Zeiss to stop ZK lenses for Pentax

andi · 09-25-2010, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

PopFlash has the ZK's on their normal website at the same lower prices they've had for some time now...

Cool, thanks. I spoke with them and they have a few of each, but not that many.

**Byrd-2020** · 12-12-2010, 05:35 PM

In a recent post we read: "Considering the prices of Zeiss lenses it is hard to understand why a Pentaxian would invest in them. If you are satisfied with manual focus, why wouldn't you just get a "A" lens for hundreds less. I am sure that Zeiss is better in some respects, but some of what you are paying for is a name."

Hundreds less??? I recently purchased an 85 1.4 Zeiss ZK for $957 on Ebay (PopFlash). At the same time there were two A* 85mm 1.4 Pentax lenses for sale. One (in not particularly great condition) was over $1,200 USD. The other ('mint') was $1,468 USD. This was a no-brainer for me.

The Zeiss 35mm f2 ZK is going for $737 (from PopFlash), while Adorama is selling the 31mm limited for $1,005.69 USD.

ogl · 12-12-2010, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Rory

Holy crap! Is that just Zeiss, or do you think they were including the Voigtlanders, too?

Because, Zeiss and Voigtlander are made by the same manufacturer - Cosina.

Class A · 12-12-2010, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by ogl

Because, Zeiss and Voigtlander are made by the same manufacturer - Cosina.

I guess you want to say that Zeiss and Voiglander both had lenses build in a Cosina factory.

You make it look as if both were just selling their names to Cosina, which is not true.

Unless you have further insights, I'd say the fact that both Zeiss and Voigtlander stopped their PK mount productions is unrelated except for the fact that both their sales have been low.

Christopher M.W.T · 12-13-2010, 01:01 AM

OMG sTOP THE PRESSES! Guess what I found out?

Neither Sigma, Tamron or Tokina make a lens for the Leica mount! holy crap they must be doomed now.

Yes Zeiss' lenses are nice but why on Earth would I pay the money for a *NEW* lens that doesn't have AF?

What's next I'll "upgrade" to film?

ahha

ogl · 12-13-2010, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Class A

I guess you want to say that Zeiss and Voiglander both had lenses build in a Cosina factory.

You make it look as if both were just selling their names to Cosina, which is not true.

For Zeiss - yes.
Z-lenses are manufactured in Japan by Cosina to Zeiss specifications.

From 1999 until the present time (2010), Voigtländer-branded products have been manufactured and marketed by Cosina.

Cosina Voigtländer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Rondec** · 12-13-2010, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Byrd-2020

In a recent post we read: "Considering the prices of Zeiss lenses it is hard to understand why a Pentaxian would invest in them. If you are satisfied with manual focus, why wouldn't you just get a "A" lens for hundreds less. I am sure that Zeiss is better in some respects, but some of what you are paying for is a name."

Hundreds less??? I recently purchased an 85 1.4 Zeiss ZK for $957 on Ebay (PopFlash). At the same time there were two A* 85mm 1.4 Pentax lenses for sale. One (in not particularly great condition) was over $1,200 USD. The other ('mint') was $1,468 USD. This was a no-brainer for me.

The Zeiss 35mm f2 ZK is going for $737 (from PopFlash), while Adorama is selling the 31mm limited for $1,005.69 USD.

Obviously, you chose a couple of lenses there which are either priced at the top end of Pentax's lens selection, or are just flat discontinued. On the other hand, there are a bunch of A 28mm f2.8 lenses out there (if you were satisfied with that), the FA 35 f2 routinely sells for a couple of hundred less than the Zeiss, and the FA 77 runs 780 from B and H.

**rparmar** · 12-13-2010, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Byrd-2020

I recently purchased an 85 1.4 Zeiss ZK for $957 on Ebay (PopFlash). At the same time there were two A* 85mm 1.4 Pentax lenses for sale. One (in not particularly great condition) was over $1,200 USD. The other ('mint') was $1,468 USD. This was a no-brainer for me.

Or you could have just bought the FA 77 Limited. It is in production, in stock and incomparable.

**Aristophanes** · 12-15-2010, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T

What's next I'll "upgrade" to film?

ahha

Please use the correct term. It's it not "film" anymore.

It is RealRAW.

Steve Beswick · 12-16-2010, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T

OMG sTOP THE PRESSES! Guess what I found out?

Neither Sigma, Tamron or Tokina make a lens for the Leica mount! holy crap they must be doomed now.

Yes Zeiss' lenses are nice but why on Earth would I pay the money for a *NEW* lens that doesn't have AF?

What's next I'll "upgrade" to film?

ahha

If you are so into AF then why did you go with Pentax?

Believe it or not, there are a great many famous, sharp, well composed, perfectly exposed photographs from even a century before auto focus, much less digital photography.

And yes, film is an upgrade.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 12-17-2010, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T

Yes Zeiss' lenses are nice but why on Earth would I pay the money for a *NEW* lens that doesn't have AF?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

knoxploration · 12-17-2010, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Steve Beswick

If you are so into AF then why did you go with Pentax?

Believe it or not, there are a great many famous, sharp, well composed, perfectly exposed photographs from even a century before auto focus, much less digital photography.

And yes, film is an upgrade.

One could just as easily ask what you're doing in the news forum, given that you believe film and manual focus are best, yet Pentax doesn't make (and has zero chance of announcing) a film camera, *or* a camera that doesn't offer auto focus? ;-)

As for the knock on Pentax's AF abilities, you must not have used their recent DSLRs, which are basically on par with equally priced competition, if not just a touch better in low light. The only place where Pentax lags in AF is the lower number of AF points, which isn't a disadvantage for many purposes.

Christopher M.W.T · 12-18-2010, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Steve Beswick

If you are so into AF then why did you go with Pentax?

Believe it or not, there are a great many famous, sharp, well composed, perfectly exposed photographs from even a century before auto focus, much less digital photography.

And yes, film is an upgrade.

Pentax AF on the K-7 is adequate for my needs, that been said I understand the K-5 is quite an improvement and equal playing field with the competition so your point is moot.

Steve Beswick · 12-18-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by knoxploration

One could just as easily ask what you're doing in the news forum, given that you believe film and manual focus are best, yet Pentax doesn't make (and has zero chance of announcing) a film camera, *or* a camera that doesn't offer auto focus? ;-)

As for the knock on Pentax's AF abilities, you must not have used their recent DSLRs, which are basically on par with equally priced competition, if not just a touch better in low light. The only place where Pentax lags in AF is the lower number of AF points, which isn't a disadvantage for many purposes.

I never said that manual focus was "best". My point is that you don't need auto focus to take good photos.

I will admit that I have not had much exposure to Pentax's most recent camera bodies, but the models that were on the market as of a year and a half ago (K20, K200) had terrible AF performance compared to the competition.

Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T

Pentax AF on the K-7 is adequate for my needs, that been said I understand the K-5 is quite an improvement and equal playing field with the competition so your point is moot.

Great! And for those of us who would rather have the ultimate in image quality than AF?

Christopher M.W.T · 12-18-2010, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Steve Beswick

I never said that manual focus was "best". My point is that you don't need auto focus to take good photos.

I will admit that I have not had much exposure to Pentax's most recent camera bodies, but the models that were on the market as of a year and a half ago (K20, K200) had terrible AF performance compared to the competition.

Great! And for those of us who would rather have the ultimate in image quality than AF?

Will Zeiss get better boob shots that's all that matters to me?
Will Zeiss get me laid?

Ok where am I going with this? well no where, AF is the way manual is for old fogies who live in yesteryear.

In reality I have yet to see the advantage of highly overpriced Zeiss glass over equivalent lenses and to pay such a premium when you can't even get something like AF just boggles my mind, but that's me.

12-12-2010, 05:35 PM	#47
Byrd-2020 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: eastern Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 151	In a recent post we read: "Considering the prices of Zeiss lenses it is hard to understand why a Pentaxian would invest in them. If you are satisfied with manual focus, why wouldn't you just get a "A" lens for hundreds less. I am sure that Zeiss is better in some respects, but some of what you are paying for is a name." Hundreds less??? I recently purchased an 85 1.4 Zeiss ZK for $957 on Ebay (PopFlash). At the same time there were two A* 85mm 1.4 Pentax lenses for sale. One (in not particularly great condition) was over $1,200 USD. The other ('mint') was $1,468 USD. This was a no-brainer for me. The Zeiss 35mm f2 ZK is going for $737 (from PopFlash), while Adorama is selling the 31mm limited for $1,005.69 USD. Last edited by Byrd-2020; 12-12-2010 at 05:52 PM. Reason: mispelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
f/stop in Raw or EXIF (using MF lenses)	yusuf	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	09-13-2010 11:18 AM
For Sale - Sold: Three Pentax Lenses and a Carl Zeiss	Youngster	Sold Items	1	01-30-2010 01:03 AM
K-x Stop-down metering with m-42 lenses	Bazwell	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	11-20-2009 12:57 PM
2 New Lenses Annouced by Carl Zeiss & Sigma for PENTAX	creampuff	Pentax News and Rumors	168	09-18-2008 07:52 AM
Pentax K10D + Zeiss ZK Lenses??	martin s	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	01-10-2008 02:48 PM

09-25-2010, 06:12 PM	#46
andi Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 200	Originally posted by DogLover PopFlash has the ZK's on their normal website at the same lower prices they've had for some time now... Cool, thanks. I spoke with them and they have a few of each, but not that many.

12-12-2010, 09:59 PM	#48
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Rory Holy crap! Is that just Zeiss, or do you think they were including the Voigtlanders, too? Because, Zeiss and Voigtlander are made by the same manufacturer - Cosina.

12-12-2010, 11:06 PM	#49
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ogl Because, Zeiss and Voigtlander are made by the same manufacturer - Cosina. I guess you want to say that Zeiss and Voiglander both had lenses build in a Cosina factory. You make it look as if both were just selling their names to Cosina, which is not true. Unless you have further insights, I'd say the fact that both Zeiss and Voigtlander stopped their PK mount productions is unrelated except for the fact that both their sales have been low.

12-13-2010, 01:01 AM	#50
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689	OMG sTOP THE PRESSES! Guess what I found out? Neither Sigma, Tamron or Tokina make a lens for the Leica mount! holy crap they must be doomed now. Yes Zeiss' lenses are nice but why on Earth would I pay the money for a NEW lens that doesn't have AF? What's next I'll "upgrade" to film? ahha

12-13-2010, 03:27 AM	#51
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Class A I guess you want to say that Zeiss and Voiglander both had lenses build in a Cosina factory. You make it look as if both were just selling their names to Cosina, which is not true. For Zeiss - yes. Z-lenses are manufactured in Japan by Cosina to Zeiss specifications. From 1999 until the present time (2010), Voigtländer-branded products have been manufactured and marketed by Cosina. Cosina Voigtländer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12-13-2010, 04:14 AM	#52
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by Byrd-2020 In a recent post we read: "Considering the prices of Zeiss lenses it is hard to understand why a Pentaxian would invest in them. If you are satisfied with manual focus, why wouldn't you just get a "A" lens for hundreds less. I am sure that Zeiss is better in some respects, but some of what you are paying for is a name." Hundreds less??? I recently purchased an 85 1.4 Zeiss ZK for $957 on Ebay (PopFlash). At the same time there were two A* 85mm 1.4 Pentax lenses for sale. One (in not particularly great condition) was over $1,200 USD. The other ('mint') was $1,468 USD. This was a no-brainer for me. The Zeiss 35mm f2 ZK is going for $737 (from PopFlash), while Adorama is selling the 31mm limited for $1,005.69 USD. Obviously, you chose a couple of lenses there which are either priced at the top end of Pentax's lens selection, or are just flat discontinued. On the other hand, there are a bunch of A 28mm f2.8 lenses out there (if you were satisfied with that), the FA 35 f2 routinely sells for a couple of hundred less than the Zeiss, and the FA 77 runs 780 from B and H.

12-13-2010, 05:32 AM	#53
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Byrd-2020 I recently purchased an 85 1.4 Zeiss ZK for $957 on Ebay (PopFlash). At the same time there were two A* 85mm 1.4 Pentax lenses for sale. One (in not particularly great condition) was over $1,200 USD. The other ('mint') was $1,468 USD. This was a no-brainer for me. Or you could have just bought the FA 77 Limited. It is in production, in stock and incomparable.

12-15-2010, 08:39 AM	#54
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T What's next I'll "upgrade" to film? ahha Please use the correct term. It's it not "film" anymore. It is RealRAW.

12-16-2010, 11:15 PM	#55
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T OMG sTOP THE PRESSES! Guess what I found out? Neither Sigma, Tamron or Tokina make a lens for the Leica mount! holy crap they must be doomed now. Yes Zeiss' lenses are nice but why on Earth would I pay the money for a NEW lens that doesn't have AF? What's next I'll "upgrade" to film? ahha If you are so into AF then why did you go with Pentax? Believe it or not, there are a great many famous, sharp, well composed, perfectly exposed photographs from even a century before auto focus, much less digital photography. And yes, film is an upgrade.

12-17-2010, 12:27 AM	#56
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T Yes Zeiss' lenses are nice but why on Earth would I pay the money for a NEW lens that doesn't have AF? If you have to ask, you'll never know.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2010, 10:04 AM	#57
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by Steve Beswick If you are so into AF then why did you go with Pentax? Believe it or not, there are a great many famous, sharp, well composed, perfectly exposed photographs from even a century before auto focus, much less digital photography. And yes, film is an upgrade. One could just as easily ask what you're doing in the news forum, given that you believe film and manual focus are best, yet Pentax doesn't make (and has zero chance of announcing) a film camera, or a camera that doesn't offer auto focus? ;-) As for the knock on Pentax's AF abilities, you must not have used their recent DSLRs, which are basically on par with equally priced competition, if not just a touch better in low light. The only place where Pentax lags in AF is the lower number of AF points, which isn't a disadvantage for many purposes.

12-18-2010, 06:49 AM	#58
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689	Originally posted by Steve Beswick If you are so into AF then why did you go with Pentax? Believe it or not, there are a great many famous, sharp, well composed, perfectly exposed photographs from even a century before auto focus, much less digital photography. And yes, film is an upgrade. Pentax AF on the K-7 is adequate for my needs, that been said I understand the K-5 is quite an improvement and equal playing field with the competition so your point is moot.

12-18-2010, 03:25 PM	#59
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	Originally posted by knoxploration One could just as easily ask what you're doing in the news forum, given that you believe film and manual focus are best, yet Pentax doesn't make (and has zero chance of announcing) a film camera, or a camera that doesn't offer auto focus? ;-) As for the knock on Pentax's AF abilities, you must not have used their recent DSLRs, which are basically on par with equally priced competition, if not just a touch better in low light. The only place where Pentax lags in AF is the lower number of AF points, which isn't a disadvantage for many purposes. I never said that manual focus was "best". My point is that you don't need auto focus to take good photos. I will admit that I have not had much exposure to Pentax's most recent camera bodies, but the models that were on the market as of a year and a half ago (K20, K200) had terrible AF performance compared to the competition. Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T Pentax AF on the K-7 is adequate for my needs, that been said I understand the K-5 is quite an improvement and equal playing field with the competition so your point is moot. Great! And for those of us who would rather have the ultimate in image quality than AF?

12-18-2010, 07:37 PM	#60
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689	Originally posted by Steve Beswick I never said that manual focus was "best". My point is that you don't need auto focus to take good photos. I will admit that I have not had much exposure to Pentax's most recent camera bodies, but the models that were on the market as of a year and a half ago (K20, K200) had terrible AF performance compared to the competition. Great! And for those of us who would rather have the ultimate in image quality than AF? Will Zeiss get better boob shots that's all that matters to me? Will Zeiss get me laid? Ok where am I going with this? well no where, AF is the way manual is for old fogies who live in yesteryear. In reality I have yet to see the advantage of highly overpriced Zeiss glass over equivalent lenses and to pay such a premium when you can't even get something like AF just boggles my mind, but that's me.