135 is a special focal length, take that for what you will. Be it the Sony GM or the Batis or the old Canon L 2.0. I always find it hard to use, but the focal length seems to really shine when it works, and maybe the focal length gives the makers an ability to make a 'shining' lens easier.
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 have a link, but I recall a piece by Zeiss about how they worked with Tamron for Batis. Basically Zeiss would specify roughly what they wanted, Tamron would produce a few designs, Zeiss would think about them and choose one or two for prototyping, then the would asses the prototypes.
So yes Tamron designed them, and built them, but with Zeiss supervision.
MARKFER wrote:
At this point I have my doubts that a lens made in Germany is better than a lens made in Japan. In fact I think I would go the other way.
I don't think this is an apples to apples comparison. Of course, a 50 APO Cron is probably not many times better optically than the CV 50 APO, but for better or worse, Leica is Leica, and with what they have become and the prices they charge, they are sort of hard to compare to the Japanese makers.
No idea, whether Leica checks every single lens that leaves their factory, but given the prices they charge, you would expect much better QC from them, compared to other makers. I'm no fan of the red dot (and never used a Leica camera), but I'll readily admit that I was impressed with the build quality and handling of an old Elmarit 90 2.8, when I first got my mintly used copy a decade ago.
To go back to the topic on hand: The two made in Germany Zeiss m-mount lenses I mentioned above, are clearly the exception. The internal focusing design, which apparently was a first for an m-mount tele lens at the time, apparently was quite complex, and made the ZM 85 2 a peculiar lens. As far as I can remember, Zeiss even admitted that the focusing design was one reason for a few delays, when the lens was introduced. I don't know about the 15 2.8, but for the specs, this obviously was a very compact lens.
It’s really about where the glass is manufactured. Production means very little on location. Where are they getting the glass materials from. Germany would be my choice but times have changed too
I think you're all exaggerating the location where lenses are manufactured. The key is the quality control and the original design. Hardly any Apple product is made in the US, for example, but they're all designed in California.
GMPhotography wrote:
It’s really about where the glass is manufactured. Production means very little on location. Where are they getting the glass materials from. Germany would be my choice but times have changed too
Since I have brought up price stability with ZEISS lenses here in Germany. This is also the case when they run cashback campaigns. The Zeiss Batis 85 has cost 859 euros for a very long time. Now there is 200 euros in cashback thanks to this sale from Zeiss and the price is now a standard 1048 euros at dealers.
Chris_88 wrote:
The two made in Germany Zeiss m-mount lenses I mentioned above, are clearly the exception. The internal focusing design, which apparently was a first for an m-mount tele lens at the time, apparently was quite complex, and made the ZM 85 2 a peculiar lens. As far as I can remember, Zeiss even admitted that the focusing design was one reason for a few delays, when the lens was introduced. I don't know about the 15 2.8, but for the specs, this obviously was a very compact lens.
I (still) have both. The 15 ZM does change length by say a millimeter or so, it's not 100% "internal focus" as some might think. Image quality? It was most definitely designed in the film era, Cornerfix was helpful when I used it on an M9-P.
The 85 Sonnar is a joy to use, great focus throw, good haptics. Image-wise, I can't say it's a mythological lens, yet it gives good and somewhat unique results, on an M body. I'm shocked what people ask for the damned lens hood alone, these days.
It's the same for all of the Zeiss stills lenses they have in stock, but their closeout pricing is the same as the regular pricing on sites that don't list them as closeout. Maybe they've decided to part ways with the brand.
They have pre order options for Zeiss Cine lenses. So the parting with the brand seems to be stills lenses only....or.....
freaklikeme wrote:
It's the same for all of the Zeiss stills lenses they have in stock, but their closeout pricing is the same as the regular pricing on sites that don't list them as closeout. Maybe they've decided to part ways with the brand.
I think you'll find that a number of people who buy mirrorless cameras do so by looking at specs on a website. They want the best. With those who actually spent years or decades learning photography always debating which company is better one could spend days reading and still be confused. But specs are easy. On paper F1.8 is better than F4, right? Autofocus is better than manual, right? Zooms are better than primes, right? Zeiss doesn't really cater to that market so they limited themselves in a market that's limited to begin with. With Vloggers taking over manual focus is going to be even less in demand.
