Carl Zeiss lenses have a well-deserved reputation for being some of the very, very best lenses in the world.So when I saw that the highly interesting new digital SLR from Sony has several lenses from Zeiss, I got a bit excited. I am a sucker for quality.
Then came the disappointment: I am informed that for years, many lenses branded Zeiss are in fact not made by Zeiss. In fact they are not even designed by Zeiss. They just licenced the name.
Many people will doubtless inform me that this kind of thing goes on all the time, and has been always. And I have probably been aware that it does, in some areas I have not cared about.
But in my mind, this is simply a swindle. If Zeiss did not design the lens, did not build it, does not supervise it, how in the world can it be sold as a "Zeiss lens"? Seriously.
People see it, they think Carl Zeiss in Germany built it, this gives them confidence to buy the lens. But the Zeiss factory and engineers in Germany have never seen the lens. This is a swindle. I don't care how common it is, it is not honest.
Update:
This practice has been going on in the photo industry for decades, even with these high-end names. Do you remember the compact rangefinder put out in the late 70s by "Leica?" It was actually manufactured by Minolta. As I recall from a test report at the time, it had typical Japanese-quality workmanship for the time, using plastic parts where genuine Leicas had metal, and a black "professional" finish that easily rubbed off.
I'm reminded of an anecdote about Abrahan Lincoln who asked the question of someone, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" When given the abswer, "Five," he replied , "No, the dog still has only four legs; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."
Cheers, Tedski
8 comments:
It's a bait and switch scheme. For years Zeiss built their name by designing and building great lenses. The moment the word "Zeiss" was licensed for use by others its meaning changed. Hoping that people wouldn't pay attention, they are now trading with the trust associated with their name. Over time as word gets around this trust "equity" gets watered down.
So, it's not only unethical, its also a risky move from them.
Exactly. I almost added a comment on that. They are borrowing from their future value, and it has to be paid back.
rebranding old cameras and lenses won't make a good camera.
for years the really good "new" Zeiss lenses have been the Contax ones, (owned by Kyocera who Licensed the "Zeiss" name), but even those were a tad on the overpriced side...
not to mention the death of the megapixel game at six megapixels...
For now I'll stick to established dSLR systems like Canon or Nikon (who are far beyond their first, second, or even third generation cameras...)
Ever had a McDonald's hamburger? (You have my sympathy, but that's beside the point.) Poor old McDonald hasn't been able to use his own name to sell burgers since he sold his shop to Roy Croc 'way back about 50 years ago or so.
A company gets a reputation based on what it does, just like the rest of us. So who cares if Carl Z actually designed the lens personally? It's either the latest in a long line of quality products from the Zeiss company, or it's the latest in a long line of products of declining quality from the Zeiss company, or it's the latest in a long line of total garbage from the Zeiss company. You're not buying Carl, you're buying the lens. Buyer beware.
I have a Panasonic FZ-20 camera with a Leica lens that is actually manufactured by Panasonic. I'm not complaining because it has the equivalent of a 432mm lens with a aperature that can stay a constant F2.8 the whole range.
If the lens carries the Zeiss name it's a Zeiss lens whatever factory it came from. If quality is lesser on the franchised product then as you say the borrowing against future value hasn't worked. If quality is maintained then the process is an investment in future value. The only way to tell is to compare like for like. While understandable emotive responses to source of manufacture isn't particularly worthwhile.
"If the lens carries the Zeiss name it's a Zeiss lens whatever factory it came from."
I don't think it is, *unless* it was at least *designed* by Zeiss.
Of course it is less important if it is equally good, but I still think it is dishonest.
I actually sent an email to Zeiss not long ago asking if a Carl Zeiss 35-70 for Nikon-F I saw at eBay here was genuine. What they (Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, i.e. West Germany) told me is that back in the day when Germany was still separated, the part of Carl Zeiss that was in East Germany licensed the name to some Japanese manufacturer who went on to design and sell these lenses. I forgot to ask about Sony but as I understand the new Zeiss lenses for Nikon-F and Leica-M mounts are all genuine Zeiss designs, even if they are not made in Germany.
Post a Comment