fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2020 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

I currently shoot both on a digital camera not film. I don't use these particular film cameras used in this article. But interesting none the less with plenty of direct comparisons.

What do you think Leica or Zeiss?

Article:
https://onfilmonly.com/are-you-a-leica-or-zeiss-person-leica-m6-vs-contax-t3/

Images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/onfilmonly/sets/72157713471060542/

Video:

&feature=emb_logo

Apr 05, 2020 at 12:32 PM

nehemiahphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

Thank you for posting!

Having shot both (and many others) for a long time, I think it really depends on 2 things:

1) the subject

2) the lens

While I watched and enjoyed the photos in the video, I think it's too hard to generalize which maker is better. For instance:

I prefer the draw of the Contax 35 1.4 versus the Summilux R 35.

I prefer the modern draw of the ZM 35 1.4 to the Lux 35mm's (PRE-FLE or FLE).

I prefer the M 50 1.4 Lux v.4 to any sharp 50mm Zeiss has put out.

I prefer the 75/80 Lux to any portrait lens Zeiss has put out, from CY till now.

And then there are many lenses that don't have an equivalent. Zeiss makes no small 75 APO or a 28 1.4 Summilux. Leica makes no retro lovely ZM 50 1.5 lens.

So, even within the same era and with comparable lenses, I prefer either/or, not one brand as a whole. And if you include other manufacturers, it gets way more nuanced and preferential.

Apr 05, 2020 at 01:08 PM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thank you for posting!

Having shot both (and many others) for a long time, I think it really depends on 2 things:

1) the subject

2) the lens

While I watched and enjoyed the photos in the video, I think it's too hard to generalize which maker is better. For instance:

I prefer the draw of the Contax 35 1.4 versus the Summilux R 35.

I prefer the modern draw of the ZM 35 1.4 to the Lux 35mm's (PRE-FLE or FLE).

I prefer the M 50 1.4 Lux v.4 to any sharp 50mm Zeiss has put out.

I prefer the 75/80 Lux to any portrait lens Zeiss...Show more →

Good summary of your thoughts, preferences and good excuse/rationale to select lenses from both systems!

I have a set of three Contax G lenses 28/45/90 that I adapt to Sony mirrorless and even with that thick Sony sensor can see distinct characteristics. One day I'd like to see how they perform on a Contax G2 camera, but I'm not that motivated to get into film. So digital comparisons are it for me.

Apr 05, 2020 at 01:45 PM

rico
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

Didn't watch the videos but I own a Leica M4 and the T3: completely different shooting experiences. The M4 is bigger, heavier, MF, rangefinder, big VF, manual exposure, manual advance. The T3 is shirt pocket size and weight, AF, AE, retractable lens, inbuilt flash, everything motorized. The T3 Sonnar 35/2.8 vignettes but is blisteringly sharp with great b/g blur.

Apr 05, 2020 at 01:47 PM

AndereObjektiv
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

both, and fujinon, mamiya sekor, sony, pentax, nikkor, canon, schneider, rodenstock, kodak...

Apr 05, 2020 at 01:56 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

For M-mount, I have no Zeiss glass. Only using Leica and Cosina-Voigtlander there. Never worked with the Contax system either.

For Hasselblad V-mount, I own four excellent Hasselblad-Zeiss CF T* lenses.

Therefore, I can't really compare since my usage of Leica and Zeiss with different image circles is comparing apples and oranges.

Both make great lenses - as well as others do, too.

Apr 05, 2020 at 05:53 PM

d.s.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

LBJ2 wrote:
What do you think Leica or Zeiss?

Article:
https://onfilmonly.com/are-you-a-leica-or-zeiss-person-leica-m6-vs-contax-t3/

I don't think of the T3's Sonnar as having much "pop" compared to, say, the C-Biogon. I haven't used any of Leica's 35mm offerings.

The ZM Planar I had certainly has higher contrast, better bokeh (neutral), and better flare resistance than my Elmar-M, but at the expense astigmatism and a slightly higher order of barrel distortion than what's said to be typical of 50mm lenses.

Is it fair to compare an f/2.8 lens to an f/2?

Apr 05, 2020 at 06:40 PM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

rico wrote:
Didn't watch the videos but I own a Leica M4 and the T3: completely different shooting experiences. The M4 is bigger, heavier, MF, rangefinder, big VF, manual exposure, manual advance. The T3 is shirt pocket size and weight, AF, AE, retractable lens, inbuilt flash, everything motorized. The T3 Sonnar 35/2.8 vignettes but is blisteringly sharp with great b/g blur.

How about the image comparisons?

Article:
https://onfilmonly.com/are-you-a-leica-or-zeiss-person-leica-m6-vs-contax-t3/

Images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/onfilmonly/sets/72157713471060542/

Apr 05, 2020 at 06:44 PM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

d.s. wrote:
I don't think of the T3's Sonnar as having much "pop" compared to, say, the C-Biogon. I haven't used any of Leica's 35mm offerings.

The ZM Planar I had certainly has higher contrast, better bokeh (neutral), and better flare resistance than my Elmar-M, but at the expense astigmatism and a slightly higher order of barrel distortion than what's said to be typical of 50mm lenses.

Is it fair to compare an f/2.8 lens to an f/2?

I think in most cases ( perhaps not always) the characteristic or "look" will be apparent at both f/2,8 or f2

Apr 05, 2020 at 06:47 PM

ocean2059
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

LBJ2 wrote:
Good summary of your thoughts, preferences and good excuse/rationale to select lenses from both systems!

I have a set of three Contax G lenses 28/45/90 that I adapt to Sony mirrorless and even with that thick Sony sensor can see distinct characteristics. One day I'd like to see how they perform on a Contax G2 camera, but I'm not that motivated to get into film. So digital comparisons are it for me.

Contax G lenses are my favorite lenses for landscaping and general travel use. For city and people photograph, I prefer using Leica M lenses. I also like using Leica R lenses when shooting slide film.

Apr 05, 2020 at 06:59 PM

ocean2059
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

It may be also interesting to note that the Leica Summicron used in the comparison was made in 1985-86 (for the given serial number) and the Contax T3 was made much later. In the 80's, Leica used different lens coating compared with later version of Leica lens. For example, later version of Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH has higher micron contrast, pretty closer to Zeiss/Contax lenses, but with a bit deep and rich color profile. In comparison, Contax G lenses render color more towards neutral with clarity and crispness. In term of color rendering style, the only modern lenses in digital age that resemble Contax lenses are the Zeiss Otus lens line. And that is the reason that I hold on and keep trying to use the Contax G lenses as much as I can on digital bodies.

Apr 05, 2020 at 07:58 PM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

When I shot film and tried Leica M and Contax G side by side, I noticed basically no difference between the two. There was quite a bit of difference between them and the Nikon lenses I had at the time. I opted for Contax/Zeiss because I preferred the Contax G over the Leica M and because Contax was cheaper for what I saw as a similar result (granted, of course, that I can only speak for the lenses I used at the time).

Apr 05, 2020 at 08:17 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thank you for posting!

Having shot both (and many others) for a long time, I think it really depends on 2 things:

1) the subject

2) the lens

While I watched and enjoyed the photos in the video, I think it's too hard to generalize which maker is better. For instance:

I prefer the draw of the Contax 35 1.4 versus the Summilux R 35.

I prefer the modern draw of the ZM 35 1.4 to the Lux 35mm's (PRE-FLE or FLE).

I prefer the M 50 1.4 Lux v.4 to any sharp 50mm Zeiss has put out.

I prefer the 75/80 Lux to any portrait lens Zeiss...Show more →

i'd agree with all of this, except I might prefer the 35 lux to the zm depending on the subject � the zm is overly harsh for me at times.

also, it's not a current lens, but i probably prefer the old 50 lux pre-asph to the zm 50/1.5.

anybody interested in an amusing trip down memory lane can see this leica vs zeiss thread i started 7 years ago: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1190503/0

i really want to find a cheap busted contax T3 so I can take out the lens and see how it works on my kolari UT. just got a rollei XF35 though, so i'll see how that 40/2.3 sonnar performs.

Apr 06, 2020 at 03:14 AM

Sauseschritt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

Err ... Nikon has some extremely brilliant lenses, too. Like the new AF-S 24mm f1.8, the Nikkon AF 60m f2.8 micro, the Nikkor AF 105mm f2 DC, and the Nikkor AF 180mm f2.8.

I always wanted to try a Leica R lens, but the two that are apparently best are the 60mm f2.8 macro and the 180mm f2.8, and in both cases I just cant see the real advantage over the already amazing Nikon originals.

Other than that, I own and love the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 and the Voigtl�nder Nokton 58mm f1.4. Would love to own the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f2, too, but they are only very rarely offered (and I wouldnt want the Milvus version).

The bottom line, to me, is that Leica, Zeiss and Voigtl�nder build, to very high standards, manual focus lenses with heavy crystal glas in all metal housing, and that all lensmakers have better and not that good lenses among their offerings, so if you want the best of the best, you have to examine the individual lens, not just look at the company name. Copy variance, at least, is so small with all three companies that, unlike other companies, it hardly matters.

Apr 06, 2020 at 05:20 AM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

Sauseschritt wrote:
Err ... Nikon has some extremely brilliant lenses, too. Like the new AF-S 24mm f1.8, the Nikkon AF 60m f2.8 micro, the Nikkor AF 105mm f2 DC, and the Nikkor AF 180mm f2.8.

I always wanted to try a Leica R lens, but the two that are apparently best are the 60mm f2.8 macro and the 180mm f2.8, and in both cases I just cant see the real advantage over the already amazing Nikon originals.

Other than that, I own and love the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 and the Voigtl�nder Nokton 58mm f1.4. Would love to own the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm...Show more →

Agree. Top quality lenses every where, across multiple brands, manufacturers. Not at all hard to find excellent optics these days at all price points new and used.

I just sold my Classic Zeiss 135/2 Canon. Beautiful lens. I am also selling another legend the same Zeiss Classic system, the 100/2 and getting ready to sell the Classic, the pop master, the Zeiss 35/2. Time for me to try something else, but what a trio of lenses! I know there are coating differences between Zeiss Classic 135 and Zeiss Milvus 135, just wondering if anyone could actually see the difference in a side by side?

No matter the lens some lenses just achieve a distinct or certain look so more so than others and I think this thread is a good example of how different the look can be when specifically compared side by side. Preferences for one look over the other are subjective of course, but always fun/interesting to know the rationale behind the preference.

Apr 06, 2020 at 08:58 AM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

sebboh wrote:
i'd agree with all of this, except I might prefer the 35 lux to the zm depending on the subject � the zm is overly harsh for me at times.

also, it's not a current lens, but i probably prefer the old 50 lux pre-asph to the zm 50/1.5.

anybody interested in an amusing trip down memory lane can see this leica vs zeiss thread i started 7 years ago: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1190503/0

i really want to find a cheap busted contax T3 so I can take out the lens and see how it works on my kolari UT. just got a rollei XF35 though,...Show more →

Thanks for posting this thread. I may not have seen otherwise. I was just starting out in NEX land back then and didn't even really understand the great names like Zeiss and Leica.

I always like to go back to the older threads and look at the images people posted as examples/samples. Sometimes very interesting compared to what people post today. Also, I recognize many of the same names that I see posting on FM.com today. I guess other than discussions about new products, many of the current topics have been discussed many times over.

Apr 06, 2020 at 09:08 AM

Sauseschritt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

LBJ2 wrote:
[...] I know there are coating differences between Zeiss Classic 135 and Zeiss Milvus 135, just wondering if anyone could actually see the difference in a side by side? [...]

I wasnt aware theres any optical differences between those two. I just think Milvus lenses, as a design, look butt ugly. And I'm neither videocentric (one can have clickless aperture with Milvus lenses) nor do I think the classic lenses needed more weathersealing. Finally the classic is of course cheaper on the used market.

Apr 06, 2020 at 10:03 AM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

Sauseschritt wrote:
I wasnt aware theres any optical differences between those two. I just think Milvus lenses, as a design, look butt ugly. And I'm neither videocentric (one can have clickless aperture with Milvus lenses) nor do I think the classic lenses needed more weathersealing. Finally the classic is of course cheaper on the used market.

Same optical design. From what I read, Zeiss "improved" coatings on the 135 Milvus

Apr 06, 2020 at 10:26 AM

rico
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

I remember when the Contax brand was reborn (again), and the RTS system started hitting the stores in the mid-1970s. Drooool. I was soon caught up with Nikon and Hassy so did not start the Contax journey until around 2000. The T3 is the ultimate film P&S and used to be widely available: mine was $500 from B&H during Contax Days (twice a year sale). Given the current price, I should have bought a full pallet of the things! Kyocera's first model in the T line was the original T, and is a lot more interesting as a compact camera: folding design, optical RF, manual focus, no motors, full-time A-priority, detachable flash, 38/2.8. The Sonnar has lower contrast but is a sweet performer. I own three.

Apr 06, 2020 at 10:43 AM

philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Leica or Zeiss? What do you see?

Love the red shutter button and well-chosen CD, release date: 7 September 1979 ;-)

'Sometimes very interesting compared to what people post today.' Less ornithology?

Apr 06, 2020 at 04:42 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end