What happened to the legendary Zeiss QC? My Contax lenses used to come with a certificate signed by the guys who did the QC. In 12 years of using Zeiss glass, I have never encountered any lens which didn't conform to their quality standard.
Are they getting sloppy? Is Cosina to blame? What about the Zeiss QC controllers at Cosina?
I'm sure they're not as bad as Canon's QC department, but still, things aren't as they used to be.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm sure they're not as bad as Canon's QC department, but still, things aren't as they used to be.
IMO Zeiss 2008 is worse than Canon 2008. Also all the new Z lenses are quite simple to build compared to Canon glass with AF and IS. Also Zeiss does not have a (worldwide) distribution chain which allows for easy repairs and exchange.
If Zeiss had a plan how to ruin their good name they couldnt do better.
This is what is happening in Germany, skilled emigration exceeds skilled immigration. All the talented engineers are leaving for countries like USA, Canada, India and Austria where options for promotion and quality of living are better. It's a sad tale and it's primarily due to German manufacturers outsourcing and the political/economic system in Germany.
Nov 19, 2008 at 04:45 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I suspect that the problem lies elsewhere. If you look at the review of the ZF version of this lens at 16-9.net, you will see that Mark finds that the lens does pretty poorly when tested between 1 and 2 meters, but quite well when tested beyond 2 meters. I believe the digital picture tests are from a quite close distance and I suspect that this is the problem and when he retests another lens he will see the same results. If he would test from a little further away, however, the lens would look terrific.
Zeiss ought to have done better not just with QC, but with the overall lens design.
For the price, and to maintain their reputation, Zeiss should have made this lens perform like a Zeiss.
This is the second supposed "dud" out of 3 that I have heard "reviewed". RCicala's copy has abysmal wide open performance and the-digital-picture simply sent theirs back (it likely was just like RCicala's). The only person I have seen saying anything good about the lens is LucisPictor (of a few other forums), but it is quite telling that he has a close friend quite high up at Zeiss (which is why he got a lens shipped to him for "review" purposes), but he has not posted any wide open photos or discussed the wide open sharpness and CA of the lens. He just keeps saying "It is perfect." He might as well put his hands on his ears and yell "NO, NO, NO, NO...."
Hey guys, it's been a while. Here's a rant for you:
Both the Contax C/Y and N 85/1.4 are well known to not perform prefectly wide open (i.e. glow, veiling flare, low contrast, relatively poor corner performance, whatever). What are we expecting from Zeiss? Miracles? They're a lens company like any other. Given the cost of the ZF, I don't see what all the fuss is over. The 85/1.2 is better? Okay, it's a fantabulous lens. It's also more expensive. The FD 85/1.2 is worthly of having its praises sung (and presumably ad naseum, if past example holds true)? So be it. Is it so hard to believe that Canon has done something right? The way this forum goes sometimes, it's like EF lenses are the bain of existence, but that simply isn't the case. Why would we expect a ZF at $1000 to be better than an EF at $1800? We shouldn't.
Nov 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
My take is that the performance of this lens will be a lot like a Zeiss--the C/Y 85mm f/1.4. This C/Y lens seems to often be reported as being anything but sharp wide open and I expect that will be generally true for this lens as well. I also would not be surprised if the C/Y and ZE versions of this lens share pretty weak close range performance. These weaknesses might definitely be deal breakers for some, but for me I could live with them. If other weaknesses emerge, however, I would start to be a lot more concerned. For me, the criterion for the ZE (or ZF or ZK) lenses will be whether they match or come close to matching the C/Y versions of the lenses. Improvements would be great, but when they have developed a lens with the same focal length and max aperture as the previous C/Y versions the improvements seem to be small if there are any at all. It seems to me that in most cases they are pretty similar and the major advantage is having a new lens, not having to adapt the lens, and auto-aperture. So far this seems to be true for the ZE 85mm f/1.4 as well.
StevenPA wrote:
Hey guys, it's been a while. Here's a rant for you:
Both the Contax C/Y and N 85/1.4 are well known to not perform prefectly wide open (i.e. glow, veiling flare, low contrast, relatively poor corner performance, whatever). What are we expecting from Zeiss? Miracles? They're a lens company like any other. Given the cost of the ZF, I don't see what all the fuss is over. The 85/1.2 is better? Okay, it's a fantabulous lens. It's also more expensive. The FD 85/1.2 is worthly of having its praises sung (and presumably ad naseum, if past example holds true)? So be it. Is it so hard to believe that Canon has done something right? The way this forum goes sometimes, it's like EF lenses are the bain of existence, but that simply isn't the case. Why would we expect a ZF at $1000 to be better than an EF at $1800? We shouldn't....Show more →
Surely it is feasible to produce and sell an excellent manual focus 85mm f1.4 lens for $1000 if it is feasible to produce and sell an excellent AF 85mm f1.2 lens for $1800.
The point is, and others may or may not agree, that the EF 85/1.8 seems to offer as much in terms of IQ as this new Zeiss, plus ultra-fast, silent AF, and for a mere $350.
Just what is it that people are getting for their extra $650? Better build quality and better manual focus action? But who am I to question Zeiss' thinking. They are the almighty Zeiss, after all.
My take is that the performance of this lens will be a lot like a Zeiss--the C/Y 85mm f/1.4. This C/Y lens seems to often be reported as being anything but sharp wide open and I expect that will be generally true for this lens as well. I also would not be surprised if the C/Y and ZE versions of this lens share pretty weak close range performance. These weaknesses might definitely be deal breakers for some, but for me I could live with them. If other weaknesses emerge, however, I would start to be a lot more concerned. For me, the criterion for the ZE (or ZF or ZK) lenses will be whether they match or come close to matching the C/Y versions of the lenses. Improvements would be great, but when they have developed a lens with the same focal length and max aperture as the previous C/Y versions the improvements seem to be small if there are any at all. It seems to me that in most cases they are pretty similar and the major advantage is having a new lens, not having to adapt the lens, and auto-aperture. So far this seems to be true for the ZE 85mm f/1.4 as well....Show more →
They could have, and should have, made them better than the old versions.
Imagine how different the tone would be around here if people cut Canon this much slack.
The EF 85 1.8 that I owned was one of the best lenses I have ever used. It was sharp wide open and outperformed just about every lens I compared it with including a Tamron 90mm 2.5 Macro and a Leica Elmarit-R...and not just wide open or at specific distances. Perhaps my copy was just exceptional, I don't know. I no longer own that lens since moving to the Sony system and it cost me close to $800 in the used market to replace my $300ish 85 1.8 when changing systems. The EF 85 1.8 is one of the true bargains out there in my opinion and Canon has quite a heritage of making exceptional 85's going all the way back to their rangefinder days. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/Canon_RF/canonRF85mmf15.htm
Newsflash: not every Zeiss lens design is perfect. If you find the two Canon 85's to be better, use them. I sold my Contax 85 f1.4 years ago and went with the 85L2. They are both great lenses, but with quite different strengths and prices. Some of the ZE lenses look distinctive and worthwhile. We can expect a lot of the 21, 35 and 100 makro. Some of Canon's lenses surpass the competition too. My 200 f1.8 is a better lens, in my experience, than either the Leica 180 f2 or the Contax 200 f2. Do your research and use what suits you. Ever since hubsand's test of the ZF 85 I have had no intentions of using one. Does that diminish Zeiss's reputation in my mind? Only slightly, but who cares. Don't judge brands, judge products.
cogitech wrote:
Surely it is feasible to produce and sell an excellent 85mm f1.4 lens for $1000 if it is feasible to produce and sell an excellent 85mm f1.2 lens for $1800.
I guess that's open for debate. I hope you're right, in any case.
The point is, and others may or may not agree, that the EF 85/1.8 seems to offer as much in terms of IQ as this new Zeiss, plus ultra-fast, silent AF, and for a mere $350.
If you like the combination of extremely high definition (i.e. resolution) along contrasty edges and low, low contrast across gradients like skin tones, then the 85/1.8 is the portrait lens of choice. Personally, I hated the 85/1.8. This lens couldn't produce a nice gradiated skin tone if it's life depended on it. Or at least I couldn't make the lens perform in camera or in post.
Just what is it that people are getting for their extra $650? Better build quality and better manual focus action? But who am I to question Zeiss' thinking. They are the almighty Zeiss, after all.
Good question. I think other lens companies have caught up to Zeiss. Computer technology, the exploding popularity of digital imaging and economies of scale, especially at the most popular focal lengths. 85mm is done well by just about everyone. Wide angle, that's where Zeiss still has the edge. But for how much longer? Nikon already seems to have a good handle on things down there.
I'm not trying to slag Zeiss in general. I just wonder what market they are targeting with this new 85.
-Not the people who want ultimate IQ
-Not the people who are looking for best value
-Not the people who wished for something better than the C/Y version + auto aperture
-Not the people who like to use an 85 from minimum focus distance right out to infinity
Who does that leave? Zeiss diehards who hate to deal with stop-down metering?
cogitech wrote:
Oh yes, I still have high hopes for the ZE21!
I'm not trying to slag Zeiss in general. I just wonder what market they are targeting with this new 85.
-Not the people who want ultimate IQ
-Not the people who are looking for best value
-Not the people who wished for something better than the C/Y version + auto aperture
-Not the people who like to use an 85 from minimum focus distance right out to infinity
Who does that leave? Zeiss diehards who hate to deal with stop-down metering?
I think it's the people who want something faster than f1.8 but cheaper than f1.2 and the people who find the EF 85/1.8's built to be insufficient.
But tell me onething... The guy who was testing the Zeiss lens at "digital-picture.com" was not good at manual focusing. He had trouble in focusing the lens even with focus confirmation mechanism.
Read this,
"To aid in manual focusing, Canon DSLRs will indicate when focus is achieved by the familiar beep (if enabled) and green in-focus light in the viewfinder with the Zeiss 85 mounted. However, I don't find this to be a very good indication of accurate focusing. There is a certain amount of focus ring rotation that will keep this in-focus indicator light on, and if you take a picture at either end of this rotation, the image will be very blurry."
Wow, what a sucker was standing behind the camera. That guy didnt even know how focusing work. That guy didnt have an iota of idea how contrast changes at places, start of focussed part and end of that... The focus confirmation works on both area. Auto focus works on hit and trial mechanism... We are discussing on different forums about the whole focussing issue and how auto focus will always have error...
I didnt read the article after that.... not worth... and yes, I am biased towards Zeiss.. I am cheapo, have only Planar 50/1.7 lens...
Even a bozo can simply rely on focus bracketing in a situation like that. They clearly felt there was something wrong with the lens. I don't think there was.
Nov 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
cogitech wrote:
Oh yes, I still have high hopes for the ZE21!
I'm not trying to slag Zeiss in general. I just wonder what market they are targeting with this new 85.
-Not the people who want ultimate IQ
-Not the people who are looking for best value
-Not the people who wished for something better than the C/Y version + auto aperture
-Not the people who like to use an 85 from minimum focus distance right out to infinity
Who does that leave? Zeiss diehards who hate to deal with stop-down metering?
Earlier I noted what I expect to be the weaknesses of the ZE 85mm f/1.4. Given these weaknesses, why would I still be interested in it? I don't think it is because I am a Zeiss diehard. For me I would want this lens for portraits and if you look at people's reports and tests even with the C/Y 85mm f/1.4 it seems to be have very good center sharpness and contrast once stopped down to f/2. I find for almost all my portraits I want to stop down to at least f/2, but in low light f/2 performance is what I care about most. I think the ZE 85mm f/1.4 can be excellent at this sweet spot for the way I shoot. I also tend to shoot these portraits from at least 2 meters, so I am not worried about close range performance that much either. For the way I shoot this lens seems to fit. In addition, from all I can tell the C/Y version had excellent corner to corner sharpness and great microcontrast at f/8 and f/11, which is the range that I usually use to shoot landscapes. I think the ZE 85 can be an excellent landscape lens as well.
For me and the type of shooting I do, I think it would be much better than the EF 85mm f/1.8, that I did own. The EF is alright for portraits, but my copy didn't sharpen nicely up until f/2.5 or so, and although alright I would hope the ZE would be much better especially for contrast. I also was completely underwhelmed by the landscape performance of the EF 85 f/1.8. This was mainly due to the Canon colours and particularly the reds.
So for me I am willing to invest in a ZE 85mm even if it has the same weaknesses as the C/Y 85mm f/1.4. It fits my style and for me I think it is definitely worth the extra money compared to the EF 85mm f/1.8. I would also like auto-aperture for shooting portraits and that plus a lens being totally new lens would be worth the extra money compared to the C/Y version. If there are additional problems as the reviews of the lens comes out, however, I may just pick up the C/Y version or the C/Y 100mm f/2.
Canon already has the 50mm f1.2L and the 85mm f1.2L which are about as good as one can expect (barring the minor focus shift of the 50L).
I would think the ZE mount 50 & 85 are the same optical configuration as the ZF mount. If the ZF perform well, why the difference ? What changed.
The only lens I could see Canon users deem worthwhile to look to zeiss for would be the 18mm, 21mm, and maybe the 24mm.
Once the ZE 21mm is out, something tells me the prices of the old Zeiss 21mm f2.8 might just shoot up again
I recommend the EF 1.8/85, it is one of the really good and cheap Canon lenses. I sold both my Contax and Canon 1.2 lenses as well as the Contax 1.4 lens I owned and kept the cheap EF. It has the fastest AF and has good sharpness and bokeh, CA is acceptable too, better than the Contax lenses.
I think a Zeiss user expects to see a certain beauty in their products, brand reputation is part of this beauty as well as impecable built quality and performance. Canon does not offer a lot of beautiful lenses, though their products work just fine in most cases. I have owned a lot of Zeiss Contax and Hasselbad lenses, I fail to see a lens which comes close in beauty to a 2.8/60mm Makro or a 50mm FLE in the new Z line. Maybe the 100mm Makro?
