Regular forum visitors will have seen uploads of some stunning pictures taken with the wonderful Leica 180 f2. It is hard to take a bad picture with it, although my tests below show that it's not impossible. I sold it in favour of the Zeiss 200 f2. I expect most people will regard that decision as a mistake. To my eye, Zeiss and Leica each have their own style of making lenses, and the differences between these two lenses are an example of that. Here's the very flawed test, and afterwards, my explanation of why I chose to keep the Zeiss:
It is very hard to assess these files, or even tell which lens you are looking through, and the exposure differs slightly from shot to shot. Sadly, I had to sell one of the lenses while I am still sane(ish). The Leica is obviously much sharper, with better contrast and less flare, but I kept the Zeiss because for some reason, to my eye, the Zeiss shots just seem more real and sculptural. It may be nostalgia though.
One interesting point is that at both apertures, the Zeiss appears to have slightly more depth of field, despite the Leica's far greater sharpness on the focal plane. Mark (user:husband) mentions Zeiss' extended DoF on his excellent site http://www.16-9.net when testing Zeiss wide-angles, and he illustrates it with the tape-measure shots when comparing Zeiss ZF 85f1.4 and Canon 85f1.2 here: http://16-9.net/lens_tests/zeiss_85mm/zeiss85mm_3.html
If you look at the ears in each of my test shots, in the context of the whole picture, I think it shows how that characteristic might contribute to a greater sense of 3D. It is especially surprising that a 200f2 is providing more DoF at a given aperture when you consider that it is 20mm longer.
Whether the famous 3D effect is connected with Zeiss's funky bokeh, I don't know. But bokeh is the easiest way to tell these lenses apart. I believe this difference in Zeiss and Leica's styles is visible even at low resolutions. For example, here is a shot from the Leica website which I think shows the beautiful, but very 2D rendition of the Leica style: http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/media/img1517.jpg
The bokeh areas are very smooth, but blend so smoothly into the background that the figure in the foreground fails to be established on a different plane. This rendering difference can be seen very clearly in the background over my victim's right shoulder in the following two images. I should mention that the sun was in and out which may have affected my studio daylight between these exposures:
The Zeiss bokeh is complex and dynamic whereas the Leica bokeh is blissfully smooth. All this raises a question: what should out of focus areas look like? There seems to be a consensus now that the smooth Leica blend is the best, and Jap (call me a Brit and I don't consider it an insult, even from Yanks ;) lens makers have rounded their apertures to mimic it. But both these shots above are wide open, so this is not about the blades. Is it between which elements the aperture sits?
All I know is that these days, when I assess a lens, I try to ignore treble, bass, detail, flat frequency response, dynamic range, and just listen to the music. By all the measurements, the results I have seen with Leica glass rule. But I am not yet convinced that Zeiss et al. can't compete at immersive power.
Edited by brainiac on Sep 29, 2006 at 02:56 PM GMT
Edited by brainiac on Sep 29, 2006 at 02:58 PM GMT
Well, when you nail it at f2, the Leica was not 'just' sharper, but a lot sharper and more contrasty in the focal plane, with much better flare suppression overall. You would think that that would make it a better conveyor of reality, but for me anyway, for some reason it isn't.
As for the DMR, I am not sure I even want to do my own tests of one against my 5D, because I am sure everyone here is right that it is better. I just can't afford it. Maybe if I sold my 200f2. My use of unadjusted normal jpegs at iso 400 probably doesn't show the 5D at its best anyway. I have to shoot jpeg for speed and volume in my work so the raw performance is academic to me. When I use my 200f2 I am usually at iso 1600 or 3200 (evenings/indoors). I understand the DMR is not brilliant at 1600.
Another reason I haven't gone to DMR is that I am not even sure that I prefer the Leica glass, so if I want to keep using Zeiss, Canon is the only option :(
make some sense in regards to 3d looking and 2d looking. I think space has a lot to do with this to get a lens this long a 3d look and what i mean by space is the subject lets use a warm body for example needs to seperate from the background and foreground to give you that step into it feeling or 3d... ...the image above will never do that because it is a crowded scene with really no space behind or in front of the image to seperate from... ...hope that made some sense
It makes lots of sense: I get what you mean, but the thing that I am talking about is the more sculptural aspect of 3D illusion, which is important for portraits. The absense of background space doesn't affect that so much. The only area where I felt the Leica was possibly inferior was its ability to convey the impression of a real 3D object, and that is what matters most to me. The 3D info conveyed, for example on the cheeks, the side of the head, the eye sockets and lips. It's not so much about the space, but rather about the shapes of the things which occupy it. So the question I ask myself is, how much like the real 3D world does this image look? ...and how well can I read the shape of things in it? I just felt that the angles of the skin surfaces, bone structure, and the apparent distance of the ears gave a more joined-up believable illusion with the Zeiss. I photograph people for a living. I need them to look as much like solid 3-dimensional objects within a space as possible, in order for the photo to immerse me in the scene and take me (and them) back there. The goal is not beautiful pictures, but time-travel. It is the objects and events that they reproduce which matter. That's why 3D immersion is my #1 priority, and it's why I'm still not completely convinced that I should sell everything and go DMR/M8.
zeiss is bluer than leica and thus appear 'sharper'
The difference between these two is that the Leica 180 looks a bit greener than the Zeiss, but I would describe both as 'very accurate colour'.
bokeh on zeiss seems harsh, but bokeh on portraits does tell much
Well this is the interesting thing for me, and it is so hard to measure. If you look at the two bokeh tests of my friend Nathan, you see the Zeiss rendering real information that the Leica seems to be losing: the Zeiss resolves the ribs on the t-shirt collar whereas the Leica doesn't really. I can't say this isn't to do with the mismatch in focal lengths, focal distance, or the changing geometry of Nathan's neck angle as he moves between shots, but it fits with the theory that Zeiss finds a way of delivering a bit of extra DoF. The Leica bokeh is more picturesque, but the Zeiss doesn't so easily give up retrieving actual data:
brainiac, on my powerbook it's impossible to see the whole photo in the browser, so I don't know about the "space" and 3d effect. but what I know for sure is that wide open, the detail is definitevely better on the Leica, sharper, more contrasty, better colour.
Thank you for the interesting comparison. I have long study the Zeiss lens myself against Canon and Leica very best. In my study and in addition to your comments, I find that the Zeiss bokeh also represent not only the 3-D bokeh characteristic but also the symmetry of bokeh in which I will demonstrate in my bokeh study. At present I am tied with gears purchasing and cannot proceed yet but in the near future. I own both the Zeiss 200 mm F2.0 Aposonnar and the Zeiss Tele-Apo-tessar 2.8/300. The Leica 2.8/300 is no match for the Zeiss version particularly in close up portrait works.
Brit? The proper word is poofter, any Bruce could tell you that. (For those about to get upset, turn to Monty Python for the explanation.) Limey will also do quite nicely.
FWIW, I like the softer Leica boke a bit better, but to be honest, the two shots, both the guy and the girl, are so close, and both beautiful. I do find the Leica shots to look a bit sharper, and the Zeiss skin a bit redder (!), but I see what you mean about boke. I think the Leica boke kicks in more suddenly, essentially isolating the plane of focus more quickly, whereas the Zeiss has a softer roll-off, creating more of a 3D look.
What does the Zeiss go for second-hand?
Edited by carstenw on Sep 30, 2006 at 01:22 AM GMT
belsha wrote:
brainiac, on my powerbook it's impossible to see the whole photo in the browser, so I don't know about the "space" and 3d effect. but what I know for sure is that wide open, the detail is definitevely better on the Leica, sharper, more contrasty, better colour.
I think this is where taste comes in. I definitely prefer the look of the Zeiss wide open, I think itshard to say from these samples where one is definately sharper or not, but I think the Zeiss image seems a lot more alive, more 3-D, and IMHO, better color.
brainiac wrote:
It makes lots of sense: I get what you mean, but the thing that I am talking about is the more sculptural aspect of 3D illusion, which is important for portraits.
I suspect it has more to do with contrast and limb effect. The Zeiss clearly has higher contrast: the lighter areas are quite a bit brighter and the darker areas (especially the background) a bit darker. Personally, I prefer a low-contrast rendition and then adjusting the lighting to control contrast, I find it gives better results and better control, at least by my taste.
Based on Guy's many samples (e.g. corporate golf outing), I think the 'cron 180 has the best bokeh of any lens in the world - and I don't say that lightly. In that same department, the Aposonnar gets a D+. Like many hi-tech Nikkors, the Aposonnar has quite jagged background rendition which takes away from the fun of shooting at f/2 in broad daylight. The "nice" bokeh for the CZ is located in front of the object plane, which seems a bit silly. My outdoor images are stuck on film, but here is an old "lab shot":
From an optical point of view, R180/2 is better. A lens with undercorrected spherical aberration is associated with a smooth background blur and a harsh foreground blur; the situation is reversed for a lens with overcorrected spherical aberration. The APOSONNAR is overcorrected for spherical aberration.
as Guy, I never had the possibility to play with the Zeiss 200/2 but, based on my humble experience, the 180/2 has the best OOF rendition I've seen so far on a lens; moreover its sharpness at F2 is incredible. Here is my little contribution to this: the first test shot refers to back/front OOF effect and how well this glass manages strong lights (the barbeque grill reflected the sun straight into the lens); the second shot illustrates how SHARP this lens is at F2 (note the 200% crop of the padlock).
The shots are "as-is" from the camera: RAW processed in RawShooter; all the values set to "0"; no color correction, no unsharp-mask, no curves, no anything...
Resized from original and saved in JPEG @70%; Canon EOS 350D; hand held; MLU (mirror lock up); ISO100.
Hope this helps to clarify 180's OOF, sharpness and strong-straight-light management capabilities at f2. I think this simple quick test gives also a hint about colour rendition.
So for what I understand the Zeiss is overcorrected and has more contrast; the the Leica is not (or it might be undercorrected since there is no forground blur) and the Brit likes this.
I am thinking that spherical aberation has its use.
In that same department, the Aposonnar gets a D+. Like many hi-tech Nikkors, the Aposonnar has quite jagged background rendition which takes away from the fun of shooting at f/2 in broad daylight. The "nice" bokeh for the CZ is located in front of the object plane, which seems a bit silly. My outdoor images are stuck on film, but here is an old "lab shot":