Leica lenses for B&W, Zeiss for color?

[chip j]

I have read a few reviews that said Leica lenses' great resolving power are best for B&W, and that Zeiss ones give wondrous color. I know the color from my Contax G lenses is spectacular, but I shoot mainly B&W. Any input?

 

[NB23]

I'd use color film for color photos and B&W film for B&W photos.
I'm no expert but this seems to be the way to do it.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Dynamic range of these two brands and color mtfs are totally different. They are both true but different. I found that lately , dim light color output of zeiss is resembling the byzantine colors but leica is resembling the imitation vermillion.

Visit a antique pigment seller online gallery and night time colors of zeiss fit in to red pigments of antiquity but leica fit in to orange imitation vermillon.

I think Leica preferred the synthetic colors because cmyk pigments of printing industry are also cheap and imitation and printing with leica is more successful with these pigments.

You cant print expensive zeiss nighttime original colors with printing press cmyk on low resolution cheap paper.

But this is the night time , dim light performance of these lenses.

Leica is more aggressive to put the portrait details , noise , degrades , relief , light and it fit in to loss of lots of details with printing presses.

Zeiss BW portraits are much less aggressive and gentler and too much difficult to print with printing presses.

If you like a image gentle like greek stone relief , use zeiss bw but if you want punch , lots of details use leica.

Daylight colors of zeiss looks cheaper and looks like cheap city neon lights to me. Leica is more successful to put more expensive colors on to the table and lot more detail.

This is my experience after using 25 years of Leicas and Zeiss lenses.

I think Leica fits in to printing presses , zeiss is more gentle , breathing at bw , I think final decision is you. I cant suggest which is true , its like aggressive Rembrandt technique and peaceful vermeer technique.

If I were you , I would use eitther lenses - Summicron and Planar - with two cameras and select what to get more from your picture.

But for me wollensak , dagor , cooke xv , ektar , R rectilinear are better to invest .

 

[NB23]

Well, two completely different opinions.

How could it go so wrong so fast?

Honestly, if you ask me (and I know my Leica lenses by heart), that's all BS.

 

[Xmas]

Well, two completely different opinions.

How could it go so wrong so fast?

Honestly, if you ask me (and I know my Leica lenses by heart), that's all BS.

did you mean your post or Umut's post?

 

[Slixtiesix]

It´s true that the colour rendition is somewhat different. However, I won´t say that Leica is only for B/W and Zeiss only for colour, that´s complete nonsense. Also, the resolution of the best Zeiss lenses is not worse than the best Leica lenses. As Mustafa said, Leica lenses are known to render somewhat more contrasty and warmer, whereas Zeiss lenses render cooler and more subtle. Anyway, this does only matter when you shoot slides. When shooting B/W film, the choice of film and developer and your technique of developing and printing will have a far greater impact on the images than the fact whether Zeiss or Leica glass was used.

 

[NB23]

I often can't distinguish my nikkor 50 1.8 from my lux50 asph shots, and my old minolta glass rivals anything Leica...

 

[summicron1]

Umut may be right, but I strongly suspect that any difference between zeiss and leica lenses as far as rendition of color or black and white is more subjective than fact.

Just take pictures, in other words. If you like them, they're good. If you don't like them, take more pictures.

 

[Xmas]

yes lens technology has improved in

cost
MTF
contrast

The contrast changes colours from vibrant to pastel etc. also makes sceanes note diffucult for digital sensors

 

[Ian Grant]

I always got great colour images with my 1950's Summicron, I used it at weddings and the images were usually better than the official wedding photographers.

Ian

 

[goros]

I always got great colour images with my 1950's Summicron, I used it at weddings and the images were usually better than the official wedding photographers.

Ian

But, as usual, this is beacuse the photographer that is behind the lens, not by the lens itself.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

But, as usual, this is beacuse the photographer that is behind the lens, not by the lens itself.

Generally good lens transforms a ordinary picture in to art piece , nothing to do with photographer , at the end you say woaaa and it starts from 200 dollars. xtremelly cheap for such a engineering and slave in to the hands of many idiots who cant distinguish that.

 

[pdeeh]

Generally good lens transforms a ordinary picture in to art piece , nothing to do with photographer .

Excellent news.

From now on I will use nothing but my Summicron, and all my photographs will automatically become Art.

I look forward with excitement to my new and very financially rewarding career as an Art Photographer!

 

[250swb]

As Mustafa said, Leica lenses are known to render somewhat more contrasty and warmer, whereas Zeiss lenses render cooler and more subtle.

I would agree that Leica lenses are generally warmer and Zeiss cooler, but I think the opposite regarding contrast, it is Zeiss that have more contrast (not to be confused with resolution). And as many know from simple experiments in Photoshop, if you up the contrast the colours look more intense especially contrasting colours next to each other.

This isn't to say one is better than the other, on a simple level it is far easier making a picture more contrasty from a softer negative than less contrasty from a harder negative. But Zeiss lenses having more contrast does suggest why this folk memory of them being better for colour than Leica exists. Of course it can also be also point to the idea that it is espoused by photographers who want to do the least amount of work, and what comes out of the camera is what you get, while with a bit more work colour and contrast can be manipulated by those keen on getting the most out of an image from almost any lens used.

Steve

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Excellent news.

From now on I will use nothing but my Summicron, and all my photographs will automatically become Art.

I look forward with excitement to my new and very financially rewarding career as an Art Photographer!

pdeeh , this is the only one side of the story , you must see in the leica print what was ordinary and what was extraordinary and take your next picture with thinking from these informations.

I am not saying , anyone can create a art piece but I say leica is a blind mans dog who shows the way , if you listen your friend , it helps you to see the road.

My impression , good lens or good alt process is a teacher. You must be still a good student and concentrate.

Leica lenses always suprises you and render something extraordinarally good. Follow it and %100 of your picture will be rendered extraordinary. I am not saying that leica owners forum guys who takes refrigirator pictures with 12000 dollars noctilux.

 

[georg16nik]

I have read a few reviews that said Leica lenses' great resolving power are best for B&W, and that Zeiss ones give wondrous color. I know the color from my Contax G lenses is spectacular, but I shoot mainly B&W. Any input?

In case we are talking about RF primes - Zeiss Sonnar or Planar got absolutely different signatures for both, color and B&W, compared to Leitz.
The well regarded Noctilux gravitate around the Xenon/Summarit optical design, invented by Horace William Lee (Taylor, Taylor & Hobson
). Also, the first Summilux was tweaked Summarit.

Horace William Lee inventions are cited by many lens manufacturers, including Leitz.
So, you can say that Leicas famous primes are rooted around somewhat cinematographic approach, while Zeiss are a bit more clinical, still-camera lenses in general.

Some films tend to pronounce such difference, while others might suppress them.
If you can, try both with films of your preference and pick your favorites.

 

[Ian Grant]

But, as usual, this is beacuse the photographer that is behind the lens, not by the lens itself.

Actually it's the combination of the excellent lens and the person using it. I'm talking as a whole. I far prefer the rendition from a rangefinder Summicron to a Nikkor, Rokkor, Takumar or Canon lens, that's with B&W as well as colour work.

Ian

 

[flavio81]

75% myth + 25% nonsense.

 

[Xmas]

75% myth + 25% nonsense.

Well there is a signature difference dependent on the era

Type I cron very low contrast
Type IV cron high contrast
the type IV cron and Cosina ZM Planar identical twins...

All double Gaussian lenses

The lower contrast lenses adaptively compress both contrast and pastel colours. Pretty good for digital.

Nikons (Nikkor &E) same vintage probably higher contrast.

(You expect some 'stretch' this is the web, but glossy leaflets just as bad...)

 

[georg16nik]

75% myth + 25% nonsense.

why is that?

 

[NB23]

Well there is a signature difference dependent on the era

Type I cron very low contrast
Type IV cron high contrast
the type IV cron and Cosina ZM Planar identical twins...

All double Gaussian lenses

The lower contrast lenses adaptively compress both contrast and pastel colours. Pretty good for digital.

Nikons (Nikkor &E) same vintage probably higher contrast.

(You expect some 'stretch' this is the web, but glossy leaflets just as bad...)

Post #1 says leica has soft colors. Umut answers that Zeiss has soft colors.

Voila, in two posts this whole debate was killed.

I will not go in depth about what I own and what I'm using and have used. But I can tell you that the leica "magic" is really a bug in one's head and nothing else.

 

[flavio81]

why is that?

Because there are lots of "eras" in Leitz and Zeiss glass and you cannot generalize so easily.
And any claims of "leica glow", should there be any, should be called as what they are -- just glorification of qualities that are not unique to Leica lenses but to any lens with certain characteristics.

Myth and nonsense is to think that Leitz lenses have inherently more resolution than Zeiss lenses.

But, complementing Xmas post, the same type of lens can change in character from era to era.

For example the Nikkor 50/1.4: The Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 lens, produced until the mid-70s, was optimized for high contrast in detriment of resolution at wide apertures. Coma flare was perfectly corrected, which guaranteed the high contrast.

In contrast (no pun intended), the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AI that replaced it, was optimized for high resoluition in detriment of contrast. Coma flare was pronounced. Wide open it has better resolution than the previous lens, but with the comatic flare, which lowers contrast.

Both lenses are of the same brand and of the same 7-element, 6-group double gauss configuration.

 

[horacekenneth]

yes lens technology has improved in

cost
MTF
contrast

The contrast changes colours from vibrant to pastel etc. also makes sceanes note diffucult for digital sensors

For example the Nikkor 50/1.4: The Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 lens, produced until the mid-70s, was optimized for high contrast in detriment of resolution at wide apertures. Coma flare was perfectly corrected, which guaranteed the high contrast.

In contrast (no pun intended), the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AI that replaced it, was optimized for high resoluition in detriment of contrast. Coma flare was pronounced. Wide open it has better resolution than the previous lens, but with the comatic flare, which lowers contrast.

Both lenses are of the same brand and of the same 7-element, 6-group double gauss configuration.

I had no idea that lenses could have such an impact on colors and contrast vs resolution. If it's germane to the thread could you talk more about that?

 

[flavio81]

I had no idea that lenses could have such an impact on colors and contrast vs resolution. If it's germane to the thread could you talk more about that?

Lens design is always a compromise where you balance many variables, for example:

lens glass cost
manufacturing tolerances
dimensions (or compactness)
distortion
out of focus area rendition ("bokeh")
speed (aperture)
contrast and resolution (the "MTF" curve)
astigmatism
field curvature
near-distance performance versus performance at infinity
color correction (i.e. lateral and longitudinal color fringing)
etc.

One of the ways designers analize how their lenses are performing is by looking at "spot diagrams" which basically tell you how a reaaaaly small point of light will look on the focal plane. Then, for example, you (the lens designer) could optimize your lens so the imaged point (the "spot") is really small but with a halo around -- this means the resolution will be very high but the contrast not so much. Or you could chose a different optimization so the same point is imaged as a bigger "spot" with no halo around -- better contrast but less resolution.

I'm grossly oversimplifying, but those are the kind of choices a lens designer could make.

Of course, nowadays, techniques are so good, most modern lenses are contrasty and high resolving.

As for the color saturation, well, increased contrast will be percieved as "more saturated" colors and viceversa.

Regarding the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 lens, it's all explained here, but in italian:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Nikkor_50_1,4_S_Auto/00_pag.htm

(you can always use google translate).

Jump at the end of the page where it says "AREA TEST" and compare the test images, you'll see what i described -- more contrast on the old 50/1.4, higher resolution on the new 50/1.4 but with lower contrast due to some coma flare over the image. This is very evident at f1.4

At f8 you can see that both lenses are very high resolving but the old 50/1.4 still has higher contrast which at the same time looks as better color saturation.

Which is the better lens? It will depend on what do you want.

 

[georg16nik]

Because there are lots of "eras" in Leitz and Zeiss glass and you cannot generalize so easily...

opinions vary
I hope you are talking from personal experience and not from reading internet weekend warriors “reviews”.