M-Rokkors vs Zeiss ZMs

[Trius]

Hellz bellz ... the exposures aren't matched and it looks like the Rokkor is flaring. A useless test even before the crop factor is considered ... IMO, of course.

If I had to decide based on those photos, I'd pick the Zeiss, hands down.

 

[notturtle]

The Rokkors look nice tonally. The lower contrast matches the scene better than the ZMs IMO (but at the expense of saturation), but with B&W I can expose and develop for a lower CI and smooth out the contrast. One day I hope to do some giant experimentation with various lenses, devs and films to see the various looks I can generate, but for now, sticking with what works makes much more sense is teh only option.

 

[PMCC]

I don't know whether the 90mm Rokkor for the Leica CL was German-made, but my 90mm Rokkor for the Minolta CLE is marked as Japanese made.

I have heard the 90mm was built in Germany.


Regards, John

 

[Al Kaplan]

The 90mm for the CL is German, the 90mm for the CLE is Japanese.

 

[JapanExposures]

Looking at the crops the Rokkors seem to be sharper than the ZMs up to f4. Wonder what it looks like at the edge of the frame...

 

[JohnTF]

The 90mm for the CL is German, the 90mm for the CLE is Japanese.

Al, just passing along what I was told, i.e. there was some technical issue, and all the 90mm f4 CL and CLE lenses, including the ones marked Made in Japan, were assembled in Germany.
I will ask again, but I am just passing along what I heard from someone who generally knows such things. It stuck, as it seemed an unusual thing.

Might be interesting to check it out further.

I had two German marked bodies, and Leica in the US had supplied replacement tops, which they engraved according to the ones they replaced, justifying a high price.

I bought one CL new, and when they were checking one of the new Minolta 40mm lens, it had a 28mm in the box, so I got it for the 40mm Rokkor price. Sold it after it got the measles.

I swapped my f4 90mm for a 2.8, Canadian.

Regards, John

 

[Palaeoboy]

They make a nice compact travel kit, although the CLE film transport is not overly robust and not quite up to deserts and jungles.

I must strongly but respectfully disagree with this statement as extreme environments are where I use mine to which I specifically chose the CLE for its compact go anywhere ability. I have taken it with me on many fieldd trips here in Australia to deserts and rainforests and Antarctica. Not once has there been a film transport problem in these varying extreme conditions. The only CLE I had fail was while abseiling into caves where I dropped it off a cliff face and never saw it again, but cant blame the camera for my butterfingers.

Based on what's presented here, I am surprised to see just how well the Rokkors hold up to the ZMs. Of course I accept the constraints of one persons objectivity and what a 1.5 crop factor sensor will show.

As many know im an avid CLE and Rokkor fan but I was still a bit surprised how well the Rokkors stood up to the ZM lenses in this test. There seems to be some suggestion that the Biogon 28 must be faulty in some way but I dont think there is anything wrong with it, its just that the Rokkor 28 performed better than most would think. This is mainly due to the extreme bad press this lens gets with its white spot problem. This problem being so well known just sows the seeds in alot of peoples minds that the lens is really not that outstanding. Because of its bad press I too avoided this lens and went with the excellent Voigtlander 28mm f3.5. One day I came across a mint Rokkor 28 in its box I decided to give it ago and I was very very surprised. It was sharper at the edges to 5.6 than the Voigtlander which I didnt think was possible from this older lens. The ZM 28mm is still a great lens but its not up there with their top lenses like the outstanding 25mm and 21mm f4.5. I think this is a case that the Rokkor is better than most expect and the 28 ZM is not quite as good as others anticipate based on others in the line and you have the 2 lenses meeting somewhere in the middle.

Al, just passing along what I was told, i.e. there was some technical issue, and all the 90mm f4 CL and CLE lenses, including the ones marked Made in Japan, were assembled in Germany.

Al is absolutely correct none of the CLE lens are made my Leitz or in Germany. They are all made in Japan. In fact the 90mm CLE Rokkor although sharing a similar 4 element design was different to that of the earlier Leitz made Rokkor 90. Edge performance of the CLE version is greater at the expense of slight centre performance making it more even across the field.

 

[JohnTF]

Al is absolutely correct none of the CLE lens are made my Leitz or in Germany. They are all made in Japan. In fact the 90mm CLE Rokkor although sharing a similar 4 element design was different to that of the earlier Leitz made Rokkor 90. Edge performance of the CLE version is greater at the expense of slight centre performance making it more even across the field.[/quote]


Will have to take your word, it seemed an unusual story when I heard it. Second part was that the design was identical, were all the CL 90's, Leitz and Rokkor identical and some change made for the CLE?

Regards, John

 

[Palaeoboy]

Second part was that the design was identical, were all the CL 90's, Leitz and Rokkor identical and some change made for the CLE?

The CL's Summicron-C and the Leitz Minolta CL's 40mm lenses are identical optically even though one is made in Germany and and the other in Japan, having seen both in pieces I am convinced that there is a fair amount of parts sharing between the two. Both CL's 90's were made in Germany by Leitz. With regards to the CLE lenses I know the 90 definitely had an improved formula and I suspect that the 40 also was changed slightly but the performance of the CLE 40 is so so close to that of the earlier versions its hard to be 100% sure. Given that the 28mm was created from scratch and the 90 redesigned and the 40 itself received modern coatings and a conventional M cam it seems logical that the optics may have been upgraded but the lens was so good to begin with that it doesnt show much improvement. Certainly it does have slightly more contrast than the earlier versions.

 

[George S.]

The only difference may be the coatings used. That is what I've heard thru the years. That in itself would be able to account for the added contrast.

 

[JohnTF]

The CL's Summicron-C and the Leitz Minolta CL's 40mm lenses are identical optically even though one is made in Germany and and the other in Japan, having seen both in pieces I am convinced that there is a fair amount of parts sharing between the two. Both CL's 90's were made in Germany by Leitz. With regards to the CLE lenses I know the 90 definitely had an improved formula and I suspect that the 40 also was changed slightly but the performance of the CLE 40 is so so close to that of the earlier versions its hard to be 100% sure. Given that the 28mm was created from scratch and the 90 redesigned and the 40 itself received modern coatings and a conventional M cam it seems logical that the optics may have been upgraded but the lens was so good to begin with that it doesnt show much improvement. Certainly it does have slightly more contrast than the earlier versions.

That probably accounts for the way I heard it. I bought a CL new when, well, they were new. Rokkor lenses for it were available, and I bought a 28mm and sort of winged it for framing within the CL's viewfinder.

I finally got a CLE, and aside from the apparent similar sizes, it is quite a different camera, I would have used it a lot more had I picked up one earlier. I also would have hung on to the 28mm had I known that the spots were "treatable", but I was pretty bummed by the whole experience at the time.

It does not now surprise me that a lot of things were going on in the evolution of the Compact line-- except that Minolta stopped making them, guess it was bad timing? There was quite a bit of noise that a "real" Leica equivalent could not be made in Japan?

Regards, John