Leica vs. Zeiss

[backsidewalkaround]

In case you were wondering which is better. I have been testing two Leica Summicrons 2/50 (M, R) against the Contax G 2/45, adapted to my Sony A7R3 camera.

The result is probably what you expected: They're all good. If you want to know more, you'll find it here: Leica vs. Zeiss - Episode 1

--
Flickr
TheOtherSideOfBokeh

 

[Sjak]

Very nice write-up!

Basically, your conclusion is similar to what I tell people when they are in doubt about which lens to buy: Get the lens you prefer using, it's meaningless to obsess over (small) technical differences. In your case, size/weight and the contrasty look gave the edge to the Zeiss.

From these 3 lenses, my pick would probably be the M, because it has a focusing tab, which greatly improves the ergonomics. It's a feature that I really like on lenses in the range of 28 to 50mm. Once you get to know the lens a little, focusing (either trough the rangefinder, or zone focus) becomes very fast; this is an advantage for the type of shooting I often do.

But as you say, all 3 are great.

 

[backsidewalkaround]

Very nice write-up!

Thank you!

Basically, your conclusion is similar to what I tell people when they are in doubt about which lens to buy: Get the lens you prefer using, it's meaningless to obsess over (small) technical differences. In your case, size/weight and the contrasty look gave the edge to the Zeiss.

It does take quite a bit of experience to even know what to like, but I completely agree. To find out those preferences is quite important, in case of similarly performing lenses, even more so.

From these 3 lenses, my pick would probably be the M, because it has a focusing tab, which greatly improves the ergonomics. It's a feature that I really like on lenses in the range of 28 to 50mm. Once you get to know the lens a little, focusing (either trough the rangefinder, or zone focus) becomes very fast; this is an advantage for the type of shooting I often do.

Interesting. I'm not used to a focusing tab, so it bothers me at the moment , but since the M-lens isn't mine I don't have to worry about that.

But as you say, all 3 are great.

 

[fferreres]

Very nice write-up!

Basically, your conclusion is similar to what I tell people when they are in doubt about which lens to buy: Get the lens you prefer using, it's meaningless to obsess over (small) technical differences. In your case, size/weight and the contrasty look gave the edge to the Zeiss.

From these 3 lenses, my pick would probably be the M, because it has a focusing tab, which greatly improves the ergonomics. It's a feature that I really like on lenses in the range of 28 to 50mm. Once you get to know the lens a little, focusing (either trough the rangefinder, or zone focus) becomes very fast; this is an advantage for the type of shooting I often do.

But as you say, all 3 are great.

Great point. Ultimately, and especially with manual focus work, ergonomics plays a larger role in getting the picture. This may be partly why I more often carry Topcor R and older M lenses with Tab than any others. The thing with the tab is that focus distance becomes a tact thing and not just something to read off a scale or through the lens. This is why it can compete with AF after one has use the lens enough.



I also realized that if lots of AAA computer games (billion dollar franchises some worth more than the entire camera market) fabricate flawed lens optics (like flare and even CA) then there must be some positives about them, one of which is realism (from a human perspective). This, I tend to see if I like the lens flaws which require emotional and perceptual clarity of mind as opposed to scientific mind. This is why for new lenses I inspect a lot more things than before but resolution is less important.

 

[Pixel8888]

Great write up. I have the G45, G28 and Summicron R50 on a Fuji XT2. It confirms my experience with these lenses.

The G28 isn't that great on a apsc sensor, might be better with a PCX filter to correct for soft corners.

The G45 is perfect for landscapes. I use the R50 more for dreamy images with it's Mandler glow.

For travel a nice companion is the tiny Leica M90 thin Elmarit. I got mine cheap at the Leica store in Munich. I wish it had a modern coating. The Contax G90 sounds interesting.

Nice mountain Images. Kampenwand and Heuberg ?

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

TL;DR, well sort of.

The subject title is a bit way too general because (1) some Leica lenses are better than the Zeiss counterpart and vice versa; and (2) you only compare TWO 50mm leses from which it is impossible to deduce any meaningful conclusion of "Leica vs. Zeiss." Moreover, are you talking new lenses or lenses in a particular era?

I have many Leica lenses and many Zeiss lenses. But, I rarely buy the modern one. Sometime from the mid 1970's Leica lenses started to catch up when Zeiss moved to a few new venues. It is particular true when Zeiss stopped making the Contax SLR line. There was a period in which Zeiss rarely released camera lenses and Leica became the dominating German lens maker.

As a photographer for decades, my requirement is simple: a MF lens must have a wide enough focus ring and an aperture ring. After that I would consider other lens characteristics. I won't get into the very detailed technical data as I don't see that would affect the final results much. For example, a x lpm is equivalent to to x+5 lpm in my eye.

IMO, the best way to know a lens is taking it out and shooting in all possible situation in all possible environment. After that you will find out that a technically superior lens may not be better than a technically inferior lens when using for real life shooting. For example, there was an argument on "Nikon AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D vs. AF 80-200mm f/2.8D" when the latter was out. Guess what may photographer really preferred to use the the slower and inferior Nikon AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D because it is so small and so light, even though technically it is worse to much worse than the AF 80-200mm f/2.8. Additionally, to those MF guys, they perhaps like the Nikon MF 80-200mm f/4.5 more than the newer the Nikon MF 80-200mm f/4 because the f/4.5 version is lighter and more portable, which are the exact reason for people to like the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6.

In summary, real life shooting can have constraints that a lab testing environment does not have. Moreover, human preference can add another dimension for choosing a lens.

CK

 

[backsidewalkaround]

Great write up. I have the G45, G28 and Summicron R50 on a Fuji XT2. It confirms my experience with these lenses.

Thanks.

The G28 isn't that great on a apsc sensor, might be better with a PCX filter to correct for soft corners.

I got mine together with a PCX-Filter. I use it on full frame. It's quite good, but still not perfect in the far corners.

The G45 is perfect for landscapes. I use the R50 more for dreamy images with it's Mandler glow.

Absolutely, but I would also take the R50 any time for landscape shooting.

For travel a nice companion is the tiny Leica M90 thin Elmarit. I got mine cheap at the Leica store in Munich. I wish it had a modern coating. The Contax G90 sounds interesting.

Cheap Leica store in Munich - where? IMO the G90 is just as awesome as the G45.

Nice mountain Images. Kampenwand and Heuberg ?

Thanks. Heuberg, Hochries, Wilder Kaiser (no Kampenwand).

 

[backsidewalkaround]

Very nice write-up!

Basically, your conclusion is similar to what I tell people when they are in doubt about which lens to buy: Get the lens you prefer using, it's meaningless to obsess over (small) technical differences. In your case, size/weight and the contrasty look gave the edge to the Zeiss.

From these 3 lenses, my pick would probably be the M, because it has a focusing tab, which greatly improves the ergonomics. It's a feature that I really like on lenses in the range of 28 to 50mm. Once you get to know the lens a little, focusing (either trough the rangefinder, or zone focus) becomes very fast; this is an advantage for the type of shooting I often do.

But as you say, all 3 are great.

Great point. Ultimately, and especially with manual focus work, ergonomics plays a larger role in getting the picture. This may be partly why I more often carry Topcor R and older M lenses with Tab than any others. The thing with the tab is that focus distance becomes a tact thing and not just something to read off a scale or through the lens. This is why it can compete with AF after one has use the lens enough.

That sounds interesting. To me the Tab was more of a bother since I'm not used to it, but I still think what you say is true, if you use the lens a lot.

I also realized that if lots of AAA computer games (billion dollar franchises some worth more than the entire camera market) fabricate flawed lens optics (like flare and even CA) then there must be some positives about them, one of which is realism (from a human perspective). This, I tend to see if I like the lens flaws which require emotional and perceptual clarity of mind as opposed to scientific mind. This is why for new lenses I inspect a lot more things than before but resolution is less important.

 

[backsidewalkaround]

TL;DR, well sort of.

The subject title is a bit way too general because (1) some Leica lenses are better than the Zeiss counterpart and vice versa; and (2) you only compare TWO 50mm leses from which it is impossible to deduce any meaningful conclusion of "Leica vs. Zeiss." Moreover, are you talking new lenses or lenses in a particular era?

It is a comparison of two Leica lenses and one Zeiss lens, well reputed samples for their name, so it is in fact a case of "Leica vs. Zeiss". My title tries to provoke a little as well as some of my statements, yet, never in my article do I attempt to deduce which lens maker is better or come to any such conclusion.

I have many Leica lenses and many Zeiss lenses. But, I rarely buy the modern one. Sometime from the mid 1970's Leica lenses started to catch up when Zeiss moved to a few new venues. It is particular true when Zeiss stopped making the Contax SLR line. There was a period in which Zeiss rarely released camera lenses and Leica became the dominating German lens maker.

Again: I was not trying to make a point about which lens maker is better. It's stricly about my experience with the three lenses I talk about.

As a photographer for decades, my requirement is simple: a MF lens must have a wide enough focus ring and an aperture ring. After that I would consider other lens characteristics. I won't get into the very detailed technical data as I don't see that would affect the final results much. For example, a x lpm is equivalent to to x+5 lpm in my eye.

IMO, the best way to know a lens is taking it out and shooting in all possible situation in all possible environment. After that you will find out that a technically superior lens may not be better than a technically inferior lens when using for real life shooting.

That's what I did.

For example, there was an argument on "Nikon AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D vs. AF 80-200mm f/2.8D" when the latter was out. Guess what may photographer really preferred to use the the slower and inferior Nikon AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D because it is so small and so light, even though technically it is worse to much worse than the AF 80-200mm f/2.8.

Agreed. I often take my Sigma MF 5.6/180 APO over my Contax VS 100-300 because it's much lighter, even though the Contax offers more flexibility and a little better image quality.

Additionally, to those MF guys, they perhaps like the Nikon MF 80-200mm f/4.5 more than the newer the Nikon MF 80-200mm f/4 because the f/4.5 version is lighter and more portable, which are the exact reason for people to like the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6.

I can relate.

In summary, real life shooting can have constraints that a lab testing environment does not have. Moreover, human preference can add another dimension for choosing a lens.

I don't have the equipment to lab test my lenses. It's only about my experience with them as someone who has used lots of lenses (albeit probably not nearly as many as you have).

CK

 

[Sjak]

From these 3 lenses, my pick would probably be the M, because it has a focusing tab, which greatly improves the ergonomics. It's a feature that I really like on lenses in the range of 28 to 50mm. Once you get to know the lens a little, focusing (either trough the rangefinder, or zone focus) becomes very fast; this is an advantage for the type of shooting I often do.

Great point. Ultimately, and especially with manual focus work, ergonomics plays a larger role in getting the picture. This may be partly why I more often carry Topcor R and older M lenses with Tab than any others. The thing with the tab is that focus distance becomes a tact thing and not just something to read off a scale or through the lens. This is why it can compete with AF after one has use the lens enough.

That sounds interesting. To me the Tab was more of a bother since I'm not used to it, but I still think what you say is true, if you use the lens a lot.

A tab is also useful for speed, you have to move only one finger instead of twisting a lens barrel (and often also changing your grip in the process.)

If speed is not a requirement, I have no preference. But for people-centric shooting, a tab is a big advantage, even on a lens I don't know yet.

Or maybe on the camera you use, the tab is not in the right spot, due to the thickness of the adapter?

 

[Pixel8888]

Great write up. I have the G45, G28 and Summicron R50 on a Fuji XT2. It confirms my experience with these lenses.

Thanks.

The G28 isn't that great on a apsc sensor, might be better with a PCX filter to correct for soft corners.

I got mine together with a PCX-Filter. I use it on full frame. It's quite good, but still not perfect in the far corners.

The G45 is perfect for landscapes. I use the R50 more for dreamy images with it's Mandler glow.

Absolutely, but I would also take the R50 any time for landscape shooting.

For travel a nice companion is the tiny Leica M90 thin Elmarit. I got mine cheap at the Leica store in Munich. I wish it had a modern coating. The Contax G90 sounds interesting.

Cheap Leica store in Munich - where? IMO the G90 is just as awesome as the G45.

Nice mountain Images. Kampenwand and Heuberg ?

Thanks. Heuberg, Hochries, Wilder Kaiser (no Kampenwand).

--
Flickr
TheOtherSideOfBokeh

I plan to get a used Nikon Z7 or Z7II, in order to use the G45, R50/2 and R60 macro Elmarit with the Z7.

Not so sure about the investment in a pcx filter for the G28 on a Z7.

Another really nice lens I tested yesterday on my Fuji XT2 is the tiny Voigtländer color skopar 35/2.5. In the center it's sharper than my Fuji 35/2. Great colors and coating. No flare shooting in the sun. Great sunstars. BUT no sharp corners. I think you need a Leica M for this lens to excel. Fred Miranda has a whole thread for the adapted cv35/2.5. It's by far the smallest of my lenses.

The Leica store where I got my 90 thin Elmarit, was the one behind the Odeonsplatz, 10 years ago. It just came in, and had a little scuff mark one the coating. It does not impact the image quality. I think they just wanted to get rid of it. I paid a bit over 100 euros and they did a free CLA. When I got it the next day it was like new.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

We always like the idea of using the best lens or best sensor. But the reality is that once we get into the realm of "good enough for purpose" we must admit the presence of "nice to use".

Hence after spending a junior King's Ransom on Canon dslr bodies and lenses so many years ago it was my acquisition of my original Ricoh GRD that taught me more about photography than any fancy dslr kit. The GRD was always there and was a compact camera for the thinking user. So I used and adjusted as only a GRD/GR allowed in the compact camera breed rush to more megapixels, twee icons and bog-standard cheapness. The GRD/GR stood out in the crowd of increasingly basic, cheap, compact camera bodes for entry level users.

The dslr of course did very well as mainline and set to A mode using great lenses it was automatically reliable to get equally great images. But it was huge kit by comparison and only came out for special occasions. Going dslr was going on a mission. Refining capture technique less essential.

Nowadays my tiny Panasonic GM5 bodies get most workout - again because they are small enough to be carried anywhere. They are now approaching ten years since I adopted the type on the basis of being a Ricoh GR with a mount system. They adapt legacy MF lenses and even EF mount lenses very well. They get more 'business' than larger, more technically advanced camera bodies and even my FF camera body kit simply because of this compact/accessible factor and the fact that they remain very pleasurable to use.

Obviously the same applies to excellent legacy MF lenses - once the good enough for purpose test is passed surely we will tend to use the lenses we enjoy using best?

After all, unless we make a living from images we make, surely we do it as much as for the pleasure of making them as the utmost perfection of image that makes for the bragging rights.

Of course some excellent captures are just the bonus.

 

[backsidewalkaround]

From these 3 lenses, my pick would probably be the M, because it has a focusing tab, which greatly improves the ergonomics. It's a feature that I really like on lenses in the range of 28 to 50mm. Once you get to know the lens a little, focusing (either trough the rangefinder, or zone focus) becomes very fast; this is an advantage for the type of shooting I often do.

Great point. Ultimately, and especially with manual focus work, ergonomics plays a larger role in getting the picture. This may be partly why I more often carry Topcor R and older M lenses with Tab than any others. The thing with the tab is that focus distance becomes a tact thing and not just something to read off a scale or through the lens. This is why it can compete with AF after one has use the lens enough.

That sounds interesting. To me the Tab was more of a bother since I'm not used to it, but I still think what you say is true, if you use the lens a lot.

A tab is also useful for speed, you have to move only one finger instead of twisting a lens barrel (and often also changing your grip in the process.)

If speed is not a requirement, I have no preference. But for people-centric shooting, a tab is a big advantage, even on a lens I don't know yet.

Or maybe on the camera you use, the tab is not in the right spot, due to the thickness of the adapter?

I don't think it's the spot. I've simply never used one and with a borrowed lens I didn't bother much practicing. Like I said. I think if you use tab lenses all the time and get the hang of it, it will be a great advantage, particularly if the tabs had the same distance at the same spot (which at best will only roughly be true).

 

[backsidewalkaround]

Great write up. I have the G45, G28 and Summicron R50 on a Fuji XT2. It confirms my experience with these lenses.

Thanks.

The G28 isn't that great on a apsc sensor, might be better with a PCX filter to correct for soft corners.

I got mine together with a PCX-Filter. I use it on full frame. It's quite good, but still not perfect in the far corners.

The G45 is perfect for landscapes. I use the R50 more for dreamy images with it's Mandler glow.

Absolutely, but I would also take the R50 any time for landscape shooting.

For travel a nice companion is the tiny Leica M90 thin Elmarit. I got mine cheap at the Leica store in Munich. I wish it had a modern coating. The Contax G90 sounds interesting.

Cheap Leica store in Munich - where? IMO the G90 is just as awesome as the G45.

Nice mountain Images. Kampenwand and Heuberg ?

Thanks. Heuberg, Hochries, Wilder Kaiser (no Kampenwand).

I plan to get a used Nikon Z7 or Z7II, in order to use the G45, R50/2 and R60 macro Elmarit with the Z7.

Not so sure about the investment in a pcx filter for the G28 on a Z7.

The Gs are supposedly working better on a Z7 than on my Sony A7R3. Maybe it's not necessary.
If you like, I can show you test images I did (comparing it to the Distagon 2.8/28 and 2/28 and others), but those were made on a Sony.

Another really nice lens I tested yesterday on my Fuji XT2 is the tiny Voigtländer color skopar 35/2.5. In the center it's sharper than my Fuji 35/2. Great colors and coating. No flare shooting in the sun. Great sunstars. BUT no sharp corners. I think you need a Leica M for this lens to excel. Fred Miranda has a whole thread for the adapted cv35/2.5. It's by far the smallest of my lenses.

I also liked the two Voitgländer lenses that I had. Great color, very resistant to flare, sharp and yes, great sunstars, yet very strong vignetting. I sold them when I got a replacement by Zeiss.

The Leica store where I got my 90 thin Elmarit, was the one behind the Odeonsplatz, 10 years ago. It just came in, and had a little scuff mark one the coating. It does not impact the image quality. I think they just wanted to get rid of it. I paid a bit over 100 euros and they did a free CLA. When I got it the next day it was like new.

You probably were at Foto Presto. That's a store with an enormous selection of high quality vintage glass, but quite expensive. I guess you got lucky.

 

[backsidewalkaround]

We always like the idea of using the best lens or best sensor. But the reality is that once we get into the realm of "good enough for purpose" we must admit the presence of "nice to use".

Hence after spending a junior King's Ransom on Canon dslr bodies and lenses so many years ago it was my acquisition of my original Ricoh GRD that taught me more about photography than any fancy dslr kit. The GRD was always there and was a compact camera for the thinking user. So I used and adjusted as only a GRD/GR allowed in the compact camera breed rush to more megapixels, twee icons and bog-standard cheapness. The GRD/GR stood out in the crowd of increasingly basic, cheap, compact camera bodes for entry level users.

The dslr of course did very well as mainline and set to A mode using great lenses it was automatically reliable to get equally great images. But it was huge kit by comparison and only came out for special occasions. Going dslr was going on a mission. Refining capture technique less essential.

Nowadays my tiny Panasonic GM5 bodies get most workout - again because they are small enough to be carried anywhere. They are now approaching ten years since I adopted the type on the basis of being a Ricoh GR with a mount system. They adapt legacy MF lenses and even EF mount lenses very well. They get more 'business' than larger, more technically advanced camera bodies and even my FF camera body kit simply because of this compact/accessible factor and the fact that they remain very pleasurable to use.

Obviously the same applies to excellent legacy MF lenses - once the good enough for purpose test is passed surely we will tend to use the lenses we enjoy using best?

After all, unless we make a living from images we make, surely we do it as much as for the pleasure of making them as the utmost perfection of image that makes for the bragging rights.

Of course some excellent captures are just the bonus.

I can relate to a great degree. I was very happy leaving behind the huge Canon 5DII plus even larger lenses for the still very small (original) Sony A7.

Nowadays I'd sure love a tiny camera like the GM5, but it would have to have a full frame sensor and the ability to exchange lenses, because I really like images with lots of blur and 3D potential (which for me is mostly blur potential at a certain distance). An m4/3 sensor will not do that to the same extent. The Sony A7C would be nice, but I'm also used to the wonderful high megapixel richness and Crop potential of the A7R3. So it'll have to be a compromise. The best one is to stick with the camera I have, even if I'd like a smaller version of it.

 

[Pixel8888]

Great write up. I have the G45, G28 and Summicron R50 on a Fuji XT2. It confirms my experience with these lenses.

Thanks.

The G28 isn't that great on a apsc sensor, might be better with a PCX filter to correct for soft corners.

I got mine together with a PCX-Filter. I use it on full frame. It's quite good, but still not perfect in the far corners.

The G45 is perfect for landscapes. I use the R50 more for dreamy images with it's Mandler glow.

Absolutely, but I would also take the R50 any time for landscape shooting.

For travel a nice companion is the tiny Leica M90 thin Elmarit. I got mine cheap at the Leica store in Munich. I wish it had a modern coating. The Contax G90 sounds interesting.

Cheap Leica store in Munich - where? IMO the G90 is just as awesome as the G45.

Nice mountain Images. Kampenwand and Heuberg ?

Thanks. Heuberg, Hochries, Wilder Kaiser (no Kampenwand).

I plan to get a used Nikon Z7 or Z7II, in order to use the G45, R50/2 and R60 macro Elmarit with the Z7.

Not so sure about the investment in a pcx filter for the G28 on a Z7.

The Gs are supposedly working better on a Z7 than on my Sony A7R3. Maybe it's not necessary.
If you like, I can show you test images I did (comparing it to the Distagon 2.8/28 and 2/28 and others), but those were made on a Sony.

Another really nice lens I tested yesterday on my Fuji XT2 is the tiny Voigtländer color skopar 35/2.5. In the center it's sharper than my Fuji 35/2. Great colors and coating. No flare shooting in the sun. Great sunstars. BUT no sharp corners. I think you need a Leica M for this lens to excel. Fred Miranda has a whole thread for the adapted cv35/2.5. It's by far the smallest of my lenses.

I also liked the two Voitgländer lenses that I had. Great color, very resistant to flare, sharp and yes, great sunstars, yet very strong vignetting. I sold them when I got a replacement by Zeiss.

The Leica store where I got my 90 thin Elmarit, was the one behind the Odeonsplatz, 10 years ago. It just came in, and had a little scuff mark one the coating. It does not impact the image quality. I think they just wanted to get rid of it. I paid a bit over 100 euros and they did a free CLA. When I got it the next day it was like new.

You probably were at Foto Presto. That's a store with an enormous selection of high quality vintage glass, but quite expensive. I guess you got lucky.

It was the one at the Brienner Str. 7 in Munich. Big Leica store with exhibition rooms. They did make the free CLA at the same location. I think they just wanted to get rid of it because of the scuff mark on the coating. It quite likely came in from a customer buying 10k on new Leica gear.

Looks like it was my lucky day.

Would be interesting to see a Zeiss G28/pcx image showing the corners.

 

[fferreres]

pleasurable to use.

The Sony A7C would be nice, but I'm also used to the wonderful high megapixel richness and Crop potential of the A7R3. So it'll have to be a compromise.

Like the A7CR?

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7cr-initial-review-high-resolution-in-a-small-package

The best one is to stick with the camera I have, even if I'd like a smaller version of it.

The A7R3 is well balanced, and I addition to $3000 here would trade some pixels for a lower res EVF as found in the A7II.

--
Flickr
TheOtherSideOfBokeh

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

It is a comparison of two Leica lenses and one Zeiss lens, well reputed samples for their name, so it is in fact a case of "Leica vs. Zeiss". My title tries to provoke a little as well as some of my statements, yet, never in my article do I attempt to deduce which lens maker is better or come to any such conclusion.

Then, why is provocation necessary? I normally ignore this type of posts because the writers usually exaggerated way too much. Your subject title has "Leica vs. Zeiss" which implies that your post tried to compare Leica lenses vs. Zeiss lenses.

To the best my knowledge, a good writer should avoid this type of subject title that is commonly used by many professional YouTubers.

I have many Leica lenses and many Zeiss lenses. But, I rarely buy the modern one. Sometime from the mid 1970's Leica lenses started to catch up when Zeiss moved to a few new venues. It is particular true when Zeiss stopped making the Contax SLR line. There was a period in which Zeiss rarely released camera lenses and Leica became the dominating German lens maker.

Again: I was not trying to make a point about which lens maker is better. It's stricly about my experience with the three lenses I talk about.

But, the subject title implies that you are comparing Leica and Zeiss, not two particular lenses but to lens makers.

As a photographer for decades, my requirement is simple: a MF lens must have a wide enough focus ring and an aperture ring. After that I would consider other lens characteristics. I won't get into the very detailed technical data as I don't see that would affect the final results much. For example, a x lpm is equivalent to to x+5 lpm in my eye.

IMO, the best way to know a lens is taking it out and shooting in all possible situation in all possible environment. After that you will find out that a technically superior lens may not be better than a technically inferior lens when using for real life shooting.

That's what I did.

Then, could you make the title more or less reflect what you are doing?

In summary, real life shooting can have constraints that a lab testing environment does not have. Moreover, human preference can add another dimension for choosing a lens.

I don't have the equipment to lab test my lenses. It's only about my experience with them as someone who has used lots of lenses (albeit probably not nearly as many as you have).

Personal comparison without lab equipment should be OK for most people here. On the other hand, please do your post as realistic and as accurate as possible so that people here know what you are actually doing. Using provocative subject titles would imeditately scre away those prople who are sick of this type of promotion or self-promoting posts and videos.

CK

PS: Of course, I have no power to stop you from doing this and Tom may just like me. However, if you refrain to do this type of posts, you will be respected by many people like me who hope to read real honest articles.

 

[Sjak]

Again: I was not trying to make a point about which lens maker is better. It's stricly about my experience with the three lenses I talk about.

But, the subject title implies that you are comparing Leica and Zeiss, not two particular lenses but to lens makers.

[...]

PS: Of course, I have no power to stop you from doing this and Tom may just like me. However, if you refrain to do this type of posts, you will be respected by many people like me who hope to read real honest articles.

CK, respectfully, I think you search too much behind it. Lighten up a little, we're all lens aficionado's here

 

[Tom Caldwell]

We always like the idea of using the best lens or best sensor. But the reality is that once we get into the realm of "good enough for purpose" we must admit the presence of "nice to use".

Hence after spending a junior King's Ransom on Canon dslr bodies and lenses so many years ago it was my acquisition of my original Ricoh GRD that taught me more about photography than any fancy dslr kit. The GRD was always there and was a compact camera for the thinking user. So I used and adjusted as only a GRD/GR allowed in the compact camera breed rush to more megapixels, twee icons and bog-standard cheapness. The GRD/GR stood out in the crowd of increasingly basic, cheap, compact camera bodes for entry level users.

The dslr of course did very well as mainline and set to A mode using great lenses it was automatically reliable to get equally great images. But it was huge kit by comparison and only came out for special occasions. Going dslr was going on a mission. Refining capture technique less essential.

Nowadays my tiny Panasonic GM5 bodies get most workout - again because they are small enough to be carried anywhere. They are now approaching ten years since I adopted the type on the basis of being a Ricoh GR with a mount system. They adapt legacy MF lenses and even EF mount lenses very well. They get more 'business' than larger, more technically advanced camera bodies and even my FF camera body kit simply because of this compact/accessible factor and the fact that they remain very pleasurable to use.

Obviously the same applies to excellent legacy MF lenses - once the good enough for purpose test is passed surely we will tend to use the lenses we enjoy using best?

After all, unless we make a living from images we make, surely we do it as much as for the pleasure of making them as the utmost perfection of image that makes for the bragging rights.

Of course some excellent captures are just the bonus.

I can relate to a great degree. I was very happy leaving behind the huge Canon 5DII plus even larger lenses for the still very small (original) Sony A7.

I made the technical mistake of buying the first A7R after having tried one and finding that I hated the user interface. I thought I could get used to it - but in fact I never did.

A simple case of my desire to have a ML FF camera body to replace my dslr ownership having decided that AUD$3,500 per pop to update a dslr type on its last legs of development was money not well spent. In any case the dslr interface of the Canon 5D was not particularly good but the first A7R was loathsome. Sony subsequently improved the user interface but I have studiously avoided Sony ever since - not helped by thinking that I would wait for a later model only to see the II, III, IV and V flash past my eyes like the life of a drowning man. Methinks "Maybe by the Series VI they will have a really sorted out version that I can buy and keep for many years". But that is my problem ... I will get over it (eventually). See A7CR below.

Nowadays I'd sure love a tiny camera like the GM5, but it would have to have a full frame sensor and the ability to exchange lenses, because I really like images with lots of blur and 3D potential (which for me is mostly blur potential at a certain distance).

We can buy some quite fast and reasonably priced Chinese MF lenses these days. There are quite a number of them right up to f0.95 in M4/3 mount although they are basically apc-c lenses. With them wide-open you can get plenty of blur and the possibility that an eye and nose on the same face may not be both in focus. I went a bit mad with some sort brain lapse and bought three of them from 7Artisans in 25mm, 35mm and 50mm format (Double this effective focal lngth for FF sensor as you would already know). Seem well made and come well presented and boxed. Imaging is reasonably good and their specifications are either in the supercharged price or unobtainable class compared to 'normal' legacy MF lenses which of course are mostly made for 135 format film.

Not trying to change anyone's point of view - just highlighting the Chinese way of filling niche capabilities that have never really been filled before. I have never owned a f0.95 lens before and now I have three!

An m4/3 sensor will not do that to the same extent.

The Sony A7C would be nice, but I'm also used to the wonderful high megapixel richness and Crop potential of the A7R3. So it'll have to be a compromise.

The first Sony I have seriously thought about for many years would be the new Sony A7CR. But Panasonic seems to make better thought out camera bodies sold from the get-go and I would be more interested in seeing what they could do if they decided to make a FF RF-Style body in L-Mount. I will wait a while whilst living in hope is possible.

I have the seriously larger Panasonic S1 body already. Truly lauded as perfectly laid out for the serious photographer - first model and no real need to change anything. So much different to the much earlier A7R experience. Sometimes said to be 'too large' - if that is all that is wrong with it I will put up with a bit of heft - the later S5 settled the size issue as it is a smaller package. Both cameras would not need updating to sort out user interfaces. Panasonic did so well with their first experience bodies in a new mount system.

However we all tend to get used to the camera brand we have settled on to use.

The best one is to stick with the camera I have, even if I'd like a smaller version of it.

Despite having a small investment in the L-Mount my principal affections remain with M4/3. Too much water under the bridge I am afraid.