File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear /p/,

What's the big deal with CZ lenses?
>> Anonymous
Soviet nostalgia.
Flickr snobbery.
No different then wanting a Leica 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar.

While we're here, let's just list lenses we want.

CZJ 120/2.8 Biometar
Voigtlander 40/1.4

It's all the same shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>287046
>> Anonymous
Germans != soviets.
>> Anonymous
>>287057

Close enough. If you don't vote Republican, you are a Soviet.
>> Anonymous
>>287058


oddly enough i actually did vote mccain.
>> Anonymous
>>287057
It's spelled Zei-SS for a reason. By buying Zeiss, you support fascism.
>> Anonymous
>>287060

Why would anyone vote for McCain? Bizarre.
>> Anonymous
what makes them so damn expensive
>> Anonymous
the more they cost, the more people want them

theres a magic price where you can sell less but make more profit on each, they are probably trying to find that price and exploit it.

Overall they are mediocre to good lenses.
>> Anonymous
takumars or gtfo
>> Anonymous
>>287499
Heritage for one. On the industrial level, they still make some of the best optics on the market. Their company has a large history of innovation in the field of optics... its founder and the person after whom the company is named contributed a lot to modern optics, working with Ernst Abbe and Schott... They also developed some really good classical optical formulas such as the Sonnar, which led to the development of some of Leica, Nikon, and Canon's best high speed lenses.

Their camera optics have been characterized by being manufactured with extremely high quality materials, designs, and with generally extremely good construction.

New 'Zeiss' lenses like the ones on Sony cameras are, however, just either rebranded Minolta optics or less than perfect formulas. It's not the Zeiss of old.

Their industrial/scientific optics are as good as ever, on the other hand.

TLDR: History shows they're fucking good, but chances are that new Zeiss lenses are just rebranded Minolta glass or less than perfect Sigma/Tamron shit.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>287506
Good try but you're quite off on the state of modern Zeiss. Yes, the Sony line is potentially Minolta-derived (as if that were a bad thing! Leitz certainly didn't mind working with them before), and the Nokia line is nothing to celebrate about.

But then you've forgotten that Cosina's arguably the most celebrated Japanese optical manufacturer in recent years, and they do all the ZM/ZF/ZE/ZS/ZK lenses that people actually give a shit about. And there's no way that they use "less than perfect formulas" - a ZM 50/2 Planar from Cosina is essentially the same as a CZ 50/2 Planar made in Germany for the Contarex. Why would they even bother changing stuff like that? Your point could only stand in reference to say, the new zooms for Sony, which Zeiss probably has much less involvement with.

And then 80/2.8 Planars for Hasselblads have been the same since forever because like all Zeiss lenses for Hasselblads, they're still made in Germany in-house.

TL;DR: When you say "chances are", I read it as "I didn't do my research so you do some guessing for me"
>> Anonymous
Color rendition, Micro Contrast, Build

Its totally gear fag, sure but people tend to pay way too much attention to the resolution of a lens instead of other important factors. Zeiss lens tend to have a very pleasing neutral, contrasty color.

The biggest issue is if your ok with Manual focusing. I know I am... I just need a better focus screen and a camera with a larger viewfinder (5D, 5DII, or Nikons 100% VF offerings).
>> Anonymous
0/10

too obvious for the gearfags around here
>> Anonymous
Zeiss owns your peepee