Can you see the difference between your Zeiss and Leica photos? Going mad...

[John5]

Hi. I'm going to buy my first rangefinder lens. Can't decide between summicron rigid and zm planar. After going through hundreds of images on flickr I think that I really like the look produced by leitz lenses. The question is if I am really able to distinguish photos taken by those lenses or is it just my imagination?

I assume that planar is technically superior to the rigid summicron so if I won't be able to see the difference in the fingerprint than i will go with planar. But if there really is difference in the look that they produce than I will go with summicron because I think it has more appealing rendering to my eyes.

As you can see I'm slowly going mad...😀

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Pick one. Shoot photos. Be happy.

 

[Bruin]

Get both, shoot a bunch of pics, and compare. Keep the one you like better. You won't lose much on the resale, if any.

Don't take any of our advice too seriously 😉

 

[John5]

Pick one. Shoot photos. Be happy.

That's what my mind is telling me 🙂 But unfortunately I know my weaknesses so I want to buy the best lens that I can afford to save some money on GAS attacks.

 

[jmcd]

"After going through hundreds of images on flickr I think that I really like the look produced by leitz lenses. The question is if I am really able to distinguish photos taken by those lenses or is it just my imagination? "

There is a definite difference in the prints. If you are leaning towards the look produced by the Leica lens...

 

[RMarques]

That's what my mind is telling me 🙂 But unfortunately I know my weaknesses so I want to buy the best lens that I can afford to save some money on GAS attacks.

If you're already looking for info at this forum, you're already suffering from GAS!
Sorry, I dont know an easier way to tell the bad news...

About the question, buy a summicron. I think it's the best option to start, if you can afford it.
And as someone said, if you decide to change, you should be able to sell it for about the same price you paid

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear John,

I have Zeiss, Voigtländer and Leica lenses, and after a few months, when I've forgotten which lens I used, I can seldom guess what I shot with what, apart from very old lenses with very strong signatures (Thambar, Canon 50/1.2, original 90/2 Summicron...)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Gray]

I can tell the difference. The Zeiss is 21mm and the Leica is 50mm, and I can usually figure out which pictures came from which 😀

What Roger said.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Put all those flickr images into a folder, along with the Zeiss images. view them in a shuffled slideshow. If you can really make distinctions between the two on visual inspection and not memory of the associated tags/labels, then go with the lens that produced the most 'successful' images. But, when i did such a thing, i looked only at pictures shot at relatively wide apertures, of the specific subject matter i would likely encounter. I don't think there's really much to choose between lenses when everything is in focus. For me, the interesting part is how they render out of focus stuff.

I had a ZM 50/2 Planar. I later had a 50/2 'current' Summicron. I don't now have any feeling about either one of them. Neither was 'special' and neither disappointed. If i were going to buy a 50mm for a rangefinder at this point, i'd probably get the 50/1.5 Nokton which i've always liked in other people's pictures, or the Sonnar, if i could deal with the focus shift.

I guess what i'm saying is that it doesn't really matter. You'll buy one, and if you don't see 'magic' you'll probably switch to something else anyway. If you DO see magic, you may switch because you don't see it often enough. The lesson i learned is to not take any of these gear decisions to be 'permanent.' They're all trials - long ones and short ones.

You say, though, that you think you like the Leica signature. Even if it is just an illusion, it's going to be in your head no matter what. So, get the Summicron. First.

 

[bwcolor]

Buy whatever is most expensive. After all, the economy can use a boost.

If you can't decide without asking, then it isn't worth asking the question. I second the idea of buying whatever and start shooting.

I own three Zeiss lenses to every Leica lens. The CV and Hexanon lenses are also in the mix. I'm happy with every lens that I own... I think.

 

[jsrockit]

I can only see the difference when I know which lens is which... 😉

 

[Brian Levy]

I suspect that unless you view a decent size print the differences will be difficult to discern. Both are excellent so I think you are the winner with either.

 

[tbarker13]

Between the older rigid Summicron and a modern 50 Planar, you might notice a difference looking at shots taken wide open.
Both are great lenses. Some might tell you the rigid cron is a better choice for B&W. I use a planar extensively. I really like the results both in color and B&W.
But I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I had a rigid summicron.

 

[BillBingham2]

John5,

Each lens has it's own signature even from the same vendor. Looks are very similar most of the time from vendors, but in the SLR world there was & is a LOT of variation between lenses of the same focal length.

Leica, ZM, CV, Nikkor, Canon will all look different and it's really a personal preference.

Less filling, taste great, me, I prefer Nikkors, you could be ZM. There are no really wrong answers as long as you are happy.

B2

 

[mfogiel]

My take is the following, and keep it in mind that I am generally a Zeiss glass fan.
1) If you think to shoot primarily B&W, then there is no contest whatsoever, get the rigid Summicron.
2) Leica is making some great lenses today, but they are almost "too perfect", i.e rather anonymous in their rendering, and they often trade off sharpness wide open for other desirable characteristics. Older Leica lenses, that's a different matter, and among Berek's and Mandler's designs, you will find lenses that can still compete with modern lenses on sharpness, at least at middle apertures, but often have the rendering features that make them unique. This is the primary reason, why on the second hand market, the Leica M lenses command prices that are often several times higher than a comparable FL lens of other manufacturers. The Rigid or DR Summicron 50, is one of these great lenses, and the luck has it , that since it has been produced in fairly large numbers, the prices are still reasonable. If I were you, I would buy a clean one, and keep it forever, as who knows how easy they will be to find 10 years from today.
On the other hand, the day you will want to have a sharp lens without flare or optical flaws for a matter of fact reproduction of reality, possibly in colour, then waste no time and get the Planar too.

DR Summicron

Planar

 

[goamules]

With any and all lenses, I'd like to see an objective comparison with a few sample shots, and arrows and descriptions that reveal the signature differences. Maybe I just don't know what I'm looking for, but all my 35mm lenses seem similar, if the same focal length. Maybe this is a dumb thing to reveal, but seriously, can someone successfully say "that was from a Leica xyz...and that from a Canon 1.8..." looking at untagged prints? Scans?

 

[DougFord]

I can tell the difference between my negs shot using my summicron 40mm and the ones shot using my contax T3 just by holding them up to a dim bulb.
If YOU like the look that the summicron imparts, go with it.
If you don’t like your pix it should at least eliminate any excuses that it’s the fault of the lens . 🙄

 

[mfogiel]

@goamules

You learn how a lens renders after several rolls. The differences regard not only sharpnes or contrast but also 3D rendering and bokeh. I have several Zeiss lenses, and none has a bad bokeh, while some , like the makro planars , are outstanding, but none has the "impressionistic" bokeh of older Leica glass. Conversely, no Leica lens has the bokeh of a true Sonnar.

Here are some examples, and excuse me for showing photos already posted in the past.

Zeiss Makro Planar 50

DR Summicron 50

C Sonnar 50

 

[Tom A]

Todays lenses, be it from Leica/Zeiss/CV/Konica are usually so good that it really does not matter. You get more variables from film choice, processing and the skill of the user.
I like the Planar a lot. It is nice and sharp, medium contrast etc. Is it better than a Summicron 50 - not so much that I can tell the difference - unless the camera/lens is "tagged"?
There are a few lenses with individual signatures, the C Sonnar 50f1.5 ( perfect bl/w lens), the Heliar 50f2 and f3.5 and also the new 75f1.8. the Asph 50mm f1.4 Summilux - probably the sharpest medium speed 50mm lens made - and you can see it in the negative. But it is far to expensive and it is also very contrasty!
What is more important is how comfortable you are with the lens. If you have to "fight" it for ergonomical reasons - it is a bad lens! Try to "test" some of these lenses. How well does it balance on the camera and in your hand. Can you easily grip the focus ring and move the aperture ring without having to "shift" the hand. It is better to get one and use it - rather than being frustrated with the choices. Get what you comfortably can afford - and just fire away.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I think you will find that many of the gear-heads on this forum (and I number myself among this illustrious, if benighted, bunch) have tried multiple lenses within a focal length and probably own more than one. I don't know that you can assume technical superiority of one manufacturer over another. Choose a lens that you will use and learn well what it does. If it isn't satisfying, revisit in 5 years if you can identify what about it is not thrilling you.



Ben Marks