zhangyue wrote:
But I don't feel they have magic powders in term of lens design or performance. Modern Canikon/sigma can do the same thing with AF but poorer mechanic.
No lens has "magic powers" ... but all lenses are a series of optical characteristics & compromises. How many and which ones a lens designer chooses to incorporate/omit will dictate the rendering variance and the cost to produce.
If those variances and compromises are of no concern to an individual, then it makes no difference what lens you use ... a Coke bottle will do just fine. But, even in the Canikon/Sigma ranks ... the variances exist among themselves ... i.e. they are not equitable. This isn't to suggest one is better vs. worse ... but as the OP indicated, it is about different (i.e. "not equitable" doesn't necessitate superiority or inferiority). A Porsche, Jaguar, Ferrari and Lamborghini are all "not equitable" ... but you can still use a Yugo to pick up groceries if you prefer.
With Sigma, Tamron, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Mamiya, Zeiss & Leica in my bag(s) ... I'll never be a zealot of a given brand ... but I'll always be a zealot of the drawing styles the optics present. There are differences ... whether or not a person notices them or cares about them is highly subjective and individual in nature.
The OP has chosen to discuss the differences between Zeiss & Leica ... a worthy discussion to stay on topic.
philip_pj wrote:
'I mean that the higher contrast of the Zeiss loses it some shadow detail.'
You won't find anyone making lower contrast lenses anytime soon, quite the contrary, they know each new gen of sensors will only have greater DR, not less. But, for a given DR your point is taken, and isn't that part of the charm of older lenses?
I see no charm in the scattering of highlights into the shadow areas. Veiling glare robs a lens from its brilliance and color saturation, and limits HDR performance.
sebboh wrote:
yeah, at short distances i don't think anything can beat the look of the c/y 35/1.4 from f/1.4-2.8. at f/4 and above i think i actually prefer the leica, but the differences are much smaller.
hope it's an MM version. zeiss wan't interested in servicing my AEG.
Toothwalker wrote:
I see no charm in the scattering of highlights into the shadow areas. Veiling glare robs a lens from its brilliance and color saturation, and limits HDR performance.
I am not under the impression that this is flare, but rather real detail. I don't know what the formulations of coatings perform in the real world, but Zeiss T* has a reputation for high contrast, without this necessarily be accompanied by real resolution. The ZF.2 35/1.4 seems to follow this pattern. It has quite good resolution, but not extraordinary.
crazeazn wrote:
So will Zeiss work on the MM? I bought mine and leitaxed it then a few years later the ZE came out....
yes. they also claim that the elements from the AE version are not interchangeable with the MM version (i asked). their answer left me suspecting that the only difference might be in the coatings though.
sebboh wrote:
yes. they also claim that the elements from the AE version are not interchangeable with the MM version (i asked). their answer left me suspecting that the only difference might be in the coatings though.
28/2.8 AE and MM are not same, few others too. Tho in case of 35/1.4 I dont know.. Some lens were improved with MM, some not.
RustyBug wrote:
No lens has "magic powers" ... but all lenses are a series of optical characteristics & compromises. How many and which ones a lens designer chooses to incorporate/omit will dictate the rendering variance and the cost to produce.
If those variances and compromises are of no concern to an individual, then it makes no difference what lens you use ... a Coke bottle will do just fine. But, even in the Canikon/Sigma ranks ... the variances exist among themselves ... i.e. they are not equitable. This isn't to suggest one is better vs. worse ... but as the OP indicated, it is about different (i.e. "not equitable" doesn't necessitate superiority or inferiority). A Porsche, Jaguar, Ferrari and Lamborghini are all "not equitable" ... but you can still use a Yugo to pick up groceries if you prefer.
With Sigma, Tamron, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Mamiya, Zeiss & Leica in my bag(s) ... I'll never be a zealot of a given brand ... but I'll always be a zealot of the drawing styles the optics present. There are differences ... whether or not a person notices them or cares about them is highly subjective and individual in nature.
The OP has chosen to discuss the differences between Zeiss & Leica ... a worthy discussion to stay on topic....Show more →
I think you misunderstand me. No need to just pick "magic powder" and comment. 'Coke bottle' is over the top and unnecessary. I bought and used Leica and Zeiss for their build and relative high quality glass without worry copy variation, FOR MANUAL OPERATION. that is 70% of the reason. Another 30% is performance, rendering with individual lens in their line. I kind of settle with brands first and then choose the one I want in their line. (shamelessly, though I know I might not be minority in this regard) This is kind of gear head approach, and I am well aware that brand name won't give me more satisfied fotos than Canikongmaron.
My real point is hard to generalize overall brand A vs Brand B. Since Leica change a lot from R to M, old M to ASPH M. Zeiss too. For example, I like what I see from 35cron R, but feel Sony RX1 with Zeiss 35mm will give me similar rendering with even more glass performance. Once compare these two, can we say this Leica vs Zeiss?
Comparison has to be and can only be at particular focal length/lens (which Derek and Carsten did) instead of category Leica vs Zeiss. But that is it. Leica Lens A vs Zeiss Lens B given in Leica or Zeiss their own line of lens, the rendering are vastly different.
If there is reason to do so(leica vs Zeiss) is because of they both outstanding cross the line and there is no dog. And it is fun for people to watch, which is OP's intention. (As I reread OP)
This thread is suppose to be fun but not argue. I apologize for this and will do a cross test between 50lux R, 50lux M and Zeiss Planar 50 as compensation. Later...
If I misunderstood your point, then apologies are extended. It sounded (to me) that you were suggesting that the primary reason for going with Zeiss/Leica over Canonikongmaron was build, and that the optical differences weren't of that much significance. This I would agree/disagree with, but it often times comes in the form of what is NOT in the optics rather than what is in the optics, i.e. the aberrations, casts, distortions, vignetting, flare, etc vs. resolution/contrast that is of significance (as well as drawing style variance). The reference to the "Coke" bottle is merely the (exaggerated) inference that when less effort is given to such correction, it can be done much more inexpensively ... thus, there is more to the cost of Leica/Zeiss than merely a better mechanical build.
+1 @ each lens/design has to be evaluated individually, but even so, most mfr's do have "tendencies" that lean toward their philosophies regarding optical design. I think those can be loosely categorized, while still allowing for exceptions.
It's the total package that makes them what they are - yes, build quality but there are many other brands' finely constructed lenses - but crucially glass selection, glass matching of varying refractive indexes and dispersion qualities, all of which serve the central guiding design principles and goals for the particular lens. I would use Zeiss even if they were much more fragile...
All design has become much easier with computerisation - so even, for example, Sigma can plug and play these days - so the algorithmic capability has replaced a lot of accumulated wisdom formerly residing only in the CZ and Leitz (and similar) houses. Yet differences persist for those with the pereception to see it, as each of the compromises is traded off against the others in a more judicious, harmonious and balanced manner.
There are variations among lenses as there of course must be, but it is fair to say there is a house style for both these makers. They are at the forefront of highest order image making and always have been, for longer than any of us have been alive.
Another way to look at it is this: the OEM lenses have a huge advantage, all the overlapping design and technology factors run in their favour yet - using Zeiss as an example here - many perceptive users opt to put a ZE on the Canon mount, to the point where by all appearances CZ is doing quite nicely out of the deal, and has firmly established the line in the marketplace.
Now ask yourself this: if Zeiss still made say the Contax bodies, updated to today's needs - how many users would rush to install Canon lenses on them in preferences to those made by Zeiss today? And then discuss the 3D effect, colour rendering and microcontrast their new Canon lens delivers to their images...so much 'better' than the stock OEM lenses! Actually they would still rabbit on about 'sharpness' - plus ca change...
judging by the way the Canon/Nikon people act I imagine that precisely zero of them would even consider putting their red/gold rings on a Contax.
there has always been a difference between German and Japanese lens design goals (American, too) just as there are with cars, hi-fis and pens. I am not sure that Zeiss would ever make a lens like the 85/1.2LII; a technical marvel but a lens that is better than any other at making everyone who uses it look like exactly the same photographer.
'I see no charm in the scattering of highlights into the shadow areas. Veiling glare robs a lens from its brilliance and color saturation, and limits HDR performance.'
Karl Jung used to say that only a flawed practitioner could truly heal a patient. Nothing in the world is perfect and it would be a truly sterile place if it were so, heaven being a place where nothing ever happens, to quote a song writer.
To focus attention unduly on the means to an end could be considered putting the cart in front of the horse, of losing sight of the end goal - for many this goal is fine image making, an artistic rather than an engineering goal.
People run a strong risk of falling captive to the technical qualities of the machinery rather than the job the machinery does. Each year in the early noughts Honda's GP division would make Michael Doohan a new and (to them) far superior chassis for him to ride in the next world championship, the peak of world road racing. Several years his race team, unknown to the Japanese, would set aside the new frame and use the old one...because it delivered better lap/race times and more victories for the best rider in the world.
RIS, my point there is intended to identify the possible behaviour/preferences of hypothetical users of Contax cameras, not the CN people. I understand it is a strange concept to follow.
redisburning wrote:
judging by the way the Canon/Nikon people act I imagine that precisely zero of them would even consider putting their red/gold rings on a Contax.
there has always been a difference between German and Japanese lens design goals (American, too) just as there are with cars, hi-fis and pens. I am not sure that Zeiss would ever make a lens like the 85/1.2LII; a technical marvel but a lens that is better than any other at making everyone who uses it look like exactly the same photographer.
Nah, give me 85/1.2 II and I can show you pics that will be different. Its just lack of imagination I think.
And anyway, even in film era where fields were bit more even, same lens didnt mean same pictures.
Tho I agree lens design goals are different, currently most manufacturers are apparently pursuing "who will make lens with more flat output than before". Maybe except Sigma lately, 35/1.4 from them is pretty interesting lens. Tho it seems to lack good color transfer..
I am just a hobbyist and a recent convert to Zeiss and now Leica, so my experience is not as vast as other contributors here. But first of all I feel there is some intangible quality in Zeiss and Leica that I have not experienced with even high quality Nikkors that I've owned previously.
Someone on this forum said something to the effect of: Zeiss is like looking out of a window and Leica is like looking at a fine painting. The first time I read that I thought to myself 'wow what a crock of shi*' - but now having used Zeiss and Leicas for a few weeks I actually feel the same way.
To my eyes Zeiss results are more life like and Leica adds some element of romance. Leicas make portraits even more beautiful than the reality, or may be "it" was there I just did not see "it" - whatever "it" is. I feel that Leica files have been post processed already through some magical filter.
At this time I prefer Zeiss whenever I am interested in capturing a nature-scape. And I prefer Leica for everything else.
I know thats a huge generalization, individual lenses are different ... blah blah. But thats how I feel about these 2 brand at this time.
jamgolf, you got all that right IMO. Lovely images BTW.
I cannot think of taking personal portraits with my Zeiss lenses apart from the 100/3.5, and I think Leica is *the* portrait lens maker, even lenses you would not expect. A poster here - 'ataboy' - posted a memorable shot of a blond boy shot with a 100/2.8 APO macro, very special.
You get some curvature and less 'sharp' corners where the subjects are almost never positioned - it is intended to be that way, these designers absolutely know what they are doing even if some users don't comprehend that and downgrade the lens, unfairly and in ignorance.
The 21mm Distagon is like a slap in the face - such a very strong signature, but the correction is huge, I have seen nothing like it for what I shoot, there are not many lenses that surprise each session you shoot but this one does. And having read people say the 50/2 Summicron has less than wonderful bokeh, I wonder how they judge that, I really think that is a strong point.
Mescalamba, colour control is a huge point in favour of both these venerable manufacturers over the competition. It ought to to be clear to photographers, you would think. If these two makers did not exist, I doubt I would shoot digital, but you may argue you would then never know what you were missing! So I wish them all the best of success in the future.
carstenw wrote:
I am not under the impression that this is flare, but rather real detail. I don't know what the formulations of coatings perform in the real world, but Zeiss T* has a reputation for high contrast, without this necessarily be accompanied by real resolution. The ZF.2 35/1.4 seems to follow this pattern. It has quite good resolution, but not extraordinary.
I don't doubt that you are seeing real detail. The questionable part of your original statement is that this detail is due to a lower contrast of the Leica lens. The only cause of a reduced global contrast is veiling glare, which is the traditional killer of shadow detail.
