awilder
Alan Wilder
Check out this post I made for Leica Forum. Hope it helps. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3fJ
Some tests: Zeiss vs. Leica
- Thread starter awilder
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 65
- Views 11K
aizan
Veteran
hmm, the leica is bluish, and the planar is yellowish.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
What would be really fun would be to post the images without labeling which came from which lens; maybe that could be in a separate post.
I'd be interested to see if that affected people's perceptions of which ones were "best."
I'd be interested to see if that affected people's perceptions of which ones were "best."
R
ruben
Guest
No, JLW, the difference as depicted there, are clear.
An ebarrassed Zeiss fan.
An ebarrassed Zeiss fan.
TimF
Established
I was a bit surprised at how poorly the Planar seemed to render the chart compared with the others. Do you think the slightly different focusing point Zeiss designed into their lens might be a contributing factor Alan. Also mentioned by Erwin IIRC.
Its a shame you no longer have the Planar. It would have been interesting to see how they all compare at the same aperture - eg, f/4, so as not to get into the sweet spot territory, and also not leaving one lens at maximum aperture.
Its a shame you no longer have the Planar. It would have been interesting to see how they all compare at the same aperture - eg, f/4, so as not to get into the sweet spot territory, and also not leaving one lens at maximum aperture.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
most people seem to take, like, two shots and call it a lens test. aren't there any standardized, comprehensive tests used by magazines? all apertures, up close, at infinity, tonality, micro-contrast, color balance in different lighting, shadows and hilights, bokeh across the range, etc....
Mazurka
Well-known
A more meaningful test would be shots taken on the same roll of slide film.
Print quality depends mostly on the lab. I have found out long ago that it's the most important element determining the final (technical) result. If the negative was not developed properly or the print not adjusted well, all you see is cr*p.
I wouldn't use two different rolls (negative or reversal) in testing, let alone two different labs.
Print quality depends mostly on the lab. I have found out long ago that it's the most important element determining the final (technical) result. If the negative was not developed properly or the print not adjusted well, all you see is cr*p.
I wouldn't use two different rolls (negative or reversal) in testing, let alone two different labs.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Says it all, thanks . No further comment necessary. :bang:aizan said:
Bertram
sgy1962
Well-known
In all fairness, the 50mm Summilux ASPH would also blow away the 50mm Summicron. It is reportedly just that good. Right up there with the new 75mm Summicron ASPH and the 90mm Summicron APO. The most recent offerings from Leica are really in a league of their own.
Anyway, I suspect that we would not be able to tell the difference between the 50mm Summicron and the 50mm Planar.
Anyway, I suspect that we would not be able to tell the difference between the 50mm Summicron and the 50mm Planar.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Keep in mind these images are negative scans, no printing involved. I doubt that differences in photo labs will impact these images because the film scanner won't resolve much better than 64 lp/mm anyway. Focus bracketing a few hundreths of a mm will improve the Planar's central resolution results so the design of the ZM body might be such that the film may be more relaxed and may "drift" to a position towards the lens. Leica bodies may keep the film a little flatter and closer to the pressure plate.
richard_l
Well-known
Especially at f/1.4.sgy1962 said:
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
sgy1962 said:
You are correct. I've used my copy of the Planar and a friend's copy of the Summicron for real photos. They're essentially identical in performance. The color balance is slightly different, though not at all like the test photos at photo.net indicate. If anything the Planar is a touch cooler than the Leica. It has richer blues while the Summicron has richer reds. This is based on photos taken with Fuji Astia and with an Epson R-D1.
The 50mm Summilux ASPH has a test chart advantage, at least in the center, over every other 50mm lens currently available. The question is whether this means anything in the real world. If you're shooting at f/1.4 or f/2 and printing huge I suppose it might. I don't print huge. So I buy lenses based on my needs, not on absolutes.
-Dave-
awilder
Alan Wilder
The bottom line is that whether it's a resolution chart or detailed object, the Summicron, Summilux's, Planar and Sonnar(40/2.8) all do quite well centrally and you'd be very hard pressed to differentiate between them. The differences really come down to how large a maximum aperture you need. If you don't need f/1.4 and want to save some cash, the Summicron or Planar will do about as well across the frame as the Asph. Summilux, the differences between the two being ergonomics and resale value. If you need the best imaging possible at f/1.4 or f/2 the asph. Summilux is the best bet but at a steep price. One can appreciate where the extra money is going though by comparing the imaging of the pre-asph. to the Asph. version of the Summilux epecially in the outer zones of the frame.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Aizan,
No, there's no standardized test. We all devise our own.
Cheers,
Roger
No, there's no standardized test. We all devise our own.
Cheers,
Roger
peter_n
Veteran
Actually one further comment might help: each lens had a sample size of one.Bertram2 said:
aizan
Veteran
nuts. there really should be a test set of some kind to fully describe lenses.
that, too. someone should put to rest, once and for all, whether the variation within one design is as great, greater, or less than the variation between designs.
that, too. someone should put to rest, once and for all, whether the variation within one design is as great, greater, or less than the variation between designs.
ronnie_retro
Established
Zeiss/Leica comparo
Zeiss/Leica comparo
I appreciate the effort in posting these test shots, but I really wonder about their validity given the different rolls of film. They do not square with Erwin Putz's posting that the new ZM 50 planar is the full equal of the current Summicron 50/2 aspherical. Christ, if he considers them the same there has to be a technical problem in this comparison.
Regards
Zeiss/Leica comparo
I appreciate the effort in posting these test shots, but I really wonder about their validity given the different rolls of film. They do not square with Erwin Putz's posting that the new ZM 50 planar is the full equal of the current Summicron 50/2 aspherical. Christ, if he considers them the same there has to be a technical problem in this comparison.
Regards
awilder
Alan Wilder
He also mentioned a slight difference in back focus calibration between the ZI lenses vs. Leica lenses. When I re-shot the images and bracketed focus slightly in the plus focus direction, the Planar resolution improved much closer to the Leica lenses. It's quite possible this is intentional on Zeiss' part to allow for forward movement of film as it "relaxes". It's also quite possible that the film channel depth of the new ZI may be slightly greater than Leica's 0.20 mm to allow for this "relaxation".
ronnie_retro
Established
Puts did mention this; however my impression was that the focus shift he refers to is quite small and therefore unlikely to be the cause of what we see here. If Zeiss wanted to select a different plane for focus the logical place to do this IMHO is at the camera cam follower, not the cam on the lens. Making the adjustment on the lens would pretty much eliminate compatibility with other rangefinders, which must be a good part of the target market. They must have done quite a bit of results comparison with the Leica product and It seems unlikely "Zeuss" would have dropped the ball on such a critical performance parameter.
Re-reading your comparison I also see that the Zeiss 50/2 planar is not compared as I initially thought to the 50/2 Summicron, which is the corresponding Leica lens, but a different and *much* more expensive one. Even so, the planar is closed down an additional stop - and this has to improve the DOF at the focal plane.
So - the results are interesting but hard to explain. Personally I reserve judgement until more data is available.
Regards
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many from which to choose."
Re-reading your comparison I also see that the Zeiss 50/2 planar is not compared as I initially thought to the 50/2 Summicron, which is the corresponding Leica lens, but a different and *much* more expensive one. Even so, the planar is closed down an additional stop - and this has to improve the DOF at the focal plane.
So - the results are interesting but hard to explain. Personally I reserve judgement until more data is available.
Regards
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many from which to choose."
ronnie_retro
Established
:bang: Well, in reviewing the scrolls last evening, I found a formula for depth of focus given the f stop and circle of confusion. Turns out that at f/2, given the high lp/mm, a shift in the focal plane of just a few thou would screw things up. So I'm more confused than ever. They are not fools at Zeiss.
I'm ordering a planar next month. I don't have Leica glass to do a comparo with but should be able to pull a few resolution numbers, and check for focus shift, using a R2-A body. I also have the Voigtlander 28mm / f1.9 that Puts says should get 100lp/mm by f/4 that I can use as a control.
To be continued.
I'm ordering a planar next month. I don't have Leica glass to do a comparo with but should be able to pull a few resolution numbers, and check for focus shift, using a R2-A body. I also have the Voigtlander 28mm / f1.9 that Puts says should get 100lp/mm by f/4 that I can use as a control.
To be continued.
Similar threads
