Phillip Reeve wrote:
Well we have enough data from lensrentals like this to say that Zeiss lenses in general have less variance than most other company's lenses but of course it also depends on the lens, some Zeiss lenses have higher variance than others and you are not safe from a decentered lens when you buy a Zeiss. So your own experience illustrates those findings.
And it is the same with Sony where we know from lensrentals data that some (but certainly not all) of their lenses have above average variance.
We don't have data of such quality for Cosina's Voigtländer lenses and individual experience is not a good indicator unless the evidence is really strong like with the 15mm. So my point was that it is quite possible that their lenses show relatively high variance but that is speculation and it should be handled as such....Show more →
I agree entirely that statistics are the only measure of variability, and not a single user's experience. That said, your info points in the same direction I was trying to indicate: If the variance of Cosina-made Zeiss lenses is "lower than most", and this is made more demanding by the fact that these are, generally, high-spec lenses, then Cosina "can do it". If they don't for their own production (there is hearsay and anecdotal data, but no statistics from LR), then why aren't they?
Let's look at it this way: the closest lens tot he new CV is the Milvus 50Mp f:2.0. Focal lengths are close, and don't really cause a major difference in cost/price. Speed is the same, at f:2.0. Both are full manual, metal-build. But the CV is (a) a new design, and (b) APO corrected, which the Zeiss isn't, and this does cost money. So I would guess that a new Zeiss similar to the CV would be priced at least at 1500$, maybe more, Vs the CV's 1000$.
So tolerating a higher production variance "might be" a way to keep cost and price lower. Just a guess.
P.S. As for Bastian's comment about Leica shooters - it does him no credit, is far below the usual standards of the FM community and and is not worth further comment.
I don't think @BastianK made any comment about Leica shooters, many of whom are members of this forum. Rather he was making a point about Leica lenses - that the market for them may be not only Leica shooters, but also Leica collectors (of whom there are probably only few on these forums). I don't know if that's true, but my Leica dealer thinks it is. If it is true it's not the fault of any Leica shooter, and does them no discredit. And as for the collectors, well it's no worse than collecting any other expensive item!
I received a call and mine has arrived at Map Camera but they don't hand those out before official Japan release date so I'll be picking it up tomorrow.
philber wrote:
So tolerating a higher production variance "might be" a way to keep cost and price lower. Just a guess.
I beg to differ. This is false economy. CV would have known that their customers are at least advanced amateurs than the average punter, and will examine / test their new lens purchases with vigor. Decentered lens will be returned because they are not "fit for purposes". The costs of dealing with returned stock is expensive and the brand damage is even worse. This means they have to minimise returns and improving QA is the most cost effective way.
BTW, Mainline Sydney has them in stock, so is Camera Lane Melbourne.
I'm very happy with mine so far after 2 days since getting it but I've had very limited chances to shoot with it until now and the weather's not been too good in Tokyo. Just took some random trial shots at the office and home so far. I've been very pleased with the IQ. I intend to use it more as a long normal lens that can do close-ups than as a dedicated macro. It can take very nice portraits too.
I'm pretty interested in this lens, loved the CV 90 SL2 which I still have but rarely use on the metabones
Wish Zeiss did a loxia Makro-planar with similar rendering to the 100/2 but this might satisfy for the time being. I do have the Leica 100 Apo-Macro but it's cumbersome on the adapter and even more so if you add the Elpro or Apo-TC
I have an Otus 55 which I use with extension tubes, so there must be something wrong with me, but I like the idea of getting that CV... The pictures look plain "right"...
philber wrote:
I have an Otus 55 which I use with extension tubes, so there must be something wrong with me, but I like the idea of getting that CV... The pictures look plain "right"...
I agree, those sample pictures are very appealing.
Here are some samples taken by me today with an A9 + CV 65/2 at Tokyo Midtown. They were all converted from Raw to JPEG in C1 Pro 10.1 with default settings, no other modifications applied. All shots at F2 or F4.
