Leica lenses for B&W, Zeiss for color?

[benjiboy]

Don't believe all you read.

 

[chip j]

Well, Mustafa, if new Leitz glass is optimized for printing presses, I guess old Leitz glass would be better for traditional wet darkroom B&W?

 

[KrankyKraut]

I prefer Leica M lenses for both color and b&w. Zeiss colors are too exaggerated for my taste. For b&w I like them better than for color, but still not as much as Leica. But again, it's a matter of personal preference.

 

[Xmas]

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?

The situation to day is more independent Cosina about 2004-5 wanted to compete in the 40mm Leica M market so they cloned an older Leica 35 mm layout in modern glass but at 40mm focal length.

But they offered it in either single coated or multi coated.

They sold about equal numbers so they then also did a 35mm version still offering both the coating option.

Both lens focal lengths will have similar resolutions the single coated more flare & lower contrast.

The modern glass has a higher refractive index so can use spherical surfaces with larger radius the radius controls the abberations - larger less abberations.

You can still get second hand Leica 40mm crons from '75 and throw away the CL body. if you like low contrast and abberations.

I use Canon LTM lenses from decades earlier BTW. I like the total signature of old lens and grainy film foma 400 for period shots.

 

[Richard Man]

I have some of the finest Leica and Zeiss ZM glass. I used to have even more but they got sold to pay bills and to fund a Cooke PS945 etc XD.

The draw differently. However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, best to try it out and see.

And indeed, there are many different generations of Leitz and Zeiss designs. There ARE design DNA that get passed down but it is hard to generalize to satisfy different people's eyes.

Best just to make images, and make the best ones you can.

 

[film_man]

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?

Sure they do. If I look side by side shots from a Canon 40/2.8 and a Voigtlander 40/2 at f/2.8 the Voigtlander has more contrast and saturated colour plus a bit of vignetting which makes things look like they pop more. The Canon is more flat. A kit zoom lens will be low contrast and not so saturated vs one of the top top end zooms or primes. This stuff is easily visible, particularly when using digi.

I have used the modern Zeiss 50/1.4 and 35/2 (ZF version for Nikon) and I now have a Leica 50/2R and 35/2R for my R8. I did not have them at the same time to do comparisons but looking at photos (and I have not shot that much with the Leicas as I've only had them for a short while) the overall feel is that the Zeiss had more contrast and bite. The Leicas seem to have a gentler rendering, particularly when looking at portraits, yet retain sharpness. The Zeiss 35/2 in particular verged on the harsh, a landscape with trees/grass would almost like you over-sharpened the photo in photoshop. It has a distinct look. The Zeiss 50 was amazingly sharp by f/2 with very fine detail showing in the shots and high contrast. The 50 Summicron shows all that detail but keeps things a bit easier in the eye, my wife says it makes her look 10 years younger which is fine by me as it is my excuse for buying more of this stuff!

It is down to taste and you get to recognise it after many many shots as an overall look. You wouldn't see it if I showed you one shot from each, you just get a feel for it after looking roll after roll shot with a lens.

Sharpness is just one characteristic of a lens and once it has sufficient resolution then the rest of the features take over. Unfortunately most people in the digital era just zoom at 100% and check sharpness while overlooking everything else that is more important to the overall image. Besides they think they can correct everything like colour and contrast in photoshop...oh well.

 

[Xmas]

I have some of the finest Leica and Zeiss ZM glass. I used to have even more but they got sold to pay bills and to fund a Cooke PS945 etc XD.

The draw differently. However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, best to try it out and see.

And indeed, there are many different generations of Leitz and Zeiss designs. There ARE design DNA that get passed down but it is hard to generalize to satisfy different people's eyes.

Best just to make images, and make the best ones you can.

The ZM /2 5cm and the type IV Summicron M 5cm are near clones in layout, any ZM DNA very much Cosinas manufacturing technique, some Zeiss 'maybe'.

Most optical designers from 1990 have used the same design 'hill climb' software.

 

[benjiboy]

What you point the lenses at, what you photograph, and if the final result has any meaning I.M.O. is far more important then the absolute quality of the lens, all my lenses are better lenses than I'm a photographer.

 

[flavio81]

To illustrate this thread:

Check out the difference between the Canon FD 55/1.2 S.S.C. and the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 (or the Leitz Summicron)
http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/TESTARG/test50collec.html

With the canon you can see a lens of extremely high, bold contrast, at the expense of resolution.
On the Leitz and Nikkor you can see softer contrast but higher resolution.