View Full Version : Some test shots: Zeiss vs. Leica
Check out this post I made for Leica Forum. Hope it helps. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3fJ
hmm, the leica is bluish, and the planar is yellowish.
What would be really fun would be to post the images without labeling which came from which lens; maybe that could be in a separate post.
I'd be interested to see if that affected people's perceptions of which ones were "best."
No, JLW, the difference as depicted there, are clear.
An ebarrassed Zeiss fan.
I was a bit surprised at how poorly the Planar seemed to render the chart compared with the others. Do you think the slightly different focusing point Zeiss designed into their lens might be a contributing factor Alan. Also mentioned by Erwin IIRC.
Its a shame you no longer have the Planar. It would have been interesting to see how they all compare at the same aperture - eg, f/4, so as not to get into the sweet spot territory, and also not leaving one lens at maximum aperture.
most people seem to take, like, two shots and call it a lens test. aren't there any standardized, comprehensive tests used by magazines? all apertures, up close, at infinity, tonality, micro-contrast, color balance in different lighting, shadows and hilights, bokeh across the range, etc....
A more meaningful test would be shots taken on the same roll of slide film.
Print quality depends mostly on the lab. I have found out long ago that it's the most important element determining the final (technical) result. If the negative was not developed properly or the print not adjusted well, all you see is cr*p.
I wouldn't use two different rolls (negative or reversal) in testing, let alone two different labs.
Bertram2
07-31-2005, 16:03
most people seem to take, like, two shots and call it a lens test. ..
Says it all, thanks . No further comment necessary. :bang:
Bertram
In all fairness, the 50mm Summilux ASPH would also blow away the 50mm Summicron. It is reportedly just that good. Right up there with the new 75mm Summicron ASPH and the 90mm Summicron APO. The most recent offerings from Leica are really in a league of their own.
Anyway, I suspect that we would not be able to tell the difference between the 50mm Summicron and the 50mm Planar.
Keep in mind these images are negative scans, no printing involved. I doubt that differences in photo labs will impact these images because the film scanner won't resolve much better than 64 lp/mm anyway. Focus bracketing a few hundreths of a mm will improve the Planar's central resolution results so the design of the ZM body might be such that the film may be more relaxed and may "drift" to a position towards the lens. Leica bodies may keep the film a little flatter and closer to the pressure plate.
richard_l
07-31-2005, 19:04
In all fairness, the 50mm Summilux ASPH would also blow away the 50mm Summicron. Especially at f/1.4.
David Kieltyka
08-01-2005, 10:22
In all fairness, the 50mm Summilux ASPH would also blow away the 50mm Summicron. It is reportedly just that good. Right up there with the new 75mm Summicron ASPH and the 90mm Summicron APO. The most recent offerings from Leica are really in a league of their own.
Anyway, I suspect that we would not be able to tell the difference between the 50mm Summicron and the 50mm Planar.
You are correct. I've used my copy of the Planar and a friend's copy of the Summicron for real photos. They're essentially identical in performance. The color balance is slightly different, though not at all like the test photos at photo.net indicate. If anything the Planar is a touch cooler than the Leica. It has richer blues while the Summicron has richer reds. This is based on photos taken with Fuji Astia and with an Epson R-D1.
The 50mm Summilux ASPH has a test chart advantage, at least in the center, over every other 50mm lens currently available. The question is whether this means anything in the real world. If you're shooting at f/1.4 or f/2 and printing huge I suppose it might. I don't print huge. So I buy lenses based on my needs, not on absolutes.
-Dave-
The bottom line is that whether it's a resolution chart or detailed object, the Summicron, Summilux's, Planar and Sonnar(40/2.8) all do quite well centrally and you'd be very hard pressed to differentiate between them. The differences really come down to how large a maximum aperture you need. If you don't need f/1.4 and want to save some cash, the Summicron or Planar will do about as well across the frame as the Asph. Summilux, the differences between the two being ergonomics and resale value. If you need the best imaging possible at f/1.4 or f/2 the asph. Summilux is the best bet but at a steep price. One can appreciate where the extra money is going though by comparing the imaging of the pre-asph. to the Asph. version of the Summilux epecially in the outer zones of the frame.
Roger Hicks
08-01-2005, 13:35
Dear Aizan,
No, there's no standardized test. We all devise our own.
Cheers,
Roger
most people seem to take, like, two shots and call it a lens test. ..Says it all, thanks . No further comment necessary. :bang:
BertramActually one further comment might help: each lens had a sample size of one.
nuts. there really should be a test set of some kind to fully describe lenses.
that, too. someone should put to rest, once and for all, whether the variation within one design is as great, greater, or less than the variation between designs.
ronnie_retro
08-24-2005, 14:43
I appreciate the effort in posting these test shots, but I really wonder about their validity given the different rolls of film. They do not square with Erwin Putz's posting that the new ZM 50 planar is the full equal of the current Summicron 50/2 aspherical. Christ, if he considers them the same there has to be a technical problem in this comparison.
Regards
He also mentioned a slight difference in back focus calibration between the ZI lenses vs. Leica lenses. When I re-shot the images and bracketed focus slightly in the plus focus direction, the Planar resolution improved much closer to the Leica lenses. It's quite possible this is intentional on Zeiss' part to allow for forward movement of film as it "relaxes". It's also quite possible that the film channel depth of the new ZI may be slightly greater than Leica's 0.20 mm to allow for this "relaxation".
ronnie_retro
08-29-2005, 13:21
Puts did mention this; however my impression was that the focus shift he refers to is quite small and therefore unlikely to be the cause of what we see here. If Zeiss wanted to select a different plane for focus the logical place to do this IMHO is at the camera cam follower, not the cam on the lens. Making the adjustment on the lens would pretty much eliminate compatibility with other rangefinders, which must be a good part of the target market. They must have done quite a bit of results comparison with the Leica product and It seems unlikely "Zeuss" would have dropped the ball on such a critical performance parameter.
Re-reading your comparison I also see that the Zeiss 50/2 planar is not compared as I initially thought to the 50/2 Summicron, which is the corresponding Leica lens, but a different and *much* more expensive one. Even so, the planar is closed down an additional stop - and this has to improve the DOF at the focal plane.
So - the results are interesting but hard to explain. Personally I reserve judgement until more data is available.
Regards
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many from which to choose."
ronnie_retro
08-30-2005, 04:32
:bang: Well, in reviewing the scrolls last evening, I found a formula for depth of focus given the f stop and circle of confusion. Turns out that at f/2, given the high lp/mm, a shift in the focal plane of just a few thou would screw things up. So I'm more confused than ever. They are not fools at Zeiss.
I'm ordering a planar next month. I don't have Leica glass to do a comparo with but should be able to pull a few resolution numbers, and check for focus shift, using a R2-A body. I also have the Voigtlander 28mm / f1.9 that Puts says should get 100lp/mm by f/4 that I can use as a control.
To be continued.
Ronnie, you'll see towards the end of the photonet post that I also included central resolution samples of the 50/2 Summicron and pre-asph. 50/1.4 Summilux, both of which closely matched the asph. Summilux, with the Summicron having a very very slight edge. All lenses tested gave perfect RF focus at infinity so I doubt the RF cam was off on the Planar. The slight softness with the Planar was repeatable with a second roll when I retested and bracketed focus to determine optimal resolution. The only explanation I could come up with involves the position of the lens' optical cell with regards to the position of the RF cam. I believe Puts inferred the back focus issue was not insignificant but did not say by how much. Interestingly, the Planar had better resolution than any of the Leica lenses at 0.7 meters.
satbunny
08-30-2005, 10:07
Check out this post I made for Leica Forum. Hope it helps. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3fJ
Very sorry but this proves very little. Different rolls of film over many weeks?
I appreciate you trying but I think that it needs to be same roll of film, same camera, same day, same tripod. Then we might draw some conclusions. There are too many variables here that should be eliminated.
Thanks very much (genuinely) but no cigar.
Different rolls within a day or two, same film type, same processing and repeat exposures of each focus setting on each roll. Results were repeatable within one resolution group.
I'm referring to just the Planar on my previous post with regards to retesting my results on a second roll of film.
Nicola London
09-28-2005, 05:32
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition?
They just want to spoil it for all of those who can afford the Leica Holy Grail! Surely it is the final image (content, composition, etc) that is most important? Is there really much point to great resolution (costing thousands) if the subject is so boring no one wants to look at it!
I would love a Leica M7 or MP with 21mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses, but short of re-mortgaging our house (which could lead to divorce proceedings) I am unlikely to realise that dream! But a Zeiss, with 21mm, 35mm and 50mm may just be possible (by combining savings with a bit of creative trading-in of other equipment).
Please Leica people, enjoy your beautifully crafted cameras, but accept that the competition has a right to exist too!
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition?
(...)
Please Leica people, enjoy your beautifully crafted cameras, but accept that the competition has a right to exist too!
Often it's simply having to justify the huge outlay of money for a lens that is superior but usually only marginally so or when used to the extreme.
But I find that here on RFF most if not all Leica users are pretty relaxed about the Leica -vs- The Rest discussions, and many use other brands of cameras and lenses besides Leica. Some even use digital! Brrr... the horror! :)
OK, OK I'll admit it!
I confess I have a D70 as well as a Leica M, sorry.... :eek: I even use Voigtlander lenses, is that heresy. :confused:
I'll get my coat :D
zeos 386sx
09-28-2005, 07:56
Nicola,
There is also an element to this discussion that hasn't been mentioned yet - lens to lens variations. I have read that you get into this especially with the Russian lenses. Some of them are excellent and others of the same focal length, etc. are dogs (no disrespect to dogs intended). When photographers talk about a Russian lens being a good year they aren't jesting.
Even lenses from top manufacturers exhibit these variations but to a far lesser degree . The point of this being that most top level manufacturers (including Leica) put out excellent lenses regularly and you pay for that consistency.
However, In actual day to day picture taking - not just lens testing like we have here - the lenses from different manufactures all produce good results (with small variations due to design). There is no Leica Holy Grail.
I like the talk on lens variability too.
I bought a brand new Summilux 35mm ASPH, and the only way I can keep the front trim ring on is to either glue it or stick the broken off point of a toothpick in it. None of my Zeiss lenses for the Contax G ever had ANY problems. I can send it to NJ, of course, but I'm loath to be without it, and I don't like the idea of buying new stuff "broken." Toothpick works.
But I'd just be a troublemaker.
(posted TONGUE IN CHEEK!)
While it is interesting to test to determine differences between lenses, (testing must be structured so that the only variable resposible for the differences in results are the lenses themselves), in the real world, I'd say that any of the lenses that we typically use have far greater capabilities than the photographers using them. The tiny differences between Leica and Zeiss lenses, even when tested properly, are going to have next to zero impact on the phtographs we make. I mean, we generally don't even use tripods with RF cameras, so camera shake during exposure is going to have a huge influence on real world results compared to whether the lens was made by Leica or Zeiss or Canon or Nikon, etc.
"The tiny differences between Leica and Zeiss lenses, even when tested properly, are going to have next to zero impact on the phtographs we make."
That pretty much sums it up Frank, very well put. I'd add Voigtlander in that list also given a lot of RF shots are low light without a tripod.
In a lab the Leica and Zeiss lenses will be better (mainly at the wider apertures) but as you state it's unlikely to show up a huge amount in realality.
richard_l
09-28-2005, 12:20
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition?.....Please Leica people, enjoy your beautifully crafted cameras, but accept that the competition has a right to exist too!I think you have this confused with some other forum/site. I only have Leica rangefinders, so that's mostly what I post about here, but never, never as if that's the best or the only camera worth having. Even if I believed that (which I don't), that would be in very bad taste. I use CV and Minolta lenses as well as Leica. I also have an Olympus and two Nikons of which I am very fond, but they are not rangefinders, so I don't post about them. I really haven't noticed any attempt at this site for Leica owners to discredit other equipment. If you have seen this, please give a reference to the thread(s) so I dan put whoever's doing it on my badlist.
Richard
Can anyone explain to me why Leica users/collectors insist on trying to discredit any and all competition? {snip}Welcome to the forum Nicola! :) I'm like Richard, I use Leica bodies (and lenses) but I also use Konica, CV and Russian lenses on my M bodies. Plus I have a Canonet QL-17 which is a great little camera! I do think most Leica users here on RFF are equally eclectic. Its true that some Leica owners are obnoxious but you find them on the Leica-only forums, they wouldn't lower themselves to join a forum like RFF... ;)
I have a quote here that is really pretty unbelievable, but it isn't about the equipment, rather about those who for one reason or another do not posess a Leica: "I own Leica products and would not own anything else. Those unfortunates who don't deserve our pity." Really sad, eh? :rolleyes:
richard_l
09-28-2005, 16:18
I own Leica products and would not own anything else. Those unfortunates who don't deserve our pity.It seems like I've read that recently, maybe on the Leica forum at photo.net. Whoever said that is the one to be pitied, but for some reason I just can't seem to summon up much pity for snobs.
I do notice that Leica owners tend to exaggerate sometimes, usually for the sake of humor. If, for example, someone is teetering on the brink of buying their first piece of Leica equipment, Leica owners may start hyping their gear like crazy in order to lure another victim over to the "dark side." It's always done in a spirit of playfulness here on RFF, as far as I can tell. If English is not one's native language, such carryings-on could be interpreted as snobbery, particularly if certain comments are taken out of context.
Richard
Well, I will say that I have never gotten images with as much sharpness and pop as I have with a few leica lenses -- the 50mm summicron, 50mm and 35mm summilux asph, the 100apo macro and the 180apo elmarit. They seem to be in a class of their own amongst the lenses I have used. That said, I have every reason to believe that the Zeiss lenses would have the same ability, I just have not used one so I don't know. The crispness I mention is something that comes through in real world photography.
Whew! I hope I didn't come across as a Leica snob by my post. I thought the post would demonstate some interesting things about the Planar lens compared to past and present Leica and Zeiss (Sonnar) lenses. Erwin Puts noted a slight difference in the Planar's back focus which may account for the slight difference in central resolution of the Planar. To me, this simply indicates that the plane of focus may be set a few hundreths of a mm in front of the film plane on a Leica body. This is very slight and may not show up in normal shooting or at best may be intentional where the lens may be better calibrated on the ZM because of film registration differences due to it's film channel design. This of course is speculation on my part but time and independent lab tests will tell. It also demonstated that the Planar peformed about as well as either the Summicron and Asph. Summilux mid-frame and far corner with the Sonnar trailing slightly behind only in the far corner. From a historical perspective, the Asph. Summilux showed one of it's biggest benefits was to be several stops better than the pre-asph. version near the far corner of the frame.
Nikon Bob
09-29-2005, 08:35
Sure am glad people jumped in and put any potential Leica snobs on notice. I totally agree that clinical lens testing, although interesting, and the differences they reveal between lenses likely will not be seen in real world photos. That is unless one of the lens is horribly sub standard.
Bob
An excellent photographer with poor lenses will still take better photos than a poor photographer with excellent lenses.
Well......., I can't resist addig my two-pen'orth, I've been trying to take pleasing photo's for about 35 years, (-ones that please me anyway !).
I've bought and tried a lot of cameras and lenses and various films and developers (mostly B+W).
Most post WW2 stuff is similar on a 6"x4" print, and some cameras are easier and "nicer" to use.
But on an 8"x12" print or bigger it's a different story - certain lenses and films are sharper than others and some lenses give prints with a different "look".
For me the "look" is everything !
I like the "look" of B+W pictures with Leica lenses like Summicrons and Elmars, and I like using Leica cameras because of the handling and dependability (screw and bayonet ones).
This doesn't make me a Leica snob,- in 1968 I couldn't afford a Nikon or Pentax, and I was delighted with a second-hand IIIb and Summitar.
For myself, the 'look" is still everything, and I still really like the "Leica Look".
Regards, John C. p.s (I quite like Takumars as well, but the cameras are noisy)
Well, I shoot with an Elmar or a Summaron (among others). Which one was this shot with?
John I also like the "look" of my Leica lenses and there's nothing wrong with that. I also like the "look" of my Jupiter-8. I think the types who get up peoples' noses (mine too, to be honest) are the folk who won't hear of any other brand. Its really quite childish. The picture is the thing, not the damn camera.
richard_l
09-29-2005, 16:59
Well, I shoot with an Elmar or a Summaron (among others). Which one was this shot with?Is it the Elmar?
zeos 386sx
09-29-2005, 22:52
Well, I shoot with an Elmar or a Summaron (among others). Which one was this shot with?
I'd have to guess Elmar
Nicola London
09-30-2005, 06:18
There is certainly nothing wrong with owning a Leica (I really would love one!), it's just that SOME Leica owners not only belittle every other camera, many actively try to discredit all opposition!
I'm glad to hear that this site has few Leica Nazis and many camera enthusiasts who just love cameras! It is quite a rare thing judging by my recent experiences whilst trying to find out more about the new Zeiss Ikon!
So forgive me if I misjudged you all...it's just that the first thread I read was one comparing Zeiss and Leica lenses and I just thought, "here we go again"!
I don't think we have any Nazi's of any type here at RFF. :)
Lens testing is great as far as it goes but I'm sure I'm not alone in saying a person always tends towards justifying his own prejudices however small. Basically you get what you pay for but there is a law of diminishing returns -that last 1/2 stop or 2% of quality costs £1000's.
As for Leica snobs when they put a camera around their necks its just jewellery -so don't worry about it
As for Leica snobs when they put a camera around their necks its just jewellery -so don't worry about itTrue for snobs of any stripe, but I'm sure you're not saying that Leica owners are all/mostly snobs and use their Leica as jewelry. :) People can attach their egos to their possessions too many ways...
While I'm generally most pleased to have and use stuff of high quality, I'm put off by any gushing over it by others! One time in the 80's for instance I walked into a camera shop to look for a bag while my Minolta CLE was around my neck. The clerck came rushing over and jabbered with excitement over the camera. I changed the subject instantly to the bags on display, and I do still wonder if I were rudely abrupt in doing so! About 10 years before I got that gushing all the time while gassing up my Honda CB750... "how fast will it go?"... 4-cyl bikes were new and exotic then, but I was more interested in riding than spinning impressive stories about it.
So while I may buy a Zeiss-Ikon RF, it'll not be for the status of the name, but because of what that name means in terms of inner qualities.
Judging by some of the responses I wonder if I've by posting some comparison shots if I've struck a nerve in a few of the respondants. My purpose was not to put down Zeiss ZM but to point out some interesting performance differences. I threw in the Sonnar because even recently I've seen posts inquiring about this lens and lets face it, with the intoduction of the ZM lines there's plenty of posts inquiring about ZM lenses and how they perform. Since the ZM body has yet to be released to the public or press for extended review naturally a lot of questions abound about the body and lenses. My post was certainly not meant to be a full resolution test on the lens (although I could have posted multiple scans of each tested aperture) but to give a brief comparison to other popular or coveted lenses in the M of the normal focal length range. I suppose some people assume if a lens is compared to a Leica it's automatically considered a put down. I was simply offering a comparison with actual posting of image differences to illustrate what I detected as near equal performance with the only difference possibly due to an optomechanical approach in lens design, not an inherently bad optic.
Gabriel M.A.
09-30-2005, 13:56
Notice that the "some of the responses" come from known trolls or rather new infusions. I don't think that you need to apologize for their behaviour, Alan.
No worries, awilder! Don't sweat it.
Well, I shoot with an Elmar or a Summaron (among others). Which one was this shot with?
... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam. :o
A nice lens review awilder! Now, if I only had the funds to by both
lenses... :(
Nikon Bob
10-01-2005, 03:48
... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam. :o
A nice lens review awilder! Now, if I only had the funds to by both
lenses... :(
So much for that Leica glow.
Bob
So much for that Leica glow.
Bob
I agree! One of my goals is to achieve it with any lens (including my favorite Nikkors...!)
zeos 386sx
10-01-2005, 04:26
... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam.
Oh, yeah... That's what I meant to say!
Huck Finn
10-01-2005, 04:45
Judging by some of the responses I wonder if I've by posting some comparison shots if I've struck a nerve in a few of the respondants. My purpose was not to put down Zeiss ZM but to point out some interesting performance differences. I threw in the Sonnar because even recently I've seen posts inquiring about this lens and lets face it, with the intoduction of the ZM lines there's plenty of posts inquiring about ZM lenses and how they perform. Since the ZM body has yet to be released to the public or press for extended review naturally a lot of questions abound about the body and lenses. My post was certainly not meant to be a full resolution test on the lens (although I could have posted multiple scans of each tested aperture) but to give a brief comparison to other popular or coveted lenses in the M of the normal focal length range. I suppose some people assume if a lens is compared to a Leica it's automatically considered a put down. I was simply offering a comparison with actual posting of image differences to illustrate what I detected as near equal performance with the only difference possibly due to an optomechanical approach in lens design, not an inherently bad optic.
Your post was much appreciated, AW.
Cheers,
Huck
richard_l
10-01-2005, 16:16
... believe it or not, with a 3.2 mp Canon Powershot digicam. :o
A nice lens review awilder! Now, if I only had the funds to by both
lenses... :(And believe it or not, I chose the Elmar because at wide apertures (which your shot appeared to be) the 35mm Elmar is not a very good performer. In particular, the out of focus areas in your photo are rougher than I would expect from the Summaron. Thanks for a misleading question. :rolleyes: I don't think you proved anything, however, because after viewing lots of photos taken with the 35mm Elmar, I am not at all fond of that lens. Sorry.
Richard
Judging by some of the responses I wonder if I've by posting some comparison shots if I've struck a nerve in a few of the respondants. My purpose was not to put down Zeiss ZM but to point out some interesting performance differences. I threw in the Sonnar because even recently I've seen posts inquiring about this lens and lets face it, with the intoduction of the ZM lines there's plenty of posts inquiring about ZM lenses and how they perform. Since the ZM body has yet to be released to the public or press for extended review naturally a lot of questions abound about the body and lenses. My post was certainly not meant to be a full resolution test on the lens (although I could have posted multiple scans of each tested aperture) but to give a brief comparison to other popular or coveted lenses in the M of the normal focal length range. I suppose some people assume if a lens is compared to a Leica it's automatically considered a put down. I was simply offering a comparison with actual posting of image differences to illustrate what I detected as near equal performance with the only difference possibly due to an optomechanical approach in lens design, not an inherently bad optic.
Well, not having yet posted, I'd say you have not struck a nerve, but merely first at any nerve/synaps curious to have a look and compare: thanks.
I just received developed film from my "tests" of the ZI Planar, with a few similar shots made both with it and my Summilux. I am truely stunned by the Planar. See, I like the Summilux and have so for 12 years using it... and then came the CV lenses, first the 4/25, then 1,4/40 SC and 2,5/75... wow, great glass these CVs are! But nothing could get the image my--similarly 12 year old--35 Summicron can. The first impression confirms I ought to sell/trade the Summilux, despite the slight speed advantage over the Planar... I'll be mulling this over in the next weeks. I'll also attempt to get some scans of the Planar's best moments(thus far) up for your review(Please note that I am not an LPM/resolution shooter, so my images will not approach the finer objectivity presented by awilder).
My take, in words, the Summilux and Planar are of a different sort and not worse or better between them. "Bird in hand," I do not need to sell the Summilux, but between them, I'd choose the ZI Planar as a keeper... I realize these are very personal, non-scientific, and first impressions, but the Planar just fits more closely to what I want seen... hmm, somehting in my gut tells me "Hang on there fella, don't do something stoopid!"... high-class problems... there's a LOT of great glass out there!
rgds,
Dave
Hey Dave -- I think he was actually testing the summilux ASPH, the improved version of the summilux you own. I am not surprised to hear that the planar is better than the previous summilux. After all, the 50 summicron has outperformed the 50 summilux for the past 50 years. The 50 summilux ASPH is a different beast, and most who have used it regard it as the best 50mm lens they have ever used. But anyway, they are all great...it is just shades of great.
richard_l
10-01-2005, 21:17
Let's just always remember what everyone knows anyhow, that the "best" is never determined only by bench testing but by the images which are most pleasing to your (the photographer's) eyes. Sometimes a lens may excel at both, but often it is exclusive to one or the other.
I know it is fashionable to make fun of the "bokeh" concept. (I do so myself.) However, whether or not one recognizes it, bokeh can make or break a photo. If, for example, ugly out of focus areas are a distraction from an otherwise excellently photographed subject, then the photo can be unpleasant. (Usually it is just an overall impression of unpleasantness, not something specific.) However, as far as I know, there is no way to measure this in a bench test.
Then there's the "look." Sometimes this is mainly the bokeh, sometimes it is something else. I happen to like the "look" of certain Leica lenses, such as the 35mm/2.8 Summaron. It is pointless to show me that a 35mm Summicron (or Canon or VC or whatever) is demonstrably better. I realy do prefer the Summaron, and even if the Summicron were affordable, I doubt that I would waver in my opinion.
And so on and so on it goes. It's really boring to talk about it, so I apologize for treading over all-too-familiar turf.
Richard
richard_l
10-01-2005, 21:25
Oh yes, let me hasten to add that the 40mm Zeiss Tessar in my German-made Rollei 35 (bought new around 1969 or 1970) was the "best" general purpose lens I have ever used (in spite of a little distortion at the edges and a little light falloff at the corners).
A very close second was the 40mm Summarit (in some ways superior to the Tessar) in the Leica Minilux.
I had to sell the Rollei :bang: , and the Minilux was stolen by a burglar :mad: .
Richard
Yeah, richard, I think we are all well aware of this problem with the notion of best. When I was talking about it, I meant from a standpoint of providing the most technically faithful rendering of the scene. The traditional notion...most accurate colors, highest resolution, least distortion and so forth. Of course there are times when you don't want a lens with these characteristics (the whole reason Holgas are popular), but all else being equal I want the best possible lens in the above sense on my camera, only with the ability to change if I have to. This is just my personal bias, as I shoot a lot of landscapes, cityscapes and general scenes with my leica. If i exclusively shot people, I might be using a summar...
But anyway, I think most of us are aware of the subjectivity of "best".
And believe it or not, I chose the Elmar because at wide apertures (which your shot appeared to be) the 35mm Elmar is not a very good performer. In particular, the out of focus areas in your photo are rougher than I would expect from the Summaron. Thanks for a misleading question. :rolleyes: I don't think you proved anything, however, because after viewing lots of photos taken with the 35mm Elmar, I am not at all fond of that lens. Sorry.
Richard
I meant no offense with my post(s), so if anyone was offended, my apologies. I enjoy shooting photographs with just about anything I can get my hands on, including my two Leica lenses --- just some gentle observations on the subjective perceived "signatures" attributed to various lenses, etc. (and again, if this is offensive, my apologies). By the way, the Elmar that I have is not the 3.5 cm, but a "0"serial numbered nickel 50mm f.3.5 Elmar from the 30's --- from my Grandfather. My Summaron is a 50's LTM model. I enjoy them both very much, and enjoy the handling and quality of Leitz optics very much --- I just wish I could afford to buy more of them... :(
I'm curious for those of you comparing the Pre-aspheric Summilux to the Planar, how their imaging differences comport with mine posted in the second half of my original photonet post? Specifically, the near equal of center sharpness performance but the softness and slight color fringing inside the corner of the frame of the Summilux requiring f/5.6 to come close to the Planar, Summicron or Asph. Summilux. These are practically speaking minor points because in normal 3D photograhy they are non-issues and only come up on scrutiny with flat field work or comparison lens tests. One example that comes to my mind was photographing several interesting posted ads on a wall and even stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 there was noticable softness in the mid-field.
richard_l
10-02-2005, 13:47
But anyway, I think most of us are aware of the subjectivity of "best".Yes, we know that, but you'll have to admit that it's still hard to shake the connotations of "best," that it invollves the notion of "most desirable," or something like that. It's a psychological thing, I guess.
Richard
rotzbremse
10-07-2005, 14:20
I use the older style Summicron 50mm lenses (version 1 and the collapsible) and have recently obtained a war time Zeiss 5cmm/2 in Leica mount. The lens is currently being adjusted by DAG to focus properly. I am looking forward to trying out the old Zeiss lens. If I had the extra money, I would try out a new version aspherical lens, but for the time being, I am enjoying the older style lenses. I also use a 5cm/2 Nikkor and a Canon 50mm/1.8 and 1.2. Great lenses overall.
Except from a collecting standpoint I'm curious as to what differences you'd see with between the three normal speed lenses. For overall definition, I'd expect the Summicron to be best followed closely by the Canon and lastly the Nikkor/Sonnar. In terms of contrast though, the Nikkor/Sonnar may be best of the lot.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.