Carl Zeiss Lenses on M6???

[Superdan138]

Did some searching and I just wanted to know which Carl Zeiss Lenses work perfectly on M6 Body w/o an adapter? Or do you need adapters? I mainly just wanted to get someone familiar with this to enlighten me. Whats the best possible CZ lens that can fit on the M6 for 35mm, 50mm and 90mm.

-Dan

 

[TimM]

http://www.zeiss.com/zeissikon

 

[Harry S.]

Any of the Zeiss 'ZM' mount lenses fit on an M6, or any other leica-M camera.

Whats 'best' is mostly personal preference. I use Zeiss 28 and 50mm lenses on my M cameras and like them a lot! I now want to add the 35mm.

 

[Superdan138]

Any of the Zeiss 'ZM' mount lenses fit on an M6, or any other leica-M camera.

Whats 'best' is mostly personal preference. I use Zeiss 28 and 50mm lenses on my M cameras and like them a lot! I now want to add the 35mm.

Is price the ONLY reason people use them or is the quality better with the Zeiss lenses?

-Dan

 

[thomasw_]

Is price the ONLY reason people use them or is the quality better with the Zeiss lenses?

-Dan

Better than what? To offer a view we would need to your point of comparison. I recommend looking at images in the m-mount group on flickr to determine lens signatures and comparing them.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dan,

I have used almost all the current Zeiss lenses on Leicas (15 - 2x21 - 25 - 28 - 35 - 50) and they're all very good. No adapters are needed. Leica and German-built Zeiss lenses cost more to buy because they cost more to make (e.g. hand-lapped focusing mounts, individual rather than batch testing, all-glass aspherics) but 'best' is hopelessly subjective.

For example, a 50/1.4 ASPH from Leica is sharper and contrastier than a 50/1.5 Sonnar from Zeiss, and has higher resolution and more even illumination; but I like the 'look' of the Sonnar better. Equally, I'd rather have a 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar than a 15/2.8 Zeiss (more versatile and a lot more compact, even though 1 stop slower), and I'd rather have a 75/2 Summicron than an 85/2 ZI.

I'd also suggest that what you can learn from an online comparison is limited. Original prints or projected trannies, or digital prints made using your own equipment, will tell you infinitely more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[TJV]

Do you mean Leica 50/1.4 ASPH is sharper than the Sonnar? You wrote 50/2.

Dear Dan,

I have used almost all the current Zeiss lenses on Leicas (15 - 2x21 - 25 - 28 - 35 - 50) and they're all very good. No adapters are needed. Leica and German-built Zeiss lenses cost more to buy because they cost more to make (e.g. hand-lapped focusing mounts, individual rather than batch testing, all-glass aspherics) but 'best' is hopelessly subjective.

For example, a 50/2 ASPH from Leica is sharper and contrastier than a 50/1.5 Sonnar from Zeiss, and has higher resolution and more even illumination; but I like the 'look' of the Sonnar better. Equally, I'd rather have a 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar than a 15/2.8 Zeiss (more versatile and a lot more compact, even though 1 stop slower), and I'd rather have a 75/2 Summicron than an 85/2 ZI.

I'd also suggest that what you can learn from an online comparison is limited. Original prints or projected trannies, or digital prints made using your own equipment, will tell you infinitely more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do you mean Leica 50/1.4 ASPH is sharper than the Sonnar? You wrote 50/2.

Yup. Sorry. Corrected!

Cheers,

R.

 

[TJV]

Sweet. I was starting to think I'd missed out on a pre-Photokina announcement!

By the way, I liked you're Sonnar review on your web site. I'd love to get a C Sonnar to use alongside my Cron for low light work. I just wish I could test one out before buying - New Zealand distributors don't import them unless they have solid orders.

 

[Roger Hicks]

By the way, I liked you're Sonnar review on your web site. I'd love to get a C Sonnar to use alongside my Cron for low light work. I just wish I could test one out before buying - New Zealand distributors don't import them unless they have solid orders.

Thanks for the kind words. This is the big problem with most reviews: you can't REALLY tell whether it would suit you, and in an era of internet shopping, you can't try it -- though I suppose that if you don't mind swallowing the return shipping, there are probably still some dealers who give you 10 days' trial.

Three of my favourite lenses in the last two or three years have been surprises. I didn't expect to like the 75/2 Summicron (not a focal length with which I have ever had much sympathy); the Thambar I was ready to dismiss as a collector's lens; and until the C-Sonnar I'd never understood why so many people rave about Sonnars (I still don't understand why some people rave about all Sonnars).

But then, the simple truth is that almost any new lens is fun, and gives you a creative kick up the bum. Another, equally simple, truth is that generally you'll get better pics with fewer lenses, because you won't spend so much time worrying about which one to use, or as much time earning money to pay for all those new lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[35mmdelux]

FWIW a survey found that the over-whelming majority of award winning fotos were taken with one or two "standard" lenses.

Check out David Alan Harvey's "Cuba" book ,where he shot with 35mm lens 98% of pix. Fantastic book and speaks alot to the "less is more" concept.