philip_pj wrote:
Last first, they will never be. Well, never say 'never' but very unlikely in our time. It's gone the way of so many products, lens pages are now glossy brochures, sales is done via YT personalities. And the big factor, embarrassment.
The quote in my above post is from lensrental guru Roger Cicala. It's outrageous there is not an industry body charged with producing impartial lens performance charting.
I wonder if there isn't a good bit of Japanese culture (making sure that everybody has a place at the table) discouraging such comparisons.
Fred Miranda wrote:
We are really lacking 35mm lenses now.
Zeiss, where is the Loxia 35/2 II? (Sonnar formula)
I get the impression the three main Zeiss production partners (Sony, Tamron, and Cosina) saw little value in moving forward with new Zeiss-branded or co-branded lenses. All three have done just fine, if not better, marketing under their own house brands without the price of using the blue badge.
freaklikeme wrote:
I get the impression the three main Zeiss production partners (Sony, Tamron, and Cosina) saw little value in moving forward with new Zeiss-branded or co-branded lenses. All three have done just fine, if not better, marketing under their own house brands without the price of using the blue badge.
Cosina Voigtlander is also branded. So Cosina is still paying to use a well-known photography brand, but maybe there is something preferable about the deal they got with Voigtlander and they haven't felt the need to pay up for the Zeiss name.
teddoman wrote: Cosina Voigtlander is also branded. So Cosina is still paying to use a well-known photography brand, but maybe there is something preferable about the deal they got with Voigtlander and they haven't felt the need to pay up for the Zeiss name.
I think there is a difference here: Cosina purchased the trademark, and uses it as their own, with no suggestion that someone else is involved. There is no Voigltaender these days other than Cosia-Voigtlaender, at lest in lens manufacture.
In the Case of Zeiss branding one gets the sense that they are paying Zeiss in an ongoing way, and it's a little misleading, as people often imagine Zeiss is involved in design.
teddoman wrote: Cosina Voigtlander is also branded. So Cosina is still paying to use a well-known photography brand, but maybe there is something preferable about the deal they got with Voigtlander and they haven't felt the need to pay up for the Zeiss name.
The Zeiss name used to be worth a lot with lenses for still photography. Lenses from Sony, Sigma, Cosina, Tamron, and others have rendered it close to worthless now.
DavidBM wrote:
I think there is a difference here: Cosina purchased the trademark, and uses it as their own, with no suggestion that someone else is involved. There is no Voigltaender these days other than Cosia-Voigtlaender, at lest in lens manufacture.
In the Case of Zeiss branding one gets the sense that they are paying Zeiss in an ongoing way, and it's a little misleading, as people often imagine Zeiss is involved in design.
I don't really know much about this other than what I googled, but apparently the Voigtlander brand is owned by Ringfoto and Cosina still has to pay them a licensing fee just like they have done to Zeiss.
I think the relationships are different here. Zeiss designed Loxia lenses, and Cosina manufactured them for Zeiss. Some Batis were designed by Tamron, some maybe Zeiss....but manufactured by Tamron? Sony was co-branding lenses with Zeiss, but was doing design for some of them (maybe all?) and was using Zeiss coatings and QC process (maybe.)
Cosina designs and manufacturers lenses and releases them under the Voigtlander brand name (so at most they are paying to license the name.)
Other than some high end lenses, not sure Zeiss is manufacturing anything for DSLRs or mirrorless. Seems like Cosina, Sony, and Tamron have moved on (as well as maybe Zeiss.) I assume Cosina and Tamron, assuming they manufacture the Batis, are still producing existing lenses for Zeiss. But Zeiss has been quiet now for a long time....
-Tim
teddoman wrote: Cosina Voigtlander is a co-branding. So Cosina is still paying to use a well-known photography brand, but maybe there is something preferable about the deal they got with Voigtlander and they haven't felt the need to pay up for the Zeiss name.
Zeiss payed Cosina to manufacture lenses for Zeiss......Cosina didn't pay Zeiss.
teddoman wrote:
I don't really know much about this other than what I googled, but apparently the Voigtlander brand is owned by Ringfoto and Cosina still has to pay them a licensing fee just like they have done to Zeiss.
tsdevine wrote:
Zeiss payed Cosina to manufacture lenses for Zeiss......Cosina didn't pay Zeiss.
Zeiss is contracting lens production - of specific lenses in specified quantities - out to Cosina, so it's not a relationship governed by licenses, although licenses may be involved. Thus, Zeiss of course pays Cosina to produce the lenses, but the revenue at Cosina's side may be less than if they sold their own lenses, reflecting a "hidden" license fee in the contracs.
Hence why I said that I think Cosina moved on. I'm sure they are generating enough profit by making and selling their own lenses (even if paying some fee for the Voigtlander name) than they would be making lenses for Zeiss via the Zeiss relationship. Especially since Zeiss isn't really produces any new designs.
I don't think I said anything that contradicts what you are saying, but you quoted me....so I guess I just want to be clear. I didn't mention any licenses in the the post you quoted.
-Tim
AcuteShadows wrote:
Zeiss is contracting lens production - of specific lenses in specified quantities - out to Cosina, so it's not a relationship governed by licenses, although licenses may be involved. Thus, Zeiss of course pays Cosina to produce the lenses, but the revenue at Cosina's side may be less than if they sold their own lenses, reflecting a "hidden" license fee in the contracs.
AcuteShadows wrote:
Zeiss is contracting lens production - of specific lenses in specified quantities - out to Cosina, so it's not a relationship governed by licenses, although licenses may be involved. Thus, Zeiss of course pays Cosina to produce the lenses, but the revenue at Cosina's side may be less than if they sold their own lenses, reflecting a "hidden" license fee in the contracs.
Interesting. Biggest differences might be in who is shouldering the risk-- who pays for a bulk order of lenses, who pays marketing, who pays for customer service, and who pays for warranty service. The bulk of the profit will go to whomever is taking the risk.
teddoman wrote:
I don't really know much about this other than what I googled, but apparently the Voigtlander brand is owned by Ringfoto and Cosina still has to pay them a licensing fee just like they have done to Zeiss.
This wikipedia article describes the Cosina relationship to Voigtlander the same.
Ringfoto owned the name; but they are just a distrintutor. Ringfoto certainly still owns and uses the name *for some product classes* and they are German distributor for Cosina.
But information is divided as to whether Ringfoto sold the name **for use in lenses and camera bodies** to CV or licenses it.
In either case it is a very different situation than with Zeiss. Zeiss still exists as an optics company, and selling its name to others
can give the impression that they are involved in those products.
Voigtländer on the other hand had not existed as an optics maker or camera maker (except as a brand name used by Cosina) for a very very long time. Rigfoto is a mere distributor and and at one point were the residual owner of some trademarks.
If you go to Ringfoto's "Voigtländer" pages, you see only products designed and manufactured by Cosina.
This is very unlike the situation with Sony and Zeiss, where Sony just pay for the name (sometimes claiming Zeiss help with QC sometimes not), and a bit unlike the situation with Cosina and Zeiss, where Zeiss did the design to a large degree, contracted manufacturing design and manufacture to Cosina, and distributed and marketed the lens themselves for the main part.
PS I think Rigfoto no longer owns the residual name, but it's owned by United Imaging Group Gmbh, which itself is just a holding company than owns camera store chains and distributors as well as trademarks (they now own Ringfoto, but Ringfoto - I'm told - has passed it's trademarks to United.
Voigtlander lenses = Cosina lenses manufactured by Cosina using a licensed name of “Voigtlander.” Cosina is responsible for final design, warranty, inventory and distribution.
Zeiss Loxia, ZM, and Milvus lenses = Zeiss lenses manufactured by Cosina using its own name. Zeiss is responsible for final design, warranty, inventory and distribution.
My guess is Cosina decided they can make more money selling direct under their existing licensing agreement with voigtlander than being a contract manufacturer for zeiss. Alternatively, zeiss decided there’s not much money to be made in fe lenses with all the competition now. Pretty clear zeiss lenses have not held up well in resale value although I think the loxia line is still an excellent set overall.
It is extremely common for prestigious brands to farm out manufacturing to subcontractors.
Apple - Foxconn
Porsche - Valmet
Rolex - Zenith (historically; all movements are now in-house)
Prada Group - 98% of products from 11 companies are manufactured by others.
I don't care who makes it as long as it "lives up to the name".
I do wish some of the savings was passed along to the consumer......
In any case Zeiss lenses are still very well made and their T* coatings are still the best.
You can build several thousand lenses and don't get them sold, and you may build a lens factory that nobody wants to use. So both Zeiss and Cosina have some risk there. A license is more of a fee that enables you to get to the market with a competitive product, and you pay basically the equivalent of what it would take you (or the average manufacturer) to close the gap on the way to the market themselves.
teddoman wrote:
Interesting. Biggest differences might be in who is shouldering the risk-- who pays for a bulk order of lenses, who pays marketing, who pays for customer service, and who pays for warranty service. The bulk of the profit will go to whomever is taking the risk.
tzhang4284 wrote:
Voigtlander lenses = Cosina lenses manufactured by Cosina using a licensed name of “Voigtlander.” Cosina is responsible for final design, warranty, inventory and distribution.
Zeiss Loxia, ZM, and Milvus lenses = Zeiss lenses manufactured by Cosina using its own name. Zeiss is responsible for final design, warranty, inventory and distribution.
My guess is Cosina decided they can make more money selling direct under their existing licensing agreement with voigtlander than being a contract manufacturer for zeiss. Alternatively, zeiss decided there’s not much money to be made in fe lenses with all the competition now. Pretty clear zeiss lenses have not held up well in resale value although I think the loxia line is still an excellent set overall. ...Show more →
I wouldn't infer too much from the resale value. In particular, I think Zeiss resale values are generally compared to Leica resale values, not to Canon, Voigtländer, Pentax or Mamiya resale values. Yet unlike Leica, Zeiss products are meant to be workhorses, not collectibles. For Leica, you pay twice the price to have a smaller lens, so the perfect choice for people who have the required funds, and few Leica users have camera expenses as part of their business calculation - these are exactly the people that support higher Leica resale prices. However, if your Leica lens value drops from 6.000 to 4.000 euros or USD, and your Zeiss lens drops from 2.000 to 1.000, then you only lost half as much money with the Zeiss lens.
tzhang4284 wrote:
Voigtlander lenses = Cosina lenses manufactured by Cosina using a licensed name of “Voigtlander.” Cosina is responsible for final design, warranty, inventory and distribution.
Zeiss Loxia, ZM, and Milvus lenses = Zeiss lenses manufactured by Cosina using its own name. Zeiss is responsible for final design, warranty, inventory and distribution.
My guess is Cosina decided they can make more money selling direct under their existing licensing agreement with voigtlander than being a contract manufacturer for zeiss. Alternatively, zeiss decided there’s not much money to be made in fe lenses with all the competition now. Pretty clear zeiss lenses have not held up well in resale value although I think the loxia line is still an excellent set overall. ...Show more →
In Japan Cosina has been handling the distribution of Zeiss ZM, Classic, Milvus and Otus lines as well as manufacturing of those lines. Cosina has also represented those lines in Japanese Trade shows, e.g. CP+. However, Cosina have never handled distribution of Loxia line in Japan and they've also never communicated that they are manufacturing Loxia line, so it's not so clear whether Loxia line is actually manufactured by Cosina or by some other Japanese company. Cosina has also never represented Loxia line at CP+. In case of Loxia the manufacturing company seems to be kept as a secret by Zeiss for some reason. Could be Cosina or might be some other company.
Agree with Juha here. There was always something different about the Loxia lenses. The one I have feels very different from any of the Voigtlanders I have. But you can see the small similarities between ZM lenses and the standard Voigtlanders. Someone else did a good job!
'The difference between FE and VM'
Different weights and barrel sizes too (maybe element diameters too). They have different high spatial frequencies MTF at f2. See down the Cosina pages, charts to the left side. As with 50/2 APOs, E version is the sports model, M version is more settled, aimed more at people photography, presumably. They may draw a little differently wide open.
F4 takes them both close to the SL 35/2 APO at f5.6 on axis, so there's that. For whoever looks, Cosina use 10-30-40 lpmm line pairs, Leica use 5-10-20-40. Good enough for me and Bobby McGee. ($1495 Aussie dollars).
