The design is different - 16/13 against 15/13.
I imagine they were adding an extra element to get back to similar correction levels.
Coatings will be better and probably the lens will be better into the sun shooting also. And performance will be *more even* stopped down and a little better wide open, and in fact it does better wide open than it does at smaller apertures, at the image centre. Not an ideal landscape lens characteristic...
But it's at a *lower level* stopped down, as the f5.6 chart clearly indicates, not to mention the Distagon white paper f4 chart. Too bad you cannot reach this valid link, Edgars, it's an excellent paper.
One could expect somewhat more CA near the wide edges with the later one and the sag/tan lines separate much more (not conducive to performance). Corner fall-off is more dramatic. CZ have tried to get the two lines in each pair to arrive at the corner (21mm) exactly together, and managed it in both lenses.
Both are absolutely wonderful, but I would not swap the Contax for the ZE anyday.Or any Leica wide angle.
I have both lenses. My Leica copy was actually owned by Mark and is the lens in his review http://16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html . This copy is sharper than Zeiss in center but a little softer in corners. Stopped down, it's very sharp. I ended up keeping the Leica because I like Leica's rendition.
philip_pj wrote:
The design is different - 16/13 against 15/13.
I imagine they were adding an extra element to get back to similar correction levels.
Coatings will be better and probably the lens will be better into the sun shooting also. And performance will be *more even* stopped down and a little better wide open, and in fact it does better wide open than it does at smaller apertures, at the image centre. Not an ideal landscape lens characteristic...
But it's at a *lower level* stopped down, as the f5.6 chart clearly indicates, not to mention the Distagon white paper f4 chart. Too bad you cannot reach this valid link, Edgars, it's an excellent paper.
One could expect somewhat more CA near the wide edges with the later one and the sag/tan lines separate much more (not conducive to performance). Corner fall-off is more dramatic. CZ have tried to get the two lines in each pair to arrive at the corner (21mm) exactly together, and managed it in both lenses. ...Show more →
Both are absolutely wonderful, but I would not swap the Contax for the ZE anyday.Or any Leica wide angle.
Back in the Contax days, my 'holy trinity' consisted of the D21/2.8, P50/1.4, and P100/2. The last one has been replaced by the MP100/2. The first two lenses remain in their seats, because ZF/ZE is a step back. At least for the image quality aspects that matter most to me.
Oct 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Toothwalker, it is interesting that you think the C/Y mount 21mm f/2.8 is better than the ZE/ZF. I am always impressed by your reasoning and explanations. I remember, however, that when the ZF first came out that the designer of the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO lens commented that based on the MTFs it was clear that the new ZF would be clearly better than the old C/Y mount version. Obviously, he knows what he is talking about as well. If I recall correctly (which I think I do), he even said that the MTFs suggested that the new lens would have even lower CA than the old version of the lens. Can you say a bit more about why you think the older version is better. Do the MTFs demonstrate that? I am surprised that you and the Coastal Optics designer appear to disagree here, but perhaps you agree in the specifics in which each lens is stronger/weaker, but just disagree in how to weight these specifics.
Oct 11, 2012 at 03:13 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Well let's put the focus back on the OP question. I have not had the Leica but I think it's more about if you like the high contrast look of the Zeiss or the more subtle look of Leica. I currently have the 21ZE and had OM 18/3.5 before and the main difference (besides focal length) is the look, more easily recognizable than difference in resolution, the OM being less contrasty and more subtle in it's rendering than the Zeiss lens. Both lenses will probably provide very good resolution at f/8-f/11 the main difference is the look of the straight raw data and what you prefer for post processing.
I've thought a lot about the 19mm Leica R but examples are hard to come by and important stuff for landscape photographers, such as how using it with filters works like the Lee system and if one needs thin etc. needs to be found out after buying the lens since very few people seem to have it. One of the reasons I've not pursued getting an 18/3.5 Zuiko back is that the very last few pixels in the corners needed cropping or cloning when using ND filters, just very frustrating having to do that with all my long exposure images. I'm just too much of a coward buy a lens for $3000+ without knowing stuff like that.
Seriously, though, I think the 19's appeal is more in cityscapes and interiors. The color pallet and contrast are modern Leica, with a very rich, warm draw (great for skin and wood tones), great center resolution, subtle gorgeous tonal transitions, and will allow you to work in much tighter spaces without introducing the correction-intensive amount of distortion of the 21. If you're not handholding your filters (and I assume you're not since you're doing long exposures) then my experience won't be of much help. I use a set of Lee ND grads (very basic set) and didn't see any degradation in IQ for short exposures, but I never mounted a holder.
I think you're probably better off with the 21 for landscapes. The strong contrast and tonal transitions make smaller details much more evident, which I think goes a long way in creating the depth people see in Zeiss images.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Toothwalker, it is interesting that you think the C/Y mount 21mm f/2.8 is better than the ZE/ZF. I am always impressed by your reasoning and explanations. I remember, however, that when the ZF first came out that the designer of the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO lens commented that based on the MTFs it was clear that the new ZF would be clearly better than the old C/Y mount version. Obviously, he knows what he is talking about as well. If I recall correctly (which I think I do), he even said that the MTFs suggested that the new lens would have even lower CA than the old version of the lens. Can you say a bit more about why you think the older version is better. Do the MTFs demonstrate that? I am surprised that you and the Coastal Optics designer appear to disagree here, but perhaps you agree in the specifics in which each lens is stronger/weaker, but just disagree in how to weight these specifics....Show more →
When I look at the MTF in the official lens sheets, I would prefer the ZE version at full aperture and the Y/C version for the overall performance at f/5.6. Unfortunately(?), there exist at least two other versions of the MTF charts of the Y/C version, which reveal a different lens. Which measurement do we choose to believe?
I disagree with the Coastal Optics designer when it concerns TCA, because it is the other way around. The Y/C version has less of it. The MTF charts hint at it, but more importantly I have other data (which I cannot disclose) that confirm it. Nonetheless, the difference is small and I would not lose sleep over replacing my Y/C version with a ZE specimen in the unfortunate event of damage or theft. However, until that time I see no reason to dump the Y/C, since 90% of my use is at f/5.6 or f/8, and since I am particularly sensitive to TCA.
It will be interesting to see what the new Zeiss lens line has to offer in the ultra-wideangle regime.
Toothwalker wrote:
When I look at the MTF in the official lens sheets, I would prefer the ZE version at full aperture and the Y/C version for the overall performance at f/5.6. Unfortunately(?), there exist at least two other versions of the MTF charts of the Y/C version, which reveal a different lens. Which measurement do we choose to believe?
Steve Spencer wrote:
If I recall correctly (which I think I do), he even said that the MTFs suggested that the new lens would have even lower CA than the old version of the lens.
In any case, perhaps Toothwalker’s MTF-chart ‘hint’ is that the tangential MTF values in the field improve more strongly upon stopping down with the Contax/Yashica lens than the Z-series lens. That suggests the old lens had less lateral chromatic aberration, since other relevant aberrations improve upon stopping down.
That said, it’s a pity we can’t completely trust the Zeiss MTF charts. I wish Zeiss would clear up the multiple Distagon T* 2.8/21 charts floating around. And it’s pretty shoddy that the datasheet for the Planar T* 1.4/50 still shows MTF charts for f/1.4 and f/5.6 while labelling them f/2 and f/4. I even told them about that mistake months ago.
For 35mm Zeiss are now aiming for fast lenses made for the new style of street, night and urban nature photography. Almost all the transition lenses are (often a stop) faster where CZ felt confident to do so:
It's one cogent reason why you see so many great open space vistas shot with Contax lenses, G and CY alike - they work very well at apertures approaching the diffraction point which need high detail, good to excellent DOF, infinity focus, and are best shot at low ISO. The range is f5-6 to f11. It's controversial but CY/G colour appears more mellow and photorealistic.
Back to add that the conumdrum of the 'special' CY 21/2.8 MTF chart published by CZ in the Distagon paper may have been measured on green light, rather than white light - see LC's page here for a comparison for the new and very promising 15mm f2.8:
Thanks for eloquently describing what I felt about Leica 19mm vs. Zeiss 21mm.
I am not a fan of in-your-face rendering of Zeiss except for Contax 35mm 1.4. In fact I have both Leica 35mm 1.4 and Contax 35mm 1.4 but I digress.
freaklikeme wrote:
Geez, Hrannar. Sack up and by a 19 already.
Seriously, though, I think the 19's appeal is more in cityscapes and interiors. The color pallet and contrast are modern Leica, with a very rich, warm draw (great for skin and wood tones), great center resolution, subtle gorgeous tonal transitions, and will allow you to work in much tighter spaces without introducing the correction-intensive amount of distortion of the 21. If you're not handholding your filters (and I assume you're not since you're doing long exposures) then my experience won't be of much help. I use a set of Lee ND grads (very basic set) and didn't see any degradation in IQ for short exposures, but I never mounted a holder.
I think you're probably better off with the 21 for landscapes. The strong contrast and tonal transitions make smaller details much more evident, which I think goes a long way in creating the depth people see in Zeiss images....Show more →
Toothwalker wrote:
When I look at the MTF in the official lens sheets, I would prefer the ZE version at full aperture and the Y/C version for the overall performance at f/5.6. Unfortunately(?), there exist at least two other versions of the MTF charts of the Y/C version, which reveal a different lens. Which measurement do we choose to believe?
I disagree with the Coastal Optics designer when it concerns TCA, because it is the other way around. The Y/C version has less of it. The MTF charts hint at it, but more importantly I have other data (which I cannot disclose) that confirm it. Nonetheless, the difference is small and I would not lose sleep over replacing my Y/C version with a ZE specimen in the unfortunate event of damage or theft. However, until that time I see no reason to dump the Y/C, since 90% of my use is at f/5.6 or f/8, and since I am particularly sensitive to TCA.
It will be interesting to see what the new Zeiss lens line has to offer in the ultra-wideangle regime. ...Show more →
Thanks toothwalker. I think that clears things up a lot. With the charts posted now on the Zeiss website it does look like at f/5.6 the old C/Y has a slightly higher tangential line (and a slightly lower sagital line) at the edge of the frame and this does probably hint at what your other data confirms--more TCA in the new lens. The new lens does seem to have a bit better distortion proflle and better wide open performance. I hadn't looked closely at the MTF charts for awhile and missed the hint at more CA in the new lens. As always your comments are clear and helpful. Thanks again.
carstenw wrote:
Could you compare them in words, and maybe photos?
I am not good at describing in words. These two photos were taken a few seconds apart. One with Contax 35mm 1.4 and another with Leica 35mm 1.4. The difference is subtle here but Contax would give more pop but cooler color while Leica has softness and warmer color. The bokeh is very nice in both. If my memory is correct, both were taken wide open. I will try to see if I can do some AB tests with them this weekend.
