Don't forget that Zeiss has produced, or at least stamped its label on quite a few electronically controlled lenses, including G-system, N-system, and alpha. I don't think you can claim that it's an aversion to electronics.
For starters, Canon _has_ licensed the EF mount to Kodak. Thus the only non-Canon EF cameras.
Note that the ZF/ZK/ZS line all lack any electronics, that's the most likely sticking point for a ZE line. I don't see Zeiss making lenses for a mount that are out of spec for that mount and you can't make EF lenses in-spec without electronics. The current lenses are all in-spec for their mounts and only the ZK lenses have anything resembling electronic coupling (As KA mount uses coded contacts for transmitting aperture information rather than electronics).
mh2000 wrote:
and you are comparing the ZF35/2 price to EF 35/1.4L instead of the EF 35/2 why
I guess by the same logic Canon is the same price as Leica since the EF 50L costs the same as a new Summicron-R 50... good logic?
>>35L = $1,180
ZF35= $826
etc.
Most users, most of the time, are going to use the 35mm focal length at apertures smaller than f2. I don't see most purchasers of the 35L choosing it over the 35/2 because of maximum aperture. They are interested in image quality at smaller apertures. Of course there is a value to be assigned to that big aperture that the 35L offers but I was responding to the assertion that Canon was a "tiny fraction of the price of Zeiss". Zeiss might be a little more expensive, but not a lot is my point.
Jay, I really disagree with that, sorry. How many threads have we seen with "show us your 35L shots" only to have one eyelash in focus, and that's considered desirable. Even if small apertures are where most people shoot most of the time, the bread and butter shots are almost always wide open. A more valid comparison might be the Contax 35/1.4, which was about $1500 new, I think.
mawz wrote:
For starters, Canon _has_ licensed the EF mount to Kodak. Thus the only non-Canon EF cameras.
This was for a body though. And we all know that camera companies make their profits, especially in the digital world, on lens sales. Maybe Zeiss needs to work on an EF mount camera!
StevenPA wrote:
This was for a body though. And we all know that camera companies make their profits, especially in the digital world, on lens sales. Maybe Zeiss needs to work on an EF mount camera!
The license for the mount came from their earlier partnership to build digital cameras. Note the Canon DSLRs between 1995 and 2000:
There may have also been an exchange of an important amount of digital technology that Canon saw itself (and presumably has) benefited from greatly. Surely they must have known that the early digital cameras would be prohibitively expensive (and they were) and quickly eclipsed as sensor technology got off the ground (as it did).
StevenPA wrote:
Jay, I really disagree with that, sorry. How many threads have we seen with "show us your 35L shots" only to have one eyelash in focus, and that's considered desirable. Even if small apertures are where most people shoot most of the time, the bread and butter shots are almost always wide open. A more valid comparison might be the Contax 35/1.4, which was about $1500 new, I think.
Could those shots on those threads be a result of artificial selection because of the group who would respond to such a thread are also showing wide open shots for the sake of showing wide open shots? I think bread and butter shots need to be looked at in a much wider perspective as most purchasers of the lens never post to a gear forum. For example, the 35L is a popular lens for landscape where f8 is considered wide open.
I may not have the right argument yet but I think it is out there. From my personal perspective I like Zeiss for the look and feel they deliver. The 35L also does a good job of delivering a similar image that I also like but it is more expensive and I seldom even shoot at 2.8 so that big aperture is useless to me. Maybe I'm just the oddball. :-)
Cosina already has the technology, they used it on the Voigtlander 125mm EOS mount. It would really easy to port this technology into the Zeiss line. I am wondering why they didn't right from the beginning...
Andrew Gough wrote:
Cosina already has the technology, they used it on the Voigtlander 125mm EOS mount. It would really easy to port this technology into the Zeiss line. I am wondering why they didn't right from the beginning...
This is why I don't buy into the "it's too much of a technical/design challenge" argument.
I like the Canon look, I like the Zeiss look, (I would probably even like the Leica look if I could afford it).
I truly enjoy my converted Zeiss Sonar 17-35 zoom. I very much enjoy my Canon L teles.
If Ziess made direct EOS mount lenses alot of us would by both Ziess and Canon (not so much of an either or situation as I see it). We're lens junkies...and proud of it. There are plenty of worse ways to spend one's hard earned money....My wife agrees (Good thing or I'd been dead meat long ago).
>>Most users, most of the time, are going to use the 35mm focal length at apertures smaller than f2.
This may be true, but when you pay big bucks for a faster lens, you buy it because you have the aperture when you need it. By the time you pass f2.8 *many* tests (ok, people argue this back and forth) show that the Summicron 50 is *better* than the Summilux 50... yet it usually boils down to cost when someone chooses... and if someone offered me my choice I would take the 'lux anyday, even if I bought the 'cron.
>>Zeiss might be a little more expensive, but not a lot is my point.
I guess I was also thinking more along the lines of *real* Leica and Zeiss lenses... new prices are quite a bit higher. Also, at smaller apertures the EF 35/2 is a very good lens.
jjlphoto wrote:
Reverse engineering is not patent infringement if done to insure compatibility .
Yes, it is. I asked my old patent lawyer today, as this has been bugging me.
This is why Apogee electronics could not, for many years, sell a daughter card that would let recording studios connect the Apogee digital converter to Digidesign's Protools hardware. (the industry standard DAW platform and a huge profit potential for Apogee.
Apogee actually designed the daughter card (strictly designed for compatibility and having no other function) and listed it for sale, but Digi's lawyers stopped them cold. The Apogee was significantly superior to the Digidesign converter, at very little extra cost. Digi had to go after them, no matter what the legal costs.
Also note mawz' post stating that Canon has licensed the EF mount to Kodak. If the technology could be licensed, then they hold a patent on it. -Or t least they did at that time.
Cableaddict wrote:
[Also note mawz' post stating that Canon has licensed the EF mount to Kodak. If the technology could be licensed, then they hold a patent on it.
Not necessarily true. You can license technology that is not patented. A patent is not require for licensing. Technology can be held as "trade secrets" and not publicly available or accessible. It can be sold or licensed to anyone willing to buy. At least some of Canon's technology appears to be held this way (try to find the patents).
From the horses mouth so to speak, here is a very polite response from Zeiss:
"Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Thanks for your request and your interest in our products. We always appreciate the comments from our customers about product improvements and future products.
Without a co-operation with the licence owner, we are not able to release lenses that interact electronically with an EF-mount camera body.
But we will keep on working on new products and solutions in future."
After months away from this forum, I am glad that we finally have the Zeiss ZE mount for Canon. http://www.zeiss.com/photo
So Zeiss did answer our calls.
One happy Zeiss camper
