Do legendary characteristics of Zeiss lenses come through on digitally captured images?

[picturesque]

We all know that Carl Zeiss lenses are among the best made. Many

claim that these lenses have beautiful color and contrast qualities--

supposedly "better" than Japanese lenses. I'm pretty much convinced

of this myself, having seen images (slides and prints) shot with

these lenses. I wonder whether these qualities show up on digitally

captured images. I know of a few consumer/advanced amatuer digital

cameras that have Carl Zeiss lenses (Leica Digilux 1, some Sony

Cybershot and Fuji models), and the new Contax digital SLR uses Carl

Zeiss lenses. Has anyone seen images from these cameras where

these "better" qualities were apparent, or does that fact that

the "film" is digital tend to negate or downplay these qualities?

[stephen_w.]

Nadine,

 

while non-leica compatable questions don't bother me, as i use zeiss' products, others won't agree. you should post with some leica relation: zeiss vs. leica digitally captured images...

 

leica digilux w/zeiss lens? sounds odd.

[joshroot]

Staring at the digilux on the desk in front of me, I can tell you that it says absolutely nothing about being a Zeiss lens.

[john_collier2]

"I wonder whether these qualities show up on digitally captured

images."

 

No.

[jay_.]

There really is no reason to believe that lens characteristics would not manifest themselves on digital capture the same as on film. However in practical use, with a digital camera set to "auto white balance", differences in color rendition might not be as noticeable, and if you're talking about lenses on a digital SLR, since these use only the center of the image circle the differences in corner sharpness are also going to be less evident. When I had my EOS D30 I used Canon, Leica R and Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on it, and there was less differentiable characteristics between them than on film. I would have to believe that I will see somewhat more if it when I get my D60, and I have seen images shot on scanning digital backs on MF and LF cameras and I'm confident that the characteristics of lenses would evidence themselves clearly at that resolution.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

The Zeiss marked lenses on the P/S digital (mid level) cameras are not, and never were made by Carl Zeiss Germany, Japan or planet Earth.

 

These lenses are made by Canon, and are ?badged? Zeiss, Leica (YES EVEN LEICA!), etc, etc as part of licensing agreements to promote the sales of the digital cameras in return for royalties for the use of the trademark name.

[andy_piper2]

Nadine:

 

1) Leica Digilux 1 has a Leica Vario-Summicron lens, NOT Zeiss

 

2) the new Contax digital SLR is STILL not officially available, so no one has had any reliable experience with those lenses - all of which are plastic-barreled AF lenses and msot of which are slowish zooms, and therefore not directly comparable to the MF Zeiss lenses.

 

3) "does that fact that the "film" is digital tend to negate or downplay these qualities?" For the time being, yes (mostly)

[kent_phelan]

>>>Staring at the digilux on the desk in front of me, I can tell you that it says absolutely nothing about being a Zeiss lens.

 

That's because it's made by Canon...

[fotografz]

Jay is correct in that true Zeiss characeristics do show up at

higher resolution. I currently use a 16 Megabyte digital back on a

Contax 645 which provides 16 bit, 96 Megabyte files. Using a

Hassy to Contax adapter, I frequently use a F-110/2 Zeiss lens

which decidedly shows a different look and feel compared to its'

excellent Japanese manufactured Zeiss 645 counterparts. I've

described this 110mm Hasselblad lens as a MF version of the

75 Lux. For this very reason I hope to one day be able to use M

lenses on a high resolution "Digital Box" at a full frame 6 or 7

Megs. Now that would be Sooooo Coooool !!!!

[picturesque]

OK, I apologize for posting in the wrong category and for saying that the Leica Digilux and other P/S cameras have Zeiss lenses. Perhaps I should have said European lenses, such as Leica's and Zeiss. I have seen images from a Leica SLR and rangefinder, Hasselblads, and even Rollei point and shoot cameras that show the above mentioned characteristics, so I guess I am confused. All the same, I think the question still holds water--whether these characteristics can be seen on digitally captured images, either on screen or when printed. I guess it is too early to answer, if the Leica lenses on the P/S cameras are really made by Canon, and the Contax is not yet shipping. If anyone has any theoretical input to offer, I'd be interested in hearing it--why these characteristics may or may not show up. Thanks for all the input so far.

[glenn_travis]

If you want them to show up "digitally" then get a top film scanner (4000 dpi), scanner software, and Photoshop. Scan your film. Otherwise, forget about it.

[kirktuck]

Andy Piper is wrong. I personally accompanied a friend to the local camera shop here in Austin and watched as he purchased a new, in the box, real, live Contax Digital SLR. He immediately mounted a lens on the body and we joyously played with it. This was three weeks ago. I touched it. It is real. And it didn't have any of the flaws that were exhibited by the original shipment of Canon D1. In addition, the store, Precision Camera has sold three total of these $7000 cameras in the last month. None of them has been returned.

 

Kirk

[terry_rory]

Zeiss lenses are not 'European' except , possibly , in terms of their history. All of my Contax Carl Zeiss SLR lenses (AE and MM) are made in Japan by Kyocera according to Zeiss specs.

 

Despite that, they still have their 'legendary' moments.

[oliver_s.]

Thank you Trevor. As if the place of manufacture mattered!<p>The Lens in the Digilux 1... latest information has it that Panasonic presented a pretty excellent design to the engineers in Solms, who then added the finishing touches (figuratively speaking) to the coating. The same, with Sony and Zeiss, may have lead to the genuine Zeiss optics on the Sony digicams that use such optics. Who actually designed it... some day I'll ask.<p>Does the signature of Zeiss or Leica optics show in digitally captured images? Why should it not? In order to not do so colour reproduction would have to be so inaccurate and resolution so low that digital would be useless for professional applications. Even low-res Frontier scans (2700x1800 pixels from 35mm) show the Leica glow.

[terry_rory]

Place of manufacture does NOT matter at all to me Oliver. (I use Japanese manufactured so called Zeiss lenses myself and the the Leica Minilux 40mm f2.4 lens is a Panasonic lens made in Japan.) I was merely pointing this out to Nadine who tagged Leica and Zeiss as European lenses.

 

These manufacturers have a European (German) legacy and origins and Leica still make a few of their lenses in Germany but probably not for much longer.

[alfie wang]

Carl Zeiss lenses are some of my favorite lens and certainly will better Nikon and Canon on any average day. I haven't seen the Contax N but this next few weeks I will have the opportunity to play around with one of those suckers :)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Contax N digital became a new tool to revolutionize the digital camera world. Those lenses are something to behold by far :)

[Rob F.]

Hmmm, I just took a look at a Contax N website. Looks like Contax beat Leica to having a digital body that uses existing lenses (at least as far as a digital M is concerned).

[dougfromtumwater]

Trevor wrote:

"Zeiss lenses are not 'European' except , possibly , in terms of their history."

 

All past and current Zeiss (and one Schneider) C/CF/CB/CFi/CFE lenses for my Hasselblad 501CM are made in Germany. The only exception to this is the "Hasselblad" (not Zeiss) labeled 2XE Mutar which has a mysterious Asian origin.

For the Hasselblad 200 series the German origin holds true for that Zeiss lens line also. The exceptions in the 200 series is (again) the 2XE Mutar and a "Hasselblad" labeled 60-120 zoom made in Japan by Sigma.

[david_kieltyka]

I've heard from a few different sources that the 7�21mm f/2�f/2.5 lens used on the Canon G2, Leica Digilux 1, one of the Sony digicams and a Casio digicam is a Canon design. The Leica version may have Leica coatings and the Zeiss version may have Zeiss T coatings, and maybe there's some QC stuff going on too, but the basic lens is the same. I own a G2 and am impressed with the sharpness, contrast, color saturation and smooth out-of-focus rendition of this lens.

 

I've seen photos taken with Zeiss SLR lenses mounted on a Canon D30 and D60 that show the same characteristics as do those lenses when mounted on a film camera.

 

-Dave-

[oliver_s.]

Trevor, I didn't mean to imply that place of manufacture does matter to you, and I apologise for my imprecise wording. It was targeted at certain Leica experts who look with glass-melting disdain at Leitz lenses from the Midland factory. You could humiliate some collectors by presenting a Canadian-made Summicron as a gift to them!

[terry_rory]

Who cares what collectors think anyhow Oliver? I have zero respect for a population who have collectively locked away thousands upon thousands of wonderful cameras and removed them from the use and enjoyment for which they were intended.

 

If the best thing a collector can do with a camera is gaze upon it from behind a glass door then I hope all their serial numbers go Canadian overnight.

 

What the heck is wrong with a Canadian Leica anyhow?

 

I wouldnt care if it was a Phillipines built Leica as long as it was built and tested correctly and to proper Leica specification under an official licence with a proper warranty.