Bifurcator
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Bifurcator wrote:
Zeiss made 3rd party glass pre-90's
pKai wrote:
Although technically they are, maybe not when they're on a Leica, I don't consider Zeiss a "3rd-party lens" for the purpose of differentiating them from camera-maker lenses in terms of IQ and build quality.... There is no argument that Zeiss has been making top-rate optics for well over a century. Voigtlander (sp) is another one that is not in the same category as the "eastern" 3rd-party lens makers. Some of their offerings, specially in the shortish focal length, big aperture range, positively wipe the floor with anything Canon or Nikon have to offer. If I had need for a top-notch 50 or 85 1.4, I would not hesitate to pick Zeiss over Canon.
As for the others.... yes, I suppose, there have been some good 3rd-paty lenses all along.... some even better than OEM lenses. My personal experience (meaning the lenses I actually got to use myself -- YMMV) since beginning in photography in the late 1970s was that until the mid/late 1990s 3rd-party lenses were consistently junk with some exceptions. Since then, that has sort of flipped..... mostly good with some junk..... At least when we're talking about the "major" eastern 3rd-party producers like Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, etc..... I still believe that Canon "L" and "pro-level" Nikons consistently surpass any 3rd-party offering (again, Zeiss, V not included)..... "consistently" being the key word there. Of course, they are priced accordingly.......
My point for deviating into lenses in a topic about gimbals was to illustrate that with lenses, generally you get what you pay for.... and this has historically and up to now been mostly true. A $2500 Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II will spank the pants off any similar 3rd party offering -- but at twice the price or more. The same is not true for a $600 Wimberley head versus a $150 Beike.
I've never agreed with that phrase even tho I have myself used it on occasion. One very often gets more for less and such it is with capitalism and the competition it encourages. Inversely one often pays a premium for nothing more useless than a simple printed logo. Apple's goods and that of their competitions is a great example here. In almost every case non-Apple products are superior in both function and toughness while at the same time much less expensive. Apple is fantastic at marketing and thus creating "demand" where none or little existed prior but just about everyone beats their pants off at making the toys. There are exceptions of course where sometimes the phrase applies but in my experience so far not really with support gear like remotes, heads, legs, lights, and so forth.
I don't remember the lens offerings back in the day because I almost only used maker glass with the bodies I owned. But today I have held, tested, and compared around 400 lenses this past year or two. It's of them and now (on digital) I know to comment.
In any case, for me, it doesn't really matter about any of the other gimbals because I would never pay their asking prices. I have used the Wimberley and I have compared it for one day to the Beike. If the price difference were even only two fold I would prefer the Beike. Yet the difference is not two but six to ten fold! The Beike is $69 with some expensive shipping (to Japan) attached bringing the total to something like $96 paid and delivered.
|
. Why is it different to use Zeiss on a Leica instead of using Zeiss on Canon/Nikon/Pentax 
