Marco Peereboom
Member
Hello everybody,
Like more people, i heard about the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. And i allways hear: 'Zeiss-lenses are next to Leitz greath!' I've also read some test-reports, but it's all to technicall for me: I still didn't get an image of the lens-performance. Are the Zeiss Ikon lenses near the softness of the Leitz pre-Asph lenses? Or more near the sharprness of nowadays Leitz Asph lenses? Somewhere between, or something different from all this?
So who can tip me name's of photographers (or photobooks), who're working with Zeiss lenses (Hasselblad, Rollei)?
Note: Maby the Zeiss Ikon lens performance will be a little different, from those SLR-lenses for Hasselblad-, and Rollei. But at least it will give an image.
Like more people, i heard about the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. And i allways hear: 'Zeiss-lenses are next to Leitz greath!' I've also read some test-reports, but it's all to technicall for me: I still didn't get an image of the lens-performance. Are the Zeiss Ikon lenses near the softness of the Leitz pre-Asph lenses? Or more near the sharprness of nowadays Leitz Asph lenses? Somewhere between, or something different from all this?
So who can tip me name's of photographers (or photobooks), who're working with Zeiss lenses (Hasselblad, Rollei)?
Note: Maby the Zeiss Ikon lens performance will be a little different, from those SLR-lenses for Hasselblad-, and Rollei. But at least it will give an image.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
Marco,
There's quite a few photographers on the net that use Zeiss lenses with Hasselblads and Contax MF's and the like.
So the obvious choice to go check out pic's is Hasselblad.com (it'll redirect). There's a quite a few photographers featured there.
Another photographer that I can think of off the top of my head is http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/
I could be wholly wrong, but I assume the new ZI lenses are somewhat similar in design to the contax G lenses....at least in the context that they are rangefinder rather than slr lenses. Check out ContaxG.com or do a google search for the G's.
Don't forget that Zeiss outfitted Contax MF for years....do some searches in that regard. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the guy that runs luminous landscape uses both Canon digital, as well as Contax MF (with and without digital backs)
It might do to do some searches on the Zeiss Biogon...in a few different designs and applications, it's been used to some great success with the Hassy SWC, etc. As well as more recently with the new Alpa. (I'm not 100% sure that it's characteristics will apply to the ZI, but it isn't a retrofocus design, so....)
So the most important thing to do is to preferablly look for ZI lenses that don't have a retrofocus design (to be used with SLR's and their mirrors)
The chick at Photoethnography.com (org?) has a couple of ZI lenses, namely the 35 and the 50 I think...she's posted some good "street" shots of same.
I'm sure soon enough as the East Coast of the 'States wakes up, you'll be flooded with good places to go.
Oh, and don't forget to search at Photo.net.
Cheers
p.s. There's a lot of people who SWEAR by Zeiss lenses...they are usually every bit as good as Leica, and to call one better than the other is usually like saying a fine Pinot Noir is better than a Barollo....they are simply different. From what I understand, in recent times Zeiss has optomized itself for color, Leica for resolution and contrast, but that doesn't always apply; the recent Contax G 45mm is considered one of the sharpest lenses EVER.
In general, I find that the high end lenses are almost always better than anybody can usually HOPE to need. It's usually only the "lens testers" (more amateur than professional) that bitch and moan about certain lenses.
In my experience, European lenses of modern times tend more towards the contrast and resolution, and Japanese lenses towards the color. A pure photographer's wet dream would be ONE universal camera that could fit all manufacturer's lenses, to use the lenses like some painters use brushes, or paints.
The only camera I can think of that is not large format (those guys know how to paint with light!) that can accept several manufacturer's lenses is the Alpa, which is after all a large format camera that uses MF film. And then of course, there's the Leica M mount....
There's quite a few photographers on the net that use Zeiss lenses with Hasselblads and Contax MF's and the like.
So the obvious choice to go check out pic's is Hasselblad.com (it'll redirect). There's a quite a few photographers featured there.
Another photographer that I can think of off the top of my head is http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/
I could be wholly wrong, but I assume the new ZI lenses are somewhat similar in design to the contax G lenses....at least in the context that they are rangefinder rather than slr lenses. Check out ContaxG.com or do a google search for the G's.
Don't forget that Zeiss outfitted Contax MF for years....do some searches in that regard. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the guy that runs luminous landscape uses both Canon digital, as well as Contax MF (with and without digital backs)
It might do to do some searches on the Zeiss Biogon...in a few different designs and applications, it's been used to some great success with the Hassy SWC, etc. As well as more recently with the new Alpa. (I'm not 100% sure that it's characteristics will apply to the ZI, but it isn't a retrofocus design, so....)
So the most important thing to do is to preferablly look for ZI lenses that don't have a retrofocus design (to be used with SLR's and their mirrors)
The chick at Photoethnography.com (org?) has a couple of ZI lenses, namely the 35 and the 50 I think...she's posted some good "street" shots of same.
I'm sure soon enough as the East Coast of the 'States wakes up, you'll be flooded with good places to go.
Oh, and don't forget to search at Photo.net.
Cheers
p.s. There's a lot of people who SWEAR by Zeiss lenses...they are usually every bit as good as Leica, and to call one better than the other is usually like saying a fine Pinot Noir is better than a Barollo....they are simply different. From what I understand, in recent times Zeiss has optomized itself for color, Leica for resolution and contrast, but that doesn't always apply; the recent Contax G 45mm is considered one of the sharpest lenses EVER.
In general, I find that the high end lenses are almost always better than anybody can usually HOPE to need. It's usually only the "lens testers" (more amateur than professional) that bitch and moan about certain lenses.
In my experience, European lenses of modern times tend more towards the contrast and resolution, and Japanese lenses towards the color. A pure photographer's wet dream would be ONE universal camera that could fit all manufacturer's lenses, to use the lenses like some painters use brushes, or paints.
The only camera I can think of that is not large format (those guys know how to paint with light!) that can accept several manufacturer's lenses is the Alpa, which is after all a large format camera that uses MF film. And then of course, there's the Leica M mount....
ronnie_retro
Established
Howdy, here's my $.02 -
I purchased the Zeiss 35mm F/2 a few months ago and use a Bessa R-2A to drive it. I shoot slides - Provia 100 is my current favorite- and I found the lens superb at the f stops I use, which is mostly around f/4, the optimum for this lens. I have a shot from last summer of a walking stick on my screen door where its legs taper to an impossibly fine point - it's hard to believe the lens can capture such detail, but it did. (I'll try to get some of these shots posted soon - been way too busy last few months). Just as importantly, there is a "something" about the images which is hard to describe that makes them appear very solid; color saturation and contrast maybe? Even Erwin Puts, who is associated with Leica, found the performance of this lens at f/4 and above beyond reproach. Looking at the MTF graphs for the Zeiss 25mm I'd expect performance even better.
Bear in mind a couple of things:
1) What f-stop do you shoot at? F/2? If you mostly shoot wide open, maybe the Leica glass has the edge - but consider this:
2). Most people probably shoot wide open in very low light with the attendant slow shutter speeds. Camera shake comes in to play here big time and ruins the MTF of the even the best lens. Personally, I'd be quite surprised if anyone could see a resolution difference between a Zeiss and Leica lens at 1/30th or slower.
3). The Zeiss 35mm f/2 is considered to have outstanding corner sharpness - probably better than the Leica's.
I'll try to get some pics taken with this lens uploaded within a couple of weeks. But I doubt that you can really see what you are looking for from a computer image.
Hope this helps some.
I purchased the Zeiss 35mm F/2 a few months ago and use a Bessa R-2A to drive it. I shoot slides - Provia 100 is my current favorite- and I found the lens superb at the f stops I use, which is mostly around f/4, the optimum for this lens. I have a shot from last summer of a walking stick on my screen door where its legs taper to an impossibly fine point - it's hard to believe the lens can capture such detail, but it did. (I'll try to get some of these shots posted soon - been way too busy last few months). Just as importantly, there is a "something" about the images which is hard to describe that makes them appear very solid; color saturation and contrast maybe? Even Erwin Puts, who is associated with Leica, found the performance of this lens at f/4 and above beyond reproach. Looking at the MTF graphs for the Zeiss 25mm I'd expect performance even better.
Bear in mind a couple of things:
1) What f-stop do you shoot at? F/2? If you mostly shoot wide open, maybe the Leica glass has the edge - but consider this:
2). Most people probably shoot wide open in very low light with the attendant slow shutter speeds. Camera shake comes in to play here big time and ruins the MTF of the even the best lens. Personally, I'd be quite surprised if anyone could see a resolution difference between a Zeiss and Leica lens at 1/30th or slower.
3). The Zeiss 35mm f/2 is considered to have outstanding corner sharpness - probably better than the Leica's.
I'll try to get some pics taken with this lens uploaded within a couple of weeks. But I doubt that you can really see what you are looking for from a computer image.
Hope this helps some.
Marco Peereboom
Member
1) I use my Nikon FM2 for low light conditons. Mostly i use f2, f2,8.
3) Well, i'm in love with the pre-Asph lenses from Leica. There is that softness that i love. So when you say the Zeiss lenses are even more sharper, it might not be an good choice for me. And of course i was hoping, Zeiss did even have an sort like 'softness;.
But there is one thing i'm still interested in. That's this: At Zeiss Ikon - Camera specs i read:
So also Leica M lenses...!!
But so pitty: There is no frame for the 75 mm (*)...
But thanks so far, bobofish, ronnie_retro.
Greetz from Holland, Marco
(*) And it isn't there even for 90mm, 135mm.
3) Well, i'm in love with the pre-Asph lenses from Leica. There is that softness that i love. So when you say the Zeiss lenses are even more sharper, it might not be an good choice for me. And of course i was hoping, Zeiss did even have an sort like 'softness;.
But there is one thing i'm still interested in. That's this: At Zeiss Ikon - Camera specs i read:
So also Leica M lenses...!!
But so pitty: There is no frame for the 75 mm (*)...
But thanks so far, bobofish, ronnie_retro.
Greetz from Holland, Marco
(*) And it isn't there even for 90mm, 135mm.
CJP6008
Established
Have a look at what Erwin Puts has to say - http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c017.html
As he says, and I am sure he is right, at this level of lens design they are all excellent. It comes down more to how a particular lens draws the image. A question of design philosophy, of how the designer thinks things should look. Zeiss and Leica have, it appears, ploughed slightly different furrows in this regard. Whose you prefer is a matter of personal choice.
I am not sure that there is a whole lot of point looking for images on the 'net as the performace of these things will not really show at 72dpi on your screen - the same can also be said of images accompanying mazagine test reports.
If you want soft lenses, try on old Vivitar zoom from the '70s! You are unlikely to fomd any modern lenses that are soft (although mamiya do make a specially soft lens for the RB/RZ and I have seen a canon "soft" lens, somewhere around 100-135mm if I recall.)
As he says, and I am sure he is right, at this level of lens design they are all excellent. It comes down more to how a particular lens draws the image. A question of design philosophy, of how the designer thinks things should look. Zeiss and Leica have, it appears, ploughed slightly different furrows in this regard. Whose you prefer is a matter of personal choice.
I am not sure that there is a whole lot of point looking for images on the 'net as the performace of these things will not really show at 72dpi on your screen - the same can also be said of images accompanying mazagine test reports.
If you want soft lenses, try on old Vivitar zoom from the '70s! You are unlikely to fomd any modern lenses that are soft (although mamiya do make a specially soft lens for the RB/RZ and I have seen a canon "soft" lens, somewhere around 100-135mm if I recall.)
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
I forgot to add a friend of mine who shoots Hasselblad (both Zeiss as well as the Xpan, which as most know is not Zeiss, but rather Fuji through and through)
http://www.shaunjarvis.com/
Anything that is "square" is Zeiss, the pano shots are obviously the Xpan
To refer to your comments a bit, Marco (I could after all be totally wrong, these are my opinions after all) I wonder a bit about your comments on Leica's "softness."
I think I know exactly what you mean, that there is some almost undefinable softness to Leica images...some people call it glow, some people call it "that which comes from a cow's back end." Personally, I think it is a special softness, and something which I treasure in the photographs of Sieffe and the like.
What I've noticed when I looked closely was that it wasn't an ACTUAL softness, but some kind of a biting sharpness that seemed 3-dimensional.
Zeiss lenses have this as well I think, and that's one of the reasons I've always lusted for a Hasselblad or a Contax. Schneider's have this too to some extent, but it's different. Rodenstock and Angenieux have that too, but alas, their lenses are very hard to find for the right cameras.
Remember in my earlier post, I babbled on and on about how German (I would say European, but that would only really include Angenieux and Cooke these days, it seems) lenses seemed to aim for contrast, rather than the Japanese way of vivid color.
Looking at Canon and Nikon lenses for example, it's hard not to notice the blues and reds, but the German lenses seem to render black and white so beautifully...I think that might possibly be one of the reasons why German lenses make so much better black and whites...the contrast.
It seems a paradox to me that European lenses would aim for contrast, and Japanese for color....I would think it would be the other way around.
I hope I'm not hijacking your thread...if I am, please, everybody just forget what you just read, and ignore my words, I won't be offended.
Cheers
http://www.shaunjarvis.com/
Anything that is "square" is Zeiss, the pano shots are obviously the Xpan
To refer to your comments a bit, Marco (I could after all be totally wrong, these are my opinions after all) I wonder a bit about your comments on Leica's "softness."
I think I know exactly what you mean, that there is some almost undefinable softness to Leica images...some people call it glow, some people call it "that which comes from a cow's back end." Personally, I think it is a special softness, and something which I treasure in the photographs of Sieffe and the like.
What I've noticed when I looked closely was that it wasn't an ACTUAL softness, but some kind of a biting sharpness that seemed 3-dimensional.
Zeiss lenses have this as well I think, and that's one of the reasons I've always lusted for a Hasselblad or a Contax. Schneider's have this too to some extent, but it's different. Rodenstock and Angenieux have that too, but alas, their lenses are very hard to find for the right cameras.
Remember in my earlier post, I babbled on and on about how German (I would say European, but that would only really include Angenieux and Cooke these days, it seems) lenses seemed to aim for contrast, rather than the Japanese way of vivid color.
Looking at Canon and Nikon lenses for example, it's hard not to notice the blues and reds, but the German lenses seem to render black and white so beautifully...I think that might possibly be one of the reasons why German lenses make so much better black and whites...the contrast.
It seems a paradox to me that European lenses would aim for contrast, and Japanese for color....I would think it would be the other way around.
I hope I'm not hijacking your thread...if I am, please, everybody just forget what you just read, and ignore my words, I won't be offended.
Cheers
ZeissFan
Veteran
Marco Peereboom said:But so pity: There is no frame for the 75 mm (*)...
For better or for worse, the frame lines are matched to the Zeiss lens lineup -- reading the comments on the Leica board on pnet today, I doubt this will mean much for the hardcore Leica crowd. As far they are concerned, this camera is junk.
jaap
Jaap
I use the contax G leneses 21;28;35;45;90. I can say they are the best you can buy. Optical they are superieur on anything else on the market today. Leica is coming in the neigberhought with the ASP. series. Further i use a contax RX with a distagon 35mm F1.4 (ASP. element!!!! althoug the design is some years old). and a 50mm and a 85mm both 1.4 The distagon 35mm f1.4 is the best 35mm I ever used and believe me i used a lot and seen a lot of results with other lenses.
That a zeiss lens is better priced than a leica does not mean that the leica's are better. It's just that zeiss is more smart in productian and logistics.
Ofcourse this i mine humble opion. The zeiss ikon lenses are a compromise in comparison with the G series. The zies ikon have to be prepared for future digital camera's.
That a zeiss lens is better priced than a leica does not mean that the leica's are better. It's just that zeiss is more smart in productian and logistics.
Ofcourse this i mine humble opion. The zeiss ikon lenses are a compromise in comparison with the G series. The zies ikon have to be prepared for future digital camera's.
Ultimage sharpness of a modern lens is certainly beyond the usual computer screen's ability to show... And I agree with you that we can reasonably stipulate that any high-quality modern lens is plenty sharp. But other aspects of a lens's character are visible online, so uploaded samples can help us get a feel for what a lens is like. Microcontrasts, flare, corner fall-off, and the way out of focus areas are rendered, for instance.CJP6008 said:
"Soft" in relating to lenses is often taken to mean "unsharp." I suspect Marco means a soft kind of sharpness, by opposition with that "wire-hard" sharpness offered by some lenses that can be useful but may also be a bit unpleasant. Pehaps "gentle" might be a better term than "soft"?
One fine recent lens that has been tarred with the "soft" label where "gentle" would be more descriptive, is the Voigtlander Skopar 50mm f/2.5, and I'll guess it hasn't sold as well in the West as well as it might, due to that. I understand this is the one most popular CV lens in the Japan market, though!
One other consideration in Zeiss vs Leica lenses for M-mount is that Leica offers faster lenses for 28mm and longer focal lengths than does Zeiss.
CJP6008
Established
Doug, i take your point re the online viewing thing - if you have nothing else it is better than nowt.
I suspected Marco might be meaning gentle - I am not a leica owner so am in no position to comment, but from what one reads from test reports leitz lenses seem to have the reputation for being very sharp, very good spatial separation etc. As I write this I am conscious of the ridiculousness of my even entering the debate. A bit like two blokes in a pub heatedly discussing the merits of a Ferrari Testarossa v a Lambourgini or something, neither man ever having seen, let aloan driven either car. You know the sort of debate, like "yes but an F15 will always beat a MIG 25...", or "in a fight between a rat and a squirrel..." Isn't beer a wonderful thing.
Perhaps we should all promise to consume beer while arguing about the merits of lenses with 4 figure price tags that we will never own or use..."yeah, but in a shoot out between a Summicron and a Summilux..."
Mine's a pint!
I suspected Marco might be meaning gentle - I am not a leica owner so am in no position to comment, but from what one reads from test reports leitz lenses seem to have the reputation for being very sharp, very good spatial separation etc. As I write this I am conscious of the ridiculousness of my even entering the debate. A bit like two blokes in a pub heatedly discussing the merits of a Ferrari Testarossa v a Lambourgini or something, neither man ever having seen, let aloan driven either car. You know the sort of debate, like "yes but an F15 will always beat a MIG 25...", or "in a fight between a rat and a squirrel..." Isn't beer a wonderful thing.
Perhaps we should all promise to consume beer while arguing about the merits of lenses with 4 figure price tags that we will never own or use..."yeah, but in a shoot out between a Summicron and a Summilux..."
Mine's a pint!
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
They've got a new Ikon bashing thread over at peanut, and they also threw in some R2A and R3A bashing for good measure. :bang:
aizan
Veteran
i know luc delahaye used a contax g2 and 35/2 for his book "winterreise"
Agreed, far from an ideal view; I had it in mind to add earlier that a good print or slide can show a lot more of this characterCJP6008 said:
Sounds fair! I'm laboring under a different limitation, as if having access to the above cars but with a numb "seat of the pants"... unable to fully appreciate the driving quality.
I have a set of great Zeiss lenses for my Contax G2, and a few Leica lenses for my ancient M2, most recently an exquisite 28mm f/2 Summicron Asph. I can see differences in the results, but would not reliably be able to pick out from a pile of prints which were shot by what lens (speaking beyond these two systems). Well, possibly by their bokeh signatures, which seems to be the character aspect I sense most reliably.
This could be due to printing very little, while viewing photos mostly from the scans, where differences in bokeh are pretty easy to see. I need to be better educated visually to detect other more subtle distinctions. More print viewing?
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
Ha! I heard Delehaye shot that with a Leica!
Maybe he tells different people different things, so that they will all like him?
But seriously though, I'm right and you're wrong. It was a Leica. Ha Ha
Maybe he tells different people different things, so that they will all like him?
But seriously though, I'm right and you're wrong. It was a Leica. Ha Ha
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
Haha, I think that my Zeiss 45mm/F2 is the best lens I have; better than my 2 Leica M lenses.
Marco Peereboom
Member
Doug said:
Yes, 'gentle' is an good term. I always have the William Albert Allard - images for my eyes. I love his gentle style/mood.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
"boris chan" says contax. trevor hare says leica. "boris chan" is a working pj. trevor is a hobbyist who takes pictures of his church.
peter_n
Veteran
Pretty good pictures though...
V
vizioneer
Guest
Trevor Hare pretty much uses a D70. And the Ikon bashing was resoundingly flamed by the Leicaphiles over there.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
I finally found another photographer's photos...He's not a pro, but some of his shots are really cool.
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=579323
The one with the two bronze men is one of my favorites...perhaps because I'm a sculptor, but it's got a great look, and to me shows some of the Zeiss qualities.
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=579323
The one with the two bronze men is one of my favorites...perhaps because I'm a sculptor, but it's got a great look, and to me shows some of the Zeiss qualities.