Who are Zeiss M-mount lenses made by?

[Clumsy Eddie]

Are they made by Zeiss, in Germany, or by Cosina in Japan under license by Zeiss?
Thank you to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

All but 2 of the current production M mount "ZM" lenses are produced by Cosina in Japan. There were 2 lenses made in Germany, and these were the 85/2 Sonnar, and the 15/2.8 Distagon. The 85 is discontinued and the 15mm may be, but you can apparently still buy it new. The two Germany ZM lenses were priced extremely high, near Leica level and IMO that's why they failed to stay in production. Zeiss would have been wise to keep the 85/2 in the line up and simply move production to Japan at a lower price.

In my time I've owned the 50/1.5 Sonnar, 35mm 1.4 Distagon, 35/2 Biogon, and 28/2.8 Biogon. They were all fantastic optics. The new 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses I've ever used. I ended up swapping it for the 35/2 though for size reasons. The smaller lens is better balanced on my M4. I've always been a Zeiss fan from my Hasselblad days and their ZM line has not disappointed me.

 

[Dali]

Does not the Biogon f/2 35mm partially block the viewfinder?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The 35/2 and 1.4 both have some finder blockage, while the 35/2.8 does not. With the 35/2 it's mostly just the vented hood which you can sort of see-through anyway. I hardly notice it.

 

[Huss]

Yeah, I have the ZM 35 1.4 and the finder blockage is ridiculous for an RF lens. It does take very nice snaps though, so there is that.

Back on topic, they are made in Japan by Cosina, but what is interesting is that the Cosina Zeiss lenses made for Nikons (and Canons) seem to be of a much higher build quality.
Comparing the ones I own.
And the SLR lenses are cheaper too compared to the Rf mount versions, which is surprising as they have more features like chipped mounts and auto aperture stop down.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not really cheaper.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Zeiss&ci=274&N=4288584247+4291107378
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Zeiss&ci=8423&N=4288584243+4291107378

 

[summicron1]

Are they the same, optically, as the voigtlander lenses? Same lenses rebadged?

 

[guangong]

For lenses (and also other optical and research equipment made under contract by Zeiss) a
Zeiss representative examines quality control. Camera camera lens manufacture are but a small part of their output. Zeiss is technically a foundation created to advance and research optical and related areas for scientific development so that profits must be used for further research. Interestingly, for quite some time Zeiss even designed and built state of the art hospitals (probably fitted with mostly Zeiss equipment. Have no fear, your Zeiss lens is a Zeiss lens.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Are they the same, optically, as the voigtlander lenses? Same lenses rebadged?

Absolutely no. Not optically, nor by the build.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Are they the same, optically, as the voigtlander lenses? Same lenses rebadged?

Very few lens makers produce their optics from 'scratch' all the way through. Even Leica lenses are largely made by Rayqual, with final assembly in Germany at juuuust enough of a level to earn the "Made in Germany" badge. Similarly Canon and Nikon employ brands like Tamron and Cosina to make some, not all, of their own lenses. So should it be called a 50mm "Rayqual" Summilux? No, of course not. Leica made all the design choices and simply found a third party to carry out their vision in part. Carl Zeiss understands that Cosina has a state-of-the-art manufacturing capability, and I must presume that they also understand that outsourcing the labor keeps the cost low. It's a win-win for consumers. The Zeiss lenses made in Germany were at Leica level expense and I doubt they sold very well. Zeiss knows they must be cheaper than Leica, but not 'cheap.'

 

[miha]

Rayqual makes lenses for Leica? They make adapters for various mounts, not lenses. Where did you get this from?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/09/the-perfect-lens.html

Ooops that was a bit of a brain fart! I meant Raytheon. It's something of an open secret.

 

[miha]

Indeed, something completely different. We are talking ELCAN here, Ernst Letz Canada, owned by Raytheon.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Indeed, something completely different. We are talking ELCAN here, Ernst Letz Canada, owned by Raytheon.

Yeah, beat me to it. ELCAN used to be part of Leica some time ago. Thats where M4-2,M4-P and many M6 where done. Also 2 of my M lenses where made there. First class craftmanship.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

But still, no longer Leica, and certainly not in Germany. I think my overall point still holds water. Leica like everybody else sometimes uses outside contractors to handle their production. Try to actually read my comment just to realize that I was not criticizing Leica for this, merely pointing out that it's basically the same as what Zeiss does. Ironically it's probably only Voigtlander that does make everything in house.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

But still, no longer Leica, and certainly not in Germany. I think my overall point still holds water. Leica like everybody else sometimes uses outside contractors to handle their production. Try to actually read my comment just to realize that I was not criticizing Leica for this, merely pointing out that it's basically the same as what Zeiss does. Ironically it's probably only Voigtlander that does make everything in house.

Yeah, agree with you. Wasnt really arguing your point.

Ironically it's probably only Voigtlander that does make everything in house.

You mean Cosina is making everything in house?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

You mean Cosina is making everything in house?

No I meant Voigtlander, or Cosina Voigtlander, or Cosina, or Voigtlander Cosina. They are all the same thing. Unlike Raytheon/Elcan and Leica.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

No I meant Voigtlander, or Cosina Voigtlander, or Cosina, or Voigtlander Cosina. They are all the same thing. Unlike Raytheon/Elcan and Leica.

Sorry if Im sound the bad way or if Im trying to arguing. Just making things clear. Voigtlander as a company doesnt exist anymore. Cosina is just using the name for a line up of lenses. So yeah, Cosina is one of the few companies that makes most of their own stuff inhouse. Probably Sigma too?

 

[ph]

Not to create further controversy, but yes, Voigtländer as an independent company died when they were merged with Zeiss a long time ago. Braunschweig kept up for a while within ZIV, but when the combined efforts had to give up in the face of Japanese competition, the Voigtländer name was sold on. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the copyright is held by Ringfoto. If you want the original, go to the collectors market.

Fortunately, current quality has not been sacrificed in order just to earn money on the name. Farming out the production to a dedicated and very capable company has kept their centuries old reputation afloat.

Further to company identity: "the proof of the pudding comes in the eating". Since (unlike the case of the self-owning Zeiss foundation) publicly listed shares can be bought by anyone, the "identity" of companies can change over time, so in a globalized world, do not trust the name, trust the product.

Land Rover for instance was swallowed by BLC when Rover died, then had German, American and Indian owners. Occasionally parent company parts, but always the same British factory. Jaguar had a more chequered career with the same sequence of owners. One model was a Ford in pimped up disguise, but (And like the original SS Swallow) the buyers were happy to get the presumably expensive trappings cheaply. One can no longer buy the XK engine but current needs differ from way back then. Again, the collectors market can supply the original stuff. Unlike for cameras, however, maintenance costs may give you cause to hesistate.

p.

 

[mnemosyne]

The Carl Zeiss branded ZM lenses and the modern Voigtländer branded CV lenses are both manufactured by Cosina at the Cosina factory in Japan. Compared to modern Voigtländer lenses, the ZM lenses have higher optical quality through more sophisticated design (more or less on the same level as Leica lenses), a better build quality (although not always and 100% on par with Leica), come with a longer guarantee (when registered upon purchase) and are individually tested to meet specs before they leave the factory. Especially the last point is absolutely crucial for a high performance lens. In comparison, the Voigtländer branded lenses are built to certain tolerances, but are not individually tested. It simply is not economically feasible in the price range they cover. This is why you will encounter reports on sample to sample variation with these lenses (as probably with many other contemporary lenses from makers like Canon, Nikon etc.) and on the other hand there are very few, if any, reports on sample variation among ZM lenses. All this explains and justifies the higher price point of the ZM lenses IMHO. If optical performance is what you are after, the ZM lenses will really give you the best bang for the buck. However, what is nice about most of the Voigtländer branded lenses is that they offer good or very good optical performance in combination with light weight and very compact dimensions. This is different from most of the ZM lenses, which tend to sacrifice compactness in favour of maximum performance (not unlike some modern Leica lenses).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Cosina Zeiss in ZM mount is nothing sophisticated or better build over CV. They want over 1K$ for 50 1.5 old design lens which has focus shift, not so sharp wide open and minimum focus distance is from pre-WWII time just as its optical design. Viogtlander has under 1K$ Nokton 50 1.5 ASPHERICAL, which is sharp wide open. Zeiss has rudiments instead of normal focus tabs and shiny lens fronts. Their 35 2.8 is still bulky comparing to tiny Skopar 35 2.5. ZM has too large size of the filter for such slow lenses and overall size is big, yet, focus helicoids quality is nowhere near to Leica "silk". Zeiss ZM is nothing special at all. Who need their f4 tele if coated Elmar 90 f4 has better build and costs 200$. They don't have fast 1.1, 1.2 lenses as CV has, no special editions with unique design as CV makes. And ZM lenses reported for wobbling and internal dust.

Ziess ZM.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Zeiss&ci=8423&N=4288584243+4291107378

Voigtlander VM.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Voigtlander&ci=8423&N=4288584243+4291123839

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Cosina Zeiss in ZM mount is nothing sophisticated or better build over CV. They want over 1K$ for 50 1.5 old design lens which has focus shift, not so sharp wide open and minimum focus distance is from pre-WWII time just as its optical design. Viogtlander has under 1K$ Nokton 50 1.5 ASPHERICAL, which is sharp wide open. Zeiss has rudiments instead of normal focus tabs and shiny lens fronts. Their 35 2.8 is still bulky comparing to tiny Skopar 35 2.5. ZM has too large size of the filter for such slow lenses and overall size is big, yet, focus helicoids quality is nowhere near to Leica "silk". Zeiss ZM is nothing special at all. Who need their f4 tele if coated Elmar 90 f4 has better build and costs 200$. They don't have fast 1.1, 1.2 lenses as CV has, no special editions with unique design as CV makes. And ZM lenses reported for wobbling and internal dust.

Ziess ZM.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Zeiss&ci=8423&N=4288584243+4291107378

Voigtlander VM.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Voigtlander&ci=8423&N=4288584243+4291123839

Uh wow, 'shots fired'.

Let's clear some things up from this Trump-esque rant against the ZM line up. First, the 50mm 1.5 C Sonnar was designed as a classic 50mm lens, and focus shift is described in it's marketing materials. It has a unique rendering that anyone who shoots it quickly comes to appreciate. Zeiss themselves advise that anyone looking for technical perfection over aesthetic rendering should consider the 50/2 Planar. It's true that the C Sonnar is expensive, but not 'much' more than the 50mm 1.5 Nokton. Leica themselves recently re-introduced a 28/5.6 from decades past and it's well over $2000.00 dollars, so yes you do pay a premium for the premium brand. Then again, the C Sonnar is a delightful 50mm that I personally am happy to have used extensively.

I don't even know what to say about your complaints against the physical design choices. You don't like the focus nubs or chrome hood bayonets... Ok. I don't like mint chewing gum.

The 35/2.8 C Biogon is not bulky by any stretch of the imagination. Yes it is bigger than the 35/2.5 Skopar, only just. It also however features all-metal construction and near perfect performance at all apertures.

As for you build quality complaints. Blah blah blah. You sound like a fanatic. All my Zeiss ZF and ZM lenses are rock solid with perfectly smooth helicals and firm click stops. There are plenty of Leica horror-stories too, and considering you can generally afford 2 or more Zeiss lenses for every 1 Leica lens I'd say it's a wash. Perhaps you should preface your posts by firmly stating that you live in the Red-Dot-Obsessed bubble?

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I suppose everyone likes what they like

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Uh wow, 'shots fired'.

Let's clear some things up from this Trump-esque rant against the ZM line up. You sound like a fanatic. Perhaps you should preface your posts by firmly stating that you live in the Red-Dot-Obsessed bubble?

Dude, why did you go so personal? "Trump, fanatic, obsessed". Time to mature, buddy, if you want to have me to even look at your posts after this act of silliness.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Well when you post a bunch of half-truths or outright false statements in a post I'm going to call you out for it. If being 'mature' to you is telling a bunch of lies and then getting offended when called out then I'll leave you to enjoy your 'maturity.'