(the lenses are always enumerated the same way which you'll see in the test image name)
The first two lenses were used on a Leica M9 and the last two on a Canon 5DII.
Mixing two camera systems was more complicated than I thought as:
1) Getting the same framing was difficult as the M9 and 5DII have different dimensions so just switching cameras on the tripod resulted in shifts in the framing.
2) Colors are different
3) White balance is different when set manually
I tried to work around those problems as best I could, but they are a source of variation between the shots - a lot in some and less in others.
Ok, the results. Open the images in separate tabs in your browser and flip between them.
For some reason I forgot to take a 35 Biogon shot which is a pity as I know from experience that it's the best performer stopped down - and not by a small margin.
Conclusions: My first conclusion is that tests like this are worthless Seriously, after using these four lenses for a while I have a much better and more general knowledge of what look they will give. There were some interesting things though of a technical nature to observe. Each lens has its strong points and weak points.
Leica 35 Summilux:
+Excellent performance across the frame
+Very nice sharpness-to-blur transition
+Good bokeh for the most part
-Dodgy bokeh on occasion
(-)Barrel distortion
Zeiss 35/2 Biogon:
+Über-sharp stopped down across the frame
+Zero distortion
-Dodgy bokeh
Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon Rollei:
+Center sharpness
+Best bokeh of the lot
+Very nice sharpness-to-blur transition
-Weak corners even stopped down
Zeiss 35/2 Distagon ZE:
+Good sharpness across the frame
+Decent bokeh
-Heavy vignetting wide open
The position of 'my favorite' is shared by the Summilux and the 35/1.4 Distagon. I somewhat prefer the rendering of the Distagon but the Summilux advantage in raw optical performance can't be ignored. Plus both are lenses that I use primarily handheld and for that purpose the M9 is much nice to use than the 5DII. So in the end I'm more likely to pick up the Summilux for walkaround photography.
@Denoir-after taking a good look at your work at your website, you are doing some SUPERB photography. The very fact your are making exquisite use of these tools allows me to give a lot more credence to any conclusions you have to make about any set of lenses. For that I thank you.
In all honesty, if you had posted a bunch of poorly lit cat and dog photos to make your point, I probably not have given your website a close look, which would have been my loss, since I always enjoy looking at top notch practioneers in this field. Bravo!
The Lux35 on M9 is amazing, at F2 it makes the ZM looks like a Canon! On the other hand, your perfect frame matching make its distortion quite obvious when compared with ZM. Wish you have more F4-5.6 shot comparison with the ZM as it is at its sweet spot.
In a way, I think those two examples are actually more representative of the difference in rendering - or at least that they highlight the important difference in style.
@sirimiri: Yep, the red edge is visible when you have snow and shoot at a wide aperture. You can remove it by using CornerFix but I left them as they were for the comparison shots.
This is what the color cast looks like after in-camera correction on an under-exposed white frame:
thanks for the effort denoir. I thought you had a Sony NEX? Even though it's a crop it would eliminate some factors and leave the lenses to do the work.
Nope, never used a NEX. Yes, with a cropper you can avoid some problems at the edges, but at the same time you lose the really good stuff at the edges as well. When using good lenses, especially wides and ultra wides the lenses there is no substitute for FF.
That Biogon is great... it's a shame about the magenta corners. I didn't realize the Summilux had so much distortion, but I guess it only stands out when compared to the very low distortion from the Biogon.
All we need to add now are the 'Cron-M ASPH and the 35L.
The 35Lux looks nice and bright wide open too but I agree about the overall rendering of the Zeiss 35/1.4 is more pleasing to the eye (for me that is).
I know Cornerfix can clean up the files - my buddy gave me a half-hour tutorial once...I was chagrined though, to see such a marked problem. My point was more along the lines of "people accept this from a twelve-thousand dollar setup?" :/
I agree with you, about edges containing "good stuff"...it's a pity to lose it on cropping, sometimes.
(even with red edges, I wish I had your setup, the delicious street images that could be taken here...)
My Rollei/Zeiss 35/1.4 seems to do much better at the edge of the frame, at f/5.6. Could it be an adapter issue? I use the hard to find Kindai adapter.
The Rollei/Zeiss is the only one being used with an adapter, so it may be at a disadvantage
Seriously, after using these four lenses for a while I have a much better and more general knowledge of what look they will give. There were some interesting things though of a technical nature to observe. Each lens has its strong points and weak points.
