Some tests: Zeiss vs. Leica

Yeah, richard, I think we are all well aware of this problem with the notion of best. When I was talking about it, I meant from a standpoint of providing the most technically faithful rendering of the scene. The traditional notion...most accurate colors, highest resolution, least distortion and so forth. Of course there are times when you don't want a lens with these characteristics (the whole reason Holgas are popular), but all else being equal I want the best possible lens in the above sense on my camera, only with the ability to change if I have to. This is just my personal bias, as I shoot a lot of landscapes, cityscapes and general scenes with my leica. If i exclusively shot people, I might be using a summar...

But anyway, I think most of us are aware of the subjectivity of "best".
 
richard_l said:
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
Click to expand...

I meant no offense with my post(s), so if anyone was offended, my apologies. I enjoy shooting photographs with just about anything I can get my hands on, including my two Leica lenses --- just some gentle observations on the subjective perceived "signatures" attributed to various lenses, etc. (and again, if this is offensive, my apologies). By the way, the Elmar that I have is not the 3.5 cm, but a "0"serial numbered nickel 50mm f.3.5 Elmar from the 30's --- from my Grandfather. My Summaron is a 50's LTM model. I enjoy them both very much, and enjoy the handling and quality of Leitz optics very much --- I just wish I could afford to buy more of them... :(
 
I'm curious for those of you comparing the Pre-aspheric Summilux to the Planar, how their imaging differences comport with mine posted in the second half of my original photonet post? Specifically, the near equal of center sharpness performance but the softness and slight color fringing inside the corner of the frame of the Summilux requiring f/5.6 to come close to the Planar, Summicron or Asph. Summilux. These are practically speaking minor points because in normal 3D photograhy they are non-issues and only come up on scrutiny with flat field work or comparison lens tests. One example that comes to my mind was photographing several interesting posted ads on a wall and even stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 there was noticable softness in the mid-field.
 
StuartR said:
But anyway, I think most of us are aware of the subjectivity of "best".
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that, but you'll have to admit that it's still hard to shake the connotations of "best," that it invollves the notion of "most desirable," or something like that. It's a psychological thing, I guess.

Richard
 
I use the older style Summicron 50mm lenses (version 1 and the collapsible) and have recently obtained a war time Zeiss 5cmm/2 in Leica mount. The lens is currently being adjusted by DAG to focus properly. I am looking forward to trying out the old Zeiss lens. If I had the extra money, I would try out a new version aspherical lens, but for the time being, I am enjoying the older style lenses. I also use a 5cm/2 Nikkor and a Canon 50mm/1.8 and 1.2. Great lenses overall.
 
Except from a collecting standpoint I'm curious as to what differences you'd see with between the three normal speed lenses. For overall definition, I'd expect the Summicron to be best followed closely by the Canon and lastly the Nikkor/Sonnar. In terms of contrast though, the Nikkor/Sonnar may be best of the lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom