Some tests: Zeiss vs. Leica

John I also like the "look" of my Leica lenses and there's nothing wrong with that. I also like the "look" of my Jupiter-8. I think the types who get up peoples' noses (mine too, to be honest) are the folk who won't hear of any other brand. Its really quite childish. The picture is the thing, not the damn camera.

 
There is certainly nothing wrong with owning a Leica (I really would love one!), it's just that SOME Leica owners not only belittle every other camera, many actively try to discredit all opposition!

I'm glad to hear that this site has few Leica Nazis and many camera enthusiasts who just love cameras! It is quite a rare thing judging by my recent experiences whilst trying to find out more about the new Zeiss Ikon!

So forgive me if I misjudged you all...it's just that the first thread I read was one comparing Zeiss and Leica lenses and I just thought, "here we go again"!
 
Lens testing is great as far as it goes but I'm sure I'm not alone in saying a person always tends towards justifying his own prejudices however small. Basically you get what you pay for but there is a law of diminishing returns -that last 1/2 stop or 2% of quality costs £1000's.

As for Leica snobs when they put a camera around their necks its just jewellery -so don't worry about it
 
Toby said:
As for Leica snobs when they put a camera around their necks its just jewellery -so don't worry about it
Click to expand...
True for snobs of any stripe, but I'm sure you're not saying that Leica owners are all/mostly snobs and use their Leica as jewelry. :) People can attach their egos to their possessions too many ways...

While I'm generally most pleased to have and use stuff of high quality, I'm put off by any gushing over it by others! One time in the 80's for instance I walked into a camera shop to look for a bag while my Minolta CLE was around my neck. The clerck came rushing over and jabbered with excitement over the camera. I changed the subject instantly to the bags on display, and I do still wonder if I were rudely abrupt in doing so! About 10 years before I got that gushing all the time while gassing up my Honda CB750... "how fast will it go?"... 4-cyl bikes were new and exotic then, but I was more interested in riding than spinning impressive stories about it.

So while I may buy a Zeiss-Ikon RF, it'll not be for the status of the name, but because of what that name means in terms of inner qualities.
 
Last edited:
Judging by some of the responses I wonder if I've by posting some comparison shots if I've struck a nerve in a few of the respondants. My purpose was not to put down Zeiss ZM but to point out some interesting performance differences. I threw in the Sonnar because even recently I've seen posts inquiring about this lens and lets face it, with the intoduction of the ZM lines there's plenty of posts inquiring about ZM lenses and how they perform. Since the ZM body has yet to be released to the public or press for extended review naturally a lot of questions abound about the body and lenses. My post was certainly not meant to be a full resolution test on the lens (although I could have posted multiple scans of each tested aperture) but to give a brief comparison to other popular or coveted lenses in the M of the normal focal length range. I suppose some people assume if a lens is compared to a Leica it's automatically considered a put down. I was simply offering a comparison with actual posting of image differences to illustrate what I detected as near equal performance with the only difference possibly due to an optomechanical approach in lens design, not an inherently bad optic.
 
Notice that the "some of the responses" come from known trolls or rather new infusions. I don't think that you need to apologize for their behaviour, Alan.
 
l.mar said:
Well, I shoot with an Elmar or a Summaron (among others). Which one was this shot with?
Click to expand...

... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam. :eek:


A nice lens review awilder! Now, if I only had the funds to by both
lenses... :(
 
Last edited:
l.mar said:
... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam. :eek:


A nice lens review awilder! Now, if I only had the funds to by both
lenses... :(
Click to expand...

So much for that Leica glow.

Bob
 
awilder said:
Judging by some of the responses I wonder if I've by posting some comparison shots if I've struck a nerve in a few of the respondants. My purpose was not to put down Zeiss ZM but to point out some interesting performance differences. I threw in the Sonnar because even recently I've seen posts inquiring about this lens and lets face it, with the intoduction of the ZM lines there's plenty of posts inquiring about ZM lenses and how they perform. Since the ZM body has yet to be released to the public or press for extended review naturally a lot of questions abound about the body and lenses. My post was certainly not meant to be a full resolution test on the lens (although I could have posted multiple scans of each tested aperture) but to give a brief comparison to other popular or coveted lenses in the M of the normal focal length range. I suppose some people assume if a lens is compared to a Leica it's automatically considered a put down. I was simply offering a comparison with actual posting of image differences to illustrate what I detected as near equal performance with the only difference possibly due to an optomechanical approach in lens design, not an inherently bad optic.
Click to expand...

Your post was much appreciated, AW.

Cheers,
Huck
 
l.mar said:
... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam. :eek:


A nice lens review awilder! Now, if I only had the funds to by both
lenses... :(
Click to expand...
And believe it or not, I chose the Elmar because at wide apertures (which your shot appeared to be) the 35mm Elmar is not a very good performer. In particular, the out of focus areas in your photo are rougher than I would expect from the Summaron. Thanks for a misleading question. :rolleyes: I don't think you proved anything, however, because after viewing lots of photos taken with the 35mm Elmar, I am not at all fond of that lens. Sorry.

Richard
 
awilder said:
Judging by some of the responses I wonder if I've by posting some comparison shots if I've struck a nerve in a few of the respondants. My purpose was not to put down Zeiss ZM but to point out some interesting performance differences. I threw in the Sonnar because even recently I've seen posts inquiring about this lens and lets face it, with the intoduction of the ZM lines there's plenty of posts inquiring about ZM lenses and how they perform. Since the ZM body has yet to be released to the public or press for extended review naturally a lot of questions abound about the body and lenses. My post was certainly not meant to be a full resolution test on the lens (although I could have posted multiple scans of each tested aperture) but to give a brief comparison to other popular or coveted lenses in the M of the normal focal length range. I suppose some people assume if a lens is compared to a Leica it's automatically considered a put down. I was simply offering a comparison with actual posting of image differences to illustrate what I detected as near equal performance with the only difference possibly due to an optomechanical approach in lens design, not an inherently bad optic.
Click to expand...
Well, not having yet posted, I'd say you have not struck a nerve, but merely first at any nerve/synaps curious to have a look and compare: thanks.

I just received developed film from my "tests" of the ZI Planar, with a few similar shots made both with it and my Summilux. I am truely stunned by the Planar. See, I like the Summilux and have so for 12 years using it... and then came the CV lenses, first the 4/25, then 1,4/40 SC and 2,5/75... wow, great glass these CVs are! But nothing could get the image my--similarly 12 year old--35 Summicron can. The first impression confirms I ought to sell/trade the Summilux, despite the slight speed advantage over the Planar... I'll be mulling this over in the next weeks. I'll also attempt to get some scans of the Planar's best moments(thus far) up for your review(Please note that I am not an LPM/resolution shooter, so my images will not approach the finer objectivity presented by awilder).

My take, in words, the Summilux and Planar are of a different sort and not worse or better between them. "Bird in hand," I do not need to sell the Summilux, but between them, I'd choose the ZI Planar as a keeper... I realize these are very personal, non-scientific, and first impressions, but the Planar just fits more closely to what I want seen... hmm, somehting in my gut tells me "Hang on there fella, don't do something stoopid!"... high-class problems... there's a LOT of great glass out there!

rgds,
Dave
 
Hey Dave -- I think he was actually testing the summilux ASPH, the improved version of the summilux you own. I am not surprised to hear that the planar is better than the previous summilux. After all, the 50 summicron has outperformed the 50 summilux for the past 50 years. The 50 summilux ASPH is a different beast, and most who have used it regard it as the best 50mm lens they have ever used. But anyway, they are all great...it is just shades of great.
 
Let's just always remember what everyone knows anyhow, that the "best" is never determined only by bench testing but by the images which are most pleasing to your (the photographer's) eyes. Sometimes a lens may excel at both, but often it is exclusive to one or the other.

I know it is fashionable to make fun of the "bokeh" concept. (I do so myself.) However, whether or not one recognizes it, bokeh can make or break a photo. If, for example, ugly out of focus areas are a distraction from an otherwise excellently photographed subject, then the photo can be unpleasant. (Usually it is just an overall impression of unpleasantness, not something specific.) However, as far as I know, there is no way to measure this in a bench test.

Then there's the "look." Sometimes this is mainly the bokeh, sometimes it is something else. I happen to like the "look" of certain Leica lenses, such as the 35mm/2.8 Summaron. It is pointless to show me that a 35mm Summicron (or Canon or VC or whatever) is demonstrably better. I realy do prefer the Summaron, and even if the Summicron were affordable, I doubt that I would waver in my opinion.

And so on and so on it goes. It's really boring to talk about it, so I apologize for treading over all-too-familiar turf.

Richard
 
Oh yes, let me hasten to add that the 40mm Zeiss Tessar in my German-made Rollei 35 (bought new around 1969 or 1970) was the "best" general purpose lens I have ever used (in spite of a little distortion at the edges and a little light falloff at the corners).

A very close second was the 40mm Summarit (in some ways superior to the Tessar) in the Leica Minilux.

I had to sell the Rollei :bang: , and the Minilux was stolen by a burglar :mad: .

Richard
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom