Zeiss lens - why are they so special?

[Cato]

I have a new Contax T3 with a Zeiss lens. I've shot a few rolls and I don't really see a noticeable difference compared to my Nikkor lens. Granted I'm no professional, or even serious hobbyist, but can you fellas really see a difference with Zeiss lens? I've Googled some answers, and the closes I can find is that Zeiss provides a "warmness" that other lens don't produce.

As far as the final exposure, is there a really something special or unique produced with a Zeiss lens?

 

[GRHazelton]

Perhaps typically higher prices? T'would be interesting to see a properly run double blind test of Zeiss vs some one else?

 

[shutterfinger]

Nikkor are close to Zeiss in performance. Extreme fine details is where the differences will show if at all.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Blasphemy!

Lol.

They are usually better comparing apples to apples. If you are comparing a Contax point and shoot to your Nikkor slr lenses, and you can't tell the difference, that actually means Zeiss did a hell of a job to pack that performance in a point and shoot! The reason why the Contax T series point and shoots are so expensive and so popular is that they are among the best, if not the best, point and shoots you can buy.

Hope that explains it a little.

 

[blockend]

Differences in film, developer and printing are more obvious than those between lenses of comparable price and era. There are discernible characteristics between, say, a double gauss and a triplet design, but film shows more diversity than digital sensors. You'd be hard pressed to tell Contax, Nikon, Canon, Yashica, Minolta and other mainstream manufacturer's lenses apart from a print made in identical conditions.

 

[Leigh B]

Zeiss vintage lenses benefit from aspects of manufacturing similar to other quality products from an era when some companies focused entirely on quality and precise manufacturing techniques.

A photographic lens is an extraordinarily complex mechanism.

One example of this is that the optical axis of individual lens elements may not be coincident with their mechanical axis. This required that each element be rotated to align its optical axis with that of the optical assembly as a whole.

Such adjustment required specialized equipment, a trained operator, and time, all of which increased cost. Many lens makers of the time didn't bother with this step. The performance of their lenses reflects that.

- Leigh

 

[greg zinselmeier]

In all fairness, Zeiss has historically made a better product in general then their competitors. Testing lenses side by side in a very scientific way.
Now to answer your question ... why cant you see the difference? How are you measuring and testing?
If it's the ol' just by eye thing from commercial lab 4x6 prints. Then you will not see any difference between any lenses.
The criteria just isnt there.

 

[removed account4]

OP
youshould know that zeiss lenses weren't originally german lenses, they are greek lenses.
they were made for the gods on mount olympus. pan ( the goatfootted dude ) was a heck of a
shutterbug back in the day. they say he had a studio and did very well.

in all honesty, i have some zeiss nikon and pentax lenses ( all 35mm ) and i can't tell
any of the images made with them apart. they all made nice glass. that said
you will always find people who can somehow notice the minutia that separates them all.

 

[blockend]

If it's the ol' just by eye thing from commercial lab 4x6 prints. Then you will not see any difference between any lenses.
The criteria just isnt there.

Even a 15 x 10" print will show precious little difference between quality brands. Certainly not enough to turn a bad shot into a good one or vice versa. The differences may matter for medical photography, surveillance, aerial and astrophotography, but for the kind of creative work people here are interested in, I don't see it.

The best thing about a good lens is it may encourage the user to get out and use the camera. OTOH it's financial value may inhibit his photography. Some of my favourite shots of last year were of a sand storm on a beach, taken with a plastic 3-element fixed focus P&S that cost less than the a roll of film. The sand killed the camera, but before it died it made some wonderful photographs. Would I have taken a Leica or Contax? No way!

 

[etn]

We are all gearheads and we love to split hairs about Zeiss, Leica, Nikon etc. glass. (I, for one, have a fair share of Zeiss lenses: some Hasselblad, a Rolleiflex Planar and a couple ZM's - love them all!)

But at the end of the day, I doubt anyone in the entire history of photography ever said: "Your picture is great but would have looked better if taken with a lens from manufacturer XYZ". Granted, many pictures look very different (and potentially better) if a different film format or focal length is used. But just a different brand lens with the same FL and film format? Nah. The individual signatures of specific lenses may contribute to some extent, but I don't believe they will ever turn a bad picture good, or a good picture bad.

What do you think?

Lomography is obviously an exception to the above

 

[Leigh B]

One thing that has not been mentioned is quality control.
This is the single greatest variable between quality products and cheap junk.
It varies all the way from manic dedication to nonexistent.

With a quality product, if you like the performance of a particular model, you know absolutely that you can purchase one and achieve exactly the same performance.

With cheap junk you have no idea how any particular example will perform.

- Leigh

 

[removed account4]

With cheap junk you have no idea how any particular example will perform.

some expensive things make it through QC as being not good performers.
i seem to remember rodenstock / schneider et al. sometimes have so-called underperforming lenses
thankfully none of mine are

 

[guangong]

Yes, quality control! Moving from camera to binoculars, one of the big differences between Zeiss, Leitz, Nikon and other pricey glasses and cheaper binoculars is not glancing through glasses for a few minutes but viewing for hours. I have watched whole operas continuously through my 6x24 Trinovids without the least eye fatigue because both telescopes that make binoculars are perfectly matched. Quality control of glass and also precision engineering of lens mounts from high quality materials all add to cost but also make lenses more rugged.

 

[Craig75]

If you cant tell the difference between a compact lens and a nice slr lens then the compact lens is brutal.

 

[Harry Stevens]

If it's on a Rollei/Retina or for my SLR 35mm it as "made in Japan" stamped on it then thats all I need to know.

Russian J8 have all been good so far.

 

[tedr1]

These are some of the differences that might be seen. The superior lens is sharper in the corners than the inferior lens. This may be especially noticeable wide open. The amount of color distortion (chromatic aberration) will be less once again especially in the corners, this can be seen most easily when the subject is high contrast, for example tree branches against the sky, green and purple blur is present in greater amounts with the inferior lens. Distortion of straight lines may be present to a greater degree in the inferior lens. When there is strong backlight the amount of flare (that lightens the shadow areas) is often greater with the inferior lens.

 

[David Heintz]

I have just about all of the Zeiss zf.2 lenses (don't care for the Milvus design.) also a good number of Nikon AIS and three G lenses, and the Sigma 35, 50 and 24-35 ART lenses. Zeiss has three things going for it: first, the design/construction of the lens is the best I have owned; second, the "T" coatings are extremely good; third, the much touted Zeiss micro contrast and "3D" look is very real (but not as apparent on film as digital.) The best lenses I own are the Zeiss 2/28, 2/100, and 2/135. My favorites are the 1.4/35 and the 1.4/85. Note: the Sigma 50 1.4 ART is no slouch either. I know this is an analog forum, but the Nikon Df and the Zeiss 2/28 are an excellent combination!

 

[narsuitus]

...can you fellas really see a difference with Zeiss lens?

I use lenses made by Zeiss, Nikon, Leitz, Pentax, Fuji, and Olympus. Occasionally, I perform comparison tests (color, contrast, and resolution) to see how the lenses compare.

When I performed a comparison test between a Nikon 135mm f/2, a Zeiss 135mm f/2, and a Pentax 135mm f/3.5, I was surprised that the Zeiss outperformed the Nikon and the Pentax.

When I performed a comparison test on a Nikon 28mm f/2.8, a Zeiss 28mm f/2, and a Pentax 28mm f/3.5, I was surprised that they were very close in performance.

When I performed a 35mm focal length comparison test on Zeiss, Nikon, and Fuji lenses, I was surprised that they were very close in performance.

When I performed a comparison test between Leitz 90mm f/2.8, Zeiss 90mm f/2, Nikon 85mm f/1.4, a Nikon 85mm f/1.8, and an Olympus 45mm f/1.8 micro 4/3 (90mm equiv), I noticed little difference in performance.

Based on my comparison tests, I concluded that all the lenses I tested produced high quality images. The differences that I did observe were very subtle.



35mm lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to shoot Contax SLR's and owned five Zeiss lenses. Zeiss didn't design a bad lens. Nikon has. I also heard what Leigh says in that their quality control was next to none.

From what I was told back in the day, German lens designers wanted sharpness from center to the corners. Japanese designers concentrated on center sharpness. A Japanese lens may be sharper in the center than a Zeiss but the Zeiss lens would be sharper to the corners. I don't know if this is true or not but it is what I was told.

Zeiss lenses were advertised as color coordinated so if you changed lenses during a shoot the colors of your subject would be exactly the same.

 

[Ai Print]

I have just about all of the Zeiss zf.2 lenses (don't care for the Milvus design.) also a good number of Nikon AIS and three G lenses, and the Sigma 35, 50 and 24-35 ART lenses. Zeiss has three things going for it: first, the design/construction of the lens is the best I have owned; second, the "T" coatings are extremely good; third, the much touted Zeiss micro contrast and "3D" look is very real (but not as apparent on film as digital.) The best lenses I own are the Zeiss 2/28, 2/100, and 2/135. My favorites are the 1.4/35 and the 1.4/85. Note: the Sigma 50 1.4 ART is no slouch either. I know this is an analog forum, but the Nikon Df and the Zeiss 2/28 are an excellent combination!

I have and love the Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro Planar in Milvus version and love it, simply spectacular wide open at any focus setting. The Milvus designs are a big step up in terms of focus smoothness and are truly weather sealed. I replaced a Nikon 50mm 1.4G with it and there is simply no comparison, it is in another league.

 

[David Heintz]

Narsuitus,

Thanks for the input. While interesting, my issues with your tests are: 1. done on a crop camera with Fuji sensor; 2. F11; 3. adapters. But, as I say, interesting nevertheless. Like most of us, I read all the lens reviews, study the test charts, etc. However, my best source for determining the quality of a lens, short of my own images, is to take a long look at images made by this lens posted on Flickr. I say a long look as there is quite a range of skill and subject matter! That is how I came to own the Sigma 24-35 f2 ART - a lens I had no use for, given my dislike of zooms and proliferation of primes in those focal lengths. The images were impossible to ignore.

My comments, above, on the Zeiss lenses, were based upon surveying my own images in Lightroom, taken with the Df and D810. I can just tell when it is a Zeiss - don't need to look at the exif at all. Better than 90% accurate

 

[David Heintz]

I have and love the Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro Planar in Milvus version and love it, simply spectacular wide open at any focus setting. The Milvus designs are a big step up in terms of focus smoothness and are truly weather sealed. I replaced a Nikon 50mm 1.4G with it and there is simply no comparison, it is in another league.

Don't have the 50 MP any more, as mine was a zf and no chip. But loved it anyhow. My 50mm lenses are the Nikon 1.2 AIS, the Zeiss 1.4 Planar zf.2, the Sigma 1.4 ART, and, the Nikon 58mm 1.4G. I am looking for a Nikon 55 1.2 S or SC that has been converted to AI.

I was "this close" to getting the Zeiss 50mm Milvus, but got the Sigma instead. Actually focuses well on the F6. Curiosity note: on another, very famous, forum there are currently 4 Zeiss Milvus 50mms (Nikon mount) for sale. Don't know why, but strange coincidence...

 

[removed account4]

When I performed a comparison test on a Nikon 28mm f/2.8, a Zeiss 28mm f/2, and a Pentax 28mm f/3.5, I was surprised that they were very close in performance.

hi narsuitus:

were these actual color prints that you had&uplinked us to? i have found ts so hard to determine anything
from scans because scanners like to make things so tidy and nice, and in real life, things are kind of messy...
btw i've seen these photos before, you must have a lot of props if i had heads hanging around, like that they would give me the willies!

 

[Leigh B]

Zeiss lenses were advertised as color coordinated so if you changed lenses during a shoot the colors of your subject would be exactly the same.

That's true of good lenses from any major manufacturer, for the reason stated.

That's been true for decades (probably since transparencies became popular).

- Leigh

 

[jspillane]

As many people have stated, there is not a substantial or obvious performance difference between professional grade lenses from most manufacturers. They are often using very similar lens designs (unless they are very exotic).

So, why is Zeiss more expensive?

1) Zeiss does indeed have very high build quality and QC. I've not experienced a dud lens from Zeiss (but most of my experience has been with the Hasselblad line).

2) Zeiss originally developed and manufactured many of the 'classic' lens designs which other companies copied (such as the 4-element Tessar and the 6-element Planar). So if you are obsessed with having 'the original' of a design, they are often the source.

3) German-made lenses are almost always more expensive than lenses manufactured in other countries(see prices on Schneider and Leica lenses as well). Even German NAMED lenses are more expensive (See: some contax zeiss lenses, rollei made-in-singapore lenses, leica made-in-canada lenses, all cosina-zeiss and cosnia-voigtlander lenses).

4) In side-by-side tests, Zeiss very often (not always) bests all other brands for optimal resolution. However, if you are outside of a lab, it is debatable how much this matters. If you want to be absolutely sure you are getting every drop of resolution possible it is occasionally advisable to purchase a Zeiss lens. This is not true of all focal lengths or makes of course, and many vary sample to sample (although, again, Zeiss has a reputation for good QC and less sample variation).

TLR - Fancy-name brand lenses are like fancy name-brand anything (cars, audio equipment, tools, etc.): possibly technically better, but the difference probably doesn't matter in use.