Zeiss versus Leica bokeh...

[albertwang]

Testreports I read and when I saw the comparison between the Zeiss Sonnar and the Leica Summicron, I could perceive a strong difference between the way that Zeiss renders the background and Leica renders it. For my personal choice, I think that the Leica lens gives a more accurate, scientific look to the model but that the Zeiss lens has the upper hand in artistic rendering and separates the subject from the background slightly better (?)...

For example, the model seems to be better rendered skin-tonewise with the Leica but I do enjoy the stronger contrast of the Zeiss in some ways.

I think that it all boils down to subjective reasoning...

p.s. Where did Erwin get the resources for a pretty blonde model? I see her everywhere on his website

[andybarton]

He certainly didn't ask for the model's help in keeping his negatives clean and scratch free...

[albertwang]

Indeed, Erwin needs to have a better scan to be honest. But the pretty girl kinda distracts you from the technical parts?

[norbertnl]

Originally Posted by albertwang

.... the pretty girl kinda distracts you from the technical parts?

That's why you shouldn't use pretty girls (or boys, depending on preference) for test pictures. I'd only do so if I wanted to hide the technical parts ;-)

Best,
Norbert

[stunsworth]

Well since the alternative seems to be brick walls, I'm more than happy for him to continue using pretty girls ;-)

[norbertnl]

*lol* ....

[vic vic]

i have to admit - very problematic photos, and no, not because of the model at all.
i do love erwins reviews very much usually, but alol his pictures are problematic on web. i think he is deffenetly rite that he was not posting pictures in his test reports.

anyway, from what i can see and from what i know - the summicron 75 and the summilux 75 are two different looks and both are ultimate in their field. my preferance for this particular focal lenght (long) is summilux 75.

and for those who want to buy one of those long lenses i would recomend to read carefuly erwins review and not to look at images. and the best is to make some use of those lenses before buying - if it is possible of course. lenses are very important tool and in this case very expenssive as well (both leica nad zeiss) :-)

[mgcd]

Originally Posted by andybarton

He certainly didn't ask for the model's help in keeping his negatives clean and scratch free...

Honestly, I'd be distracted too...

[wizard]

Originally Posted by albertwang

I could perceive a strong difference between the way that Zeiss renders the background and Leica renders it.

Looking at these two shots, I simply cannot believe they were taken at the same aperture. It seems that the Leica Summicron was used stopped down at least 2 stops more than the Zeiss lens.

Andy

[Dan States]

I agree. Unless he can produce more examples I'd wager he muffed the apertures. I have owned a lot of lenses of various types including Sonnar formulas and I have never seen THAT kind of difference.

The guy certainly does have a thing for cheesy nudes, which is fine, but the technical quality of both the digital and analog images is frankly the pits. It has less to do with not being able to put full quality on the web and more to do with sloppy technique.

Oh, and by way...bokeh is bunk.

Dan

[hm1912]

The thing that i'm curious about, is how can one accurately evaluate bokeh (provided of course that we're not talking about mirror (catadioptric) lenses). Isn't such an evalation based entirely on personal preference?

[stunsworth]

Indeed it is Ilan. I can remember back in the olden days when lenses used to be judged on how they reproduced the _in_ focus areas. How times change ;-)

[hm1912]

Steve: Now that's something that would make sense to me!

[charlesh]

I use the 90/2.8 Elmarit with the M6 and the 90/2.8 Sonnar with my Contax G2, and I find little difference in the sharpness and bokeh. Both are top-notch lenses, and I'd love to have the 90/2 Asph for the M6 to see if it tops the Zeiss.

[overgaardcom]

Usually Erwin's text have some intersting viewpoints. But these tests I find rather difficult to use as the scans are so bad.

If one should judge scans, one should get the drum-scanned which is the 'real thing' that would happen in a workflow where the alternative would be digital.

[hm1912]

I doubt most people could afford a drum scanner on an individual basis. I would assume that only companies with signifance resources would go that route.

[fotografz]

An Imacon scanner is more than enough for absolutely excellent scans from 35mm films. They are expensive, but so is a high end digital camera body like a Canon 1DsMKII. If you are dedicated to film reproduction in a digital age, then it's the way to go IMO. Seek a used one if funds are short. Or enlarge photos in a conventional darkroom.

Erwin's findings are no longer of any interest to me. He's not working for Leica now and his tune has suddenly changed.

I've used all these lenses at one time or another and I eventually sold off the 2 black Contax G2s with a full compliment of lenses and returned to using an M camera. Not only did I hate the cameras themselves, I never could equal the look I got from the M glass.

I currently have a M7 for wedding work and a MP3 as my personal camera for travel and production stills. I recently got a Zeiss ZM 28/2.8 for the MP3 and I'm scanning shots taken on location in Hollywood last week and the 28 shots are cooler in color as well as generally weaker looking compared to the M lenses I used. I guess I'll never learn. IMO, the VC 28/1.8 I once owned was a better lens for the money.

But for MF, I'm all about Zeiss : -)

Use all the Canon L lenses from 14mm to 300/2.8 for digital wedding work including the 85/1.2 MKII, and IMO it is no 75/1.4 by any stretch of the imagination.

[xray]

Very interesting the comment in the previous post that the 85 1.2 canon is no 75 1.4 summilux. I use canon 1DsII and a full complement of L glass in my commercial work. I've used leica M for nearly 39 years and have both the 90 apo asph M and the 75 1.4 summilux. I use my 85 1.2 canon regularly and feel the 85 canon is sulerior to both the leica lenses. It might be the copy that I have is exceptional but it certainly exceeds the two leica lenses at wide apertures in the close focus range.

I had read so many great comments about both lenses that I purchased both (used). When I tested my 90 apo at wide apertures (head shots) and close distance I was stunned that it was as soft as it was. It wasn't terrible but it fell quite short of what I was told. I was so disappointed that I sent it to be checked to see if something was out of place. The report back was that it was up to spec and working fine. I also felt the same way about the 75 summilux. Both are good but not great at close focus. I actually feel my 1st generation 90 elmarit is sharper at close focus and full aperture than my 90 summicron apo. After using the 75 and 90 lenses at longer distances I feel they were designed for freater distance not close focus. Beyond twelve to fifteen feet they both excell.

I guess each of us have different expectations and experiences. For me the 85 1.2 canon shines for my work. In my view the canon is so much better i purchased a canon film body to use some of the lenses and I might even sell my 90 apo and keep my old elmarit.