Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Is the Super Cosina 80-200 mm a Japanese aftermarket Zeiss?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So the Japanese Contax (Zeiss) are crap compared to the West German Zeiss?

As is the 85/1.4? How does that compare to your 85/1.2 planar T*?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nemesis101 wrote:
I was trying to be honest, not sarcastic..

Actually I don't think the quality is that (Zeiss) good - and I have quite a few Zeiss optics - as the watch for instance, seems to show chromatic aberration / purple fringing along the edges where the contrast is high? I get little or none with either my Zeiss primes, or my Zeiss zoom.

The others are nice, but for real Zeiss 'pop' Orio's work in particular stands out, Whilst Stan and many others do amazing things with some great glass like Canon L CD zooms..

Doug





Doug, I think the CA is due to my smaller crop sensor on my digital. It may not reflect the lens but instead be due to demosmosaicing. I wish I had a better body to demonstrate it properly. Sad


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The CA can indeed be a function of digital sensors in that they seem to produce CA (even full frame cameras) with lenses that exhibit little if any when used on a film body.

Certainly CA (or colour fringing) can be reduced by stopping down with many lenses.

It's also posited that the angle at which light hits the sensor might influence matters, as ideally the light should be directly at right angles to the plane of the senor so that it strikes the photosite directly from 'above' where incident light strikes at an angle it is possible I suspect for the microlens above each photosite to differentially refract the light?

This would not of course affect film where light can strike the emulsion form any angle?

Just a thought...

Doug

par
newton wrote:
nemesis101 wrote:
I was trying to be honest, not sarcastic..

Actually I don't think the quality is that (Zeiss) good - and I have quite a few Zeiss optics - as the watch for instance, seems to show chromatic aberration / purple fringing along the edges where the contrast is high? I get little or none with either my Zeiss primes, or my Zeiss zoom.

The others are nice, but for real Zeiss 'pop' Orio's work in particular stands out, Whilst Stan and many others do amazing things with some great glass like Canon L CD zooms..

Doug





Doug, I think the CA is due to my smaller crop sensor on my digital. It may not reflect the lens but instead be due to demosmosaicing. I wish I had a better body to demonstrate it properly. Sad


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As far as I know the C/Y 50mm f1.4 planars made in Germany are identical to those made in Japan.. The planars made (in Singapore?) for Rollei also seem fully 'Zeiss' in quality...

What is certainly true is that the Zeiss brand has been diluted by the likes of Sony et al using the name Zeiss seemingly more as a marketing exercise than an indication of Zeiss involvement in manufacturing? This certainly happened with the east German Jena guys who let Sigma and others use the Zeiss Jena brand for some very questionable optics. This stopped when the wall fell and the Jena guys eventually ceased production I believe?

newton wrote:
So the Japanese Contax (Zeiss) are crap compared to the West German Zeiss?

As is the 85/1.4? How does that compare to your 85/1.2 planar T*?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nemesis101 wrote:
What is certainly true is that the Zeiss brand has been diluted by the likes of Sony et al using the name Zeiss seemingly more as a marketing exercise than an indication of Zeiss involvement in manufacturing? This certainly happened with the east German Jena guys who let Sigma and others use the Zeiss Jena brand for some very questionable optics. This stopped when the wall fell and the Jena guys eventually ceased production I believe?


+1. Which brings us back to what I posted several pages ago Laughing Old Cosina / Sigma lenses branded Carl Zeiss Jena are not Carl Zeiss designs or Carl Zeiss made lenses Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
But is Contax / Yashica truly Zeiss (Contax)? Because if they are not, I want my money back!!!!

Btw, I used real Zeiss lenses in grad school (microscopes) (was very lucky to be the one to get to use the $25,000 microscope) and swear by how good the optics were. This was made in West Germany, so now I really question the Contax, too. If not, how can they charge so much money for them?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Yashica Y/C Contax branded lenses are as good as anything out of Germany - so says every reviewer, and every user!

Doug

newton wrote:
But is Contax / Yashica truly Zeiss (Contax)? Because if they are not, I want my money back!!!!

Btw, I used real Zeiss lenses in grad school (microscopes) (was very lucky to be the one to get to use the $25,000 microscope) and swear by how good the optics were. This was made in West Germany, so now I really question the Contax, too. If not, how can they charge so much money for them?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
newton wrote:
So the Japanese Contax (Zeiss) are crap compared to the West German Zeiss?

As is the 85/1.4? How does that compare to your 85/1.2 planar T*?


No. From all I've gathered, Zeiss (West Germany and modern) are designed by Zeiss, and the glass made in Germany. Then, the lens bodies are then machined and assembled in Japan. Zeiss in fact hand pick where this will be done and install the equipment necessary to ensure quality standards and QC. To my experience, there is no difference between those assembled in Germany or Japan.

The 85/1.4 shows more spherical aberration (with a resulting softer diffusion of contrast) wide open - which for portraits and arty bokeh shots isn't a bad thing. To be honest, since I've bought my 1.2(s) my copy is still in Spain having a mount fitted. More testing and a deluge of resulting images to follow.

nemesis101 wrote:
...What is certainly true is that the Zeiss brand has been diluted by the likes of Sony et al using the name Zeiss seemingly more as a marketing exercise than an indication of Zeiss involvement in manufacturing?...


I'm not sure about et al, but Sony and Zeiss have a partnership. Sony certainly has input as to what Zeiss will design for them, but they are designed and manufactured in the same way, with the same Zeiss QC standards as the Z line lenses - though not at the Cosina facility. When you buy a ZA Zeiss, you get a hand-signed Zeiss inspection card as with the Z line or C/Y line before it. My personal experience with Z, ZA and C/Y Zeiss lenses has been universally satisfying, though I will be the first to admit that I prefer the rendering of the older glass. While the C/Y stuff is measureably inferior by scientific standards, I prefer the resulting look.

Go to http://www.zeiss.com/photo and look in the list of lenses offered. Z, Hasselblad, Sony, etc.

Kelly.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thePiRaTE!! wrote:


The 85/1.4 shows more spherical aberration (with a resulting softer diffusion of contrast) wide open - which for portraits and arty bokeh shots isn't a bad thing. To be honest, since I've bought my 1.2(s) my copy is still in Spain having a mount fitted. More testing and a deluge of resulting images...

Sony certainly has input as to what Zeiss will design for them, but they are designed and manufactured in the same way, with the same Zeiss QC standards....

While the C/Y stuff is measureably inferior by scientific standards, I prefer the resulting look.


Kelly.


Kelly, wait....

1. What do you mean by the C/Y stuff is "measurably inferior by scientific standards"....what standards and how?

2. I am still not clear about the difference between the 1.2 and the 1.4... i.e. Why doesn't the 1.2 have more aberration wide-open, etc...? How is it different? I do agree that super sharpness detracts from some kinds of portrait shots, but I am not clear about what differences you are specifically making. It sounds like you are saying the 1.4 is not really worth it....others swear by it but may not own the 1.2. I think the 1.4 is okay but I sometimes drop to some sh---ier glass like Rokinon for the effect I personally like. I have no idea what you are really saying regarding the 1.2 vs. 1.4. I would conjecture, perhaps, that the 1.2 may be equally or more unappealing?

3.  Regarding Sony, I have been happy with their Vario Sonnars on even their cheap cybershot cameras.  Some of my very best work were taken from cybershots using this Zeiss glass.  Personally, I love these cameras, even though they are not DSLR's.  I felt I lost a lot of creative expression when I started using my DSLR.  I even think that my old SLR's gave me more beautiful pictures than my DSLR, but those are my eyes and these eyes tend to disagree with the modern digital crazy, frenzied, impatient, get-your-quick-fix-world (on the cam's playback or on some internet medium, etc...while criticizing old or non-brand equip) photographers of today.  [What I sadly am saying is that I think most of today's photographer's are not that good and I hate most of my (DSLR) work, as well, but my eyes and views are mine and are sadly not in line with today's egomaniacal and superficial world, unfortunately....Call me a misanthrope but I am not....I just don't like or agree with a lot of the stuff I see....but that is just me. Sad )

4. I really do wonder about Cosina manufacturing. Having been first-hand involved in manufacturing, I know that honest entrepreneurs don't have time to reinvent the wheel every time and sometimes [the "pc" adverb] (/often [my adverb]) copy or follow high industry standards but rebrand under cheaper names for increased marketshare, survivability, and profit. That is just common sense for respectable honest manufacturers, not talking about the cheaters and everyone else who try to maliciously beat the system with crappy lenses, products. Frankly, I have a very hard time letting go of even my cheaper glass, because I manage to find something amazing that pleases *me* out of every glass I use or every camera I touch.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
newton wrote:
Kelly, wait....

1. What do you mean by the C/Y stuff is "measurably inferior by scientific standards"....what standards and how?


Generalizing here, but for similar counterparts produced today, MTF is markedly improved at wide apertures. In some cases in fact there was no previous lens to even compare directly with (Distagon 24/2 for example, but which scores extremely high (www.photozone.de)) but where they can be (Contax 35/1.4, 28/2, 25/2.8, etc and new Z versions) charts are available. Also in many cases minimum focus distance has shrunk down (A LOT in the case of the 25).

newton wrote:

2. I am still not clear about the difference between the 1.2 and the 1.4... i.e. Why doesn't the 1.2 have more aberration wide-open, etc...? How is it different? I do agree that super sharpness detracts from some kinds of portrait shots, but I am not clear about what differences you are specifically making. It sounds like you are saying the 1.4 is not really worth it....others swear by it but may not own the 1.2. I think the 1.4 is okay but I sometimes drop to some sh----ier glass like Rokkor for the effect I personally like. I have no idea what you are really saying regarding the 1.2 vs. 1.4. I would conjecture, perhaps, that the 1.2 may be equally or more unappealing?


You're getting a liiittle ahead from the little I've said. And I've intentionally said little based on the 1 day I test shot thus far (by holding it up to my camera body!) the 1.2. I have a lot more experience with the 1.4, so could recognize the immediate difference in wide open sharpness and in the pale diffusion of contrasty lines wide open with the 1.4 and less so with the 1.2. This appears to make the 1.2, sharper already at 1.2 than the 1.4 at 1.4. Zeiss own info suggest the same but I'm more interested in the bokeh and look forward to seeing what the 1.2 can do. The 1.4 was fabulous in that regard for my enjoyment and for the difference in availablility and price - the 1.4 offers better bang for buck.

1.2 - http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar1.2_85mm_e/$File/Planar1.2_85mm_e.pdf

1.4 - http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar1.4_85mm_yashica_e/$File/Planar1.4_85mm_yashica_e.pdf

or indeed, many historical Zeiss lens data sheets - http://www.zeiss.de/__c12567a8003b58b9.nsf/Contents-Frame/5ed01eb620d0b1cec12570f80033cada?opendocument&click=

newton wrote:

3. Regarding Sony, I have been happy with their Vario Sonnars on even their cheap cybershot cameras. Some of my very best work were taken from cybershots using this Zeiss glass. Personally, I love these cameras, even though they are not DSLR's. I felt I lost a lot of creative expression when I started using my DSLR's. I even think that my old SLR's give me more beautiful pictures than my DSLR, but those are my eyes and these eyes tend to disagree with the modern digital crazy, frenzied, impatient, get-your-quick-fix-world photographers of today.


I can't explain it either, but I like the way the older Contax Zeiss render better than the new ones. What each of us likes is mostly seperate from anything measurable at all. Feeling, mood, just being somewhere at the right time with any camera. That said, each new invention only increases all our potential for creativity. I've recently tried film - only after digital photography allowed my impatient nature to discover the joys patience can bring. Ironically, my wife had a little Sony point and shoot with a Vario-Sonnar and I too felt it took great pictures. It was the first camera I took pictures I was happy with, before I ever owned a DSLR. She held on to it even after getting her own DSLR - using it still occasionally when something smaller was needed until I bought her a NEX5 and she finally passed the p&s to her mom, who now uses it still.

newton wrote:

4. I really do wonder about Cosina manufacturing. Having been first-hand involved in manufacturing, I know that honest entrepreneurs don't have time to reinvent the wheel every time and sometimes [the "pc" adverb] (/often [my adverb]) copy or follow high industry standards but rebrand under cheaper names for increased marketshare, survivability, and profit. That is just common sense for respectable honest manufacturers, not talking about the cheaters and everyone else who try to maliciously beat the system with crappy lenses, products. Frankly, I have a very hard time letting go of even my cheaper glass, because I manage to find something amazing that pleases *me* out of every glass I use or every camera I touch.


I can't vouch for the past, but at present Cosina is top notch. They not only produce the Z line in conjunction with Zeiss, but do all the modern Voigtlander stuff themselves. You would be hard pressed to round-up detractors of either of these product lines (aside from the 'OMG, who does manual focus these days!' folk). The owner also explores a lot of territory of the enthusiast vs the consumer while maintaining reasonable pricing, so I would even say they are a company worthy of respect in todays market.

As for cheaper glass - as you said it's what you see in it. It's one thing if you're at a job with certain expectations of your output, but when we're entertaining ourselves, so many happy accidents make a shot something we could never have planned, or in fact have planned and put uncorrected aberration to our creative uses. You could give the finest paints or a box of crayons to an artist and talent could still be recognized.

Kelly.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thePiRaTE!! wrote:


I can't vouch for the past, but at present Cosina is top notch. They not only produce the Z line in conjunction with Zeiss, but do all the modern Voigtlander stuff themselves. You would be hard pressed to round-up detractors of either of these product lines (aside from the 'OMG, who does manual focus these days!' folk). The owner also explores a lot of territory of the enthusiast vs the consumer while maintaining reasonable pricing, so I would even say they are a company worthy of respect in todays market.

Kelly.


+1

Fantastic job done with the Nokton 58mm DSLR lenses and the 50/1.1 for RF cameras

The focus throw of the Nokton is so much shorter/faster than the Noctilux because of which i kept the Nokton and can live without the Noctilux magic for $4000 lesser. For the moment atleast. Laughing

My kudos to Cosina.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2