Zeiss lenses, Made by Cosina?

[Owen]

Aren't they made by Cosina in Japan now? No longer in Germany?

Owen

 

[joger]

Aren't they made by Cosina in Japan now? No longer in Germany?

Owen

correct.

A normal thing in the automotive industry and many other industries too.

But one of my personal critical point of views concerning the almost mythical attitude for Zeiss

--

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

 

[Skip M]

Taking it with the salutory graing of salt, knowing Wikipedia's sterling accuracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[Zeee]

Taking it with the salutory graing of salt, knowing Wikipedia's sterling accuracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

An interesting read. Thanks for posting.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

 

[Scales USA]

Zeiss Germany still makes Canon mount lenses, they just cost a arm and a leg. They are the best of the best, for video usage, but I doubt that we will be seeing reviews of $5,000 lenses.

 

[Tippler]

Zeiss makes many lenses including medium format and cine lenses among others, which may or may not be made in Germany. If your question is limited to 35mm SLR and M mount lenses, the correct answer to your question is that Zeiss lenses are made by Zeiss in Germany and Cosina in Japan While I do not have a reference handy, I do remember reading in an article that certain Zeiss SLR lenses are indeed manufactured in Germany: the Distagon 2.8/21 and Planar 1.4/85mm. The same article went on to mention that other SLR lenses are manufactured by Cosina in Japan.

With regard to M-mount lenses the FAQ at the Zeiss Ikon web page says:

“9. Who manufactures the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses?

Some types are manufactured by Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen, some types are manufactured by Cosina in Japan. The production is split-up to make the Carl Zeiss T* ZM-mount lenses affordable in price and therefore to open them to an expanded public.”

Also for more details, see article “Zeiss Quality - Made by Cosina” in Camera Lens News:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_25_en/ $File/CL-News_web_en.pdf

Regards,

Tippler

 

[pandalee]

ZF, ZE , ZK , ZA and ZF2 line are all made by Coshina and tested by Zeiss standard..

if you can read Japanese , you will see more about on this at Cosina Zeiss site but I am too lazy to translate the whole article there now.

but dont hesitate to buy these Cosina Zeiss lenses, I have some impression the build quality of these ZE and ZF2 lines and may be the IQ too definitely improved upon the old Contax Zeiss lenses and they are much cheaper than most of so called brand lens..

Aren't they made by Cosina in Japan now? No longer in Germany?

Owen

 

[Skip M]

but dont hesitate to buy these Cosina Zeiss lenses, I have some impression the build quality of these ZE and ZF2 lines and may be the IQ too definitely improved upon the old Contax Zeiss lenses and they are much cheaper than most of so called brand lens..

Not so sure about that, the 85 f1.4 costs about $1200, vs abt. $1900 for the Canon 85 f1.2 (That 1/2 stop is costly) but the Zeiss 100 f2 is nearly $2000, as opposed to the Canon 135 f2 at around $1000.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[joger]

. . . but the Zeiss 100 f2 is nearly $2000, as opposed to the Canon 135 f2 at around $1000.

--

The AF is the weak point of the f/2.0 135 mm lens - AF lenses can not be as good as Mf lenses (if you follow the logic of Zeiss)

The 100 mm macro from Zeiss is surely an unique lens in it's absolute quality level - but whether it's worth double the price of the Canon must be judged by the potential buyer.

--

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

 

[pixee]

I have Zeiss ZE (Canon mount) 21mm distagon f2.8 and 50mm planar f1.4. 21mm is one of the best or even the best wa-lens for Canon and 50mm Planar gives fine colour, contrast and bokeh rendering, too.

Compared with old Zeiss Contax lenses the quality gap is minimal. My favourite zeiss is still, with 21 distagon ze, 60mm contax s-planar macro. Which was said to be the sharpest lens ever in the market, but in ebay you can find that lens for 500€, less than half a price for 50mm f2 macro.
Here is a test about 21mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Skip M]

. . . but the Zeiss 100 f2 is nearly $2000, as opposed to the Canon 135 f2 at around $1000.

--

The AF is the weak point of the f/2.0 135 mm lens - AF lenses can not be as good as Mf lenses (if you follow the logic of Zeiss)

i do not subscriibe to that logic, nor do I find the AF to be a weak point of the 135 f2 that I own and use extensively. Additionally, the issue at hand was the statement that Zeiss lenses were less expensive than their branded equivalents.

The 100 mm macro from Zeiss is surely an unique lens in it's absolute quality level - but whether it's worth double the price of the Canon must be judged by the potential buyer.

I'm not sure how the Zeiss could justify the difference in price, the Canon lens is absolutely stellar. I'm not saying the Zeiss can't be better, I've never seen an example of, nor from, that lens, but there's only so much better it could be than the 135 f2.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

. . . but the Zeiss 100 f2 is nearly $2000, as opposed to the Canon 135 f2 at around $1000.

--

The AF is the weak point of the f/2.0 135 mm lens - AF lenses can not be as good as Mf lenses (if you follow the logic of Zeiss)

i do not subscriibe to that logic, nor do I find the AF to be a weak point of the 135 f2 that I own and use extensively. Additionally, the issue at hand was the statement that Zeiss lenses were less expensive than their branded equivalents.

There really is no equivalent to the 100mm f2 Zeiss. More on that in a minute...

The 100 mm macro from Zeiss is surely an unique lens in it's absolute quality level - but whether it's worth double the price of the Canon must be judged by the potential buyer.

I'm not sure how the Zeiss could justify the difference in price, the Canon lens is absolutely stellar. I'm not saying the Zeiss can't be better, I've never seen an example of, nor from, that lens, but there's only so much better it could be than the 135 f2.

It's a lot better at 1:2, and even better on a tube at 1:1.

Macro lenses have always been a lot more expensive than conventional lenses at a particular focal length and f-stop. A Canon 100mm f2.8 macro costs more than a 100mm f2.0 telephoto, despite the latter being a full stop faster. Zeiss managed to make a 100mm f2.0 macro, the usual rule is that you'd triple the price going up a full stop, so figure about 3x the cost of a 100mm f2.8 macro, and suddenly, $1600 is right in the ballpark.

I remember my first good macro, a Nikon 55mm f3.5. Cost me more than the 50mm f1.4 did, but you looked into it, and way down inside, recessed in this giant conical "hood" was a 15mm diameter lens. A little, bitty thing, looked like nothing at all...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Skip M]

Others listed, the T mount ones, say "macro" in the title, the one in question didn't. It wasn't until I read the description, after reading your post, that I realized it was a macro lens.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[Rick Knepper]

A company that got started manufacturing budget cameras.

1979 "Canon engineers were thinking of how to make photography easier for the masses. This has proved to be an enormously successful strategy, tapping into a new market segment heretofore ignored by other camera manufacturers which were more attuned to pleasing the advanced amateur and professional market segments."

 

[Powerdoc]

But one of my personal critical point of views concerning the almost mythical attitude for Zeiss

--

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

No different, than the mythical attitude for L lenses
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range

 

[pandalee]

hi , I forgot to mention one big benefit of using the Zeiss ZF and ZK lenses(unfortunately not the ZE).

even after all D-SLRs dead and we cannot have any more its native mount body, we 'll be able to use it on any kind of possible future mirrorless body via mount adapter.

I use my Nikon mount Zeiss on my Sony NEX 5 too and this is great.

Now, I dont need any dedicated Sony emount lens any more , I can just use my Zeiss ZF2 or VM Voiklander M mount lenses without any issue.

I can not use my EF lenses or ZE lenses on my NEX due to the electronic aperture control issue of the EOS system.

Aren't they made by Cosina in Japan now? No longer in Germany?

Owen

 

[pixee]

That is partly true!

And that´s why I prefer to use older Zeiss Contax or Leica R lenses with my Panasonic dmc GF1. BUT Also Zeiss ze lenses can be used with mirrowless systems, as all the Canon lenses, if the aperture is locked.
It can be done in the following way:

put the lens to eos body, set av, choose the aperture value, push the aperture control button when taking away the lens, the aperture is now locked and can be used with Olynpus-Panasonix-Sony nex -cameras with adapter. Not so practical but it works well.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

hi , I forgot to mention one big benefit of using the Zeiss ZF and ZK lenses(unfortunately not the ZE).

even after all D-SLRs dead and we cannot have any more its native mount body,

Quite an erroneous assumption. But that's not really the issue...

we 'll be able to use it on any kind of possible future mirrorless body via mount adapter.

I use my Nikon mount Zeiss on my Sony NEX 5 too and this is great.

Now, I dont need any dedicated Sony emount lens any more , I can just use my Zeiss ZF2 or VM Voiklander M mount lenses without any issue.

I can not use my EF lenses or ZE lenses on my NEX due to the electronic aperture control issue of the EOS system.

The electronic aperture control of the EOS is well understood and documented by the third party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) the smaller manufacturers like Voigtlander, and even independents such as the ROTSE team or myself.

The Sony NEX is a superset of Minolta alpha protocol, and the new messages wouldn't take much to decode. After that, it's just a matter of using an SOC (system on a chip) style microcontroller, even an 8 bit should suffice, to translate protocols. There's already one company launching this for four thirds to EOS.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com