Leica M's (Digital) with Zeiss ZM's

[uhoh7]

Let me follow up if I may with a query on Zeiss ZM vs. Leica lenses. One of the things that took into Zeiss lenses (Contax CY) was that in manual focusing, I found having the aperture ring close to the camera body and the wide (or long) barrell allocation to focus not only made focusing easy, but was easy to do without looking. First foray had gone to Olympus and the order on the barrel was the opposite with the aperture ring closest to the business end of the lens. For me, this meant that my fingers would fumble over the end and inevitably screw up the focus. So I'm wondering if I'm the only weirdo who finds this sort of ergonomics a thing, or not. And what's the order on Leica's lenses?

Focusing ease is basically case by case in my experience. A tabbed Leica lens like 28 cron is superior to any ZM I've seen and aperture is easier too. But the v4 cron without a tab is probably worse than ZM. The ZM 35/2 has a little bump in the helicoid, like a "soft tab" ZM 18 does not.

Zeiss does not make these lenses. Cosina does. Their CV 35/1.4 is tabbed and better than my ZM 35/2. But the big CV 35/1.2 and 50/1.1 are another design completely, as are the Summarit 75 and 90. At least the throws are similar. Leica makes more compact lenses in general, which is huge.

What I do see from the Zeiss Cosina lenses that is not present in CV is a consistent color profile. Slightly bluer than Leica. New leicas are a bit more saturated, older ones a bit less. CV are all over the map. CV 35/1.2 is weirdest color in any lens I own: but I use the lens often. Editing can be a struggle.

In the 1930s Zeiss had an entire system of great lenses, far ahead of Leica. In the 50s Nikkor outbuilt and out designed Zeiss and LIFE noticed. Canon also made very impressive lenses. In the 60s Mandler lead Leica into the sun with a whole series of great designs, many of which are still competitive today.

In the 70s-90s CY Zeiss, others will be better able to comment. Certainly the Leica R is most valuable SLR lens line today and there are a bunch of fantastic ones. I have CY 100300 zeiss, but seldom use it.

As a lens lover, I really have zero loyalty to names, but performance breeds respect. I'm able to disregard price, not in purchasing decsions, but in respect, which many seem not to able to do. They get mad about Leica price and dismiss the lenses at times. That is so silly. Get mad about price OK. But lens is lens. Judge by how it works.

You can't buy them all anyway 🙂


A7.mod w/ZM18 by unoh7, It's not small, it's not light.

Now CV makes some tiny ones, but they don't like digital as much... the wider ones. CV 35/2.5 is fine.

Yes this lens costs more than ZM18, it's stronger, smaller, lighter, and better built:

image by unoh7, on Flickr

In fact it's the best 21 ever made.

Zeiss also has their name on many expensive Sony FE lenses recently with sub-standard QC, and many are basically huge too boot. Otus perform real well, but they are so big and so heavy as to be essentially useless outside the studio or a confined event. I would never own any of them. And the Leica 50 APO beats them in a compact package at F/2. Zeiss cannot even spec a digital camera body. So I respect Leica more. But I believe in redemption 🙂 and admire many of the ZM lenses too. The ZM 35/1.4 is great, but too big. The ZM 35/2.8 is the most successful one. People are crazy about it. It's compact, has wonderful look, and is technically strong. Affordable also. 🙂

PS alejandro, I love those 21 shots. That ZM 21/2.8 is really great option, as you show. Very good for digital. 🙂

Basically the M/LTM world is full of so many great options, most of which are also so compact. So much history. It's a feast. 🙂


DSC06958 by unoh7, 1937 CZJ sonnar 5cm F/1.5

The real Zeiss 🙂

And how digital M respects it:

L1000561 by unoh7, on Flickr

There is the most influential Zeiss lens in history. Uncoated, and sharper today than when new in 1937, when Erich Salomon was the most famous photographer in the world 🙂

 

[roscoetuff]

Small is good. Zeiss Loxia line has worked for me on that basis. Similarly, the consistent design philosophy of Leica lenses appeals... and one day, yeah... I might go there with the right camera. My thought has been to plan a migration... long term. Starts with the glass, and then as I like to say "some" body to shoot them on. Haven't figured either one of those... and for now, Sony A7RII seems to turn out some very rich images. One thing I'd note with older lenses is that some haven't been maintained, and some of the issues may result in copies where the grease has broken down and coated the internal glass. Some will draw just fine on digital if they've been maintained. My lens service fellow insists modern glass cannot and is not purified to the extent that old glass was prior to EPA / OSHA regs (and equivalent), and he thinks as this becomes more widely appreciated, old top quality glass will appreciate significantly. Yet modern tooling can work its own magic, too.

Since I don't have any Leica glass at the moment, I can only echo what I read and what you've written... but mostly the suggestion is that Leica glass favors red spectrum more (should be better for B&W in some ways) while Zeiss ...as you say, "blue". Some call it neuteral. Our eyes find red friendly... so that may have a lot to do with what we like about Leica glass (they're no dummies there!).

 

[Out to Lunch]

Leica M-E - Zeiss ZM 2.8/28. No coding; no cropping; no perspective correction. Pont de la Machine, Geneva, Switzerland.

 

[______]

First foray had gone to Olympus and the order on the barrel was the opposite with the aperture ring closest to the business end of the lens. For me, this meant that my fingers would fumble over the end and inevitably screw up the focus. So I'm wondering if I'm the only weirdo who finds this sort of ergonomics a thing, or not. And what's the order on Leica's lenses?

I grew up on Pentax lenses with the aperture close to the mount, and then shifted to Olympus. Once I got used to the shutter ring close to the mount (rather than on top) and the aperture ring near the front element, it became second nature. It is what you are use to. If you have a mix of lenses, with focus/aperture in different order, I can see how you may never become comfortable.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like the plastic lens hoods of the Elmarit-M 28 or Summicron 35. They really do the job. Compared to that the metal hood for 35 or 50 is not very effective.

I use a 49mm 10 stop ND filter with a 49 to 43 step up ring.

To me getting Ziess hood on Planar 50 2 after dealing with Elmarit 28 2.8 and Cron hoods was like using zipper in particular part of the pants after using same part with buttons.
"Wait, this is it? 😱"