Some tests: Zeiss vs. Leica

Ronnie, you'll see towards the end of the photonet post that I also included central resolution samples of the 50/2 Summicron and pre-asph. 50/1.4 Summilux, both of which closely matched the asph. Summilux, with the Summicron having a very very slight edge. All lenses tested gave perfect RF focus at infinity so I doubt the RF cam was off on the Planar. The slight softness with the Planar was repeatable with a second roll when I retested and bracketed focus to determine optimal resolution. The only explanation I could come up with involves the position of the lens' optical cell with regards to the position of the RF cam. I believe Puts inferred the back focus issue was not insignificant but did not say by how much. Interestingly, the Planar had better resolution than any of the Leica lenses at 0.7 meters.
 
awilder said:
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
Click to expand...
Very sorry but this proves very little. Different rolls of film over many weeks?
I appreciate you trying but I think that it needs to be same roll of film, same camera, same day, same tripod. Then we might draw some conclusions. There are too many variables here that should be eliminated.

Thanks very much (genuinely) but no cigar.
 
Different rolls within a day or two, same film type, same processing and repeat exposures of each focus setting on each roll. Results were repeatable within one resolution group.
 
I'm referring to just the Planar on my previous post with regards to retesting my results on a second roll of film.
 
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition?

They just want to spoil it for all of those who can afford the Leica Holy Grail! Surely it is the final image (content, composition, etc) that is most important? Is there really much point to great resolution (costing thousands) if the subject is so boring no one wants to look at it!

I would love a Leica M7 or MP with 21mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses, but short of re-mortgaging our house (which could lead to divorce proceedings) I am unlikely to realise that dream! But a Zeiss, with 21mm, 35mm and 50mm may just be possible (by combining savings with a bit of creative trading-in of other equipment).

Please Leica people, enjoy your beautifully crafted cameras, but accept that the competition has a right to exist too!
 
Nicola London said:
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition?

(...)

Please Leica people, enjoy your beautifully crafted cameras, but accept that the competition has a right to exist too!
Click to expand...

Often it's simply having to justify the huge outlay of money for a lens that is superior but usually only marginally so or when used to the extreme.

But I find that here on RFF most if not all Leica users are pretty relaxed about the Leica -vs- The Rest discussions, and many use other brands of cameras and lenses besides Leica. Some even use digital! Brrr... the horror! :)
 
OK, OK I'll admit it!

I confess I have a D70 as well as a Leica M, sorry.... :eek: I even use Voigtlander lenses, is that heresy. :confused:

I'll get my coat :D
 
Nicola,

There is also an element to this discussion that hasn't been mentioned yet - lens to lens variations. I have read that you get into this especially with the Russian lenses. Some of them are excellent and others of the same focal length, etc. are dogs (no disrespect to dogs intended). When photographers talk about a Russian lens being a good year they aren't jesting.

Even lenses from top manufacturers exhibit these variations but to a far lesser degree . The point of this being that most top level manufacturers (including Leica) put out excellent lenses regularly and you pay for that consistency.

However, In actual day to day picture taking - not just lens testing like we have here - the lenses from different manufactures all produce good results (with small variations due to design). There is no Leica Holy Grail.
 
I like the talk on lens variability too.

I bought a brand new Summilux 35mm ASPH, and the only way I can keep the front trim ring on is to either glue it or stick the broken off point of a toothpick in it. None of my Zeiss lenses for the Contax G ever had ANY problems. I can send it to NJ, of course, but I'm loath to be without it, and I don't like the idea of buying new stuff "broken." Toothpick works.

But I'd just be a troublemaker.

(posted TONGUE IN CHEEK!)
 
While it is interesting to test to determine differences between lenses, (testing must be structured so that the only variable resposible for the differences in results are the lenses themselves), in the real world, I'd say that any of the lenses that we typically use have far greater capabilities than the photographers using them. The tiny differences between Leica and Zeiss lenses, even when tested properly, are going to have next to zero impact on the phtographs we make. I mean, we generally don't even use tripods with RF cameras, so camera shake during exposure is going to have a huge influence on real world results compared to whether the lens was made by Leica or Zeiss or Canon or Nikon, etc.
 
"The tiny differences between Leica and Zeiss lenses, even when tested properly, are going to have next to zero impact on the phtographs we make."

That pretty much sums it up Frank, very well put. I'd add Voigtlander in that list also given a lot of RF shots are low light without a tripod.

In a lab the Leica and Zeiss lenses will be better (mainly at the wider apertures) but as you state it's unlikely to show up a huge amount in realality.
 
Nicola London said:
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition?.....Please Leica people, enjoy your beautifully crafted cameras, but accept that the competition has a right to exist too!
Click to expand...
I think you have this confused with some other forum/site. I only have Leica rangefinders, so that's mostly what I post about here, but never, never as if that's the best or the only camera worth having. Even if I believed that (which I don't), that would be in very bad taste. I use CV and Minolta lenses as well as Leica. I also have an Olympus and two Nikons of which I am very fond, but they are not rangefinders, so I don't post about them. I really haven't noticed any attempt at this site for Leica owners to discredit other equipment. If you have seen this, please give a reference to the thread(s) so I dan put whoever's doing it on my badlist.

Richard
 
Nicola London said:
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition? {snip}
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum Nicola! :) I'm like Richard, I use Leica bodies (and lenses) but I also use Konica, CV and Russian lenses on my M bodies. Plus I have a Canonet QL-17 which is a great little camera! I do think most Leica users here on RFF are equally eclectic. Its true that some Leica owners are obnoxious but you find them on the Leica-only forums, they wouldn't lower themselves to join a forum like RFF... ;)

I have a quote here that is really pretty unbelievable, but it isn't about the equipment, rather about those who for one reason or another do not posess a Leica: "I own Leica products and would not own anything else. Those unfortunates who don't deserve our pity." Really sad, eh? :rolleyes:

 
I own Leica products and would not own anything else. Those unfortunates who don't deserve our pity.
Click to expand...
It seems like I've read that recently, maybe on the Leica forum at photo.net. Whoever said that is the one to be pitied, but for some reason I just can't seem to summon up much pity for snobs.

I do notice that Leica owners tend to exaggerate sometimes, usually for the sake of humor. If, for example, someone is teetering on the brink of buying their first piece of Leica equipment, Leica owners may start hyping their gear like crazy in order to lure another victim over to the "dark side." It's always done in a spirit of playfulness here on RFF, as far as I can tell. If English is not one's native language, such carryings-on could be interpreted as snobbery, particularly if certain comments are taken out of context.

Richard
 
Well, I will say that I have never gotten images with as much sharpness and pop as I have with a few leica lenses -- the 50mm summicron, 50mm and 35mm summilux asph, the 100apo macro and the 180apo elmarit. They seem to be in a class of their own amongst the lenses I have used. That said, I have every reason to believe that the Zeiss lenses would have the same ability, I just have not used one so I don't know. The crispness I mention is something that comes through in real world photography.
 
Whew! I hope I didn't come across as a Leica snob by my post. I thought the post would demonstate some interesting things about the Planar lens compared to past and present Leica and Zeiss (Sonnar) lenses. Erwin Puts noted a slight difference in the Planar's back focus which may account for the slight difference in central resolution of the Planar. To me, this simply indicates that the plane of focus may be set a few hundreths of a mm in front of the film plane on a Leica body. This is very slight and may not show up in normal shooting or at best may be intentional where the lens may be better calibrated on the ZM because of film registration differences due to it's film channel design. This of course is speculation on my part but time and independent lab tests will tell. It also demonstated that the Planar peformed about as well as either the Summicron and Asph. Summilux mid-frame and far corner with the Sonnar trailing slightly behind only in the far corner. From a historical perspective, the Asph. Summilux showed one of it's biggest benefits was to be several stops better than the pre-asph. version near the far corner of the frame.
 
Sure am glad people jumped in and put any potential Leica snobs on notice. I totally agree that clinical lens testing, although interesting, and the differences they reveal between lenses likely will not be seen in real world photos. That is unless one of the lens is horribly sub standard.

Bob
 
An excellent photographer with poor lenses will still take better photos than a poor photographer with excellent lenses.
 
Well......., I can't resist addig my two-pen'orth, I've been trying to take pleasing photo's for about 35 years, (-ones that please me anyway !).

I've bought and tried a lot of cameras and lenses and various films and developers (mostly B+W).

Most post WW2 stuff is similar on a 6"x4" print, and some cameras are easier and "nicer" to use.

But on an 8"x12" print or bigger it's a different story - certain lenses and films are sharper than others and some lenses give prints with a different "look".

For me the "look" is everything !

I like the "look" of B+W pictures with Leica lenses like Summicrons and Elmars, and I like using Leica cameras because of the handling and dependability (screw and bayonet ones).

This doesn't make me a Leica snob,- in 1968 I couldn't afford a Nikon or Pentax, and I was delighted with a second-hand IIIb and Summitar.

For myself, the 'look" is still everything, and I still really like the "Leica Look".

Regards, John C. p.s (I quite like Takumars as well, but the cameras are noisy)
 
"Leica Glow?"

"Leica Glow?"

Well, I shoot with an Elmar or a Summaron (among others). Which one was this shot with?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom