Erwin Compares 90AA and new Zeiss 85

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by jtdnyc, Jul 14, 2006.

  1. He gives the 90AA first place at infinity but prefers the Zeiss for close-ups.
    At least, that's the way I read him.

    I wish he had also compared the Zeiss close up with the 90MEM close up. After
    all, it's quite possible that Leica gives the best performance at all distances
    if you select the right tool for the job.

    He also included the 75AA (and a Canon lens) in his tests. The 75AA seemed to
    take top prize overall.

    For those who are interested, he also compared the Canon lens in its film and
    digital applications.

    Here's the link.

    http://imx.nl/photosite/zeiss/test85/t004.html
     
  2. Given that he was also including the Canon f/1.2 85mm, I would like to have seen the Zeiss ZF 85mm f/1.4 Planar tested (about half the cost of the M mount ZM version and a stop faster and manual focus unlike the Canon).

    I really, really wish that lens testers were banned from the vicinity of brick walls.
     
  3. Hi Pete. While we are (loosely) on the subject, have you got any of that ZF glass on your D200 snapper yet>
     
  4. I can't follow him...except for one photo, all the model's pics have totally blown hair from the
    back lighting, looks good though, and she's very viewable, but I can't tell what he concludes
    or what he's trying to say. He seems to enjoy using 10 words, where 2 might suffice. It just
    sounds like techno-bull sh**te. I am interested in the Zeiss for the D200 though and would
    love to hear from anyone using one of them.
     
  5. He should have removed the low pass filter from the 5D and done the tests. Bricks are better subjects in this test.
     
  6. I think she's hot.
     
  7. He is saying Leica has competition.

    The 90 APO is not sharp in the near range as others have reported. The 90 R APO is the same. The Zeiss does not suffer this problem, but there is a trade off in ultimate brittle sharpness at infinity. My 90 pre Asph is not sharp under 6 feet at any stop and the literature at the time states so. I`ll never sell the 90 as it can be a great portrait lens with a touch of softness.

    Those who want sharp up close need the 90 2.8 Elmarit for the viso or the 90 2.8 R first version from 196x.

    An you can`t compare a darn thing on a computer screen. Go to Canon`s learning website and compare the Powershot 610 for $200 to the $8000 full frame digi. Can`t tell the differnce. No I can`t use my 610 for sports or low light, but it fits in my pocket and allows me to get pics of the grandkids on the net and off to grandma fast and easy.
     
  8. I think the sharpest two things in the article are visible in the last picture.
     
  9. I agree with Bee - at least in the last photo. I would have put down the camera.


    I also think it's amazing that a lens as good as the Summicron utterly failed to record the
    huge hot-air balloon that was evidently in the shot. Poor show Leica !

    Bob X
     
  10. Is it too hot in the Netherlands? King Putts pastes an overexposed f4 or f5.6 summi-pic to
    compare to the Sonnar at f2, does the sun flare test without a tripod (were the sun shades
    on?), uses the wrong film profile for his street shots scans. Na-na-na!
    And this time around there seems to be no red thread at all to his prose: never his
    strength, he goes here and there, as do his typos. Putts has become sloppy and
    amateurish in his approach, whatever the reason may be. Last time that I read one of his
    texts.
    Anyone can do a more meaningful test by borrowing/loaning the 'desired' lenses for a
    couple of hours!

    Cheers, P.
     
  11. "Anyone can do a more meaningful test by borrowing/loaning the 'desired' lenses for a couple of hours!"

    Lenses are a lot like wine. Anyone with good eyes or tastebuds can come to their own conclusions, and whoever has bad eyes or tastebuds the differences are unperceptible anyway. It boils down to a few guys who are at least as good at self-promotion as they are at testing/tasting getting set up as authorities and everyone who knows from nothing but wants to look smart puppets them.
     
  12. I don't know about the blah blah blah, but this guy really needs to stick to brick walls and resolution charts.
     
  13. "Putts has become sloppy and amateurish in his approach, whatever the reason may be."

    Having read this article I must agree with you. I always try to take what I need too from Erwins writings and ignore some questionable comments but refferring to the Ikon as the latest Bessa incarnation really shows how little he has researched this and his amateur approach to his work these days.
     
  14. Bee and Robert X hit the nail on the head. Forced to make a decision based on the results
    shown, I will take the Canon 5 and the babe.
     
  15. What lens test?
    JJ
     
  16. On the other hand, the new Panasonic Lumix TZ1 with Leica lens (35mm to 350mm zoom) produces a rather soft image at full zoom. Here's a crop of the same scene at 35mm so show how far away the "model" is, followed by a different image at full 350mm zoom. What this has in common with Erwin's photos is (1) there's a wall for those who like walls, and (2) there's another situation where you should put your camera down and introduce yourself.
    00HIWz-31177984.jpg
     
  17. Now at a moment later at 350mm zoom.
    00HIX1-31178084.jpg
     
  18. Hmmm. Nice review. Makes me want to move to Holland.
     
  19. Maybe he will do another test so we can see more babes? How about a cute girl as a bricklayer? :) Some shots could be focused on the babe, others on the wall. Then we could evaluate babe bokeh versus wall bokeh. In movie work the "out of focus" effects have been done with actors, one wants to see the effect when a focus pull is done. <BR><BR>Adding the old late 1940's 85mm F2 LTM Nikkor to the test and several 85mm F2 Jupiter-9's would be cool too.
     
  20. All I see is poor quality scans, is he trying to say the shots he posted are representative of the
    Velvia originals?
    If not the whole article is rubbish and a 5D vs poor scans.
    Those scans are so bad the lens used is irrelevant, they looked more like 400 ISO Gold on
    auto scan with my flatbed.

    I agree about the last shot that canon lens has good depth of field (front to back) and renders
    the circles of confusion nicely.
    Mark
     
  21. >All I see is poor quality scans, is he trying to say the shots he posted are representative of the Velvia originals?

    I am not sure if he turned on GEM (grain management) and ICE for his scans but if he did, it would probably have the same resulting effect as the low-pass filter in the digital sensor although they have different purposes in their designs. If GEM is turned on more grains will disappear at the expense of resolution.

    Well, it's good to know the my 90mm APO 'cron is still considered as one of the best lenses in the world for that focal length. :)
     
  22. The 90/2 APO Summicron M ASPH is great lens (optically) that is also well made. The 85/1.2 Canon EF-L lens is also a great lens optically but it is not well constructed. The lens is in a cheap plastic (polycarbonate) barrel that will not withstand any kind of trauma. It's too bad Canon did not see to cloth the optics of this terrific lens in fitting dress. :)
     
  23. I did not know that polycarbonate is "cheap" plastic. I also did not know that metal housings are safer for lenses.

    Is there any proof to support your assertions, Eliot?
     
  24. His film scans seem pretty technically incompetent and why he's shooting portraits on Velvia is beyond me.
     
  25. "Is there any proof to support your assertions, Eliot?"

    You've got to be kidding. Try dropping each of these lenses on the floor and see which survives better. Having dropped another Canon plastic barreled lens on the floor I can tell you that it just disintegrated, with lens parts coming our, barrel cracked, and unrepairable.

    Do you really doubt that solid metal construction is better than plastic? If so, nothing I can say will convince you.
     
  26. Glass breaks. It is a fact.

    If someone plunks X thousands of Y currency in a lens, they better know how to handle it regardless of the package.

    If you have disintegrated a cheap Canon zoom, that analogy does not apply to the state of the art 85/1.2 lens.

    Try dropping an 85/1.2L and a 50/1.2 Noct, check which one survives a hard concrete floor and report back.
     
  27. Wow, who would have thought that insanely priced moderate tele lenses could be
    good? Seems like all those pictures shot with Zeiss Sonnar 85's and Leica Elmarit 90's
    from the 50's and 60's were just a pile of rubbish! I'll bet that picture of Che' would
    have been more popular if it was taken with a lens with close range correction!

    It does seem that the last photo's do have that 3d effect that we like in Leica lenses!
     
  28. "Try dropping an 85/1.2L and a 50/1.2 Noct, check which one survives a hard concrete floor and report back."

    You do it. I'm not the one who has a problem with the fact that metal is stronger than plastic. Even "space age" plastics like polycarbonate. Canon did a bonehead thing in putting such good glass into such a poor mount.
     
  29. As usual, there's not a single image that's even remotely interesting. All the story serves to illustrate is that you can put four very good lenses in the hands of someone with no imagination, and he'll produce nothing.
     
  30. The "plastic" 85/1.2 L weighs in at 1025 grams or 36.2 ounces.

    If it were made in a 100% metal barrel, our Defender of the Faith (who has already decided the current barrel is completely plastic) would accuse it of unreasonable weight and horrible ergonomics. Canon (or any other maker) just can't win no matter what they do.
     
  31. "historian" is the self adorned title, Fred. Not D.o.t.F.
     
  32. Larry, I like your model more than Erwins', but the 350mm isn't soft but focussed at the wall behind the girls face.

    None of the pictures in the article would convince me to buy *any* of these lenses. Despite the fact I already have a dozen 85's.

    cheers Frank
     

Share This Page