Zeiss vs Leica

[richard_bach]

Hello everyone. I am planning on entering into rangefinder photography and need some advice on a

camera. I am looking in the not so expensive range ($1000 - $1500). I am primarily a wide-angle shooter

but would someday like to own a noctilux (from what I understand focusing at such small DOF is more like

focusing a telephoto...). The zeiss ikon seems like a good choice for the price because it offers many

features no leica at the same price has (autoexposure, etc.). Realistically what would I gain by going with a

leica for the same price that lacks most of these features? Second of all, because I am looking to keep cost

somewhat down, any opinions on the zeiss 35 f/2 biogon vs. the 35 summicron? Thanks in advance for

any information,

Rich

[richard_bach]

also, i might add, the images i have seen from the zeiss 50mm f/1.5 seems spectacular. any

thoughts?

[dimi3]

Whhy don`t you want to buy Contax G2 with Biogon 21 or Hologon 16?

[gadge]

<Realistically what would I gain by going with a leica for the same price that lacks most of these features?>

 

Peace of mind. Your very question indicates you won't have this when you don't buy that Leica first time around. How many times have we seen that here. Hello Trevor Hare! You will only be back again in a years time buying it and making a loss on the Zeiss. Go on.. you know you want me to tell you. YOU MUST BUY that Leica M.

 

<Second of all,>

 

No! You can't get away with that! You may use either a first or a last of all and that's your lot. Even if you do live in the land of George Bush speakeasy.

 

Please note before sending in the flamethrowers that this last point is a rather poor English attempt at wit and should be taken in the kindly "special relationship" spirit intended ;-)

[paul t]

If AE is really useful to you, the ZI is hard to beat - the viewfinder is also better. But bear in

mind you'll be buying a consumer item with the Zeiss - with the M6, you'll be buying into a

cult, which obviously appeals to a lot of people. <p>

The ZI 35/2 compares well to the current Summicron and, by most accounts, outperforms the

old Summicron. But it is VERY bulky. Go to rangefinderforum.com now and you should see

one for sale at $675, which sounds like a bargain.

[wai_leong_lee]

Well, the M7 is more elegant, it's hand made(or at least, hand assembled) and it oozes quality. The Zeiss Ikon is made from cheaper materials. Its shutter is much louder too.

[andrew_lee2]

>I am primarily a wide-angle shooter but would someday like to own a noctilux

<p>

>>Whhy don`t you want to buy Contax G2 with Biogon 21 or Hologon 16?

<p>

Funny, didn't realize the Noctilux came in Contax G mount.

[mattalofs]

<p>A lot of folks seem to like the Ikon, including this guy: <a href="http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=490">www.auspiciousdragon.net</a></p>

 

<p>I bought a <a href="http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/zm-biogon-35mm-f2-review/">Biogon 35 f/2</a> 9 months ago. Far from ever being disappointed, I'm fairly certain it's the <a href="http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/im-not-looking-at-you-03690007/">best lens I own</a>.</p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/03690007.jpg"><br />Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35 F2, Tri X, Tmax Dev</center>

[aplumpton]

You aren't going to sacrifice much, if anything by going to Zeiss-Ikon. The shutter is a lot quieter than the M8 digital and very close to the M6 or M7. How will the Zeiss (Cosina) last over time, who knows... I have or have had both Leica M and Hexar RF and can say that the Hexar worked beautifully over the severalyears I kept it. As for lenses, the Leica are often smaller and lighter than the Zeiss (especially the wide angle ones) and that can be important. Cosina-Voigtlander makes some nice wide angles as well.

[terry_rory]

"Peace of mind. Your very question indicates you won't have this when you don't buy that Leica first time around. How many times have we seen that here. Hello Trevor Hare!"

 

 

Hello.

 

Yes, Gadge was right, buying a Leica M6 was what eventually put me off the idea of rangefinders for good.

[terry_rory]

I cannot recommend Zeiss and Contax equipment highly enough. Had some great times with it....

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorhare/tags/contax/

[anthony_brookes5]

Zeiss equipment has always been good. The lenses produce different images and you take your choice. In my view the differences to me are so slight I could live with either. I now use Leicas but the best lens I ever had was a Zeiss Contarex Planar 50mm 1967.

[larry_kincaid1]

In spite of what's been said, I still think that this is a tricky decision. I have purchased all used Leica lenses and M6 with the exception of one new lens, 35mm Lux ASPH (couldn't find a good used one), and every item is worth more today on the used market than what I originally paid. That makes the Leica equipment an investment as much as a "consumption." That' why it makes no sense to rent Leica equipment; it's cheaper to buy and resell. But who wants to invest that much cash just to get started in RF photography? If this is simply out of the realm of possibility, then a nice compromise to me would be to buy the Zeiss RF camera and the best used Leica 35mm lens you can find. On the other hand, if a good used M6 is available for not much more than the new Zeiss RF, then you might as well buy the Lecia M as well. After a rocky start, it looks like the M8 is becoming quite desirable. That means that a lot of old Leica RF users and new M8 users will be looking for lenses. These Leica lenses are in short supply today, so prices should go up even higher. To get around the $2600-$2900 price for a new Leica 24mm f2.8 ASPH lens for my M8, I just purchased a new (rangefinder coupled) Cosina 25mm f4.0? lens from Gandy for under $500. This will be my first experience with this wide of a lens, so I decided not to "invest" more money than that for now. But as mentioned above, if I really like a 25mm on the M8, then I'll will suffer from intense desire to fork over the $2600 for a Leica lens which has been labeled one of Leica's masterpieces. As said many times here, if you don't like this process, don't even get started using Leica equipment.

[alan_wilder1]

I've always been curious about the Contarex 50/2 Planar. Optically, was the fingerprint similar to the Summicron M or R from the late 1960's, i.e. excellent resolution with medium to high contrast? The lenses had incredible build quality, closer than normal focus and I think a 'blitz' or flashmatic(?) feature.

[ronald_moravec1]

Zeiss is made by a Japanese firm Cosina. It is average qualty or maybe slightly better. It will work fine for a while, but does not have the Leica quality.

 

Used Leicas are like used cars, they normally need some repairs. I spent have a lot of money restoring mine. I also have new ones. Cost can work out to be the same, old used or recent new used not needing repairs.

 

Go to a store and handle the Zeiss, current Besas, and Leica. Leica is the best and the price reflects it. They have superior engineering and a few clicks of the shutter will demonstrate it. They are also made to last much longer and parts are available for repair. Others discontinue parts with the camera. Leica remakes old parts in batches if required.

 

Zeiss lenses are very good, but slightly different than Leica. Neither have the robust mechanical construction of the old days. Zeiss lenses have demonstrated more failures in this reguard. Again Cosina build except for a few very expensive ones like the 85 and 15.

 

The best solution is a demo or late Leica with a lens form 1980/90.

The new version 50 2.8 is a terrific lens if you can live with 2.8. The first from 1955/62 is very nice too, but a little different look to the pics.

 

For budget conscious, Besaa from Camera Quest in California or Photo Village in NYC are the way to go.

 

Remember you can only loose as much as you invested when film dies and we go digital if that happens. I got a 1950 Leica 111c two years ago and a Nikon Digital D200 a month ago. Like them both.

[alan_wilder1]

Ron brings up some interesting points and I hope this doesn't start a war of words. It's undeniable that lens build quality was second to none with the older Contarex and late west German Contax products of the late 50's to early 70's. Optically speaking, I think that still holds true whether with the Kyocera venture or current designs although with few exceptions, mechanically they might not be as robust as Leica M or R lenses. My only hesitancy is will the lenses develop wobble or play in assembly over time as I read anecdotaly in a few cases or is this normal in the tolerance bandwith?

[stuart_richardson]

I own a number of Leica cameras and Leica, Zeiss and Cosina lenses. If I were buying a new

camera today and I did not want to spring for an M7, I would buy a Zeiss Ikon with no

reservations whatsoever.

[35mmdelux]

"Realistically what would I gain by going with a leica"

 

Quality.

[dennis_cheng1]

Why not buy a Leica M6 first. Try it for a couple of months. If you don't like it, sell it. You will most likely able to sell it at the price that you bought it. Can't say the same for Zeiss.

[x-ray]

"The ZI 35/2 compares well to the current Summicron and, by most accounts, outperforms the old Summicron. But it is VERY bulky."

 

Not bulky at all in fact it's almost exactly the size of a 50 summicron and the same size as a 35mm film box. Not large at all! I own both the asph summicron 35 and the 35ZM. In my experience the ZM 35 slightly outperforms the asph summicron and has more pleasing tonality.

 

I shoot with my equipment for a living and have used Leicas for 39 years. I have 6 M's and one ZI. If I were starting over today I would probably have an equal mix of both. Love the ZI! It's very well made, lighter due to magnesium rather than brass, much improved RF / VF over leica and excellent AE / neter. All in all it'a a superb professional machine that will outlast almost anyones use on this forum.

[andre_harrison]

""Realistically what would I gain by going with a leica"<p>

 

Quality." <p>

This seems to me demonstrably wrong. Quality isn't just about having a finely-machined

shutter speed dial. <p>

yes, Leica's are beautifully-made objects,, but read the question. For a start, the OP

mentions he likes WA lenses, but hopes one day to use a Noctilux. With a Leica, you'd

normally need two cameras for this, one with a .58 viewfinder framelines for wideangle

use, and a second with a .72 or .85 VF so you could focus the Noctillux properly. The ZI,

with its much bigger RF base, will do both, because its Effective Base Length is within a

whisker of an M3, yet

it also features 28mm framelines. SO, for one crucial task, ie framing and focusing, the ZI

is simply better. <p>

As you might have spotted, Richard, you're likely to get partisan views here; it's really

worth getting your hands on both cameras, they're both fine instruments, but you need to

decide which one you like the feel of more.

[frank uhlig]

Don't even think of a Contax G2 with Biogon, Hologon.

 

That will only drive their prices up a notch. Stay with Leitz and get a G2 Hologon converted to M mount, by all means. Lots of people have done this. And have the best of both worlds. Now you could also just take a G2 and see what your photography is really made of. Good luck.

[furcafe]

Alan, in a word, yes (qualified by the fact that I have little direct experience w/'60s Leitz Summicrons). Samples here:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeiss502planarchromec196063/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeiss502planarblackc196370/

 

 

However, the flash/Blitz version actually lacks the close focus abilities of the earlier, non-Blitz version.

 

---------------

 

"I've always been curious about the Contarex 50/2 Planar. Optically, was the fingerprint similar to the Summicron M or R from the late 1960's, i.e. excellent resolution with medium to high contrast? The lenses had incredible build quality, closer than normal focus and I think a 'blitz' or flashmatic(?) feature."

[anthony_brookes5]

Alan - From my own experience using Contarex before I changed to Leica I would say the chrome Zeiss Planar of the late 1960's was the best built lens I have ever had It was extremely heavy and as smooth as silk for focussing and aperture. It focused down to 12 inches and was pin sharp even at F2. The camera was a triumph of engineering over functonality but should last forever. It makes a peculiar gear train noise when you wind on. I was told by a retired lens designer that no one even Leica now use the rare trace elements employed in making the 1960s Planar glass because they are just too expensive. I have no idea how true that is , but no doubt someone on this forum could help on this point. I have compared this lens with my 50mm M Summicron and R Summicron and it is sharper than both at F2 but the difference falls away at smaller apertures.I wish I could find a Contarex Planar/M adaptor but perhaps the construction will not allow such a device.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Look here (same discussion):

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00L4vx