Zeiss lens - why are they so special?

[Alan Gales]

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

Thanks Leigh. I just remember back in the 80's Zeiss included this in their literature like it was real important. I know. That's called advertising.

 

[Nodda Duma]

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.

As a lens designer, I can say that this makes complete sense and correlates with what I know from inside the optical design community.

Zeiss as a German company likely had tighter fabrication and assembly tolerances in the past, but I wouldn't say that holds true anymore. Most other companies in this market have caught up. By "caught up" I mean the modeling capability necessary is widely disseminated now, and the tolerances necessary for consistent quality can be readily achieved with CNC machines that are available throughout the world.

 

[RattyMouse]

Shot with digital, I think Zeiss lenses are very much different from Nikkors, or any other for that matter. Perhaps these differences are not as great on film. I dont know, as I only have Nikon lenses. I have craved Zeiss for ages but never pulled the trigger on one of them. One day I may have a Contax RTS III with a few Zeiss lenses though.

 

[blockend]

One day I may have a Contax RTS III with a few Zeiss lenses though.

Were Kyocera making Zeiss lenses at that point? I forget. Yashica ML may be worth a try. Even the DSB range is very good and gives a kind of old school rendering.

 

[kuparikettu]

Well, I had GAS hit me a few weeks ago. You know, I had picked up this new-in-a-box Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 two years ago from a small town photography store (just asked if they still had some film cameras available) and they sold me this beautiful new camera from the 80s (?).

For two years I didn't have lenses for it, but then I decided that I need a new SLR system for a trip and... Well, you probably know the drill.

So then I loaded some Ektar in my FX-3, put on Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 MMJ and went on shooting.

And I was disappointed. Perhaps it was the Ektar - perhaps it had already aged a bit too much, or perhaps my camera holding technique with this particular camera was worse than usually, or perhaps for some reason I suddenly decided to focus a bit in front of my subjects -- but what ever the reason, I wasn't able to acquire as good results I get from my manual Olympus OM bodies and Zuikos, not to even mention F100 and AF-D 50/1.8.

I'm still waiting for a Contax 167mt but if that one combined with the Planar doesn't really surprise me with great results, I'm going to focus on Olympus and Nikon in 35mm and sell the rest...

(Having said that, I do really like those Contac Zeiss lenses with an adapter on my Super16 motion picture camera. I guess the "micro contrast" matters there more.

 

[Eric Rose]

Each brand has a signature "look" to them. I find Nikkor lenses more pleasing than Canon, Leica and Zeiss the nicest of them all. I prefer the older Zeiss lenses over the new ones BTW. It's a personal thing and doing "tests" won't show you what I am referring to.

 

[Cato]

Thanks for the advice, fellas!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, I can see the difference with my Zeiss Hasselblad lenses. I can also see the difference in the MTF curves.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Also the Zeiss lens for my circa 1933 Certo Dolly SuperSport was also very sharp edge to edge.

 

[RattyMouse]

Were Kyocera making Zeiss lenses at that point? I forget. Yashica ML may be worth a try. Even the DSB range is very good and gives a kind of old school rendering.

The Zeiss lenses for the Contax SLR's were made in Japan, but by who I'm not entirely sure.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

wasn't it Schott Glass that made the Tessar? in 1898 or sometime around there . . . something better than a triplet. . . . I think Zeiss gots its acuetrama then, and it stuck. Over all, for basic/scenic photography it is difficult to tell the difference. zeiss does have excellent quality control and plenty of sharp lenses, to choose from,.

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

What seems to be the problem/problems with Leica made-in-Canada lenses? I've not been able to tell the difference between those and Leica lenses made at the same time in Wetzlar. E. Leitz-Canada made lenses for our U2 and other spy planes and you could read auto license plates from extreme altitudes. Leica sent people to Canada from Wetzlar and they trained Canadian workers to work the "Leitz" way. The Leica lens that I have long wanted is the 90mm f:2 Summicron, made either in Wetzlar or Canada. I wouldn't care which. As to "quality" lenses by Zeiss or Leitz, the quality of the mount has a lot to do with the over-all quality of any lens.....Regards!

 

[narsuitus]

...my issues with your tests are: 1. done on a crop camera with Fuji sensor; 2. F11; 3. adapters.

In my film only days, I performed my lens comparison tests using the lens mounted on the appropriate film camera body. I used a high resolution film such as Kodachrome II or H&W Control VTE black & white film and compared the positive or negative images with a loupe on a light table.

Adapting all the lenses to the same camera body reduces the variables multiple camera bodies would introduce to the tests. Performing the tests on Nikon, Leica, Pentax, and Fuji full-frame 35mm film bodies would be an expensive logistical nightmare.

Today, to save time and money, I prefer to use the appropriate adapter to mount the lenses on the same camera body. I have to use a crop camera because the only full-frames I own are film cameras.

Since the adapters I use are nothing but hollow tubes with no glass, they hopefully contribute little to the quality of the images produced by the lenses.

I like to perform my first comparison tests at an f/stop that is close to the middle of the f/stop range (f/5.6, f/8, or f/11). The second test I like to perform is at an f/stop that is close to wide open (f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8). If needed, the third test I perform is at each f/stop from f/1.4 to f/22.

I perform these tests so that I am not surprised by some quirk when I use my lenses for important assignments. For example, instead of my 180mm prime lens, I once selected a new 28-200mm lens to shoot an event because I thought I needed a slightly longer focal length. However, I was surprised that the zoom set at 200mm actually delivered an angle-of-view that was closer to 140mm instead of 200mm. That same zoom lens also produced images with a warm cast and less detail than my 180mm lens. However, what really surprised me was that during the comparison tests and the field tests, the lens proved to be a great portrait lens.

 

[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...

The images I posted were not scans from color prints. That would have been too expensive. The images were taken directly from the camera and down-sized to meet the image display requirements of Flickr and APUG. I posted the images not to give the viewers something to analyze but to give the viewers an idea of how I performed my lens comparison tests.

 

[Eric Rose]

Not that anyone cares but I should have put a period in my sentence about which lenses I like best. My favs in order of preference are Zeiss, Leitz and then Nikkor. I also prefer lenses made prior to 2000. I am not saying they are the best, just that I prefer them for creating the images I like to make. I could care less about MTF charts and such. I prefer to give them a try and if works for me then its a keeper.

 

[Alan Gales]

As a lens designer, I can say that this makes complete sense and correlates with what I know from inside the optical design community.

Zeiss as a German company likely had tighter fabrication and assembly tolerances in the past, but I wouldn't say that holds true anymore. Most other companies in this market have caught up. By "caught up" I mean the modeling capability necessary is widely disseminated now, and the tolerances necessary for consistent quality can be readily achieved with CNC machines that are available throughout the world.

Thanks for the info! I was wondering if what I was told was true or not.

 

[Alan Gales]

The Zeiss lenses for the Contax SLR's were made in Japan, but by who I'm not entirely sure.

Yes and no. I owned five Zeiss lenses for my Contax 35mm camera. My 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm were labeled Japan. My 25mm and 180mm were labeled Germany. The more expensive (faster) lenses were made in Germany. I was told that with the less expensive lenses the glass was made in Germany and shipped to Japan where they were assembled into Japanese barrels which were made by the same people who made the Yashica barrels for Yashica lenses. It was a joint effort between Zeiss and Yashica. I believe Kyocera was the parent company of Yashica.

 

[AgX]

wasn't it Schott Glass that made the Tessar? in 1898 or sometime around there . . . something better than a triplet. . . . I think Zeiss gots its acuetrama then, and it stuck. Over all, for basic/scenic photography it is difficult to tell the difference. zeiss does have excellent quality control and plenty of sharp lenses, to choose from,.

Schott glass works were/are subsidiary of Zeiss.

 

[Dan Fromm]

What seems to be the problem/problems with Leica made-in-Canada lenses? I've not been able to tell the difference between those and Leica lenses made at the same time in Wetzlar. E. Leitz-Canada made lenses for our U2 and other spy planes and you could read auto license plates from extreme altitudes. Leica sent people to Canada from Wetzlar and they trained Canadian workers to work the "Leitz" way. The Leica lens that I have long wanted is the 90mm f:2 Summicron, made either in Wetzlar or Canada. I wouldn't care which. As to "quality" lenses by Zeiss or Leitz, the quality of the mount has a lot to do with the over-all quality of any lens.....Regards!

I'm not aware of any problems in general but some Elcan lenses weren't that wonderful.

For example, I have a 1.75"/2.8 Elcan type C-88 ex-Vinten F.95 that is mediocre. Heavy distortion and poor image quality towards the edge of the frame. Still and all, one of the shorter lenses for 6x6. Similarly, the 4-element 50/2 that Elcan made for the KE-7A, the military M4, isn't particularly good. You have to understand that Elcan, as a merchant lens maker, made lenses to meet customers' requirements. Not all customers needed or were willing to pay for the very best.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Schott glass works were/are subsidiary of Zeiss.

Schott has a real problem with delivery times which often precludes their use when other suppliers have equivalent glass types. Optical shops tend to ask if they can use Ohara because they are MUCH more responsive and their glass quality is every bit as good as Schott's. They are equivalent quality as far as I'm concerned.

I will use Schott glass in the models when doing designs since I practically have their glass map memorized, but I usually switch to Ohara as a final step and put the Ohara equivalent as the reference glass on the drawings since shops always ask to use Ohara when they can anyways.

I rank other suppliers (CDGM, Hoya, etc) a step lower because their glass property tolerances aren't as tight as Ohara & Schott. CDGM especially, although they are getting better and are cheap if the design can accommodate "suprisingly varying characteristics". The other suppliers just vary too much for my design standards.

 

[guangong]

When visiting Zeiss research headquarters in New York several years ago I was told that although a Zeiss lens may be manufactured in Japan that a Zeiss employee is always present to ensure quality control. Keep in mind that Zeiss is controlled by the Zeiss Foundation which was established to do basic research and advance the science of optics and its application in the advancement of science.

 

[film_man]

Depends what Zeiss lens and what you're comparing to. If you look at your typical mid-range SLR lens then a Zeiss one (ZE, ZF mount etc) will have much better sharpness, contrast and colour. If you start comparing to high end glass like Canon L or the expensive Nikon stuff then the difference become subjective. Personally I have owned the ZF2 35/2, ZF2 50/1.4 and the ZM 50/2. The clarity and sharpness of the 35/2 and the 50/2 were outstanding, the colour and contrast as well. To be honest the contrast was much too high for my own liking, particularly the ZM 50 which almost hurt my eyes. Photos made with it looked very much like the ones coming out from my Mamiya 6.

The only direct comparison I have is in 50mm where I have owned the following: Zeiss ZF2 50/1.4, Nikon 50/1.2, Canon 50/1.8 STM and Leica 50/2 Summicron-R. In terms of sharpness even the $100 Canon is great at f/2. The Zeiss has fantastic rendering, looked like a Hasselblad (which is a Zeiss lens too of course, I really liked the continuity of shooting with 120 with a 'blad and 35mm with a FM2 and getting a matching look). The Summicron was my preference for it's look though, sharp but gentle and great for portraits. Eventually I got the Nikon which is an amazing lens even at f/1.2, looks like the Summicron too which is great. The Nikon 50/1.2 is the only one I now have. If I was to add another 50 it would be the Zeiss (the now called "classic" one, not the Milvus or Opus monstrosities) just to give me an alternative rendering.

In the end they are down to preference, since digital today is all about sharpness, colour pop and contrast, ie in your face rendering, Zeiss plays well into that. Beyond that it is about a particular look, plus the fact that spending $$$$ for a manual lens obviously makes you want to believe you bought something much "better".

PS
There is also the bit which, if one cares about this stuff, is the consistent look. If you buy a bunch of Zeiss lenses then the overall rendering is consistent. Though that's probably true across high end glass from other manufacturers.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Don't forget that the Zeiss legend (and all the legendary designs) began in an era where lens design and calculations were done on paper, by hand, and an inspired designer could make miracles happen.
Since then the gap has narrowed because of the spread of knowledge and faster tools.

 

[Leigh B]

That's certainly true. Tools are everything in optical design.
Nikon used to have two rooms full of women doing identical calculations.
If the results matched, they used them. If not, they went back and started over.

Of course the advent of computers certainly changed optical design.
When you can do millions of calculations per second, complex designs become easy.

- Leigh

 

[removed account4]

The images I posted were not scans from color prints. That would have been too expensive. The images were taken directly from the camera and down-sized to meet the image display requirements of Flickr and APUG. I posted the images not to give the viewers something to analyze but to give the viewers an idea of how I performed my lens comparison tests.

thanks !