ulrikft2 wrote:
To me, Leicas and Zeiss often seem to share resolution characteristics, the zeiss look is far more "in your face" though, poppy, while the leicas are far more subtle in their approach. Not quite sure which I prefer the most yet.
Here's an example of the difference - Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH vs Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM (Open in separate tabs and flip between them)
It may sound silly, but in my experience Zeiss provides a more photorealistic experience, more like looking at the actual thing while the Leica provides a more artistic interpretation of reality. I should add that in this particular case the 35 Lux is my favorite M-mount lens while the 35 ZM is my least favorite M-mount lens. I know why I like the Lux, but I'm not sure why I dislike the 35 ZM. Possibly because how it renders wide open because stopped down it's really good.
At f/2 the DOF and sharpness-to-blur transitions are different. The OOF rendering is different as well with the Leica providing a smoother bokeh.
At f/5.6 the Zeiss shines with its higher local contrast. The Zeiss has basically zero distortions while the Leica shows some barrel distortion.
Two samples are of course not enough to capture the essence of either lens but although the difference seems subtle, after taking hundreds of images with each was that one was a real joy to use while the other was mostly a disappointment.
It's not a Zeiss vs Leica thing though. Competing for the last place with the 35/2 ZM is my 75 Summicron. It's sort of a reverse case of the 35/2 - really good wide open at certain distances (superb as a portrait lens) but mediocre stopped down and near infinity.
I would also say that Zeiss is more consistent in the rendering style. The ZM 35, although IMO technically inferior is still related in drawing style to the ZE 35. The only connection I really see with the Lux and the Cron is the color rendering which seems to be consistent.
Sort of looks like the difference between a sensor with a weak/no AA filter and one with a very heavy handed AA filter.
(Not suggesting AA filter is the culprit here ... just WOW, very noticeable and would require VERY different processing.)
The thing is that Zeiss and Canon design philosophy is entirely different. Zeiss has its style and enforces it. You can't do much about it in PP - it will still look like Zeiss rendering. Canon on the other hand produces a much more neutral image with the design goal to offend as few people as possible and to allow extensive postprocessing. It makes sense. They cater to a mass market.
I think that especially the bottle shows what I'm talking about. The Zeiss pops far more, the Leica is far more subtle. I find that some subject matter fits that "pop" very well, while others again is very well suited to the more muted approach from Leica.
I think I have to save up some funds and get a leica 35 1.4 R, zf 35 1.4, rokinon 35 1.4 and nikon 35 1.4 af-s to do a shootout some day :P
ulrikft2 wrote:
I think that especially the bottle shows what I'm talking about. The Zeiss pops far more, the Leica is far more subtle. I find that some subject matter fits that "pop" very well, while others again is very well suited to the more muted approach from Leica.
Yep, I agree. Roughly speaking I usually prefer the Leica for the large aperture stuff and the Zeiss stopped down but there are exceptions.
I think I have to save up some funds and get a leica 35 1.4 R, zf 35 1.4, rokinon 35 1.4 and nikon 35 1.4 af-s to do a shootout some day :P
As a matter of fact, I have been planning on doing a 35 mm shootout with the four 35mm primes that I currently have - the Zeiss 35/2 ZM, Zeiss 35/2 ZE, Zeiss 35/1.4 Rollei and the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux - but I have not gotten around to doing it yet.
@Denoir-so if I am reading these Zeiss vs. Leica comments correctly, if a person was starting from scratch and building a rangefinder based system, would you advise them "if you primarily want to do wide open available light shooting, pick the Leica optic, if you primarily want to do stopped down to F 5.6 micro-contrast emphasis type shots, pick the Zeiss optic", or is that way too general of an approach? Would you have to look at each focal length they intended to get, and do a case by case basis approach? Considering each of the major rangefinder focal lengths (the traditional 35, 50, 90, 135mm lineup) can have anywhere from two to more than 1/2 dozen choices, case by case picking and choosing could consume so much time, the analysis paralysis could stop one from producing meaningful photographs for years, if ever And this is just the traditional base focal length range, not even considering non traditional things like 12mm and 15mm (CV stands alone in this arena I believe) the 21mm lenses, the 24mm lenses, the 28mm lenses, the Tri-Elmars etc. Then you have nit picking over things like, a late 50mm F 2.8 Elmar vs. a 50mm F 3.5 Heliar (how much meaningful difference can there be in a Tessar derived lens formula?)
Oh brother, another can of worms-pass me the 75-300mm crappy Canon coke bottle before it is too late
denoir wrote:
The only connection I really see with the Lux and the Cron is the color rendering which seems to be consistent.
and that both are top performers wide open. i was always under the impression that wide open performance was a much more important criteria for leica while zeiss was more concerned with performance stopped down to the best aperture. not that zeiss lenses are bad wide open, just that if there are tradeoffs to be made each would make the opposite tradeoff.
Thanks for the comparison again, some day in the future I am going to try a 35 Lux ASPH. It's interesting to note that on RFF there is a current vote between 35 Lux ASPH and ZM 35/2 and it is around 50/50. So I guess ultimately it comes down to personal taste and the preferred aperture one shoot at. Better/worse is not a really helpful distinction.
Aleksander, I would expect that the majority of people voting have only tried one or the other.
Luka, one day you really should try to borrow the 90AA from your dealer (or rent). The focal length is very slightly longer than the 75, but the rendering is different. I think you would like it more, but I could of course be wrong.
While I absolutely have asserted and agree that the difference is noticeable ... nicely indicated by both tests run in two diff groups ... the issue of Zeiss being a 'positive' vs. 'negative' difference is in line with the concept of 'better' or 'worse' ... to which I disagree.
The question I had was about general view towards zeiss among canon shooters. I was curious, for people who are used to Canon's rendering style, and seeing what Zeiss can offer, was the difference perceived as a good thing, in other words, the difference is something Canon does not offer and people could be interested. Or, something that they in general cared less about, which would be a 'negative' response. This by no means does not indicate, one is better than the other. May be that was not clear, so I wanted to clarify.
Denoir
Ideally one should set up a website where you can vote and where the samples are randomized for each user.
Yes, ideally. On the other hand, the casual survey goes a long way.
The results showed that both in this forum and the Canon forum it was the set that people got the best results on.
Ironically, that was the one I missed. May be I need my eyes checked
To me, the potential of this sort of test has is that it might open up some people's mind and get curious about other options outside of their comfortable brand choices.
I'm sorry I caught up with this thread long after the action had passed. It was very entertaining to read, Thank you so much Denoir for the organization.
I think I would have much preferred a 1200x1800 image size, as this fills up my screen and is roughly the size that I use for my screen wall paper. I'm very comfortable with viewing my Zeiss images at that size, I'm used to the level of edge/corner sharpness and micro contrast to expect.
I had also done a side by side between the Canon 100/2.8 macro Vs the Canon 100/2.8 IS L macro about a year ago. I couldn't tell them apart by examining IQ either. However when I looked at the EXIF, the L lens always had a 1/3 stop longer shutter speed when taken in Av. Perhaps that was just calibration of those two individual lenses? I could always tell them apart from the exposure information.
What was the outcome of comparison of lenses I 1-5. I know that 2 (Canon 135/2) was withdrawn for blur, but the others? I thought 1 and 3 were more Zeiss like.
Mike K
I have a Zeiss 35/1.4 already - an adapted Rollei version. As for the new ZE one, I don't know but I don't think so. Four 35mm primes seems like enough for the moment
Adding my thanks for this tour de force by denoir. It certainly pushed back some boundaries, and is well deserving of a bookmark for future discussions.
Perhaps like akul, I am also very interested in the way people perceive images and how that informs their preferences. The starting point is of course access to the range of rendition styles offered by in-scope lenses, together with the usual metrics provided with alarming certainty by lens test websites as a basis for (expensive) purchases.
For interest, I showed the first series to a non-photographer friend and for the three less problematic image pairs asked: 'which one of the pair looks better, more life-like, more real, to you?' She chose the CZ image for each.
It's probable that Canon shooters just accept their gear as part of the system, how could any other company make better lenses than them? Like cars, lenses are sold very heavily on features: AF, IS, prestige (white colour, red rings) etc. which many feel they cannot do without. You also see an overwhelming emphasis everywhere on resolution, somewhat less on other 'measurables' (distortion, vignetting) - almost to the exclusion of 'esoterica' like micro-contrast and colour tonality/integrity/fidelity.
Seeing is believing, and the converse may also be true - of many.
RustyBug wrote:
Telltale sign of a "lens-a-holic" ... says he doesn't need more, but retains a built-in loophole for future growth.
You have no idea
If I hold up for one week more then I will have gone a whole month without buying any photo gear - first time in over a year. And that will make it two months since buying my last lens, which is remarkable for me as I've been averaging about 1.5 lenses/month the past year. So it's getting better!
Denoir,
Could you please reassign the links on this thread to the original images?
Also was the outcome of the "I" lens comparison discussed, I missed it. Was the whole point of that exercise comparing the rendition of the Canon 135/2?
And this is just the traditional base focal length range, not even considering non traditional things like 12mm and 15mm (CV stands alone in this arena I believe) the 21mm lenses, the 24mm lenses, the 28mm lenses, the Tri-Elmars etc. Then you have nit picking over things like, a late 50mm F 2.8 Elmar vs. a 50mm F 3.5 Heliar (how much meaningful difference can there be in a Tessar derived lens formula?)
