Puts' latest impression on the ZM lenses

M

Mazurka

Well-known
Local time
2:37 PM
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
483
Available here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c016.html

Some choice comments:

On Biogon 35: "it would have been better if the marketing people of Zeiss had restricted themselves to an aperture of 2.8."

On 50 Planar: "For several generations the Planar design has tried to challenge the Summicron 50mm and never became as good...The Double-Gauss design has been studied exhaustingly and it is now possible to equal but not surpass the Summicron design as long as you stay within the D-G limits."

On mechanics: "Theoretically the Leica solution might induce some additional flare, but in practice the causes of flare are so numerous that this single one might not be important." "The Leica mounts follow a general pattern that is the same for all lenses, but every mount is individually optimized such that the character of the lens is visible. When looking at a lens, you see immediately the personality of the lens."

:D
 
I know you are new here, but at RFF we usually use the original Yiddish spelling of Erwin's surname: Putz
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip, Manolo - it's a very accurate spelling - though you're only older than me by 6 months. :D
 
Erwin's technical understanding is very deep, but -- peculiarly, considering that he's written an excellent article about how various manufacturers have different "house styles" of optical design -- he doesn't seem to realize that a lot of the allegedly objective superiority he finds in Leica optics is evidently a matter of his personal preference for the Leica "house style."

I still enjoy reading his site and find it useful -- I just have to remember to filter out the "religious" slant.
 
Manolo Gozales said:
Hey:)

Mazurka, I know you are new here, but at RFF we usually use the original Yiddish spelling of Erwin's surname: Putz :D :D
Click to expand...

I don't.

Sean
 
Technically I agree with Erwin's comments about the Zeiss 35 & 50mm, the two I've used myself. (I own the 50mm.) But to my eyes aesthetically the 35mm renders lovely photos at f/2. So I'm glad the Zeiss designers went for the larger aperture.

Erwin does come off rather like a nervous acolyte defending a challenge to the True Faith. I find this disappointing.

-Dave-
 
Of course it is all a matter of interpretation: how an what you want to read. Where you put the accents.
I have the feeling it is a very positive review in general. Nobody can expect a lens costing half the price of the Leica equivalent to have similar build quality.

It's quite a statement to say that the lenses at least equal the pre- asph Leica versions but not surpass the asph. Leica's . Especially if we keep in mind there is no general consesus among Leica users the aspherical lenses are the lenses to prefer in the Leica line up (signature, bokeh). If i had to rate my lenses for the looks for instance i would rate:
1 75 summilux
2 50 summicron
3 35 summicron asph

So i should perhaps conside a Zeiss. On the other hand the pre-asph Leica's are quite "cheap" to get 2nd hand or from overstock .......... dilemmas


Especially the reviews of the 25 and 28 are very positive in my opinion.
Just wished i could test the 28 Zeiss and Leica 28 elmarit side by side to decide.

Han
 
Last edited:
Nobody can expect a lens costing half the price of the Leica equivalent to have similar build quality.
Click to expand...

Sure you can! Just look at Konica. The Zeiss Ikon lenses are far from shabby, too. It could be just that sample with "some play in the mount".
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
Sure you can! Just look at Konica. The Zeiss Ikon lenses are far from shabby, too. It could be just that sample with "some play in the mount".
Click to expand...

Yep the Konicas are well build!
Quite stupid from Zeiss to sent Putz that particular bad sample for review :bang: :bang:

Han
 
reviewers sometimes get faulty samples.

but anyhow, what's this play he's talking about?
 
Last edited:
I have some play in my old Zeiss Jena 85/2.0. It twists slightly on the mount when I change the direction of focus. But it is a 50 year old lens, and it still produces stunning images.

Robert
 
Manolo Gozales said:
Hey:)
I wonder whose opinion Erwin will be seeking. Will it be Danielle, or will it be Charlie? Oh the quality! :D :D

ManGo
Click to expand...

Ahh, that is pure acid, have mercy, leave this poor old man alone, he is in serious troubles now because of the damn Zeiss lenses ! :D
They are quite another caliber than the cheap "Cossies" which were more or less all decentered as he found out . A really hard job for him now to find arguments for Leica still beeing the unsurpassed frontrunner.
He simply HAS to turn more to the religious side, what else could he do ?
:D :D
Best
Bertram
Amused!
 
I found his comments on the 35/2 to be most interesting. Zeiss chose the Planar design for its 35/2 in the contax G system, suggesting that they too originally felt that this was a preferable design for a fast lens. However, many users seemed to feel that this was the weak link - relatively speaking - in that lens line. Given this history, I suspect that they believed that they would get better results with the Biogon design this time around. Judging by David's comments, Sean's review, & Karen Nakamura's enthusiam, I suspect that they were right. As far as Erwin is concerned, I will wait for his next installment when he comments about the actual results in photographs. I am anxious to get my hands on one of these.

Huck
 
I see what you are saying about the ZM 35 Huck. As Erwin says, or seems to say based on my understanding of this stuff, that it is not as good as the current asph 35 Summicron and the speed tests the limit of the Biogon design, but he closes his statements by saying that it is on par with the pre asph Summicron, which means it is excellent. The proof will be in the pudding/pictures.
 
Put's comments on the Zeiss 35mm/2 makes me all the more convinced that I should get one for Christmas! :)
 
His final installment in this series will tell us about bokah and all those other fun things that no two of us sees the same.

Of interests it seems that Zeiss has hit a home run with the 50/2 and 25/2.8. Though not said to be better than the Leica counterparts, they seem to be just a good, which I think is a big success.
 
My take is that he said the ZI lenses basically had the same optical performance as their Leica counterparts of equal speed, except the 35mm Biogon, which he lumped with the 35mm Summicron (4th version). In other words, they are all excellent.

I do note, however, there are no Zeiss counterparts to most of the most recent Leica offereings -- 50mm Summilux ASPH; 28mm Summicron ASPH; 75mm Summicron ASPH, ect. -- which, I believe everyone acknowledges are the standouts in the M line.
 
Photos taken with the new 35mm Biogon have a different look than 4th gen. Summicron photos, at wider apertures anyway. The two may be equivalent resolution-wise but to my eyes this is among the least important aspects of their overall performance. At f/2 the Biogon has very smooth, coherent out-of-focus rendition. This helps guide the eye away from potentially distracting areas in a photo. In this respect the Biogon's look is more like that of a longer lens. But you get the wider coverage too. Very nice.

-Dave-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom