Brand Reputation for Lenses

jsherman999 · 07-16-2010, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Wow, why don't you say something nasty about my Mom? I would almost rather you do that than bad-mouth a lens that I am completely in love with.

.

OK. Your mom shoots a Quantaray.

KIDDING!

She actually shoots a Cosina/Voigtlander.

KIDDING!

DogLover · 07-16-2010, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

OK. Your mom shoots a Quantaray.

KIDDING!

She actually shoots a Cosina/Voigtlander.

KIDDING!

Actually, we lost Mom last year.

KIDDING!

HA!

**rparmar** · 07-16-2010, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Wow, why don't you say something nasty about my Mom? I would almost rather you do that than bad-mouth a lens that I am completely in love with.

I didn't think I was bad-mouthing Zeiss -- just calling it as it is.

Originally posted by DogLover

I won't argue that Zeiss is over-priced. You pay a premium to get the best of pretty much anything. And I guess I've never thought of them as under-featured because you're not buying features, you're buying quality.

Er, so you agree with me on both points.

Originally posted by DogLover

In my pre-purchase research, however, I came across story after story of Voigts that arrived with elements loose in the barrel, copious amounts of dust in the lens, and just general disappointment in the performance.

I have read a lot about them and have found exactly zero such stories. How odd.

Originally posted by DogLover

I made myself use all 4 of the lenses, but the only one I found myself wanting to use was the Zeiss. No other lens feels like such a precise photographic tool.

I feel exactly the same way about the Limiteds. Plus they have aperture coupling and AF if I want it. The former saves time and bother, making the experience of photography much more enjoyable. The latter is useful only in rare situations, perhaps, but it is there when needed.

I am not unaware of Zeiss, having used them on Contax many moons ago. But nothing I have found would justify paying the extra money when Pentax matches them on build and IQ, beating them on usability and colour balance.

None of this is to say they are not excellent lenses. If I was shooting Canon I'd pretty well have to buy them to get a decent lens.

Even on Pentax I'd gladly use a few -- if anyone has extras.

DogLover · 07-16-2010, 03:59 PM

Just a few clarifications. First, my Zeiss also has aperture coupling. Perhaps you're not as familiar with them as you think. Second, thank God it doesn't have AF, that would kill the sublime MF. Third, I tried to be polite and throw you a bone on the limiteds, but the truth is that Pentax does not match them on build or IQ. I am willing to concede usability and maybe color balance.

As far as your snide way of implying that I am making up the stories I read of Voigtlander, just google them. That's all I did and within 10 minutes I was reading these things. I do remember a Nikon forum as being particularly revealing.

Are you this unpleasant in real life, or just on the internet?

Ira · 07-16-2010, 04:17 PM

My wife just bought me doughnuts!!!

Ira · 07-16-2010, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

Your mom shoots a Quantaray.

Now THAT''S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

robjmitchell · 07-16-2010, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Just a few clarifications. First, my Zeiss also has aperture coupling. Perhaps you're not as familiar with them as you think. Second, thank God it doesn't have AF, that would kill the sublime MF. Third, I tried to be polite and throw you a bone on the limiteds, but the truth is that Pentax does not match them on build or IQ. I am willing to concede usability and maybe color balance.

As far as your snide way of implying that I am making up the stories I read of Voigtlander, just google them. That's all I did and within 10 minutes I was reading these things. I do remember a Nikon forum as being particularly revealing.

Are you this unpleasant in real life, or just on the internet?

From what I can gather that zeiss 100mm macro is the best of the best! The Fa limited IQ is pretty even and in some cases better than many of the zeiss

DogLover · 07-16-2010, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by robjmitchell

From what I can gather that zeiss 100mm macro is the best of the best! The Fa limited IQ is pretty even and in some cases better than many of the zeiss

Yes, I wouldn't want to imply that ALL Zeiss lenses have inherently better IQ. That's why I chose the 100. It's supposed to be the best one available, and now that I've used it, it is the best that I have seen. I would really like the 50 f/2 macro, as well, and I wish they'd make a 150 or 180 available.

patk · 07-16-2010, 06:29 PM

even though i'm a dabbler in photography rather than a photographer or gearhead, i'm still going to jump in and say that as the owner of a voigtlander 58/1.4 sl, an fa 43 and a zeiss planar t* 85/1.4 i wouldn't part with any of them. they are all beautifully made, a pleasure to use and capable of producing great photos. (i don't mean great photos by me, i mean i checked out a lot of photos on various sites taken with these lenses before deciding to purchase them.)

the zeiss may be the most difficult for me personally to use because of its size and weight, while the fa 43 is pure elegance in both size and appearance. the voigtlander does not appear at this point to have any physical defects and is a pleasure to use.

what i've found most interesting in reading about various lenses is how some neglected, underrated or tabbed as dogs lenses of the film age appear to have been reincarnated and transformed into marvels of the digital age. therefore when the issue of lens brand reputation comes up, i've grown cautious. i even wonder what new "magic" old lenses will emerge - maybe as a result of software and sensor technology giving them a chance to display what the original lens designers intended?

stevebrot · 07-16-2010, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

As far as your snide way of implying that I am making up the stories I read of Voigtlander, just google them. That's all I did and within 10 minutes I was reading these things.

I am familiar with the reports you are referring too. Some of them were posted right here on PF. Frankly, I was a bit shocked when I read them. The CV Voigtlander lenses have been fairly popular around here as have the CV Zeiss and these recent posts were the first I have heard of any problems. Bad batch? Shop worn? Damage in transit? I dunno...

Steve

P.S.
From long association with Robin on this forum, he is usually a pretty helpful and pleasant guy. Maybe we are all having somewhat of an "off" day?

stevebrot · 07-16-2010, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by patk

...therefore when the issue of lens brand reputation comes up, i've grown cautious. i even wonder what new "magic" old lenses will emerge - maybe as a result of software and sensor technology giving them a chance to display what the original lens designers intended?

I have heard rumors that some types of pixie dust are like fine red wines. They need some time to age before they reach full perfection.

Steve

Blue · 07-16-2010, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Yes, I wouldn't want to imply that ALL Zeiss lenses have inherently better IQ. That's why I chose the 100. It's supposed to be the best one available, and now that I've used it, it is the best that I have seen. I would really like the 50 f/2 macro, as well, and I wish they'd make a 150 or 180 available.

For an $1800 its disappointing that a 100mm macro is 1:2. Another way to look at it is that its a full set of FA ltd lenses.

DogLover · 07-16-2010, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Blue

For an $1800 its disappointing that a 100mm macro is 1:2. Another way to look at it is that its a full set of FA ltd lenses.

Yes, the fact that it is only 1:2 did weigh into my decision about whether or not I would sell the DFA100WR. But in the end, I decided it just really didn't matter to me. I'm not sure if I've ever taken more than 2 or 3 1:1 shots (I used to have the non-WR DFA100, too).

I had a LTD (the 77), and please, everybody that loves these lenses on here, don't get offended, but it just didn't do it for me. I decided not to go the LTD route. Having small lenses is just not that important to me (obviously, the Zeiss is a bit of a beast). I did really like the feel of it, though.

In the end, the Zeiss is currently what's floating my photographic boat, and BTW, I paid considerably less than the $1800 the major sites sell it for, and yes, it's brand new. That's part of what enticed me to try it in the first place.

Blue · 07-16-2010, 09:20 PM

DogLover,

Do you have the Zeiss 35mm/2?

stevebrot · 07-16-2010, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Blue

DogLover,

Do you have the Zeiss 35mm/2?

I was thinking the same thing. I own the FA 35/2 and was tempted to bite the bullet for the Zeiss, but was concerned about size and was not sure that the IQ would be that much of a step up.

Steve

(I got my FA 35 for $299, back before the price went up...)

07-16-2010, 08:28 PM	#40
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by DogLover As far as your snide way of implying that I am making up the stories I read of Voigtlander, just google them. That's all I did and within 10 minutes I was reading these things. I am familiar with the reports you are referring too. Some of them were posted right here on PF. Frankly, I was a bit shocked when I read them. The CV Voigtlander lenses have been fairly popular around here as have the CV Zeiss and these recent posts were the first I have heard of any problems. Bad batch? Shop worn? Damage in transit? I dunno... Steve P.S. From long association with Robin on this forum, he is usually a pretty helpful and pleasant guy. Maybe we are all having somewhat of an "off" day? Last edited by stevebrot; 07-16-2010 at 08:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question reputation	jezeks	Site Suggestions and Help	1	06-06-2010 04:53 PM
Suggestion Post Reputation	m8o	Site Suggestions and Help	37	05-10-2010 11:55 AM
Untouched photos from Pentax-brand lenses	erikmichael	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	12-04-2009 03:41 PM
A 28/2 reputation?	morfic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	10-22-2008 06:47 PM
Focal Brand Lenses and The K10D	Kemal	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	12-17-2006 06:04 PM

07-16-2010, 02:18 PM	#31
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by DogLover Wow, why don't you say something nasty about my Mom? I would almost rather you do that than bad-mouth a lens that I am completely in love with. . OK. Your mom shoots a Quantaray. KIDDING! She actually shoots a Cosina/Voigtlander. KIDDING!

07-16-2010, 03:31 PM	#32
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by jsherman999 . OK. Your mom shoots a Quantaray. KIDDING! She actually shoots a Cosina/Voigtlander. KIDDING! Actually, we lost Mom last year. KIDDING! HA!

07-16-2010, 03:33 PM	#33
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by DogLover Wow, why don't you say something nasty about my Mom? I would almost rather you do that than bad-mouth a lens that I am completely in love with. I didn't think I was bad-mouthing Zeiss -- just calling it as it is. Originally posted by DogLover I won't argue that Zeiss is over-priced. You pay a premium to get the best of pretty much anything. And I guess I've never thought of them as under-featured because you're not buying features, you're buying quality. Er, so you agree with me on both points. Originally posted by DogLover In my pre-purchase research, however, I came across story after story of Voigts that arrived with elements loose in the barrel, copious amounts of dust in the lens, and just general disappointment in the performance. I have read a lot about them and have found exactly zero such stories. How odd. Originally posted by DogLover I made myself use all 4 of the lenses, but the only one I found myself wanting to use was the Zeiss. No other lens feels like such a precise photographic tool. I feel exactly the same way about the Limiteds. Plus they have aperture coupling and AF if I want it. The former saves time and bother, making the experience of photography much more enjoyable. The latter is useful only in rare situations, perhaps, but it is there when needed. I am not unaware of Zeiss, having used them on Contax many moons ago. But nothing I have found would justify paying the extra money when Pentax matches them on build and IQ, beating them on usability and colour balance. None of this is to say they are not excellent lenses. If I was shooting Canon I'd pretty well have to buy them to get a decent lens. Even on Pentax I'd gladly use a few -- if anyone has extras.

07-16-2010, 03:59 PM	#34
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Just a few clarifications. First, my Zeiss also has aperture coupling. Perhaps you're not as familiar with them as you think. Second, thank God it doesn't have AF, that would kill the sublime MF. Third, I tried to be polite and throw you a bone on the limiteds, but the truth is that Pentax does not match them on build or IQ. I am willing to concede usability and maybe color balance. As far as your snide way of implying that I am making up the stories I read of Voigtlander, just google them. That's all I did and within 10 minutes I was reading these things. I do remember a Nikon forum as being particularly revealing. Are you this unpleasant in real life, or just on the internet?

07-16-2010, 04:17 PM	#35
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	My wife just bought me doughnuts!!!

07-16-2010, 04:19 PM	#36
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by jsherman999 . Your mom shoots a Quantaray. Now THAT''S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

07-16-2010, 05:13 PM	#37
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Originally posted by DogLover Just a few clarifications. First, my Zeiss also has aperture coupling. Perhaps you're not as familiar with them as you think. Second, thank God it doesn't have AF, that would kill the sublime MF. Third, I tried to be polite and throw you a bone on the limiteds, but the truth is that Pentax does not match them on build or IQ. I am willing to concede usability and maybe color balance. As far as your snide way of implying that I am making up the stories I read of Voigtlander, just google them. That's all I did and within 10 minutes I was reading these things. I do remember a Nikon forum as being particularly revealing. Are you this unpleasant in real life, or just on the internet? From what I can gather that zeiss 100mm macro is the best of the best! The Fa limited IQ is pretty even and in some cases better than many of the zeiss

07-16-2010, 05:27 PM	#38
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by robjmitchell From what I can gather that zeiss 100mm macro is the best of the best! The Fa limited IQ is pretty even and in some cases better than many of the zeiss Yes, I wouldn't want to imply that ALL Zeiss lenses have inherently better IQ. That's why I chose the 100. It's supposed to be the best one available, and now that I've used it, it is the best that I have seen. I would really like the 50 f/2 macro, as well, and I wish they'd make a 150 or 180 available.

07-16-2010, 06:29 PM	#39
patk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 119	even though i'm a dabbler in photography rather than a photographer or gearhead, i'm still going to jump in and say that as the owner of a voigtlander 58/1.4 sl, an fa 43 and a zeiss planar t* 85/1.4 i wouldn't part with any of them. they are all beautifully made, a pleasure to use and capable of producing great photos. (i don't mean great photos by me, i mean i checked out a lot of photos on various sites taken with these lenses before deciding to purchase them.) the zeiss may be the most difficult for me personally to use because of its size and weight, while the fa 43 is pure elegance in both size and appearance. the voigtlander does not appear at this point to have any physical defects and is a pleasure to use. what i've found most interesting in reading about various lenses is how some neglected, underrated or tabbed as dogs lenses of the film age appear to have been reincarnated and transformed into marvels of the digital age. therefore when the issue of lens brand reputation comes up, i've grown cautious. i even wonder what new "magic" old lenses will emerge - maybe as a result of software and sensor technology giving them a chance to display what the original lens designers intended?

07-16-2010, 08:37 PM	#41
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by patk ...therefore when the issue of lens brand reputation comes up, i've grown cautious. i even wonder what new "magic" old lenses will emerge - maybe as a result of software and sensor technology giving them a chance to display what the original lens designers intended? I have heard rumors that some types of pixie dust are like fine red wines. They need some time to age before they reach full perfection. Steve

07-16-2010, 08:39 PM	#42
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by DogLover Yes, I wouldn't want to imply that ALL Zeiss lenses have inherently better IQ. That's why I chose the 100. It's supposed to be the best one available, and now that I've used it, it is the best that I have seen. I would really like the 50 f/2 macro, as well, and I wish they'd make a 150 or 180 available. For an $1800 its disappointing that a 100mm macro is 1:2. Another way to look at it is that its a full set of FA ltd lenses.

07-16-2010, 09:07 PM	#43
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Blue For an $1800 its disappointing that a 100mm macro is 1:2. Another way to look at it is that its a full set of FA ltd lenses. Yes, the fact that it is only 1:2 did weigh into my decision about whether or not I would sell the DFA100WR. But in the end, I decided it just really didn't matter to me. I'm not sure if I've ever taken more than 2 or 3 1:1 shots (I used to have the non-WR DFA100, too). I had a LTD (the 77), and please, everybody that loves these lenses on here, don't get offended, but it just didn't do it for me. I decided not to go the LTD route. Having small lenses is just not that important to me (obviously, the Zeiss is a bit of a beast). I did really like the feel of it, though. In the end, the Zeiss is currently what's floating my photographic boat, and BTW, I paid considerably less than the $1800 the major sites sell it for, and yes, it's brand new. That's part of what enticed me to try it in the first place.

07-16-2010, 09:20 PM	#44
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	DogLover, Do you have the Zeiss 35mm/2?

07-16-2010, 09:43 PM	#45
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Blue DogLover, Do you have the Zeiss 35mm/2? I was thinking the same thing. I own the FA 35/2 and was tempted to bite the bullet for the Zeiss, but was concerned about size and was not sure that the IQ would be that much of a step up. Steve (I got my FA 35 for $299, back before the price went up...)