Upload & Sell: On
| p.4 #18 · Leica "look" real or myth? |
In my opinion, of course, I think the 35/1.4, 24/2, 25/2, 135/1.8, 135/2 and possibly the 85/1.4 ZA too.
I haven't tried more than four Leica lenses (two modern, two old), but the ZF 35/1.4 is nothing like those. Again; I think people see things and similarities that are there just because we are talking about good lenses. For instance, I found the Voigtländer 15/4.5 just as good as any Zeiss I've used, while the Sonnar 50/1.5 doesn't share anything with the ZF:s, in my opinion.
I think you have to understand that there is a different team designing every single lens. While the manufacturers of course use certain types of glass and coatings, the design of the lens is probably much more important for the "look", and it explains the non-similarities within each brand.
Yes, of course, but there is certainly a difference in the design "philosophy" of classic Zeiss vs modern Zeiss. They seem to be aiming for a more buttery bokeh and lower contrast in the shadows/highlights and higher resolution, characteristics that people are praising Leica for in the previous posts.
I am not sure I like the new Zeiss look. Luckily the ZM, at least the ones I have, are very old school Zeiss.
I forgot to add the 24/1.8 for E mount in my list above.
PS. Regarding the Sonnar 50, I believe it was clearly stated by Zeiss that they wanted to achieve a classic look with uncorrected spherical aberrations and soft WO rendering.