View Full Version : Zeiss Ikon=R2A
5nap5hot
12-09-2006, 07:51
Ok ... I don't want to ruffle any feathers but I am curious.
How different is the the Zeiss Ikon in comparison to the R2A. From what I have been able to see on the net, the Zeiss looks ALOT like the Bessa. They share parts and are made by the same company.
What makes it so much more expensive than the R2A? The little Zeiss sticker? The fixed strap lugs? :p
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 07:53
Never used R2A but zeiss ikon is fantastic! even after M7 :D
rogue_designer
12-09-2006, 08:14
I don't own either, so this is based on what I've gathered from this formum only.
Different shutter assembly (as far as I know) - the Icon also has a longer rangefinder baselength - which means it should (theoretically) focus more accurately (useful for lenses longer than 50mm).
Zeiss also has imposed harsher quality control and tolerance specs on the manufacture. So it should have a slightly higher build quality.
That said - the R2A is supposed to be a fine camera in it's own right.
I can understand spending $2000 on a mechanical camera that can be repaired and kept going for more than 50 years (think of the mechanical RF cameras from Nikon, Contax, Leica, and Canon that many of us still use) but due to my unfounded bias against battery-powered electronic cameras with circuit boards, < I > would spend the money on a Bessa A camera, but not so much on a ZI or M7. This is just me, and I'm not disparaging others who think differently.
And I'm perfectly happy to dole out that kind of dough for an M7 or whatever 'cos I've used my electronic Nikon SLRs for more years than I care to remember without any problems, and because when I needed my mechanical Leica M6TTL recently it wouldn't work and had to go into the shop. And I'm not disparaging mechanical camera owners either! ;) We are all different.
It's all good. Sincerely.
Yes indeedy! It really is. :)
If the net has told you that "the Ikon = the R2A", it's a good example of how the 'net is a source of second-hand, inaccurate, biased information.
I have no desire to buy a ZI (at least, until they produce a digital version) but it shares no crucial parts with the Bessa bar the shutter, which is bought in from Copal and modified - rather like Leica buy in the M8 and R10 shutter from Seiko, I believe.
the Bessa's main drawbacks are that it's tall and bulky, being based on an old Cosina-made Nikon chassis, with a RF of short baselength; the ZI body was designed from scratch. THis allowed Zeiss to design the most crucial element, the RF/VF without any compromises, particularly in respect of having a baselength that's hugely bigger than the Bessa, and significantly bigger than a Leica M. The RF is essentially superior to any Leica, including the M3, as it is designed to have the M3's resistance to flare, but having a longer baselength, it is more accurate but can simultaneously show framellines for wider lenses.
Although the ZI reportedly has much superior QC to the Bessa, it seems obvious that, like the Bessa, it doesn't have that wonderful tank-like heft of the Leica. But that tank-like heft doesn't help take better photos - whereas a superior RF might just do exactly that, if being in focus is important to you.
tomtodeath
12-09-2006, 09:26
if they made a mechanical ikon, i would buy it
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 10:01
plus RF alignment is an easy DIY
Can I do it myself?
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 10:14
I read it but I did not get it :D my english is bad I guess :)
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 10:31
ferider : You are right, I will fix all together! Thank you for great information
back alley
12-09-2006, 10:43
the zi does not cost $2000, more like $1200.
the base is longer than an m3 which i thought was the longest of all the leicas...?
joe
All M leicas have the same physical RF base length, but the .91 M3, and the .85 mag M's have higher viewfinder magnifications, resulting in a longer effective base length than the ZI.
All M leicas have the same physical RF base length, but the .91 M3, and the .85 mag M's have higher viewfinder magnifications, resulting in a longer effective base length than the ZI.
Of course, there's a trade-off for the higher mag, namely that it's difficult/impossible to see 28/35mm framelines (indisuptably to on the M3, which doesn't have them)- both of which are easily viewable on the Ikon. <p>
I'm not a cheerleader for the Zeiss, I own an R-D1 and an M4, not an Ikon, but I do believe they've delivered the best RF/VF on any camera to date. WHich is why I wish they'd hurry up and produce a digital....
I have owned both a ZI and an R2a at the exact same time. I sat and compared them side by side. If you do this, you will see that the ZI is not simply a rebadged Bessa.
back alley
12-09-2006, 11:12
All M leicas have the same physical RF base length, but the .91 M3, and the .85 mag M's have higher viewfinder magnifications, resulting in a longer effective base length than the ZI.
i just checked...i hate it when i'm wrong!!
none the less, the zi is the brightest finder i have ever used and i can see the framelines with my glasses on, so good enough for this ol' grump!
;)
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 11:14
viewfinder is brightest and widest but M7 has more contrasty viewfinder also framelines are brighter in M7
pizzahut88
12-09-2006, 11:35
I can understand spending $2000 on a mechanical camera that can be repaired and kept going for more than 50 years (think of the mechanical RF cameras from Nikon, Contax, Leica, and Canon that many of us still use) but due to my unfounded bias against battery-powered electronic cameras with circuit boards, < I > would spend the money on a Bessa A camera, but not so much on a ZI or M7. This is just me, and I'm not disparaging others who think differently.
I too am the same kind of person,
which is why I bought a R2 instead.
How long would an electronic shutter work?
Ten years? Twenty years?
Actually I don't know.
but mechanical stuff are proven to last long.
By the way, the Ikon and R3a share the same shutter assembly.
They are identical.
I have the chance to compare both at the store.
They are totally the same.
At least visually.
Manfred
ZeissFan
12-09-2006, 11:45
While the shutters began as the same electronic Copal, it is my understanding that Carl Zeiss modified the shutter to lower the noise it emits.
So visually they might appear to be the same, but they are not identical mechanically.
Physically, the cameras are different dimensions. The Bessa is thicker than the Zeiss Ikon, which wouldn't be possible if they were rebadged cameras.
Other improvements are different back designs. Not sure about the Bessa R2A/R3A, but the Zeiss Ikon doesn't have the Bessa hump, nor does it use foam to block stray light. Carl Zeiss used deeper channels, so no foam was necessary. While this makes no difference now, it will down the road when the foam begins to deteriorate and you're left with gooey clumps that occasionally end up in the shutter. When that happens, you have real problems.
The actual rangefinder/viewfinder assembly using prisms is very different from the Bessa.
As well, the Zeiss Ikon has automatic in-viewfinder frameline selection, while the framelines on the Bessa are selected with a top-mounted switch.
There is some sharing of parts. It appears that the button for AE LOCK is the same, although they operate differently. It's a toggle on the Zeiss Ikon, while you must keep it depressed on the Bessa.
I also believe the shutter release is identical, although again implementation is different. From what I've read, the pressure points are different.
I think the shutter speed dial might be the same but with different paint.
It would make sense to share some parts where it makes little difference.
But in the broader sense, no, these are not even close to being clones.
Now, the Rollei 35 RF -- that's a Bessa-R2 clone. And the Leica P&S digicams are clones of Panasonic models (and before that, Fuji).
quattro98
12-09-2006, 12:17
How long would an electronic shutter work?
Ten years? Twenty years?
Actually I don't know.
but mechanical stuff are proven to last long.
I'd say at least 20-30 years. My dad's Contax RTS (I) still works fine, shutter, meter & all. There are a huge number of Nikon & Canon SLR bodies out there which have been used & abused & held up fine (the F3 came out 25+ years ago).
Clearly the standard in rangefinder cameras has been set by Leica which incorporated mechanical shutters until the M7 & M8. All of the remotely affordable (used) M bodies have mechanical shutters. I think this is the reason for the bias against electromechanical shutters amongst rangefinder users.
I think the Ikon might be the first new rangefinder designed from the ground up which can compete with Leica on the quality of the rangefinder & design of the overall camera--it happens to use a modern shutter. Personally, AE with a ZI (or M7 or R2/3a) is reason enough for me to prefer an electronic shutter. The M7 brochure mentioned the cloth shutter as one of the characteristics of a Leica M (not mentioning a mechanical design) while the MP is sold on the basis of the more expensive construction of its mechanical shutter when compared to the M6. Both of these points are absent from the M8 literature, so even Leica has used multiple shutter designs which presumably meet their accuracy and durability standards.
My view of mechanical shutters & battery independence is that they are overrated in the context of photographic tools, but I also happen to like mechanical watches and fountain pens for the traditional approach they represent. I think that a mechcanical shutter is a prefectly reasonable choice in a camera, but to me the choice isn't one justified on technical merit, but rather preferences/sentiment/history just like watches or pens.
5nap5hot
12-09-2006, 14:16
I am interested in the Zeiss as a possible future camera. I just wanted to know if it is truly worth what it costs. Is it on par with the Leica M7? (my other choice)
look here, ive had two zeiss ikons and have used my friends r3a a bit, I can say right off the bat that he and I both can agree, the zeiss ikon while sharing some common factors with each other is like comparing a nikon f3 and a nikon fm3, while the fm3 is technically brilliant and will do everything you want for day to day photo taking, but the f3 is just better. Its the same with the ikon, my friends bessa has done him well and he has taken some great pictures with it, but the zeiss ikon is just simply better.
quattro98
12-09-2006, 16:44
I am interested in the Zeiss as a possible future camera. I just wanted to know if it is truly worth what it costs. Is it on par with the Leica M7? (my other choice)
Firstly, the ZI is much less expensive than the M7 & I think it is priced fairly. There are important differences between the two which can guide your choice. If based on these differences, you would prefer an M7, I think that it is better to spend the extra money than buy a ZI. I found that the ZI fit what I wanted (& my budget) over the M7.
Key Leica M7 features
TTL flash metering (1/50 max sync)
75 & 135 framelines
auto ISO setting based on DX coding
mechanical 1/60 & 1/125 shutter speeds
cloth shutter (quiet, 1/1000 max)
traditional Leica form factor
AE compensation on rear of camera
AE lock at shutter release
choice of viewfinder magnifiications via custom program
bottom film loading
brass top & bottom plates=heavierKey Zeiss Ikon features
eyeglasses-friendly 28 mm framelines
large rangefinder base length
unpaired 35 & 50 framelines
metal shutter (1/2000 max with flash sync to 1/125)
AE compensation at shutter speed dial
AE lock on rear of camera with persistence between shots
hinged back
magnesium top & bottom plates=lighter
all shutter speeds require batteryClearly, I spent a lot of time comparing these before making a decision, partly because it was fun. These are the things I knew about before seeing the cameras in person. After using them, there are other things which you really notice. The shutter speed & meter displays are very different, although I'm sure both work well. One of the things I really like about the ZI is the feel & arrangement of the shutter speed dial, shutter release, & film advance, the primary controls are great. My major deciding factors in the ZI over M7 (since I wanted AE) were the glasses-friendly finder and the value/price. After using the camera, I'm glad the AE lock is on a separate button & the exposure compensation is at the shutter dial (although the Canon EOS system uses the rear dial for compensation & that is OK too, but I prefer the top dial as on the Zeiss).
I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any specific questions. I have only tried an M7 at camera stores, but there are others on RFF who have used both bodies extensively. :)
My Yashica FX-3 and my sisters Canon T60 (? unsure about the name) and a friends Nikon FM10 share a lot of parts and as far as I know they share them with the original Bessa R. What Cosina did was making cameras for other companies based on an existing design and have those other companies pay for the improvements which cosina integrated in their next desing.
IMHO Cosina introduced the 1:1 viewfinder in the Bessa R3A after it was used in the Epson R-D1 and the improved Copal shutter after it was used in the ZI.
I think they may not use the ZI viewfinder or it might be too expensive for a Bessa priced camera.
When I bought my Contax G2 I was more interested in a Hexar RF or a Bessa R2 or Rollei 35RF, but my dealer wanted too much for the Hexar kit and hadn't a Bessa for me to try. So I went home with the Contax.
Today I'm torn apart between what the Contax G delivers and how much more choice a M-Mount based system offers.
I
How long would an electronic shutter work?
Ten years? Twenty years?
Actually I don't know.
but mechanical stuff are proven to last long.
My oldest electronicaly shuttered camera turns 30 next year. It has never been serviced although it was used from the Lofotes to the caribbean sea
I got a old canon ae1 here, electronic shutter in that, works fine. I think its neat though how the shutter isnt metal but rather cloth too and just the mirror and its housing are metal, either way though the thing makes a nice loud clack when you take a photo.
Im not worried about my camera being ok in 30 years because I think in 30 years ill have found something else.
back alley
12-09-2006, 19:09
i'd be happy to be able to lift a camera in 30 years.
;)
ZeissFan
12-09-2006, 19:37
As far as being on par ...
On paper, the Bessa-R3A, Zeiss Ikon and Leica M7 compare favorably with each other, with the Leica having a more sophisticated metering system, particularly when it comes to using electronic flash.
In use, the three cameras are different. Each has a different feel and quite possibly will appeal to different groups.
The Leica has a feel that hasn't changed much since the 1950s, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The Bessa is a lighter weight camera that often is described as being "fun" to use. I've probably read that description about the Bessa more often than anything else.
The Zeiss Ikon, despite being produced in Japan, is a German camera. Sturdy and predictable. By the way, the physical dimensions of the Zeiss Ikon are very similar to the Contax II.
If possible, try to use each of the cameras. More than anything else, that will tell you which camera is for you.
In general, I wouldn't purchase a new camera merely on technical specs.
Nachkebia
12-09-2006, 22:23
M7 has self-timer ? :D
triplefinger
12-09-2006, 23:32
I had an r3a, now own a ZI, ZI is MUCH quieter, finder is brighter, framelines are nicer. I go miss the little grippy bit on the back of the bessa, but the ZI feels excellent in hand. also, auto frameline selection.
mike
Huck Finn
12-10-2006, 02:54
The M3 and .85 M6 have longer effective baselength than the ZI.
Yes, the M3 & .85 M6/7 have longer effective base lengths than the ZI, but this is comparing apples & oranges. Those Leica cameras DON'T have 28 mm frame lines. In fact, the M3 doesn't even have 35 mm frames. These Leicas are not designed for all-around use in the way that the ZI is with its built-in 28 frame lines. The ZI has the longest effective base length o fany camera ever built with 28 mm frame lines in its view finder.
The net keeps talking about better QC for the ZI than for the Bessa.
Unless somebody explains the difference in QC process this is just noise/marketing.
There are 3 elements to the Zeiss Ikon that demonstrate higher quality control: design, manufacture, & inspection.
1. Design:Carl Zeiss AG invested R&D into this camera that Cosina never has into the Bessa line. The camera was designed as an integrated unit from the beginning without compromise. The parts were designed to fit together & work together as a whole unlike the Bessa in which parts were forced to fit into an existing SLR design. After the development of a protototype, Zeiss field tested the camera & solicited consumer feedback in focus groups. They also consulted with the manufacturing people for feedback to the designers. The camera was revised based on this input before it ever came to market. Having such an intensive & extensive design & dvelopment process before production line assembly ever began set a high standard for quality from the beginning.
2. Manufacture: In his review of the Zeiss Ikon system, Erwin Puts reported that his inspection & tests revealed that the system was built to tighter tolerances than the Bessas - not as tight as a Leica, but about half way between the two.
The use of a rangefinder with a 75 mm base line alone is a quality control feature. This is double the length of the Bessa RF base line. Therefore, any error in manufacture & has twice the effect in usage in a Bessa caera than in a Zeiss Ikon. In the development of a precision rangefinder, increased magnification is not a substitute for physical length of the base line.
3. Inspection: Every Zeiss Ikon camera that comes off the production line is examined & certified by a by a QC inspector before it is packaged & shipped. This is not done for Bessa cameras. Quality control is performed by the consumer. Same for the ZM lenses. Every lens that comes off the production line is tested on a Zeiss MTF plotter to insure that it meets performance standards before it is packaged & shipped. We know that this has never been the Cosina practice because the MTF plotters had to be installed in the Cosina factory in order for them to comply with Zeiss requirements.
BTW, from pictures it seems like the R[23]M has a different shutter than earlier Bessas, it looks identical to the ZI's.
The issue with the ZI shutter has never been its physical parts. It's a standard Copal shutter. No need to reinvent the wheel. It was modified to make it quieter & Cosina may well have copied this same modification for the R2/3M. I have no idea. What makes the ZI shutter different is its electronics, which were specially developed for this camera. The firing of the ZI shutter & the electromagnet used allow for the shutter to have the same shutter lag as the M7, i.e. 14 ms (milliseconds) in manual & 20 ms in AE. In addition, the travel distance of the ZI shutter release is only 0.9 mm, compared with 2 mm on an M7. And the first 0.6 mm of travel of the ZI shutter release is just to activate the meter, leaving only 0.3 ms to actually fire the shutter. The combination of lack of shutter lag & short travel distance of the shutter release allows for instantaneous response by the camera. This is at the very heart of rangefinder photography - the ability to capture your subject in the moment. In contrast, Popular Photography reported a shutter lag of 100 ms when it tested the Bessa R. Cosina has never reported any improvements in shutter lag in its succeeeding Bessa incarnations nor have they reported any attempts to improve shutter performance.
Huck, that was an excellent write up.
Excellent info in the thread. IMO, as a lover for old Zeiss Ikon cameras, I have to say the new ZI is just a japanese camera bearing ZI name. Nothing else could relate it to the great ZI bloodline.
yikes that read like a camera advertisement hehe very nice none the less
ZeissFan
12-10-2006, 05:14
Excellent info in the thread. IMO, as a lover for old Zeiss Ikon cameras, I have to say the new ZI is just a japanese camera bearing ZI name. Nothing else could relate it to the great ZI bloodline.
Actually, the opposite is true. It's a German camera of Japanese manufacture.
As Huck points out, the approach to assembly as well as the design and R&D is more German than Japanese with each body and lens required to pass minimum standards. That's each body and each lens, not random checks on the assembly line. This slows the production, which increases the cost.
The design also is the minimalist German approach with the emphasis being on ease of use and functionality.
One thing to consider is this: Carl Zeiss AG, the parent firm, has not been in the business of camera production, with the exceptions being some plate cameras in the early 1900s and completion of some cameras after the demise of Zeiss Ikon in the 1970s.
Zeiss could have made this camera in Germany, and I believe we would have ended up with the same camera, more or less, although the cost to the consumer would have been significantly higher, because Zeiss first would have had to create a camera production facility and then hire and train camera assembly techs and begin to source and/or fabricate parts ... a sizable investment with no guarantee of financial success seeing that it was entering a niche market that grows smaller every year.
I would have loved a "Made in Germany" Zeiss Ikon, but I'm quite certain that the pricetag would have been closer to the Leica and not at the price point we see now. That would have sharply limited its appeal in the marketplace.
And I say all this as an ardent buyer, restorer and user of the classic Zeiss Ikon cameras.
Nachkebia
12-10-2006, 05:29
We have german zeiss ikon it is called leica right? it should be good to have choise! I like zeiss ikon! and I like it even more because of its price! I am sure if it was done in germany it would have double price, now with price of new M7 I can buy two or three zeiss ikons, which going to last more? I don`t know :D
Huck Finn
12-10-2006, 05:39
yikes that read like a camera advertisement hehe very nice none the less
Sorry, Avotius. I was not trying to make it a ZI promo. :angel:
My goal was to share some factual stuff that isn't readily available in the camera descriptions - stuff that I had to dig to find.
Those who lump the Zeiss Ikon in with the Bessas & divide the RF world into Leica vs everything else miss the core point about a Zeiss Ikon.
A Zeiss Ikon meets or exceeds the performance features of a Leica in every respect except for shutter noise. That is the simple fact. A Bessa does not. Immediacy of response. Exceptional viewfinder with 28 - 85 frame lines. Long base rangefinder. These are all things that make a difference in the final product - photos & how you take them.
A Zi does not have all of the features of an M7. Things like DX coding. It's a more Spartan design. I'll let others debate issues like build quality. But if you want to match the core performance of an M7, a ZI will do that & a Bessa will not. That's the truth & not a promo. Nor is it a knock on athe Bessas, which are what they are & do a fine job of offering a basic RF body on which to mount high quality RF lenses.
I never suspect new ZI is not designed in Gemany by Zeiss. I also never suspect Zeiss try their best. What I suspect is how much capacity Ziess still left in their camera design team. The last real RF they designed is the contax IIa/IIIa, 45 years ago. And obvious Zeiss can't afford a new production line in Germany. So they have to consider how to make use of the current one in Cosina.
No compromise, but it depends on how far their stength could stretch.
On the other hand, I have no complaints on new ZI. I have played with one of my friend for a while. The RF is excellent, but no surprise. How can it surprise someone with a techique M3 has achieved 50years ago?
I am considering my next contax camera collection. So far, ZI is not in the list.
Nachkebia
12-10-2006, 05:47
This are the guys who designed Zeiss ikon
http://www.henssler-schultheiss.de/
Thats why it is so clinical (medical) :D
Direct link to zeiss ikon design page http://www.henssler-schultheiss.de/gb/gb2_11_141.htm
This are the guys who designed Zeiss ikon
http://www.henssler-schultheiss.de/
Thats why it is so clinical (medical) :D
Direct link to zeiss ikon design page http://www.henssler-schultheiss.de/gb/gb2_11_141.htm
Very interesting info. How I envy their working enciroment! That's why they can't cut down their cost.;)
quattro98
12-10-2006, 08:19
M7 has self-timer ? :D
Corrected. :eek: At least I get credit for using bullet points. :o
quattro98
12-10-2006, 08:32
I never suspect new ZI is not designed in Gemany by Zeiss. I also never suspect Zeiss try their best. What I suspect is how much capacity Ziess still left in their camera design team. The last real RF they designed is the contax IIa/IIIa, 45 years ago. And obvious Zeiss can't afford a new production line in Germany. So they have to consider how to make use of the current one in Cosina.
No compromise, but it depends on how far their stength could stretch.
I think that buying a Leica because one wants a Leica is a perfectly valid choice. The M is a great product which has been used by many of the photographers represented in books on my shelf which is pretty cool. No other rangefinder camera is going to provide the history of a Leica. :cool:
What I don't see is the need to suggest that the reason for buying a Leica is due to perceived shortcomings in other cameras/companies. The essentials of a camera body could be produced just about any optics company in the world today. If Cosina wanted to target a $3000 price point instead of well under $1000, I doubt they would have used an existing chassis. In terms of Zeiss' design capabilities, by all accounts the viewfinder & rangefinder of the ZI are excellent. :D
willie_901
12-10-2006, 10:03
How different is the the Zeiss Ikon in comparison to the R2A. From what I have been able to see on the net, the Zeiss looks ALOT like the Bessa. They share parts and are made by the same company.
What makes it so much more expensive than the R2A? The little Zeiss sticker? The fixed strap lugs? :p
It is interesting (to me) to read how the ZI was attacked when it first came out. Putts' articles helped a bit.
This blog is a sticky for this forum. I think it addresses the first post in this thread
http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon/pages/intro.html
This blog has mp3s of the ZI and other camera shutter sounds.
The blog also has an obscure but detailed article "Inside The Zeiss Ikon".
http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon/pages/comments_other_bm.html
This is a worthwhile read if you want to understand the differences and similarities between the ZI and the Bessas.
I think Hicks and Schlutz summed up the ZI best in their Shutterbug review last April. The ZI is priced in between the R2A and the M7. You get what you pay for. The ZI is not a Leica, neither is it a Bessa.
Last spring I showed my ZI to the Leica guru at a nearby camera store. When he handed it back to me all he said was. "The finder is remarkable. Thanks for showing it to me."
At another excellent camera store I showed the ZI to their one of the salesman. It was a slow night. The store manager was nearby. The salesman gave the ZI to the manager and said,
" You should take a look at this." When the manager handled the camera and gave it back to me he said. "Now that is a real camera you've got there... that's a real camera."
This was from someone who makes their living doing a brisk business in Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Nikon DSLRs and top-of-the-line P&S cameras.
willie
5nap5hot
12-10-2006, 14:02
Well... I am glad I started this thread. It has really sold me on the Zeiss Ikon.
Now the next question, Zeiss Vs Leica Glass. My instructor at the photo school I go to told me that German lens have superior glass due to the sand qualities in some regions of Germany.(not strictly because of German manufacture) I know that Zeiss lens are made in Japan, are they made with Japanese glass raw material?
Leica lenses are REALLY expensive. (at least the new ones are). Is it a better value to go with used Leica glass or new Zeiss?
rogue_designer
12-10-2006, 14:49
Well... I am glad I started this thread. It has really sold me on the Zeiss Ikon.
Now the next question, Zeiss Vs Leica Glass. My instructor at the photo school I go to told me that German lens have superior glass due to the sand qualities in some regions of Germany.(not strictly because of German manufacture) I know that Zeiss lens are made in Japan, are they made with Japanese glass raw material?
Leica lenses are REALLY expensive. (at least the new ones are). Is it a better value to go with used Leica glass or new Zeiss?
Leica lenses have a different look than the Zeiss lenses... Better is not a useful term at this point. Both are excellent as new lines. Decide which look you like best, which range offers the focal length and speed you require, then decide which price point you can negotiate.
FWIW - either can use LTM (with basic very good adapters) or used M mount lenses - you are not restricted to the newest offerings by either manufacturer.
ZeissFan
12-10-2006, 15:28
The measurement criteria among many photographers today isn't how sharp a lens is but how it renders out-of-focus regions. And that often is what gives a particular "look" to certain lenses.
Leica and Zeiss lenses today should give you plenty of sharpness, so it comes down to which "look" you prefer. For that, look at the many photos that have been posted to the Internet.
I've read a number of stories -- which might or might not be true -- about production of the glass for German lenses. Years ago, air bubbles in glass was considered a sign of quality. Today, you never see bubbles in glass, which leads me to think that a negative (inability to remove the air bubbles) was turned into a positive.
So I probably wouldn't listen too closely to those stories. Maybe they're true. Maybe they're not.
If you want to learn more about the Zeiss lens designs, visit this page. (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/C4B1A59613632D9DC1257226005F6AB7)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.