A letter to Mr Zeiss

[mfogiel]

In the last couple of years or so, I've been back doing some photography after a very long period of just snapping during the holidays. I have set up a digital darkroom, and tried out various types of cameras and lenses.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that from the technical point of view, once you have a rig with a good digital sensor, or a film one with a decent film and scanner, what really makes a difference in your images is the lens.

This not only relates to sharpness, but also to the type of drawing, in and out of focus passage characteristics, 3D rendering, colour rendering, flare resistance, versatility, size and speed. Being lately mainly a 35mm RF B&W shooter, I appreciate lenses that are compact, fast, sharp, flare free have a good bokeh and 3D traits. I have found most of these features in the recent line of Zeiss lenses, and when I try a lens from another brand, I judge it against the benchmark established by Zeiss.

This is a personal opinion, and I am not here to argue the "superiority" question, although I have yet to see a Leica lens that would really impress me. My latest acquisition, the 28/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, is optically better than the old one I've had before, but apart from being very compact (this is why I have bought it) , it is being easily beaten by my Biogons in every optical parameter.

The point of this message is the following: as much as I enjoy the ZM line, I wish there were two or three extra lenses available, which would round out this line perfectly:

- a 35/1.4 Distagon, possibly much smaller than the CV 35/1.2
- a 50/1.4 Planar, possibly as good as the 50/2 Planar in the close range
- a compact Tessar f2.8 with a killer 3D effect, in the 35-50mm range

I believe, the birth of M8 has been a major boost to the interest in the RF lenses, and I am convinced Zeiss is a major beneficiary of this, so maybe there are enough funds available to broaden the ZM offering.

Here are some shots to testify what I like about Zeiss lenses:

sharpness:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1794817250&size=l

- in and out of focus passage:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1777480380&size=l

bokeh:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=866800228&size=l

colour rendering:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1581034213&size=l

3D effect:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1459260603&context=set-72157602063137880&size=l

absence of flare:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1472535041&context=set-72157602063137880&size=l

rectilinearity:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1458402619&context=set-72157602063137880&size=l

flexibility:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1544162482&size=l


You will find all relevant details by scaling down one step in the image size.


So, it would be nice to have a crystal ball, to know if these new lenses are coming:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1800165461&size=l

I hope Mr Zeiss is going to make me happy with some new offerings in the future...

 

[ferider]

An affordable 90/2.8 Sonnar would be nice, too.

And a ZI camera with 25mm framelines and DOF markers in the finder for the C-Sonnar.

 

[grduprey]

Sorry, but I don't see any situation you show where the appropriate Leica lens would not do as good or better. the flare shot should be a no brainer for just about any lens out there, not a particularly chanllenging shot for flare at all. The main thing I see that Zeiss has is a price advantage, due maily by being made in Japan. The new Leica Summarit line will soon be price competative and also made n Germany. Image quality will yet to be determined. The few Zeiss lenses I have handled, do not have the build quality that I expect of either Zeiss or Leica, and they are much larger than I expected.
Gene

 

[ferider]

The Summarits are significantly more expensive than the faster Zeiss lenses.
Also, why should their price go down - Leitz prices have only gone up
in the last few years.

 

[FrankS]

Return to sender! Mr. Carl Zeiss is no longer with us. Try Mr. Kobiyashi. 🙂

 

[2tcreative]

...The few Zeiss lenses I have handled, do not have the build quality that I expect of either Zeiss or Leica, and they are much larger than I expected.
Gene

Have not owned any of the new Leica ASPH line of lenses so can't speak to the build quality there, but have owned several older Leica lenses. I now own a Biogon 35 and a 25. I find that the build quality is execellent for a lens that is priced almost half or more less than the equivalent Leica.

Focus right out of the box is smooth and even. Click stops are also smooth and the multiple detents between full stops is a nice feature.

Larger? Yes but haven't found that to be a handicap. Allows me a nice handling feeling as I can easily detect the focus ring and the aperture ring with the camera to my eye.

Have owned quite a few of the Voigtlanders and they are too compact in many ways for me. Not as nice ergonomically in design as either the Zeiss or Leica, and, although nice optically, are not quite in the same league as the Zeiss or Leica lenses. Again, my opinion.

I do believe that the price advantage that Zeiss has over the Leica line is the main selling point they have. Optically, I doubt that many of us might tell the difference between actual prints made from either line (images on the screen are not a good indicator of quality in my opinion). But since it is apparent from test results and actual use that the Zeiss are every bit as good as the pre-ASPH lenses and nearly the equivalent to some of the ASPH's then that price advantage can't be ignored.

I don't believe the new Summarit line of lenses will be price competitive with Zeiss, but may be as good optically. Jury is out on that. I haven't seen or heard anyone here speak to actual use and exepriences with those lenses. Would be interested in hearing from someone who has.

This is always an explosive topic and only the individual can make any evaluation based on actual use. Hearing others expound on the virtues of each only brings on the GAS attack. Which again makes the Zeiss easier to swallow!!

 

[alternatve]

I have never used anything other then Zeiss lenses (copy or otherwise) and am aiming for the new range of ZM lenses instead of it's Leica counterparts. 😉

Samuel

 

[the_jim]

My dream would be for Zeiss to create a couple of lenses for it's M-mount line based on its Master Prime series (a totally awesome set of motion picture lenses that cover focal lengths from 14mm to 150mm and all are f/1.2). Surely they could sell them at a lower price point due to the potentially larger customer base that exists with still photography. But, sadly, I doubt anything like that will ever happen.

 

[mfogiel]

the_jim
the sharpness example shot from my post has been taken with the first lens, they reckon, which has been adapted from the ARRI line - the Makro Planar 100/2 ZF - it is a really impressive lens, and very versatile too.

 

[the_jim]

That is a very sharp shot, indeed. I wonder if it is based on the Zeiss Standard Speed Planar 100/2. If so, that is an impressive older lens. I would love to even see Zeiss Super Speed designs transferred to the rangefinder line. But, the Master Primes are truly amazing lenses. They are head-and-shoulders above the older Zeiss designs in-terms of corner-to-corner resolution, lack of CA, contrast, color saturation, basically everything. But the price...

 

[grduprey]

The Summarits are all under $800 price gap of the Zeiss lenses. won't be able to test image capabilities until the end of next month when they come out. It is interesting to note the 2 ZM lenses made in Germany are easily in the same price range, if not more pricey, of the more expensive Leica lenses, only the CV made ZM lenses are less expensive. When I bought my 28, I compared the ZM 28 to the 28 Elmarit Asph. Bought the 28 Asph as it was easily the better lens in my opinion, in all areas of comparison except price, and the difference was of no consequence considering the performance advantage.
Gene

 

[thomasw_]

Contrary to Gene, I have found with mfogiel the ZM lenses I own to be smashing performers in the optical qualities he mentions. Cost aside, I think many who have used both L lenses and the new ZMs would agree that the ZMs surpass the current L alternatives in terms of rendering, and even including build quality. x-ray has written much on this latter point. The ZM 25 is comparable to the L 24; cost aside, the ZM 25 is preferable for BW film as it is smoother across the tonal range than the L 24: Tom A has even written that L 24 is better suited for shooting colour than BW shooting. The ZM 25's resolving power is well known. Again, the ZM 35 is such a fine lens that I sold off my L 35s because my biogon 35 does everything I need in this focal length; I simply compensate for not having my L 35's f1,4 with the ZM f2 and faster film. The flare resistance of ZMs means that quite often I can shoot them w/o a hood; the L offerings are not as flare resistant in my experience, and thus require a hood, which thereby the negates the compactness of the Ls.

 

[Bullwinkle]

To me, the in and out of focus passage characteristics are quite remarkable. (I have the 35 biogon and the 50 planar). What I see is that the foreground and background (in focus and out of focus) always remain well integrated, as if they are both painted with the same brush. The in focus area never jumps out of the picture awkwardly, but always remains well intergrated with the rest of the picture.

What I'd like them to make is a 75mm. And to put 75mm lines in the ZI viewfinder.

 

[mfogiel]

grduprey

The intention of this post has not been to make a case against Leica lenses. These lenses are, from what I have seen so far, mostly ok. I have looked at the MTF charts and compared the size before opting for the 28 Elmarit ASPH rather than the corresponding Biogon, for example.

From my first shots though, I see a lens which is less contrasty, more flary and less sharp wide open than my 25/2.8 Biogon. This is not to say it is not a fine lens, and very compact too. This is one of the first shots with this lens which I like:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1801048870&size=l

I respect other opinions, and the spirit of this post is to look forward to better photographic tools and enjoy the gear we use. If you have some brilliant Leica lens experiences and would like to share the examples, I'd love to see them as much as everybody else, I believe.

Take care.

Marek

 

[the_jim]

The idea of this thread devolving into a Leitz vs. Zeiss vs. Voigtlander vs. Big Baby Jesus vs. whatever discussion is really scary and boring. Let's stay focused here.

I would also love to see a faster lens in the 35mm focal length. I have the Biogon 35/2 and it's good, but it doesn't really grab me. It would be great if Zeiss could turn out something in the f/1.2 to 1.4 range. My Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 is my favorite lens on any system. It was designed in the 60's and I have yet to use a lens that I feel tops it.

 

[mhv]

My dream would be for Zeiss to create a couple of lenses for it's M-mount line based on its Master Prime series (a totally awesome set of motion picture lenses that cover focal lengths from 14mm to 150mm and all are f/1.2). Surely they could sell them at a lower price point due to the potentially larger customer base that exists with still photography. But, sadly, I doubt anything like that will ever happen.

The 100mm Makro-Planar in ZF (nikon) mount is an Arri/Zeiss Master Prime lens. Just look at its MTF, it's scary: http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/MP_2_100ZF_EN/$File/MP_2_100ZF_EN.pdf

Flat. Almost perfectly flat. For a macro lens, that's rather useful.

Oh, and the Master Prime are not f1.2. They are T1.2, which means that the actual light transmission is 1.2, not just the aperture (on most lenses actual light transmission is often lower than nominal f/stop). That is also scary in terms of performance.

 

[the_jim]

Oh, and the Master Prime are not f1.2. They are T1.2.

Not to nitpick, but they are T1.3. I am holding one right now. Also, the literature on the Zeiss cine page also states, "At an aperture of f/1.2 or T 1.3 takes became possible at extremely low light levels."

At any rate, I want them in m-mount.

 

[the_jim]

Sure enough, the Makro Planar is apparently based on Master Prime technology. Very cool indeed. It also seems that the more recent ZF lenses are using floating elements, which seems to indicate that Cosina now has the ability to manufacture lenses in that manner (about time, since Nikon started using floating elements back in the 60's).

Hmmm, I am now quite interested in the Makro Planar.

But, I still want a faster, modern style, standard lens.

 

[Trius]

Marek: Very good examples of your point. I am very convinced of the Zeiss lenses. Leica are very good of course, and I have used (with great satisfaction) older Leica lenses such as 21SA, 50DR & 90 Summicron.

As for the 40, there is the Rollei 40/2.8 in LTM mount that was produced for the Rollei RF. Everything I see from that lens is superb.

 

[mhv]

Not to nitpick, but they are T1.3. I am holding one right now. Also, the literature on the Zeiss cine page also states, "At an aperture of f/1.2 or T 1.3 takes became possible at extremely low light levels."

At any rate, I want them in m-mount.

Oups! Well, still impressive, isn't it?