supposed top-quality lens. Truly only three aperture blades??

Doug,

Check it out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7611245793

R.J.

[mbisc]

Hey R.J. - where've you been?

On another thread I noted that it's interesting to see Zeiss/Cosina is now producing imitation Nikkors! :D

Imagine spending $100 more for a Cosina-made/Zeiss-badged 50/1.4 MF F-mount than getting the "real McCoy" Nikkor!

As they say, "A fool and his money...."!

George

I gather you have never used Zeiss glass (or are just some troll).

As a reminder to folks -- even in the Yashica/Contax days, most of the common lenses were manufactured in Japan in a Yashica/Kyocera factory under strict Zeiss control -- and yes, these "Made in Japan"-lenses knocked the %$# out of everyone else's SLR lenses, which is why they still command very high prices to this day...

Cheers,
Mike