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

[al_kaplan1]

I thought that I read recently that the patents on the M mount had, or were about to expire.

[karl_keung]

Hopefully the new Zeiss/Cosina will make Leica M mount a more affordable format and hence allowing more people to see the beauty of a rangefinder camera. Which are a better lens is actually a matter of taste, just as which is a better film in the same token.

 

I personally want to try out the new Cosina glass, trying out Leica lens has been a painful experience, financially that is.

[monochrome11]

Al, the M mount patent expired a while ago (hence Konica was able to produce the M Mount Hexanon RF body and lenses)... however, i believe the Contax G series RF were released prior to the Hexar RF, so perhaps the G was in the design stage while the M mount patent was still enforceable...

 

CV and now Zeiss/Kyocera? are taking advantage of the patent expiration...

[lmz]

If the ZI 50f/2 is as good as the ContaxG 45/2, I won't hesitate to buy one to fit my Leicas. Absolutely superb lens.

[jason]

The quality of the magazines is way higher than the US magazines.British mags tend to be more honest than any American magazine but reproduction sucks.I like Aasahi magazine.

I am also "wondering" why Zeiss did not release the G-mounts in Leica-M ?

[maestro logos]

To my knowledge Kyocera/Contax is not part of the current ZI project, which is strictly

between Zeiss and Cosina. My guess is optically it will probably outperform G?

 

Regarding the use of aspherics in Leica lenses and the conspicuous absence in the ZI

lineup: In another article that I read (byt the same author, Classic Camera: M7 Special

Edition), it is said that Leica's aspherics machining facility is a closely guarded trade secret

and the company considers the use of aspherics a must for obtaining superior wideangle

performance. So when Zeiss is able to achieve similar performance using only

"conventional means", the author is very impressed.

[les_lammers]

*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?*

 

I have read that they can be converted to an M mount for $250. Someone in Japan does it.

[david_kieltyka]

For marketing reasons as much as anything else I can't imagine Zeiss just porting the G lenses over to M mount. Personally I wouldn't object to it at all...I eventually got fed up with the G2 camera but the lenses were superb. But I think Zeiss wants to create something "new" here, and maybe they also feel they've been able to top the G lenses. We shall see.

 

Leica's particular aspherical processes may be proprietary but aspherics themselves are used all over the optics industry. Zeiss uses aspherical elements when they deem it necessary, as in cine lenses like the Master Primes and many of the small zooms in the Sony digicams.

 

-Dave-

[maestro logos]

Aspherics were used since quite some time ago (i.e. first generation

noctilux, I believe). To my knowledge the way in which Leica uses/

manufactures aspherical elements is nowadays different. Precisely how it

differs I can longer recall. However I do know that they were entering the business of

marketing aspherics for industrial applications as they had a press release about this.

[maestro logos]

I went back to my earlier posts and they read like I'm suggesting aspherics are an

exclusive Leica technology. No that's not what I mean. What I'm saying is Leica apparently

regards the use of aspherics as a "core technology" and has found a way to produce them

efficiently, so much so that they capitalize on it for other applications. Clearly Zeiss takes

on a different position and can makes lenses that are as good without use of aspherics. As

to whether Zeiss can manufacturer aspherics---I have no doubt that they can and perhaps

even a leader. Just a difference of philosophy in approaching lens designs.

[mike_elek]

1.) Was this a blind test? Or did you look at the lens title below?

 

2.) What do you mean by "bloated color" -- you need to explain this more.

 

3.) Were your wife's selections influenced by you? Such as, "I like this one," and your wife says, "Yeah, me too?" NEVER MIND.

 

4.) How does your wife understand the term "bokeh" if she's a non-photographer? Man, I hate that stupid term. A ridiculous way to judge the performance of a lens.

 

5.) Are you sure the color variances were due to printing issues? Possibly not.

 

In any case, this is interesting but rather useless, as it is subjective.

[maestro logos]

She didn't have to know the word "bokeh" to see what was going on in the out-of-focus

part. To me bokeh is not a trivial property of a lens as it can do so much to a picture,

either in a good or bad way. In fact I think it's far more ridiculous to judge a lens in terms

of sharpness like so many people seem to do.

 

As to "bloated colors" I mean too forcefully saturated to have lost finer nuances. Some

might prefer that, but I don't and it's certainly subjective. There are many people who love

Zeiss lenses for the ultra saturated look that they produce.

[robert goldstein]

Since the Contax G lenses are autofocus and have no focusing rings, I don't see how they could simply be converted to an M mount. Presumably, Contax/Zeiss could add a focusing ring if they so desire, but evidently they don't.

 

Also, I do not understand the notion that Zeiss lenses have too much contrast. How can a lens have too much contrast, which refers to a lenses ability to separate darker points from lighter ones? The only way that contrast can be excessive, is if intermediate points are being left out or compressed. I know of no evidence that Zeiss lenses are more prone to tonal compression than Leica lenses. Hence higher contrast, if it exists at all, is actually a desirable property.

[jimdesu]

Zeiss lenses tend to run "hot", which is a feature that I actually prefer, but I've found a lot of folks that shoot chromes prefer a less contrasty lens. I shoot very low-contrast print film, so it's not as much of an issue for me, and I prefer the look.

[david_kieltyka1]

High contrast lenses can be an issue with digital sensors too. I've run into this with the R-D1 and certain lenses, such as the CV 28mm f/3.5. The 28mm is so "hot" it can easily create images with more dynamic range than the sensor can handle. Lower contrast lenses yield flatter images that are easier to deal with. I've been using my Zeiss 50 & 85mm LTM Sonnars with the R-D1 with great results. They were snappy lenses for their time but are only of moderate contrast by current standards. With digital all you need is enough contrast to resolve fine detail...from there you have total control over the appearance of that detail via post-processing. This is something to consider with the M-Digital as well should that product ever come to market.

 

-Dave-