I am being offered new with 12 month warranty Zeiss 'Classic' EF lenses for a discounted price varying between 11-34% discount (post-tax price) vs US SRP (pre-tax price).
Are they worth getting in light of the Zeiss Milvus lenses being announced 6 months ago?
For the Otus lenses, I only get 3-12% discount (post-tax price).
It depends which "classic" lenses and which Milvus you have in mind, because they aren't all equivalent. The Milvus 50 and 85 are brand new designs, the others are repackaged "classic" lenses with newer coatings. Also, the Milvus are quite a bit larger and heavier...
Paolo, surely you are not interested in all these lenses equally? I don't think the price is so attractive that you should consider this an opportunity for investment, so pick the ones that attract you from a usage point of view
Jan 18, 2016 at 01:23 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
There are only 4 lenses that are the same optical design in Milvus and Classic casings. The 21mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/2 Makro and the 100mm f/2 Makro. There is some evidence from lens rentals testing that the Milvus lenses have less variance in the manufacturing process, but the classic lenses are not bad. One lens that was a bit weak for variance in the manufacturing process as tested by lens rentals was the classic version of the ZE/ZF 21mm f/2.8. That lens I might get in a Milvus version, but to be honest if I was shooting primarily landscapes I would get the C/Y version of the lens, which is slightly different optically and I think although not quite as good wide open is slightly better stopped down.
I might go for the Classic version of the other three lenses to save money, but I do prefer the Milvus casings so i would be torn.
The "classic" don't seem like that much of deals, when compared to discounted prices available already, or the really great deals available in quality used models. I've seen the 18/3.5 sell for as low as $800 in nice used condition.
After having had trouble with the ZE 50/1.4, I wouldn't even consider it. I owned the Contax 50/1.4 and it was outstanding, and I would consider the new Milvus 50/1.4 if I could justify its cost.
I didn't understand how VAT enters into USA purchases.
Sorry, was going to post, but then got distracted. Must have hit "send reply". Is it the 25/ 2 or 25/2.8 that is $1115? If 25/2, very good lens for that price. B&H lists for $1700.
If you shop around (including on FM's B&S), you can find great buys on used lenses that are in great condition. I find that most people take pretty good care of their expensive glass. Not all mind you, but most.
With the introduction of the Milvus lineup you can also find pretty good buys on new copies of the classic lineup, if you're patient enough. I just had a 100 MP ZF.2 show up at my door after purchasing it from a Zeiss authorized dealer on eBay, and paid $1175 for it, all inclusive. That's $280 cheaper than what was listed above.
jancohen wrote:
Curious as to why you might need to pay VAT if the lens is being exported from another country to you here in the U.S. Or is that not the case?
I don't think I've ever paid VAT on something shipped to me from outside the U.S. Customs duties maybe, but not VAT.
Now I see the confusion. I am comparing prices in Manila with those in the US. Pricing in the US tend to exclude any sales tax while prices in the Philippines tend to always include VAT unless the seller is dodgy.
I am still weighing whether I want another manual focus lens with focus confirm.
I really wish Zeiss would sell Canon lenses with AF. I really do not see the business case for a manual lens.
Even Leica is showing indications that they are abandoning it.
The want for autofocus Zeiss lenses of the ZF/ZE/ZM variety has been brought up numerous times before, and there's always a lot of speculation around why Zeiss (and perhaps other manufacturers) haven't introduced such models. Could be cost related, but only Zeiss (and those close to Zeiss) really knows. Those who do opt for Zeiss products usually do so for a reason though, from anything like "look at me, I shoot with Zeiss," to those who find the reproductive nuances of such Zeiss products pleasing. For the latter, shooting MF isn't as big a deal as the want to get the shot such lenses supposedly promise them. At least from their perspectives.
But who knows, maybe someday we'll see more of AF in these products.
OTOH, could be worse, depending on your perspective... we could all still be shooting negative and slide film, with their anything but instantaneous results. Dark rooms can be and often were a lot of fun, and they were often far less wear and tear on a camera's shutter mechanism. They had the tendency to separate the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean.
For me, the reason is that any lens without an aperture ring is bricked when the electronic protocols change.
So I could buy a Nikon 20 1.8G for $800 and have it last maybe 3 years if I'm lucky. Or I could buy a Zeiss 21/2.8 for $1800 and still be using it in 30 years.
If you think I'm exaggerating do some Googling on the functionality of the latest Nikon E-type lenses with the D4. Not an "old" Nikon camera, their flagship just 20 months ago.
dolina wrote:
Now I see the confusion. I am comparing prices in Manila with those in the US. Pricing in the US tend to exclude any sales tax while prices in the Philippines tend to always include VAT unless the seller is dodgy.
I am still weighing whether I want another manual focus lens with focus confirm.
I really wish Zeiss would sell Canon lenses with AF. I really do not see the business case for a manual lens.
Even Leica is showing indications that they are abandoning it.
Yeah, I don't think Leica is abandoning manual focus lenses. The M is still their bread-and-butter product, and I doubt there are plans to convert it to AF.
If AF is that important, why not pick up an a7rII and Batis 25 and 85 to compliment your Canon gear?
freaklikeme wrote:
Yeah, I don't think Leica is abandoning manual focus lenses. The M is still their bread-and-butter product, and I doubt there are plans to convert it to AF.
If AF is that important, why not pick up an a7rII and Batis 25 and 85 to compliment your Canon gear?
I will rephrase in the hopes that this not turn into Leica MF vs AF.
I see Leica concentrating more on camera systems with AF like the L mount (T and SL bodies) and S mount (medium format).
I say this as new customers are mostly used to AF. Keeping to MF is limiting them to their current clients.
