Leica or Carl Zeiss Lenses?
I have the Zeiss 21mm f2.8, the 35mm f2, and the 50mm f2.
All had to be adjusted for back focus-- partially an issue with my M9 body, party lens issues.
In frustration, I ended up sending body and 7 lenses to DAG for calibration--once body and lenses are tuned together, results are superb.
Personally, I find the rendering of Zeiss lenses very pleasing. They have strong contrast, bold, warm colours, extraordinary micro contrast and that legendary "3D pop" that is caused by the way the lens renders the transition from in-focus areas to out-of-focus areas. This was the other reason for me to get Zeiss glass. And I'm very happy with the decision
+1. I like the Zeiss a lot for the same reasons. If anyone is considering a Nex 5n or 7 to supplement (or replace?) their Leicas, I find the micro contrast a real boon when using focus peaking. The peaking lines snap in and out quite clearly and precisely, even more so than with other lenses, making it very much an RF experience.
CZ lens are excellent
unfortunately the wider angles are not corrected by the M9 as well as the Leica lenses
Also the cheap Leicas, Summarits and the 28mm Elmarit are awesome lenses
You can quite easily shoot with CZ and never look back
One caveat, never use the 50mm f1.4 Summilux. You will need one
|Umbrellas by pleytime|
from An A to Z of Subjects- Week 21, U
|Glass ball on a perforated metal plate _2 by harubux|