Leica vs Zeiss Ikon: My impression from the Asahi Camera review

Finally picked up January's Asahi Camera magazine. (You can too if you live near a

Japanese bookstore such as www.kinokuniya.com) Basically the magazine tests four pairs

of lenses:

 

1) ZI 25/2.8 vs Leica 24/2.8 ASPH. (one photo each)

 

2) ZI 28/2.8 vs Leica 28/2.8 (one photo each)

 

3) ZI 35/2 vs Leica 35/2 ASPH. (one photo each)

 

4) ZI 50/2 vs Leica 50/2 (two photos each)

 

All the pictures were portraits of the same lady taken at (pairwise) comparable settings on

Provia 100F and printed at very high quality (FAR better than the average North American

photo publication). Differences in lens signature, although sometimes subtle (true for

modern lenses in general), can be seen from these pictures.

 

Overall the magazine views the two groups as equally strong, with perhaps a slight

preference given to the Zeiss group. (This has been noted in another message.) HOWEVER,

before reading the conclusion I did a test of my own. Essentially I looked at each pair of

pictures very closely and decided my own winner, before revealing to myself which lenses

took which pictures. Here are my findings:

 

1) Among the 5 pairs of photos, I picked Leica over Zeiss 4/5 times. The only exception

was with respect to the 35mm's.

 

2) My wife, who has no experience in serious photography of any kind, picked Leica over

Zeiss 5/5 times. (She took her picks without first knowing what my picks were, or which

lenses took which. We did this completely independently, and I didn't guide her through

which traits to look for in the pictures.)

 

3) To both of us, the images were not large enough to show sharpness or resolution

differences. All pictures appeared equally (and very) sharp.

 

4) Color rendition, subtle color nuances and bokeh, however, were visibly different, and

both of us ended up picking pictures based on these qualities. (This is a bit interesting as I

didn't tell my wife those qualities were what I based my decisions on. But some how the

differences, although subtle, were compelling enough.)

 

5) In terms of color rendition and subtle nuances, the Leica's appeared to be superior in

every case (to both of us) except the 35mm. Leica's colors were more natural, real, and

showed slighly finer and smoother gradations. The Zeiss's were punchier and tended more

red/magenta balance; 35mm was the only exception where the situation was reverse. Even

there, however, my wife picked the Leica feeling that the Leica image was overall more

"pleasing". I picked the 35mm Zeiss as superior to the Leica.

 

6) In terms of bokeh, there was a visible difference with the 50mm pair. The Leica had a

more classical look, while the Zeiss was smoother and more controlled. Both of us rated

Zeiss bokeh as superior here, but interestingly enough neither of us thought it was a

sufficient reason to pick the Zeiss as voerall winner. We both felt that the Leica colors were

just more pleasing and real, and the Zeiss colors were a bit bloated which was slightly

distracting and diminished the effects of subtle tones. In the end, we both picked the Leica

as overall winner despite it losing out in bokeh. (Again I find this to be interesting because

we didn't communicate our findings/choices but came to exactly the same conclusion.)

 

7) Overall our findings as well as the magazine's are all very subjective. These are not

based on any "objective" or measured criteria. Purely personal preferences. However I do

think this is the only way to really judge a lens.

 

Aside from the ZI vs. Leica test this issue of Asahi Camera has some very nice pictures

taken with Leica lenses, including a small calendar of "cat pictures" taken by famed

photographer Iwago using an R6.2. These pictures are excellent in composition and

tehnique and printed at an exceedingly high level of quality. Well worth a look. I'd

encourage anyone to check out this issue.

 

Discalimer: I have been a Leica user for many years and owned both R and M systems.

Prior to those I used two Contax systems. I regard Zeiss lenses very highly and I'm

certainly not biased towards Leica.

Much of the difference seems to be in subtle rendition of color.

 

How much can you trust magazine reproduction to accurately represent subtle color differences between images shot on slide film (presumably different rolls of film), scanned for reproduction, digitally edited and printed in a magazine?

Maestro,

Thanks for taking the trouble. A really interesting comparison. I had a G2 for a

couple of years before getting into Leica and people can tell from the photo

album where the Zeiss glass ends and the Leica starts. I prefer Leica too.

<I>"...people can tell from the photo album where the Zeiss glass ends and the Leica starts."</I>

<P>

Do have any examples you'd care to share?

Interesting. What made you pick the Zeiss 35mm over the Leica?

Here is a translated blurb on this issue of Asahi Camera:

 

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www3.asahi.com/opendoors/zasshi/camera/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAsahi%2BCamera%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

 

 

Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera both have excellent photo reproductions.

Are the Zeiss glass physically larger than Leicas?

Hi Bob. Your concerns are certainly valid, in that printed magazine pages are not the most

ideal medium for judging subtle color differences. Nevertheless I believe Asahi did their

best in giving a most accurate comparison. It is specifically stated in the article that they

used the same camera body (Hexar RF, just to be "unbiased") and roll of film in making the

pictures.

 

I do think that some properties are probably less prone to the effects you described. For

example if the Leica pictures started out with coarse colors then it's unlikely that fine

gradations can be recovered by printing alone; similarly if the Leica and Zeiss images

started out with equally fine color nuances then it's not very likely that effects of printing

would diminish the fine gradations in Zeiss images while boosting Leica's. Bokeh is also

visibly different and cannot be due to printing.

 

On the other hand something like color balance could easily have been swayed in either

direction, depending on printing, lighting, film, etc.

 

Bottom line is, as I emphasized the above was a very subjective (and casual) comparison.

Personally I don't think the evaluation of a lens is a science or could ever be 100%

objective (despite every effort on the part of some publications/manufacturers to pretend

that it is so). Afterall, it is aesthetics that we're talking about.

 

I also think that modern lenses have very little room to deviate from one another. Most

lenses are very well "optimized", often based on the same set of criteria. This is unlike the

old days when either measurable properties had not been formally quantified (i.e. MTF) or

when the limitations of technology were such that significant tradeoffs had to be made,

possibly based on very subjective preferences. For example, I have here another Japanese

publication where they compare lenses from Zeiss, Leica, Canon and Nikon. Because these

are lenses from an earlier generation, the respective "signature" of each lens is extremely

visible. In one comparison, one lens unlike any other produces a very "swirly" out-of-focus

rendition. No one can possibly miss that.

 

Additionally modern Leica and Zeiss lenses are designed based on a very similar philosphy

to begin with. The lead designer of Leica lenses in the 90s as well as the current CEO both

came from Zeiss. So any differences between to two lineups probably were never meant to

be too dramatic.

<i>2) My wife, who has no experience in serious photography of any kind, picked Leica over Zeiss 5/5 times. (She took her picks without first knowing what my picks were, or which lenses took which. We did this completely independently, and I didn't guide her through which traits to look for in the pictures.)

</i>

<p>

That, for me, is the acid test.

<p>BTW, does your wife have pert boobs and a cute arse? These minor characteristics matter

To my knowledge, yes, the Zeiss lenses are quite a bit larger than their Leica counterparts.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Zeiss can achieve very much the same

performance without resorting to the use of aspherics (i.e. fewer restrictions on design

parameters).

 

I picked the Zeiss 35mm over Leica's because I thought the Leica is getting too "magenta"

in that image, which I find uncomfortable. But that's just me, and also the color balance

can easily be due to a number of different factors.

 

On the issue of print quality of Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera magazines, I can't say

enough good words about them. It's my belief that the Japanese "equipment" publications

do a far superior job in print quality (so much so that you can REALLY tell a good lens from

a bad one), the better photography not withstanding. They also don't pretend that lens

evaluation is down to a science, and would rate a lens highly based on

subjective evaluation even if all objective properties measure poorly. As a result I think

the Japanese are fortunately less infatuated with resolution charts and MTF figures. Take

the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Nokton as an example. It is a modern lens designed around

paramters of 50s-60s lenses (and single-coated!) to evoke feeling of that era. That

wouldn't have been a marketable lens if not the public believes that, on some subjective

level and for certain applications, older less-optimized lenses can actually do better.

So happens I was going to write about Asahi Camera study of Leica vs Zeiss.

 

You really cannot trust photographs in magazines. I sensed that the Leitz 35 and 50 were a tad sharper wide open than the equ. Zeiss lenses. I've just started to plow through this article with the help of my wife.

 

They are shooting both sets of lenses wide open on a Hexar RF, interestingly enough. The Zeiss lenses they are covering are the 25, 28, 35 and 50. They are comparing them to corresponding Leitz lenses.

 

The only lens I am really interested in is the 25/2.8. What the article said was that Zeiss proved you do not need aspherical elements for excellent results. They did say that the Zeiss lens was a tad softer than the Leitz 24/2.8. But flare control, color are equal in both. The 24 gives you slightly wider coverage. The list price of the Leitz 24/2.8 is 380,000 yen. The 25/2.8 weights 260g. and lists for 105,000 yen, or about 45,000 below the price of a used Leitz 24/2.8. It is also 30 grams lighter than the 24/2.8. It's filter size is 46mm as opposed the the Leitz 24/2.8's 55mm.

 

The Asahi test is of the quick n' dirty variety. It's virtue, however, is that it gives you useful quick n' dirty information. That is that the Zeiss lenses are no slouches and you can get then for about a third of what you pay for Leitz lenses. I'd like to know how they handle and how the mechanics stand up after prolonged use.

 

I am actually quite excited about the Zeiss Ikon camera, which seems very much like the reborn CLE that Japan's photogs have been dreaming of for years.

Since the only factors which influence color are the choice of glass types and nature of the optical coatings, I guess the conclusion can be drawn that those factors are the only ones making a difference here, not lens design.

The 24mm Leica has a bowl shape frontend and therefore a wider filter size. Length-wise

it's actually slightly shorter.

 

The Zeiss lens that's shorter than Leica's is the 28mm; others are all longer. The one that

is significantly longer/wider is the 35mm. On the other hand all the Leica lenses are

heavier.

 

To me the distribution of weight is much more important than the weight per se. I didn't

like the way the 35/2 ASPH. felt on my M body because it was front-heavy. I've had heavier

R lenses that balance better.

 

I'm not so much interested in the ZI lenses myself as I prefer older lenses when using a

rangefinder. However the ZI body is very interesting especially as a cheaper AE body. It

also has a very nice and modern look.

<BTW, does your wife have pert boobs and a cute arse? These minor characteristics matter>

 

 

Comments like this again show why so few women frequent this otherwise-good forum. And why some people just plain have no shame.

Appreciate your efforts - It's all quite interesting. The way you describe the differences are pretty much in line with my experience of using the two different lens brands in 35mm - Leica lenses are subtler tonally and have a slightly green/cold leaning compared to the pinker/more magenta of Zeiss. The modern Zeiss lenses tend to be big on saturation too. Leica lenses seem to be able to "tame" Velvia in the pinks/reds so that skin tones look acceptable (given accurate exposure) - whereas both Canon and Zeiss relatively boost reds. This is so much so that one way of getting images from these lenses to look more like Leica images is to tweak the "reds" saturation value down and the "greens" value up in Image/Adjustments/Hue-Saturation in PS.

Having said that, Zeiss is unbeatable, to my eye, in black and white.

Zeiss glass is very nice, especially when put on a digital camera. Lots of rich colour, contrast. Too much contrast in my opinion...sort of spoils.

 

Leica glass is just better on anything. Wish i could say otherwise...hate the prices.

Time for another photo.......<div></div>

<i>Comments like this again show why so few women frequent this otherwise-good forum. And why some people just plain have no shame</i>

<p>

slinke, ever heard of sarcasm (<i>sar-kas-um</i>)

Importantly, Zeiss has chosen not to use aspherical elements. I presume that this lowers the cost of production and, hence, the price. I might be wrong; apherical elements are apparently easier to manufacture these days.

At any rate, the Zeiss lenses are not quite up to the quality of Leica but they are very close.

 

The Asahi Camera writer makes one apparent error. He says--if I understand him correctly--that Zeiss and Leica keep their distance from one another and never had interchangable lenses and bodies. In fact, Zeiss made lenses in Leica screw mount. HCB used a Sonnar 50.

IMO you have to shoot with lenses under a variety of conditions, at varying distances using varying apertures, before you can make proper conclusions about which ones are "best." One set of photos reproduced in a magazine, photos taken by someone else, simply isn't a large enough sample to conclude much of anything.

 

You may even find there is no "best." Rather one lens excels under certain conditions while another excels under different conditions. This is what I usually end up seeing, which is why I've accumulated so many lenses over the years. :-) We live in a world where people have an incessant need to pick "the winner." There must always be a winner. But I find this is often contrived nonsense.

 

I'm looking forward to trying out some of the new Zeiss offerings. I love the old RF lenses from the 1950s as well as the more recent G lineup. The lenses I like I'll keep and use. The others I won't. Simple as that.

 

-Dave-

Several C/V lenses have aspheric surfaces and sell for even less than the Zeiss glass.

"Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera both have excellent photo

reproductions."

 

Their reproduction are ordinary, nothing great and nothing bad. I

certainly woulf not use them to make judgements on photographic

optics.

I don't agree that the print quality of Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera are "ordinary". As

far as I can tell they are about the best I've seen among equipment-centric periodicals.

Considering that their closest American counterparts are the likes of Pop Photo and

Shutterbug, there simply is no competition.

 

The point of the evaluation is not so much that it is unequivocally conclusive as it is a

casual comparison based on the only available data. The article is also clear about

its intent---a quick comparison without delving into any meaurements. Afterall we're

talking about preproduction lenses here.

 

Lastly I'm not too worried about the author having biased opinions. I just don't think he

does. He (Koichi Akagi) is known to be a Leica proponent and a user of several ASPH

lenses. That he wrote so highly of the Zeiss lenses probably suggests that he is truly

impressed. As Alex has pointed out, it's quite an accomplishment on Zeiss' part

considering how much less these ZI lenses cost.

Why the hell don't they just make the Contax G lenses in a freaking M mount. Those lenses are out of this world, and have always been cheap compared to Leica. WTF? Is there a patent issue?

<Comments like this again show why so few women frequent this otherwise-good forum. And why some people just plain have no shame

 

slinke, ever heard of sarcasm (sar-kas-um)>

 

 

Nice try. I know sarcasm when I see it--and when I don't. Sexism too.