Cosina Zeiss vs. Leitz M lenses?

After buying an M3, I dug around for a lens for it.the Cosina 50mm 1.5 Nokton was too big and I did not like the

bokeh. The 40mm 1.4 Nokton was nice, but the framelines not matching up was annoying. So, I ended up with a

Cosina Planar 50mm Zeiss 2.0 lens. This lens is a very very nice lens. It is sharp wide open, and I am very happy

with it.

 

My question, with Leica prices somewhere up in the stratosphere, how do you guys think the Cosina Zeiss line

compare with comparable Leica focal lengths?

Why don't you go look for some lens reviews?

<p>If I read your post properly, you already settled on a lens and are happy with it. What, then, is your concern?</p>

<p>My, this place is getting dangerous. What if the guy wants to be reassured he made a good choice? What if he's planning on buying some more lenses? What if he just wants to have a little chat about Zeiss and Leica lenses? Geez!</p>

<p>Sometimes, I question the use of these forums, when I read some reactions.</p>

<p>Okay, Darius, you did yourself well. The Zeiss Planar is one of the best of the pick of 50/2 lens made by anybody for M mount. It rivals (and some say beats) the Summicron 50/2. My only quibble with it is that silly bump of a focusing tab. With time you get used to it as the focusing unstiffens. I don't have one only because I have a Summicron 50/2 which I love dearly (plus a whole pile of other 50mm lens--I don't need any more).<br>

So happy snaps and be at peace. The Planar is one of the best deals going.</p>

<p>Its great, I'm sure. I prefer the built-in lenshood of the latest Summicron myself, but those Zeiss Ms are tasty.</p>

<p>The Zeiss made by CV are at the top of the heap. CV plain lenses are a generation behind, but very acceptable</p>

<p>Yeah, These forums are getting pretty dangerous. Most of the time I feel I need a thicker skin before I ask a question.<br>

I think you should be happy with the Planar. I couldn't afford to spend on Leica glass. So, my first real glass was the Zeiss 35mm f2 Biogon. It's a great. If the 50mm Planar is up to the same requiremnts. You will not be dissapointed.</p>

 

<p>From what I've read, for 35/2 and 50/2, it's a matter of taste and opinion between Summicron and Zeiss ZM lenses.<br>

Zeiss knows their stuff. They, along with Nikon make the lenses used for photolithography of integrated circuits, which are heading towards 35 micron feature sizes. That's waaaaay in excess of 100 lp/mm. Also, Zeiss is a huge name in movie camera lenses, which are incredibly expensive.</p>

<p>Let me recommend the Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 50mm. I think that this is an excellent lens. There is a thread on this lens. The new Summicrons are also excellent, too. Pretty much all the Leica, Zeiss, & Voigtlander lenses are excellent. Much has to do with price and preference...and availability on the used market, should you go that way. On the new Voigtlander lenses there has been some negative discussion on the wearing of the black finish. If you are using an older camera and taking pictures not worrying about how the camera looks but operates then the finish is not an important issue.</p>

If you want to find out how good a lens is, there are dpzens of reviews accessible via Google and sample pix via Flickr.

 

If you've already bought the lens you can go one better- try it for yourself and see.

 

The OP may be have posted just to shoot the breeze. I can give my two cents' as well as anybody.

 

Or he may have posted because he wants to overcome his post-purchase dissonance. That I don't get involved in.

<p>

 

 

<p >Wai-Leong-Lee: « If you want to find out how good a lens is, there are dpzens of reviews accessible via Google and sample pix via Flickr. If you've already bought the lens you can go one better- try it for yourself and see. The OP may be have posted just to shoot the breeze. I can give my two cents' as well as anybody. Or he may have posted because of post-purchase dissonance. That I don't get involved in. »</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So what? Just ignore him and move on, if you have nothing helpful to say. The OP does not need you to tell him there are reviews for lenses. And you put words in his mouth. You are being so unfriendly, it's incredible. Do you realize your reply looks like «Go f... yourself»? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I've said it on another forum, is this really why we (at least, some of us, apparently) contribute financially to help support photo.net?</p>

<br />

 

 

</p>

<p>A camera body that is five times the price of another should be at least twice as good, if not 3 or 4 times as good.</p>

<p>Same for a lens. My 28 mm f1.9 Voigtlander-Cosina aspherical lens is less than 5 times as expensive as the Leica Summicron ASPH, but the latter is not 3 or 4 times better. I doubt I would see much more in my 10x15 inch prints with the Summicron, except perhaps at apertures wider than f2.8, which in any case risks having more (less critical-) out of focus areas than at smaller apertures.</p>

<p>The Zeiss-Cosina lenses are well-positioned in quality-price terms. Considerably less expensive than the Leica lenses, and about 2 X more than the Voigtlander lenses, they deliver for their price, and more.</p>

<p>I do not own any, partly because they are in general quite heavy, but they and the Zeiss RF are certainly great buys.</p>

<p>The Summicron 35 ASPH, which I do use, is one of the two or three best Leica RF lenses 2008 or earlier. But even Leica Guru Erwin Puts admits that Zeiss has got it more right than Leica (to mid-2008 at least) in terms of designing lenses of qualities more suitable for digital sensors and their geometry.</p>

<p>Darius -- they are excellent lenses and are quite similar to the summicrons and elmarits in image quality and execution. The only area where they are obviously bested is in the high speed lenses -- they only offer a 50/1.5, and that is a retro lens. This is not to disparage it, but it is not meant to compete with the performance of the 50/1.4 ASPH. Similarly, there is no ZM answer to the 16-18-21, 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/2, 35/1.4, 75/1.4, or any 135mm lens. For Leica's part, they have no answer to the 15/2.8, 18/4, or 21/4.5. </p>

<p>BTW, Darius, I have the Zeiss 50/2 on my M8, and I love it. I had the Summicron 50 before, and it is a super lens, of course, with a look of its own, but the Zeiss is not far behind, as far as my modest amateur eyes can tell. Now, if Zeiss could be a little less mean and sell the HOOD that goes with it.</p>

Michael,

 

I haven't put words in anybody's mouth, so don't you go putting "Go f... yourself" in mine.

 

I don't see any evidence the OP has searched any lens reviews.

 

And the reason for my post is because you apparently think that this is becoming a dangerous place.

 

But does it make sense to not even search for lens reviews-- stuff which good reviewers and expert lens testers have labored weeks or months over, using optical bench tests in some cases, and all available for free-- when one wants to find out how a lens is? Or does it make more sense to throw a chestnut into the ring and rely on the luck of the draw as far as opinions are concerned?

 

To ignore the wealth of formal reviews, as well as the tons of past threads-- does that make sense?

 

Why do you advocate ignoring the wealth of readily available and free detailed information that the Internet provides?

<p>It's pretty hard for a lens maker to mess up a late-generation 50mm f2. Having said that, the Zeiss has a great reputation. The difference between the Planar and the Type 4 Summicron will likely have more to do with your personal taste than anything else.</p>

<p>I think there is a lot more variation at the f1.4 / f1.5 class. A lot more variation in terms of both performance and fingerprint. It probably has to do with an f1.4 being harder to design than an f2. The best performing f1.4's are as good as or better than the f2's at f2 ... I have the 50mm Lux Asph in mind. After that, it's more about fingerprint, bokeh, and other subjective factors. You didn't like the Nokton, and yes, I have heard from others that its bokeh is harsh, but it's a favorite of mine on the Canon 7. Others don't like the bokeh on the Lux Asph, and it remains my workhorse 50. In fact, I find it has a very distinctive bokeh really isolates the subject when used wide open. </p>

<p>So it all comes down to what you like. Sounds like you have made a good choice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wai-Leong,<br>

Can't you let it go already? Enough is enough. You adopted a dismissive "find out for yourself" tone from the start. And unfortunately, it's becoming all too common on these forums. People say "check the archives." Well, maybe the archives and tests didn't tell the poster enough. In any case, why start a fight?</p>

Because there seems to be a highly negative attitude against those who advocate self-help.

<p>I had a Bessa R2 and the Voit/Cosina lenses were terrific. Have a look at those too. They are fully functional M mount lenses.</p>

<p>Wai-Leoing, this thread will become part of the archives. The archives evolve as gear changes and as new people get involved. A year from now members will be reviewing this thread if they have a question similar to that posed by the OP. Even after they read this year-old thread, they may want some reassurance and a more up-to-date assessment, and they will then post a question similar to that posted by Darius. That's how many people operate, and that's one of the functions of this system. I'm sorry you don't support it, but I'm glad others do.</p>

<p>Take photos and don't worry too much about negligible differences between Zeiss and Leica lenses, no matter whether these lenses are made in Germany, Canada or Japan. The Zeiss design lenses are superb and so are Leica lenses. No matter which lens you pick, it would never be a grave error in choice.</p>

<p>Wong-Leai, first it's Michel, not Michael, thank you. You don't «advocate self-help», you advocate self-glorification, yours, by trying to belittle another member.</p>

<p>What makes you think you're entitled to lecture people on the right and wrong ways to use this forum? Who do you think you are? I'll tell you what, 75% of all questions asked here could easily be answered with:</p>

<p>1) Go read the reviews,<br /> 2) Go read your manual,<br /> 3) Go search photo.net<br /> 4) Ask your retailer,<br /> 5) It's not the gear, it's the photog.</p>

<p>Many people, myself included, prefer to discuss on forums than to read reviews. SO WHAT? Many people, myself included, sometimes forget what they have read, or didn't quite understand. SO WHAT? Many people, myself included, actually like to see different point of views and opposite attitudes expressed. SO WHAT? Many people, myself included, like to see how opinions change as time passes, and, yes, may ask the same question at a year interval. SO WHAT? Many people, myself included, think photo forums are there to ask, help, suggest, alert, give head ups, give opinions, and above all have fun discussing what we love. SO WHAT?</p>

<p>Stop taking youself so seriously, and let others live their lives the way they like.</p>

<p>If your kind of nasty attitude prevails, I believe pretty soon photo.net will just stop operating for total lack of entertaining and learning value.</p>

<p>I know this does not address the original question but I am moved to add my 2 cents about the "dangerous" nature of these forums. I feel that the point of a forum is to provide a collegial place for people with particular interests to share ideas and opinions. I am sure that any of us are perfectly capable of looking up reviews and tests but I am interested in hearing/reading about the thoughts/experiences of other enthusiasts. The "self help" suggestions are unhelpful, unnecessary and sometimes rude. If you have no opinions to express then don't bother to respond.<br>

Never tried a Zeiss, love my Leica 50/2 and came to this thread to see what people thought about Zeiss, as I have been considering some of the Zeiss wide angles. </p>

<p>Or what Henry just said. Thank you, Henry</p>