ZM Image Style - German or Japanese

[Avotius]

Ok so my photography teacher and I were talking the other day about German and Japanese cameras and lenses. He made a comment about how he thinks that despite the way many Japanese lenses are very sharp and have high contrast, they don’t have the "soul" of German lenses, i.e., special qualities in the image to make them stand out. He said that German lenses are subtle with color and invite you into the picture while Japanese lenses are harsh and invade your senses. One comparison he said was between Mamiya and Zeiss lenses, while Mamiya is very sharp, the contrast is so high that its difficult to shoot good slides without being very careful, on the other hand Zeiss lenses are more easy going and the images pop out more with a sense of 3D rather then flat on the paper.

I tend to agree with him, this is something I have noticed as well in many photos.

So I have given this some thought and I have come up with a question for all you out there.

Germans designs, Japanese made...

Do the new Zeiss ZM lenses have the Germans subtle 3D quality or the flat Japanese high contrast quality? If you have photos to post with your opinion I think that would be great.

 

[Ronald M]

I started with Pentax in 1966 and was fond of black and white. No matter what I did by changing film, developers, enlargers, I never could match the quality images found in the paper sample books that were available in every camera store.

One day I found a 125 mm Hector at Helix photo and bought it. A homemade adapter allowed me to use it on my Pentax. A blind man could pick out the interspersed Hector shots on the slides.

Next I borrowed a neighbors M3 and some lenses and ran some plus x. The conclusion was now that I could now do the high quality tone reproduction of the samples without effort on the very first roll, the camera lenses were the weak link. Yes they image differently as do Zeiss, Schneider, and Rodenstock to a slightly different degree. I would hesitate to describe the difference, but it is there and I know it when I see it.

I will no longer use Japanese glass.

 

[PeterL]

I doubt it's country specific: Olympus generally has very colourful and subtle lenses. For example, the Zuiko 90/f2.0 macro (SLR lens that can go up to 1:2, but I use it for regular photography) is tack sharp, but it also has a buttery smooth bokeh and a very good 3D rendition. But I do find other brands (Nikon springs to mind) generally harsh as well. I think top-of-the-range lenses of any brand will be more than just sharp, but from the sub-top down, a brand-dependent characteristic comes out.

Anyway, current ASPH lenses by Leica are IMHO also a step down from the pre-ASPH as far as "presence" in the photo is concerned. Just my 2 eurocents.


Peter.

 

[back alley]

i have no absolute stand on lenses.
i use what i like.

the early canon screwmount lenses were so well made and have such a hefty feeling, i just enjoy the tactile sensation of using them.
i like the sharpness/level of contrast of the 35/2.8 chrome version.
is there a sharper 35 out there? for sure. the 35/2 zm lens is miles ahead but also more contrasty. it too has a place though.
the 50/1.2 lens is so fat compared to any other lens i have, and i should not like that about it as i quite enjoy the smaller lenses, but on the m3 it seems like it was a match made in heaven. in fact i feels much much better on the m3 than it does on the canon p. who knew?

i think it's good to know you're gear but not so good to want a category where each piece fits only.

 

[Bertram2]

Ok so my photography teacher and I were talking the other day about German and Japanese cameras and lenses. He made a comment about how he thinks that despite the way many Japanese lenses are very sharp and have high contrast, they don’t have the "soul" of German lenses, i.e., special qualities in the image to make them stand out. He said that German lenses are subtle with color and invite you into the picture while Japanese lenses are harsh and invade your senses. One comparison he said was between Mamiya and Zeiss lenses, while Mamiya is very sharp, the contrast is so high that its difficult to shoot good slides without being very careful, on the other hand Zeiss lenses are more easy going and the images pop out more with a sense of 3D rather then flat on the paper.

I tend to agree with him, this is something I have noticed as well in many photos.

So I have given this some thought and I have come up with a question for all you out there.

Germans designs, Japanese made...

Do the new Zeiss ZM lenses have the Germans subtle 3D quality or the flat Japanese high contrast quality? If you have photos to post with your opinion I think that would be great.

In general, but only in general I would agree, tho the modern Zeiss look is again more on the contrasty side , as far as I could see it at the posted examples .

3D is not a German virtue, a CV 2,5/75 for example shows a stunning 3D impression too.
One thing seems quite sure , the colour impression of the Lica lenses is much warmer and less contrasty then the Japanese style, sometimes it looks like pastel compared to CV lenses, which have a blueish ground tone and can re-inforce the blue/green accent of Fuji slides for example enormously. Some like it, some not, both looks are not good for all purposes and all films.
Speaking about modern RF lenses , especially about the fast ones ,like the 1,4/50s for example, my impression is that they are closer to each other than they were in former times, no matter if it is Leica, Zeiss or Voigtländer .

Concerning MF I have not enuff experience to confirm his opinion, but at least related to the 3D impression the Rolleiflex and Hassy Zeiss lenses seem to be unsurpassable tho the Mamiya 7II lenses are the sharpest stuff one can buy for money AFAIK.

bertram

 

[Avotius]

I started with Pentax in 1966 and was fond of black and white. No matter what I did by changing film, developers, enlargers, I never could match the quality images found in the paper sample books that were available in every camera store.

One day I found a 125 mm Hector at Helix photo and bought it. A homemade adapter allowed me to use it on my Pentax. A blind man could pick out the interspersed Hector shots on the slides.

Next I borrowed a neighbors M3 and some lenses and ran some plus x. The conclusion was now that I could now do the high quality tone reproduction of the samples without effort on the very first roll, the camera lenses were the weak link. Yes they image differently as do Zeiss, Schneider, and Rodenstock to a slightly different degree. I would hesitate to describe the difference, but it is there and I know it when I see it.

I will no longer use Japanese glass.

Yeah, I have a hard time trying to explain it there too, its there sometimes though, duno how but its there

 

[Avotius]

I doubt it's country specific: Olympus generally has very colourful and subtle lenses. For example, the Zuiko 90/f2.0 macro (SLR lens that can go up to 1:2, but I use it for regular photography) is tack sharp, but it also has a buttery smooth bokeh and a very good 3D rendition. But I do find other brands (Nikon springs to mind) generally harsh as well. I think top-of-the-range lenses of any brand will be more than just sharp, but from the sub-top down, a brand-dependent characteristic comes out.

Anyway, current ASPH lenses by Leica are IMHO also a step down from the pre-ASPH as far as "presence" in the photo is concerned. Just my 2 eurocents.


Peter.

Ok I think I was being a little too specific, what I ment to say is that generaly there is a difference, i.e. Konica Minolta lenses in my opinion have always had a nicer smooth look to the canon's but never really pushed hard enough to get them into the mainstream I guess.

Anyway I havnt seen a lot of photos from the recent asph leica lenses although ive given serious thought to buying a 35 summicron asph without really trying it out. The examples ive seen online just havnt been good enough to justify one way or another I guess.

 

[Taipei-metro]

When I was in 'Nikon family', I have 20, 24, 35, 50, 55, 105, 180, 200. Because they are affordable. A photographer friend of mine, switch to Contax and always telling us about how superior Zeiss lenses to Nikkor. The detail... the color... 'You can't do it w Nikkor...'. I do believe him. I just don't want to switch because I don't want to spend those kind of money and I was not a Contax SLR fan at that time.
I read lots of Asahi, Nippon, Mainichi( discontinuted), Capa, Cameraman, etc. mags, paticular Japanese photographer use paticular brand. I start to like Canon stuff, a little cool, not as sharp as Nikkors...different flavor...
I still love to use FDs, the 35/2.8, 28/2.8 are two great lenses...and cheap!
One example, a Japanese photographer Iwago Mitsuaki, shooting 'Domestic animals- Morocco' w Leica R and Zuiko 28/2.8 w magazine spread to 10x16, a fine line of data was printed w each photo, was it Zuiko or was it a R lens? hard to tell without the data.
Now I have Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, S-EBC Fujinon, Canon, Minolta GT(printed in red)lens on my several digital cameras, maybe there are differences, but I am just too lazy to 'study' them now.

 

[telenous]

I think I know what you mean Avotius. I mean, how could I not know? Aren't the camera wars based on the premise that each brand has a distinctive fingerprint and a definite family resemblance? And yet, I think it is a rather suspect premise if it means more (and it usually does) than this: Lenses with different optical formulas produce different results.

To answer your question, from my experience so far the Planar ZM is very contrasty when compared to the older Leica glass I have but it also has a very tactile three-dimensionality. (Check my gallery for some examples for each lens I have here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=4333). From what I have seen (and read) the newer families of Leica lenses have gone this way too - super-sharp, intense colour saturation, high contrast, three-dimensionality. (E.Putts somewhere says that Leica lenses excel in spatial resolution, Zeiss lenses in tonal resolution). If sharpness and high contrast is an attribute of Japanese lenses as you seem to imply, while tonal resolution and three-dimensionality of their German counterparts then it seems that all modern lenses have undergone a homogenization process in the same way that whichever medium car you buy this days could have been manufactured in Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Corea or the US.

Here are a few colour samples of the Planar ZM:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/telenous/tags/zm/

 

[Avotius]

I think I know what you mean Avotius. I mean, how could I not know? Aren't the camera wars based on the premise that each brand has a distinctive fingerprint and a definite family resemblance? And yet, I think it is a rather suspect premise if it means more (and it usually does) than this: Lenses with different optical formulas produce different results.

To answer your question, from my experience so far the Planar ZM is very contrasty when compared to the older Leica glass I have but it also has a very tactile three-dimensionality. (Check my gallery for some examples for each lens I have here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=4333). From what I have seen (and read) the newer families of Leica lenses have gone this way too - super-sharp, intense colour saturation, high contrast, three-dimensionality. (E.Putts somewhere says that Leica lenses excel in spatial resolution, Zeiss lenses in tonal resolution). If sharpness and high contrast is an attribute of Japanese lenses as you seem to imply, while tonal resolution and three-dimensionality of their German counterparts then it seems that all modern lenses have undergone a homogenization process in the same way that whichever medium car you buy this days could have been manufactured in Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Corea or the US.

Here are a few colour samples of the Planar ZM:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/telenous/tags/zm/

wondering when someone was going to answer my question rather then complain about lens racisim or some other rubish.

 

[jano]

My Zeiss G-lenses and the one ZM lens I have are all contrasty and very sharp, and with the right exposure, can create a 3 dimensionality look to the images. A bit of a deviation from your original question: How would one categorize these lenses? Japanese or German? Yes, Zeiss designs, but the labels on them clearly state "made in japan" ? And further, weren't some of the japanese lenses from nikon/canon actually based on the CZ and Leitz designs which they got their hands on during the wwII? I'm not sure how mamiya fits in.

I have no leica glass to compare the results to (well.. two R lenses from my dad's R4.. one's a summilux 50 and the other a 24 something or other), but I can't successfully manually focus a SLR so I don't use them). Maybe I'll try to take the leica out next time.

 

[Avotius]

My Zeiss G-lenses and the one ZM lens I have are all contrasty and very sharp, and with the right exposure, can create a 3 dimensionality look to the images. A bit of a deviation from your original question: How would one categorize these lenses? Japanese or German? Yes, Zeiss designs, but the labels on them clearly state "made in japan" ? And further, weren't some of the japanese lenses from nikon/canon actually based on the CZ and Leitz designs which they got their hands on during the wwII? I'm not sure how mamiya fits in.

I have no leica glass to compare the results to (well.. two R lenses from my dad's R4.. one's a summilux 50 and the other a 24 something or other), but I can't successfully manually focus a SLR so I don't use them). Maybe I'll try to take the leica out next time.

Mamiya was just used as an example.

I have an old fd mount canon 50 1.8, somewhere I read that its a zeiss copy or something, it shoots nice photos, both color and bw with low low contrast but still interesting. On the other hand those new ZM lenses are damn tempting, my leica GAS slowly fades the more I think about them but its neat to see what other people are thinking about them too in comparison to the compition

 

[Kim Coxon]

I think it has much more to do with lens design and perhaps date than it does country of design or manufacture. I have only limited experience of Leica glass. However my Canon 50/1.4 is much closer to my cron than it is to the Canon 50/1.5. Reading the threads, there is a large difference between to Leica 50's say Elmar, Summitar, Lux and maybe Cron.

In a similar vein there is actually quite a large difference in the Pentax 50's even of the same date. The 1.7/1.8's are very sharp and good for copy work and macro. The 1.4 and even more so the 1.2 gives a picture with much better "modelling". Even Pentax say that the faster lenses should not be used in macro work for this reason.

I am very tempted by the ZI lenses. User's seem very happy with them and I believethey are better VFM, certainly if you want a more modern behaving lens. IMHO, one of the biggest advantages of the RF systems is the interchangeability of the lenses. To stay "brand loyal" for the sake of it seems shortsighted and denying yourself the opportunity to have that wide choice.

Kim

 

[Taipei-metro]

Mamiya was just used as an example.

I have an old fd mount canon 50 1.8, somewhere I read that its a zeiss copy or something, it shoots nice photos, both color and bw with low low contrast but still interesting. On the other hand those new ZM lenses are damn tempting, my leica GAS slowly fades the more I think about them but its neat to see what other people are thinking about them too in comparison to the compition

Imagewise, use a FD(old 55mm filter size) 28/2.8 or ZM 28/2.8 to print 8x12 or smaller may not have too much of a difference, the Zeiss Ikon reflect your 'position' as a photographer.
So, to find out the Zeiss mystique, save the money, get the ZI plus a ZM 35 or 28 and shoot.
Most photographer in Asia know the unreliability of Cosina products, I don't tolerate defects, especially a high price body(of course it's cheap compare to M7). If you're in China, I believe the camera shop is within 'walking distance', better to deal w real peeople instead of mail order, IF you're buying one. Of course, I'll wait at least 6 month after the black ones being for sale.
After ZI, you can go back to FDs, get the ultra handsome Canon New F-1 and explore their old and N-Fd lenses. That will take about 5 years of your film photo life...

 

[Nick R.]

I think the observation of perceived differences between Japanese and Western lenses is real and due to difference in cultural tastes. Years ago, when the Japanese first entered the audiophile market, their speakers where of very high quality but just didn't sound right to the average western listener. While some used racial stereotypes to explain the effect ("good at copying, poor at inventing), the real difference was in the type of music the average educated Japanese engineer would have been accustomed to. Japanese music sounds a lot different than Western music and early Japanese speakers were tuned, ever so subtlely, to reproduce it. By the same token Japanese art is different in character than Western art and their photographic gear is ever so subtely tuned to the Japanese eye. Mamiya medium format lenses esp. to my eye reproduce the character of Japanese prints in everyday photography very strongly.

 

[Taipei-metro]

I think the observation of perceived differences between Japanese and Western lenses is real and due to difference in cultural tastes. Years ago, when the Japanese first entered the audiophile market, their speakers where of very high quality but just didn't sound right to the average western listener. While some used racial stereotypes to explain the effect ("good at copying, poor at inventing), the real difference was in the type of music the average educated Japanese engineer would have been accustomed to. Japanese music sounds a lot different than Western music and early Japanese speakers were tuned, ever so subtlely, to reproduce it. By the same token Japanese art is different in character than Western art and their photographic gear is ever so subtely tuned to the Japanese eye. Mamiya medium format lenses esp. to my eye reproduce the character of Japanese prints in everyday photography very strongly.

Years ago Sony issued a couple of hi-end speak, the SSM-7, M3, or something, later were found out to be designed and made by Polk. The ever shrinking hi-end audio is a little bit like film photo market.80 % of hi-end audio market is in Asia. Best deal speaker is the Canadian speakers, Energy, PSB, Paradigm, Mirage, Totem, etc..Yamaha made some expensive studio monitors which was mainly used by studios.
There are some expensive tube amps made in Japan, like Audio Note's Gaku-On, 30w per ch., for $175,000, yes, US dollars, a pair(mono x2).
Denon, Sony ES all have good deal amps. I have Parasound(John Curl design) for solid state and Dynaco for tube. Nowadays, there are a lot of Chinese or Hongkong made tube amps are excellent buy( I believe there are some British owned Chinese audio tube companies ). In Hongkong, there are audio nut using pure silver for line cable, or a dumpling restaurant playing w the owner's 50 thousand plus dollars equipment music...
I love Japanese music, try Joe Hisaishi, or Kanno Yoko. Just bought 3 Cds of Ishda Yoko yesterday.
Back to German glass...both Feb/06 issue of Asahi and Nippon Camera magazines have tests for tne new Zeiss F (or M42) mount lens, maybe you want to check them out.
Again unless you experienced yourself, you're not going to be for sure.