M-Rokkors vs Zeiss ZMs

[Krosya]

I'm not sure if this is a right place to post, but here it goes. I posted this test in other thread, but I thought it would be interesting as a separate thread. In a link below there are some comarison shots of ZM 28mm and ZM 35/2 vs M-Rokkors 28 and 40/2. Not my test - I just came across when researching some lenses and find it rather interesting. Once you click the link - wait for pics to load. Here is the link:

http://www.dchome.net/redirect.php?tid=364218&goto=lastpost

 

[ferider]

I like the 28 M-Rokkor very much. Also flare resistant and significantly smaller than the Biogon. It has a quite unique color rendering as you can see in the first test shot.

Thanks for the link !

Roland.

 

[astroman]

I like the look of the 28 rokkor much better than the 28 zeiss.
CRAP! and I have the zeiss 28

 

[PMCC]

After ten years of use by me, my venerable CLE is currently being treated for "dancing meter" disease, caused by 30 years of carbon build-up on the shutter speed dial brushes and resistor ring. Once it's back from my local camera tech, I'll again be shooting my 28 Rokkor (totally free from white spots and other lens infections) and 40 CLE Rokkor (one of the all time lens bargains) in AE mode. Love the performance of both as well as size in the hand. The 90 CLE Rokkor is an equally good performer, and small (f4). They all take the same size 40.5 filters. They make a nice compact travel kit, although the CLE film transport is not overly robust and not quite up to deserts and jungles.

 

[back alley]

the zm is a bit more crisp and contrasty while the rokkor is a bit more mellow, less saturated.
i have had both, like both but am quite happy with the zeiss.

the rokkor is a perfect mate to the cle for sure.

if only someone would make a digital cle...

 

[Krosya]

I used to have CL and CLE Rokkors a while back and sold them when I got Hexanon 50, but I begin to miss this wonderful, small and fast lens. Mine were very flare resistant too. I think I should hunt one down - after seeing that test (link I provided in original post) I'm very tempted.

 

[KoNickon]

I recently got for cheap-ish in my local camera store one of the 28 M-Rokkors. It had a lot of haze (small droplets, actually) on the back of the front element. Not really sure if that is the dreaded white spot disease or not, but the lens sure does flare outside. Inside it's OK. I'll need to get it squared away; John Van Stelten says he does this job. But otherwise I am very happy with the CLE, and the Rokkor 40 and 90. The camera had the dancing LED disease, but now that it's warmer it seems to be behaving better. The kit (Kobalux 28 added) is coming to Maine with me for the weekend.

 

[noimmunity]

The color rendition from the ZM lens is superior in every way.

Corner sharpness, a noted strength of the ZM 35/2, is impossible to judge with the RD-1.

Minolta Rokkors could only get a bad rap from people who haven't used them.

Looking at the shots at different apertures reveals that the test was done not by changing the lenses each time at each aperture, but rather by taking one whole series at each aperture with one lens and then changing to the other for a whole series of various apertures. I would have rather seen the exchange be with each aperture in order to control lighting/composition as much as possible.

 

[Chaser]

I would prefer if people could refrain from saying anything nice about the Rokkor until after I find a good price on one. My CLE is lonely.

 

[ishpop]

The Rokkor is noticeably sharper from F2-F4 in both sets. It's really obvious. After F4 they even out and the ZM starts to have more microcontrast (and thus look sharper).

Glad I have the 40mm Rokkor, cause I like taking shots (60-70%) from F2-F4.

 

[roundg]

No surprise to see the performance of Rokkor. I have the 28mm and 40mm both. They are great in optics and building quality.

 

[PMCC]

My CLE has been restored to health -- had the the carbon build-up around the resistor ring and brushes cleaned out. Now I can use my CLE Rokkor lenses with their proper camera body again. Nice small kit, great lenses.

 

[raid]

The Rokkor lenses are among the best lenses available. They also are great bargains as compared with other lenses.

I have the 28mm/2.8 and the 40mm/2.0. Both are really great lenses.

 

[notturtle]

I wonder if there is a film registration issue at all. The 28 biogon is ridiculously sharp on centre on my cameras from wide open with on the outer field needing to catch up and remaining less great than the 32 f2 (where the centre is relatively less good wide open). I find it hard to imagine that even at 5.6, the ZM is still blurry comparatively. At 5.6 mine is brutally sharp on centre and only showing very slight softening in the edges at large print sizes. I wonder whether he missed the focus (operator error or mechanical issue) as it looks awfully like DOF is making up for sharpness here with the 28 rather than it actuall being sharp...

The difference in 'look' is interesting too. I wonder what those images would be like with B&W?

I for one expose generously with my ZMs and develop conservatively because they are quite contrasty. I would like to see a comparison of images shot on say pre-asph Leica lenses and ZMs developed to the same CI.

 

[George S.]

Well, I'm a fan of both the Zeiss and Rokkor lenses (have used or use lenses from both line ups) and have to say I prefer the sharpness and look of the Rokkors in this test.

Jon, I don't think the lighting changed much if at all during the whole test as evidenced by the same percentage of blue sky and cloud in all the shots. Just changing the aperture for each lens as you go allows for only 1 lens change, as opposed to what, about 12 lens changes back and forth, thus saving a ton of time; time where the lighting would have much more of a chance to change.

I'd like to know the age of the Zeiss lenses used. Especially since we can assume the Rokkors are probably 30 years old, it'd be very interesting if the ZMs are from the current line.

 

[dof]

I wonder if there is a film registration issue at all.

In the tests from the link? It appears from the text that they were done using an RD-1. As someone else has mentioned, what's not evident here is the relative performance of each lens in the field.

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.

I own a 40mm CLE Rokkor and have commented on several occasions how much I like the lens, even with its "drawbacks" vis-a-vis more modern (Leica in my experience) designs - lower contrast when used wide open, and lower overall micro-contrast being chief among them.

Generally speaking, this post serves as a reminder that we're living in a time of having many high-quality options available to us.

 

[Al Kaplan]

There's no easy way to get the 28 Rokkor CLE lens to actuate the 28mm frame in an M Leica, although it is possible. You need to add about a millimeter of metal to one of the bayonet lugs. Use a really tiny drill bit to make the hole and you can epoxy a short length of stff wire into it. There's no need to build it up so it "looks good".

 

[notturtle]

registration affects sensors and film alike. Very odd, because that 28 ZM performs plain badly even close to centre a stop down in this test and that is not how the 28 biogon is known to perform. The corners can be a touch softer than some lenses at wider apertures, but catched up.

Leica and ZM lenses do have marginally different registration according to assumption on the location of the light capturing surface. I believe Puts says the difference is measurable and due to assumptions on film curvature differing between the two manufacturers. Could just be a duff 28 biogon, but duff ZMs seem to be rare.

 

[dof]

Registration affects both film and sensors, but has been (seemingly endlessly!) shown to be more critical on sensors than film. I wouldn't say they are alike, but I see you were using the term generally.

Again, this is one persons test and while the total count of out-of-spec ZMs may be low, it is possible that this is an example of one. Clearly your experience with the ZMs is greater than mine!

Best,

 

[JohnTF]

I have heard the 90mm was built in Germany.


Regards, John