Why are zeiss lenses so expensive

And the AF is a weakness for my use. If I'd shoot Nikon, I'd pick the Zeiss because it's also a bargain. If you want f1. There are a number of reasons why they are, in most cases, better. But there are exceptions. Nikon came close in the 70s and 80s, but as slower zoom lenses became more popular so did the need for such precision as in the primes.

Zeiss do use Cosina for their lower end 35 mm lenses, but only for best practice lens assembly, a niche that Cosina is developing successfully. The designs are Zeiss. Zeiss are primarily an industrial optics company that also does camera lenses. Just like Olympus, Nikon and Leica. The precision required for medical and industrial optics is superior to that rtequired for consumer camera optics. They are used to the precision required.

Just program the bulldozer and away you go, hands off. I've seen it. Scary brilliant. Their MF lenses are also sublime, as are the older LF lenses. But did you know where they perfected their optics skills? On the latter the focus baseline in the periscope was only 10cm and it was accurate to 20,metres. I think it is a combination of factors like: brand name, limited production, high construction standards.

Personally I like quite a lot the Zeiss lenses' signature. It is probably just a combination of microcontrast and bokeh but it seems has if their lenses have a distinct look. Especially in their normal to telephoto lenses. I no longer own Zeiss lenses, but I can tell you from experience that they make the best lenses, period. Compared in testing to virtually any other lens manufacturer they almost always out shine the competeing brand. People seem to have quite different views on whether or not Zeiss lenses are expensive.

My view is that they are not or only very slightly so, my argument being that pro grade Nikon lenses are comparably expensive. I would argue that it's clear that if Nikon makes a high quality both build and optical lens then the cost is quite steep and thus it is reasonable to expect that Zeiss will sell their lenses at a similar price level. It's not so much a question of brand name as a question about lenses that need to be high quality and are thus expensive to produce and require expensive QC and the lenses are not sold in large amounts.

Having used Zeiss lenses I can say that there is nothing magical about them, but the do offer solid image quality that looks a bit different from most Nikkors and they combine this with excellent workmanship. I think it's good that there are several brands available to use on one camera and I don't think anyone can seriously deny that Zeiss lenses wouldn't produce technically high quality images. For the record, Leica is the one with very high prices; just do a little comparisons on the net if you want.

I don't know Leica lenses well enough to judge when the price is warranted or not. On the nikon vs zeiss price issue, people need to remember than the nikon lenses are AF which is a pretty big deal. I used Zeiss exclusively for over 25 years on the front of Contax 35mm, and latterly bodies. The Zeiss lenses have that little extra I have a pic I shot of a waterfall near my house, RTS3 and 35mm f1. It has an almost 3D feel about it. I believe Zeiss glass is still Schott Glass, which in turn is Pilkington glass.

And they are better made, simple! They pollish the element surfaces for longer, and better than almost anyone else, a nod in the direction of Leica. Most of them are metal barrels. Built to last. My 3 wedding lenses, 35mm f1. Contax sold them to Contax users as the ultimate. No arguement there. As soon as you see the results from Zeiss glass, you want more. Better colour, better sharpness, gorgeous contrast, fabulous bokeh, fantastic control of flare, and I still have a few superlatives left.

The price is relative. They polish the surfaces for longer, and better than almost anyone else, a nod in the direction of Leica. They don't seem to be built for mass production, or down to a price to make them competitive. Oh, and it would shock you all to discover just how little a tiny AF assembly costs to move a plastic focus mechanism around. So, better glass, non plastic barrels, not as expensive as you think.

If you haven't used them, then, in my opinion, you can't comment. A bit strong, but to me its a bit like a non-driver telling me what car to buy. Similarly Softars, they're just perfect for the job they do, and DON'T tell me this that and the other is a better diffuser, you're wrong!

Ususlly people who have never used one tell me xyz is the best! After several annoying questions, I produced some images. Stunned silence! One of the other photographers went out and bought one a few days later. Another went for Bronica. Ask yourself the same question about Hasselblad 6x6 film cameras.

What is there about them that give such fabulous results. Is it the little square Swedish box, or the fantastic German Glass that goes on the front of them? Right, Nikon makes AF lenses of course, but none of the currently available autofocus prime wide angle Nikkors is competitive optically or mechanically.

What good is a well focused image if it's riddled with softness and CA at wide apertures, especially towards the edges?

Manual focus isn't a big deal. You just need a camera with a reasonably nice viewfinder i. And the long focusing movement of the ZF lenses makes it easier to precisely control it. Autofocus is limited to the focus point locations and fiddling with the unresponsive pad to move the point around usually takes longer than turning the focus dial.

Autofocus usually works well but in some situations, e. In people photography if you use autofocus you don't have a choice but to place the focus on someone or -thing specific whereas you might want to use the depth of field and place the focus between two persons with a wide angle. Manual focus makes these kinds of things easy. Moving the focus point around was hopelessly slow compared to the pace of the match and I had considerable difficulty with it. It was just easier to use the center point and refocus although this meant I could not follow focus as a player was swimming with the ball.

What was really surprising was that when I focused on the coach at the opposite side of the poor during time outs, the autofocus was subtly off and I could get the focus more accurately by manually focusing. LCD playback confirmed the results.

I tried it several times with the same result. The fact that there are several companies making screens for DSLRs and the excellent success of MF using these screens clearly shows that Nikon needs to address this.

One of my main reasons for not purchasing the D3X has been the screen; I'm hoping that Nikon comes to its senses with the D4 screen in or whatever - I mean, the current screens are great for slow lenses but who really buys a full frame DSLR and uses them?

This should hopefully solve the problem. For some reason I find the D viewfinder subtly better for manual focus than the D3's. The F5 screen shows much better fine detail than either; it really pops up when focus is dead on e. Anyway, there are solutions for this problem either DYI, or 3rd party.

People should not be afraid of manual focus as many seem to be; a properly designed viewfinder, screen, and lens makes it easy. I'm not saying MF is always better - hardly, but in some situations I prefer it. Of course it would be nice if the Zeiss lenses were AF-S but without Nikon's co-operation a consistently working AF lens is not likely to happen.

And there's no way Nikon will start working with Zeiss to get there; they think they know best. Interestingly Lloyd Chambers, who has written by far the most detailed and comprehensive reviews of ZF lenses bar none, has just come back from a trip to Yosemite where he wanted to test the tasty new Canon mm macro against the mm ZF and the Leica mm APO.

Unfortunately this new out of the box lens had a major optical fault - he points out that every single lens Zeiss produces is MTF tested before packing. Another reason they are 'expensive'. I'll repeat what I mentioned earlier in the thread - anybody interested in seeing detailed comparisons between the current ZF line and some of the flagship lenses from Canon and Nikon should go and subscribe to the ZF reviews at www. It's because the image quality of some of the ZFs is so much better that the extra inconvenience of manual focus primes is more than worth it.

I reiterate an earlier point that - in my somewhat experienced opinion - you will genuinely not find apart from maybe in the discontinued Leica R world a better 21mm, 35mm or mm anywhere. The other ZFs are just very, very good and well worth owning too. Both are autofocus, except the autofocus on the is extremely slow, plus for macro work AF is not useful.

The only shortcoming on the Zeiss is that it only focuses to What Ilkka said about manual focus. I'll add that many ZF lens snap into focus easier than the majority of Nikkors; it seems to be an effect of the optical properties, probably intentional. Small things perhaps, but those kinds of things that need to work just right when out in the field.

Part of it is they are top notch glass in very sturdy barrels , the other part is the Zeiss name. But nobody says that BMW isn't a German-engineered car. They are better but less convienient. I use the 18, 25, 35, 50, for slow contemplative work. I use AFS zooms for action or events. Thanks for the picture, Don. To say the least, Zeiss-lovers are some what more level-headed and more downearth than the religious background of Leica aficionados.

I do not know any statistics since not released but what I hear from Zeiss people industry sales is that more Nikon mount Zeiss lenses are sold for industry applications than for Nikon photographers. The Nikon F mount is a de facto standard for many imaging applications that use other cameras than Nikon.

In industry applications AF is often not required or realized in a different way than using a Nikon body. Considering the mechanical quality alone Zeiss lenses are not "expensive" for such applications. You want a lens priced out of this world? A couple more observations: First, I apologize if my tone offended anyone. My problem is I get more irritated than I should about equipment attitudes.

The person asking the question obviously doesn't need that sort of glass--in fact a lot of the people who own such lenses don't. But they often come across with the attitude that "well, that's the only lens worth using. Let's face it. There aren't many "bad" lenses being made today.

There are people who use the high end lenses because photography is how they make their living and they need to make sure they produce the best images possible. There are also advanced amateurs who can afford to pay for the best and enjoy using those lenses.

But I think most will agree there are folks who buy the best simply so they can say they have the best--like the thousands of people back in the day who bought Nikon Fs after the song "Kodachrome" came out, then mostly just hung the cameras around their necks to impress friends.

Anyhoo, I did get carried away. But I urge all posters to keep in mind that not all people who enjoy photography need or can afford to always get only "the best. Wayne Cornell: Well Said and thanks for helping to keep things in perspective :. Zeiss make cine movie camera lenses in the same price league as those from Angenieux.

Cosina is a very effective partner for Zeiss to make cost-effective lenses at high quality standards. Two of the Zeiss ZM lenses are made in Germany, because Cosina couldn't make precise enough barrels and mounts.

Of course, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon are both able to make some of the absolutely best lenses in the world.

The ones that are used in "steppers" to expose the photoresist masks on integrated circuits. Well, the lens can't really resolve that, since it's less than half a wavelength of light. But the exposure masks are distorted in complex ways to make the phase of the light come out right It's all about picking a price point and a volume goal.

Zeiss picks a different one from Canon and Nikon. Market segmentation is the word for this. They're not just selling a name. Wayne, You are correct.

Having the best gear does not automatically get you in Magnum. I bought one Zeiss in my favorite focal length because Pentax does not have an offering.

I doubt I'll get more In the world of lenses these are certainly not the most expensive but they are very, very good. As an old film guy I find the lens very easy to focus It cost a little more than most of my lenses I imagine if you tried one of these you would like it a lot too.

So looks like the strengths of Zeiss are mainly in CA tolerance and sharpness? Bokeh wise is it better than the competition in general? I think "smooth" defines a Zeiss out of focus area, and also the transition from sharpness to the out of focus area.

Wayne, I understand what you're saying but I don't see how it relates to this thread. The topic is why Zeiss lenses are expensive, not why do people recommend expensive lenses. And your first post clearly stated that the lenses are expensive because of the name, which is sure to tick off some people.

One could just as well argue that Nikkor lenses are expensive because of the name. Osakr, brand names sell products; that is a simple fact. If Wayne pointing that out ticks anybody off, don't blame him. In these days, given the right budget, a lot of companies can make excellent lenses.

Cosina has demonstrated that, and as I mentioned earlier Fujinon is making those expensive Hasselblad H system lenses, not Zeiss.

However, the Cosina brand is associated with cheap products; e. ShunCheung , Oct 6, I seem to remember reading somewhere that when Hasselblad approached Zeiss for the H series lenses, Zeiss said they were too busy with the AF lenses for the Contax Kind of seems they aren't terribly busy on that contract any more?

Zeiss lens coatings keep light reflection at bay and provide impressive color-differentiation, eventually making glassing more enjoyable for you.

Coatings like LotuTec and DuraVision are exclusive to Zeiss, and you have to pay a hefty price to experience these amazing layers. High-quality prisms can make or break the glassing game for you. Also, when you switch to an image-stabilized binocular, Zeiss Optics provides you with impressive stabilizing prisms that quickly compensate for the movement. Experienced glassers admire Zeiss binoculars for their well-thought-out construction. Textured adjustment knobs and rightly-placed setting buttons can make your glassing activity more relaxed.

Zeiss has always led the optics industry with its innovative techniques and unmatchable quality controls. From developing the first-ever space camera to introducing image-stabilization technology in binoculars, Zeiss is always the master.

When a binocular has a robust housing, it performs better in challenging conditions. A fully-sealed binocular housing protects your binocular from moisture and pollutants, which can otherwise disturb its operation.

When you hold a textured and nicely sealed binocular, you enjoy a more comfortable grip. Most Zeiss binoculars have rubber-sealed and nitrogen-purged lenses. Therefore, all Zeiss binoculars come with lifetime guarantees, which cover most mechanical flaws. As I mentioned earlier, you get what you pay for. It can never! JimKasson's gear list: JimKasson's gear list. Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain.

Which lenses are you looking at, in particular? They, thus, often keep their reselling value better. Jim I don't think manufacturing a lens by a second party dilutes the value of the brand behind it. Seeky's gear list: Seeky's gear list. And yours is apparently different than mine. OpticsEngineer's gear list: OpticsEngineer's gear list. JimKasson wrote: Scubott wrote: I'm wondering if it's worth it to buy a Zeiss lens. Why not? Zuiko Digital ED mm F4. The label doesn't make it better.

Because lenses with the same brand vary widely in quality. Sure, buy a lens for the label if it makes you happy. You can buy wine that way, too. Is that 'worth it', only you can answer. ZodiacPhoto's gear list: ZodiacPhoto's gear list.

Steve -- hide signature Steve W's gear list: Steve W's gear list. For example, where the aperture controls are located. What is pure Zeiss? Zeiss have had outsourcing from day one Schott glass factory F Forum M My threads. You may also like. Should you upgrade? Hands-on with the new Sony a7 IV. Latest sample galleries. Tamron mm F2. Panasonic S 35mm F1. DJI Mavic 3 Cine sample gallery. Nikon Z9 pre-production sample gallery. See more galleries ».

Latest in-depth reviews. Read more reviews ». Latest buying guides. Best video cameras for photographers in Best cameras for Instagram in Best drones in Best cameras for vlogging in Check out more buying guides ». Nikon Z9 initial review. Sony a7 IV initial review. Nikon Nikkor Z mm F2. Sigma mm F Discover more challenges ».

Nikon Z9 3. Popular interchangable lens cameras ». Popular compact cameras ». Shedding some light on the sources of noise. Most bookmarked in this forum. Mobile site. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited. Threaded view. Hands-on with the new Sony a7 IV Oct 26, Irridescent forks by microsurgeon from Cutlery. One do it all ultimate hybrid or 2 specialised ones?

Petition for full frame 4K60 on A7IV. A7C - Sustained frame rate.