ZM 21 vs Leica 21

@Turtle

I've made comparisons myself. Of course the Cosina (Zeiss) aren't bad lenses, they're quite simple constructions and still pretty expensive. What do you expect? A difference like Leica vs. 200€-Tamron? If this small difference in picture quality and the quite noticeable difference in build quality is enough for you to pay the Leica-price is your decision.
But it is extremely important to mention these differences, or otherwise high-end-lenses with highest production standards and innovation will be gone forever! I've seen the production of Leica - these products are so expensive because every tolerance, every single piece of metal/glass has to fulfill highest standards that cannot be reached with mass-production.

Carl Zeiss has the most advanced production technology, the best facilities in the world with highest efficiency but they still cost about the same as the Leica-lenses. It's the same with Schneider-Kreuznach or other High-End-manufactures.
Don't mix up the Zeiss-brand with real Zeiss-products!

When we deny this quality, only mediocre technology will survive and we will face cheaper and cheaper products (production costs! - the list price will increase!) with every new generation (like in the Hifi-world).
Appreciate these qualities, even if you don't need them.

Mr. Puts was one of the most detailed reviewers for lenses, he wrote some nice books about optics but then he was fired by Leica. Then he released absolutely hilarious reviews (digital JPG-comparisons, DMR with Canon Rebel-quality, comparison of b/w-digital/fim in prints...). Mr. Puts is not a trustfully source (anymore?).

Apologize my English
 
Last edited:
Why was Puts fired by Leica?
It seems to me that he's a strange fellow to say the least. I can understand someone being realy "into" optics and small details, but none of his tests are really of any practical relevance. I'm not a subscriber to Reid Reviews but from what I hear his reviews tackle lens and camera design from a more practical standpoint.
But, at the end of the day, who cares about reviews?
You wouldn't bother using an old IIIf if you were that anal about optics and perfection.
Tim
 
TJV said:
I'm not a subscriber to Reid Reviews but from what I hear his reviews tackle lens and camera design from a more practical standpoint.
Tim
Click to expand...

I certainly try to. <G>

Cheers,
 
The Zeiss and the Leica are perhaps similar in sharpness, resolution and MTF charts.....but the pictures taken with both lenses do not look the same (especially not if people are in the scene). The Leica has significant lower contrast to begin with (which i consider a pre) ......
I am not saying one is better than the other but i owned the Zeiss but prefer the Leica Elmarit i own now ........ it might well be others prefer the Zeiss or can't justify the price difference and that's ok..... it just is not true the lenses are identical ....
 
georgl said:
@Turtle

I've made comparisons myself. Of course the Cosina (Zeiss) aren't bad lenses, they're quite simple constructions and still pretty expensive. What do you expect? A difference like Leica vs. 200€-Tamron? If this small difference in picture quality and the quite noticeable difference in build quality is enough for you to pay the Leica-price is your decision.
But it is extremely important to mention these differences, or otherwise high-end-lenses with highest production standards and innovation will be gone forever! I've seen the production of Leica - these products are so expensive because every tolerance, of piece of metal has to fulfill highest standards that cannot be reached with mass-production.

Carl Zeiss has the most advanced production technology, the best facilities in the world with highest efficiency but they still cost about the same as the Leica-lenses. It's the same with Schneider-Kreuznach or other High-End-manufactures.
Don't mix up the Zeiss-brand with real Zeiss-products!

When we deny this quality, only mediocre technology will survive and we will face cheaper and cheaper products (production costs! - the list price will increase!) with every new generation (like in the Hifi-world).
Appreciate these qualities, even if you don't need them.

Mr. Puts was one of the most detailed reviewers for lenses, he wrote some nice books about optics but then he was fired by Leica. Then he released absolutely hilarious reviews (digital JPG-comparisons, DMR with Canon Rebel-quality, comparison of b/w-digital/fim in prints...). Mr. Puts is not a trustfully source (anymore?).

Apologize my English
Click to expand...


Georgl,

I do not agree. There are lots of credible people on this forum (ignoring reviewers at this stage) who also feel the Zeiss lenses hit the mark and $ for $ are streets ahead of Leica.

I am fully aware of the fact that Cosina make most of the Zeiss lenses. This huge efficiency saving of mass production allows for a huge reduction in price. Arguably because designs are simpler in some cases (less asymmetric design) they should be simpler to make. Often simple things can perform exceedingly well if designed just right....simplicity and poor performance are not synonymous. Quaint production techniques using elves inn caves is no assurance of quality at all. It surely is a guarantee of high production costs. Granted it often does bring high quality, but I am sure if you ask about you will find a lot of poeple who complain of faults with Leica products that the elves seemingly overlooked.....Don't get me wrong I love Leica good, but think your view on design and production rather simplistic. (Which is the more reliable car with fewer faults; a Toyota Corolla or Aston Martin DB7...........). Your comments about mass production and tolerances are untrue. Leica only just started using CNC machinery for goodness sake! I guess they spent a hundred man hours shaping something a computer could cut out more accurately in 1 minute....I agree that this hand finished touch adds quaintness and sometimes quality, but if the company using the CNC machinery has a heck of a lot of man hours in reserve to do the tweaking....

BTW I own many brands of LF lens (including Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikkor, Fuji of vintages including the lates models) and am still sure that my Nikkor SW 90 F8 is still not bettered by any other lens I own :D

I do sincerely hope that the very best hand made products continue to exist not only because of the quality, but because of the importance to me of having things with some of that 'human touch'. For each of us the balance if different, but do not confuse this 'feel' with actual build quality and actual performance.

If human beings were the essential ingredient in operating skill, decision making etc why do the best fighter planes operate on a fly by wire basis with powerful computers keeping teh plane in the sky (because a human could not make the decisions accuarately and quickly enough) ? Why did/do Formula 1 cars have computers assisting with so many parts of the driving process?

Leica lenses are truly superb, but Zeiss lenses offer most to all of what Leica lenses offer (depending on model) for far lower cost precisely because the designs are superb, relatively easily produced and followed by very cost efficient mass production (bringing per unit cost down because the production run is large enough to swallow R&D costs better).Your argument suggests that a man with a file and a hacksaw is always better to a million dollar machine which works to astounding tolerances, paid for by a large production run!

If your arguments held true, the latest 28 Elmarit M (newish lens) should trounce the 25 f2.8 Biogon.....Does it?

Why are Ferraris relatively unreliable compared to Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans? (they used to be awful)

I know of one professional on this site who has used Leica for 30+ years who feels that Zeiss (Cosina Manufactured) lenses are as good as Leic and is getting rid of his Leica lenses due to an actual preference of the Zeiss regardless of cost!
 
J. Borger said:
The Zeiss and the Leica are perhaps similar in sharpness, resolution and MTF charts.....but the pictures taken with both lenses do not look the same (especially not if people are in the scene). The Leica has significant lower contrast to begin with (which i consider a pre) ......
I am not saying one is better than the other but i owned the Zeiss but prefer the Leica Elmarit i own now ........ it might well be others prefer the Zeiss or can't justify the price difference and that's ok..... it just is not true the lenses are identical ....
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. The paper performance is essentially the same, but personal preference in terms of the desired 'look' will likely determine one's choice.
 
@Turtle
It's getting tough for me, can we continue this discussion in german? Just kidding ;-) I'll try it:

Quality is a complex thing, it isn't about testing, about management, about reliability alone. Mass-producers with a more automatized production have a different "quality" and different issues to deal with. Due to hand assemblation Leica has a even higher failure rate than many mediocre mass-products, because humans make failures, because they always push tolerances as far as possible, because mass-producers "just" need to assure a proper adjustment for their machines and than get 100000 flawless products or they get 100000 products with the same flaw...
When you buy 1000 Patek Philippe-watches and 1000 Casios, I bet more Pateks will have malfunctions out-of-the-box - is this quality? Let's ask 30 years later....

Leica's or Zeiss aren't really handmade. They're assembled by hand, a few things (black paint on the sides of the lenses or painting the engraving) are really made by hand - they try to automatize it, because it has no advantage in quality. The rest has - it is about control and selection:
Have you ever noticed the small number beneath the infinity marking? It shows you the exact focal length ("15" on a 90mm means YOUR lens has 90,15mm). It makes this philosophy visible.
They use (or more specific: their suppliers) the most advanced production technology available - they use CNC-controlled machines since decades! But the tolerances needed are so tight, that they cannot simply assemble every part. They match each part to every other part, they calibrate EVERY lens, the R9 gets assembled and after all work is done, they CNC-mill the film plane to compensate the other tolerances!
Leica and Zeiss were the first to make CNC-turned aspherical lenses! Zeiss even used custom-made aspherics for every TPP 2,8/300!
This makes these products not even more expensive, it also makes them more susceptible to failures - just like a luxury limousine will never be as reliable as a Corolla!

Here are a few Leica-suppliers:
http://www.weller-feinwerktechnik.de/sites/produkte.php - once part of Leitz, they make most of the mechanical parts for the lenses.
http://www.cloessner-gmbh.de/ they make body parts.
http://www.schneider-om.de/ they make the lens-polishing-machines.
www.kern-microtechnic.de they make the most precise CNC-machines available - also used for some Leica-parts.
http://www.optence.de/ this is the cooperation of many fine-mechanical and optic-companys from the area of Wetzlar.

Those are all real specialists, pushing the borders further and further, making stuff for the space industry! But they don't make stuff for the consumer anymore, they want "cheap" and "cool" they can buy in every Wal-Mart. No space for quality anymore - Leica is one of the few products left for the consumer using this know-how!

Zeiss thinks about it: Do we really need real Zeiss-quality for the consumer or do they just want the name? People buying Sony/Nokia with "Zeiss"-lenses - but thinking of the name, they have Carl Zeiss Oberkochen in mind.
That reminds me of people who bought a M-class and expected a Mercedes, just because the name said so...
They didn't want to risk too much with Zeiss Ikon, so they didn't want to make these products themselves. With the 2/85 or the 2,8/15 they had no chance, Cosina was unable to make these lenses, so they're made in Oberkochen - where telescopes, machines that make your microprocessors or cinematography-lenses are made. When people buy Zeiss-branded Cosina, Zeiss won't make any consumer-products anymore - just selling their brand - didn't this happen far too often in the past? The consumer takes responsibility, he decides what is made and how it is made!
When I buy Zeiss I want Zeiss, when I buy Leica I want Leica - nothing else, because I pay for it!
Look at Adidas, once a famous german-company with quality, now cheap **** made for 1-3€ and sold for >100€!
Mercedes, using ~20% cheap-parts just like Toyota, Ford, GM (they even use more of these cheap-parts) else!
Quality goes downhill, prices go up, the shareholder-value is happy (for a few months), million jobs are lost, know-how and innovation is lost, short-lasting products and primitve working-conditions destroying our environment!
Do you know how expensive it is to galvanize the surfaces in Germany? You have to follow extremely strict laws because of the acids or other dangerous chemcials that are used. They could make it a few hundred kilometers east in romania or hungary, where they just can throw the chemicals into the next river! But Leica doesn't, the parts are galvanized in Germany by companys that invested much money into modern facilities.
This is not directly the case with Cosina - because it is in Japan. But it is the same direction, how long will it take until they outsource their production to a place, where they don't have to take care of expensive environmental laws or social components? Nikon, Olympus - (except for Panasonic and Canon) they all already did it.

When I buy a Leica-lens today, I can be sure that Leica has taken care of it. That the image-quality is first grade, that the build quality is up to the highest standards. That when I have a problem, they will solve it - even after decades. This has become so rare in our throw-away mentality, that we have to protect it. I've seen it with Hifi or TVs - first they blamed quality producers to be too pricey, too boring (because they were made by engineers not by marketing people) and then they changed their philosophy (selling cheap stuff under their name) or broke down.
Years later, people complain that their products get worse with every new model... Please give at least high-end in the photography-industry a chance.

I think I said everything and hopefully some people who read it at least think about it carefully, about their responsibility.
Don't worry, I won't bother you with another endless post with grammar and spelling mistakes ;-) again - you don't have to agree - but like I said - think about it.
 
Last edited:
Georgl,

I am not denying the excellence and committment to it that Leica demonstrates. However, I feel the determining factor is what you hold in your hands and how it performs. Opinions vary here, but my Zeiss ZMs really are that good and I am extrmeley happy with them. I recently acquired a 50 ASPH Lux and will see how that performs compared to my 50 ZM planar and of course I gain a stop whatver other differences there may be. When I am back home and with darkroom I will directly compare the two as the Lux is over 4 times the price, so one would expect it to be both faster and better!

I am very glad Leica exists and hope it continues to do so, but am equaly glad that Zeiss coupled with Cosina to produce the ZMs. There are just far too many people who feel that the ZMs are up their with the Leicas for it to be all hot air IMO. We can talk about production, R&D all we like but if when negatives or sensors are exposed to light people say, "Hey this ZM is as good as the Leica equivalent, albeit with a different balance of pros and cons" we have to acknowledge that there is something going on here! Maybe all the ZMs will fall apart in 15 years (like many 35 Cron V4s ;)) but I hope not.

Mercedes cars are not what they used to be because they did not modernise in step with progress, surely, they then have to makde a huge quantum leap from elvish cave manufacture to modern techniques in a short time and fail. I see Leica struggling in a similar way. Lots of ground to cover and not enough time in a difficult market. Some would describe Toyotas as 'cheap' or 'not solid' or 'bottom of the market' I would argue that solid is a car that stands up to crash tests (not one that neccessarily has heavy clunky doors that FEEL solid) and where trim does not fall apart. Reliable as a car which does what it is supposed to do. Some would say the Merc is higher quality. I would say it is lower quality because it will fail more frequently. It may be plush and have more gizmos but this is not what quality is.

You say, when you buy Leica you want 100% Leica. What does this mean? I want the right performance and quality for my money. how the company achieves this is immaterial as long as they deliver. This is why I dont care which brand delivers either.. Brand is irrelevant.

Long live Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Cosina manufactured Zeiss lenses, Hurrah!

The only reason why the 15 distagon and 85 f2 sonnar are produced in Germany is because they are beyond the capability of the Cosina plant due to teh design. Zeiss would have been foolish to have manufactured a lens in germany (such as the 50 planar) which is within the capabilities of the Cosina plant which can make it far cheaper! Brand issues aside, do you really think Cosina would not be able to produce the 50 Summicron to the same standard but far cheaper than Leica. I suspect they would. Looks like Zeiss got their calculations right as there seem to be a lot more ZM lenses being bought than Leica. This economy of scale is not available to Leica and as a result the lenses cost more that they would with a larger scale. The consumer gains nothing, yet pays more. This principle is fundamental. I suspect the fect that ZM lenses are slightly larger has also helped in getting great performance per $. They have conceded some compactness for sure, but suspect this has enabled them to hit optical goals for less money. I am happy with that as anything smaller than the 28 biogon is too small for my hands!
 
Both interesting arguments.
I would like to believe that Leica will open up the new 6bit coding feature on its new lenses and allow uses to manually select an equiivilent lens via the camera menu. Of course, the corrections will never be spot on as some makes vignette more or less, but at least it would be a start. I think this will be especially important when using an IR filter. Of course, I don't actually believe this will happen. I think it's more likely they will incorperate equivilent corrections in the new upgrade in C1, or, God forbid, C1 Pro only. But that would be better than nothing. The M mount will probably disappear if the competition is forced out of the picture. Given the complications involved in making a digi RF it's in everybodies best interest to make sure Leica sell a lot of M8 units to pay back thier R&D team so an M9 can be developed. If Leica deems it too complicated, I can't see Zeiss or anyone else picking up where they left off.
For workflow and general speed, not considering the insane price difference, all things being as they are now, with no sign of FW 1.10, I'd go the Leica 21. If I see a good looking workaround to the current problems, I'll give in and get the Zeiss. Leica have enough of my money anyway. After buying an M6, M7, M8, 50cron, 90 Elmarit, 28 Elmarit, 35lux, 35cron, sf20 all new, even when the above needed fixing or tweaking fresh out of the box, I think Zeiss deserves a chance to impress.
Tim

PS couldn't get hold of Beta version of Lightroom, but maybe that will cure a few lens ills. If I need a 21 for my next adventure, I'll explore conversion software properly then.
 
Last edited:
Turtle,
When you get some images on the 50 Lux can you post them here or better yet on flickr full res along with the Zeiss images? I'd love to see the difference as I believe the 50 lux to be the sharpest and in many ways finest 50mm lens ever made for the 35mm format but I'm also a huge Cosina/Zeiss fan (the 21mm Biogon is an amazing lens- especially when stop it down a click or two).

Cheers,
Ted
 
On Zeiss vs. Leica I'll say this. I am very happy with my one Zeiss lens- the 21mm Biogon. I believe it to be the equal of the current Leica lens in this focal length but I have no first hand knowledge to back this up aside from the images I have shot with this lens and a few reviews that I always take with a grain of salt. Especially ones that show no pictures aside from test shots of resolution wheels or what ever Mr. Putts posts. Just as in High End Audio, it's rare that measurements tell you what a piece of equipment or speaker is going to sound like, and different pieces from different manufacturers ALLWAYS sound VERY DIFFERENT. At the end of the day it's what our pictures look like and not how well the lens takes pictures of the Sunday Times from across the hall. Zeiss lenses are a great value however my three Leica Lenses are much smoother in operation and their images always seem to poses a certain "something." While Zeiss lenses are very good and seem to be nicely machined and shoot very sharp in the Biogon formula- a step up from CV, and a step below Leica, they are significantly less expensive (then Leica.) It is also worth noting that if you want your Zeiss glass to focus and adjust like your Leica lenses just send them off to DAG for a CLA- it adds a hundred dollars or so to each lens but that's cheap if the Leica "feel" is what you want on a budget. Money aside, if I were a rich man I'd have all Leica glass however I must work for a living and do worry about retirement- I can't waste all my money on deprecating assets- and all cameras depreciate when compared to long hold investments. Digital just saves you more then film all things considered; greater depreciation factored against lower shooting costs equals more money in your pocket with digital (but far less then if you put your money in mutual funds or real estate) so you must have a balance relative to your financial situation.

So where does this disjointed post go? Everyone who uses an M8 must decide to what level he or she are willing to invest in glass. For some it may be all used or CV, for others a combination of lenses or perhaps all Leica- you lucky souls! But the bottom line I think is that you need at least one truly exceptional piece of Leica glass- one of the fast ASPH lenses or a Noctilux or perhaps a tele or ultra wide (though I'm not sure if lenses wider then 28mm are Leica's strong suit). For me it's a new 35mm Summilux ASPH (I sold my Noctilux to an RFf member when he got his M8 to finance my Summilux- a lens I'll get more use out of). That's my two cents based on the few images I've shot on my R-D1s and M8 with my 50mm and fourth generation 35mm Summicron lenses (I would have shot them more however 50mm is a little too long for me with the 1.33 crop factor and my 35mm Summicron needs a CLA as it was with me on my sailboat for two years in the North and South Pacific and is a little too stiff in its focus action.) The bottom line- there is something about these images shot through my Leica glass and the way they paint color that is very seductive, rounded, "painted", and yes sharp. I see it on on screen but most certainly it is evident when in print and must be experienced as they are quite unlike anything else I own from CosinaZeiss or CosinaVoightlander.
 
Last edited:
I had the 21/2,8 Asph and the 21/2,8 Biogon and after some time I got rid of the 21/2,8 Asph! It might be heresy, but I do prefer the Biogon. Center sharpness is less, but the edges are better giving an overall impression that I prefer. I ike the 21 focal length and always take one along when travelling. There is still a late 21/3,4 Super Angulon in my lens drawer. Not as good as the later Leica/Zeiss/CV lenses, but it has a distinct look to it that I like. If I travel light I take my 21/4 CV along and so far I haven't missed any of the heavier 21's - particularly after walking around in a city for hours. As I get older (wiser?) I find that weight and compactness takes precedence over wide-open performance. I am looking forward to get the 21/4,5 Biogon as I have been told that the performance is better than the 21/4 and maybe even the 21/2,8. I still have a venerable 21/4,5 Biogon in Contax mount that works fine on my Nikon RF's for those days when I want a change of pace and focus backwards.
 
Ted,

I will post a comparison of the 50 sph lux and 50 planar when I have the chance but it will be a while before I am back home.

FWIW, I feel my Zeiss lenses are at least as smooth as my Leicas, certainly when cold they are superior as the Leicas stiffen up much more at -10 degs C!

Sadly I dont think I will have much chance to shoot film here any more as too busy. Still hoping to shoot the derelict home of a former British Ambassador to Afghanistan. Located in Kabul and looks like its been empty for decades. Prob use my RF645 though!
 
Turtle said:
Ted,

I will post a comparison of the 50 sph lux and 50 planar when I have the chance but it will be a while before I am back home.

FWIW, I feel my Zeiss lenses are at least as smooth as my Leicas, certainly when cold they are superior as the Leicas stiffen up much more at -10 degs C!

Sadly I dont think I will have much chance to shoot film here any more as too busy. Still hoping to shoot the derelict home of a former British Ambassador to Afghanistan. Located in Kabul and looks like its been empty for decades. Prob use my RF645 though!
Click to expand...

Turtle,
Where are you- are you in Afghanistan? Are you an AP photographer? If so that is what I would most like to do- shoot international hot spots and the developing world.
 
Ted,

I'm ot a photog here (yes in Kabul), but a security consultant. There's lots to shoot (photos that is) here in Kabul, but sadly not enough time in the day considering work loads. I have shot a fair bit of film but get busier each week. As you would expect the best oportunities would only open up if you had a guide and could dedicate time to certain projects. I just don't have that! Certainly a country to be seriously careful in not just due to the insurgency but ever present crime. I have huge admiration for photogs who are not embedded but sneak across the lines. I dont think there is anyone doing that here at present as you would be rumbled in seconds. Most of the photography I see is the typical paper journalism resulting from embeds. not inspiring and not in the same genre of what I think we are both talking about.

Oops. This is a htread about 21mm lenses. PM me if you want to chat more!

Tom
 
Tom A said:
I had the 21/2,8 Asph and the 21/2,8 Biogon and after some time I got rid of the 21/2,8 Asph! It might be heresy, but I do prefer the Biogon. Center sharpness is less, but the edges are better giving an overall impression that I prefer. I ike the 21 focal length and always take one along when travelling. There is still a late 21/3,4 Super Angulon in my lens drawer. Not as good as the later Leica/Zeiss/CV lenses, but it has a distinct look to it that I like. If I travel light I take my 21/4 CV along and so far I haven't missed any of the heavier 21's - particularly after walking around in a city for hours. As I get older (wiser?) I find that weight and compactness takes precedence over wide-open performance. I am looking forward to get the 21/4,5 Biogon as I have been told that the performance is better than the 21/4 and maybe even the 21/2,8. I still have a venerable 21/4,5 Biogon in Contax mount that works fine on my Nikon RF's for those days when I want a change of pace and focus backwards.
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

I've been testing 21s for a recent review and have found that the Zeiss does outperform the Leica in some respects (and vice versa). In my mind (leaving aside the compatibility issues with the M8) the differences between those two come down in part to one's contrast preferences and preferences for resolution on center wide open vs. performance in the outer zones. The Zeiss 21/4.5 was part of that set and so far it has performed as well as the ZM 21/2.8, with slightly lower CA as well.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom