The hype about "name" lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Apr 28, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I was in a Toronto camera store today. They had a huge Sony display.
    Each little silver point and shoot had the Zeiss name on it's lens.
    The only ones that didn't were the add-on lenses, which are no doubt
    made by Sony's video lens division.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Apr 28, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. How about craigslist, where you'll often see listings for used lenses that
    are higher than what you can buy them for new. These listings often carry a
    warning about not offering a lower price, or include the word "firm."

    My favorite on eBay was someone who listed a Sigma SD10 three times, with a
    reserve that was way too high. He turned down $1000 for the system, a system
    that B&H may have given him $600 for to resell in their used department, if
    they would take it at all.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Apr 28, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Sheldon Guest

    It's all marketing. When we see the name Zeiss on a lens we assume the
    camera will take better photos, but there's a lot more to taking a sharp
    image than just the lens. I honestly believe that companies like Zeiss have
    a reputation to uphold, and if one of their lenses or their name goes into a
    product it had better produce a decent image, even if it's just a cell
    phone. So, if a manufacturer want to surround a Zeiss lens with a crap
    camera I doubt they will have a contract with Zeiss very long.

    Think about this: "Well, I like the camera, but my cell phone had a Zeiss
    lens on it and it really took crummy photos. Can I see something else?"

    However, the reality is that most lenses are computer designed these days
    and should all take decent images. It starts to get into the actual
    construction of the lens itself, and that's where the only major difference
    shows up in high-end cameras and (D)SLR lenses.
     
    Sheldon, Apr 29, 2005
    #23
  4. RichA

    Jan Böhme Guest

    _West_ Germany?

    Well, never mind...

    I'm not all that sceptical. The prestige company in question wouldn't
    put its name on an ostensibly inferor product, and probably not on a
    blatantly average one either. So it would be indicative of quality -
    at least in a comparative perspective.

    I mean, take the "Leica" lens on Panasonic PZ20. It may not be a
    "genuine" Leica lens, but from what I can gather, it is still the lens
    with the highest consumer satisfaction rate on a point & shoot.

    Tells you at least something.

    Jan Böhme
    Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
    Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
     
    Jan Böhme, Apr 29, 2005
    #24
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I'm wondering if the cell phones qualify now as "good" cameras?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Apr 30, 2005
    #25
  6. RichA

    Sheldon Guest

    Must be if it has a Zeiss lens on it. <LOL> Seriously, think back to the
    first digital cameras, and look at the results you can get from some of the
    really small cameras they make today. Aside from DSLR's for pros, semipros,
    and wannabe pros, isn't the ideal gadget a PDA, cell phone, MP3 player and
    camera all rolled into one?
     
    Sheldon, Apr 30, 2005
    #26
  7. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    As much as Smart Cars qualify as good cars.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 30, 2005
    #27
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.