Leica vs. Zeiss normal lens for 5D

[terry_evans3]

Hello,

 

I want to get a wide (24-35) and normal prime for my 5D. The main use will be

portraits and landscape. After reading many reviews, it seems like the

following may be good choices: Summilux 50, Summicron 50, Planar 50 1.4,

Distagon 28 2.8, and Distagon 35 1.4. Could I get your opinion on this? Do

you have any other suggestions. I guess I am like many other and looking for

the ultimate normal lens.

 

Thank you,

 

Terry Evans

[steve_unsworth1]

Terry, I used a 50mm Summicron and a 28mm Elmarit on my 5D and the results have been exceptional. I can't comment about the others I'm afraid.

[stuart_richardson]

The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is really really good. The nice thing is that it is made for your

camera system. Is there a reason that you don't want to use it? It is very much in the same

league as the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux R. The latest 50mm Summilux R is also a really nice lens

that has a lovely image character. But if I were you I would get the Canon 50mm f/1.2L or the

35mm f/1.4L. There is definitely something to be said for using lenses made for your

camera. If you want to shoot Leica or Zeiss that badly, then you are probably better off

shooting them on a camera that was made for them.

[james mitchell dc]

Terry, I don't think that you can go wrong with any of those lenses. For portraits, I'd go with the 50 Summicron.

[ronald_moravec1]

Check out focusing and exposure as the adapters to not make the electric contact to body from lens. Therefore no auto focus and manual is difficult, no auto diaphragm, and I have read reports here about wrong exposures if you do not compensate.

 

I am considering this myself for the PC lenses and the 400/560 teles. Not sure I would want it for everyday use without a Canon lens.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think Nikon D80 18/135 or Canon 30D 18/55. Use them and be happy Fix distortion and vignetting in photoshop as it is a digi file anyway.

 

In the mean time there is Portra VC in my R6.2 and my scanner and Jobo processor work plus I get a neg I can print and archive.

[nels]

The Zeiss camp will tell you that you can resolve more angels on the head of a pin with their favorite glass, whereas the Leica camp will say that you can see better microcontrast in the wings of the angels on the head of a pin with their glass.

 

When one considers the hassles of manual focusing and stop down metering, any perceptible differences (as opposed to specific absolute superiorities, if any) among most top quality glass take a back seat for a photographer working in the real world. Chances are, the weakest link in the final output from a person asking this sort of question is rarely the quality of the glass.

 

Stuart's advise above seems sound to me.

[steve_unsworth1]

It really isn't as difficult as people make out. I've been using Leica glass on a 5D for over 12 months. All but a handful of the shots here were taken with the combination of 5D and Leica glass...

 

http://www.steveunsworth.co.uk/Albums/2006_Misc/index.htm

[derek_stanton2]

Can't comment on the (very) wide glass, but for 35mm, get the Canon 35L. I had a Leica

R8 and Canon 5D, and at one time compared the R-Summicron 35 with the Canon 35/2. I

found them to be even in performance. One was a hair better in the center, and the other

was a hair better on the edges. This was using a Fotodiox adapter on the 5D. I recently

bought the Canon 35/1.4L, and it's better than the 35/2. I can't comment on the 35-R

Summilux, except to say that everything i've read suggests that it's not so sharp wide open

(sorta like the M-counterpart). The Canon L, however, IS really good wide open.

 

Nice things are being written about the new Zeiss ZF 35mm Distagon, but it's still (only) an

f2 lens, and it's rather large. I'd still go with the Canon L at that focal length.

 

As for 50mm - i made the same comparison on the 5D, between the R-50 Summicron

versus the Canon 50/1.4. The Canon was equal to or better than the Summicron from f2.

From 1.4 to 1.8, the Canon shows some issues with halation, but it doesn't affect all

images - mainly the edges of white objects/areas. But, if you treat it like an f2 lens for

'critical' work, you'll be very happy. There seems to be some sample variation with that

lens, though.

 

I never tried the ROM R-Summilux, but i would expect it to be better than both the Canon

and the R-Summicron. BUT - as with the R-Summicron on the EOS body, i get far better

consistency with focus/sharpness when using the AF function and a Canon lens. So, even

if the Leica lens were sharper, the AF lens is a better bet.

 

The new Canon 50/1.2L is reported to be better than the 50/1.4 up to about f4, at which

point things even out and maybe the older lens is a hair better. Of course, the L is larger,

heavier, and more expensive. I'm also looking for the 'ultimate' normal lens, and had high

hopes for the 50L. I'm not quite convinced yet, but i'm close. There are still compromises,

but that's life....

[terry_evans3]

Steve,

 

Your pictures are beautiful. What adapter do you use? Also, why Summicron over Summilux? I have had several people say that, but I have also read comments that the Summilux was amazing, and the best 50mm available.

 

I can appreciate the comments about staying with Canon lenses. Currently, I own the 24-70 2.8L, 85 1.2L II, 135 2L, and 200 2.8L. Regardless of an alternative lens, I still plan to get the 35 1.4L. I had hoped the reviews on the 50 1.2L were like the 85 1.2L, but there are a lot of undecided users.

 

For now, I just want to play around with mf German glass on my 5D. My background is medium format manual cameras, and manual focus and exposure means nothing to me. My photography is very deliberate, many times on a tripod. If I want to chase one of my four children around for snapshots or school functions, I grab my 24-70 or 135.

 

I would still appreciate any comments on Leica verses Zeiss. I have had many recommend the Planar 50 1.4, and Distagon 28 2.8. Any opinions on these two?

 

Regards,

 

Terry

[steve_unsworth1]

Terry, I use the Camerquest adaptor. When I bought it for my 300D (digital rebel) it was the only one I was aware of. Since then I've used it on a 20D and now my 5D.

 

Why the Summicrom? I bought a 3-Cam Summicron from eBay for just over 100 GBP ($200) to use on my 5D - until then I'd been using an old single cam 50mm Summicron that came with my SL. If you're interested send me an email and I send you some 100% crops showing the detail resolved by this combination - a bit nerdy for open forum.

[samir]

I have been using Leica glass (35 summicron and 60 macro-elmarit) on my 5D! I love the combination. The images have another signature when compared to L lenses. What wide angle (24 or wider) would work on the 5D?

i have seen many reports that wide angles are not compatible with the 5D.

[terry_evans3]

Samir,

 

I think the 28 2.8 Elmarit, and Distagon 28 will work fine. There is a Zeiss 21 that doesn't, because the mirror hits.

 

Terry

[joop]

I recently bought a contax 35/1.4 for a good price to use on a future 5D....For now, I use it on a Canon film Rebel.

So far it looks good, but it's a heavy lens! I think it weights 670 gr or so.

<br>

<br>

<center>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/353091485_eb0801555b.jpg?v=0"> <br><i> Church in Sweden, Distagon 35/1.4 T*, Sensia 100 </i>

[steven_moseley1]

Hi Terry,

 

I am a long term Contax/ Zeiss C/Y mount user, so feel qualified to mention somethings about the Zeiss lenses. Comparisons with Leica really are fairly pointless..they do different things, only you can decide which set of compromises you prefer after using them.

 

Regards the Zeiss Contax lenses: The most highly regarded ones by the majority of Contax users are: 21/2.8, 28/2 AND 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4 AND 50/1.7, 85/1.4 AND 85/2.8, 100/2 and the 60/2.8 S Makro.

 

Disregard the slower lenses at your peril, in may cases they equal or even surpass the more glamourous fast lenses, the 35/1.4 is a case in point here..many Zeiss users prefer the slower 35/2.8. Also the 85/2.8 and the scarce 100/3.5 are superb performers, but get unfairly over-looked.

 

Do bear in mind, you do not need the multi mode capability of the later 'MM' Zeiss lenses, so you may as well buy the earlier (and cheaper) AE versions. They are all optically the same, the later MM ones simply have an additional small tab on the back of the lens mount to supply info to the later Contax bodies with Tv and programme modes.

 

cheers Steve.M. (UK)

[terry_evans3]

Steve,

 

Thank you very much. Your list pretty much confirms what I have read. How would you compare the two 28s? I can't find many opinions on the f/2. I guess I just like the idea that it is made in Germany. How does the IQ compare?

 

Also, for no particular reason, I chose the Summilux 50 1.4 E over the Planar 50 1.4. I won't get it until Wednesday, but heard that the new version interferes with the mirror, where the last version didn't. Do you know anything about this?

 

Again, thanks.

 

Terry

[chris_chow]

50 Summilux: The latest version (60mm filter) does not work on the 5D. The earlier version (which I have never used) reportedly is not a top performer. BTW, the latest version should be very expensive.

 

50 Summicron: Unfortunately, I sold this lens before I got the 5D, the reason being that the Summilux is much better than the Summicron. On film, the 50 Summicron is very good, but not necessarily the best in its class.

 

50/1.4 Planar: I have two copies but still don't like it. Centre resolution is somewhat disappointing. OTOH the 50 Planar f1.7 is unbeatable, and is a real bargain.

 

28/2.8 Distagon: Good sharpness, much better than the Canon 28/1.8 but not one of my favourites. Manual focus can be a problem.

 

35/1.4 Distagon: Average sharpness even at f4 and very visible CA.

 

So, perhaps the 50/1.7 Planar and the Distagon 28/2.8, although the Leica 28 Elmarit would be ideal.

 

Others: Nikon 45/2.8 AIS-P, Nikon 35/1.4 AIS, Olympus 50/1.8, Olympus 24/2.8 and Zeiss 25/2.8.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi Terry,

 

I do not hold much faith in lens comparison testing, in fact I think 90% of it is an utter waste of time, I also only shoot film, so cannot help re adaptors or compatibility issues.

 

The general consensus with Contax users is that both the 28/2 and 28/2.8 are great, so most users save LOTS of money and buy the slower lens. The 28/2 is very good close-up though and Marc Williams who posts here loves his. However they are fairly hard to find, cost about 4-5 times the cost of the f2.8 AND they are prone to issues..

 

..I tried to buy one about 2 years ago and had to return no less than three to dealers and private sellers, as all had problems of one sort or another. They have a very close clearance with mirrors and even if they are only slightly mis-adjusted can foul mirrors when the lens is focussed right back into the mirror box.

 

On the other hand, I have never had any 28/2.8 with any problems..so If you find a 28/2 for sale, ask the seller LOTS of detailed questions.

 

Also, the Zeiss C/Y lenses sometimes suffer from the rubber focus grip becoming loose and no longer gripping the lens barrel, so the grip just turns loose on the barrel. The 28/2 is prone to this..also some of the Zeiss lenses are prone to a very stiff focus action, which makes the grip problem worse. The 28/2 and the 18/4 are prone to stiff focus rings in my experience.

 

Re German made lenses..lots of rubbish spoken about this issue..the Japanese ones are just the same optically and in regard to build quality. However, I have found that the real issue is between the earlier AE and the later MM lenses. Some (NOT ALL) of the AE lenses are without a doubt better and more solidly made than the MM equivalent. I bought a 28/2.8 AE and compared it side by side with a later 28/2.8 MM and the MM lens was certainly of a flimsier build.

 

Do also bear in mind that if you fancy German made ones, you can find most of the AE and MM lenses built in both Germany and Japan. When the Contax RTS system first appeared, all the lenses were German made, but quite soon some production moved to Japan, so you can find some German made 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4 etc, but they are hard to find. Later on almost all the lens range was made in Japan, so more MM lenses up for sale tend to be Japanese ones, although German MM ones do exist also. I have a full list in my files.

 

The 25/2.8 by the way, is not so much liked by many Contax users..it does not hold sharpness very well into the corners, but is fantastic from a colour and rendition point of view.

 

cheers Steve.M.

[michael_przewrocki1]

i am celebrating my 30 years of contax/zeiss this year.

28/2.0 is not so good. 35/1.4 is sensational. at 2.0 it has almost no light fall-off. and corners are very very sharp.

i have ae-lenses: 18, 28, 35(2.8,2.8 pc), 45, 50(1.4,1.7), 60/2.8 old one 1:1, 85(1.4,2.8), 135/2.8

i had 35/1.4, 180/2.8, 300/4.0 both the older thick ones(had to sell them together with contaxt rts III. i switched to rotapanorama-cameras.ask mr mainka at novoflex germany.

 

contax-shift/tilt-bellow. novoflex confirmed that they can transform for a low price contax/yashica-camera-mount into a universal novoflex-mount, where one could choose among a long list of camera-adaptors.

 

zeiss-eos-adaptor with electronics is available trough ebay-seller happypagehk. focus and exposure-signals!

i would like to know which lenses were tested in FF 5D.

btw: a longyears reliable older friend-photographer- here in switzerland is selling:

35/2.8 pc-distagon and 15/3.5 distagon. pls send me mail with your offer. check ebay beforehand. at least the 15 is not cheap.

i will do 3d-stereos(up to 5m is working good) with 35/2.8 pc-distagon.