Re: R vs Zeiss

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 10:22 AM 12/28/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Charles,
>
>Marc has already responded to your comment about Contax Zeiss lenses. 

Yes--but I remain unconvinced.  I believe Zeiss plays a role in putting
together what carries their name, but the Japanese, who do know a bit about
lens design, just can't be passive assemblers in this process.

>Re your other comment, "the cameras are Japanese designs".  Not the case
>at all.  The Contax RTSIII -- arguably one of the most beautifully BUILT
>camera bodies ever -- was designed by Porche Design Group in Germany
>while being built by Kaocera (sic) in Japan.

The Porsche Design Group designs all sorts of things, like sunglasses.  They
do the outsides, but not the insides, of Contax cameras.  All they can take
credit for is the shape and covering materials, as I understand it--in other
words, they make the cameras look cool, which they do, but they do not
design the mechanics.  Now Marc seems to be saying that Zeiss plays a big
role in designing the insides, but I'd like to see some evidence on that,
since they are not playing much of a role that I know of in designing any
other cameras, and I don't see any evidence of special expertise in
electronics in that company.

>Having said that, I have no real interest in arguing the merits of Zeiss
>vs R glass.  Each are superb. 
>
>What has put a bee under my bonnet (what a quaint phrase), is the
>outmoded notion that the country or origin has something enherent to do
>with a products quality.  Common wisdom these days is that Japanese cars
>are better built than North American cars, yet in fact both Honda and
>Toyota have the lowest defects from the NA plants, not the ones in
>Japan.  (In fact, both plants are in Canada, but that's another story).

You must not have been around for the car thread!  There I was a lonely
defender of the Japanese ability to build quality products.  In fact, if I
understand you correctly, I completely agree with you.  My intent, I guess,
was partly satirical in writing what I did; lots of Leicaphiles assume that
the only alternatives to Leicas are Rolleis, Contaxes, etc., because they
are European (that kind of discussion takes place here all the time).  No
"oriental junk" (to quote one private e-mail I got) need apply.  But of
course the Contax is (sorry, guys) a lot Japanese.

>Speaking of Canada, in the Leica world one only has to look at the
>quarter century or so of superb optical design and maufacture that came
>out of Midland -- a dinky little Ontario town in the middle of nowhere.
>
>In my career I've done commercial business in some 20 countries around
>the world.  I've seen junk made in Germany and world-class industrial
>production out of Korea -- and visa-versa.  Just like people, products
>should be evaluated on their individual merits.

As I said, I totally agree!  One of the more humorous things about the
collectors of Leica is their refusal to treat Canadian lenses as the equals
of Wetzlar ones.
>
>I don't mean to accuse you as being responsible for saying any of this
>Charles -- not at all -- I am simply using your passing comment as a
>jumping off point for my soapbox.
>
>One additional thought on the issue of the scope of the Zeiss lens line,
>which I know someone else has already responded to in detail.  Looked at
>objectively the only lens that's missing, other than some real
>speciality items, is an f/2.0 35mm.  This is a glaring hole in the line
>that's been there since the beginning.  I only use primes, and currently
>have the 28/35/60/85/135/180 & Mutar II.  Ain't much I can't cover with
>this set.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael
>
I somehow missed a post that responded to the issue of the gaps in the
Contax line--but then with the holidays I have not kept up with my e-mail,
and I'm now going through a couple of hundred messages.  Anyway, I spoke
about the comparison between Contax and Leica reflex lenses in my original
post.  Contax does have the basic primes--as does Leica, which has all the
lenses you own, as well as a 35 f2.  The real difference is in two
areas--zooms (which a great many pros now use, and the best of  which are
about equal to many primes) and long lenses.  Leica has the now-legendary
70-180 f2.8, as well as the new 105-280 4.2, and for these, both basic pro
equipment,  Contax has no answer.  In addition, Leica has the amazing
multi-part long lens system that gives many different lenses from a
collection of heads and focusing modules, as well as 300 and 400 2.8s;
Contax has only a 300 f4 and, I think, a 300 2.8 (though I couldn't find
that in Shutterbug).  In the lens department, then, I see Contax as being
where Leica was 5 or so years ago, with an aging lineup that needs both some
redesigns (e.g. the 25) and some new additions.  To put this another way,
Leica has become more competitive with the big two in the lens variety
department--and we'll hope the public offering money helps that process
along!  To me, Contax lags behind at this point.  Of course, if the AX
really works well, that will make a big difference to Contax.

Cheers to you too, and Happy New Year!  Charlie

Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU