bjornthun wrote:
Sigma has enjoyed success with their I-series lenses, like e.g. their 45/2.8. They are among the few AF lenses that have this solid classical feel to them. Maybe Cosina is feeling the heat, and have moved to Z-mount where Sigma I-series aren’t available.
Maybe. Small and good handling.. af and sunstars seem like pretty big diffs to me but maybe not to everyone. At any rate I guess the E-mounts being discontinued simply aren't selling enough and the competition in E-mount vs in other mounts seems like a logical place to look for a reason. Can't really fathom what else would cause it.
Although this thread is about Zeiss : ) Well, I hope they continue production of the Loxiae for a while.
Chris_88 wrote:
Am I the only one who is reminded about Sony's strategy re a-mount? "We'll continue supporting the mount, until we don't".
It's funny that the PR statement and the comments from the "ambassador" cited above, talk about a lot of things except new lenses. It's kinda hard to talk away the reality of no new lens being released in five years. The writing is on the wall. Of course, it's everybody's choice to do with that whatever they please.
As for lenses being made by Zeiss itself, apart from expensive cine lenses, I seem to recall that some fancy m-mount lenses (the ZM 85 2 and ZM 15 2.8) were made in Germany. ...Show more →
I noticed that my main marketing contact at Zeiss left the company a while back and that its office (on Zeiss Drive, nonetheless) near where I live now seems to focus just on microscopy. Granted they have another office nearby as well.
Completely agree that Zeiss designs all of the lenses with "Zeiss" on them. The are not necessarily manufactured by them, but they are all to their designs and hopefully to their QC, any self-respecting optical company should be assuring their output matched the specs and quality requirements specified in the design. That's what they do. Apparent similarities between Tamron etc designs and Zeiss lenses are I'm pretty sure simply down to the design constraints imposed on all lenses of the same specs.
MKRhodes wrote:
Completely untrue. Batis are Tamron designs, yes, hence not rendering like true Zeiss lenses, but Classic, Otus, Milvus and Loxia are all authentic Zeiss designs that are simply manufactured by Cosina. The ZA lenses have never been considered true Zeiss lenses and are not even listed on Zeiss's website.
I currently have all Zeiss lenses in EF mount,save ZA 24-70/4 and ZA 16-35/4,which I have replaced with equivalent Sony optics.I used to have the whole range of ZE/ZF lenses from 15/2.8 to 135/2 APO and various, 34 Zeiss lenses in Contax/Yashica mount from 18/4 to 500/8 Mirror.Both from Japan and Germany.They ALL have evident Zeiss rendering and character,though not to the same extent.Does not matter who actually produced them.
Even Zeiss Jena lenses with m42/Praktica PB mount and Pentacon Six mount,adapted on various Sony A7 series showed Zeiss chracter respective to the times they were design and produced.Same refers to some Rollei HFT lenses and Zeiss lenses in HFT mount.
I don't understand the point of a patent if you can literally take the exact same block diagram as a lens design owned by Zeiss. Sure you can play around with the exact makeup of the element, but that makes it seem like you could copy anyone's design. They literally show the exact same elements as the Zeiss published Batis 18/2.8 design.
Robin Smith wrote:
Completely agree that Zeiss designs all of the lenses with "Zeiss" on them. The are not necessarily manufactured by them, but they are all to their designs and hopefully to their QC, any self-respecting optical company should be assuring their output matched the specs and quality requirements specified in the design. That's what they do. Apparent similarities between Tamron etc designs and Zeiss lenses are I'm pretty sure simply down to the design constraints imposed on all lenses of the same specs.
I don't understand the point of a patent if you can literally take the exact same block diagram as a lens design owned by Zeiss. Sure you can play around with the exact makeup of the element, but that makes it seem like you could copy anyone's design. They literally show the exact same elements as the Zeiss published Batis 18/2.8 design.
A different way to interpret those findings is as proof that Zeiss has a commercial arrangement with Tamron around those lenses that includes Tamron ownership of the patents.
If I were the Zeiss optical engineer who designed it, I'd still be miffed that a Tamron employee was listed as the inventor.
But I guess as an employee, he has to agree to whatever Zeiss arranges.
darrellc wrote:
A different way to interpret those findings is as proof that Zeiss has a commercial arrangement with Tamron around those lenses that includes Tamron ownership of the patents.
No I haven't. But multiple people on this thread absolutely insist that Zeiss designed all the Batis lenses. So I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I haven't seen any Zeiss patents that cover the lenses where it looks like there are Tamron patents. For some of the Batis lenses there are ever so slight differences between the block diagram Zeiss publishes and the Tamron patent block diagram...but they are super close. And no where have I seen the Tamron patent refer to any Zeiss patents.
LBJ2 wrote:
Maybe I missed this, but have you found the Zeiss Batis patent that existed before the Tamron patent?
tsdevine wrote:
No I haven't. But multiple people on this thread absolutely insist that Zeiss designed all the Batis lenses. So I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I haven't seen any Zeiss patents that cover the lenses where it looks like there are Tamron patents. For some of the Batis lenses there are ever so slight differences between the block diagram Zeiss publishes and the Tamron patent block diagram...but they are super close. And no where have I seen the Tamron patent refer to any Zeiss patents.
Thanks for the reply. I was just curious if you found something.
And just to join this discussion with my own thoughts and hands-on experience:
FWIW, I bought and used all of the Batis Zeiss lenses. I never felt I was not shooting anything other than a Zeiss lens even though I saw the very similar Tamron patents posted on-line back in 2015. From what I read, if a Tamron engineer did in fact design the optical formula used in the Batis lenses and/or manufactured the same, apparently not an uncommon practice for years now. Lots of collaboration across the various manufacturers and brands. Or as I read on a very popular blog, something along the lines of "lots of similar secrets" across all the brands.
The ZEISS Look as defined on the Zeiss Batis page is defined and illustrated as "Sharpness | 3D pop | True color" As a customer I expect its Zeiss responsibility to make sure this is what I experience when I buy and use Zeiss products no mater who designed and/or manufactured or not. https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/home/website/photography/zeiss-batis-lenses.html
zeitlos wrote:
Just curious. Are there any Zeiss lenses left that you still use or have your replaced them?
I purchased and used Zeiss Classics, one Milvus and all of the Batis lenses on my Sony FF/FE cameras. I've since sold all of those, but the Batis 135, 85, 40.
I'm with you. If an image looks like it came from a Zeiss lens....what does it matter who designed the lens? Sure Zeiss designed lenses may have more of the "Zeiss look"...at least more consistently, it doesn't mean that a lens "not designed" by Zeiss can't have those similar qualities. And we know that whoever designed the lenses, it is using Zeiss coatings.
Full disclosure, I have the Batis 18, 25, 40, and 135. So none of my comments in this thread were intended to be negative in any way in regards to Batis lenses.
LBJ2 wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I was just curious if you found something.
And just to join this discussion with my own thoughts and hands-on experience:
FWIW, I bought and used all of the Batis Zeiss lenses. I never felt I was not shooting anything other than a Zeiss lens even though I saw the very similar Tamron patents posted on-line back in 2015. From what I read, if a Tamron engineer did in fact design the optical formula used in the Batis lenses and/or manufactured the same, apparently not an uncommon practice for years now. Lots of collaboration across the various manufacturers and brands. Or as I read on a very popular blog, something along the lines of "lots of similar secrets" across all the brands.
The ZEISS Look as defined on the Zeiss Batis page is defined and illustrated as "Sharpness | 3D pop | True color" As a customer I expect its Zeiss responsibility to make sure this is what I experience when I buy and use Zeiss products no mater who designed and/or manufactured or not. https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/home/website/photography/zeiss-batis-lenses.html
Interesting. I wonder if Tamron put the XZ1 together, it was manufactured in China.
I don't understand the hate directed towards it. One of the best FF sensors ever produced with allegedly one of the best compact 35mm lenses ever. I think firmware has been an issue for some though.
Perhaps if they had made it smaller and with a flip screen it would have worked better. Possibly the same chance as Leica re-releasing the M9. Even if both of those things would likely be quite popular and successful.
I hope they keep going and release some new products. Just my opinion but my favourite lenses of theirs were the 60s-90s V-mount era; so also including the likes of the QBM triangular aperture and C/Y primes/zooms. Looking at some of the master (Arri) and supreme range they probably know this as there are some design ques from the earlier lenses there.
Personally I think the customer service is not the best i've encountered and have heard the same thing about sports optics.
We may never know the exact relationship Zeiss has with the other optics companies that produce the lenses. Zeiss may be more involved with some designs, or they may just present a set of design goals and retain final approval on what gets produced. However, I think it's fair to say that, if they allowed the blue badge labeling, it must be something they're willing to have represent them in the marketplace, so they are all Zeiss lenses.
So how do the Zeiss/Sony versions compare? My understanding is that these lenses used the Zeiss coatings and a (for the time) robust build quality.
I just recently did an informal comparison of shooting the Sony/Zeiss 16-35F4 vs the new Sony 16-35F4. I shot both lenses at F8, 16mm, 24mm, and 35mm and have to say that at least my copy of the Zeiss looks pretty darn good, a sentiment that I know may not be widely shared on FM. I was trying to justify the cost of replacing the older F4 and have to say that I can't see enough of a difference to shell out the additional dollars.
